Iran War and Midterms Strategy, Plus Ro Khanna on a Potential 2028 Presidential Run

- Welcome in everybody on Mark Copper.

“This is another wartime episode of Next Up.”

We have plenty to talk about, not just the Iran War, but other things that are going on currently here in America and around the world. I'm the editor in chief of the live interactive video platform

two way and the host year for a program that I love doing and love spending time with you. This is the Thursday episode and we're glad you're here to talk through with four great guests, guests and more guests today.

Packed episode, stay around for the whole thing. First up, Congressman Rokana, Democratic California. He's been here before, he's really smart and interesting guy and some of you love him and some of you less so,

but he's always interesting and I'm gonna talk to him

about the war and about how he feels about what's happened and what should happen next. After that, James Bennett will be here. He is the Lexington columnist at the Economist and known him a long time.

Super smart guy, we're also gonna talk about how he sees the Iran conflict. Then finally, rounding out the hour, bringing a panel of two other smarty pantses, Democrats, judges, former Biden Harris,

argued Kevin Walling, regular on the morning meeting with me on two way and then Weber, former Congressman from Minnesota, partner at the public affairs firm, Mercury and both also super smart to help us try to figure out

what's what and what's next up. So, in a moment, after a quick break, we're gonna talk to Congressman Rokana of California, Rokana is next up. Did you know that high blood pressures,

the number one risk factor for mortality?

One in two adults has it. That means there's a 50/50 chance you are a walking time bomb. But here's some good news. You can take control of your blood pressure naturally without relying on big pharma.

“One, 20 life is a blend of great testing,”

super fruit juices that have been shown to lower blood pressure. It's backed by hundreds of doctors and trusted by thousands of people who've seen measurable results.

And here is the best part. It's all completely risk-free. Try 120 life for two weeks. And if you don't see a difference in your numbers, you can get your money back.

Go to 120life.com. Again, that's 120life.com. And use the code next up to save 20% and get free shipping. Great deal.

There's a serious business. This is your life we're talking about. 120 life can help. All right. Next up in joining me now,

the gentleman from California, Rokana Congressman who has been elevated over the last 12 months. People are interested in what he has to say about everything. And Congressman, it's a problem with my booking guests

on the show. Almost everyone who's on and you'd not be an exception. I have about 100 things I want to ask you about. And the segment's not long enough. So I'm going to do my best to ask you

about the most interesting things. And we appreciate you making time to come back on next up. It was great to be back. I hope I don't get you too much hot water with your friends. I saw an ex.

Why are you having the guy back on? So I'm looking for a conversation. Don't read, actually, it's not for anything but entertainment. This show is called next up, not what happened before.

So I know about your opposition to add questions about the president's operation with Israel in Iran. But I wanted to ask you this, as an American, as a member of Congress, what's going well on the conflict right now?

What do you see on the battlefield and the diplomatic realm that you say, well, that's good for the United States. That's good for America. That's good for Israel. Well, he's degraded Iran's military capability.

I could suggest that the president should declare victory and the war. Now, I opposed it. I don't think it was worth the loss of American lives.

I don't think it was worth the $2 billion

we're paying a day. We've replaced comedy senior with comedy junior. But there's no doubt we've degraded Iran's military capability. We've degraded their ballistic missiles. We still haven't gotten the enriched uranium,

the 60% enriched uranium of 400 kilograms that's underneath very underneath.

“And that's why I believe ultimately there has to be”

a diplomatic solution. But what I'd like the president to do is declare victory. So he's degraded the Iranian capability. And then this war bring our troops back

and start to focus on America. If that were the outcome or something along the lines of what you said, and this isn't a far-fetched thing. If he could say and demonstrate to your satisfaction, it was not bluster but true.

Their navy was basically eliminated. Their missile capacity was degraded to the point where it wasn't the same threat it was to the region. Their capacity to control terror networks in the region was seriously undermined.

And the results of the military conflict were such that there could be on American and Israeli terms, a good negotiation over the nuclear material. If that all happened within the next few weeks, would it, we were judgment have been,

this was a good adjustment and a smart mission, or would you say no, it still shouldn't have been done?

of over 13 American service members. It was not worth the cost.

“And ultimately, we're not getting at the main thing,”

which is we have to get at their enriched uranium. A lot of that is buried underground. I mean, it's why the strikes didn't get it, eliminated in June. It's why we still haven't eliminated it.

And it's unclear whether the regime is gonna be more hard-line, less hard-line. Are they gonna continue to kill protesters? But what I would say is if he stops the war now, at least it's not gonna get us into a situation

where we're sending ground troops, or we're seeing American casualties build, or we're continuing to see this reporting

of $200 billion going to this war.

I don't even understand that. I mean, I thought he ran on not getting us into Middle East wars in America first and creating jobs here in healthcare here. So, you know, I would love for the president

to have an all-fram here, because my interest is in the country, not in scoring political points. There are plenty of other things to argue with him. He ends the war.

We can start to talk about healthcare and jobs and other things. What I don't want is for this war to continue. - What's your sense of what the Iranian nuclear capacity was before President Obama struck a deal with them and then at the end of that deal,

when President Trump abrogated, it was the nuclear program set back. By the deal, did it proceed to pace? What's your sense of that? - Here's my understanding of the facts.

You correct me if you have a different understanding that before Obama negotiated it,

they had basically 20% enriched uranium.

Obama negotiated it in a cap that 3.67% enriched uranium, which would have allowed them to develop nuclear capability within 12 months, but that's okay, nuclear capability for Obama. I'm not adding that nuclear capability to a ballistic missile,

which would have been another 12 months. And Obama basically felt that that would have bought us 15 years because it was cap to 15 years of 3.67%. Trump comes up, he rips up the agreement, and then they are enriching uranium at 60%.

And that would have allowed them to get a nuclear capability within one to two weeks. Now, we have to take action if there's one to two weeks of doing something to prevent them from getting a bomb. Now, it's still difficult to take that enriched uranium

and put it on a ballistic missile. And as you know, and everyone acknowledges they don't have ICBM, so they can't hit as still like in Malay, but it was a concern. I believe Obama was negotiating

to get this thing back below 3.6% percent, and to get the enriched uranium, the 60% enriched uranium underground. And then they gave up on that negotiation, but ultimately there has to be negotiation

to make sure it runs on nuclear. - That amount account of the status of the negotiations at the time military action was initiated is not one that's shared by the Americans, those familiar with the negotiations.

Are you more inclined to believe the American negotiators are more inclined to believe the Omanis?

“- Well, I believe the Americans, though,”

I have doubts about this administration, but what I don't understand is why they gave up on the negotiation. I mean, maybe it's just that Obama didn't take that when he goes shaders.

- Well, they said they said that. - I think maybe it's just Obama's greater capability of striking a deal in statesmanship and Trump's inept at it, or they weren't trying it hard enough. - Well, they said they gave up because they thought

what the Iranians were asking for was unrealistic, and they didn't trust them. They said to be credible and trustworthy negotiators. Do you credit that more than the Omanis saying that the negotiations were on track?

Or do you credit the American side saying the negotiations weren't going to be fruitful? - Oh, okay. Anytime you're negotiating with an adversary, you're gonna have issues with trust, Reagan,

had that with Gorbache, we have that. I mean, that's the nature of diplomacy. I mean, Obama didn't trust Iran, but he managed to get it done to bring it under five percent, 3.67 percent.

Now, there were legitimate criticisms saying that Obama didn't get enough done.

3.67 percent was civilian nuclear,

but you could argue that Iran really doesn't have that civilian need and that was a, we should have gotten it down to zero, and you could argue that they needed to give up their ballistic missiles.

And that's what Trump should have done. And if he had cut a deal, which was better than the JCPOA, I would've been the first one cheerleading, but instead of doing the painstaking work of hard diplomacy and bringing on other countries to do that,

China, Russia, others. He basically said, okay, it's not working. I'm gonna bomb them. But what comes next, Mark?

“I mean, are we going to bomb every couple of years?”

- Well, I mean, maybe, but I just wanna stand in negotiations for at least one more beat. And the reason I'm persisting on this, I've heard you and other Democrats several times say,

and the Americans walked away,

because either they were incompetent or because they wanted to go to war whatever the various explanations are. And then again, I've talked the American side, and they say the Iranians weren't telling the truth.

They were bad faith actors, and sure, a Reagan negotiated with the Russians, but Soviets, but he saw trust, but verified. He felt he could verify. The Americans didn't feel that way.

So again, I'll just ask one more time, and we'll move on. That's the American negotiation position. It wasn't that they gave up when there was a deal to be had. They thought they were being lied to.

“So do you credit that or you think that's not true?”

- I'm not gonna believe the Omani's over the Americas,

and if there are diplomats and others

who are saying that Iran was in keeping it straight, I take them at some face value. But what I would say is you still have to then work towards diplomacy, get other countries engaged, get Iran and get India engaged, get China engaged.

Like India's ships are passing through the state of Hormus without being shot. China as you and I both love are 20% of their oil comes from Iran. Obama built a multilateral coalition

to put pressure on Iran to make sure that he got that deal. And if Trump can get a better deal, he said he's the art of the deal maker. I'm sure he's done deals with people he didn't trust. The question is why is he not getting a deal

and verifying it? And why is he instead costing Americans our lives in our money? His whole point was he's a better deal maker. He says he would have prevented the war in Ukraine

from starting. He claims he could have cut a deal with Putin. Well, Putin's not to be trustworthy. And you, this great deal maker can't cut a deal with a country that is 0.44% of GDP.

I mean, it just seems to be a failure. So there's a range of issues that connect up to Israel to American supporters of Israel, like APAC here in the United States, an organization that spends a lot of money trying to influence our politics

and our elections in favor of Israel, about anti-Semitism. All these connected issues are very hot emotional in the United States and within the Republican Party within your party. And as you know, I hear all the time

from people who are extremely supportive of Israel in both the United States and Israel who have looked at your public statements and they're very unhappy with you. And I know that you're not a divisive person

and I know that you're a supporter of Israel's right to exist. And yet, persistently you do things that people bring to my attention and I wish we had time to go through all of 'em 'cause at some point I wanna clear the air on them.

But just in general, how would you characterize your view of the American Israeli relationship

“as different from contrasted with President Trump's?”

What are the differences as you see how we should be interacting with those reverses how you think Donald Trump does? - Well, there's significant differences. Let me start out with what I think the end state should be,

which is probably where Quentin was, where Bush was, where Obama was, Biden was, I don't know where President Trump is on it, but that is that there should be Israel as a Jewish Democratic state that is secure and there should be a Palestinian state

in the West Bank and Gaza, which is non-Hamas and that it does not, is demilitarized around the 1967 framework. That to me is where we need to head to. The Gaza War was devastating in my view. It really changed a lot of my attitudes towards the Israeli government.

Not towards these really people. I've been there three times, and of course, there's a deep cultural connection there. There's a economic connection. My district, there is a long time relationship

but towards these really government. And what I would say is I would work towards recognizing a Palestinian state, national aspirations, non-Hamas, work with the Arab League to do that. I would make it very clear that we're not going to provide

offensive military weapons to this government. Israel, until they work towards a two-state solution and until they acknowledge the need to end the occupation in Gaza and the West Bank. But ultimately, we need to have two states.

So I imagine both of those places are departures from where Donald Trump is. It's not a departure from the mainstream of the Democratic Party as, I mean, the majority of Democratic senators voted for what I'm saying.

And many House Democrats share that view. - There are lots of organizations in the United States to try to influence public opinion, try to influence elections. What is your view of the role of this group A-pack

“that's been a very powerful organization for a long time?”

Are you critical of their tactics, their strategy,

with the group A-pack?

“- Well, they don't like me very much these days.”

They're spent a little bit against me.

Because they believe that what the Israeli government did in Gaza and what the UN found was a genocide wasn't a genocide. That's their right. Their American citizens were advocating for their policy

position, but they have a significant disagreement with me. And they often go after me on social media and had spent something in my district saying I was a liar. My view is, look, if they're going to take a shot at me, I'm going to push back.

I rather talk about the economy, I rather talk about jobs, but I'm not going to be micro to caucus. I'm not going to sit there being attacked with smears. I'm going to push back.

And that's, but I don't start the fight. But do I question their right to advocate to other American citizens? We're advocating for view that the United States should not ever contradict the policies publicly

if the Israeli government. That's a wrong view in my view. I don't believe that is in the American interest, but that is their right as American citizens with that view to advocate for it.

Now, I terribly dislike super PACs funding, but that is broader than just a fact. There is a ton of super PAC funding, and we should ban all of it.

But I've never singleed out saying, OK,

you can have super PAC funding from Elon Musk, but you can't have super PAC funding from a PAC. But I will take them on on places where I disagree. You represent a big part of Silicon Valley, and another big player in American politics now

is the AI industry. And they are very supportive of candidates who they think will champion their agenda as it relates to government's connection to AI, which is one of the biggest stories in the country right now.

Why isn't the AI industry championing you as a leader? What is it that the Congressman from Silicon Valley with a very forward-looking high-tech view of America's future economy?

What is it that keeps them from saying, "Rocana's our guy?" Well, some technology leaders do believe in my agenda. I'm having a far-sight chat with the Jensen Wang at Stanford on April 9th.

There was a CEO in India. I've had good relationships with Dario, and many of these tech leaders. But I'll tell you where I stand. The administration and some of these folks

are AI accelerationists. But does that mean they believe we're in a competition, but China, we need to win, get the regulations out of the way.

“The only way we're going to win is if we are on the accelerator,”

and we can't be left behind China. That's their view. That's a legitimate view. Then there are the AI dooms. We've got to slow this whole thing down.

AI is going to destroy the planet. I am an AI democratist. What does that mean? I want AI to be ext-- America to lead excellent AI. We should set the standards where AI is not

going to have surveillance. AI is not going to have a genetic AI do crazy things. We are going to have the world's best safest AI that we will export to Europe and around the world. And if China wants to have a race to the bottom,

they can do that. But I don't think other countries are going to want to buy an AI that's going to spy on them or have a genetic AI. We can have smart regulations and develop AI. And we should make sure every decision

is helping the working class in the middle class. We can't have AI just displacing jobs. And say, oh, that's just the consequence.

So what, 4 million truck drivers out of work?

Oh, well, no. We've got to make sure that human beings are in the loop that AI is actually helping workers and that in a capital biased world, workers are getting some ownership, some benefit, too.

So that's been my view. And probably the reason some of these folks are not supporting me is I'm not an AI accelerationist. Sounds like a pretty sensible position you have. Maybe they'll just listen more closely

to how you expressed it here. Should the Democratic Party nominee for president in 2028 supports single payer health care? Yes, national health insurance. Now, let me be clear about what my or Bernie Sanders' plan

or other plans are. Medicare for all, you expand it from 65 to 60 to 5550. You can still have supplemental private insurance. It's not a call to ban private insurance. It's a call to have the expansion of Medicare

and then Medicare should also have dental vision and hearing. Who would pay more in terms of an individual or an industry who would pay more if that plan were instituted?

“Well, I believe it actually would be a savings,”

but I have not been acute about it. I'm not saying, OK, just the only people who pay are the billionaires, I think that's intellectually dishonest. What I've said is, right now, when you're on Medicare,

You have a Medicare fee that you pay.

“And Americans would have to pay something.”

You're not going to just get healthcare for free. But what they would pay in then Medicare fee would be much lower than the health insurance premiums that they're currently paying and the deductibles. And same with the employers, they would have to pay something,

the corporations, about what they would be paying as attacks would be lower than the health care premiums that they currently are paying. And why does this make intuitive sense? It makes it intuitive sense that everyone has to pay something.

It's not for free, but that we would be paying less because you don't have the extraordinary profits of the private insurance companies. And you can Medicare negotiate. And so you're cutting down the drug companies' profits

and you're cutting down hospital facility fees. So there's going to be savings. So you're not paying as much as the insurance premiums.

But my view is never been that people can just get this for free.

That I've always been honest, as was Bernie Sanders, that there is going to be some fee that people have to pay. - Well, but you're saying that everyone, not just some people, while they'd have to pay a fee, their net healthcare expenses in terms of premiums,

not for particular procedures or pharmaceuticals. But what they pay for insurance, everyone would pay less than they pay now. Is that what you're saying?

“- That is what I'm saying, that's what the Marcades Institute”

and others have done studies. And intuitively, it makes sense because you're cutting out the middleman. You're cutting out the PBMs. You're cutting out the private insurance.

- What would healthcare be better under your plan than it is now? - I believe it would be, because right now there's too many people who are not getting the care they need, even if they're insured, because they're under insured,

because they're fair that deductible, because they're getting procedures denied. So it's not just that it's covering people who aren't covered, but it's covering people who desperately need it and who have too much cost.

I guess here's the other thing with AI, Marc. Does it really make sense to have healthcare link to jobs in this world where we're going to? I mean, where there's gonna be so much job transition where young people may have a hard time getting it

employment? I mean, I was starting to a senior person at the New York Times. It's not a bad job, and his daughter is concerned that at 26, she's gonna be off the insurance if she doesn't have a job lined up yet.

So I just think as a society, we've got to move towards where healthcare is not linked anywhere to employment and where it is a right, and to be, it seems the easiest way to do that is to expand an existing program, which is Medicare.

- There's no question that the historic accident that has led so many Americans to have their health insurance coverage tied to employment is bonkers, and anyone who's serious about trying to figure it out to make the system better, more affordable,

more fair, needs to grapple with how we transition away from that, and you're at least offering a plan that has the possibility of doing that. Last question for you, where are you in your deliberations about maybe running for president?

- I have, you know, I'm still looking at it here. Here's the pro-point of doing it. I feel like that I understand the modern economy by virtue of my life experience better than most, and I have a real understanding of it.

I also grew up in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. I saw fair-run works shut down the steel plant in Bristol. I understand the hollowing down and the industrialization of this country. I can offer a vision of a modern economic success

and independence for every family and community

“in this country, and I believe that kind of mobilization”

that asks us to be bigger for economic renewal and having economic success in the 21st century could bring us together. That's the argument for doing it. For not doing it through, you know, it's an ugly time.

I have family considerations. They abstain thing. I know we've disagree with, but one of the downsides have been some of the nastiness towards that. It's been an openness to how difficult it is

in a modern time to put your family through something like that. And I know, you know, there are other people. I know some people make fun of you for saying other candidates are they gonna run or not. And I'll tell you, it's a huge decision for anyone.

And I don't think anyone, even people who are out there have really deeply made that decision, it's usually a family decision. - I love the conversation. I love the segment.

My aspiration was to make it through with that word, Epstein being under it and we're, you ruin that, but we'll talk more at that when you come back. Congressman Rokanov, California, Congressman, very grateful to you for making time.

Love checking in with you on all this stuff and appreciate how forthright you are about explaining your positions as compared to some other people in public.

- You're always very fair, I appreciate it, Mark.

- All right, that's Congressman Kanna of California. We'd love to know what you think about what he said about Israel, about Iran, about healthcare. Send us your thoughts, send me an email at [email protected].

If you've subscribed to the program on YouTube,

but you can also listen to us as a podcast,

“so go to Apple or Spotify or Rivey get your podcast.”

And listen to us, watch us wherever you'd like. We have exclusive content that shows up. We'd you'll only see if you do subscribe so go to youtube.com/atnextupalprint subscribe now. Or on the podcast platforms,

make sure you check the automatic downloads so you get each and every program as soon as it runs as well as our bonus content. All right, that can take a quick break. And when we come back, we're going to be joined

by James Bennett, the Lexington columnist at the Economist, James Bennett is next up. (upbeat music) Going online without ExpressVPN is like pretty your social security number right on your business card.

You're just putting way too much personal information out there for bad actors to exploit.

Using a VPN, it's essential.

When connecting to unencrypted networks and cafes, hotels, airports, or anywhere where your online data can be exposed to hackers who target passwords, bank logins, credit card details, and more. ExpressVPN creates a secure encrypted tunnel

between your device and the internet. With reliable coverage across all your devices, that includes phones, laptops, tablets, and more. US plans also include their identity defender. It's a new suite of tools to get your data removed

from data brokers. Alert you when your data appears on the dark web and ensures you against data theft for up to $1 million. Offer down at their lowest price ever, plan start at just $3.49 a month.

So secure your online data today by visiting ExpressVPN.com/nextup. Again, that's EXP, R-E-S-S-V-P-N. .com/nextup to find out how you can get up to four extra months. Again, ExpressVPN.com/nextup.

(upbeat music) All right, welcome back next up and joining me now. James Bennett, he's the Lexington columnist at the Economist magazine. And like with Rokana, I only book on the show people

who I want to ask 100 questions to and we won't get to 100, but we'll do our best, James, welcome in. - Thanks for having me, Morg.

“- What does it mean to be the Lexington columnists?”

- My joke is it's like the little like being the dreadpired Roberts, you know, we don't have violence here at the Economist and we give these sorts of names to our columns. And there's a new Lexington columnist every few years.

I write a column usually once a week, mostly about American politics, but American culture and society. It's our only column about the U.S. - And if somebody said the Lexington column

under James Bennett is it liberal, conservative, moderate, iconic class to calculate your characterize your point of view. - I, well, I'd have to leave it to others to characterize my point of view work. - Right, I, I think one of the strengths of the,

I'm the first American to do this column,

which they kind of made a big deal of when it happened. I actually didn't think that was necessarily a good thing because I think one of the strengths of the column historically is it's been written by a Brit. Somebody who had some detachment from the mosh pit

of American politics. And I've tried to honor that, I try to write a reported column, I try to get out into the country and get some sense of what's going on, I'm not in Washington, all that much. In my own politics, do I lean left?

“Yeah, I would say so, and I think probably that would be”

how people would characterize the column. The economist is a, you know, it's politics are classically liberal and they align with my own, they believe in pluralism, free speech, civil rights, capitalism, those are the values. I think that traditionally informed the Lexington column

and I share them. - You've written lately a lot about the war and about Donald Trump and Iran, and I want to ask you a few broad questions, and then some talk about some specifics about the conflict.

And, and one of the many topics on which you're so thoughtful is about the media and you've covered the White House, you've covered Washington, you understand the complexities involved. A lot of stuff I read from the media near Times, Washington Post, is the premise seems to be every motive of Donald Trump's

is vinyl. Everything he does is about ego or his place in history or about settling scores, and all politicians, you know, who stuff like that, but the premise I read, as I read most of the coverage is nothing Trump does

is from a motive to help the United States or to help our allies.

First question is, is that how you view Trump?

Do you view anything Trump has done?

or do you view everything he does as from just an evil, horrible place?

“- Look, Mark, I believe all human beings”

are complicated and they tend to have mixed motives and certainly true of Donald Trump. No, I don't think he's operating from an evil place. - Okay, so on Iran, for instance, it leaves aside any motives, you see?

'Cause again, I read your calm about why he's initiated this and there were some, I thought, imputing of motives that were less than admirable. What would you say, again, not theoretically, but as you observed him, what motives

does he have to have initiated this enterprise with the Israelis that you would consider to be altruistic in the interest of the United States, at least as he perceives it as opposed to something darker? - You mean in terms of beginning this operation

for some motive of doing it in the first place?

- Yeah, look, I mean, it's a hard job to be present in the United States, Mark, and these decisions are agonizing, and I don't imagine that he makes them likely, and excuse me, he makes them lightly.

And I think, you know, we all try to some extent to read Donald Trump's mind, we don't have access to the same intelligence that he's considering. I can understand presented with the opportunity that he had to go in and take out this regime,

and perhaps, and once and for all, the nuclear threat of Iran, I can certainly understand why he would see that to be an American interest.

“- And do you say if that's what you're asking me?”

- Yeah, and I think that was certainly part of what motivated us to do it. - Yeah, it's gotta be, right? Like what a horrible thing to think, I mean, maybe in the fullness of history

we'll discover that that's not the case, but otherwise, yeah, it's surely that was, I would imagine that was part of what he was thinking. - Yeah.

- Now, was he also thinking this was, as he said at the time, this is something no other president has done, and I'm going to do it, and I will go down in history as the president who was able to do this wouldn't surprise me,

is that an ignoble thought, not necessarily, I mean, you don't run for president United States if you don't have an ego. - Yeah, and when people say he's doing it for legacy, I think, well, okay, that's fine.

He certainly wants his legacy to have done things that were popular and good, and if this works out, I think he would think with some justification was popular and good, sure. Another thing, again, I see embedded

in a lot of the coverages, Trump's incompetent. The people around him are incompetent, Steve Wittkov and Jared Kushner have no idea how to negotiate, Pete Higgseth is a joke, a secretary of defense, Trump himself has made numerous mistakes

and the run up to this conflict and overseeing it. Do you see competence, not the military's competence, 'cause everyone had sort of accepts that, but do you seek any competence in the decisions that Trump has made in initiating and conducting this conflict?

- Look, Mark, I think you've covered more White houses than I have to bet a tie. - I have maybe it's about a tie, but I think back to the Clint daze and back in those days

those guys would always say,

"You're never as bad as they say you are and you're never as good as they say you are." And I think that's true of every White House and the press coverage that it gets. So, do I think there's serious questions

“about do I think these guys are completely incompetent?”

No, what do I think, do I think they're doing a perfect job? - No, I don't know quite how to, I'm sorry, I'm giving you a wishy-washy answer here. - Well, I guess I have, I do have grave concerns about the gigantic portfolio that with cough and cushioner of had.

I'm trying to negotiate all these crises at once. There's potentially an advantage there because they are interlinked, but it's just too much. And I worry that there has been probably not as sufficient

reliance on the diplomats who are deeply versed in this stuff. And particularly when it comes to Middle East policy making, there is a danger of listening too much of to the experts who've been stuck on these issues forever, but there's a real, equally a danger

of not paying attention to the lessons of history and not drawing on the expertise, it really understands the factionalism, the complex domestic politics that exist inside each of these conflicts.

to those sorts of nuances in these things. - I want to come back to that, but I just want to press you one more time on this question of can you give me an example of something it seems the president did or we know that he did

in the conduct of this conflict with Iran. They you'd say, well, that's competent. That's a skilled commander in chief, a skilled president. Is there anything he's done that you would put in that basket that you could name?

- Well, I mean, I mean, I don't know why you took it off the table, it seems to me profoundly relevant

like the incredible operational success.

- Well, because that's not really bad because that's not attributable to him unless you want to credit him with building the military, but if you say he showed confidence by in his first term, the first part of the second term is doing

what was necessary to build the military.

“I accept that, although I think that other Joe Biden”

contributed to that and the military culture itself. So the reason I took it off the table is I'm looking to see if there's anything you would credit him with as opposed to his government with. - Well, I'm just trying to disaggregate

what are the specific, like what would you point to? I'm sorry, I mean, as he has he managed the relationship with these railies well, has he communicated?

- I do, I, I, I was surprised last night.

I think yes, by and large, yes. And you know, there is really, by the way, the American tactical successes, obviously, incredibly impressive, the Israeli intelligence success is astonishing, you know, we've seen that

since October 7th across the Middle East. - Yes, there was this disruption last night, though, where we saw that President post on true social he's clearly upset about this Israeli strike. On a gas field, there's now reporting

that he did know about it in advance.

“If he didn't know about that at advance,”

that's a real problem. If he did know about it in advance and told him to go ahead anyway, that's a problem. - I go with, I go with a number two on that one, by the way, but you do, yeah, I don't think Israelis would be foolish enough

to take that step, given how close the alliances and how close they are operationally. And besides the fact that both the Wall Street Journal and Axiots have reported that he knew in advance and approved it.

- I, I agree with you Mark. I mean, we do have the previous example from the 12 day war where the Israelis tried to conduct that last strike that the President clearly didn't want them to do and he ordered them to turn the jets around in the air.

So we do have some evidence in the past where the Israelis are acting apparently without pre-clearing it with the President, but you're right. I'd be surprised if that was true in this case.

“- What's the, what's the worst case scenario to you?”

Within the realm of the of the realistic and, unfortunately, possible. How could this end where you, where you would say, boy, that was just a historic blunder to initiate this conflict? How this, I mean, they're numerous,

I mean, you know, you can go to the truly catastrophic where other great powers get involved and this turns into complete like global catastrophe. Obviously, there could be long-term disruption to the oil market that could tank the global economy.

The disaster, there's the possibility that we leave the regime intact and angry and still with the ability to create a nuclear device. The catastrophe, there's possibly the regime gets pulled down and we wind up with a metastasizing civil conflict

and refugee crisis and the entire Middle East destabilize. That's also a potentially, there are a number of, I don't know how to, you know, I can,

the first one I wish rank is the utterly catastrophic,

but the others are also catastrophic. So the number of ways it could go south, I mean, since still hoping it works out. - Yeah, what's the, from where we are now, what's the best case outcome that you see?

Like, that's plausible. - I mean, the absolute best case is that this regime does suddenly fall in his replace by a more amicable regime and Iran stabilizes and no longer pursues a nuclear weapon and the straight opens up again.

There's still disruption, you know, to the global economy, soil markets that take some time to work its way through the system, but it's not, you know, a catastrophe and then it's clearly, in my mind, worth the price.

That's, you know, one can still hope for that. I worry that hope, you know, of course is an strategy and it does seem to be the strategy, you know, to achieve, you know, we saw the, anyway, sorry, that, that's the best case scenario

Is it still plausible, I, every day that goes by,

“it becomes less plausible, unfortunately.”

- Running parallel to this is this extraordinary story that's risen up over the last few years and I know you think about and, and, and watch, which is Israel's, the image of Israel in the world at the United States, anti-Semitism,

the divisions within both parties over how the United States should interact with Israel, the use of anti-Semitic tropes, it by both the left and the right. And, and there's been, surprising to me,

not that much commentary about those things as they relate to the outcome of this war. You have Israel assassinating Arab leaders, something that, you know, you think might think could raise this issue of, not just a generation of young Arabs

and Muslims around the world reacting negatively to that, but in the United States, we're so many young people, including some young, American Jews have a hostility towards Israel and in some cases hostility towards Jews.

How do you think about how this conflict might, maybe for good, but, unfortunately, probably negative, how could this conflict impact all those swirling things about anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli

“feelings in the United States and around the world?”

- Mark, sorry, you were saying you're not seeing much of that so far. - I didn't see much comment about it. I've seen, I've seen people talk about Israel, but I haven't seen, with the exception of Joe Kent

and a few others. I haven't seen mass conversation or demonstrations on the streets of people saying, this is the fault of Jews or this is the fault of Israel. There's been some, but I haven't seen,

it's not that I haven't seen people who are anti-Israel express that. I haven't seen the kind of conversation I'm asking you to have here, which is, how do we think about that?

Of those who would like to see less anti-Semitism in the world? How do you think about how this conflict might affect it? And what's being done to limit the possibility that this could cause a massive, even greater, up-swing of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel feeling?

- Yeah, first of all, we're not seeing a lot of demonstrations

against the war period, which is interesting, but part that, look, I am really worried that we are hearing a lot of commentary on the right end on the left. Now, that Israel dragged American to this war,

that this is as Tucker Carlson has said, Israel's war.

“And that's what Joe Kent said yesterday.”

And I'm worried about that, what that means, we've seen deteriorating support for Israel in this country dramatically deteriorating the Democratic Party over the last few years. And now in the Republican Party as well.

I don't think it is Israel's war. Joe Kent, you know, in his resignation letter and do respect to Joe Kent, he's a veteran, he lost his wife in Syria, he has access to intelligence. In a suicide bombing and access to intelligence

that I've never seen, but he said Israel is dragging

us into this war as they did in 2003. I wrote about this last week, actually, and he's just wrong about that, but it's become a kind of accepted framing, I think, for the US Israel relationship,

it's almost become conventional wisdom that that's the case. I was based in Jerusalem at that time. I was covering it. And it's true, there were Israeli voices, some loud ones.

He'd been in Yahoo, who was one of them. I referred to him like column last week who was saying, I guarantee he testified it to the Senate saying, I guarantee that if you go in Iraq, there's gonna be profoundly positive reverberations

throughout the region. He was, obviously, wrong about that, but that was not the position of the Israeli government at that time. Netanyahu was not in power.

Arial sharon was, aerial sharon was very worried about that war. They didn't oppose it. They said, if you're gonna do it, do it but do it fast and get out quickly. I quoted Dan Kercher was the US ambassador

then in Tel Aviv and this was the, what he was communicating to colon power about what the Israelis were saying. And privately sharon was telling people, this was the wrong war. And the reason was classic sharon mark.

I'm sorry, I'm going down a rabbit hole here, but one of the reasons, he was a leader who did think, I think, two or three steps ahead and he was very worried that down the road, if the Americans went into Iraq,

they would need to make good with the Arab states by putting pressure on Israel to do something for the Palestinians, which actually is what happened. It didn't work out well for the Palestinians

as it never does, or up till now,

but he was right about that.

And I think it is incumbent on the people

that are making the argument that this is Israel's war now to bring some serious proof to the table because of what you referred to, which is the sorrowful history of tropes about nefarious Jewish influence over the American government

and then world affairs generally. And I've seen, yes, Marco Rubio stepped on it when he said that.

“- There's more stepped in it than honestly.”

- stepped in it, but even when he walked back, what he tried to walk back was the inference people drew that Israel dragged American to the war. What he actually said, which I don't think he quite walked back is that it was the timing of an Israeli strike

that prompted the Americans to also go in at that moment, not to make the decision to go in. I still don't understand, Mark, from a strategic perspective,

though, back to Donald Trump's decision making here.

And again, it's money, morning, quarter backing on my part. Why the American government just didn't let the Israelis do this? PB Netanyahu made the offer, we can go in, we want to go in and take out their ballistic missiles. Concerned about the speed with which Ron was reconstituting

its ballistic forces, that was an option that Trump could easily have taken, I think. And it would have been consistent with his approach to Ukraine, you know, in his emphasis on burden sharing. And I think, I do think, as this, that that may turn out

to have been a poor choice. - Yeah, okay, I think the four reasons that he didn't just have the Israelis do it.

“Number one, I think the backlash, you know,”

of just being Israel potentially pretty strong against Israel and against Jews around the world. Two, I think, operationally, Israel's formidable as their military and intelligence are needed the United States to do the mission.

Number three, I think the president had on his checklist to get done is to decimate Iran's capabilities and perhaps bring about regime change and wanted to be part of that, didn't want the Israelis to do it by themselves. And then lastly, although he's built no sort of coalition

and there's much criticism and discussion about that, I think, eventually there needs to be some sort of coalition to deal with the aftermath of this and a minimum. And I don't think the Israelis are in a position to build that by themselves.

So those would be my explanations based on conversations I've had but hard to be sure and, and, and however this ends, history's going to have a lot to say about the decision-making what went into it and then how it was all executed. I do think, I do think, though, I mean this,

you can't imagine what it was about not to go on about it, but the Israel is as a result in a precarious position politically in the US now. Yeah, yes, yes, and that's fascinating to see how that goes forward after the conflict ends, however it ends.

Tell people how they can reach your work. They can subscribe to the economists, which I encourage everybody to do.

“I think I understand your concerns about the coverage”

of this war, I think ours has been complex nuanced and deep. I, so you can read it online at the economist.com and on our app. And you can also, we do a podcast called Chexon Balance every week about politics in the US,

which I'm also on, if I'm entitled to make another plug-in. Is that available only to subscribers, or anybody to be able only to subscribers? All right, so go on to the economist.com and subscribe to hear the podcast and the combat at a weekly cadence, right?

Yes. Okay, Mr. Bennett, thank you for joining. Very grateful to you and I recommend this work folks. You won't find someone who thinks more deeply, writes more elegantly and lays things

at pretty clearly than Mr. Bennett. Thank you so much, Mayor James. Thank you. All right, that's James Bennett. Next up, two more interesting people

who I've got a million questions for.

Kevin Walling, Democratic Strategist who worked with the Biden Eris campaign and then Weber, a partner at Mercury Public Affairs and former Congressman for Minnesota, Kevin Walling and then Weber are next up.

Let me ask you a question, do you own physical gold? Most people do not, and given the current state of the world, this is worth thinking about. Acker gold makes it simple. You pick a plan that fits your budget, you then make monthly payments.

And when you've accumulated enough in your account, they ship you a beautifully designed 24 karat Swiss gold bar. Gold is up 70% year over year in central banks. They're still buying it at record level smart money has been moving into hard assets like gold for a reason.

They've had subscribers there stacking consistently for six years because once you hold in in your hand, you understand the difference between owning something real versus just a number flickering on a screen.

in their acre declassified sweepstakes.

Enter for free and subscribe to gold to get go acre gold dot com slash mark. Again, it's get acre gold dot com slash mark. (upbeat music) All right, next up and joining me now, our panel,

we only have smart people on the show. And then usually we only have nice people on the show too. Sometimes we screw that up. It turns out they're not that nice or we make an exception because we want them for their smarts.

And we overlook that they're not that nice. In this case, they're both smart and nice in both cases. Democrats, judges and former 2020 Biden Harris can't paint surrogate Kevin Walling is here. I have regular guest up here on two way and Vinweber

former Congressman from Minnesota now at Mercury Public Affairs. Gentlemen, thank you for both being here. - Great to be here. - Thanks for having us, Mark. - I know the easiest thing to say is in terms of the impact

the Ron might have on the midterms, it's too soon. And I usually reject the too soon thing 'cause if we couldn't talk about things before, it was the right time I'd be at a business. But it is too soon.

So let's talk about the midterms without a Ron. Congressman Weber, what are the contours of the midterms now? What are the big impacts or factors that will determine if Republicans have a better year than the Democrats? - Well, I think what I'm gonna say is not gonna surprise you,

Mark, it may surprise some other people. I talked to a lot of Republican strategists, well, place smart people, some with resources to vote to it. And they'll go through this list that we have to get our message across

always at the top of that list as the economy and affordability.

And then several other things. And I listen and that all makes some sense to me that need to do all those things. But I do think that the bigger picture, which I think you understand and I think Kevin understands,

there's one thing that overrides all of that in this election and that's not a Trump. And he overrides almost all of our politics and has for years and may for years to come.

“So that's how does that fit into this election?”

Well, the people that I talk to that are motivated to be against Trump are motivated by the war. The people that are motivated to before Trump are motivated by the war. They both sides have latched onto it,

which if I can wax patriotic for a minute, that's not a good thing. I mean, Americans, America's fighting battles. People are dying. We should be talking about the wars in American Project,

not with blind obedience, but look with good feelings about our country. And with that's where I think we kind of are. And neither side in my view really knows where this all ends up.

Democrats, I think, are quite happy but I'm sure it's a happy. They're satisfied with where we are right now, which is we're not sure where it's going to end up and they can beat the drum against Donald Trump.

Every day, and there are people get more and more motivated to turn out. As they have turned out, almost every special election up until now with a possible exception of this legislative race in Virginia this week.

But everywhere else, until last year, the anti-Trump vote turned on in large numbers. The Republicans are equally confident that the world will ultimately rally people to the President's side

and that by well-before the fall, the Democratic turnout will begin to dampen because the world will be taken away as a motivated issue and Republican turnout will begin to be enhanced. But I come back my first one.

It's not about affordability. I know that's almost a heresy these days. That's important.

It's always important in every election

and inflation and the economy's important. That's not what this election's about. Kevin, in terms of the election. All the things the Congressman said, I'm virtually certain you don't agree with.

So what are the wild cards?

“Either in terms of issues or in terms of mechanics?”

What are the wild cards in this election? Where you don't know how it's going to turn out, but you think it'll be highly influential in determining how the Democrats do and how the Republicans do.

Yeah, Mark, it's a great question. I agree completely with the Congressman. I think the Republicans need to figure out, again, how to motivate their base without the President at the top of the ticket.

He is a driving force obviously for my side of the aisle in terms of turnout and on the Republican side. And the key motivating factor, I think that they've got a huge advantage over us right now heading into the midterms is money.

President sitting on billions of dollars that have come in across as different financing operations. They can fund to get out to the Congressman's point. That message, whether it's countering issues on the economy, on healthcare, on border security.

I think on the board. I'm sorry to stop you. Did you say billions or millions? I think across all of his different components,

“I think it's more than a billion dollars.”

At this point, and he's going to have a lot of over some, it's truly billions. Yeah. Yeah, and he's going to have even more obviously heading into this election season.

So he's, yeah, obviously, he's not running again. So he's got a motivating factor in terms of keeping the house

I think the wildcard element mark that you point out

is not issue-based. It's candidate-based, right? So we're already in the heat of the midterm primary election season. We obviously had that big election in Texas heading towards a runoff.

We had elections in Illinois. So we're in the heat of this.

“And I think my issue on our side is making sure”

that we have Democrats up there, they can win general elections that aren't motivated by the left, right? And we're seeing this play out in some races like in Maine. Other places where you have really left candidates out there running.

And I'm a Senator left guy. I want centrists that can appeal to both sides and drive up turnout. I think that's the wildcard factor is how do these primary shake out and all of these Democrats

that are getting the Democratic non-electable come November? Yeah. There's three things that if I were running a campaign, I would want. And I think the Democrats have one of them.

It's not a comprehensive list, but there are three I want to talk about. And the Republicans have two of them. The Republicans have James Blair. He's the White House deputy chief of staff.

He knows how to win, the Congressman's right that Republicans have lost special elections. But in 2024, when James Blair was in control of the money and coordinating with the outside groups, Trump won all the battleground states in the United States.

So they've got that. Who's on the Democratic side like that? It's not Ken Martin, the chair of the DNC, according to people and to there. So who's the strategist or strategist

in the Democratic camp? Who you look at and you say, yeah, that guy or that gal knows how to win elections. He knows how to organize martial resources, et cetera. Kevin, is there anybody in the party involved

at the party committee, the DSCC outside groups? Is there anybody like that? Not on that level, because obviously we're not in control of the White House and the parties almost become an afterthought in terms of a lot of the operations.

I will say Jim Casino has spent some time with him a few weeks

ago in Charleston talking to the third way,

which is that centered left group. I think he's still actively involved in shaping the conversations where money is heading advising are different committees.

“I think he's still one of those key players behind the scenes”

in terms of actually directing where resources go, candidate quality, that kind of thing. So he controls, he ran the Obama campaign in the real life. Does he control any of these groups? Does he control any money?

Or he just advises and kibitses, as we say in Minnesota? I think the latter in terms of advising. And obviously, people take his calls and take his direction. Because he knows how to win. Congressman, if I were a Democrat, I'd say,

James Blair is formidable. I don't want to go up against James Blair. Is there anybody any strategist you know of or seeing the Democratic Party who's involved in the midterms, who you say, well, that person's formidable?

- Not really, if I were going to rack my brain about it, I probably put Jim Casino up there at the top. I know I'm quite well. He has been out of the top level game for a bit. Not that's not something.

He's not been doing this at this level for quite a while. - I think he's, I think he's excellent, I think that he, I put him way up. - He's having too much fun making money now. - Yeah.

- That's not what I'm saying. - That's what he's saying. - Yeah, exactly. - All right, do a good job of it. - The other thing Republicans have that, again,

an asymmetrical advantage that I see that, if I were running, I'd want to have is, their billionaires are ready to write big checks.

Their billionaires are ready to write 10 million,

20 million, 50 million dollar checks potentially. And the Democratic billionaires still seem to be a little concerned about how their money is going to be used about being involved, going up against the president if he comes after them.

So am I right about that, then that that's an asymmetrical advantage for their Republicans?

“- Yeah, I think you're right, because Blair has been”

successful, Trump has been successful. The Democrats are having a harder time pointing to places where they've been successful. One of the things about the broader race, I'd say the Republicans believe,

and I've heard it from a number of the top strategists who probably heard it from Blair, is at the moment, the Democrats have the environment, but the Republicans have the territory. - Yeah. - Meaning, meaning that the macro issues

right now sort of tilt toward the Democrats, you know, tariffs and ice and presence, prove where anything's like that. But if you go a race by race across the country, it looks a lot closer for Republicans

because they're a viewer competitive districts. And the question in my mind, Kevin said, we're already in the race by race phase of this campaign. I tweak that a little bit in the primary, yeah. But the question is, going to become,

who has the best strategists as we get into the summer and fall in on the ground, Republican versus Democrat races for Congress, the Senate, and the government issues? - Yeah. - I still think we have an advantage on that,

but we'll see. - Kevin, one of the best jobs in America is to be one of those high price consultants to a billionaire and field all these, all these requests from different superpacks

and organizers, donor advisers and investors of the world, donor advisers too, 'cause they get to go out to lunch and dinner

They either charge the billionaire and they get to go in all these junkets, too. - Yeah, not just lunch and dinner. They're going to Millia Island. They're going to Santa Barbara, all these places.

- And all the operatives who want their bosses, their operatives, the consultants, clients to write them checks, they get a suck up to them and say, tell your billionaire that my superpack is the best superpack.

So, if you were one of those people and you were advising, you know, duck mixtureer or Montgomery burns and what would you tell them to put their money? Should it be some of the superpacks? Should it be the DNC?

Where should a Democratic billionaire who wants to impact the midterms? Where should they put their money? - Yeah, it's a good question. Obviously, the party committees have an outsized role,

you know, and obviously the Congressman and formerly in leadership directed a lot of that on the Republican side in terms of candidate recruitment and priorities there.

“I think Democrats often fall in this trap”

and you see it all the time, right?

It's kind of finally turned blue, right?

You know, generation after generation election after election, that's our white whale. And we spent Democrats love to spin up groups like Battleground, Texas raising hundreds of millions of dollars around for four years to election cycles

and goes by the wayside. So I think the more that billionaires and the wealthy and corporations can invest in actual party infrastructure, one of the reasons why I supported Ken Martin

from the Congressman's home state of Minnesota because he's actually an organizer on the ground. Because again, all these different operations fall by the wayside, you have new groups, majority Democrats, other things

that have started up this cycle in particular. We'll see if they have lasting power. But again, I think Democrats fall in this trap all the time. We attach ourselves to the new shiny thing, whether it be a new third party group

without actually investing in things for the long haul and playing the long game that Republicans effectively do. Republicans were investing in Secretary of State races and down ballot races. We lost over 900 state legislative seats

in the eight years of Barack Obama's term in office because we don't invest on the local level.

“So that's what I would do in terms of advising these folks”

is invest in the bench, play the long game, go to the committees, but also go to the state legislative races too. - Yeah, Congressman, I hate to ever say anything negative about anybody from Minnesota, but I know you here would eye here, which is Ken Martin is not established

himself with the big donors, the billionaire class and others that the DNC is a good place to put money. You want to put your money, if you're writing a $10 dollar check, they're going to make good ads. They have a theory of the case about how to turn out the vote.

They've got some technology that's going to revolutionize winning elections. Where should Democrats with billionaire money? Where should they put their money this summer? - We're all here as Congressman, tell us what to do.

- You want elections, tell us how to do it.

- First of all, I know Ken Martin and he's a very close friend

of my brothers. They had kids together in sports and high school, he's like, and he was a fantastic chairman for the Minnesota Democratman, the Labor Party, which is today a juggernaut compared to a withered down

Republican party in Minnesota. By the way, if Minnesota, if we had an equality of conditions between the two party structures, Minnesota would be a highly competitive. It's not Massachusetts, it's not Hawaii,

it's not some solid Democrats say. - Yeah. I mean, we only want it by just three, four points. - Right, the last time Congressman, that's right. - That's right, that's right. - And a lot of that is due to Ken.

So I don't know what exactly his problem has been at the national level, but he clearly has a problem at the national level. I still would bet on him as opposed to anybody else. I see spending money on the Democratic side.

And on the Republicans that I have to say, we have the super PACs that are attached to the Republican organizations are the best, I'm biased, I'm on the board of the Congressional Leadership Fund, which is the super PAC attached to the House

Republican Leadership. I think that they do a good job. They spend the money well.

“And I think the Republicans are gonna continue to have”

an advantage because the divisions on our side are overridden by the fact that Trump is the president of the United States. And whenever people, whatever the big donors don't like about sort of the fringes of our party,

and they say, "Yeah, but Trump can take care of them." The donors on the Democrat side and Kevin McDonough and his brother and I do, I think if they're reluctant because of divisions in the Democratic party, look at the fringe of the Democratic party and they say,

they may just displace our best candidates and there's no need to keep them alive. - Right, exactly. And Mark, let's also not forget the hangover

that we have from raising a billion and a half dollars

and a hundred, you know, just over a hundred days with Kamal Harris, mainly by those major donors, and there's a hangover from that. - And a frustration with that too. - Yep, here's the advantage of Democrats have,

and it's also involving money, small dollars. Some of it's the enthusiasm that occurs if you're the out party. Some of it is Democrats, it's just a sedifiable thing. The Democrats just have been better at raising

the small dollar donors, we've seen Senate candidates raise tens of millions of dollars in long shot races.

So then you first, how big an advantage of that is Democrats and why hasn't James Blair or some other Republican figured out how to raise a small dollar donations away the Democrats do?

- Well, you're right, they didn't always have that advantage.

Republicans back in the direct mail day if you wanted to turn the clock way back, Republicans were much better at motivating small donors at the time.

“I think one of the reasons the Republicans may have a slid on that”

and I don't write them off for the long from there, still time rebuild it. I mean, technology allows you to rebuild those bases a lot faster than they did in the past. But, you know, the fact that we have access to billionaires

and think that that has its pluses, more people to write big checks quickly. It also gives you a sense that you don't need to go after

those small donors as intently as you did in the past.

But I also come back to my basic point. You need a real strong motivating issue for ticket small donors off the bench. And it's sort of like the whole thing that affects midterms in my view.

The people that won the last election, Republicans, feel pretty good, Trump's in the White House.

“Republicans marginally control the Congress.”

You know, those of us that are active on a day-to-day on going basis to the point that it distracts us, we understand that could all change. So we want to write out checks. The marginal donors down there think everything's pretty good.

Our people are in charge. Whereas on the democratic side, their horror story has come true. And they have to get up every morning and figure out how to do something about it

and that's Trump and the White House. - Yeah, Kevin, can you name of the nine or so competitive or potentially competitive Senate races? Can you name Annie in which you think the Republican nominee who ever ends up being well-wraised more money online

than the Democratic nominee? - It's a good question. You know, I think Susan Collins will have more money. I don't know if it will be a big problem. - Yeah, I'm trying to think in terms of who's

an actual motivating factor on the right. I think Ken Paxon probably raises a good amount of money from the MAGA grassroots, if he's down there, just needs to know the whole thing about that effort, if he's not. - You see, Wil, though, you got to assume

Talorico's gonna raise more, right? - Exactly, right. But again, I think that's a lot of rate, rate Cooper shouldn't raise more than Wattley, but he will. - Yeah, on the wall.

- In chair brown, chair brown, obviously he's a reasonable

“raise on the off-of, I think that's what I'm talking about.”

- But Mark, to your point, yeah, Mark, to your point, I think the party is struggling right now in terms of raising those small dollar donations, both the Republican and the Democratic party. But we're seeing it massively directed specifically

to candidates, and that's the difference that we're seeing on the left and that might make the difference and some of these key standard races. - Yeah, John, my great conversation, and again, we try to have conversations here,

you're not gonna hear other places, and you guys just pulled that off, so I'm grateful to you. That's been Weber, and Kevin Walling, gentlemen, thank you both for being here, look forward to having you back. - Thanks Mark, thanks Congressman.

- All right, that's it, that's it for today's program. That's it for today's program, and thank you for being here. We'll be back next week with another new episode. Don't forget to share this episode, whether it's on YouTube or as a podcast,

with everybody in No, so we can keep growing the ranks of the nexters, and subscribe on YouTube, to subscribe where you get your podcast, be part of our growing community.

So you always know what's coming next up.

(upbeat music)