My pet theory right now is that Donald

Trump is not trying to win the midterm

election. I'm not saying he's trying to

loosen it exactly. I just don't think he

cares. What he cares about is

controlling the Republican party. The

Republican party is his power base. The

Republican party is his protection. The

Republican party is how he can wield

power far into the future, long after

his presidency. And so control of it is

what he's prioritizing. I call this a

theory, but it's more like a hypothesis.

It has predictions. You can test them.

Trump is more unpopular at this point in

his second term than basically any of

his modern predecessors.

The midterm elections, they're less than

6 months away. He could easily lose the

House. He could actually lose the Senate

now. So, what is he doing? Well, if he

wanted to win the midterms, he'd be

moving to the center. He'd be focusing

on the things that Americans are angry

about, disappointed in him about. he'd

be supporting the strongest Republicans

in contested races and doing everything

he possibly could to bolster Republicans

in vulnerable states and districts. He

is not doing even a little bit of that,

not even a bit. Instead, he's doing the

opposite. He's announcing a $ 1.8

billion slush fund that appears designed

to pay out to January 6 riers. He

endorsed the scandal plagued, very

controversial Ken Paxton over John

Cornin in Texas, giving Democrats a real

chance at winning a seat that should be

way out of reach for them. He helped

primary Thomas Massie, the House

Republican, who released the Epstein

files. He defeated Bill Cassidy, the

Louisiana senator who voted to impeach

him in his first term. He is attacking

Brian Fitzpatrick, one of the very,

very, very few House Republicans

representing a district that voted for

Kla Harris. He likes voting against

Trump. You know what happens with that?

Doesn't work out well.

>> He's threatening to escalate the Iran

war. And when asked whether he is

worried about Americans finances, about

their pocketbooks, about their cost of

living. Here is what he said.

>> Mr. President, to what extent are

Americans financial situations

motivating you to make a deal?

>> Not even a little bit. It the only thing

that matters when I'm talking about

Iran, they can't have a nuclear weapon.

I don't think about Americans financial

situation. I don't think about anybody.

I think about one thing. We cannot let

Iran have a nuclear weapon. That's all.

>> What a gift to Democratic admakers. That

clip is

Donald Trump cares about control of his

party, not of Congress. If he can win

the election in a way that tightens his

control of Republicans, like through

redistricting, he'll take that. If not,

he's busy. He's got other things to do.

I'm not saying he wants Democrats to

win, but I don't think he minds it if

they do. A Democratic Congress gives him

an enemy to fight. I think he gets a

little lost without an enemy. It frees

him from the tedious work of trying to

pass legislation. It puts him back in

the place he's most comfortable, which

is not wielding power. It's claiming

persecution. What Trump would mind, what

he does fear, is a Republican party with

a spine. He fears the Republican party

where members of Congress begin to

participate in the investigations of his

scandals or they abandon him as his

fortunes fall. And so he's made his

choice. He is showing them that to

oppose him, even from the right, is to

light your political future on fire. The

point isn't just to defeat Massie or

Cassidy or Cornin or any of them. It's

to scare every Republican left in

Congress. to make sure they know that

Donald Trump would gladly destroy each

and every one of them personally, that

he would gladly burn the entire

Republican party to the ground. That's

what it took to save himself.

I thought it would be interesting to

hear how this looks to someone whose

business has been winning elections for

the Republican party, particularly

Senate elections. Liam Donovan is a

Republican strategist and a president at

Targeted Victory, a Washington public

affairs and digital marketing firm. He's

worked on the National Republican

Senatoral Committee and also for Texas

Senator John Cornin and his political

commentaries appeared in the New York

Times, the Washington Post, and other

publications. As always, my email Ezra

Klein show at NY Times.com.

Liam Donovan, welcome to the show. Good

to be here. Thanks for having me.

>> So, we're here. Trump is now under 40%

in a bunch of different polls. More

unpopular at this point in his term than

basically any of his modern

predecessors. Let's start with him. Why

is he down there? I think if you think

about the mood of the country that

produced the comeback of Donald Trump

putting together the coalition that he

did, that was predicated on a rejection

of the status quo and the bet that

Donald Trump would be able to return us

to the economy and maybe the vibes of

precoid 2020. Of course, that's much

harder to do than it is to talk about.

And I think this is fundamentally about

frustrations of how difficult some of

these problems are to tackle. Uh an

electorate that is not really looking to

be told that everything is going well.

And then when you compound that with

some of the policy choices that have

been made that I think might prove to be

wise in the longer run, but there are

legacy-minded moves, not immediate term

electoral plays. Was it so much harder?

I I always feel like you could imagine a

Trump uh administration, second term,

that sealed the border, but didn't do

the aggressive internal ICE and CBP

enforcement. You didn't have things like

the Battle of Minnesota that did not say

go to war in Iran that did not do the

tariffs

and you know could then draft on what

was a fairly strong and certainly

wellreovering economy coming out of

Biden and was getting a bunch of AI

investment and doesn't make a bunch of

what seemed to me to be errors and maybe

is in a really different place. I think

the way you have to think about this is

the the mythology of the Trump first

term as understood by Donald Trump

versus as it was understood by other the

electorate included. Um Trump looking

back, the reason he lost, the reason he

wasn't as successful as he might have

been was that he was um held back from

his impulses and his policy preferences

by the deep state, by never Trumpers, by

the sort of Bush era Republicans that

don't reflect uh or um respect his

version of how the country should look.

um you know at some level you could

argue he was saved politically by that

layer of insulation and if you think

about what's changed it's that he has

absolutely installed loyalists there is

a threshold question of are you

absolutely um uh committed to this

project and I think therefore he's

feeling for the first time what it looks

like to get what you're asking for and

the electorate that re-elect him just

wanted to go back to the way it was yeah

this was very striking to me when I

looked at the the poll numbers on it. So

at this point in his first term he had a

plus 10 net disapproval. He's now at

plus 21. So he is you know more than

twice as unpopular uh at this point in

secure as in his first. But but it all

goes to this question, I think, which is

whether or not you understand the the

sort of weakened political state he's in

as a function of the mood of the country

or actually as a function of the

country's reactions to Donald Trump's

policies. Like, is it justeptic or does

it not want this? I think you there are

layers to it. I mean, you have to think

about there's now a ceiling in a way

that there didn't used to be. Um but I

think we've we've seen this over the

last 20 years maybe since the Obama era

since our our coalitions have shifted

the the parties of have countries

polarized. It's very very difficult to

imagine a president getting above say

48% something like that the coalition

that got him there. Um so in that sense

it's it's a a hard cap and so like you

need to almost uh grade on a little bit

of a curve in terms of where these

things are. That said, the president's

approval rating, I don't care which

party you're from, wants to be above 40.

You know, it wants to be at 42, 43. That

is your firm base. What we're seeing

here is that there are elements of the

Republican coalition that consider

themselves Republican who are

disillusioned for one reason or another.

Either they are anti-war or or skeptical

of foreign entanglements. Um maybe they

are simply upset about the cost of

living. They don't like tariffs, what

have you. they just don't like the way

things are going. I think that is the

layer that is the easiest to imagine

getting back. And if we're looking

forward to, okay, how does this get back

to a place where Republicans stand to

have a an okay or like just a a par

midterm, it's that he floats back up

above 40 because that's kind of where

these people want to be. They want to be

given a reason to like Donald Trump.

They want to be given a reason to vote

for Republicans. So why doesn't Donald

Trump want to give them that reason?

This is this is where I wanted to to get

us to this question of agency because he

could get some of them back. And I

always took Trump as somebody who cared

on some level about his popularity and

who has a real sensitivity to the whims

and wins of public opinion.

But as his numbers have fallen in the

second term, he seems to me to be going

on to tilt. He's doing this $1.8 $20

billion fund to hand out to people

convicted around January 6 or who he

feels were the victim of Biden era

lawfare. He is talking about

reescalating the Iran war. He is

intervening in a bunch of Republican

primaries to purge people who opposed

him in one way or another. He's not

doing the things that you might imagine

a president worried about losing a

midterm would do. He's not doing a big

pivot to the center. or he's not trying

to avoid certain kinds of controversy.

He seems like he doesn't care.

Why do you think that is?

>> Well, I think we got to step back for a

minute and think about how he got here.

How did Donald Trump get the nomination

in the first place? And it was in in a

sense running against the institutional

Republican party, running against the

establishment. The fact that he doesn't,

you know, find himself aligned with the

broader fortunes of the party and that

that's not his primary object. He's not

of the party. Uh that's not what drives

him. That's not his imperative. That's

different than any president I think

we've ever seen, maybe in both parties,

but certainly in the Republican party.

And we saw it in 2018. I mean, I think

he went on a victory lap the day after

the election, even though it was rough,

dunking on members that didn't stay

closer to him. So, I think um flash

forward, and I think that lesson's been

learned. I think people realize you have

the R next to your name. You're going to

kind of by and large own what the

president is doing, so you need to make

the best of that. and going against him,

picking fights with him except in very

rare exceptions does not redown to your

electoral benefit. So, so that's true,

but it doesn't necessarily answer the

question of Trump himself. So, as you

mentioned, and I think this is an

important point to to expand on a little

bit, there's a history here. 2018,

Republicans under Trump do terribly in

the midterms, but Trump comes out the

next day and is excited about some of

the ones who opposed him who lost. um

2022, Donald Trump is not in office

anymore, but he exerts a lot of control

over Republican primaries and you end up

with candidates like Blake Masters and

Dr. Oz and Carrie Lake and Republicans

lose a bunch of very big and very

winnable races. Right now, you see Trump

intervening in places like Texas with

Ken Paxton in ways that at the very

least create the possibility that

Republicans will lose some key races

they could have otherwise won.

So, I take your point that Donald Trump

does not come from the institutional

Republican party, but he seems to me to

care more about the control he has over

Republicans than the control Republicans

under him have over Washington. like he

is running a risk here of losing the

Senate but with I guess more control

over the rump Republican senators when

he could be, you know, trying to win the

Senate but have a couple of people who

might be more willing to oppose him. So

like does he want to control Congress or

control the Republican party? I think

there's something to the the point I I

do think he's more comp committed to and

sensitive to the risk of not having

control than he was four years ago, 8

years ago, where whatever time has no

meaning anymore. Um I think that's where

the project and we can get into this of

the kind of structural gambit of trying

to create a more resilient map for

Republicans.

That that doesn't happen if the

president doesn't care. That doesn't

happen if the president doesn't believe

that a Democratic majority could do him

damage. Like let's think about Indiana

where it's like those guys what what was

their sin? Their sin was one not

listening to the White House and doing

what they said to do, but two on not

doing the redistricting.

>> But that was but that but but what was

what's the interest of the

redistricting? The interest of the

redistricting is maintaining

congressional majority. So like in that

case his priority was trying to win more

seats. Is that self-interested? Sure.

But it wasn't punishing them for going

against him. was punishing them for

going against what he saw as the

interests of the party. Um, so I think

that's your signal right there. In the

Senate, I'd actually push back and say

this is something the Republican part

has had to learn a number of times over.

If you think back, I mean, my my time at

the Republican Senate committee was 2010

um when it was a great cycle, but they

left a great deal on the table um

because of the Tea Party bad candidates

um not coordinating and it took them

again, he did it again in 2012. It

wasn't until 2014 that they kind of

figured out a path forward of how to

find suitable candidates that could

please the broader coalition and had a

level of coordination that led to a

great cycle. Donald Trump comes in and

actually doesn't even have a consistent

set of um preferences and so he just

kind of mashed buttons. I think 22 is

the example kind of like 2012 where we

realize this is unsustainable.

Republicans have to do something about

this. They figured that out I think in

in 2024 in both directions. Both the the

party and its leaders figured out how to

work with Trump in his political

operation and Trump figured out where he

can be effective. I'd argue that Trump

and his political operation have done a

quite a good job this time directing

traffic in a way that they hadn't

previously. It's what makes instances

like Texas to a lesser degree Georgia

notable. So I actually think they've

done a pretty good job there, but it

makes the exceptions that much more.

>> The argument is that unlike in say 2022,

if you look at most of the competitive

races, the Trump operation has cohered

around a candidate that doesn't look

wildly out of step with with the state,

but that there is then this separate

thing that happens of Trump going to

punish and purge specific candidates who

he feels were disloyal to him. And so it

it's more notable, but it's not the

macro story. I think that's right. Each

each state there's an interesting story

we can get into. I mean, Louisiana, the

most obvious. Um, but the fact that he

is understanding that in Maine, Susan

Collins is the only Republican can win

there and should win there and he's not

mucking around there, right, in the way

that he is in say Louisiana. Um, Texas I

think is a unique one in that it became

a bargaining chip and in some ways u

Senator Cornin became collateral in this

broader kind of tug of war.

>> You know that one well. You used to work

for Cornin.

>> I did. What happened there between Trump

and Cornin?

>> I think in the White House's ideal

timeline, Ken Paxton doesn't get in. I

don't think there were in treaties from

the White House or from the Trump

operation to get him in to challenge

Cornin. The problem is that he did it

anyway and it created a really difficult

dynamic. Why did it create a difficult

dynamic? Why doesn't Trump just say

Cornin's our guy? What are you doing

here?

>> Because Paxton was his guy, too. So,

he's got people competing for his

affections in a way that the president

obviously likes a great deal.

>> And maybe it's worth it for people maybe

who don't know that much about Paxton

for you to describe a bit who he is in

Texas politics. So, who's Paxton and why

did Trump decide in the final moments of

that primary to endorse him over John

Cornin, possibly risking that seat? So,

Ken Paxton is the sitting attorney

general of of Texas. He's been elected

statewide a number of times. So, that's

it's important to get out there. It it's

not it's not the Senate. It's not the

governor, but he has been statewide

elected. And he has been statewide

elected since carrying some of the

political baggage that he does. to the

extent that he's known, it's largely

because he has gotten into hot water a

number of different times. There was

actually an impeachment effort, but

there have been efforts uh at the state

level to be rid of him. He has

prevailed. He has prevailed in part by

aligning himself with Donald Trump being

a leader on a number of the initiatives

that the president cares a lot about

from the 2020 election standpoint and

otherwise. Um so he has boosted his

brand by wrapping himself in MAGA and

dawning the hat. um he threw himself

into this race. You know, you have to

think John Cornin, who I adore, uh is a

longtime incumbent, is very much of the

flavor of the George W. Bush, Rick Perry

era, Texas Republican party, um which is

not necessarily the vanguard here. He

spent a decade plus in Senate leadership

in ways that tie into the National

Party, um in ways that can be

complicated in these sorts of primary

efforts. Um why does Donald Trump get

involved? Look, like I said, I think

Cornin became a bargaining chip for

Trump with John Thun at a time when he

wanted the Senate to do certain things

in the Senate. At that point, there was

this big push to get the Save America

Act uh across, to nuke the filibuster,

to do so. All these complicated things.

Um, when that didn't happen, it became

clear that there did not seem to be an

inclination from the president to to to

back Hornin. when I heard that he was

going to endorse that gave me a bad

feeling in the bit in my stomach because

I I I had a feeling that wasn't going to

be for Cornin. Um I question the idea

that Paxton loses this seat. I think the

real problem for Republicans is I mean

twofold. Number one, it's always easier,

cheaper, more straightforward to get an

incumbent re-elected than it is to have

an open seat. Um the more complicated

the the candidate is, the more expensive

it is. I think that's the real problem

is this is this is a massive state with

a huge number of expensive media

markets. The amount of resources that

will be expended here and the marginal

it was going to be expensive for corn.

It's going to be insanely expensive for

pack

>> has raised an insane amount of money

>> and I think um that will be costly.

>> So I feel at this point you still

haven't quite answered my question about

Donald Trump which is look he did not

have to come in and endorse Paxton.

Cornin was not an anti-Trump Republican.

If you look at poly market, the odds of

Republicans holding the seat have gone

from 75% uh in January to 55% now. So,

they're favored. And I think you have to

still see Ken Paxton as a favorite, but

it's more narrow. It could look more

something more like the Doug Jones um

you know, victory in Alabama uh over a

very very very flawed candidate a couple

years back. I I take your point that

there are places where they didn't do a

bunch of stupid things, but there's a

world where they wake up after the

election and James Tarico won in Texas

and that made Chuck Schumer majority

leader and that's purely on Donald

Trump's table like he chose that

outcome. Are they mad about that or does

he actually on some level not care that

much because fighting with a Democratic

Congress is in some ways a pleasure for

him? I don't think that's what it is. I

think a couple things. Number one, you

asked the question of why didn't why did

he choose Paxton? Why didn't he choose

Cornin? I think this is a bet of being

for what's going to happen. If you

thought in a vacuum that Paxton probably

wins and you're Donald Trump thinking I

want to flex my muscles and and look

like I'm the reason that that is a to me

the logic of that kind of a pick at a

time when again this has become a proxy

match with the Senate Republican

establishment. Um, I'd also suggest to

you I don't see a universe where Texas

goes blue and it does and it stops

there, right? Like I don't think Texas

is the marginal fourth seat where

Democrats get to 51 and that's it. So

it's much more likely to me that on a

night where Telerico wins, it's just

lights out because it was such a bad

night. I don't think it's going to be

scrappy and clawing to 51 and it's Tel

Rico that puts them over the top.

>> And do you think that's how Trump thinks

about it?

>> Oh no, that's just how Liam thinks about

Okay. But I'm asking how Trump thinks

about

>> like like go go go a little bit further

here because I think the the question I

like the big question I am struggling

with Donald Trump is I struggle with

many questions about him. So what does

this guy want? What is his actual play

here and and and maybe it's not that

strategic but to me I think there is a a

a strategy here which is I think he

wants control of the Republican party. I

think he cares about that more than he

cares about control of Congress. I mean,

his fury at Thomas Massie was obviously

part of this. Um, he took out Bill

Cassidy, which is not, I think, the the

Louisiana senator, which is not, I

think, a a seat Democrats have any

chance of picking up. But I I I see

something that is consistent here and

and and goes a a ways back, which is

that Donald Trump sees his power base as

a Republican party itself. I think that

he is less worried about a world where

Democrats have power than he is about a

world where as his numbers go down, as

he is a lame duck, Republicans feel

empowered to oppose him to join in

investigations of him. And the danger is

not that Democrats lose elections. It's

that Republicans ever feel empowered to

abandon him. And that's also Donald

Trump maybe controls Republican party

into the future. I'm not a person who

believes he's going to run for a third

term, but could he continue to exert

enormous power over the Republican party

by continuing to intervene in primaries

all over the country? I think he

absolutely could. And you can be the

kingmaker even when you're not the king.

But I'm curious if you disagree with it.

Well, I think if we agree on the

predicate that he doesn't generally in

in general the future fortunes the

president future fortunes of the

Republican party in and of themselves

are not significant concern then the

next layer below that is well what does

he care about? I think he certainly

cares about you know the the filty to to

him just his impulses are to flex his

muscles and have Republicans do what he

wants. Um, and as it looks less likely

that the house stays or whatever, then

then yes, you begin to start thinking

about, okay, well, if I can't have that,

what can I have? And I think there's

kind of um, you know, sort of a decision

tree there. But but I just think once we

establish, does he does he care about

doing the sorts of things that make it

easier for people to win elections when

he's not on the ballot? he cares a

little bit, but when that's in tension

with his

control over the party, I certainly

think that that um shapes his

decision-m. Let's zoom out a little bit

here just to the midterm broadly. You've

been involved in Sen elections on the

Republican side.

I want to talk about some of the

individual uh elections that are coming.

But but first is how do you understand

the environment itself, the the macro

environment for Republicans right now?

best barometer we have is presidential

approval generic ballot and those

indicators are rough. I mean it's you

know Donald Trump has 58% disapproval I

think in RCP average. I also think that

the thing that's difficult to read about

the elections that have happened in the

mi in the meantime, they've obviously

been very favorable for Democrats, um

like there's there's a built-in

asymmetry based on the makeup of the

coalitions now where every Democrat is

crawling over broken glass to go vote

for Democrats for dog catcher if it

means sticking it to to Donald Trump.

Um, you know, generic ballot's another

one where uh I think maybe that's that

might be the the interesting delta there

is Democrats only get 48% on the generic

ballot, which is of course a good

number. That's significantly higher than

what Republicans have. But there's a

delta there of about 10% of voters who

say they disapprove of the job Donald

Trump is doing, but they're not yet

willing to say, "I would prefer a

generic Democrat in the vote for

Congress." And so I think that's the the

big question over the next 6 months is

what's more likely? Does Donald Trump's

approval rebound such that those people

go and vote Republican? Do they stay

home altogether or do they just say this

is I'm I'm not voting for this. I want

to check and end up saying yes, I will

vote for that. Well, you could also

think about the 2022

uh scenario here, which is, you know,

Joe Biden's approval rating was not

quite as bad as Donald Trump's is, but

it was bad and Democrats were pretty

freaked out about a red wave going into

the midterm election and it didn't

really end up coming to pass that

Biden's approval rating was not that

correlated with Democratic performance.

>> Um, do you think there's a possibility

that happens here?

>> That's the best case scenario. I mean, I

think the factor that

2022

um kind of rhymes with is that was the

first time we were in this particular

map. And of course, there have been

changes at the margins with this mid

mid- decade redistricting. But what we

found in 2022, 2024, and we'll see about

2026 is this is a really resilient map.

There's not as much um you know, a pool

of competitive seats. And so even on a

really good night, I mean 2022 is

instructive. Republicans won the popular

House vote by a significant margin and

yet only netted something like 10 seats

>> because we redistricted districts out of

competition.

>> That's right. And

>> what a wonderful way to run democracy.

>> And I think the other piece is what

Democrats were successful in doing um

and Republicans failed in doing was

putting up the sorts of candidates that

could win. and you ended up with messy

primaries that produced suboptimal

candidates that came out of those

primaries with a party that was divided

and you know expending a lot of

resources and in the meantime Democrats

were able to otherize these candidates

make them weird. I mean right like Blake

Masters then we're pretty weird man.

>> Well but but I guess but I say that

because you're going to be watching this

like this is precisely what's going to

happen and whether successful is an open

question. are already seeing this when

with Tel Rico and Paxton are going to

try to otherize each other.

>> Something's a little off. Grant

Platiner, look, that guy's weird. That's

going to be and whether it's effective,

I think that's an open question.

>> Let's walk through the Senate elections

um sort of one by one here. If you're if

you're sitting there, you know, you're

wargaming this out with um you know,

Republicans, like what are the states

you understand to be competitive?

>> Yeah.

>> And how would you rate the way the races

are shaping up in them?

>> Yep. The first one's pretty obvious. Uh,

North Carolina is a seat that's been

just right on the cusp for so many

seats. Barack Obama was able to break

through in 2008. That in fact was the

last time that Democrats won a Senate

seat there. It's been a very expensive,

very close uh seat in the Senate since

then. U, but Democrats haven't been able

to get over the over the hump. In this

case, it's their single best candidate

in the former governor, Roy Cooper. Um,

they got him straight away. He's raising

gobs of money and just in in a an

environment that stands to be quite good

for Democrats. That's a place where the

open seat created by the retirement of

Tom Tillis who at some level was kind of

run out um by by the president and his

relationship with the president. Um that

is a prime pickup opportunity. Open

seat, good candidate, big resource

advantage, which isn't the case. In my

view, another example where Donald Trump

was not trying to protect and make life

easier for a plausibly vulnerable Senate

Republican, which is one reason Tis

seems to have decided to retire.

>> I think that's right. I could I could

argue with a straight face that

>> it's all things equal, you'd rather have

an incumbent than an open uh open seat.

The the way things were like the the

dynamics with till like he probably

would have gotten a primary. It just it

would have gotten ugly. So, I actually

think coalescing behind Michael Watley,

the then RNC chair, um, somebody that

has access to national fundraising

possibilities, I mean, it has gone as

well as it could go, but it's still a

lopsided situation. All things equal in

a dem on a Democratic night. That's the

first one to flip. I don't think it's

gone. You know, I think there hasn't

been, you know, too too much uh polling

on this and we're certainly not into the

endgame, but that's the obvious first

pickup. if you're Democrats, that's the

one that has to fall. Um I think it gets

interesting after that because there is

a significant drop off. Um there's only

one state on this map that does not

match the um the the lean of the state

at the presidential level and that's

Maine with Susan Collins. She is a

survivor. I think she confounded

expectations in 2020 with Donald Trump

on the ballot when she was given no

chance of winning that

>> way behind in the polls.

>> Way behind in the polls. Um that is the

one where

I think irrespective of who Democrats

had put up there, there's just this this

unknowable binary. Either Maine is still

this the kind of state that rewards

independent known quantities like Susan

Collins or it's not and we just don't

know 6 years later has that changed. Um,

I do think they've done her a favor at

some level in you can more obviously see

the permission structure for why would a

Harris voting Democrat vote for

Republican for Senate? Well, because

Graham Platner is a different kind of

Democrat. They might have voted for

Janet Mills, uh, but they wouldn't vote

for Graham Platner. So, I think that's

one I wouldn't say it's number two, but

it's the most obvious. What do you make

of the the polling has kind of

consistently shown platiner as are more

competitive against Collins compared to

Mills?

>> Yeah, I mean I think this is

I I don't have a good answer on the on

the point. I think the the value of

Platner is he's the high variance

candidate at a time when having lost

with a Syria Gideon type, variance is

your friend. So that's the logic of a

platiner pick. I'm not quite sure what's

happening to the point except that Janet

Mills ran kind of a subulent campaign.

It was just she didn't seem to want

>> 77.

>> Well, yeah. And exactly. And by the way,

I think this is relevant on Collins,

too. Collins is a lot older and seems it

in a way that I think is more difficult

for her as a campaigner.

>> I would argue as a as a Susan Collins,

I've been around her for 20 years, like

I think she's sharper than or as sharp

as ever. I don't want to over I don't

want to turn it to Joe Biden stuff, but

like no, I actually think that she's

she's strong and sharp and whether her

brand is still what the people of Maine

want. I mean, I hope they do. Uh but but

we'll have to see. It's a stark contrast

there. But I think the the dynamic of

Platiner versus Mills, one of these guys

has energy. One of guys out there um you

know doing things that it's at least

interesting. You might not like him, but

it's at least interesting. She seemed to

have to be pulled into the race. She got

in late. Um, so like that differential I

guess at some level makes sense to me. I

don't think that's the same question as

when we go through a general campaign,

do they perform the same way on election

night? And you know, we we'll have to

see, but this is really this becomes a

strong question of like is it just

shirts and skins? Is it just D versus R?

Um, and are are are people willing to

say, "Okay, an independent-minded

Republican that that, you know, took big

stands against Donald Trump, uh, but has

enough respect from this White House

that she's not getting torpedoed for it.

Do people still want that?" Um, and I

think it remains

>> and I think the the hope among certainly

Platinos fans is that he brings in uh

voters who don't normally like Democrats

and and and I think Democrats

continuously have this question of if we

ran people more in the Bernie Sanders

mold. If you ran people who did not seem

like they came out of the same

institutions, can you pick up some of

these people who liked Trump because

he's an outsider, not people not people

who, you know, will naturally always

vote for Democrats? Well, I'd say a

couple things. Number one, I think

there's something to that in that you

want to serve up something that's

differentiated, but I think the flavor

that makes the most sense to me. I don't

need to be giving advice to the

Democratic Party of Maine, but to me

that looks like a Jared Golden, right?

Instead, who's the House member who

represents the reddest district of any

Democrat and

>> for a bunch of reasons, but also he's

getting primar by another Democrat. Um,

he's now retiring, which I think is a

real loss for Democrats,

>> right? And I and I think he succeeds

potentially in cutting a different

image. He manages to check me. He's a

he's a combat vet marine. Um you know he

but he's not a he's not associate

himself with with Bernie, right? Like I

raised that only to say um I think the

the problem for Platiner may not prove

to be a problem but the risk for

Platiner is oh I mean I it's a

fascinating uh interview with with uh

with your New York Times colleagues. I

mean, I found that very interesting as

they probed some of like how much of

this is superficial. How how how much of

that, you know, that blue collar affect

is is real and legitimate. And I mean,

there's there's some holes that can be

poked in here that are that do not hold

up to scrutiny. This is still um a

fascinating state with two districts.

One of which is the conservative sort of

um you know, up in aruk and and Prescy

and and then there's the coast. And I

think for what however many voters that

Platiner can can get from, you know, the

the Golden District, how many is he

turning off on the coast,

notwithstanding his Oyster uh

background? Um is that going to, you

know, hold up with some of the people

that actually know and and have liked

Susan Collins in the past?

>> So, I hear all that, but if Democrats

have any chance here, they're going to

need North Carolina. They're going to

need Maine. Then what? I think Maine's

the the easiest kind of threshold quite

like I think there there is a path there

is a path independent in Maine but that

just tells you okay there there's the

one state where she's still got it right

but after those first two it gets really

difficult and there is a leap to I mean

you can take your pick but I think the

Ohio race is probably where um Democrats

have the best shot. you know, shared

Brown is somebody who um lost in the

previous election um uh to Bernie

Moreno, who I don't think Democrats

expected to lose for Sher Brown to lose

to. He'd been in elective office for the

previous 50 years or so. Um he's coming

back. um he's able to raise a lot of

money, but I think it's hard to put

Humpty Dumpty back together again. When

when when you are an incumbent and your

strength is predicated on being the guy

who can win and then you're trying to

pull yourself off the mat, it's a little

bit tougher. You have an incumbent but

an appointed incumbent in John Huad. Um

you know, the ticket there um with him

and Vicc has has been um the polling has

been okay, but

>> Raswami is running for governor.

>> Vic Ramwami. Um Houston's not done

anything particularly offensive. Um he's

going to have the resources there on a

night where shared Brown beats John Huad

and withstands the I mean the the amount

of money that's going to come into that

race from the outside particularly from

like the cryptominded groups and that

kind of thing. It's going to be

astonishing. Um if that happens

it was a really really good night for

Democrats.

>> So let's put actually numbers on that.

So if I am remembering this right I

think that Brown who was a very strong

candidate lost that election by three

and a half points.

>> That's right.

>> So in you know you were saying about

Bernie Mareno who I think was in many

ways a weak candidate a sort of car

dealer who would settleize wage theft

lawsuits and people talk about populism

but was not obviously a great icon of

populism.

But Sher Brown lost to Donald Trump and

he lost to the Democratic party's

reputation in Ohio. Right. He could not

over he overperformed Kl Harris by quite

a bit.

>> I think it's the last part that matters.

I mean, yes, Donald Trump was on the

ticket, but when we've we've keep doing

this, right? I think we had the same

argument when it was Tim Ryan against JD

Vance. Like at a certain point when

you're saying like there's like special

pleading of like,

>> oh, these are bad candidates. Well, like

when the bad when you say these are bad,

I I would argue

>> I'm not saying Sher Brown is a bad

candidate.

>> No, no, not Sher Brown. Oh, no, no, no.

I'm saying Bernie Marino.

>> Yeah. I'm just saying right. I think

that in a uh Yes. I'm saying I think

that candidate qualitywise and and you

could disagree with me if you want, but

I think Sher Brown is a better candidate

quality-wise than Bernie Moreno is, but

the Democratic Party's brand in Ohio is

such trash that he could not overcome

that as Tim Ryan couldn't overcome it as

basically no Democrats in Ohio can now

overcome it. So the question with Sher

Brown, it seems to me, is you know,

let's say 2024

is an environment where, you know,

Democrats are minus two or three, right?

It's a it's a little bit of a better

environment for Republicans. If this is

a plus six or plus seven Democratic

environment, maybe that overwhelms the

problems um of the Democratic party.

Brandon and and and Brown can win. If

it's not, if it's plus two, if it's plus

three, then probably Brown can't win. It

it really seems to me there you're

looking at a like a pretty

straightforward how big is the

Democratic wave? Like what is like how

much has Trumpism cost Republicans in

this year? I I I totally agree with

that. I on the Ohio front, I I do think

there's been a tendency to underrate the

Republican candidate in this case.

Again, like he

>> however you thought of Vance or or

Moreno, Houston is completely in

offense. He was lieutenant governor. I

just think that matchup is worse for

Brown. But if you're trying to count to

three, like that probably should be the

third. Um, and it's not going to get any

easier in terms of the different states.

Like the the the pool of states that

we're talking about, we talked enough

about about Texas, but like I'd put that

in that that tier where to your to your

point about like how good is the

environment for Democrats. It needs to

be Dem plus six or seven to even be in

the conversation. I mean, but do you

want to talk about that race for a

minute? Because on the one hand,

Democrats are very very excited about

James Terico. uh Republicans I think see

him as having more attack surface than

Democrats quite realize. Now it'll be

Paxton who also has a lot of attack

surface. Like how as somebody who

actually knows Texas politics fairly

well, like how do you think about that

race individually?

>> I I would just say Texas is so

expensive, there are so many markets

that it is going to be just a an

absolute

resource suck. And I think because of

that, I think smart Democratic

strategists like they will they will

play that one out and I think they they

have high hopes. But if you're really

looking to move the needle and and make

something happen, you're probably more

apt to look at Alaska, you're probably

more apt to look at Iowa. um I don't

know they have more success and in this

in a similar ways like you still need to

have that D plus7 D plus8 knight to

break through in those states but it's

much easier to move the needle and to

differentiate your race from the other

things going on on the ballot uh in

those states those smaller markets um

and smaller electorates where just in

terms of raw vote totals uh you know a

relatively minor shift in in Alaska or

Iowa is going to go so much farther than

in Texas where You're just trying to

boil the ocean.

>> Well, well, let's talk about those two

races. So, Alaska, they got Mary Pollah,

former um House members there. Y

>> how do you see that one?

>> So, I think Alaska's been another one

where like I've seen this movie before.

I mean, there was there was a bit on on

Twitter and whatever 2022 like don't

sleep on don't sleep on Alaska. It's

always the one that it's a it's a

different state. It's a differentiated

state where um you know, it's a

relatively small electorate, interesting

demographics. there's a there's a a

bluecollar um you know piece to it. Um

and they've shown a propensity to you

know support Democrats whether that's

Mark Beg uh we can go back to Tony

Nolles uh Pelah herself in that in that

house race. So there's enough variance

there that there's opportunity. I'd

argue Dan Sullivan is a squeaky clean

incumbent marine vet. you know, to the

extent that he had any challenges, it

was probably met at the original

threshold when he beat Mark Begage in

14. Um, it's hard to beat an incumbent,

period. I think the hopes the Democrats

have are based on the fact that well,

PTOL won in whatever it was in the

special election and she won again in uh

2022. Um, so that she's got this edge in

rank choice voting. I think that's

another thing that Democrats need to

think about. There's this notion that

rank choice voting inherently benefits

Democrats and there might be cases where

that's the case. It certainly was the

case with Pel in the first place. But

why was that? It's because Democrat or

Republicans were divided. You had two

flavors of Republicanism in literally

Sarah Palin uh against what do you say

the name of the president it's against?

But we should just mention as a

background here Alaska is a weird system

where four people advance.

>> Yep. And so then you have rank choice

voting in the general against four

candidates. Not it's not the way people

normally think of these elections where

there's really just two candidates.

>> That's right. And there's a a begage

scion. Uh so just like these names kind

of weave weave in and out of of Alaska

politics. But the the first time he ran

it was against Sarah Palin. And in the

immediate context of rank choice voting

and those preferences, there were enough

divisions on the Republican side that

Pel was able to sort of triangulate and

become the the moderate middle of of two

uh Republicans ends up winning that and

then holding it in that next um in that

in that next general election. Um when

it was a straightup race against Begage

when he came back, she lost. So, I don't

want to say she's not the absolute

strongest candidate Democrats could have

put up. She absolutely is. I just don't

think the conditions are there from the

standpoint of Republican divisions. Uh

or you know, there's not really blood in

the water in the way the way there might

have been. Like the reason Texas is

attractive is well, you've got some

issues with the candidate. You've got

some divisions within the party. That

doesn't exist in Alaska.

>> Yeah. The situation there is the the

Democratic hope is partially just that

de demoralized Republicans just don't

come out. Donald Trump's not on the

ballot. They're not happy with how

things are going under Donald Trump.

They stay home and Pollah wins because

Democrats, she's both a strong candidate

and Democrats are highly motivated in

this environment to come out.

>> That's right. And I also think in terms

like the Anchorage market, you just go

buy it out for cheaper than you could

coming coming into, you know, San

Antonio or something. So, um, so I think

that in terms of the the kind of alpha

there, uh, in terms of resource

allocation, um, it makes a lot of sense.

Um and similarly Iowa where you have an

again going back to this question of

incumbent versus open seat. If it was

Joanie Ernst it would be a different

proposition but an open seat is more

expensive um for for the the party in

power to hold and and you know creates

opportunity. Uh Ro have a great

candidate there Ashley Henson um sitting

house member um very dynamic teleogenic

so I I think they'll be okay there. Um,

but this is a time when the Midwest is

not loving life. Uh, you know, the A

community is getting hit hard by the

tariffs. Um, there is enough going on

there on that ticket. I mean, there's

there's a competitive governor's race.

>> Yeah. Rob Sand, the Democratic candidate

for governor there is very strong.

>> That's right. And I'd be more scared if

Rob Sand was running for Senate. Um, but

but it does tell you that there is there

are things happening at the state level

um that you can't you take can't take

for granted. And if I'm Republicans, I'm

I'm leaning into that one and making

sure that we don't we don't get caught.

>> What do you think about Michigan? So, I

know Republicans who seem to be getting

more excited about the possibility of a

pickup in Michigan where Gary Peters is

retiring. Um because they think

Democrats will nominate Abil say who's

like the more Bernie candidate who

campaigned with Hassan and is now

sort of leading the Democratic primary

there. Uh and Democrats have not really

been thinking about what happens if they

lose a seat.

>> Yeah. Uh but do you think that's

becoming a pickup opportunity or not

really in this environment?

>> Well, look, it should be a pickup

opportunity anyway. This is a state that

Donald Trump won. He's won it twice. Um

Mike Rogers was a strong candidate who

came up just shy last time. So just all

things equal, it should be top of the

list. As you say, environment makes it

more of a challenge. Um but to your

point, the the fascinating stuff going

on in the Democratic primary there, um

it's it's uncanny. You know, as somebody

that's that's worked on Republican

politics, particularly Senate politics,

long enough, it's the first time in a

while I've seen just an eerily similar

situation to what Republicans have lived

for, you know, decade and a half. This

experience of Democrats putting up

candidates that could that are that are

pro probably objectively weaker and and

more susceptible to lose. Um, I don't

know that it will come back to bite

them, but it's it's so clear that if you

put up somebody that's not fit for the

state that you and and remember this is

something that Democrats have used their

benefit in I mean Arizona

I I think back to Arizona where like

both Kirstson Cinema in one instance and

then Mark Kelly in the other, they just

got to wait around, had a field

themselves stockpiling cash while

Republicans, you know, spent money and

beat each other up and and you know

divided the party like the longer this

goes in Michigan the more divided

>> August primary not happening for a

little while so just for people don't

know there's a primary there in the

Democratic side between Abdullah Sad

who's a more progressive candidate then

Mallerie Mcmorro and and Haley Stevens

who

>> are sort of both more you know McMora a

little bit between the two Stevens

definitely more the establishment

Democratic candidate and they seem to be

splitting a vote between them

>> and also uh Elsa has like wrapped them

around axle of Gaza, which has become a

like a pretty potent issue in Democratic

Party politics, and neither of them have

been able to navigate in an effective

way. So, I I think that's one is a

fascinating race. I absolutely think

this is and this is another case and

point where the White House actually did

a really good job of rallying behind

Mike Rogers early, cleared that field um

in a way that I think there's an

opportunity to to sneak a seat right

there like there in a on a night where

all these things that we're talking

about are in play. Republicans have no

have no business um winning in Michigan,

but we're actually looking at a

situation where uh this this race will

be on the board unless something

changes. Because even if Haley Stevens

ees it out, this is not the kind of um

primary that that yields a candidate

with the resources and and unity that

puts the race away. It'll I think it'll

be competitive heading into election

night. So there something you see in

Michigan and I think you also just saw

in the Kentucky um House primary where

um Thomas Massie lost is a way that

views about Israel, views about

Palestinians, views about the war in

Iran are actually splitting both parties

in complicated ways. So Massie of course

is a big Trump critic, although it

didn't used to be, you know, but was key

in the Epstein files uh coming out and

he got he he was defeated. Um but he was

a you know a favorite of Candace Owens

and Tucker Carlson. Um in his concession

speech he said I would have come out

sooner but I had to call my opponent and

concede and it took a while to find Ed

Galain who beat him in Tel Aviv. Apac

spent a lot of money against Massie.

Massie said that he thinks he would have

won if not for the sort of fights over

Israel. And Massie by the way did much

much much better among young Republicans

than among older ones. There's a huge

generational divide in that primary. So

something is happening here that I think

is going to like really flower in or

fracture I should say maybe more

precisely in 2028 for both sides which

is that I think that Israel, Iran, Gaza

have become very very difficult for both

parties to navigate that their their

bases are internally split on these

issues.

>> Yeah, I think the Massie one is really

interesting because he's been a gadf fly

throughout his career. that's been his

old brand all along. And I actually, it

reminded me on on uh Primary Night, he

had one of the best quotes I've heard of

the Trump era. Uh I think it's a 2017

interview that he had with the

Washington Examiner. I think his line

was, you know, for the longest time, I

thought they were voting for me and for

Ron Paul and for Rand Paul because we

were the most conservative or maybe he

said libertarian. and he said, "And then

Donald Trump's uh Donald Trump comes

along and I realize they're just voting

for the craziest son of a in the

race and Donald Trump was was first in

class." It's just a great kind of

summation of all these things, but but

it goes to it gives you a sensitive

flavor for like who Massie is. And I do

think he was a a thorn in the side of

this White House and of the party for

the longest time. Um but I think to your

point he was able to take issues that

get a um particular premium online. If

you can if you can take some of these

pmical issues that get a lot of you know

uh engagement and make that your issue

like that's not really what we were

talking about but he was able to wrap

himself in it in a way that I think got

a lot of attention and and was able to

in some ways benefit him. he he was able

to fight a pretty close race. And I

think that is a a valuable way of

getting attention. If you are a

candidate, particularly an insurgent

candidate, if you try to make races

about these issues, um you can find an

audience for it. And whether or not it

pays electoral dividends, I think that's

that's uh something to watch for.

>> One thing we're seeing in a bunch of

different places is a

a schism maybe between what I would

think of as the Fox News Republicans and

the YouTube Republicans. he's in the

Florida gubernatorial primaries on the

right where you have a very very radical

and I would say quite anti-semitic

candidate but who's been very popular

among young Republicans in that state

and there's

you Trump has kind of been on both sides

of this blind. He's sort of united at

least in the 2024 election like the

podcast Republican world and the Fox

News Republican world but those feel to

me like they're splitting apart. I mean

you could call it like the Tucker

Carlson Ben Shapiro split, right? you

see it over and over and over again.

Obviously, Democrats have their own, you

know, um, fractures around these issues,

but I'm curious in a broad way how you

see the, you know, it seemed to be very

different politics among young

Republicans than among old Republicans

right now.

>> I think that's right. I mean, I think

it's I think it's much easier to

synthesize,

who knows where it goes, but I think

Republicans have an easier time

containing this and and and sorting it

out. you're watch I'm watching Vice

President Vance as the one who is kind

of the he he has spoken up on this and I

think is is trying to sort that out

because it's there is there is a

generational divide. Um there's there's

certain politics that have been

imprinted.

>> What makes it easier to sort it out on

the Republican side?

>> I don't think

>> like how you going to hold Ben Shapiro

and Tucker Carlson together in one

party.

>> I don't think I don't think Tucker

Carlson wants to be involved in any

party. Right.

>> I mean he endorses Republicans. He was

spoke at the RNC in 2024

>> and less and until Tucker Carlson runs

in in 2028. Like I I he is he has

deliberately marginalized himself in a

way that has I think been very

successful in you know getting a grip

around a certain audience.

>> Let me push you on this because I'm

really curious to hear hear you say this

because what it looks to me like is

happening is that Carlson is making a

bet. I I'm not saying it's not sincere.

it might be sincere for him, but that

the Republican party is moving. That in

the same way that, you know, Donald

Trump once was a strange, eccentric,

vanity candidate, but is now the

dominant figure in Republican party

politics. Um, you know, what Carlson

sees and is maybe also helping to shape

is that young Republicans have very,

very different views on a bunch of these

issues. We live in a very, very

attentionally thick society now. And

yes, him, Candace Owens, I'm not saying

that they are, you know, donating to the

Republican, you know, Senate campaign

committee, but they are on the right. I

mean, I don't think that is arguable.

They are endorsing candidates in

Republican primaries. They both endorse

Massie, for instance. Um, and yeah,

maybe they're losing some of the fights

now, but I think their view is that the

only thing holding this together is

Donald Trump himself, and that JD Vance

can't hold it together. Marco Rubio

can't hold it together. And so they're

betting that after Donald Trump like

doesn't have an iron gripper around the

Republican party that what's going to be

growing is their side of it. And in fact

picking some of these losing battles is

good for them right now.

>> Well, I think what's good for Don what's

good for Tucker this is this is the

attention economy, right? What's good

for Tucker is getting attention to how

he can including right now picking

fights with Donald Trump because there

is an appetite for that in a way that

there wasn't a couple years ago. But I I

don't know that that's his project. I

don't know that his is a is an electoral

proposition. I think he's trying to

build his own platform. He's trying to

build his own um audience and and I

think he genuinely has a lot of these

positions that he's sorting out in real

time. But I think the layers to this I

mean the question of why do I think it's

easier for Republicans? Well, I think

for Democrats, this is like literally

like a litmus test issue in a way that

is going to be on full display in 2028

to the point where like literally like

you the most obviously talented

politician in the race. Like I don't

even know if I mean I'd love to know

like Josh Shapiro does he have any

chance of it just seems like the kind of

issue just proximity to it that would be

the sort of thing that will will color

his um the market for for a Josh Shapiro

candidacy and they boxed him out on this

issue even in the VEP stakes in in 2024.

So, I just think it's so it's so

facially um front and center that that

makes it difficult. Whereas this is

underneath a lot of things in the

Republican party and I think a lot of it

relates to generationally you have a

generation a Fox News generation kind of

a boomer generation that's imprinted

with the sort of more idealistic

politics of the shared affinity of the

state of Israel the um you know sort of

Christian imperative the sort of huckabe

um approach toward these things um

versus a younger Republican party and a

party that shifted over time to be the

low trust party that is skeptical of

institutions that doesn't want to hear

in the same way that like Trump

exploited skepticism of the the um

neoonservative project and the idealism

of it to something much more kind of

skeptical and perhaps cynical. I think

you have to sell the Republican

alignment with the cause and and state

of Israel on its own terms in terms of

like an America first. Like why does

this benefit America? And I think that's

what Vance is exploring in terms of

explaining support for Israel in all its

forms in a way that is much more of like

a transactional like this is good for

for but Kenny I I'm actually I wonder if

you can hold that together because I

think I maybe see this one differently

than you do. It seems to me the

Democrats have

uh I don't want to say a consensus

forming because I think there's going to

be a lot of debate, but Chris Van

Holland, who's you know, a very

establishment um Democratic senator from

Maryland, he has a but has been, I

think, a leader on some of these, you

know, issues around Israel, you know, he

basically says, "Look, we need a new we

the Democrats need a new uh consensus on

this." and you see the even more

moderate or at least normie figures in

the Democratic party embracing that.

Meanwhile, the the schism on the

Republican side, it it seems like it's

going to be harder because you really do

have this kind of Christian Zionism

side. Um this war in Iran side versus,

you know, the Tucker Carlson, Candace

Owens side. I mean, you mentioned

Huckabe, but the Tucker Huckabe

interview, I think, is a very good

example of how far those things are.

You're not going to have like a pro-war

in Iran faction in the Democratic

primary. That's just not going to

happen. And Shapiro's view, which is

that Netanyah is a disaster, is also

going to be Newsome's view is also going

to be P Buddha Judge's view is also

going to be AOC's view. And then they're

going to kind of have to figure out how

they instantiate that into proposed

policies. The Republican party feels to

me like when you look at the young

versus you look at the again Fox News

versus YouTube, what's popular in one

and what's popular in other, they feel

kind of irreconcilable. They they

actually have like not the question

Democrats are going to have to ask of

like how far do you start moving in

pressuring Israel to not be in a

parttheid state, but in on the

Republican side, do you think Israel is

great or do you think it has led us into

a disastrous war in Iran and is like

distorting our foreign policy? I'm very

worried about the ways that will shade

into anti-semitism and other things, but

it it feels very hard for Republicans to

reconcile and in some ways Massie with

that like final line like I couldn't I

had trouble reaching my opponent because

he was in Tel Aviv. That struck me as a

a signal of things possibly going in in

pretty ugly directions over there.

>> Oh, for I mean the ugliness is going to

happen. But I think that's also as

you're looking at what Massiey's doing,

Margie Taylor Green's doing, even what

Tucker is doing, like these aren't

necessarily electoral plays. I think the

the the political economy that exists

now is you can have your career as a as

a podcaster, as a just a general media

gadfly on YouTube or otherwise. And I

think that in a weird way, whereas your

backbench house gadfly might have

aspired to higher office or other

things, you know, in in cycles past now

your what your off-ramp is probably just

keeping a hold on this audience.

>> Okay. But we used to say attentional

plays were electoral plays. Is that

still true? Because if I look at the big

lessons right now, one thing I just see

happening is you can win through

dominating attention and Trump was

probably the first figure who did this

in a way you couldn't before. But you

look at mom Donnie defeating Cuomo and

Lander and a full field of Democrats.

You look at Graham Platner, he destroyed

Janet Mills through dominating

attention. Um, does Spencer Pratt have a

chance in Los Angeles? It doesn't seem

entirely impossible to me that he does.

James Telerico came out of nowhere

because he became a a huge figure on

TikTok and ended up on Joe Rogan's show.

I mean, one of the things to me that is

significant about this era is that

attention like the attention economy is

eating the political economy and

incumbents who were tuned for this older

form of more institutionally gatekept

attention, you know, win over the

newspaper editorial board in your state

or in your city. are getting defeated by

candidates who know how to win attention

online.

>> I think we totally agree on that. But I

would say if you look at the individual

personalities and habits of these folks

in particular like Margie Taylor Green

when she broke with Donald Trump that

was not a bid for you like because she

thought that was going to benefit her

that that was that's that there's an

oppositional element to that. There's a

you know there there are personal

circumstances around that. Um, Massie,

if you know Thomas Massie, and I do and

and and like him at some level, like he

wants to stir up trouble. Like, he's not

he he does not want to turn this into a

movement. I think there's this goes back

to the Tucker thing. Like, I'm sure

Tucker has lots of interesting ambitions

and wants to have max optionality, but I

don't know that this is about like a

broader, you know, I I think he'd be

formidable and would

>> Do you think he'll run for president?

>> I don't expect him to, and I don't know

what would h like that would be chaos.

Um, and and I don't know, the the the

train wreck would be would be

interesting. I don't get the sense that

that's what he's doing. I think he's

playing with a lot of things that could

build that speculation and I think that

benefits him and it benefits his

enterprise right now. Um, but I don't I

don't know that that's what's I think I

genuinely think he is in real time

toying with all kinds of things that

have been, you know, floating around in

his head for a long time.

>> I mean, that's basically my gut on him,

too. But but I I I guess the the point

you make of Margie Taylor and some of

these others Massie I I think the

question may be that that opens up is

the thing that is standing between the

kinds of politics that they seem to

think are more authentic and and and

more viable. You know that certainly

what is happening in attention right now

on the right. the thing standing in the

way of that is Donald Trump himself

like a quite elderly

secondterm president.

And and so I agree that right now if you

in the Republican party decide to pivot

towards the

more chaotic

Carlson Owens populist online Epstein

files etc energy that you know Trump

harnessed a fair amount of in 2024 and

now is doing a bunch of things people

from that part of the you know coalition

didn't expect him to do. You still can't

beat Trump when he says, "I am MAGA." He

is right.

>> But Donald Trump won't be there forever.

And so,

can JD Vance put these things back in

the bottle? Can he resist them? Or is

Massie just early? Is, you know, are

these the people who are telling you

where the ball is going? And, you know,

once it's not Donald Trump and like he

is like the single-dimensional litmus

test of the entire Republican party,

it's all going to like fracture into in

into chaos and and these things that

seem to have the energy right now, but

that he can put a stop to, well, there's

going to be nobody to put a stop to

them. Yeah, I think he's been able to

through sheer force of nature kind of

hold together some of these

contradictions within the party, but I

think so much of it is, you know,

attitudinal, right? Like it's not even

necessarily about what the issue is.

It's not necessarily about what the

policies are. and his his gift was being

able to like be all things to all people

and have being a walking contradiction

in ways that kind of worked. I think

that's really tough for anyone to do in

either party. Um, but just like anything

else, and the Democrats are are, you

know, running into this too, like at the

end of the day, you can have these

conversations, but you need a vehicle

and a vessel to harness all these things

um and resolve them in a way that at

least gets you over the hump to 48 49%

of the vote that um is able to overcome

the other side. So I I think can whether

it's JD or whether it's somebody else. I

think a lot of that will be this ramp

toward 2028. What does the president

choose to do? He obviously has a ton of

power institutionally and to me it

obviously seems like the orderly path is

to hand it off to his uh vice president

and and successor. You know, I do think

that

whatever happens next, it's going to be

based on how to how Republicans deal

with the fact that the the old version

of the party is not what the voters

wanted. It's not coming back and it may

not be in the form that we currently see

it. But you need to find something that

appeals to your voters and that um that

that does not get stuck trying to solve

the problems of the 80s and 90s because

that seems to be the tendency. Like

we've we've had the tugof-war between

Donald Trump or like Nikki Haley like

that that it just can't be that. There

has to be something different and there

has to be something that acknowledges

Trump's appeal and what he's figured out

while also, you know, making it less

personality based. And I think that's

that's going to be the challenge for

anybody, whether it's JD or anybody

else. Are there Republicans, and I don't

mean here just people who might compete

in 2028, but just Republicans who are,

you know, elected and are coming up in

the party who you think

represent or trying to fashion

interesting versions of that future. Uh,

you know, I think Democrats have an idea

of who their sort of young like bench

is, but Trump is such a huge figure. And

then you have obviously the the sort of

Rubio JD Vance expected succession race.

Yeah.

>> But but as somebody who watches the

Republican party more closely, who do

you watch in it as as bellweathers or

you know, signals of where it's going?

>> It's a great question. I mean, I I worry

about being generals fighting the last

war. Um,

you know, I think people have been

trying to figure out what Trump is

without Trump looks like for the past,

you know, really the past decade. Um,

because there was there was an

expectation that he'd he'd be a flash in

the pan. And so you'd have to figure out

how to take the good and and uh and and

jettison the the rest. Um you know, I

think that the different flavors have

certainly been there's I mean Rubio's I

think Rubio's transformation has been

fascinating and and quite effective in

in a lot of ways. Um I think I mean

that's that's too easy. Um you know JD

came by this uh this has kind of been

his his vision of things since he

entered entered politics. Um but the

ones that have been playing with at the

congressional level like Josh Holly I I

don't think he's necessarily the guy but

watching him uh um Jim Banks similarly

like these guys are all like the

entrepreneurship happening trying to

feel out like let me see what I can do

that can whether it's harness attention

or whether that's something the White

House picks up um in ways that are don't

fit the orthodoxy of the old party. Um,

I think those guys have been really

interesting. But, um, I think at the end

of the day, the insight of Trump is like

so much of this isn't about policy. It's

about it's about attitude. It's about

how you

position yourself against the left. Um,

and I've yet to see somebody that has

figured that aspect of it out. I think

there's a tendency to overindex to

interesting political ideas that excite

you or me. Um, and that's not

necessarily what excites a primary

electorate in 2027, 2028. If you're

advising Republican candidates in some

of these states we've talked about, uh,

there's obviously the specific qualities

of the Democratic candidate they're

running against, but broadly speaking,

how would you tell them to run against

the Democratic party right now?

I think you do need to tie your

candidate, whatever their eccentricities

are, to the national party, which is

seen even by Democrats as as weak and

feckless and

in some ways um you know tied to

unpopular positions. Um I do think there

is a body of evidence for anyone that

was in politics in the 2020 to 2022

moment. there's uh you know deep trove

of of um you know hits that are in

there. We're starting to see that with

Tel Rico, but I think that exists for

most people. Put them on the defensive

and u make them account for the things

that they said and did way back when

because I think under the light of day 6

years later, it it looks and sounds like

a dispatch from another planet. And I

think seeing where they were on Harris,

seeing where they were on on Biden,

trying to tie them back to, you know,

places where there's already been a

verdict rendered. Um, but I mean, it's

just like good oldfashioned opposition

research, good oldfashioned message and

adm. And going back to that point about

attention, like finding ways for this to

break through and to almost mify them

and otherize them. Like going back to

Blake Masters being a weirdo. Like

figure you got to figure that out and

crack that because some people m maybe

they'll gro it just because it's so

obvious, but like you need to you need

to paint a picture that's compelling. I

mean, I don't know, maybe Spencer

Pratt's the future. I don't know, maybe

we're going to get some some good AI

video content. Um, but I think uh that

that's the sort of thing that needs to

break through in this kind of attention

economy.

>> So, that's our final question. What are

three books you' recommend to the

audience?

>> Three books to your audience? I'm

thinking of one that probably hasn't

been read by most your audience, but I

think um should be. Um Matt Cottoni

wrote a a a history of the right called

The Right.

>> He's been he's he's been here for the

show.

>> Well, he didn't recommend his own book.

So, um but but I really think it did the

best job that I've seen of reminding us

that that not only did history not start

in 2016,

>> it didn't start in 1980 either. The

iterations and evolutions of the

Republican party over a hundred years I

think are important and instructive in

terms of the current moment and how it

maps on to the

>> there's always been this populist

anti-establishment oft

kind of full circle um uh but but yes I

think it's the fact of how fluid some of

these things are um I think is just it's

worth for the perspective of where this

all came from and and obviously there's

there's other layers that that are

complicated, but I think it's a really

good really good book and a good good

read. Um, another one that I think

especially in this moment, um, uh, you

know, has a new significance now that

we're talking about AI and all data

centers and all these things. Um,

Patrick McGee's, uh, Apple and China,

uh, I found just very interesting from

an industrial policy standpoint, from a

foreign policy standpoint, from a

national security standpoint. um really

really good and and worth reading for

your audience. Um I'll go uh I'll go

abundance. I think the frackers is

really interesting for understanding our

energy

dominance uh you know evolution and

revolution. Um, I think the the

watching us go from a scarcity mindset

in the 2000s when I started my career to

being the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.

It's not something that the elite saw

coming. It's not something that really

smart people saw coming. It's not what

we indexed our our policy and our

politics too. And I think it's still um

hasn't fully set in how revolutionary

that it was. I think it's a um important

one for for your folks to to read.

>> Liam Donovan, thank you very much.

>> Thanks, Ezra.