The Massive Shift in the 2028 Presidential Race

- Hey everybody, welcome into next up

with me, Mark Alpern, you're host of Next Up Better in Chief of the Live Interactive Video Platform, two way and glad to have you here. Big news, we could be exciting program for you.

First, we're wishing everybody had a great holiday, despite what happened to the US team in the World Cup celebrating the 250th birthday of America. And I hope you had a pleasant time and a safe time with your family and friends.

Joining us in the program today too, with the sharpest political minds, I know Eric Erickson, host of the Eric Erickson show, who's a two-way contributor on an author of a great sub-stack.

We'll be here in Democrats' judges, say regular on two ways while Melissa Dorosa. We're gonna talk about the main center race and what's going on there with Graham Planner, what it means for the Democrats,

for the Republicans, for control of the Senate and for the media. They'll be here in just a bit,

but before that, as always at the beginning of every month,

I bring you my brand new eight for 28 installment, these are rankings of the most likely Democratic presidential nominees. We'll now, can I tell you about July, a lot of big changes, and boy, I've been doing so much reporting on this with Democrats and some Republicans,

but mostly Democrats about what's going on. And normal caveats, this is just about winning the nomination. This is not about the general election. Who's the most likely to be nominated? I factor in likelihood that the person will run.

“So, Westmore is, I think he's been on the list”

maybe once, I don't think Westmore's gonna run in the end. Same with Mark Kelly, people tell me all the time, oh, they're really exciting candidates, if they would run, but I don't think they will. Now, there are people on my list who may not run

or who I'm not sure will run, but that's a big factor. Another caveat is, we still don't know the schedule of how people are gonna be nominated, where the early primaries are gonna be. We got some sense of things, but they're not finalized.

And that will affect the rankings for sure. But where we are now is super important. And what I'm gonna talk about today, besides the rankings for July, is something really important to think about, which is using the status of the presidential field

who's up, who's down, but also what they're talking about, where they're traveling, what conflicts and controversies are swirling around them. As a present to understand the state of the Democratic Party, the state of our politics, the state of the country.

That's why when people tell me, it's too early to talk about this, but it's too early to be definitive. I can't tell you my list is gonna be the same in a month or five months, I certainly won't be.

But what I can tell you is, and this has been my whole career,

“the best prism, or maybe not the best, although I think it is,”

but one of the best prisms to understand America, our politics, our hopes, dreams, and aspirations, is to look at people who wanna be present. What's up with them? And so I'm gonna talk about that as well.

I'm gonna talk about how the rankings give us insight into where we are as a country.

But first, let's just talk about the rankings.

Here they are unveiling here for the first time, eight for 28 for July, and a lot of big changes in terms of who's on the list and movement. Gavin Newsom remains at number one. He's been number one every month, even though you guys know,

I have a strong sense, he won't run in the end. Pete Buttigieg moves up to number two. Bernie Sanders moves up to number three. Governor Shapiro, who's had that two slot for most of the time down in number four.

Our Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on back on the list at number five. Conlayer is way down on the list at number six. John Ossoff, a little bit down at seven, and Rocana, who's been on the list of once or twice before, back on the list at number eight.

Now, you look at this list overall.

“What are the sort of slots I think about?”

First of all, and we'll talk more about this, is Jewish candidates, perspective candidates who are Jewish. I still talk to a lot of people who say, it cannot be a Jewish candidate, that the mood of the party basis.

So, angry about Israel, that it won't be Jewish candidate. And yet, Bernie Sanders is Jewish, but he's not Jewish, if you know what I mean. So, he's a little bit of a wild card, but Josh Shapiro and John Ossoff are both Jewish.

Not on my list, Jewish candidates include Rama manual and Governor Pritzker take them off the list for now, but still, to Jewish candidates, perspective candidates on here. And then progressives. This is probably the biggest change this week.

Some people think I'm overreacting. I don't. I have three progressive candidates on those lists. Three candidates made from the, you call it, the Montgomery Wing of the Democratic Party,

whatever you want to call it. Sanders, number three, super controversial, even had one the list at all, given his age. Then John Ossoff, sorry, I'll exchange our Casio Cortez and Rokana, three candidates on the list

who are from that wing of the party. Why do I do that? I do that because I really do think the socialist wing, the progressive wing of the party is ascended. And as you've heard me say before,

Had he not been cheated out of it. He would have been the nominee in 20. If the establishment had mobilized.

“I really do believe that that wing of the party”

is going to be nominated. And there's an old saying baseball, I forget who said it. The toughest thing in sports, all sports is hitting a baseball. It's a toughest thing.

And then they say the second toughest thing

is stopping somebody from hitting the ball. Okay, I believe right now, Democratic politics, presidential politics, the toughest thing to do is to stop a socialist from being the nominee.

But the second toughest thing to do is to become the nominee as a socialist. And that's why I've got Bernie Sanders in number three rising. I really do believe Bernie Sanders has a great chance

to be the nominee. The biggest, the biggest barriers is age. Okay, but he is the leader of the socialist movement. He's an experienced presidential candidate. And even though he's kind of played down

the prospect of running, I really do believe his strength is big. As people all the time, we tell me, take Sanders off the list, he's too old.

I say, tell me his second biggest weakness

for winning the nomination. I don't know what it is, he'll raise money. He's got name ID, he's strong in the early states. He knows how to run for president. Now, people tell me he's old.

And I don't, I don't, I don't ignore the calendar. But what I know about Bernie Sanders is that he, that he doesn't look as old, the knacked as his age. Okay, here's Bernie Sanders. This is from a rally in June.

This is gonna be S5. You tell me, if this guy seems to have mental acuity and strength, physical and mental strength to run for president, S5, please. You wanna run for office, you wanna run for local office,

you wanna run for state office, you wanna run for Congress. And you're getting involved in a campaign, you say, I'm gonna stand up for the working class of this country. And you're running a good campaign.

You know what happens to you, the billionaires, and they as super-pax will spend tens of millions of dollars to defeat you. That is not democracy. Ladies and gentlemen, that's an 84 year old man last month.

And I watch a lot of Bernie Sanders events. He is robust. And so, well, all other things being equal would it be better if you were younger, of course. But he's not.

And here's another piece of video. This is from just a literally a day later on social media. This is a Bernie Sanders video that he posted at S6, please.

- Thank you all for joining me. In the midst of these really crazy times in our country, I wanted to say a few words about the political situation as I see it.

“As I think all of you know, our political revolution,”

our grassroots movement was never ever about electing

one person to become president of the United States, not Bernie Sanders, not anybody else. - So, I think the three biggest questions right now in this field is this question of whether socialists will be nominated.

And if it's not Sanders again, I've got a Kasia Cortez and Connor on there. They're just not in his category. They don't have his experience. They're not the leaders of the movement.

And I don't think she's gonna run. So, the Bernie question to me is huge. And again, I talked to people in the establishment all the time and they tell me a Bernie will never run. I just, I think they're at a touch with where the party is.

And I think they're right. Again, all of the things being equal, you wouldn't want somebody that old, but I just don't think they're, I just don't think they're. I just don't think they understand the power

he has over 10,000,000 people in this country. The quickly show you June's list, I just give you some idea of where we were. Kamala Harris, I had her at number three, I've dropped her way down.

Ram manuals, another Jewish candidate, Pritzker. So, last month, I had half the candidates were Jews. If you count, if you count, Sanders. And I didn't have either AOC or Rokana on there. Go back to the July list.

So, the big number one big question is, is Sanders gonna run?

“Am I right that the vacuum will be big and he'll run?”

And the related question is, okay, if it's not Sanders, is it AOC or Conor? Or is there a fourth socialist candidate who can run super progressive? If you don't want to call him socialist, maybe?

That's question one. Question two is Harris, is Kamala Harris gonna run? Again, I talked to some of my sources, say, definitely. I've dropped her way down. She was number three, dropped her down to six.

I tend to think there's kind of three options.

She runs and she does well.

She runs and she does poorly. I think she runs and does poorly and doesn't run. Average adds up to way more than 50% here of the pie chart.

“So, that's why I've dropped her down to six.”

But that's a big question because if she runs, she takes up a lot of space with grassroots fundraising with media attention and with black voters and female black voters. So, that's question number two.

And then number three is one I already raised, which is Jewish voters, okay? How big a deal or Jewish candidates rather? How big a deal will Israel and questions of support for Israel?

How big a deal will that be? I talked to people once ago when I was doing reporting for 28 who said, "It's dominant."

That's why there can't be a Jewish candidate

who can be nominated. And that's why every candidate's gonna have to pander to the anti-Israeli sentiment if they want to be the nominee. The Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were paralyzed

in the White House over this issue and ended up alien everybody. Didn't do enough to inspire the anti-Israeli part of the Democratic Party, but also didn't do enough to support Israel.

Kind of into no man's land in between. What a lot of people said to me this month when I was doing my reporting was, you need a placeholder on there. You need a progressive placeholder

'cause it's not gonna be Bernie A.O.C. or Kana. You need an outsider. Someone not from politics is a placeholder on there. You need a stronger establishment candidate as a placeholder.

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't do placeholders and need for 28. I need real flesh and blood names. I get why people think there should be placeholders as weak as this field is and as relatively low belief I have

that any of these folks are gonna grow into a better candidate than they appear to be today. Good happen, but I don't think so. I believe the field is maybe not just these eight, new some bootages, Sanders, Shapiro, Casio Cortez,

Harris, Ossoff and Kana. But I believe that some combination of these eight will run and will be the dominant figures in the contest. But I don't believe in the placeholder theory. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm wrong.

All right, I wanna talk after we take a quick break about the role that the rise of the progressive movement is playing in the party. I'm trying not to overreact to the victories of progressive candidates in Colorado

in New York last week, the ascendancy of the progressive views on Israel, on economics, trying not to overreact to it. But I have no doubt that the establishment is weaker than it's ever been, that the progressives are stronger than they've been in this modern era.

And I have no doubt that the establishment candidates recognize that they have to cater to the progressive wing.

“How do I know that or how do I think that so strongly?”

I think that's so strongly because of what's happened in the last few weeks as the establishment candidates have dealt with the election, the nomination of socialists. Okay, so we're gonna take a quick break and when we come back, we're gonna look at how

candidates who know better, who don't agree with socialism and don't agree with a pro-Hamas points of view, how they've been handling the rise of socialism in the party. That's next up. (upbeat music)

- So life insurance, we all know we need it, but we keep putting it off because it feels complicated, expensive, like something that can wait. I'm telling you now, stop waiting. Take care of it today with select quote,

in just 15 minutes, high quality coverage can be secured to fit any life in any budget.

Here's what makes select quote different.

Their license and insurance agents work for the consumer, not for the insurance companies. They compare options across multiple trusted carriers to find the right coverage at the absolute lowest price. Unlike other brokers who push policies

to pay them the most, select quote agents actually shop around. With nearly 40 years of experience and over 2 million families helped, this is expertise that you can trust.

Even with health issues, like high blood pressure diabetes or heart disease, their agents know exactly which carriers will provide the very best rate. And for those in good health, same day coverage is available with no medical exam required.

Don't delay the peace of mind you need. Select quote, they shop, you save. Get the right life insurance for you for less at select quote.com/mark again. Go to select quote.com/mark today to get started.

[MUSIC PLAYING] All right, welcome back.

“Next up is the prism I think to understand”

what's going on with the Democratic Party and the country. Tens of millions of you, including Donald Trump, oppose socialism.

of socialist candidates calling them communists

“to try to define the entire Democratic Party.”

And if you talk privately to Democratic elected officials who are not socialists and donors and strategists, they're really scared by this. They try to pretend they aren't, but they're really scared by it. They're scared by it because they don't want the party

to be defined as socialist, as pro-vamos or anti-Israel. But that's where the energy of the party is, that is where the energy of the party. And so since the election of the nomination of these Democrats, I've been reading a lot

and talking to a lot of people. And asking the question, where is the Democratic Party right now for 26 for the midterms? And then for 28 for the presidential.

And how powerful is the pro-open border?

Pro-Woke, Pro-DEI, anti-Pro-Hamas, anti-Israel, pro-socialist economics? How powerful is that wing? It was the liberal wing was very powerful in the 1980s when Democrats lost to Ronald Reagan,

who won in the two landslides in '80 and '84. And then Bill Clinton came in and said, we're not going to win another election after DuCoccus lost to Bush 41. We're not going to win another election unless we bring

the party back to the center. And a candidate of uncommon strength and skill and understanding of the mood of the country and his party was able to win the Democrat nomination, saying, I'm for the death penalty.

I'm for welfare reform. I'm for right to work. I'm for free trade. All of which were anathetical to Democrat party. A candidate today like that would have to say,

I'm against socialism. I'm against open borders. I'm against hostility to Israel. These are positions far. I'm against a trans-athletes playing in women's sports.

I'm against the socialist takeover of the economy. I'm against government-funded health care and elimination of the private market in health care. These are positions now far to the left of the ones Bill Clinton stood up for, up, stood up against.

And yet, those are the positions of many people in Democratic Party today, including some people who've been nominated.

So here's what Andrew Sullivan, a very smart guy,

wrote this week in his newsletter, all of which suggested me that the Democrats are exactly where they were in 2024 and have no inclination to change. Maybe a Clinton or Obama-like candidate can alter that. Maybe what liberal tendencies remain on the left

will push back against us, suffocating moral clarity. But all I see is fanaticism and a reboot of the full 2020 Monday, open borders, DEI, boys and girls, showers, hatred of Israel hostility to the police, queer revolt and tolerance of crime.

“Andrew Sullivan, I believe, is exactly right there.”

That is the danger. Democrats can do well in the midterms without taking this all in. And I think what we're seeing from these Democratic candidates now who are thinking of running for president,

they're trying to keep the peace for now.

But the danger is they're defining themselves in the public mind and they're coddling the progresses. They're coddling the socialists. In a way that maybe they think they can buy their time and take them on later and maybe they can.

But they're accepting a definition of the Democratic Party in 2026 that's going to bleed somewhat into 2028. And if the socialist win because they're not taken on now by the Democrats, the Republicans will take them on. But they're not taken on Democrats.

It's going to embolden them. Remember, if you're a socialist or a super progressive, you haven't had a chance to see a fair vote cast for your candidate for president since in over decade. In 2016, you say, I'm for Bernie Sanders

and then the Democratic establishment, the DNC, read the system against, so Sanders couldn't be clean. And then in 2020, you're a socialist. You want to vote for Bernie Sanders and have a chance to win and Barack Obama

and people, decision, Amy, Clovis, ranks, and Joe Biden. Joe Biden wins, even though Bernie Sanders, if they hadn't done that, would have swept on super Tuesday and likely been the nominee. And then in 2024, Biden is a incumbent.

Nothing you can do. No one will run against him. He steps aside. They hand it to Kamalair as another establishment figure. Who, by the way, is reaching out to the progresses in a big way.

So this last week, I did a lot of reporting with my colleagues we looked at and I talked to folks

“and say, who in the party's standing up to the socialist?”

Who's standing up to all these positions that Andrew Sullivan warns will define the Democratic party? And the candidate most likely to do it,

It's right in for election and a purple state. He's a pretty moderate guy. He's not a guy who's a socialist.

Here's what Governor Shapiro said on CNN,

when he was asked about this woman Shavaya, who's the Democrat nominee, who'd be to have some company in New York City. Here's what he was asked about her past controversial statements. Anti-Israel Pro-Amos, anti-police, anti-Jit prison,

et cetera, et cetera. Here's Governor Shapiro on CNN, S1, please. And she's not someone who seemingly, I would agree with on many things or that we share similar values.

She ran on the Democratic ticket, I guess, as a socialist, her voters in that district determine that she was the one they wanted representing her. What does that tell you about your party?

“I think what our party has to go through”

that will be very healthy. And something we've not really done since the 1992 election cycle is to have a battle over what we believe in. Now, look, he downplayed her views. He said, I don't agree, I would not agree with them,

but that's not putting a stake in the sand against socialism. He did use the word battle. More than one of my sources said to me, battles a keyword. He's forecasting that he's going to battle this out over ideas when the time comes.

And maybe that'll happen. But in the meantime, as I said, he's given them a pass. Same with everyone else we surveyed. Believe it or not, the use of battle by Governor Shapiro

is probably the biggest stake in the crowd. We could find, from any of these Democrats, when asked about the socialist views of some of these folks.

Here's what Governor Bashir, he's one of the more moderate

Democrats, thank you for running from Kentucky. Now, here's what Governor Shapiro said. Governor Bashir said about all this rise of socialism in his party as four please. The Democratic base isn't necessarily moving one direction

or another. They're just desperate for help.

“And I think that's the same as the Republican base and others.”

They're looking for somebody that'll help address a system that feels rigged. They're working hard. They're plan by the rules, but they're not getting ahead. All the prices go up, utility bills and the rest,

but your paystays about the same, the cost of health insurance and coverage, increasing. I believe that people are winning from across the spectrum. When they give voice to these concerns and do it passionately. - So not a denunciation of socialism.

Basically saying there's a through line

between the socialist who are winning and the more moderate who are winning, they care about economics, they care about cost-deliving. No denunciation of socialism or abolishing prisons or abolishing police or abolishing ice

or open borders. Again, I get the inclination towards unity. But this is playing with fire ladies and gentlemen. This is not, again, putting the stake in the granted saying we are not a socialist party.

And some of the people I talked to this week are worried about that. Some of the Democrats are worried. They say, this shows the dominance that the left has over the Democrats.

You see this in Chuck Schumer. You see this in our keen Jeffries. And you see it amongst all these folks who are thinking of running for president. They simply are afraid.

They simply are afraid.

“And that's why they get pander to, they get cater to.”

There's no one standing up to them within the party. And then the people who are sympathetic to this point of view are scolding the establishment for not being nice enough to or understanding enough of these Democratic Socialist candidates. Here's a woman who endorsed Socialists

and some of these races and is right now. This is AOC talking to Jen Psaki on MSNow as seven, please. But I actually think the more important advice that I would give would be to my incumbent colleagues, which is you will create a self-fulfilling prophecy

by deciding who these young women are before you've met them. And if you are already panicking and sending little messages in your group chats about how these people need to be rained in and tamped down and shown their place, you are creating the antagonistic dynamic that we do not need.

These are too young, talented, intelligent women

Perhaps there is something we can learn from them.

Never agreed with AOC more.

What you can learn from these scouts is the mood in the party.

“It's more outside, outsideer than it is Socialist, I believe.”

It's more anti-establishment than it is Socialist. It's more anti-Epstein-class, anti-income inequality than it is Socialist. But the high profile people who are winning, like AOC, also have very far left-wing positions

on economics and social issues and national security on policing, on trans, etc. That are defining the party. I will now track obsessively every month. What are the socialists say?

And what are the establishment people who want to be present, say about them? People like Andy Beshear, Rama, Manual, Governor Shapiro.

I would argue, even Gavin Newsom, they'll know about Kamala Harris at this point,

because she's reaching out to the Socialist. I would argue that all of them know how dangerous this is for the Democratic Party. And I would argue that because none of them are experienced presidential candidates,

and all of them know they have to go through the left to win the nomination to some extent, they're all going to be challenged. They're all going to be challenged over the next few months as they campaign in the midterms, and then after the midterms, does it think about whether to run?

How do you deal with Socialists in your midst? How do you balance the need to pander to the left with the reality of doing what you think is right for yourself

“for a potential presidency, for trying to win a general election?”

The state of the comments made by these establishment candidates, these anti-socialist candidates, about the Socialists in their midst, tells you that within the Democratic Party, this is where the dominance is, and within both parties, because you see this in the Republican Party, too,

establishment is out, anti-establishment is in. Outside is in, inside or is out. I can't tell you the Democratic nominee is going to be. I gave you my rankings of the most likely. But I can tell you, old may be OK for Bernie Sanders.

But what Bernie Sanders is, and the reason why, if things stand this trajectory, I'll probably move them to number one, is he's against the establishment, he's against the status quo, he's against businesses' usual, and he's for specific things to address income inequality and health care insecurity.

And that is who the Democrats will nominate in 2028. Someone who has a vision for those things, maybe not a socialist. But to beat someone with a vision on those things is going to require a different kind of vision. All right, I'm curious to know what you think of the rankings,

as well as what you think of my theory of the case. Send me an email. Let me know what you think about my eight for 28. I'd love to know. You can send it to [email protected].

Let me know. Send me your thoughts, and you might get chosen for our next segment. Eight for 28. Eight. Again, that's [email protected]. And we'll let you know which of you we pick.

Thank you for that. All right, a quick break. And when we come back next up, Eric Erickson and Melissa Dorosa, join us to talk about what's going on in Maine, that's next up. [MUSIC PLAYING]

So there's a question that comes up on this show no matter what we're covering, the parties, the media, Washington.

And it's always the same question.

Who's actually looking at for you? And who's just looking at for themselves? I want to apply that same question to something. A lot of you are dealing with right now. You're Medicare coverage.

If you're on Medicare, you've probably had people call you promising something better. And you're right to be skeptical.

“The truth is, most people in the Medicare space”

get paid more to put you in certain plans. That's just how the incentives work. So the question is whether someone's selling you something, it's whether you can trust them. That's why I tell my audience about chapter.

They're the only Medicare advisors that compare every plan nationwide and they're honest. They're not paid to push one plan over another. They look at your doctors, that your prescriptions, your priorities, and show you a plan that actually fits.

If you're already on the right plan, they'll tell you that. But if not, they'll help you make the switch. No cost, no pressure. They'll review your options in under 20 minutes. Call my friends at chapter right now.

262, 454, 05, 03, again call chapter 262, 454, 05, 03.

hosts an Ashley syndicated radio program, Eric and show

on every weekday noon to three Eastern time. Eric is also the author of a great must-read sub-stack Eric, Eric and show notes. And a two-way contributor, and also Melissa Dorosa, a Democratic strategist, who you see regularly

on amongst other places, two-way former top-aid to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. So glad you guys are both here on this Platner Day. You both early on, even though you come from different parties, were quite clear about your view of Platner,

both as a human being and as a Democratic nominee for Senate. About 100,000 questions I want to ask you, but I want to start with this. Why did so many Democrats, whether establishment figures like Chuck Schumer or the Progressive Organizations,

who were backing Platner, why did this accusation turn them all in less than 24 hours against them? Whereas they were willing to, on one level or another, ignore the previous allegations, Melissa, start with you.

“- Well, first of all, this allegation is rape, right?”

So this is a real bombshell allegation. But as Eric and I, and like I've said it on your platform, other places have said, you know, they had me at Nazi tattoo. I don't understand like how we couldn't see, given all of the issues with this guy's character,

from the Nazi tattoo to mocking a soldier, a US soldier who shot by the Taliban, to writing in a rapist that women who are raped should take some personal responsibility to an on and on and on, why this thing was the thing

that really caused her to flip, obviously the timeline, that we've only got a week now to replace him if he is to drop out, forced everyone to move quickly. But you know, a rape allegation is something that cannot go ignored.

- Okay, so I've not minimized this allegation, but Melissa, you said an answer to my question

basically, you don't understand it.

I don't Eric understand how they ignored the others. I understand the deadline, but they seem to have made peace with themselves on the poll show,

“platters even with Colin, so why did they suddenly flip?”

And that, I'll ask it a different way. And again, I really don't know the answer. I'm so curious what you do think. If you look back at how they explained their continued support, a lot of them said, well, he's changed.

Maybe he did some things I didn't like, but now he's changed. Or they downplayed the allegations, or in some cases, they said they believed his excuses are his denial. So why is it, is it, is it, is it allegation of rape

or is it the deadline? Why did all of them switch with the exception of at this hour of Bernie Sanders in one new cycle? - I think it's Fox News is why, because they just released a very credible poll in Maine

that has Plattener behind Collins, which is an unheard of thing in Maine for a credible poster defined. And until the polling shifted pretty decisively with a major credible poster, they were willing to do this.

You do also now have the victim coming forward

“with a compelling interview, but here's the thing,”

as well as how coordinated it was. I mean, Jake Tapper had an interview with the victim in Maine, clearly there was some level of coordination behind the scenes with PR people to make this happen, had the end to build the steam to push him out of the race

before the deadline, but it all comes to a head

after the first major poll from Fox News shows

that the race has shifted in Maine. If the race had not shifted, if Plattener was still ahead, I don't know that we would be where we are right now. - Okay, I don't deny that that could be the explanation, but that's a pretty cynical explanation,

that the only reason that they changed was because he was well. I mean, I'm not saying you're being cynical, but your judgment about them is that they're that cynical. - Yeah, yeah, that is my judgment with them, but also this is the beginning of the assault allegations.

It's not the end of the assault, that there are others percoling out there. And so they do know that other stuff is coming. So the momentum building, the Fox News poll shifting, it all collided at the perfect opportunity

right before the deadline for them to try to force the amount of the race. And again, I think it was even defiled on what one of the Republicans on Twitter pointed out, that you don't just see a story from political come out,

time with the CNN interview in Maine, all of these things coming to a head together without some behind the scenes, level of coordination among senior Democrats to push him out. - We did a Washington Post interview too,

but you only buttresses your case. Melissa, inside the Plattener campaign, they've got to Monday to get out. But two questions for you ask him one at a time. If you were there, would you do a poll to see,

and if you got a poll back, they showed even in the wake of the allegations, the race was tied, could you take that to Democrats and say, don't give up on us or no? - No, no, he can't sustain this.

And to Eric's point, you know, we've all been hearing rumbling behind the scenes that this was coming, something like this was coming and that this is not gonna be the last allegation.

which at this point, we should basically write off,

because I don't see Susan Collins losing. And even if we swap someone now,

“which I think will happen, I think the damage is done.”

And I think everything is gonna look so cynical and behind the scenes picking over the candidate and we're an uncharted territory in terms of how they do this. And it's all just going to look so bad and that the timeframe is so short.

This is like Kamala Harris, you know, Biden Trump all over again. And so, but he was becoming a liability for the party nationally. I mean, everyone had to, you know, anywhere you go, the reporter sticks the microphone in your face.

You've got to now wear whatever this is. There's gonna be debates that happen. And so, I think that, you know, this comes out, everyone believes there's gonna be more. And it's like, that's it, we're not, we're not doing this anymore.

- Melissa, could national Democrats like Senator Schumer

control or try to influence who Maine Democrats, the Maine Democratic Party picks as a replacement or is that they gotta be hands off in this age of anti-establishment? - I can't imagine that there are conversations

that are going on right now between Schumer and Gillibrand and the Maine Democratic Party.

“So, I think that there's, there's certainly gonna be engagement.”

I don't think that this is gonna be totally hands off regardless of what they say. Now, the level to which they can direct is a different story. But I think that they certainly will have input in that there will be engagement.

- Eric, on the morning meeting, we looked at video of the three of the top candidates who were talked about as replacements, if plan or steps aside. None of them are anywhere near his level

of charisma, obviously they don't also, at least as far as we know you'd have his level of baggage. Are you as bullish on Susan Collins chances of being re-elected, pending a decision as Melissa seems to be?

- No, not necessarily, I mean, even to change things. God knows what Donald Trump's gonna do between now and November. And Susan Collins will be the incumbent tied to his party, but it does depend on who the Democrats pick.

I think they do understand that.

The problem is, as I understand it,

the Platner campaign wants to try to use their leverage in him getting all the ballad to try to shape who that candidate could be. And if it's someone that the Platner campaign is perceived as blessing, which might be likely to happen,

given he doesn't have to get all the ballad unless he wants to, that's just more anchors to the Democrats in Maine. - Yeah, regardless of what a lead's have done. And I'm talking about both the progressive elites and the establishment elites.

The voters in Maine up until now and every poll that's done, even though, as you point out, a poll showing him slightly behind, they've largely stuck by him. I did a focus group of mayors a few weeks ago. And their attitude was, yeah, we don't like this stuff,

but just like a lot of people don't like stuff about Donald Trump and they still support him over the alternative.

“What was appealing about Platner was his message, right?”

People didn't like this negative stuff, at least, at least, most voters probably didn't. But they saw a guy who was a fighter. And I wonder if, if he just resolves to fight, I know Melissa, you think there's zero chance,

but if he just resolves to fight, doesn't have a chance to salvage his reputation in his life, the way Bill Clinton did, the way Donald Trump did, is opposed to if he quits, he's unlikely to ever have a career in public life,

and he's unlikely to have a career in a lot of polite society. Isn't that the lesson Melissa of Trump and Clinton? - I mean, Trump and Clinton look, I think that Platner has already been abandoned by everyone, and I think the polling is lagging indicator,

and I think that we're starting to see the shift. I think we were gonna continue to see the deterioration of the public support, and he's gonna make a choice right now about how much he and his wife can take, because the life's get pretty bright,

and people are people at the end of the day. A lot of people, and I went through a version of this, right? I mean, no, we're near this, and a lot of what Cuomo dealt with was total bullshit in my view, and if you read my book, you'll understand why,

but at the end of the day, people are people, and there's only so much you can take, and how much can he take, how much can his family take, how much can his parents take, if this is not the beginning, there's one way to end the bleeding, which is to step aside,

and try to deal with now, of trying to pick up the pieces of your life, versus hanging around and waiting for more shoes to drop, and how do you endure that? And this is a guy who I think, you know,

there's many more shoes to drop. So I don't think that staying in the race is an option for him in terms of Donald Trump had years and years built up with people who supported him. He had a deep, you know, a deep reservoir of support nationally,

same thing with Bill Clinton. This is not the case for a guy that's been on the scene for seven seconds. I mean, the DSA and hit their supporters in the Bernie, people are cult-like, I give that to you, but who is this guy, really?

And so I think you're going to see him drop like a stone in the polls. If there's not a poll that comes out in a week, 10 days, if he's still around, which I don't think he will be.

Eric, are you at all troubled by the planner?

People saying he's got no due process. Is that trouble you? No, that doesn't trouble me at all. This is the way campaigns work.

“And this is a guy who has been a serial liar”

about his biography, about the things he said in the past. Even the, they don't come tattoo that he has. He originally admitted it was his. We know from the Reddit threads before COVID admitted it. Then he changed the story and said he had no idea.

He is pathological in these issues. And this is not a legal process. There is no due process. This is a guy on the campaign trail who fabricated a story about his background, who fabricated a story about his beliefs,

who fabricated an image to be a working class man when he's not.

And the house of cards is collapsing on him.

You don't get due process when you build up your own house with cards and it collapses. I'm so proud of Melissa and Yemasey and Kevin and. Yes. And who am I missing?

And I'm a Democrats who appear on two way. All of whom have spoken clearly for weeks or months in some cases about planner. And I just come back to all these Democrats who circle the wagons. And after he won the primary game to Washington,

Schumer and Gillibrand who didn't support him in the primary said, we're all for him. Is there any prospectless of a reckoning for that? I'm not saying they should all be forced out of office over it. But is that the kind of thing Democrats would privately

discuss and say, you know what? We got to do stuff that follow our North Star and not be so political. Look, the Democratic Party is in shambles right now. There is no leadership whatsoever.

I've said this on your show. It's the classic where my people going. I must know so I can lead them Bernie Sanders who is not even a registered Democrat as the De facto Head of the Party. There is this cult-like environment right now with the DSA

and the far fringe that is sort of filling a vacuum. But yes, there needs to be a reckoning. Do I think there will be one?

“No, I think that we got here because of the lack of leadership.”

And we're going to stay here because of the lack of leadership. And we're just right now trying to put one foot in front of the other and get day to day. You would think with Donald Trump, you would think with the history behind the what typically

happens in midterm elections in terms of what the party and the White House ends up with vis-à-vis the House. We should be in a much better position. We're coming off the Iran War that was so wildly unpopular. Our gas prices going up inflation.

And interest rates haven't been cut. People are unhappy. All of these things Democrats should be in a position to walk away with it in huge margins. And we just can't stop stealing to feet from the jaws of victory.

And you know, all those people that you named Gillibrand Schumer, the other the people who off to Al Franken and Cuomo for total nonsense. And then you're watching them stand by this guy who the character issues.

Again, I go back to Nazi tattoo to say, you know, all of the things that got us here. So they lack total credibility. The party has no credibility whatsoever anymore in terms of strategic application of standards.

And how we're going to judge people. And now we're going to go through this process. It feels a lot like 2024. So what were they end up with in Maine? I don't think it's going to have any shot at any real genuine enthusiasm

in the next four months. And again, Democrats have to wear this nationally. The same way we have to wear Hassan Piker who said America deserved 9/11. The same way we've got to wear anti-Semitism.

And all these other things, which is not the Democratic party. I have literally spent a lifetime working on behalf of Eric. You've got the same thing on the left and on the right. You've got these candidates like Platner, like Shavaya and New York. I'd say not a candidate, but like Steve Bannon, who

have really powerful ideas that strike the populist chord that's so powerful now on the left and the right. And they often seem to come with areas of their past that get scrutinized to the point it clearly diminishes their effectiveness, maybe not to zero. But what is it?

“Is it because the establishment and the media come after them?”

Is it because there's some linkage between being an outsider and saying outrageous things? Do you imagine a parallel universe where Platner was everything that the makers like about Platner and none of the baggage?

My goodness, people would be talking about him as a potential president. What is it? Why does this happen that these people in the left and the right get such scrutiny? In largered, it's not the establishment. And people like to say that the establishment of Pokemon as someone who's been

pretty anti-establishment through my career, it's not the establishment.

The problem is a lot of the people who vet these candidates and elevate these candidates

lack discernment for the character of the candidates. They get so enamored by the words of the candidate. They don't look for the background and they excuse them.

of the folks who vetted Platner.

And none of these things came up because they chose not to do the digging. They hate to the establishment.

“And if you go against the establishment, you got to remember the establishment”

are the professionals. And you've got to up your A game. And we now have a series of candidates who can get elected in districts that are drawn for highly partisan reasons for Democrats or Republicans. But they just don't translate on the national scale or even the statewide scale.

We'll see without say it in Michigan, whether or not he can translate or the Republican opposition fires up for him. And it is again largely because they put their passion for the cause ahead of the due diligence on digging into the background of the candidate to make sure they have the right guy.

They're playcated by the words, but Melissa, if it makes you feel any better, at least you're not going to have any candidate this year. Have to run an ad saying they're not a witch. >> At least not so far we got some primaries left. I want to talk about the media.

I just have so embarrassed about my profession. >> Yes. >> Still no accountability on attempted to cover up Joe Biden's obvious cognitive decline. Still no accountability on the attempts to keep Donald Trump off the ballot. I could go through those are some of the big ones.

And now this near times writes a story that I just, I can't see as anything, but attempted to catch and kill. Even though they published the story, they had embedded in the story a woman who happened to be a Republican saying that Platner assaulted her and imprisoned her and wasn't the lead of the story.

It was buried in the story, and now you've got today that woman writing on social media, all chronicler her version of her interaction with the paper, it's embarrassing, if it's true, it's embarrassing how they handled the story, Eric, I'll start with you. Shouldn't an institution as powerful as the New York Times have someone hold them accountable for their role in this, should there be a way that that happens in our society?

>> They should, the problem is that most of the accountability watchdog groups are far more

upset with Fox News and cover Fox News, the Bryan Stultors and Oliver Darcy's of the world and the Columbia Journalism review that they obsess about right-wing media and tend to give their own side of past, which is why these things are happening more and more. I mean, we need a free and fair press. And frankly, I think the reason our Republic has gotten to the point it has politically is because

we don't really have a press anymore that is free and fair, they're captured by their biases. And they've embraced their biases so much to the exclusion of the fair vantage point of the other side, which is a real problem particularly for a group like the New York Times, that seems to have engaged in as much audience capture as the partisan press has. And it destroys their credibility to the point that people go looking for alternatives.

“And if you want to see why there's a rise in conspiracy theorism and alternatives to”

our anti-Semitism, like it's because the free and fair press abandoned their mission and decided to be ideologically captured. >> Well, I'm sure the planners would say that the New York Times has been like a jack-oil. And it's gone after them really hard. I'm sure they would say that.

But I also know that the way the New York Times has covered this story is nothing like they would have covered it. If this were a Republican in a targeted Senate race. So how would you appraise the job the Times has done covering Graham Platner in these controversies? And what their motives have been?

>> So just for your audience, because I don't know, people remember, you know, we're old these days. The New York Times used to have a public editor if firework, so there used to be, I mean, I used to get so angry at some of their coverage. And there was at least someone at the paper I could appeal to. And I would send an email and put together all the facts and make the case for why a story was biased.

And sometimes you would get lucky, and she would pay attention to you, and she would write, and they fired her. They got rid of the only accountability they had in her house, which should tell you everything

“you need to know about the New York Times and its credibility, and whether or not they want to be”

criticized or have anyone look at anything there through a critical lens.

To your point, I couldn't agree more. This looks like a total catching kill operation. They are basically a wholly-owned subsidiary of the far-left in this country. And they are a huge part of the problem as to why nobody trusts the media anymore. They cater and couch out to the people who subscribe to them.

And I think they get a little bit lost in the fact that most of their subscribers exist because of puzzles and recipes and not because of their actual journalism anymore. Because that's the hard reality and hard truth for the New York Times. But the way that they covered this, if it was Donald Trump, if it was, pick any big Republican, wouldn't matter who.

They would have slaughtered them. And it would have been one story on the front page, probably by another story on the front page, and drumbeat that they would create in editorial and opinion columns that would run alongside

And not only did they cover this up, but they had their, you know, it has me two

a quarter ago on television, and essentially give the guy a clean bill of health. Amazing. I wonder what she's going to say in her next appearance about platinum. You know, I'll frame it this way. This one, the woman Lindsay Huss who was on the record source in the original time story.

She's at the time, and today is tweeting about her interactions with them. Imagine, I mean, this is a female alleged victim who feels the New York Times wrong her. Imagine the uproar, if she were, if she were a Democrat and she were writing to the National Review about how they had wrong her. The times, the times readers should be in an uproar over this.

“They should be saying, how could the times have mistreated a source like this?”

And yet I don't hear, I don't hear a thing except in a few quarters.

You know, Scott, it's not in so political mark.

Like, then that's the thing. It's everything's an echo chamber. If you want a certain news view, you subscribe to that news organization. And then New York Times is the same. I understand, but there must be some female reporters, maybe some male ones.

Who put some female reporters at the New York Times who read this and say, "Man, did we really do this, right? Did we, did we mistreat this person who trusted us? Who we went to and said, will tell your story fairly?" Or must be some employees who think that.

And think about the fact that they fired Bennett from being the head of the editorial page. When they ran that Tom Cotton op-ed because they ran a point of view that some of the woke children in the newsroom didn't agree with, even though that's the point, this supposed to be of an editorial page. Made them feel, made them feel unsafe, that's it.

Okay, all this is interesting.

“But what matters, it's sort of ultimately, is Senate control.”

That's why we're so interested in this race. And Democrats have to net for. I continue to believe that Georgia and Michigan and New Hampshire could be, could be losses for them, but let's say they hold them all. They stalked in that for.

Eric, if you take, if you take main off the table, if you say if Melissa's right, and Democrats can't win main, how did Democrats net for Senate seats to take the majority? North Carolina is one, but you still got three. And I just don't see the path. I don't see it happening in Alaska or Iowa.

I don't think the Talleriko wins in Texas. I don't know where the path is, even Ohio. There were some original polling that looked like shared brown could get back in. And that polling has shifted away from him. I just don't see the path for the Democrats.

I know I never did even with main, but it's basically even less likely.

Melissa, how do you get to four without main? North Carolina, Ohio and what? Alaska? Yeah. Is that crazy?

[LAUGHTER] I mean, because they have their very choice voting, maybe it's not crazy. I still don't understand why a popular incumbent would lose. But Alaska, but then is it Iowa or Texas?

“I think it would have to be Iowa, because I mean, I would love to think a Democrat could win”

Texas, but what has been 30 years at what? Ninety minus two, I think the last time a state would. So I just find it hard to believe given Talleriko's past statements on things like God being non-binary that Texans are going to end up electing him. So I think it would have to be Iowa.

Yeah, although if you believe the public polling that they've come out since they hit Talleriko, they didn't knock him out. All that stuff that equates who would have thought any single one of them would have made him on electable. He's still in it in the public polls, and I'm told in the private polls, but there's more to come. I'm grateful to you both. Thank you for being here. Thank you for watching it whenever I talk to you, particularly in your air.

About a topic like this. In today's world, finding solutions that deliver both environmental and economic benefits can seem rare. Suer century is one of those solutions. Their innovative technologies help communities reduce energy consumption, lower maintenance costs, and prevent costly sewer system failures before they occur. The result is improved performance, reduced operating expenses, and long-term

savings for the taxpayer. Environmental advocates value cleaner waterways, healthier beaches, and stronger protection of natural resources, and technology secundries vibrio contamination. In waterways, fiscal conservatives value cost control efficiency, and a solid return on investment, sewer century delivers on all those goals. This is not a choice between protecting the environment and protecting budgets. It's proof that smart technology can accomplish both.

With systems that are faster to install cheaper to operate, and better for overall infrastructure performance, sewer century-ups communities become more resilient while reducing risk and improving quality of life. When innovation saves money, concerns energy, safeguards, waterways, reduces contamination, and protects public health, and everyone benefits, sewer century faster,

Thanks to Melissa and Eric. That's it for today's program. Back on Thursday with the brand new episode. Subscribe to next up on YouTube wherever you're at your podcast, so you always know what's coming. Next up.