Does Trump Want to Lose the Midterms?

For years, my team has made videos that bring you closer to big news moments.

Videos by times journalists that have the expertise to help you understand what's going on. Now, we're bringing those videos to you in the Watch tab in the New York Times app. It's a dedicated video feed where you know you can trust what you're seeing. All the videos there are free for anyone to watch, you don't have to be a subscriber. Download the New York Times app to start watching.

[Music] [Music] My pet theory right now is the Donald Trump is not trying to win the midterm election. I'm not saying he's trying to lose it exactly, but just don't think he cares. What he cares about is controlling their public and party.

Their public and party is his power base.

Their public and party is his production. Their public and party is how he can wield power far into the future long after his presidency. And so control of it is what he's prioritizing. I call this a theory, but it's more like a hypothesis. It is predictions, you can test them.

Trump is more popular at this point in his second term than basically any of his modern predecessors. The midterm elections at their last in six months away, he could easily lose out. He could actually lose a Senate now. So what is he doing? Well, if you wanted to win the midterms, he'd be moving to the center.

He'd be focusing on the things that Americans are angry about, disappointed in him about. He'd be supporting the strongest Republicans in contested races and doing everything he possibly could. To bolster Republicans in vulnerable states and districts. He's not doing even a little bit of that, not even a bit. Instead he's doing the opposite.

He's announcing a 1.8 billion dollar slush fund that appears designed to pay out to January's six writers.

He endorsed these scandal-played, very controversial canpaxed in over John Corn in the Texas, giving Democrats a real chance at winning a seat that should be way out of reach for them. He helped primary Thomas Massey, the House Republican, who released the Epstein files. He defeated Bill Cassidy, the Louisiana Senator, who voted to impeach him in his first term. He is attacking Brian Fitzpatrick, one of the very, very few House Republicans representing a district, the vote for Kamala Harris. He's threatening to escalate the Iran War.

And when asked whether he was worried about Americans' finances about their pocketbooks about their cost of living, here is what he said. To present, to what extent are American financial placements motivating you to make a deal? Not even a little bit.

“The only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran, they can't have a nuclear weapon.”

I don't think about American financial situation. I don't think about anything, but I think about one thing we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That's all. What a gift to Democratic ad makers. That clip is.

Don't jump cares about control of his party. Not of Congress. If he can win the election in a way that tines his control of Republicans, like the redistricting, he'll take that. If not, he's busy. He's got other things to do.

I'm not saying he wants Democrats to win, but I don't think he minds it if they do. A Democratic Congress gives him an enemy to fight.

“I think he gets a little lost without an enemy.”

It frees him from the tedious work of trying to pass legislation. It puts him back in the place he's most comfortable, which is not wielding power. It's claiming persecution. What Trump would mind when he does fear is a Republican party with a spine. He fears a Republican party where members of Congress begin to participate in the investigations of his scandals,

or they abandon him as his fortunes fall. And so he's made his choice. He is showing them the to oppose him. Even from the right is to light your political future on fire. The point is in just a defeat.

Massey or Cassidy or Corn and any of them. It's to scare every Republican left in Congress. To make sure they know that Donald Trump would gladly destroy each and every one of them personally.

“If you'd gladly burn the entire Republican party to the ground, if that's what it took to save himself.”

I thought it would be interesting to hear how this looks to someone whose business has been winning elections for their Republican party, particularly Senate elections. Liam Donovan is a Republican strategist and a president at Targeted Victory, a Washington Public Affairs Indigenous Marketing firm.

As always, my email as recline show at nytimes.com.

Liam Donovan, welcome to the show. Good to be here. Thanks for having me. Trump is now under 40% in a bunch of different polls, more unpopular this point is term than basically any of his modern predecessors. Let's start with him. Why's he down there?

I think if you think about the mood of the country that produced the comeback of Donald Trump, put together the coalition that he did, that was predicated on a rejection of the status quo and the bet that Donald Trump will be able to return us to the economy.

The economy and maybe the vibes of pre-COVID 2020.

Of course, that's much harder to do than it is to talk about.

“And I think this is fundamentally about frustrations of how difficult some of these problems are to tackle an electorate that is not really looking to be told that everything is going well.”

And then when you can pound that with some of the policy choices that have been made, that I think might prove to be wise and the longer run. But there are legacy-minded moves, not immediate term electoral place. Was it so much harder? I think you could imagine a Trump administration's second term that sealed the border, but didn't do the aggressive internal ice and CBP enforcement so you didn't have things like the battle of Minnesota that did not say go to war in Iran that did not do the tariffs. And you know, could then draft on what was a fairly strong and certainly well-recovering economy coming out of Biden and was getting a bunch of AI investment and doesn't make a bunch of what seemed to me to be errors.

And maybe isn't a really different place.

“I think the way you have to think about this is the mythology of the Trump first term as understood by Donald Trump versus as it was understood by other the electorate included.”

Trump looking back the reason he lost the reason he wasn't as successful as he might have been was that he was held back from his impulses in his policy preferences by the deep state by never trumpers by the sort of bush error Republicans that don't reflect or respect his version of how the country should look. You know, at some level, you could argue he was saved politically by that layer of insulation and if you think about what's changed it's that he is absolutely installed.

Loyalists, there is a threshold question of are you absolutely committed to this project and I think therefore he's feeling for the first time what it looks like to get what you're asking for.

And the electorate the electorate the electorate just wanted to go back to the way it was so I do think there's a disconnect there but to your point there's an easy mode that he might have done but it wouldn't have necessarily been his vision for what America first or maga looks like. Yeah, this was very striking me when I looked at the the poll numbers on it so at this point in his first term he had a plus 10 net disapproval he's now plus 21 so he is. But but it all goes to this question I think which is whether or not you understand the sort of weekend political state he's in as a function of the mood of the country or actually as a function of the country's reactions to Donald Trump's policies.

Like is it just is peptic or does it not want this I think there are layers to it I mean if the thing about there's now ceiling in a way that there didn't used to be but we I think we've we've seen this over the last 20 years maybe since the Obama era since our our coalitions if shifted the parties of countries polarized it's very very difficult to imagine a president getting above say 48% some like that that the coalition that got him there.

“So in that sense it's it's a hard cap and so like you need to almost great on a little bit of a curve in terms of whether these things are that said.”

The president's approval rating I don't care which part of your from wants to be above 40 you know wants to be at 42 43 that is your firm base what we're seeing here is that there are elements of the republican coalition that consider themselves republican who are dissolution for one reason another either they are. Anti war or skeptical of foreign entanglements maybe they are simply upset about the cost of living they don't like tariffs what have you they just don't like the way things are going I think that is the layer that is the easiest to imagine getting back.

So why does it don't you want to give them that reason this is this is what I want to take to get us to this question of agency because he could get some of them back and I always took Trump is somebody who cared on some level about his popularity and who has a real sensitivity to the wins and wins of public opinion. But as his numbers have fallen in the second term he seems to me to be going on to tell he's doing this $1.8 billion slash fund to hand out to people convicted round January six or who he feels were the victim of Biden era law fair he is talking about re-escalating the Iran war he is intervening in a bunch of republican primaries to purge people who opposed him in one way or another.

“But he's not doing the things that you might imagine a president worried about losing a midterm would do he's not doing a big pivot to the center he's not trying to avoid certain kinds of controversy.”

He seems like he doesn't care. Why do you think that is? Well, I think we got to step back for him and think about how we got here how to Donald Trump get the nomination the first place and it was. In a sense running against the institutional republican party running against the establishment the fact that he doesn't. And that's not his primary objective he's not of the party that's not what drives him that's not his imperative that's different than any president I think we've ever seen maybe in both parties but certainly in their republican party and we saw in 2018 I think he went on a victory lap the day after the election even though it was rough.

On members that didn't stay closer to him so I think flash forward and I think that lesson has been learned I think people realize you have the our next year name you're going to kind of by and large.

“Own what the president is doing so you need to make the best of that and going against him picking fights with him except in very rare exceptions does not.”

So that's true, but it doesn't necessarily answer the question of Trump himself so as you mentioned and I think this is an important point to expand on a little bit.

There's a history here 2018.

Republicans under Trump do terribly in the midterms, but Trump comes out the next day and is excited about some of the ones who opposed him who lost. On 2022, Donald Trump is not in office anymore, but he exerts a lot of control over Republican primaries and you end up with candidates like like masters and draws and carry lake and Republicans lose a bunch of very big and very winnable races.

Right now you see Trump intervening places like Texas with Ken Paxden in ways it at the very least create the possibility that Republicans will lose some key races they could have otherwise won.

So I take your point that Donald Trump does not come from the institutional Republican party, but he seems to me to care more about the control he has over Republicans than the control Republicans under him have over Washington. Like he is running a risk here of losing the Senate, but I guess more control over the Republican senators when he could be trying to win the Senate, but I have a couple of people who might be more willing to oppose him.

“So does he want to control Congress or control their Republican party?”

I think there's something to the point. I do think he's more committed to and sensitive to the risk of not having control than he was four years ago, eight years ago, whatever kind of as no meaning anymore. I think that's where the project and we can get into this of the kind of structural gambit of trying to create a more resilient map for Republicans. And I think that's the point that the president doesn't believe that a Democratic majority could do him damage. Like let's think about Indiana, where it's like those guys, what was their sin, their sin was one not listening to the White House and doing what they said to do, but to that was not doing the redistricting.

But what was what's the interest of redistricting? Maintaining congressional majority. So like in that case, his priority was trying to win more seats is that self-interested sure, but it wasn't punitive to never go against him. It was punishing them for going against what he saw as the interest of the party. So I think that's your signal right there. In the Senate, I'd actually push back and say, this is something that Republican parties had to learn a number of times over. If you think back, my my time at the Republican Senate committee was 2010 when it was a great cycle.

But they left a great deal on the table because of the Tea Party party candidates not coordinating and it took them again. They did it again in 2012. It wasn't until 2014. They kind of figured out a path forward of how to find suitable candidates that could please the broader coalition and at a level of coordination that led to a great cycle.

They figured that out. I think in 2024, in both directions, both the party and its leaders figured out how to work with Trump and his political operation and Trump figured out where he can be effective. I'd argue that Trump and his political operation have done a quite a good job this time directing traffic in a way that they hadn't previously.

It's what makes instances like Texas to lesser degree Georgia notable. So I actually think they've done a pretty good job there, but it makes the exceptions that much more.

Our argument is that unlike in say 2022, if you look at most of the competitive races, the Trump operation has cohered around a candidate that doesn't look wildly out of step with the state. But that there is then this separate thing that happens of Trump going to punish and purge specific candidates who he feels we're disloyal to him and so it it's more notable, but it's not the macro story. I think that's right. Each state, there's an interesting story we can get into in Louisiana most obvious, but the fact that he is understanding that in Maine, Susan Collins is the only Republican can win there and should win there and he's not mucking around there right in the way that he is in say Louisiana.

“Texas, I think, is a unique one in that it became a bargaining chip and in some ways, Senator Coran became collateral in this broader kind of trouble.”

You know that one while you used to work for Coran, I did what happened there between Trump and Coran is I think in the White House's ideal timeline, compacts and doesn't get in.

I think they were in treaties from the White House or from the Trump operation to get him in to challenge Coran, the problem is that he did it anyway and it created a really difficult dynamic.

Why the credit difficult dynamic? Why does Trump just say, "Coran's our guy, what are you doing here?" Because Capaxton was his guy too, so he's got people competing for his infections in a way that the president obviously likes a great deal. And maybe it's worth it for people who maybe don't know the much about Pakistan for you to describe a bit who he is in Texas politics.

“So who is Pakistan and why did Trump decide in the final moments of that primary to endorse him over John Coran possibly risking about seat?”

So, Kim Paxton is the sitting attorney general of Texas. He's been elected statewide a number of times. That's it's important to get out there. It's not, it's not the Senate, it's not the governor, but he has been statewide elected.

And he has been statewide elected since carrying some of the political baggage that he does.

So he said he's known it's largely because he's gotten into hot water a number of different times. There was actually an impeachment effort, but there've been efforts at the state level to be rid of him. He has prevailed, he has prevailed in part by aligning himself with Donald Trump being a leader on a number of the initiatives that the president cares a lot about from the 2020 election standpoint, otherwise. So he has boosted his brand by wrapping himself in maga and donning the hat.

“He threw himself into this race. You have to think John Coran who I adore is a long time incumbent is very much of the flavor of the George W. Bush Rick Perry era, Texas Republican party, which is not necessarily the Vanguard here.”

He spent a decade plus in Senate leadership in ways that tie him to the national party in ways that can be complicated in these sorts of primary efforts. But as Donald Trump get involved, look, like I said, I think Coran became a bargaining chip for Trump with John Thun at a time when he wanted the Senate to do certain things. In the Senate at that point there was this big push to get the Save America Act across to nuk the filibuster to do so all these complicated things. When that didn't happen, it became clear that they did not seem to be an inclination from the president to back Coran.

When I heard that he was going to endorse that gave me a bad feeling in the middle of my stomach. I had a feeling that wasn't going to be forecarning. I question the idea that Paxton loses this seat. I think the real problem for Republicans is, I mean, twofold. Number one, it's always easier cheaper, more straightforward to get it in a comment reelected than it is to have an open seat. The more complicated the candidate is the more expensive it is. I think that's the real problem is this is a massive state with a huge number of expensive media markets.

The amount of resources that will be expended here and the marginal reason it was going to be expensive for Coran. It's going to be insanely expensive for Paxton. And I think that will be costly. So I felt this point is even quite the answer to my question about Donald Trump, which is look, he did not have to come in and endorse Paxton.

And I think you have to still see Ken Paxton as a favorite, but it's more narrow. It could look something more like the Doug Jones, you know, victory in Alabama over a very, very, very flawed candidate a couple years back.

I take your point that they're places where they didn't do a bunch of stupid things, but there's a world where they wake up after the election.

And James Taylor equal one in Texas, and that made Chuck Schumer majority leader, and that's purely on Donald Trump's table, like he chose that outcome. Are they mad about that? Or does he actually on some level not care that much because fighting with the Democratic Congress is in some ways a pleasure for him?

“I don't think that's what is. I think a couple of things. Number one, you asked the question of why didn't why did he choose Paxton? Why did he choose Coran?”

I think this is a bet of being for what's going to happen. If you thought in a vacuum that Paxton probably wins and your Donald Trump thinking I want to flex my muscles and and look like I'm the reason that that is a to me the logic of that kind of a pick. At a time when again, this has become a proxy match with the Senate Republican establishment. I'd also suggest you I don't see a universe where Texas goes blue and it doesn't and it stops there, right? Like I don't think Texas is the marginal fourth seat where Democrats get to 51 and that's it. So it's much more likely to me that on a night where teleureka wins, it's just lights out because it's such a bad night. I don't think it's going to be scrappy and clawing to 51 and it's teleureka that puts them over the top.

“And you think that's how Trump thinks about it. Okay, but I'm asking you how Trump thinks about it. Like go a little bit further because I think that the question I like the big question I am”

Struggling with Donald Trump is a struggle with many questions about him. So what does this guy want? What is his actual play here and and maybe it's not that strategic, but to me I think there is a strategy here, which is I think he wants control of their Republican party. I think he cares about that more than he cares about control of Congress. I mean his fury at Thomas Massey was obviously part of this. He took up Bill Cassidy, which is not I think the Louisiana Senator, which is not I think a seat Democrats have any chance of picking up, but I see something that is consistent here and and goes a ways back, which is that Donald Trump sees his power base as a Republican party itself.

And he is less worried about a world where Democrats have power than he is about a world where as his numbers go down as he is a lame duck Republicans feel empowered to oppose him to join in investigations of him. And the danger is not that Democrats lose elections. It's Republicans ever feel empowered to abandon him and that's also Donald Trump maybe controls Republican party into the future. I'm not a person believes he's going to run for a third term, but could he continue to exert enormous power over the Republican party by continuing to intervene in primaries all over the country.

Absolutely could and you can be the kingmaker even when you're not the king, but I'm curious if you disagree with that. I think if we agree on the predicate that he doesn't generally in general the future fortunes the president future fortunes are a Republican party in and of themselves are not significant concern.

“And then the next layer below that is, well, what does he care about? I think he certainly cares about you know the filthy to to him just his impulses are to flex his muscles and have Republicans do what he wants.”

And as it looks less likely that the house stays or whatever than yes, you begin to start thinking about, okay, well, if I can't have that, what can I have? And I think there's kind of you know sort of a decision tree there.

But I just think what once we establish does he does he care about doing the sorts of things that make it easier for people to win elections when he's on on the ballot?

He cares a little bit, but when that's intention with his control over the party, I certainly think that that shapes his decision making. [Music]

Hi, this is Ashley. I live in San Francisco with my boyfriend.

We would love to officially share my New York Times subscription with separate logins. We both love cooking, love being in the kitchen, but in the 30 minute and under efficient dinner girly, I want a sheet pan meal.

And I think him having his own profile would be great.

Ashley, we heard you. It's why we created the New York Times family subscription. You get your own login and Mr. elaborate gets his. Plus room for two others. Find out more at nytimes.com/family. Let's zoom out a little bit here just to the midterm broadly. You've been involved in send elections on the public inside.

“I want to talk about some of the individual elections that are coming, but first is how do you understand the environment itself, the macro environment for a public and right now?”

It's just a problem that we have is presidential approval generic ballot and those indicators are rough. I mean, it's you know, Donald Trump has 58% disapproval I think in our CP average. It was higher on November in November of 2025 and that was bad enough. And so certainly like that's a that's a dipstick. I also think that the thing that's difficult to read about the elections that have happened in the meantime, they've obviously been very favorable for Democrats. Like there's a built in asymmetry based on the make up of the coalitions now where every Democrat is crawling over broken glass to go vote for Democrats for dog catcher if it means sticking it to Donald Trump.

You know, generic ballots and other one where and maybe that's that might be the the interesting delta there is Democrats only get 48% on the generic ballot, which is of course a good number that's significantly higher than what Republicans have. But there's a delta there of about 10% of voters who say they disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing, but they're not yet willing to say I would prefer a generic Democrat in the vote for Congress. And so I think that's the the big question over the next six months is what's more likely does Donald Trump's approval rebounds such that those people go and vote Republican.

If they stay home altogether or do they just say this is I'm not voting first, I want to check and end up saying yes, I will vote for that.

Well, you could also think about the 2022 scenario here, which is, you know, Joe Biden's approval rating was not quite as bad as Donald Trump says, but it was bad. And Democrats pretty freaked out about a red wave going into the midterm election and it didn't really end up coming to pass that. Biden's approval rating was not that correlated with Democratic performance.

“Do you think there's a possibility that happens here?”

That's the best case scenario. I mean, I think the factor that. 2022 kind of rhymes with is that was the first time we were in this particular map. And of course there've been changes the margins with this mid desk mid decade redistricting. But what we found in 2022, 2024 and we'll see about 2022 is this is a really resilient map.

There's not as much, you know, a pool of competitive seats. And so even on a really good night, I mean, 2022 is instructive. Republicans won the popular house vote by a significant margin and yet only netted something like 10 seats. Because we've been districted districts out of competition. That's right.

But a wonderful way to run it.

“And I think the other piece is what Democrats were successful in doing.”

And Republicans failed in doing was putting up the sorts of candidates that could win. And you ended up with messy primaries that produce suboptimal candidates that came out of those primaries with a party that was divided. And, you know, spending a lot of resources. And in the meantime, Democrats were able to otherwise these candidates make them weird. I mean, right?

Like, like, like, master, that's more pretty weird, man. Well, but I guess, but I say that because you're going to be watching this. Like, this is precisely what's going to happen. And whether successful's new open question, we're already seeing this with tell Rico. Tell Rico and talk to someone.

And we're going to try to authorize something. So it was a little off. Grandplatter. Look, that guy's weird. That's going to be, and whether it's effective.

I think that's an open question. Let's walk through the Senate elections. Sort of one by one here. If you're sitting there, you know, you're wargaming this out with, you know, Republicans. What are the states you understand to be competitive?

Yeah. And how would you rate the way the races are shaping up in them?

The first one's pretty obvious.

North Carolina is a seat that's been just right on the cusp for so many seats. Barack Obama was able to break through in 2008. That, in fact, was the last time that Democrats won a Senate seat there. It's been a very expensive, very close seat in the Senate since then. But Democrats haven't been able to get over the hump.

In this case, it's their single best candidate in the former Governor and Roy Cooper. They got him straight away. He's raising gobs of money. And just in an environment that stands to be quite good for Democrats. That's a place where the open seat created by the retirement of Tom Toulos, who at some levels,

That is a prime pick about opportunity. Open seat, good candidate, big resource advantage, which isn't the case. Also, in my view, another example where Donald Trump was not trying to protect and make life easier for a plausibly vulnerable Senate Republican. I think that's right.

I could argue with the straight face that it all things equal. You'd rather have an incumbent than an open seat. The way things were like the dynamics with till like he probably would have gotten a primary. It would have gotten ugly. So I actually think coalescing behind Michael Wattley.

The R&C chair, somebody that has access to national fundraising possibilities. I mean, it has gone as well as it could go. But it's still a lot of sighted situation. All things equal in a Democratic night.

That's the first one to flip.

I don't think it's gone.

“You know, I think there hasn't been too much pulling on this.”

And we're certainly not in the end game. But that's the obvious first pick up if you're Democrats. That's the one that has to fall. I think he gets interesting after that because there is a significant drop-off. There's only one state on this map that does not match the the lean of the state of the presidential level.

That's Maine with Susan Collins. She is a survivor. I think she can found her expectations in 2020 with Donald Trump on the ballot when she was given no chance of winning that. Way behind the polls. Way behind the polls.

That is the one where I think irrespective of who Democrats had put up there.

There's just this this unknowable binary.

Either Maine is still the kind of state that rewards independent known quantities like Susan Collins or it's not. And we just don't know six years later has that changed. I do think they've done her a favor at some level. In you can more obviously see the permission structure for why would a Harris voting Democrat vote for a Republican for Senate. Well, because Graham Plattener is a different kind of Democrat.

They might have voted for Janet Mills, but they wouldn't vote for Graham Plattener. So I think that's one. I wouldn't say it's number two, but it's the most obvious. What you make of the polling has kind of consistently shown Plattener as or more competitive against Collins. Compared to Mills.

Yeah, I mean, I think this is. I don't have a good answer on the on the point.

“I think the the value of Plattener is he's the high variance candidate at a time when.”

Having lost with a serious getty and type. Variances your friend. So that's the logic of a Plattener pick. I'm not quite sure what's happening. The point except that Janet Mills ran kind of a sonami like campaign.

It's just she didn't she's a 77 and by the way, I think this is relevant on Collins too. Collins is a lot older and seems it in a way that I think is more difficult for her as a campaigner. I would argue as a as a Susan Collins that I've been around her for 20 years. Like I think she's sharper than as sharp as ever. I don't know over.

I don't want to turn it to Joe Biden stuff. I like no, I actually think that she's she's strong and sharp. And whether her brand is still what the people of Maine want. I mean, I hope they do. But well, see it's a stark contrast there.

But I think the the dynamic of Plattener versus Mills. One of these guys has energy. One of you guys out there. You know, doing things this least interesting. You might not like him, but it's least interesting.

She seemed to have to be pulled into the race. She got in late. So like that differential, I guess it's some level makes sense to me. I don't think that's the same question as when we go through a general campaign. Do they perform the same way on election night?

And you know, we'll have to see. But this is really.

“This becomes a strong question of like, is it just shirts and skins?”

Is it just diverse as our and our our people willing to say. Okay, an independent minded Republican that that, you know, took big stands against Donald Trump. But has enough respect from this White House that she's not getting torpedoed for it. Do people still want that.

And I think it remains. And I think the hope among sort of the Plattener's fans is that he brings in. Various who don't normally like Democrats. And and I think Democrats continue to say of this question. If we ran people more in the Bernie Sanders mold.

If you ran people who did not seem like they came out of the same institutions. Can you pick up some of these people who liked Trump because he's an outsider?

Not people, not people who, you know, will naturally always vote for Democrats.

Well, I say a couple of things. Number one, I think there's something to that. And that you want to sort of have something that's differentiated. But I think the flavor that makes the most sense to me. I don't need to be giving advice to the Democratic Party of Maine.

Right.

He said, who's the house member who represents the reddest district of any Democrat.

And for a bunch of reasons, but also he's getting primary by another Democrat.

“He's now retiring, which I think is a real loss for Democrats.”

Right. And I think he succeeds potentially in cutting a different image. He manages to check some of his, he's a combat veteran Marine. You know, but he's not a, he's not associated himself with, with Bernie, right? Like I raised that only to say, I think the problem for a platter may not prove to be a problem.

But the risk for a platter is, oh, I mean, if there's a fascinating interview with with with your near-time colleagues. I mean, I found that very interesting when they probed. Some of how much of this is superficial. How much of that, you know, that blue collar effect is real and legitimate.

And I mean, there's, there's some holes that can be poked in here that are that do not hold up to scrutiny. There's still a fascinating state with two districts, one of which is the conservative sort of, you know, up in a rustic and, and press-gile, and then there's the coast. And I think for what, however many voters that platinum can get from, you know, the golden district, how many is he turning off on the coast, notwithstanding his oystermen background.

Is that going to, you know, hold up with some of the people that actually know and have like Susan Collins in the past? So I hear all that, but for Democrats of any chance here, they're going to need North Carolina. They're going to need Maine. Then one.

“I think Maine's the the easiest kind of threshold quite like I think there is a path.”

There is a path independent of Maine, but that just tells you, okay, there's the one state where she's still got it, right?

But after those first two, it gets really difficult.

And there is a leap to, you know, you can take your pick, but I think the Ohio race is probably where Democrats have the best shot. You know, shared brown is somebody who lost in the previous election. To Bernie Moreno, who I don't think Democrats expected to lose for share brown to lose to. He'd been an elective office for the previous 50 years or so. He's coming back.

He's able to raise a lot of money, but I think it's hard to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. When when when you're in incumbent and you're strength is predicated on being the guy who can win. And then you're trying to pull yourself off the mat. It's a little bit tougher. You have an incumbent, but an appointed incumbent in John Houston.

You know, the ticket there with him in Vivek has has been. The polling has been okay. Vivek probably is running for governor. Vivek from Swami. He says not done anything particularly offensive.

He's going to have the resources there. On a night where shared brown beats John Houston and with stands. I mean, the amount of money that's going to come into that race from the outside, particularly from like the crypto mining groups and that kind of thing. It's going to be astonishing.

If that happens, it was a really, really good night for Democrats. So let's put actually numbers on that.

“So if I am remembering this right, I think that Brown, who was a very strong candidate,”

lost that election by three and a half points, that's right. So in, you know, you're saying about Bernie Morano who, I think, wasn't many ways of, we candid at a sort of car dealer who would symbolize wage that lawsuit. Some people take out populism, but it was not obviously a great icon of populism.

But shared brown lost to Donald Trump. And he lost to the Democratic Party's reputation in Ohio. Right. He could not over. He overperformed.

Kamal Harris, by quite a bit. I think he's the last part of the matters. I mean, yes, Donald Trump was on the ticket, but we've, we've keep doing this. Right. I think we're the same argument when it was Tim Ryan against shady vans.

Like at a certain point when you're saying, like, there's like special pleading of like, oh, these are bad cans. Well, like when the bag, when you say these are bad, I would argue. I'm not saying share browns about candidate. No, no, not share browns.

Oh, no, no, no, I'm saying Bernie Morano. Yeah, I'm just saying, right. I think that in a, yes, I'm saying, I think that candidate quality wise. And you can disagree with me if you want. But I think shared brown is a better candidate quality wise and Bernie Morano is.

But Democratic party's brand in Ohio is such trash that he could not overcome that, as Tim Ryan could overcome it.

As basically know, Democrats in Ohio can now overcome it.

So the question to share brown. It seems to me is, you know, let's say 2024 is an environment where, you know, Democrats are minus two or three, right. It's a, it's a little bit of a better environment for Republicans. If this is a plus six or plus seven Democratic environment,

maybe that overwhelms the problems of the Democratic party brand and, and Brown can win. If it's not, if it's plus two, if it's plus three, then probably brown can't win.

You're looking at a, like, a pretty straightforward. How big is the Democratic wave?

“Like, what is, like, how much has Trump as a cost for Republicans in this year?”

I totally agree with that. I just, on the Ohio front, I do think there's been a tendency to underrate the Republican candidate. In this case, again, like, however you thought of events or or Morano, Houston is completely in offense. He was a lieutenant governor.

Right. I just think that matchup is worse for Brown. But if you're trying to count to three,

like, that probably should be the third.

And it's not going to get any easier in terms of the different states. Like, the, the pool of states that we're talking about. We talked enough about, about Texas, but like, I put that in that, that tier where to your, to your point about, like, how good is the environment for Democrats?

It needs to be done plus six or seven to even be in the conversation. This was beta loss by three, three and a half. Yeah, in an 18 when it was a very, in 2018.

“And then, um, all red lost by, I think it was six.”

Yeah, something like that in 2024. So again, you're, you're looking at a, you, you need something where the year looks like, you know, a Democrat plus six plus eight, um, like that they've got in that lift. That's right.

And then maybe you have a, a, a, a talleriko. I mean, but do you want to talk about that race for a minute, because on the one end, Democrats are very, very excited about James Talleriko. Uh, Republicans, I think, see him as having more attack surface in Democrats quite realize. Now, it'll be packed in who also is a lot of attack surface.

Like, how, as somebody who actually knows Texas politics fairly well. Like, how do you think about that race individually? I, I would just say Texas is so expensive. There are so many markets that it is going to be just an absolute resource suck. And I think because of that, I think smart Democratic strategists, like,

they will, they will play that one out. And I think they have high hopes. But if you're really looking to move the needle and, and make something happen, you're probably more apt to look at Alaska, you're probably more apt to look at Iowa. Um, I don't know if they want to say have more success.

And in, in similar ways, like, you still need to have that D plus seven D plus eight night to break through in those states. But it's much easier to move the needle and to differentiate your race from the other things going on on the ballot. Uh, in those states, those smaller markets. Um, and smaller electorates, where just in terms of raw vote totals, uh, you know, a relatively minor shift in in Alaska or Iowa,

is going to go so much farther than in Texas where you're just trying to boil the ocean. Well, well, let's talk about those two races. So Alaska, they got married to a former house member there. Yeah. Have you seen that one?

“So I think Alaska has been another one where, like, I've seen this movie before.”

I mean, uh, that there was, there was a bit on, on Twitter and whatever. 22 like, don't sleep on Alaska.

It's always the one that it's a different state.

It's a differentiated state where, um, you know, it's a relatively small electorate. Interesting demographics. There's a, there's a blue collar. Um, you know, piece to it.

Um, and they've shown a propensity to, you know, support Democrats, whether that's Mark baggage. Uh, we can go back to Tony Nulls. Uh, pelthola herself in that, in that house race. So there's enough variance there that there's opportunity.

I argue. The insolvent is a squeaky clean incumbent marine vet, you know, to the extent that he had any challenges. It was probably met at the original threshold when he beat Mark baggage in 14. Um, it's hard to beat an incumbent period. I think the hopes that Democrats have are based on the fact that, well,

pelthola won in whatever was in the special election. Uh, and she won again in, uh, 22. Um, so that she's got this edge in ranked choice voting. I think that's another thing that Democrats need to think about. There's this notion that ranked choice voting inherently benefits Democrats.

And there might be cases where that's the case.

It certainly was the case with pelthola in the first place.

But why was that? It's because Democrats or Republicans were divided. You had two flavors of Republicanism in literally seropalin, uh, against. What do you say the name of the person that's against, but we should just mention is the background here. Alaska's a weird system where four people advance.

Yep. And so then you have ranked choice voting in the general against four candidates. Not it's not the way people normally think these elections where there's really just two candidates.

And there's a, a baggage sign on. Uh, so just like these names kind of weave in and out of Alaska politics.

But the first time you ran it was against seropalin in the immediate context of ranked choice voting.

And those preferences. There were enough divisions on the Republican side that pelthola was able to sort of triangulate and become the. The moderate middle of of two, uh, Republicans ends up winning that and then holding it in that next. In that in that next general election. Um, when it was a straight up race against baggage when he came back, she lost.

So I don't want to say she's not the absolute strongest candidate. Democrats could have put up. She absolutely is. I just don't think the conditions are there from the standpoint of Republican divisions. Uh, or, you know, there's not really blood in the water in the way or the way there might have been like.

The reason Texas attractive is when you've got some issues with the candidate. You've got some divisions within the party.

That doesn't exist in Alaska.

You have a situation there is the, the Democratic hope is partially just that demoralized Republicans just don't come out. Donald Trump's not on the ballot. They're not happy with how things are going under Donald Trump. They stay home. And Potola wins because the Democrats.

She's both a strong candidate and Democrats are highly motivated in this environment to come out. That's right. And I also think in terms, like the anchorage market, you just go buy it out for cheaper than you could come coming into, you know, San Antonio or something.

“So, um, so I think that in terms of the, the kind of alpha there, uh, in terms of resource allocation.”

Um, it makes a lot of sense. Um, and similarly, Iowa where you have, and again, going back to this question of income versus open seed. If it was a joint insurance, it would be a different proposition. But an open seat is more expensive. Um, for for the party empowered to hold and, and, you know, creates opportunity.

Uh, rollings of a great candidate there in Ashley Henson. Um, sitting house member, um, very dynamic telegenics. So I think they'll be okay there. Um, but this is a time when the Midwest is not loving life. Uh, you know, the ag communities getting hit hard by the tariffs.

Um, there is enough going on there on that ticket. I mean, there's there's a competitive governor's race. Yeah, Rob Sand that I've got that candidate for governor. Those are very strong. That's right.

And I'd be more scared if Rob Sand was running for Senate. Um, but, but it does tell you that there is, there are things happening at the state level. Um, that you can't, you can't take for granted. And if I'm republicans, I'm, I'm leaning into that one and making sure that we don't, we don't get caught. What do you think about Michigan?

So I know we're Republicans who seem to be getting more, or excited about the possibility of a pickup in Michigan. We're Gary Peters is retiring. Um, because they think Democrats all nominate a bill of say, who's like the more Bernie candidate who campaigned with us on piker and is now sort of leading the democratic primary there.

Uh, and Democrats have not really been thinking about what happens if they lose a seat. Yeah.

“Uh, but do you think that's becoming a pickup opportunity or not really in the scenario?”

Well, look, it should be a pickup opportunity. Anyway, this is the state that Donald Trump won. It's twice. Um, Mike Rogers was strong candidate who came up just shy last time. So just all things equal, it should be top of the list. As you say, environment makes it more of a challenge.

Um, but to your point, the, the fascinating stuff going on in the democratic primary there. Um, it's, it's uncanny. You know, as somebody that's, this worked on republican politics, particularly senate politics long enough.

It's the first time in a while I've seen just an eerily similar situation to what Republicans have lived for, you know,

decadent have this experience of Democrats putting up candidates that could, that are probably objectively weaker and more susceptible to lose. Um, I don't know that it will come back to bite them, but it's, it's so clear that if you put up somebody that's not fit for the state that you, and, and remember, this is something that Democrats have used their benefit in, you know, Arizona. I, I think, back to Arizona, where like both, here's in cinema, in one instance, and then Mark Kelly and the other. They just got to wait around and had a field themselves stockpiling cash while Republicans, you know,

spent money and beat each other up and, and, you know, divided the party. Like the longer this goes in Michigan, the more of the markets primary. I'll just not have to act for a little while. So just for people to know this primary there in the democratic side, between Abdul Asayad, who's the more progressive candidate, than Mallory MacMoro and Hayley Stevens, who are sort of both more, you know,

make more a little bit between the two Stevens stuff and more of the establishment democratic candidate, and they seem to be splitting a vote between them. And also, I'll say this, like, wrapped them around the axle of Gaza, which has become a, like, a pretty potent issue in democratic party politics, and neither of them have been able to navigate an ineffective way.

“So I think that's when it's, is a fascinating race.”

I absolutely think this is, and this is another case in point where the White House actually did a really good job of rallying behind my graduate early, cleared that field in a way that I think there's an opportunity to just, to sneak a seat right there.

have no business winning in Michigan, but we're actually looking at a situation where this,

this race will be on the board unless something changes, because even if Hayley Stevens eaks it out, this is not the kind of primary that, that yields a candidate with the resources and, and unity that puts the race away.

“It'll, I think it'll be competitive heading into elections.”

So the, something you see in Michigan, and I think you also saw on the Kentucky House primary, where Thomas Massey lost, is a way that views bad Israel, views about Palestinians, views about the war and Iran, are actually splitting both parties in complicated ways. So Massey, of course, is big Trump critic, although it didn't used to be, you know, but was key in the Epstein files coming out, and he got, he used to feed it.

But he was a, you know, a favorite of Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson in his concession speech. He said I would have come out sooner, but I had to call my opponent and concede and it took a while to find Ed Galrain, who beat him in Tel Aviv.

A pack spent a lot of money against Massey, Massey said that he thinks he would have won if not for the sort of fights over Israel.

And Massey, by the way, did much, much, much, much better among young Republicans than among older ones. His huge generational divide in that primary. So something is happening here that I think is going to, like, really flour in, or fracture, I should say, maybe more precisely in 2028 for both sides,

“which is that I think that Israel, Iran, Gaza, have become very, very difficult for both parties to navigate.”

That their bases are internally split on these issues. Yeah, I think the Massey one is really interesting because he's been a bad fly throughout his career. That's been his old brand all along, and I actually reminded me on primary night. He had one of the best quotes I've heard of the Trump era. I think he's a 2017 interview that he had with the Washington Examiner.

I think his line was, you know, for the longest time, I thought they were voting for me and for Ron Paul and for Rand Paul, because we were the most conservative, or maybe he's a libertarian. And he said, and then Donald Trump comes along and I realize they're just voting for the craziest son of a bitch in the race.

And Donald Trump was first in class.

And just a great kind of summation of all these things, but it gives you a sensitive flavor for, like, who Massey is. And I do think he was a thorn in the side of the White House and of the party for the longest time.

“But I think to your point, he was able to take issues that get a particular premium online.”

If you can take some of these plumical issues that get a lot of, you know, engagement and make that your issue. Like, that's not really what we were talking about, but he was able to wrap himself in it in a way that I think got a lot of attention and was able to, in some ways, benefit him. He was able to fight a pretty close race. And I think that is a valuable way of getting attention.

If you were a candidate, particularly an insurgent candidate, if you try to make races about these issues, you can find an audience for it. And whether or not it pays the lecturer dividends. I think that's something to watch for. I think we're seeing it a bunch of different places is a skism, maybe,

between what I would think of as the Fox News Republicans and the YouTube Republicans. He sees in the Florida group in the Torah primaries on the right, where you have a very, very radical, and I would say quite anti-Semitic candidate, but who's been very popular among young Republicans in that state. And there's a, you Trump has kind of been on both sides of this line.

He sort of united, at least in the 2024 election, like the podcast. Republican world and the Fox News Republican world. But those feel to me like they're splitting apart. I mean, you could call it like the Tucker Carlson Ben Shapiro split, right? You see it over and over and over again.

Obviously Democrats have their own, you know, fractures around these issues. But I'm curious in a broad way how you see the, you know, it seemed to be very different politics among young Republicans than among older Republicans right now. And that's right.

I mean, I think it's, I think it's much easier to synthesize. I, who knows Rick goes, but I think Republicans have an easier time containing this and sorting it out. And you're watching Vice President Vance as the one who is kind of the, he has spoken up on this, and I think is, is trying to sort that out.

Because there is, there is a generational divide. There's, there's certain politics that have been imprinted on. What makes it easier to sort it out on their Republican side. I don't think I'm going to hold Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson together in one party. I don't think Carlson wants to be involved in any party right now.

I mean, he, Ben Dorses Republicans, he was spoke at the RNC. I think 24. And lesson until Tucker Carlson runs in, in, in 2028. Like, he is, he has deliberately marginalized himself in a way that has,

audience.

Let me push you on this because I'm really curious to hear, here you say this,

because what it looks to me like is happening. Is that Carlson is making a bet. I, I'm not saying it's not sincere. It might be sincere for him. But that their Republican party is moving.

That in the same way that, you know, Donald Trump once was a, strange, eccentric vanity candidate. But as you know, the dominant figure in Republican party politics. You know, what Carlson sees, and it's maybe also helping to shape, is that young Republicans have very, very different views on a bunch of these issues.

We live in a very, very attentionally thick society now. And yes, him, Candice Owens, I'm not saying that they are, you know,

don't end to the Republican, you know, Senate campaign committee.

But they're on the right. I mean, I don't think that is arguable. They're endorsing candidates in Republican primaries. They both endorse mousey, for instance. And yeah, maybe they're losing some of the fights now.

“But I think their view is that the only thing holding this together is Donald Trump himself.”

And the JD Vance can't hold it together. Marco Rubio can't hold it together. And so they're betting that after Donald Trump, like, doesn't have an iron gripper on their Republican party, that what's going to be growing, is their side of it.

And in fact, picking some of these losing battles is good for them right now. Well, I think what's good for Donald, what's good for talking, this is the attention to coming here, right? That was good for Tucker is getting attention to how we can, including right now picking face Donald Trump.

Because there's an appetite for that in a way that there wasn't a couple years ago. But I don't know that that's his project. I don't know that his is an electoral proposition. I think he's trying to build his own platform. He's trying to build his own audience.

And I think he genuinely has a lot of these positions that he's sorting out in real time.

“But I think the layers to this, the question of why do I think it's easier for Republicans?”

Well, I think for Democrats, this is like literally like a litmus test issue in a way that is going to be on full display in 28 to the point where like, literally like the most obviously talented politician in the race. Like, I don't even know if, I mean, I'd love to know. Like Josh Piero does he have any chance of,

it just seems like the kind of issue, just proximity to it, that would be the sort of thing that will will color his, the market for a Josh Piero candidate. And they boxed him out on this issue, even in the VEPStakes in 2024. So I think it's so, it's so facially front and center that that makes it difficult.

Whereas this is underneath a lot of things in the Republican Party. And I think a lot of it relates to generationally. You have a generation, a Fox News generation kind of a boomer generation that's imprinted with the sort of more nihilistic politics of the shared affinity of the state of Israel, the, you know, sort of Christian imperative to sort of huckabee approach toward these things.

Versus a younger Republican Party and a party that shifted over time to be the low trust party that is skeptical of institutions that doesn't want to hear in the same way that like Trump exploited skepticism of the, the, you know, conservative project and the idealism of it, to something much more kind of skeptical and perhaps cynical.

“I think you have to sell the Republican alignment with the cause and,”

and state of Israel on its own terms in terms like in America,

first like, why is this benefit America?

And I think that's what Vance is exploring in terms of explaining support for Israel in all its forms in a way that is much more of like a transactional like this is good for for. But Kenny, I'm actually, I wonder if you can hold that together because I think I maybe see this one differently than you do. It seems to me that Democrats have,

I don't want to say consensus forming because I think this is going to be a lot of debate, but Chris Van Hollen who's, you know, various establishment, Democratic Senator from Maryland. He has a, but has been, I think, a leader on some of these, you know, issues around Israel, you know, he basically says, look, we need a new, we that Democrats need a new consensus on this and, and you see it forming around,

for instance, ramen manual and Chris Van Hollen and AOC. I think that's going to be, when you say there's going to be a litmus test, I think the, the kind of straightforward one is going to be something like that. And you see the even more moderate or at least normie figures in Democratic Party embracing that. Meanwhile, the, the skissman, the Republican side, it, it seems like it's going to be harder

because you really do have this kind of Christian Zionism side. This war in Iran side versus, you know, the Tucker Carlson Candacellin side. I mean, you mentioned Huckabee, but the Tucker Huckabee interview.

You're not going to have, like, a pro war in Iran faction in the Democratic primary.

That's just not going to happen in Shapiro's view, which is at Netanyahu's a disaster. It's also going to be Newsom's view is also going to be, people who judge his view is also going to be AOC's view and then they're going to kind of have to figure out how they instantiate that into proposed policies. Their home party feels to me like when you look at the young versus you look at the, again, Fox News versus YouTube. What's popular in one of what's popular in other? They feel kind of irreconcilable.

They actually have, like, not the question, Democrats are going to have to ask of, like,

“how far do you start moving in pressuring Israel to not be in apartheid state?”

But on the Republican side, do you think Israel is great? Or do you think it is led us into a disastrous war in Iran and is, like, distorting our foreign policy? I'm very worried about the ways that we'll shade into anti-Semitism and other things, but it feels very hard for Republicans to reconcile. And in some ways, Massey with that, like, final line. Like, it couldn't, I trouble reaching my opponent because he was in Tel Aviv.

It struck me as a signal of things possibly going in pretty ugly directions over there. Oh, I mean, the uglyness is going to happen, but I think that's also, as you're looking at what Massey's doing, Marjorie Taylor Greene's doing, even with Tucker's doing, like, these aren't necessarily electoral plays. I think the, the, the politically economy that exists now is you can have your career as a, as a podcaster,

“as a just a general media, a Gadfly on YouTube or otherwise. And I think that, you know,”

weird way, whereas your back bench house Gadfly might have aspired to hire office or other things, you know, in cycles past now, you're, what's your off ramp is probably just keeping a hold on this audience. Okay, but we used to say, attentional plays were an electoral place. Is that still true? Because if I look at the big lessons right now,

one thing I just see happening is you can win through dominating attention. And Trump was probably the first figure who did this in a way you couldn't

before, but you look at Mamdani defeating Cuomo and lander and a full field of Democrats. You look at Graham Platner, he destroyed Janet Mills through dominating attention. Dispenser Pratt have a chance in Los Angeles, it doesn't seem entirely impossible to me that he does. James Tolerico came out of nowhere because he became a huge figure on TikTok and ended up on Joe Rogan Show. I mean, one of the things to me that is significant about this era is it attention, like the attention economy is eating the political economy.

In comments who were tuned for this old or form of more institutionally gate kept attention, you know, went over the newspaper editorial board in your state or in your city, are getting defeated by candidates who know how to win attention online. I think we totally agree on that, but I would say if you look at the individual personalities and habits of these folks in particular, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, when she broke with Donald Trump, that was not a bid for you know, like because she thought that was going to benefit her.

That was, that's that there's an oppositional element to that. There's a, you know, there are personal circumstances around that. Massey, if you know Thomas Massey and I do and like him at some level, like he wants to syrup trouble, like he's not, he's not want to turn this into a new movement. I think this goes back to the Tucker thing, like I'm sure Tucker has lots of interesting ambitions and wants to have max optionality. But I don't know that this is about like a broader, you know, I, I think he'd be formidable and would do you think he'll run for president?

I don't expect him to and I don't know what would, like that would be chaos. And, and I don't know that the train record would be would be interesting. I don't get the sense that that's what he's doing. I think he's playing with a lot of things that could build that speculation.

“I think that benefits him and it benefits his enterprise right now. But I don't, I don't know that that's what's, I think I genuinely think he is in real time,”

twing with all kinds of things that have been, you know, floating around in his head for a long time.

I mean, that's basically my gut on him too, but, but I guess the, the point you make a margin to agree to some of these others, Massey.

I think the question maybe that that opens up is the thing that is standing between the kinds of politics that they seem to think are more authentic and more viable, you know, that certainly what is happening in attention right now on the right. The thing standing the way that is Donald Trump himself, like quite elderly, second term president. And, and so I agree that right now, if you, in their public and party, decide to pivot towards the more chaotic Carlson Owens populist,

online, Epstein files, et cetera, energy that, you know, Trump, partners to fair amount of it, 24.

He still can't be Trump when he says I am maga, he is right, but Donald Trump will be there forever.

“And so can JD Vance put these things back in the bottle, can he resist them or is Massey just early?”

Is it, you know, are these people who are telling you where the ball is going? And, you know, once it's not Donald Trump and like he is like the single dimensional litmus test of the entire public and party, it's all going to like fracture into chaos and these things that seem to have the energy right now, but that he can put a stop to, well, it's going to be nobody to put a stop to them. Yeah, I think he's been able to through sheer force of nature kind of hold together some of these contradictions within the party,

but I think so much of it is, you know, additudinal, right? Like it's not even necessarily about what the issue is, it's not necessarily about what the policies are,

and his, his gift was being able to like be all things to all people and have big being a walking contradiction in ways that kind of worked.

“I think that's really tough for anyone to do in either party,”

but just like anything else, and the Democrats are, you know, running into this too, like at the end of the day, you can have these conversations, but you need a vehicle and a vessel to harness all these things, and resolve them in a way that at least gets you over the hump to 48, 49% of the vote that is able to overcome the other side. So I think can, whether it's JD or whether it's somebody else, I think a lot of that will be this ramp toward 28,

what does the president choose to do? He obviously has a ton of power institutionally, and to me, and obviously seems like the orderly path is to hand it off to his voice president and successor.

You know, I do think that whatever happens next, it's going to be based on how to, how Republicans deal with the fact that the, the old version of the party is not what the voters wanted. It's not coming back, and it may not be in the form that we currently see it,

“but you need to find something that appeals to your voters and that that does not get stuck trying to solve the problems of the 80s and 90s,”

because that seems to be the tendency, like we've had the tug of war between Donald Trump or like Nikki Haley, like that, it just can't be that there has to be something different, and there has to be something that acknowledges Trump's appeal and what he's figured out. Well, also, you know, making it less personality based, and I think that's, that's going to be the challenge for anybody with this JD or anybody else. Are there Republicans, and I don't mean here just people who might compete in 2028, but just Republicans who are, you know, elected and are coming up in the party,

who you think represent or trying to fashion interesting versions of that future? You know, I think Democrats have an idea of who their sort of young, like Bench is, but Trump is such a huge figure, and then you have obviously the sort of Rubio JD Vance expected succession race. But as somebody who watches the party more closely, who do you watch in it as, as Bellweather's or, you know, signals of where it's going? It's a great question.

I mean, I worry about being generous fighting the last war. You know, I think people have been trying to figure out what Trump is and without Trump looks like for the past, you know, really the past decade, because there was, there was an expectation that he'd be a flash in the pan, and see that to figure out how to take the good and, and then just the rest. You know, I think that the different flavors have certainly been, there's, I mean, Rubio's, I think Rubio's transformations have been fascinating,

and quite effective in, in a lot of ways. I think, I mean, that's, that's too easy. You know, JD came by this, I mean, this has kind of been his vision of things since he entered politics, but the ones that have been playing with the congressional level like Josh Hawley. I don't think he's necessarily the guy, but watching him, Jim Banks similarly, like these guys are all, like the entrepreneurship happening,

trying to feel out, like let me see what I can do that can, whether it's harness attention or whether that's some of the White House picks up, in ways that are, don't fit the orthodoxy of the old party. I think those guys have been really interesting, but I think the end of the day, the insight of Trump is like so much of this isn't about policy. It's about, it's about attitude, it's about how you position yourself against the left,

I think there's a tendency to overindex to interesting political ideas that excite you or me,

and that's not necessarily what excites a primary electorate in 2027-2028. If you're advising, Republican candidates as some of these states we've talked about, there's obviously the specific qualities of the Democratic candidate that they're running against,

“but broadly speaking, how would you tell them to run against the Democratic Party right now?”

I think you do need to tie your candidate, whatever their eccentricities are to the national party, which is seen even by Democrats as weak and feckless, and in some ways tied to unpopular positions, I do think there is a body of evidence for anyone that was in politics in the 2020-2022 moment. There's a deep trove of hits that are in there. We're starting to say what's already go, but I think that exists for most people.

Put them on the defensive and make them account for the things that they said and did way back when. Under the light of day, six years later, it looks and sounds like dispatch from another planet. I think seeing where they were on here, seeing where they were on Biden, trying to tie them back to places where there's already been a verdict rendered. But I mean, it's just like good old-fashioned opposition research, good old-fashioned message and ad-making, and going back to that point about attention, like finding ways for this to break through,

and to almost reunify them, and otherwise, going back to Blake Masters being a weirdo. You've got to figure that out and crack that because some people maybe they'll rock it just because it's so obvious,

“but you need to paint a picture that's compelling.”

I mean, I don't know, maybe Spencer Pratt's the future. I don't know, maybe we're going to get some good AI video content, but I think that's the sort of thing that needs to break through in this kind of attention economy. So that's a final question. What are three books? You would recommend to the audience. Three books, your audience. I'm thinking of one that probably hasn't been read by most your audience, but I think should be Matt Cotton, any wrote a history of the right called The Right.

He's been here for the show, but I really think it did the best job that I've seen of reminding us that not only did history not start in 2016, it didn't start in '90 either. The iterations and evolutions of the Republican Party over a hundred years.

I think are important and instructive in terms of the current moment and how it maps on to the point that there's always been this populist anti-establishment.

Absolutely. Absolutely.

“Interesting way is kind of full circle, but yes, I think it's the fact of how fluid some of these things are.”

I think it's just it's worth for the perspective of where this all came from. And obviously there's other layers that are complicated, but I think it's a really good really good book and a good read. Another one that I think especially in this moment is a new significance now that we're talking about AI and all data centers and all these things. Patrick McGee's Appalachina. I found just very interesting from industrial policy standpoint from a foreign policy standpoint from National Security standpoint.

Really, really good and worth reading for your audience. I'll go, I'll go abundance. I think the frackers is really interesting for understanding our energy dominance, you know, evolution and revolution. I think the watching us go from a scarcity mindset in the 2000s when I started my career to being the Saudi Arabia of National gas. It's not something that they lead so I'm coming. It's not something that really smart people saw coming.

It's not what we indexed our policy and our politics too, and I think it still hasn't fully set in how revolutionary that it was.

It's an important one for your folks to read. Liam Donovan, thank you very much. Thanks, Andrew. This episode of The Asuklanche's Proost by Jack McCordek, fact-checking by Michelle Harris, Julie Beer, and Mary Marge Locker. Our senior audio engineer is Jeff Gueld, our courting engineer is Johnny Simon.

Our executive producer is Claire Gordon. The show's production team also includes Marie Cassione, Annie Galvin, Roland Who, Kristen Lynn, Emma Kelbeck, Marina King, and Yon Kobel. Original music by Alman Sahota and Pat McCusker, audience tragedy by Shannon Busta.