Speaker 1: Welcome to off the cop with me, se Cup. So
Speaker 1: last weekend I was in Washington, d C. With almost
Speaker 1: everyone else who does what I do for a living,
Speaker 1: and I go every year for the White House Correspondence Dinner.
Speaker 1: In years past, I've attended the dinner and there's parties
Speaker 1: and events and it's a fun chance to see colleagues
Speaker 1: and friends. Sometimes I bring my family down and we
Speaker 1: have a little fun in DC. But in the past
Speaker 1: few years I've actually gone down to cover the dinner
Speaker 1: for CNN, so not to attend, which is a relief, honestly,
Speaker 1: that dinner is not It hasn't been fun in a
Speaker 1: long time. I'll just say that, Okay, there was a
Speaker 1: time it was fun. It's not been fun in a
Speaker 1: long time. So happy to not be at it. And
Speaker 1: CNN is one of the only cable networks that airs
Speaker 1: the entire dinner wall to wall, and we have reporters
Speaker 1: on the carpet interviewing guests, we comment on the speeches,
Speaker 1: all of it. So I've done that the past few years,
Speaker 1: and this year I was in studio at CNNDC with
Speaker 1: my colleagues covering the dinner. When you know, all held
Speaker 1: broke loose, and then we had to cover the breaking
Speaker 1: news for four plus hours, bringing you all the information
Speaker 1: we could from our sources in and out of the room,
Speaker 1: from law enforcement, from our own colleagues who were there,
Speaker 1: like like Wolf Blitzer, who was actually in the same
Speaker 1: place as the shooter. He was tackled by police for
Speaker 1: his own protection. And it was a lot. It was
Speaker 1: a lot, as breaking news always is. I've had to
Speaker 1: cover breaking news a lot over my career, from Sandy
Speaker 1: Hook to wars and other incidents and political breaking news,
Speaker 1: and you know, it's a lot of pressure. The difference
Speaker 1: this time is I was covering a breaking news story
Speaker 1: that involved all my friends, Like I knew lots of
Speaker 1: people in that room, both you know, in journalism but
Speaker 1: also in the administration. And I've talked a lot about it,
Speaker 1: so we don't need to like get into it all again.
Speaker 1: But I did want to take this opportunity, since we
Speaker 1: haven't spoken since that dinner, to say before we get
Speaker 1: into the news, that I was so proud of my
Speaker 1: friends and colleagues for the poise and the professionalism that
Speaker 1: they exhibited that night, even while they were worried about
Speaker 1: their own safety, they were reporting on what was happening.
Speaker 1: They were running down sources, you know, while they were
Speaker 1: under tables. They were taking bikes to the White House
Speaker 1: to cover the President's briefing in their ball gowns and tuxas.
Speaker 1: And this was a night where they were preparing to
Speaker 1: be roasted by the president to their faces. And I've
Speaker 1: talked about that and what I thought, how that was
Speaker 1: a bad decision, But they would have taken it like
Speaker 1: the adults that they are. They wouldn't have tried to
Speaker 1: sue him or silence him. They wouldn't have threatened or
Speaker 1: intimidated him. Instead, they would have just sat there and
Speaker 1: taken it, because that's what we do. We take it.
Speaker 1: We take it from the President, we take it from
Speaker 1: Brendan Carr, we take it from Pete Hegseth, we take
Speaker 1: it from whomever in the administration because they're the thin
Speaker 1: skinned ones and we just do our jobs. So they
Speaker 1: would have taken it, but they didn't have that night. Instead,
Speaker 1: they faced a different kind of chaos and indignity thanks
Speaker 1: to a deranged lunatic who believed that violence was righteous
Speaker 1: and justifiable, even like too many people do these days.
Speaker 1: It was an awful night in so many ways, but
Speaker 1: also it was a real testament to the point of
Speaker 1: the night, which is press freedom. And all the people
Speaker 1: in that room are attacked on a near daily basis
Speaker 1: by people who call them fake, who call them enemies,
Speaker 1: who send them death threats, myself included. And as professional
Speaker 1: as they were and are, they're also human. So I
Speaker 1: just want to shout out my colleagues. I'm just proud
Speaker 1: of them, and I'm proud to be in this community.
Speaker 1: All right, let's move on to the news. We're gonna
Speaker 1: do a little left right today. I want to start
Speaker 1: with the right and the news that Trump's DJ is
Speaker 1: once again going after James call Me, because this is such,
Speaker 1: this is such a layered and interesting story, and in
Speaker 1: many ways it's a very sad story as well. This week,
Speaker 1: Acting Attorney General Todd blanche who, as you know, is
Speaker 1: auditioning to drop the acting and just become Trump's new ag,
Speaker 1: he announced he had indicted former FBI director James call
Speaker 1: Me for the second time in less than a year,
Speaker 1: over an Instagram post in which Comy had arranged seashells
Speaker 1: on a beach to spell out eighty six forty seven. Now,
Speaker 1: Trump is saying that eighty six means kill. We know.
Speaker 1: Forty seven refers to Trump, the forty seventh president, but
Speaker 1: to literally everyone else in the free world, eighty six
Speaker 1: means to Nick. Yes, it comes from restaurant jargon. Nick's
Speaker 1: a menu item. But Trump and Blanches DJ are actually
Speaker 1: making the case that this amounted to a threat of violence.
Speaker 1: That sounds silly. It's because it is, and there are
Speaker 1: many reasons why it's silly. First, a message made out
Speaker 1: of seashells a year ago, photographed and posted on Instagram
Speaker 1: for the world to see. Yes, this sounds like someone
Speaker 1: who is definitely hatching a plan to go kill the president. Yeah,
Speaker 1: gonna make a I'm gonna make a message in shells,
Speaker 1: take a picture of it and post it with my
Speaker 1: name on it. Yeah, doesn't really feel like an imminent threat,
Speaker 1: does it? Like? If Trump really felt like he was
Speaker 1: in danger from Jim Comy, wouldn't the FEDS have arrested
Speaker 1: him immediately. Comy was so dangerous to the president that
Speaker 1: they waited a year to indict him. That makes no sense.
Speaker 1: Come on, weren't born yesterday. Second, it's just impossible. It's
Speaker 1: flat out impossible to divorce this indictment from the politics
Speaker 1: of revenge that we know Trump is so obsessed with.
Speaker 1: He already tried indicting him last fall. It was tossed.
Speaker 1: It was tossed because of a procedural error at the DOJ.
Speaker 1: You'll remember, the judge in that case ruled that the prosecutor,
Speaker 1: Lindsay Helligan, was unlawfully appointed. And that's because the other
Speaker 1: prosecutors who got the case refused to take it. They
Speaker 1: knew it was baseless, they knew it was politically motivated.
Speaker 1: They refused to do it. So Trump had to find
Speaker 1: a lawyer who was willing to take the case, and
Speaker 1: he did, and she was a joke. And that's why
Speaker 1: that judge dismissed the case. So anyway, they're back at it,
Speaker 1: and let me just read you some of the headlines
Speaker 1: about how people think it's going to go this time around.
Speaker 1: Close Trump ally in the House shades Jim Comey indictment.
Speaker 1: Judge Andrew Napolitano says frivolous Comy indictment will be tossed.
Speaker 1: Trump allies are privately trashing embarrassing Comy indictment. Fox News
Speaker 1: legal analyst shreds Trump DOJ's absurd Comy prosecution weak case.
Speaker 1: Fox is Jonathan Turley skeptical of Trump. GJ is new
Speaker 1: comy indictment every headline I just read. That's from his
Speaker 1: side of the aisle. Guys, his friendlies on his networks
Speaker 1: are calling this indictment quote frivolous, embarrassing, absurd. Week with
Speaker 1: friends like that, who needs enemies? I don't even need
Speaker 1: to come on and do this. His own side is like, dude, dude,
Speaker 1: let it go. This is this is stupid. But that's
Speaker 1: not all you want it. It gets even stupid, are you? Guys?
Speaker 1: Trump may have killed this case before it's even begne
Speaker 1: cee an it's Caitlyn Collins asked him this week in a
Speaker 1: briefing if he really took that message in seashells I'm
Speaker 1: paraphrasing as a threat to his life, and Trump typical
Speaker 1: Trump fashion, says, I don't know, probably so good as
Speaker 1: senior CNN legal analyst Elly Honig pointed out after that, well,
Speaker 1: that gives the jury reasonable doubt. If Trump doesn't know
Speaker 1: whether he thought he was his life was in danger,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Probably how is a jury supposed to
Speaker 1: know if he thought his life was in danger? And
Speaker 1: that's the ruling. If he really thought his life was
Speaker 1: in danger, he just said, I don't know. Probably they're
Speaker 1: just so bad at this. Trump can't keep his mouth shut.
Speaker 1: His DOJ is running out of competent prosecutors to take
Speaker 1: these garbage loser cases. And for what for Trump to
Speaker 1: lose case after case after case. I mean, it's humiliating.
Speaker 1: They have failed to put like any of Trump's enemies
Speaker 1: in prison, and yet he is pathologically consumed with old
Speaker 1: and irrelevant grudges. I think Trump never looks weaker than
Speaker 1: he does in these moments when he's pursuing these personal
Speaker 1: vendettas and losing. Just in the past year, Trump's DOJ
Speaker 1: has lost numerous high profile cases it sought to use
Speaker 1: to appease the president's bloodlust. I'm going to tick through them.
Speaker 1: It failed to get an indictment against those six Democratic lawmakers,
Speaker 1: including Senator Mark Kelly, over a video they released regarding
Speaker 1: illegal orders. Remember he was going to prosecute this gang
Speaker 1: of six. Yeah, nothing, it was dropped. Grand Juries rejected
Speaker 1: various cases against protesters in Washington, d C. That Trump
Speaker 1: tried to have arrested, an attempt to charge a man
Speaker 1: with a f tell any assault for throwing a sandwich
Speaker 1: at an officer, well that failed to secure a felony indictment.
Speaker 1: Attempts to prosecute to James New York AG, former CIA
Speaker 1: director John Brennan, fed Shaer Jerome Powell thus far have
Speaker 1: all failed. Trump's also failed to successfully sue a number
Speaker 1: of his political opponents, from Hillary Clinton to the DNC,
Speaker 1: the New York Times to CNN. Remember he was going
Speaker 1: to put us all in jail. No judges have overruled
Speaker 1: his attempts at silencing news outlets, blocking a Pentagon policy
Speaker 1: limiting reporter access, ordering the White House to lift restrictions
Speaker 1: on the AP after Trump had banned the news agency
Speaker 1: for refusing to use the term Gulf of America. I
Speaker 1: remember how stupid that was. Yeah, judge ordered the White
Speaker 1: House to love you can't do that, and blocking an
Speaker 1: executive order to cut funding for NPR and PBS. He
Speaker 1: loses and loses and loses. He's lost so many of
Speaker 1: these petty personal fights. It's hard to imagine why he
Speaker 1: keeps going back to the trough only to suffer more
Speaker 1: humiliating losses. I guess if he thinks the process is
Speaker 1: the pain, right, because he doesn't have to pay for
Speaker 1: any of these lawsuits. Taxpayers do. We do, we get
Speaker 1: that honor. But the targets of his law fair do
Speaker 1: have to pay for their lawyers to defend his nonsense attacks.
Speaker 1: So I guess that's what he gets out of it.
Speaker 1: But for a guy who understands optics and appearances like
Speaker 1: the TV of it all, I don't understand why he
Speaker 1: likes losing over and over and over and over and
Speaker 1: over and over and over again. I don't get it.
Speaker 1: It's so small, it's so embarrassing, it's so dumb. But
Speaker 1: it's a trophy goes back and back to because he
Speaker 1: just can't help himself. He fired Pambondi because she didn't
Speaker 1: get enough or any scalps. We'll see if Todd Blanche
Speaker 1: can do better. It's just such a waste. Okay, I
Speaker 1: want to move on to another story from the week
Speaker 1: This is over on the Left. Did you happen to
Speaker 1: catch Pod Save America's John Favreau and his interview with
Speaker 1: DNC chair Ken Martino. Boy, Oh my god, you gotta
Speaker 1: go watch it. I watched the whole thing. It was
Speaker 1: let's just say it was uncomfy. John Favreau asked some
Speaker 1: very very good questions of Ken Martin of his own side, which,
Speaker 1: believe me, I know, can be hard to do, but
Speaker 1: it's so necessary and important. So I was really, you know,
Speaker 1: but proud of John Favreau, impressed by John Favreau for
Speaker 1: really going after Ken Martin, and he did. And one
Speaker 1: of the main lines of questioning came around the dem
Speaker 1: autopsy that the party did last year. We've talked about
Speaker 1: it a bit here, and having been through the Republican
Speaker 1: autopsy in twenty twelve, which which I personally worked on,
Speaker 1: I can tell you how valuable this exercise can be.
Speaker 1: And in twenty twenty four, when Democrats lost all seven
Speaker 1: swing states to a convicted criminal and a guy, we
Speaker 1: knew it was crucial that they do that autopsy. It
Speaker 1: was the right thing to do, to ask how did
Speaker 1: this happen, what mistakes did we make? What can we
Speaker 1: learn from twenty twenty four and not repeat in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty eight. Good questions, right, like obvious, obvious need for
Speaker 1: this autopsy. But in December of last year, Ken Martin
Speaker 1: announced he wouldn't be releasing the results of that autopsy,
Speaker 1: which I could not believe. I couldn't believe when I
Speaker 1: heard that. What a dumb decision and a huge missed opportunity.
Speaker 1: For a couple of reasons, a releasing the autopsy would
Speaker 1: have inoculated the party from years of having to answer
Speaker 1: this same question, what was in the autopsy? They look
Speaker 1: so scared running from their own shadow, and they're going
Speaker 1: to face these questions from folks like Jon Favreau for
Speaker 1: the next couple of years. What was in the autopsy?
Speaker 1: What were you so afraid of? But it also would
Speaker 1: have given Ken Martin and other Democrats the opportunity to
Speaker 1: do something really important, which is reassure voters, voters who
Speaker 1: at the moment are giving the Democratic Party a twenty
Speaker 1: eight percent approval rating abysmal. It would have given them
Speaker 1: the opportunity to reassure voters that they get it. Okay,
Speaker 1: they understand, they got what they did wrong, they learned
Speaker 1: from their mistakes, and here's how they're moving forward to
Speaker 1: win those voters back and put the party in a
Speaker 1: better position for twenty twenty eight. What Democrat wouldn't relish
Speaker 1: that opportunity to come out and say we got it,
Speaker 1: we got it, we're correcting it, not gonna happen again.
Speaker 1: We're not gonna we're not gonna let you down again.
Speaker 1: They did none of that. They get to do none
Speaker 1: of that because they're scared of whatever's in that autopsy. Now,
Speaker 1: maybe there are a few surprises in that autopsy. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I doubt it. For me, it's hard to see.
Speaker 1: It's hard to imagine that the reasons the party lost
Speaker 1: aren't the obvious ones we can see, like we can
Speaker 1: decide like there were bad candidates. Biden should not have run, period,
Speaker 1: and Kamala basically ran as Biden. You know she had
Speaker 1: to because he was still her boss. The divide on
Speaker 1: the Israel issue divided the party two. But the main
Speaker 1: reason I know that they lost, and I'm sure you
Speaker 1: know that they lost, is because they look voters in
Speaker 1: the eye and they said that the three problems you're
Speaker 1: most concerned about aren't real, they're imaginary. The economy it's great.
Speaker 1: What are you complaining about. Crime, it's down, you're safe. Relax. Immigration,
Speaker 1: there's no migrant crisis. You're just racist. It was such
Speaker 1: an insane dereliction of duty to campaign that way. It
Speaker 1: was political map practice, and it was just stupid. It
Speaker 1: is not rocket science to figure out what happened. But
Speaker 1: you know, again, because I've been through an autopsy, it
Speaker 1: does reveal things you can't maybe see in front of
Speaker 1: your face. It might have drilled down into all kinds
Speaker 1: of strategic mistakes, maybe some media mistakes, fundraising mistakes, map
Speaker 1: and math mistakes, all kinds of things that would be
Speaker 1: really great to know. And especially if you're a Democratic voter,
Speaker 1: you deserve to know what the party did wrong and
Speaker 1: what it learned. You should demand that, in fact, because
Speaker 1: let's just be honest here and say what really happened.
Speaker 1: The Democratic Party let you down in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: It let us all down in twenty twenty four. I
Speaker 1: voted for Biden in twenty twenty first Democrat I have
Speaker 1: voted for president. It let me down in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: And we are here today in a war we've never
Speaker 1: asked for. Tariff, no one wanted immigration policies that have
Speaker 1: militarized our cities and gotten Americans killed. A Republican Congress
Speaker 1: who's turning a blind eye to every un American, undemocratic,
Speaker 1: unconstitutional thing. The president is doing, an economy that is tanking,
Speaker 1: and on and on. We're here because the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: let us down in twenty twenty four. We're here because
Speaker 1: the party didn't listen to its voters. Instead of listening
Speaker 1: to the issues that voters said they cared about, it
Speaker 1: wanted to tell voters the issues they should care about.
Speaker 1: It's indefensible. It's indefensible what happened in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: So you shouldn't just assume that the Democratic Party has
Speaker 1: it's shit together this time. You shouldn't just assume that
Speaker 1: they're going to run candidates who can win in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty eight. You shouldn't assume they'll make her decisions. You
Speaker 1: should demand that the party be accountable to you, the voters,
Speaker 1: And part of that is releasing the autopsy and telling
Speaker 1: you what happened. Because it's been accountable, it seems only
Speaker 1: to consultants and corporations and special interests that have their
Speaker 1: own agendas, and those agendas are hurting the party, they're
Speaker 1: hurting us. This goes to another issue that became relevant
Speaker 1: this week. Did you see that Janet Mills means pretty
Speaker 1: popular governor dropped out of her bid for Senate. Mills,
Speaker 1: a Democrat, was running to unseat Republican Susan Collins, who
Speaker 1: has been there for twenty nine years. Guys and Mills
Speaker 1: was actually recruited by Chuck Schumer. Well, she dropped out
Speaker 1: this week because she says she doesn't have the money
Speaker 1: to keep running, So that leaves Graham Platner, the progressive
Speaker 1: oyster farmer with no political experience and some baggage to
Speaker 1: run against Collins. Democrats hope of unseating Susan Collins now
Speaker 1: rests with Graham Plattner now. Mills campaign reminded me a
Speaker 1: lot of Andrew Cuomo's campaign in New York City. I
Speaker 1: covered the Mumdanni mayoral election every day last year, and
Speaker 1: the Democratic Establishment aka the Party kind of ran the
Speaker 1: same playbook against Mumdanni as it is against Platner. The
Speaker 1: Democrats tried to make Mumdanni scary in the primary, scary
Speaker 1: to other Democrats. They thought if they pointed out the
Speaker 1: things that he had said about cops and Israel, that
Speaker 1: that would be enough to turn voters off. And it
Speaker 1: did turn some voters off. It certainly turned me off,
Speaker 1: and they could have ended up being problems for Mumdanni,
Speaker 1: but ultimately they weren't because voters were more concerned with
Speaker 1: issues and ideas. They liked Mumdanni's ideas. They liked that
Speaker 1: he wasn't an establishment politician. They ignored the DNC, they
Speaker 1: ignored Cuomo, and in fact, the Democratic Party hardly helped
Speaker 1: Mumdanni at all. Schumer didn't even endorse Mumdanni when he
Speaker 1: became the nominee. Jeffries only did the last minute. The
Speaker 1: main race to me, feels similar. The Democratic Party was
Speaker 1: backing Mills, and it tried to ward voters off Platner
Speaker 1: by making him seem scary, the Nazi tattoos, his comments
Speaker 1: about rural America and cops, I mean, all of which
Speaker 1: could be disqualifying and again turn me off. But it's
Speaker 1: a new era. Voters like Platner because of his ideas,
Speaker 1: because he's not an establishment politician. They're sick of the
Speaker 1: gerontocracy telling them how to vote. And Schumer's running a
Speaker 1: playbook from like twenty twelve, it's twenty twenty six. He
Speaker 1: is so out of touch. How does the party not
Speaker 1: get that? And look what worked from Momdannie in New
Speaker 1: York City may not work for Platner in Maine or
Speaker 1: James tell Rico in Texas will have to see but
Speaker 1: backing Mills the way that the Democratic Party did, only
Speaker 1: to have her drop out and leave Graham Plattner may
Speaker 1: have guaranteed Collins gets another their term. So they don't
Speaker 1: have it all together. Guys, Trump is an insane person.
Speaker 1: This administration is off the rails, that's for sure. Democrats
Speaker 1: don't have it together though, And while midterms look like
Speaker 1: they're going to be good for Dems, I'm very worried
Speaker 1: about twenty twenty eight. You should be too, okay when
Speaker 1: we come back. I talked to a former DEM operative
Speaker 1: about all of this. Don't go anywhere. Welcome back to
Speaker 1: Off the cop I'm joined now by my friend Moa Laitha.
Speaker 1: Mo was the DNC spokesman. He's a DEM strategist. Currently
Speaker 1: he's the executive director of the Institute of Politics and
Speaker 1: Public Service at Georgetown University.
Speaker 2: Welcome mo It's so good to be with you.
Speaker 1: So good to be with you too. We were talking
Speaker 1: about the podsave interview with Ken Martin, and I really
Speaker 1: really want to get your take on it, in which
Speaker 1: John Favreau kind of you know corners. Ken Martin on
Speaker 1: why the DNC hasn't released the autopsy and apparently has
Speaker 1: no plans to. And I can't tell you how dumb
Speaker 1: I think that decision is as someone who did a
Speaker 1: Republican autopsy and we learned a lot from it. But
Speaker 1: what's your take on on all of that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, you and me both, I don't. Uh, I don't
Speaker 2: get it. Yeah, you know, Look, I'm uh. In my
Speaker 2: previous life, I was a I was a communications guy. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and like and a great one. You're you're too kind.
Speaker 2: But like rule number one, like, don't make a promise
Speaker 2: you know you're not going to keep. And so whether
Speaker 2: or not, like it was smart to release the autopsy,
Speaker 2: he promised to release the autopsy. He campaigned on releasing
Speaker 2: the autopsy. So it just set just set up an expectation.
Speaker 2: And so if you're not, if you don't want to
Speaker 2: release the whole thing, release something, right, do something. But
Speaker 2: when it gets to the heart of the matter itself,
Speaker 2: I think here's the problem. I'm a proud Democrat, have
Speaker 2: been my whole life, even though I run this non
Speaker 2: partisan institute now like I'm a Democrat. We messed up
Speaker 2: the last election, and I think it is important for
Speaker 2: people to see why and how Number two, people don't
Speaker 2: like us right now. They like Republicans less, but that
Speaker 2: doesn't mean they like us, and to show a little
Speaker 2: bit of self reflection would probably do us some good, right.
Speaker 2: I Mean, one of the reasons people don't trust politics
Speaker 2: in general is because because of that fact, they don't
Speaker 2: they think we're tone deaf in both parties, and so
Speaker 2: being able to go out there and say you know what,
Speaker 2: we hear you, we see what you don't like, and
Speaker 2: we're going to make some changes like that would go
Speaker 2: a long way to restoring public trust.
Speaker 1: I mean, I just said that, and you weren't here
Speaker 1: for when I said that, so we didn't coordinate this
Speaker 1: like that's it when you in twenty twelve, someone in
Speaker 1: the party, I forget who it was, said, listen, we
Speaker 1: got sent to the woodshed, and when you get sent
Speaker 1: to the woodshed, you sit down, shut up, and think
Speaker 1: about what you've done. And that really stuck with me
Speaker 1: because you know, I was a lifelong Republican. That was
Speaker 1: my team and we lost badly, and so I wanted
Speaker 1: I thought it was important we owed it to voters
Speaker 1: to say we're working on ourselves. You deserve a better party,
Speaker 1: You deserve answers, you deserve to know that we figured
Speaker 1: some stuff out and it did go a long way.
Speaker 2: You'll get this right as a parent, like when my
Speaker 2: kids screw up, Yeah, I want them to own up
Speaker 2: to screwing up. When they don't, when they just say no,
Speaker 2: I didn't do anything right, right, that pisses me off
Speaker 2: even more so, Like, you know, it's no different here.
Speaker 2: People want to know that we get it and you
Speaker 2: know we own up to it. It's not going to
Speaker 2: restore trust overnight. Things might even get worse before they
Speaker 2: get better, but that's the first step. That they won't
Speaker 2: get better if we don't.
Speaker 1: I agree, And that worries me because again, I think
Speaker 1: Trump and Republicans are such an in such a bad place,
Speaker 1: and they're such an existential threat, like the other party
Speaker 1: needs to get its act together and be a stronger buffer,
Speaker 1: and obviously they didn't do that job. In twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: the reports that the big boogeyman in the autopsy is
Speaker 1: like the fracturing of the party over Gaza. Even if
Speaker 1: that's true, don't you think we can handle it?
Speaker 2: And don't you think people already know that? Right?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: I mean, we saw it play out in front of
Speaker 2: ourselves every single day.
Speaker 1: It's not a secret issue. It was issue through the
Speaker 1: whole campaign.
Speaker 2: Through the whole campaign. And so if we as a party,
Speaker 2: if people who want to lead this nation can't stand
Speaker 2: up and talk about the hard things. Yeah, right, Like,
Speaker 2: what's the point? What's the point? Otherwise we're just going
Speaker 2: to continue down this terrible trend of each party winning
Speaker 2: elections by sucking just a little bit less.
Speaker 1: Yes, Oh, that's a perfect way to put it, right,
Speaker 1: I mean that we can suck the least.
Speaker 2: That's been like the last two or three election cycles
Speaker 2: for us.
Speaker 1: Yes, Democrats lost kinds of voters in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: They lost a good number of black voters, Hispanic voters,
Speaker 1: young voters. They left the Democratic Party for Trump. Now
Speaker 1: some of that support has collapsed, of course on the right.
Speaker 1: But if Democrats want them to return to the party
Speaker 1: and not just stay home in twenty twenty six, have
Speaker 1: they done enough to show that they've earned that vote back?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I don't know. I mean, this could be what
Speaker 2: we were just talking about. Right. Look, when Trump won
Speaker 2: with what was an incredible coalition in twenty right, like
Speaker 2: credit where it's due, He built a his campaign, built
Speaker 2: a coalition to help him win that election, and it
Speaker 2: set off alarm bells, and rightfully so. Now I was
Speaker 2: quick to caution people like, let's not call this a
Speaker 2: trend yet, Let's see if it was a blip. And
Speaker 2: in the special elections and the Virginia and New Jersey
Speaker 2: elections last year, we saw it start to move back.
Speaker 2: But that doesn't mean What that tells me is that
Speaker 2: the voters who were once rock solid for us are
Speaker 2: no longer rock solid. They are willing to shop around.
Speaker 2: They may and they may not like what they're seeing
Speaker 2: now with Trump and feel let down by him, as
Speaker 2: they should. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're sold on
Speaker 2: us again. Might be enough to get us through the
Speaker 2: next election cycle, but we need to worry. That's true
Speaker 2: with black voters. I think we are a long way
Speaker 2: away from black voters shifting permanently into the Republican column.
Speaker 2: But if they stay home, that ain't good for us. Latinos, Yep,
Speaker 2: it's very true. But where it is the most interesting
Speaker 2: and concerning for her young voters. Yes, because the patterns
Speaker 2: you develop early in your voting life tend to stick
Speaker 2: with you for quite some time.
Speaker 1: Well, and you work with students were you surprised that
Speaker 1: so many young people went for Trump in twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: Four I wasn't now, not because I think they are
Speaker 2: ideologically shifting to the right. I mean, lord, you can
Speaker 2: say this better than I. Trump isn't on the right
Speaker 2: right like he's not a conservative, not at all. So
Speaker 2: it's not an ideological shift. But what they are saying
Speaker 2: is what we are seeing in so many sectors of
Speaker 2: society with young voters right now, they're looking for disruption.
Speaker 2: They feel like this system isn't going to be there
Speaker 2: for them. And that's true politically, economically, even socially and culturally.
Speaker 2: They think that the system is rigged. They think the
Speaker 2: system is broken, and so they're looking for whatever it
Speaker 2: is that will cause disruption. And Trump was that last time. Now,
Speaker 2: I think like a lot of America, and this was
Speaker 2: true in twenty sixteen, with a lot of America who
Speaker 2: that was also looking for some sort of disruption they
Speaker 2: saw They they're looking at the way he's acting and saying, oh, wait,
Speaker 2: maybe that's not the disruption I was looking. That's a
Speaker 2: little too disruptive. Give us some disruption. We don't want chaos.
Speaker 2: And so I'm not surprised to see them shifting back
Speaker 2: in the subsequent elections. But it doesn't surprise me that
Speaker 2: they They're angry, they're frustrated, they're scared, and they're looking
Speaker 2: for the person that gets that. And he rhetorically got
Speaker 2: that in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: Yep, Kama Harris is teasing she may run again. Is
Speaker 1: the third time the charm? Do voters need to see
Speaker 1: her run a third time? Or have they seen enough?
Speaker 2: I this is going to sound flip. I don't mean
Speaker 2: it to be. She's got a right to run. If
Speaker 2: she wants to make the case, go out there and
Speaker 2: make the case. I would if she intends to, if
Speaker 2: she really is serious about it, I hope she makes
Speaker 2: a different case than she did last time. I have
Speaker 2: a hard time seeing it. I have a hard time
Speaker 2: seeing her getting traction in a Democratic party because I
Speaker 2: do think Democrats want change, they want a fresh face,
Speaker 2: and they want someone who is going to be a
Speaker 2: little bit more disruptive. She ain't that, right. Yeah, And
Speaker 2: so look here at the end of the day, and
Speaker 2: you and I may have talked about this before, I
Speaker 2: think our politics has shifted away from left versus right,
Speaker 2: and it's been shifting away from left versus right for
Speaker 2: quite some time that the new paradigm that drives our
Speaker 2: politics is front versus back. People who feel like they're
Speaker 2: stuck at the back of the line versus everyone they
Speaker 2: see in front of them keeping them at the back
Speaker 2: of the line. That's why you see a rise of
Speaker 2: populism on the right and why you see a rise
Speaker 2: of populism on the left. People believe the system is
Speaker 2: rigged that and they cannot no matter how hard they work,
Speaker 2: no matter how much they play by the rules, they
Speaker 2: can't get ahead.
Speaker 1: Whether it's the billionaire keeping them from that or the
Speaker 1: migrant worker keeping them from the job. Right, it's one thousand.
Speaker 1: That's such a good framing.
Speaker 2: And whoever gets that does well. And we have seen that.
Speaker 2: We have seen that pattern. Actually, if we think about it,
Speaker 2: over the past fifty years, we have seen our country
Speaker 2: shifting in that direction. We're in a populist era. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and there's two types of populace, not just left and right.
Speaker 2: There's there's hopeful, aspirational populace right and there's angry populace.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's Reagan and there's Trump.
Speaker 2: There's Reagan and there's Trump, there's Obama or Clinton, and
Speaker 2: there's Bernie right, and people start in these eras from
Speaker 2: an angry place. It takes a very special kind of
Speaker 2: political leader to pull them over into aspiration and hope
Speaker 2: we'll see. We'll see, but it's going to take The
Speaker 2: next President of States is going to be President United
Speaker 2: States is either going to be an angry populist or
Speaker 2: an aspirational populist. It's not going to be a safe
Speaker 2: mushy in the middle. And I don't mean that ideologically.
Speaker 2: Could be I know, right, it could be a moderate,
Speaker 2: it could be a centrist. But if they're aspirational in
Speaker 2: getting this front versus back dynamic, they'll do well.
Speaker 1: Such a good point. Okay, let's quickly just talk about Maine.
Speaker 1: I was making this comparison between the New York City
Speaker 1: mayoral last year and the main race because it seemed
Speaker 1: to me, you know, I covered that race every day.
Speaker 1: It seems to me the party's running a kind of
Speaker 1: a similar playbook. The party preferred Cuomo, not mum Donnie,
Speaker 1: so they tried to make mum Donni look scary. Voters
Speaker 1: didn't care. They liked his ideas. Schumer wouldn't even endorse
Speaker 1: mum Donni when he became the nominee. Now Schumer recruited
Speaker 1: Janet Mills to run against Susan Collins. She tried to
Speaker 1: make Graham plattn Or look scary, but voters like his ideas,
Speaker 1: they like that he's outside of politics. Now she's out,
Speaker 1: Collins could win another term. I mean, give me your
Speaker 1: assessment of what's going on in Maine.
Speaker 2: I think it is in part what we were just
Speaker 2: talking about, right, it is Platner gets the front versus back,
Speaker 2: the disruption that it comes down to, who's gonna make
Speaker 2: me feel heard? Who is going to give voice to
Speaker 2: my anger and give me a path forward? It's why
Speaker 2: if you think about it, right, Like in twenty twenty five, Mom,
Speaker 2: Donnie did very well, but so did Abigail Spandberger and right,
Speaker 2: they all were laser focused on that lane. They didn't
Speaker 2: and where they were running, right exactly, They didn't get
Speaker 2: sucked into cultural battles. They right, they were just laser
Speaker 2: focused on front versus back. True leadership I think is
Speaker 2: run it still is operating on an old paradigm of
Speaker 2: who can appeal to centrist the best? Yeah, how can
Speaker 2: we not have watched the past? How can we have
Speaker 2: watched the past decade of our politics and not realized
Speaker 2: that ain't the question anymore. Right, It's not about mobilizing
Speaker 2: the base or winning the center. Donald Trump, Donald freaking Trump,
Speaker 2: was able to do both mobilize his base and pull
Speaker 2: over enough voters from the center. So that's got to
Speaker 2: tell us where it's a different time game. Yeah, it's
Speaker 2: just a different game, and we need to start playing
Speaker 2: that game.
Speaker 1: It feels like Schumer and the Party are running like
Speaker 1: a twenty ten twelve race. Yeah. I want to end
Speaker 1: on sort of a positive note for Democrats. Rumors are
Speaker 1: swirling that Democrats could take the Senate. What do you think?
Speaker 2: Look, I've stopped making predictions over the past decade, same
Speaker 2: so so I don't know. I rather be in Democratic
Speaker 2: Party headquarters today than than a year ago. Looking at
Speaker 2: the map, right, I do think things have moved in
Speaker 2: our direction, and I think states, you know, do I
Speaker 2: think we could win Texas U triple bank shot? Maybe?
Speaker 2: But Republicans have to spend a lot of money to
Speaker 2: make sure we don't. And that's money that's not going
Speaker 2: to North Carolina, which is a state we very much
Speaker 2: can win. You know, do I think we could win
Speaker 2: in Montana or now with this new candidate in Kansas.
Speaker 2: You know again triple bank shot. But suddenly they're in play.
Speaker 2: They're at least, you know, places that are gonna be competitive.
Speaker 2: And look, with the President's numbers the way they are
Speaker 2: and people, you know, gas prices not you know, moving
Speaker 2: down fast enough, anything could happen. So I I am.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't say I'm bullish on taking the Senate, but
Speaker 2: I'm also not completely pessimistic. It's it. We got to
Speaker 2: see what happens in the next couple of months. I
Speaker 2: think it's it's it could happen.
Speaker 1: Wow, Okay, we're going to our exit poll. It's a
Speaker 1: series of three questions of varying degrees of seriousness that
Speaker 1: we always end with. So I'm going to start with
Speaker 1: what is your favorite movie about politics?
Speaker 2: Mamalifah My favorite movie about politics, I'm going to old school.
Speaker 2: It's The Candidate with Robert Redford. Right like it is
Speaker 2: having worked on enough campaigns, it is one of the
Speaker 2: most true to life of what it's like to be
Speaker 2: on the campaign trail.
Speaker 1: That's what people say. We've had We've heard that answer before,
Speaker 1: and what people say is having worked in it that
Speaker 1: is like a documentary one percent. I say the same
Speaker 1: about broadcast news, which is like the journalist's favorite movie.
Speaker 1: Like that's our version, it's a documentary.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, exactly.
Speaker 1: Someone you admire across the aisle.
Speaker 2: Look, I'm in Arizona. I grew up, and even though
Speaker 2: I worked against him a number of times, John McCain
Speaker 2: is still to me the model of servant leader, even
Speaker 2: though I disagreed with him and his loss was a
Speaker 2: huge blow to the country in today's politics. Look, I
Speaker 2: think there are a number of people out there who
Speaker 2: are interesting voices, who ideologically I could not be more
Speaker 2: unaligned with, but I appreciate their spirit of service. I
Speaker 2: think of Governor Kemp in Georgia as somebody who I
Speaker 2: don't like his policies, but I think he's in it
Speaker 2: for the right reasons. I Look, I think Senator Collins
Speaker 2: is someone who's in it for the right reasons, and
Speaker 2: even though I don't think she has been effective in
Speaker 2: ways I would like her to be in pushing back,
Speaker 2: I think she Senator Murkowski Senator Tillis are people who
Speaker 2: are at least in it for the right reasons and
Speaker 2: willing to push back when they feel like they need to, and.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that good. And finally, how do we save
Speaker 1: our democracy?
Speaker 2: My day job is working with young people who are
Speaker 2: thinking about this every single day, and you know, the
Speaker 2: sooner we can turn the keys over to them, I
Speaker 2: think the better it will be for all of us,
Speaker 2: because Lord knows, we haven't figured out we keep screwing
Speaker 2: it up even more. I think the biggest challenge that
Speaker 2: our democracy faces there are two things, and students are
Speaker 2: very keenly aware. One hyper polarization, the fact that we
Speaker 2: won't even talk to each other. We can't even listen
Speaker 2: to each other, and sometimes algorithms don't let us. That's
Speaker 2: a real issue. And the second is AI and AI
Speaker 2: is going to have such a profound impact on democracy.
Speaker 2: And I don't know that anybody has any clue as
Speaker 2: to all the different ways it's going to disrupt us
Speaker 2: what that's going to look like, but we better We
Speaker 2: better figure it out pretty soon and stop being afraid
Speaker 2: of it. And I think those are two keys.
Speaker 1: To tackle Love it Moa, Letha, this was such a
Speaker 1: great conversation. You're so wise. I'm really glad you came on.
Speaker 2: It's so good to talk to you. We got to
Speaker 2: do it bit more.
Speaker 1: Talk to you and thank you for tuning in. We'll
Speaker 1: see you next week with more Off the Cup. Off
Speaker 1: the Cop is a production of iHeart Podcast as part
Speaker 1: of the Reason Choice Network. If you want more, check
Speaker 1: out the other Reason Choice podcasts, Politics with Jamel Hill
Speaker 1: and Native Land Pod. For Off the Cop, I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Si Cup. Editing and sound designed by Derek Clements. Our
Speaker 1: executive producers are me Si Cup and Lauren Hanson. Rate
Speaker 1: and review wherever you get your podcasts, Follow and subscribe
Speaker 1: for new episodes every week.