The Daily Blast: Trump Tailspins as GOP Leaks of Midterm Panic Take Humiliating Turn

My 10 is not on. This is a lot to eat.

The lyrics are always the same.

I'm not sure. I'm all alone. No, you're just a bit old. Older.

“Older. They're like a fish with a fish with a fish.”

A lot of animals. The animals are like a lion. Okay. That's great. More comfort. Craft and dynamic. All of the steps.

Older. Just a bit. Older. Stay out there. Where do you know the animals from the earth? And where do you find them for me? Of course in Europe, Sarium is a house.

With the largest house in the world. Many thousand animals are waiting for you to be ready to fly with your brother and brother. The Vivi Gosarium D.E. This is the daily blast from the new Republic,

produced and presented by the DSR network. I'm your host, Greg Sargent. [GASPS] Donald Trump's tailspending continues.

“A striking analysis from CNN shows Trump's approval”

is lower right now than many previous president's numbers were just before the midterms. Meanwhile, new leaks are exposing fresh GOP panic about Trump's unpopularity, and we're also learning that Trump world itself

seems to be bracing for a big loss. All of which raises a question. Our conventional midterm patterns reasserting themselves, even at a time when Trump has upended our politics so dramatically, were really lucky to be talking about it all

with veteran political handicapper Charlie Cook, who has a new piece on his sub-stack on why the GOP isn't such a tough position this cycle. Charlie, thanks so much for coming on. Thank you for having me on, Greg.

Let's start with this CNN analysis. Using an average of polls and CNN's own polls,

“it finds Trump's approval right now is 35%.”

By contrast, Biden was at 41% before the 2022 midterms. Obama was at 43% in 2014, and the 50% in 2010. And George W. Bush was at 41% in 2006, and 66% in 2002, which was just after 9/11,

by this metric, Trump's the lowest of this millennium, Charlie. What do you make of all that? Well, my guess is he's more like 3738 through 9/40, but still, your point still valid. You know, midterm election dynamics happen for a reason,

and that you get two years into a presidency. And a president, people in the president's party, are generally lethargic, they may be satisfied, but obviously, sometimes they're just not terribly motivated. The other sides on fire, particularly in this era of hyperpartisanship,

and the pure independence are really, really fickle, and tend to get buyers or more. So that's sort of the normal stuff. You look at what Bill Clinton had done prior to 94 for George W. Bush prior to 2006,

for Barack Obama prior to 2010. You could take all that combined, and not quite get the level of sort of radioactivity that you see with many of the things that President Trump has done. And so it shouldn't be surprising.

Yes, it's a whole bunch of structural factors,

plus Donald Trump, basically.

I think that's the size of it, right? Yeah, I mean, you know, you take Iran after, you know, promising all that, but fuel, fertilizer, no more wars, you take tariffs, and all this goes to the heart of his base.

You know, small town, rural farm, all of that, you know, a redecorate in the White House in Washington, South of Grand Dysement, alienating now, allies, depleting military stockpiles. I mean, it's just like all coming together,

but it's manifesting itself in places that you wouldn't have expected. So political reports that Republicans are really nervous about how badly Trump is dragging them down, and they're leaking word that they're in a bind.

They can't get distance from Trump without risking alienating Trump and megabotors, who they already need to be more energized this fall, but they can't get too close to Trump because he's too toxic. And a lot of those megabotors, as you alluded to,

are already very discouraged by you had a good line in your piece,

a critical mass of factors, men and megas, you know,

for their big vehicles, rural voters hurt

by fertilizer costs and so forth, at all piles on top of each other. Charlie, I think the basic point here is Republicans can't count on their base this time, which makes it even harder to talk to the middle.

Can you explain all this? Yeah, I think it's, I mean, bases, as I talked about a little while ago, bases are always hard, but to have the people that are generally the most

enthusiastic for you uniquely hurt. Now, that's, that's new territory. And that previous presidents have sort of given some degree of license to, to their members

“that if you need to put some distance between us,”

go ahead, and that's just not, not our Trump's M.O. But that we're Trump's, President Trump is, is basically radioactive within dependent voters with pure independence.

And that, you know, that, that, and that was one, but because so few of the congressional districts were in competitive places, and so few of the Senate races were in even states that ought to be competitive at all,

that seemed likely to limit the potential damage for Republicans. But we're looking at extraordinary numbers, like in Alaska and Iowa and Ohio and Texas. And meanwhile, where Democrats seem to be struggling,

it's largely where self-inflicted injuries, like Maine and Michigan. So it's a, it's a, it's a fascinating situation to see.

I've never seen anything quite like it.

Right, and just to bear down on your point a little, I think what you were gesturing at is that Trump's numbers are just absolutely terrible within dependence. I don't think we've seen a president do this badly

within dependence in some time. And the result of that is that we're Trump won by double digits in a number of different states. All of a sudden, there's a double whammy facing the Republican candidates in those states,

which is one. The base voters have been uniquely hurt by Trump's policies. And two, he has a unique level of toxicity within dependence. Is that more or less the, the kind of toxic brew we're talking about here?

“Yes, I think I think so, but I mean, even”

and I tend to be a poll snob and in terms of state-level polling, I sort of disregard most of the garbage that's out there. And that, or all the garbage that's out there. But, you know, for state-level polling, the stuff that New York Times is doing is fabulous.

The Fox News, you can like Fox, not like Fox, but they're polling, it's very, very good. And with the bipartisan team, as does AARP, and they've released surveys and four of these key states. So just looking at those,

President Trump is running, his approval ratings are running six to 14 points below what his showing in 2024 in these key states. It averages about 10. That's a heck of a underperformance that's there.

And it means, practically, you know, and when it translates into candidates, when you look at the matchups in every case,

“the Democrats doing better among Democrats than the Republican”

is among Republicans. The Democrats are doing far better among independents. Democrats are doing better among women than Republicans are with men. I mean, sort of category, if it just kind of melts up and creating something that really is kind of unlike anything I've seen

in 50 odd years, I've been around this business. My chain brings me to this school in 4 to 0.

It's always the same thing in this school.

I mean, it's all about school, right? No, you're wrong, Al-Trass. Al-Trass. Al-Trass has been informed about his business with a foot-farmic chain box.

An easy-to-be-quemar. That's why you're in love with Heinz. Okay, that's great. More comfort. Craft and dynamic, everything through the passport.

Al-Trass understands that. Al-Trass, stay out there. Do you have a question? Now, at d.a/requoting. Where do you know the rules of Latin?

And where do you find the rules for me? Of course, in Europe, Sarium's house. With the highest rules in the world. A lot of thousand rules are waiting for you with a handful of flowers and beautiful flowers.

Yes, he's double digits behind his 2024 totals in a number of these really important states. That's the undertow that Republicans are dealing with.

The Washington Post had some amazing reporting

on how Republicans now fear additionally on top of all of this that Trump's super PAC, MAGA ink, is not going to spend much of its $400 million on the congressional races. In fact, Trump is now running ads about his own accomplishments

and running them nationally. On top of all this, a source leaked to the post that Trump and his team think their fundraising ability will take a huge hit after the midterms. And that, of course, gives Trump a reason,

not to spend much of it now on Republicans who he doesn't seem to care at all about.

“Charlie, I mean, I think that means Trump and his team”

are pretty nervous about losing in the midterms and think that's a likely outcome, right?

Well, I mean, I think it's not a news flash

that Donald Trump cares more about himself in his own feelings than he cares about part. I mean, that just goes without saying. Now, this is where I break with most of my journalistic, with my traditional journalistic brethren.

I think money is so overrated as an influence. The system is a wash in money. Each side's in competitive races, saturation point, it's already occurred. I mean, I live in Maine now.

It's been walled a wall for months and months and months. So, and all money's not equal, candidate money goes farther in terms of the lowest unit rate of the FCC, you know, that broadcasters can charge and all that. So, the money part doesn't drive my feelings whatsoever,

but it's much is for anyone who voted for President Trump that got to wonder, is this what I voted for? This is not what I had in September, October, in November of 2024. And, you know, this isn't the cruise they signed up for.

And they're reacting the way somebody might when they've been the victim of a bait and switch. Yeah, absolutely. I just think it's pretty interesting that Trump's own team seems to think he's going to lose the midterms,

which is why they don't want to spend the money now. They're worried that they're going to take a fundraising hit if they lose and won't be able to raise as much later. Well, I'm originally from the South, and I was trying to make a silk purse out of a South ear.

I think they're faced with a situation and now they're having to rationalize it or explain it. But, if he, if he opened the spigot up today, they would be ecstatic about spending the money before sundown.

“So I think there's a certain amount of trying”

to solve pedal the impact of this. So in your piece, you laid out three scenarios for the GOP, the bad one is a loss of 15 to 25 house seats and a loss of two or three in the Senate, which would allow Republicans to keep one chamber,

the upper chamber, the really bad one, as you described it, would cost Republicans 26 to 35 house seats. And four or five seats in the Senate, that would lose them both chambers. And then there's the horrible one,

which costs, let me even more, house seats, and six to eight Senate seats. You said in your piece that the really bad one is the most likely, why is that? Well, first, the, even the really bad one,

if I read what I wrote six months ago, I would have thought I'd been on some kind of mushrooms or something, that I mean, didn't just didn't seem possible, didn't seem realistic. But, but we're, you know, we're seeing, we're seeing what we're seeing,

and that because Republicans are so underperforming in places that should be give me put states, and districts, we have to kind of sit back and recalibrate, that the normal rules even for midterm elections don't seem to be applying here.

It's just that much more.

And I, I sure is held never expected to see this situation happen.

Well, in two out of three of your scenarios, you have Democrats winning the Senate. Can I ask, what makes you conclude that, maybe in a little more detail, and also how seriously do you take Kansas

where a Democrat is making it unexpectedly competitive,

“and Nebraska where an independent is making it a real race?”

I tend not to think that those types of things come through, but I will say if there's an environment in which you're going to get surprises, it's this one. So what's your overall take on all that?

No, actually we're, we're the same place. To me, you know, horseshoe's only,

And they, you're going to see Democrats do better

than they have in generations, but in some of these cases,

“it's going to still be short of a majority”

or short of what they need, what they need to win. But they'll be, they'll be beaten a French bread, no question about it. But I mean, and I was a skeptical more skeptical in almost anybody else about Mary Peltel and Alaska,

because to me, oh, come on. You know, yeah, you, you won a special action and one house general action, but you had Sarah Palin and what Nick baggage, Bart baggage, which one of the baggage is on the,

are the about same time. You know, that, that was underwhelming. And you look at, you know, you kind of go case, ever,

case, and you look at Pakistan,

where, how can a Republican lose? And actually, there's one, one other point here, and that is that think about where would be if Joe or Jane, generic Republican, we're in the White House,

or Democrats in the White House. Number one, would Tom tell us be running for reelection in North Carolina, probably, which means Roy Cooper probably wouldn't be running. Would Brian Camp, the governor of Georgia,

be running for the Senate? Good chance.

“And what have an excellent chance of beating John Osaw?”

Would John Conan be the Republican nominee in taxes today, and cruising to an easy win? Yes.

And so there's sort of the electoral imp.

And then there's the, all the fights he's pit with sort of more normie Republicans, who, you say, yeah, I don't, I don't need this. I don't want a part of this,

or in the case of Conan, tried to hang on and could. So it's sort of lots of things, different things coming together and in like a perfect storm for Republicans.

And, you know, Republican consultant types, they've got to be beside themselves that, you know, they've seen disasters, but not like this one.

So yeah, just to sort of wrap up what you're saying there, you're essentially saying that if you, if you didn't have Donald Trump in the White House, all these little pieces wouldn't be falling into place, but now they are.

And then on top of that, if I understand you correctly, all of a sudden you look at James Tolerico in Texas, and it's actually possible. And you look at Mary Peltola in Alaska,

and it's actually possible. And you look at Sherrod Brown in Ohio, which Trump has turned. Let's face it into really a red state. You look at that and you say,

Sherrod Brown is possible. All of a sudden, all the pieces are there, right? That's the essence of what you're saying.

“And it's all because of Donald Trump, or a less, right?”

Yes. And, but using the word possible, I think it kind of underrace a bunch of races that are more or less 50/50, which I find unfathomable.

You look at some of these where Alaska, the last time, the last time at Democrat, one president was Lyndon Johnson in '64. The last Democrat when a Senate seat was 2008,

a governorship in 2002. You look at Iowa. Harkin was the last in 2014 to hold a Senate seat. He had won a governor's race in 2006. You kind of go through.

It's like, this, this, we're looking at things that hadn't happened. And I think a lot of it, or, or most of it is Trump, but some of it is just Republicans having been in for so long that when you're in a, when people are really, really, really unhappy,

it tends to permeate and it spreads, you know, way beyond where you might think. You know, when South, we say, you know, when Mom ain't happy, I ain't nobody happy. Well, these voters aren't happy at all, and they're taking out in ways that we had not seen in a really long time.

Well, just to wrap this all up, I started this out by saying that, you know, maybe conventional patterns and midterms are re-asserting themselves, which is a bit of a surprise given how Donald Trump has made everything topsy-turvy,

but I think maybe after talking to you, it's, it's a bit of a different story, which is, you've got the conventional patterns in the sense re-asserting themselves in the sense that the out party is hyper-energized and the in-party is very discouraged,

but you layer on top of that, this Donald Trump factor, which just supercharges everything. He's actually supercharging the conventional patterns in the sense he's really unpopular.

He's really hated by Democrats,

so he's really making them discouraged.

I think that might be the big story. Yeah, I mean, my base case, last year and a half,

“has been that the patterns would re-assurse itself, okay?”

Which would translate into Republicans, losing a couple of Senate seats and losing,

you know, less than norm because of the map this year,

that they had lose, you know, a dozen, two dozen Senate house races. That was my base case, but we've now let far beyond that.

“I mean, I made fun of my mind when I heard people six months ago”

saying stuff like this,

but the data didn't support it then.

And now the data does support that Republicans are just underperforming in places that they did have just then, give me parts, as I said earlier, it's astonishing what's happened here.

“It really is the Donald Trump factor folks.”

Charlie Cook really, really awesome the talk to you. Thanks so much for coming on with us. Thank you, Greg. My 10th, don't worry. These shoes are for you too.

The tricks are still for you. These boots are for you too. I mean, they're not all shoes, so they're for you. No, they're for you too. You know, all shoes are for you too.

With a footwear, you can see them. A lot of leather. That's why you have your clothes. Okay. That's right.

More comfort. Craft and dynamic. Everything through the passport. All shoes are for you too. All shoes.

Stay out there.