Howard W. French on Race and the Media, and Ron Brownstein on Shifts in the Electorate

There is no doubt that footage of George Floyd's death at the hands of four Minneapolis police officer is as shocking as it is damning of the American criminal justice system. But it is far from being the first incident of its kind, and Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism professor Howard French ("Everything Under The Heavens") refuses to let white people use the excuse they didn't already know this was the reality for black people across the country. He notes it is time for America's institutions to take a long, hard look at themselves if they want this tragedy to not be in vain. And political reporter Ron Brownstein (The Atlantic) crunches the numbers on demographic changes among both Democrat and Republican voters, as well as posits some suggestions for the coalition Biden could build. 

Transcript:

Al Hunt: [00:00:00] Hello and welcome to 2020 politics war room with James Carville. I'm Al hunt here in Washington. James is back in the Shenandoah. Now we're proud partners with a sign Institute at American university. Don't forget to subscribe to 2020 politics war room. On Apple podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

James, we have a couple terrific guests today, Howard French, a professor at the Columbia journalism school was a distinguished foreign correspondent for the New York times in Africa, Tokyo and China. A photographer and an author. He has written about them, not only just foreign policy, but about race in America in particularly about race in journalism, Howard, thank you so much for joining us.

Howard French: [00:00:52] It's a pleasure to be with you. Thank you,

Al Hunt: [00:00:54] Howard. We're going to get to our profession of journalism in a moment, but tell me your, your sense of the reaction to the murder, jury, Floyd and other racial incidents. Are we seeing some kind of real Seminole change? Or will it more likely be a femoral like the protest after Mikey, Michael Brown or Freddie gray or countless others?

Howard French: [00:01:17] Well, um, I write a column for a little outfit called the world politics review, and that's the topic of my, my, my item for this week. And, and I go back and forth on this question. Um, you know, um, I site a piece that ran in the new Yorker this week by a guy named Jelani, Cobb, who, who calls this. Um, the American spring taking from the, of course the phrase, the Arab spring, um right.

And suggesting that there's something quite deep taking place here and others have been,

Al Hunt: [00:01:47] I would just interrupt to say the Arab spring didn't end as well.

Howard French: [00:01:50] No, it didn't end. As you know, I'm, I'm a little more hopeful than, uh, about the ending of this than that, than that. But, uh, putting that aside, um, others have said, um, Uh, that this is, uh, our third reconstruction, the first reconstruction being the capital, our reconstruction, the second one being the civil rights movement.

And, and the third, if this is what we're living through, being a kind of revisiting of the civil rights era and the, the very many items of unfinished business that remained for us. Um, I, you know, I, I. I don't, I'm not a gushing optimist, but I don't think that that is necessarily out of the reach realm of possibility.

I think that. Uh, there has been a, you know, a surprising, um, firing of the imagination of lots of young non-African-American people about the state of injustice in this society and, and it's, and it's thoroughgoing manifestations in almost every corner of life. And I think that. The conversations that these recent weeks have generated will leave lasting effects.

Now how completely they will transform American society is a big open question. And I don't think they're going to finish all of the unfinished business by any means, but, but I think this is important and I don't think it's going to be, um, ephemeral. I mean, I, this morning I heard on NPR. Um, talk about, um, the, uh, shooting the mass killing in, in Charleston five years ago at the manual Baptist church.

And, and, and first of all, I was shocked that that was five years ago. Secondly, I was shocked that that wasn't itself, the occasion for the thing that we're talking about now. Uh, but the fact that it wasn't done the fact that we're having this depth and breadth of conversation today tells me that there's something much more.

Uh, potentially transformative about this moment's politics around race in the country,

Al Hunt: [00:03:48] Howard, what's your impression or impressions of the coverage of this and, um, major news media.

Howard French: [00:03:56] Mmm. You know, we've gone through phases. Um, early phases were I think, somewhat timid and reluctant to sort of dive in with, um, you know, both feet.

Um, uh, second phase has been, you know, you open the Washington post just to take one example. And I don't mean to call them out by, by any means. Um, but, uh, I happened to have read the Washington post last today and read it every morning and. And essentially the, the front page and much of the newspaper is, is, is full of, of coverage that's related.

Um, uh, and. I think that there's a kind of, I wonder about this, uh, you know, on the one hand, this is a response to neglect of these issues by the major mainstream media for so long. Uh, on the other hand, there's a kind of me too feeling that one. Sometimes gets, um, and that makes me uneasy because me too moments passed quickly.

Um, and I would rather, um, a patient slow deliberate and really, really thoughtful, um, approach to this topic, uh, then, and effusively. Sort of flood of stuff and then kind of, well, we've been there and we've done that feeling that the press congratulates itself, as it turns to the page and, and its attention to other topics in the very near future.

Al Hunt: [00:05:24] Yeah. James will jump in or millimeter. Just one more. You wrote several years ago. Um, a really interesting piece about a NICU call it the whiteness of American journalism, the paucity of African Americans in both top roles. Editors, uh, Dean Baquet and Lester hall today are the exceptions and also uncovering broader stories like national security or politics.

Has that changed over the last three or four years? Or could this be the driving force to

Ron Brownstein: [00:05:51] compel that sort of change?

Howard French: [00:05:53] It has not changed. Um, the, the latest data that I've seen, uh, the, the staffing patterns don't, don't, don't respond to the day's news, right? So. I don't expect since, you know, just in the last month or six weeks, that that one will have seen a meaningful change in terms of the way, um, American media are staffed racially speaking.

Um, but the thesis of my piece, or one of the main arguments of that piece, which was in the guardian, a long reads section of in England, uh, and was called the enduring whiteness of the American media, is that, um, We have seen a very grudging and I mean over the course of a generation even, or more perhaps, uh, acceptance of blacks in certain kinds of roles in the media, uh, sports was probably the first or maybe racial.

Urban affairs as it was euphemistically called was probably the first one when the post and the times and other major media, um, responded to, um, uh, the civil rights movement and riots and urban centers in the United States in the 1960s. Sort of what, the realization that they had no black staffers that they could send out into these areas that white, partly because the white staffers perceived being in those areas was dangerous.

Right. And so they begin to hire urban affairs people and it becomes, it begins to be okay for black people to write about race as a, as a kind of breaking news topic, not as a news analysis topic initially, at least. Um, and then. You gradually see a change where blacks are then recruited to write about sports because blacks are highly represented in sports.

So you have urban affairs and then you have sports and then more gradually, and a little more gradually grudgingly your, you allow blacks and other representatives of minority groups to come into more analytical functions regarding race and society. And we're sort of still stuck in that. Mode right now today where we have not arrived is, is systematically integrating people of, uh, who, you know, minority group members into.

Uh, areas of coverage that are not in the popular imagination typically associated with associated wrongly, I would say with, um, uh, the fact of one's racial identity, in other words, as you said, national security or business or, or national politics, um, uh, until very recently representation in the white house, press.

Core among minority group members was very low or, um, uh, international affairs and foreign correspondence, uh, and, and, and incorporating minority group members in these areas does two things. One, one of them is this is the only way that you will raise that the real meaningfully raise the numbers of, of, of African Americans and other minorities in the media.

Because if you limit them only to sports and, and. And, and this thing that I called urban affairs, well, that's always going to be a little corner of the news business. So integrating them throughout the whole range of topics is, is a way of raising the number systematically. But it is also a way of changing the orientation of the media in terms of the way it.

Thinks about and writes about it and assesses and analyzes the society because the, one of the most important purposes of having minorities be in the press, isn't just so that you can say we ticked off a box of diversity. It is also to say that we have allowed. Other points of view to enter into the picture and to fertilize or to, to oxygenate, uh, our own sense as a society, what it means to be American and what it means to be a part of this big, broad world and to do so.

It can't simply be a white perspective all the time, which is what it is almost always been.

James Carville: [00:09:45] I think when historians cover this, the video that, that young. Girl, a woman thinks you're 17 years old, so I'm not sure what to call it, but that young person took black folks knew what this was like. I think it w the real difference it made was on white opinion.

Like, Oh my God, look how casual this is. I mean, you

Ron Brownstein: [00:10:06] know, the Freddie gray and

James Carville: [00:10:08] God died to put them in the back of a police van. It didn't, it just, when, when this thing appeared, you could feel the shockwave. And yeah, the day it happened, I think of autos fortune, New York times called me and I made the video really had and continues to have a real effect on white opinion.

And I think when we go back and unearth this, I think that video is going to be up there with, you know, Important documents in American history. I really do. Mmm. At least Ashley, my vantage point. You agree with that? How

Howard French: [00:10:53] well James, I would like to juxtapose that video and, and the, um, uh, the killing, uh, that took place, um, in Atlanta most recently, and the Minneapolis killing, um, with those nine minutes of kneeling on a guy's neck with the.

Um, the massacre at Emmanuel Baptist church in, in, in Charleston that I evoked a little bit earlier in our conversation. Um, uh, black journalists at the time, um, were noting that. Uh, the, the, the extraordinary means, uh, applied by the police and arresting. I can't remember the young man's name who committed that massacre, Dylan roof, Dylan roof.

There you go. Um, the, the sort of deference that the police showed to Dylan roof, um, Treating him, you know, as, as the first officer approached him in his car, he actually holstered his pistol. Um, and, um, how, um, the other officers surrounding the car backed up sort of, uh, it's kind of almost inactive.

Graciousness as Dylan roof was, was led out of his car, they backed up and gave him space. Um, they brought him burger King in jail, uh, et cetera, et cetera. Um, and so this idea that white people should be shocked at something that happened in the last week or two, um, In some, you know, on one level, I understand it.

You know, the, the killing in Minneapolis was just so atrocious that any human being had to be shocked by it, but the idea that white people in it took until that event in 2020 to realize the ugliness of this sort of thing in America, Strikes me as kind of willful blindness because we're surrounded by this stuff all the time and there's recurrence of it.

And it's not just how blacks are treated in isolated events like this. It's a kind of systematic treatment of blacks as. And that has to be juxtaposed with the, the very, very different systematic treatment of whites. Like nobody can imagine a Freddie gray happening to a white guy. Nobody can imagine a Lloyd George happening to a white guy.

Nobody can imagine what happened in Atlanta happening to a white guy. It's just, it's, it's almost literally unimaginable. And so, you know, I think we need to get over the shock. I think we're past w H w like, like that moment has passed. It's time to actually sit up and to think, um, you know, and emotionally above this and to say, you know, this has been going on for a really long time.

And if I wasn't aware it's because I wouldn't allow myself to be aware of it.

James Carville: [00:13:36] I think people were aware. This thing that the video struggle, it's just how casual. I mean, I think that I had a real effect that it just seemed the guy was just, it was so ordinary. And it took so long and I just think it had a, a eight affect that other you're right.

Eat, horrible, terrible systemic, historic, you name it dis change something. And I agree it should have changed a long time ago. Uh, Yeah, but , I think this had a real, a real effect that deep, I hope it lasts. Let me ask you all this journalists, the two of you. So you're the editor of the paper in new Orleans during the Confederate monuments controversy, by the way, without those monuments, it was mine is being down.

I actually say wise, I would not have wanted to see what had happened in the aftermath. Of the Floyd murder had they still been up, but how would you, and it was fierce, was white resistance to this. I mean, it really was, and it wasn't just yahoos. I will, you know, respected community members. In quotations, like generalists, if you, if the two of you had an attitude, would you allow or op ed column defending the monuments, how would you assign?

I would, how would the two of you handle I've handled that story? Because it does seem to me that there was a really right side in a really wrong side in this argument.

Howard French: [00:15:31] Yeah. Um, you know, if, if I may go first, I, I would just perhaps start by objecting to the notion of yahoos it not only being yahoos. I mean, I think that the so-called upstanding, you know, well-to-do well educated citizens of, of.

Uh, typically Southern communities who have stand up for, you know, monuments toward Confederate war criminals are also yahoos. You know, why should we defer to them because they have money or they live in nice houses or that they have, you know, they speak English well, or in ways that appeal to us, you know, they're yahoos too.

Um, That's perpetuating a kind of mythic notion of the, of the South that I don't think that holds up. Right. Um, they are just as much of a problem as the guys who drive pickup trucks and have shotguns. Um, uh, and, uh, I think we have to get past that. Um, you know, as having said that, I think you won't be surprised if I say that now that.

If I were a newspaper editor, I think that we have to say an edit in an assigning, an editorial. There's room for an op ed that says, let's go slowly on this. Let's consider, uh, you know, the fullness of history and that, you know, you can't go back and change the way things were. You know, I'm not personally persuaded by those sorts of arguments, but a newspaper needs to allow a variety of opinion.

However, the newspapers own editorial, if I'm the head of the editorial page has to be absolutely clear in its. Moral stance above these things. And, and, and can't kind of equivocate. It has to say, you know, the Confederacy was not a lost cause it was a bad cause. And it, it stood for something evil and that evil was bondage of black people.

The principal heroes of the Confederacy, uh, as celebrated in those statues, wanted perpetual bondage, bondage of black people. It wasn't a temporary thing. It was, this was the nature of things. Black people are meant to be the servants of white people. We have to be clear about in our condemnation of that.

Even if we allow, you know, on the op ed side of the page, the occasional voice who says, there's another way of thinking about this.

James Carville: [00:17:46] So, I mean, when that happened, there were, you know, there were a lot of columns and I taught for me to think of a movement that has been more destructive. Then the last cost.

I was very fortunate. I was particularly well educated as a history undergraduate because we had Tia Williams and other faculty members that just never bought into that at all. The effects of the loss caused you still hear people spouting that, that kind of stuff. I mean, we have not totally kill that monster.

Sure.

Howard French: [00:18:25] Well, we have three people speaking together here, all who have roots in the South. And so w w we're all through personal experience, keenly aware of that, and that makes it all the more important, I think, in, in answer to your question about if you're the newspaper editor, why you can't waver about this, you have to.

Take up your courage and say, what is wrong is wrong and be clear about that.

Al Hunt: [00:18:49] Yeah. I would weigh in James and say that if I I'm, I'm largely in agreement with Howard. If I had been the editor of the new Orleans paper, I would not have run a column that defended the loss caused that defendant Confederacy.

Uh, I, I think that's totally unfair. I mean, that's like, you know, would you run a column? You know, that's antisemitic. Uh, the answer is of course, no, you know, I might run a column as I think Howard said, although he didn't have reservations about it, um, you know, let's go slowly on this for whatever reasons and then write a strong editorial, but let's go, let's, let's take it to today, Howard, um, the New York times and the Tom cotton column a should they have run it and B after they then backed down, should they have fired the, uh, the editor,

Howard French: [00:19:31] um, I don't think they should have run it and not because the subject itself was taboo.

I think that, um, the editing was, was shoddy. And I don't only mean in the sense that as James Bennett and his deputy claimed after the fact and not to have read it prior to publication, but shoddy in the sense that the editors failed to follow up with cotton on. Uh, things that he had said via Twitter and elsewhere, publicly that were even more extreme on the same topic, but even more extreme than that.

And a good editor should say to somebody who tone something down, um, unbelievably the Tom cotton thing was toned down by Tom cotton for the New York times. So, so you're presenting this thing. That's cleaned up for our audience. Isn't what you really mean, what you have said in some other venue in public.

I don't think the editors perform that task. And I think that that was part of their duty and in not doing that, I think they, I think they failed their duty on the question of whether a Bennett should have been fired. Um, You know, aye. Aye. Aye. It's been more than a decade since I left the times and I'm not very close to the, to the, it was never very close to the opposite or to the opinion section, but I'm not really sure to what extent fired is the exact right word for it.

I think that Bennett. Knew that he had lost the confidence of his staff. I think that the publisher and owner of the newspaper knew that he risked losing the confidence of his staff. And I think that the situation simply became untenable for Bennett in ways that Bennett himself understood. And although, I don't know what the conversation between Bennett and what the conversation between Bennett and Salsburger was like, I can imagine a situation in which Bennett himself essentially walked away from the job.

Ron Brownstein: [00:21:19] Well, let

Al Hunt: [00:21:19] me ask you what might even be a tougher one. Uh, the Washington post Marty Baron. I think everyone agrees is one of the really distinguished, great newspaper editors in America. West Lowery. Uh, most everyone would agree is one of the brightest young reporters in America and African-American, um, Marty Baron, his wife, uh, um, Lowery forever.

Since Ferguson had done some terrific pieces prize winning pieces for the post, and it came to a head some months ago when Marty Baron said you have to stop tweeting out stuff about some of these injustices. And I think I'm oversimplifying. Um, Lauer's answer was, Hey, I'm a citizen, this isn't on the one hand on the other hand journalists, and this is moral clarity issues outrageous.

Uh, so you had a great conflict there. Uh, what was your take on it

Howard French: [00:22:15] as someone who uses Twitter quite freely? Um, uh, I'm not affiliated in a, in a staff kind of way with any particular public patient. So I have great leeway in that sense. Um, I have mixed feelings about this. I mean, I enjoy my freedom on Twitter and in other venues, I enjoyed my, you know, I'm a tenured professor at Columbia university now.

And I, you know, I write as a freelancer and write whatever I want to say with very little kind of hesitation, um, in expressing myself and I that's a great luxury and one that, uh, I treasure, um, But I understand the let's depersonalize this for a moment. I don't, you know, I'm even further away from the Marty Baron, uh, West Lowery situation.

But, um, as a, as a matter of principle, I understand a newspaper or a publication having an editorial policy, which says to it's a reporting staff that, um, we expect you, your job is to cover the news in. In the, in the conventionally kind of defined sense of striving for objectivity, uh, and the search for objectivity, uh, or our image as upholding.

The search for objectivity can be damaged by taking, uh, you know, blunt stands about, uh, affairs of the day, uh, out off of, outside of our pages and therefore. We ask you to restrict yourself in the following sentence now. So I think the principle of a publication being able to do that is fine. If the rules are clearly defined and if they are applied to everyone, uh, I don't know, to the extent, the extent to which the post rules were occluded to find it.

And I also don't know whether they were, you know, applied evenly to every member of the post staff. And so that's where the rub comes. I think, you know, I don't, I don't know if Lowery felt that he was being singled out, um, or not. Um, uh, but let's assume that's not the case, which, you know, and again, I have no information about this matter.

Um, I, you know, I don't think it's wrong for a publication to say we have an editorial policy about tweeting and. Here's what it is. You sign up for this, if you want to write for us, and if you don't want to sign up for this, then you can't ride for us.

James Carville: [00:24:41] So it strikes me that now to any observer, there are way too few African Americans in journalism.

All right. I happen to teach at demand shift school at LSU and our campus is. I w I wouldn't brag on it. It's not a number to brag, but I think we're trying to approach like 15% of our student body it's 12 and moving up. Uh African-Americans  well, journalism is part of it. We have communications, public relations, graphic design, et cetera, et cetera.

I, and I had okay. I've taught more young African Americans than most college professors, just because I teach at LSU  no, I'm not giving us any kind of a star for diversity, but we're pretty diverse, but I can't recall if any of my students were really going into journalism. And it looks to me like the sh is there any program to recruit these young people two, cause whatever you think of the profession, it requires a certain skillset and it requires training to enter it.

Is there any effort. That, that you're aware of that encourages these young people to get into journalism. Most people look at it as a dying profession. They see them, you know, if I'm, if I'm a talented, young African American, I see newspapers are getting thinner and making less money. You know, TV, journalism, local TV, journalism actually is pretty diverse place because they obviously do it more for commercial reasons.

Then. Idealistic reasons, but what, what do you say? How do you get more people? More young people are calling in to study journalism.

Howard French: [00:26:43] Um, let me just say, first of all, that journalism is not, um, unique, uh, uh, in the sense of a profession that lacks diversity. If you look at professional life in the United States across the board, uh, I think the, uh, professions that are highly diverse are the exception, not the rule.

Um, and so this isn't at the first level of problem simply of journalism. It's a problem of social justice in the United States and a problem where we have to ask your question about every profession in the United States, uh, or else we're just simply not thinking about equity in the society. Uh, so the second cut at your question.

What can we do in journalism? Um, I think I could offer a few things. I mean, one of them is. Um, you know, uh, some, uh, it is true that journalism is a profession, especially, um, sort of legacy, uh, aspects of journalism, like print, which I made my career in are not seen as avenues toward wealth and prosperity by any means in this country.

Um, and as an industry, it's, it would appear to be still struggling since ever since, you know, the, the, the. Economic crisis of 2008 and the future still seemed quite uncertain. And so it, it forces, it, it faces a kind of problem of attraction that, um, across the board, I teach at a graduate school of journalism.

Um, you know, I get in trouble for saying this, but our student body is composed, uh, in its majority of. A combination of international students who from all over the world who sort of pay a cash for, for a high end journalism education and relatively affluent, uh, American students whose. Families can afford to pay for their, their children to get a journalism education, and don't have to worry implicitly too much about their employment prospects or their survival economically speaking.

So, so right off the bat, you face, you can see the beginnings of a real system. A systemic problem in terms of involving interesting and involving members of minority groups from this society in, in this career, um, uh, we offer scholarships, um, big media corporations offer internships of various kinds, but we've been doing that for a very long time and it's clearly not adequate to the task of diversity that's before us.

And so what can we, what, what remains to be done? Um, I remember, um, Early in my time at the New York times, I was hired at the times in 1986, a M Rosenthal was the editor in chief. Uh, and he was succeeded by max, um, uh, um, Frankel and Joe Lelyveld. Uh, and there was a saying, um, attributed to Joe Lelyveld. I'm not sure if he actually said this, but, but anyway, this was the kind of word of the newsroom that the times was looking for.

You know, uh, the, the, the, the, the black babe Ruth, or, you know, the, that we had to go out and hire the absolute best person, uh, in order to justify any kind of anything that could be sort of, um, Uh, spoken of by, uh, eventually by critics as affirmative action that we have to go out and just hire people who can hit endless home runs for the New York times.

If we're going to go hire minorities. Um, Lowy vellum was not had, didn't have a racist bone in his body, but I think that was a misguided view of things and this kind of narrowing of the entrance gate of journalism. At a high end high end journalism like the New York times saying that you only hire black people.

If they're like a known, known to be a star in ahead of time is a standard that was never applied to a white person ever that most of the white people in the New York times, or at any newspaper are almost by definition, not stars. Um, and so, so, you know, a different kind of standard needs to be applied where you have to.

You, you have to play percentages. You have to know that you're going to have to hire 10 people in order to get a baby with me, you know, to get a babe Ruth, you have to hire a thousand people. Um, but, but you have to have patience and you have to nurture people and you have to, you know, the times. Um, is that the very pinnacle of the kind of food chain, uh, in, in at least in print journalism of the United States, um, and it can afford to sort of poach talent from other newspapers.

Um, but this is not a process that widens the pool in terms of African American or other minority representation in the media, because we're simply, or they are simply taking, uh, a black person among a small universe of black people from one publication and bringing them to the times. The times and other lead publications have to reach down lower, have to get people straight out of school.

They have to be able to take, you'd be willing to take much more risk, be willing, to be much more patient and saying, look, you know, this person isn't going to step in and be, you know, a superstar necessarily in his or her first year in the job, we're going to have to hire a hundred people in order to get 10 people who become.

You know, who, who, who become real standouts. Um, and, but that's, since that's what we've always done with white people, why shouldn't we do it with other people,

Al Hunt: [00:32:12] Howard? I agree. We had the same experience that the wall street journal, I think it has to be all encompassing, pervasive, and start even before that, one of the things, this is.

15 years ago, I ran a little foundation for Dow Jones, Dow Jones, newspaper fund. And one of the things that we started doing, boy, well, you know, we should have done. So I wish we could have done so much more. We found out that so many inner city high schools had eliminated their newspapers because of budget cuts.

And we went to five or six schools, uh, Chicago and New York and Newark and Washington. And we used our resources and we started high school newspapers. I think if you, you know, you have. To get more people at the top, but you also have to get more people coming up from the bottom to be able to make those choices you're talking about.

And I think the industry has really not done very much about that. But, um, let's hope it changes you. You've been a terrific guest. I know we've taken more of your time than I promised. Uh, we really appreciate it. And I have, whenever you're coming back to orange County, let me know and we'll go down there and we'll tour some of those places and talk about it.

Howard French: [00:33:21] Have a little wine.

Al Hunt: [00:33:22] I liked that

Ron Brownstein: [00:33:23] idea.

Al Hunt: [00:33:31] Hey James, there are plenty of good political journalists, but there's a handful when mentioned you're automatically re their base. Ron Brownstein is in that starting five. Uh,

Ron Brownstein: [00:33:42] in brief, he was the chief political

Al Hunt: [00:33:44] correspondent for the Los Angeles times in the nineties. He's done other big jobs. He's now the editorial director for the Atlantic.

The best expert and American politics on demographics, voting patterns and substantive issues that dominate our politics. Ron, welcome to the show with two old hacks.

Ron Brownstein: [00:34:02] Oh, thanks for having me guys. I feel that I feel that the natural order of things is, is somewhat inverted here. I should be asking you questions, but let's go.

Al Hunt: [00:34:09] Yeah, but you, you may know more. Listen, we have made it quite we're convinced and you perhaps agree that Bahrain and unforeseen cataclysm, Joe Biden is in a commanding position to win this election. But even if you basically agree with that layout as only you could, how short of stealing it. Trump might win in November.

Ron Brownstein: [00:34:29] Well, I mean, I think it's, it's the same scenario that there's always been. I think there's almost no chance of Trump winning the popular vote. Uh, and we can talk for later about the implications of Republicans losing the popular vote in every presidential election. Uh, you know, since 1992, except for one.

Uh, but even if he loses the popular vote, it would seem to me that if he can recover a few points, he can get in position where he could hold on to Wisconsin, Florida, and Arizona by tiny margins each, uh, and squeeze out an electoral college victory. Um, particularly if, uh, the, um, coronavirus and the uncertain enthusiasm for Biden among young people skews the turnout.

In his direction. I think he has to recover in his overall, standing in the national vote for that to be a realistic scenario. But if he can get back to his 46% of the vote or 45, uh, that he, that he won in 2016, it is at least conceivable that he could win very narrowly. In those three States. I don't see him holding Pennsylvania or especially Michigan on under almost any circumstance.

And I don't see him winning any of the 20 States. The Clinton one. Um, and that means that he can't lose anything else. And so it comes down to the one possibility of him holding those three by tiny margins.

Al Hunt: [00:35:48] Oh, well, well let's let me talk about the electoral college for a moment. I have a friend who's a data freak who goes through all this all the time was going through it the other day.

Let me tell you what his conclusion is. I think agreeing with you that if Trump won, lost the elect, lost the popular vote by a point or so, once you get beyond two, it's hard, conceivably, not likely he could win the electoral college, but, but, but this analysis say Biden wins by. Four or five points. She's going to carry the blue wall, probably including Wisconsin, as well as North Carolina and Arizona and maybe Florida.

And if you went by as much as 10, he's going to carry all those plus Georgia, Ohio, and Iowa, and it would really be considered, you know, something approaching a landslide.

Ron Brownstein: [00:36:28] Yes. Yes. Well, no, look I, yeah, the electoral college is not completely immune to what's happening, uh, in the, in the national, uh, you know, current, uh, the voters move in similar directions in different States, meaning that if, you know, if, if Donald Trump's margin among non-college women goes from roughly 25 to 30 points, uh, in 2016 down to something like five, or even, even in 2020, Wisconsin is not going to enormously vary from that.

I mean that you're going to see comparable movement everywhere. And one thing that seems to me now, I have not done the data on this, but it seems to me very logical that a Biden lead in the national popular vote may be more evenly distributed than we have seen. Across the States then for other Democrats, for this reason, um, Biden, you know, Biden's in an unusual position where so far he is somewhat underperforming among younger voters, both in terms of their enthusiasm to vote.

And even the share of them that now say they're going to vote. For him relative, not so much the Trump, but you know, third parties or don't know on the other hand, Biden is running better than any democratic nominees is Al Gore in 2000 among older voters, including all their whites. There's no question about that.

It's consistent across both state and national polls, and I think that's an advantage that more consistently translates across the States. I mean, if you're running better, Among whites 50 plus that not only helps you in aging rust belt States like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, even Iowa and Ohio, as you note now, but it's also a big, you know, a big deal as Joe Biden.

Might've said, uh, in Florida and Arizona. And you know, if you, that is the new element. That was not there in 2018. I mean, 2018. We saw very clear erosion for Republicans in white collar suburbs, particularly among women, but also among men all across the country that is not improved for Trump. And the new element that wasn't there really in 2018, was this a weakness and softness among older, uh, older voters, including older whites.

Al Hunt: [00:38:26] And that's where if, and that's where it's not even necessarily to win them if you just reduce the margins. And I think Ron, I mean, tell me if.

James Carville: [00:38:34] If,

Al Hunt: [00:38:34] if, if you agree that among virtually every demographic group save, perhaps young voters, Biden is doing better at this stage than Hillary.

Ron Brownstein: [00:38:44] Yes, I think that's right.

I think that's right. Uh, and, and I would say the big thing, you know, we kind of think of the Trump presidency. Uh, the, the initial recoil that he faced in his first two years was among some segment of college whites who voted for him in 2016 and fell and felt that. You know, he was a business guy. He had to be more stable than he was letting on.

This was all kind of an act. When he got into office, the responsible adults would be in the room. They tame him and channel him and, you know, you know, all the rest, uh, and many of them watched the first two years and kind of horror that, uh, you know, not so much in opposition to the policies, the tax cuts in particular.

Um, yeah. But the, the behavior, uh, and the volatility. Um, yeah, and that translated in 2018 to these sweeping democratic ends, you know, Al before the 2018 election Republicans held 43% of the house seats were there, where there were more college graduates in the national average, after the election, they were down at 25% of them.

So it was a pretty big, pretty sharp movement. And of course it occurred not only in the places where we have been seeing where we've been watching, moves for the Democrats for, for years, Northern Virginia, the suburbs of Philly, New Jersey, the suburbs of Chicago, but Richmond and Dallas and Houston and Atlanta and salt Lake.

James Carville: [00:40:03] Yeah, yeah,

Ron Brownstein: [00:40:04] Georgia. Um, so that, that was very real. That was probably the biggest change that powered 2018. Uh, you know, I, I looked at this in 20 and you look at the five biggest counties in Texas. In 2012 and that's Dallas Harris, which is used in Taron, which current, which is Fort worth bear, which is San Antonio and Travis, which is awesome.

Those five big counties Obama in 2012, won them by a combined hundred and 30,000 votes. And that was kind of a big deal. He won Harris County, Houston by like a vote. And that was like a big deal, a big turning point 2018 Beto O'Rourke when those same five counties by six times as much, you won them by 790,000 votes.

Now. You know, the rural parts of Texas are so Republican that it allowed Cruz to win, but the trajectory is pretty clear. It's possible that Biden could win those five counties. I think by 900,000 votes or maybe even more, and while also reducing the Republican advantage and the surrounding suburban counties.

So you can imagine a scenario where Trump. Holds on to Texas narrowly by turning out, you know, every possible voter left in rural, uh, and East Texas places that James knows pretty well. Um, but, uh, but the M the metros, which has all the population growth is happening, where all the economic dynamism happening moves even more sharply against the Democrats.

Won't even more house to us, house seats. They possibly flip the state house by winning and enough state house seats in the suburbs of Dallas and Houston. Even if Trump's rural strength allows him to hold it. The state, this is the trade. Trump is imposing on the Republican party. I mean, he is, I think putting them in a position where they are squeezing bigger margins out of shrinking groups at the expense of provoking, greater hostility from the growing groups.

Al Hunt: [00:41:50] Well, I know James has a few comments in Texas that point they have to win. I think each seats in that state house, and there are nine shades that either, either Beto or a nine Republican house seats that either Beto or Hillary carried. In the last two elections. So they got a real shot there. Go ahead, James.

James Carville: [00:42:06] So Ron, if I just take my dashboard and my dashboard or polling averages, I get, as you can imagine a, seen a lot of polls from around the country and also I'll look at election retards in the past three and a half years. And if I had to, if I were just saying I'm being very antiseptic, I think he's going to get 42

Ron Brownstein: [00:42:32] and

James Carville: [00:42:32] to give the third party three.

Ron Brownstein: [00:42:35] So yeah, that

James Carville: [00:42:36] would produce a 55 42 result. What would that look like across the country?

Ron Brownstein: [00:42:43] Well, you know, there's the answer usually providing a 55 because it's certainly be consistent in polling that 55% of the country does not want Donald Trump to be president. Um, and the question has been, whether Democrats can consolidate that and they have struggled to do so.

Um, 55, 42. Or even 54, 43, uh, you know, it would be obviously the largest victory for either side. Uh, I guess Bush was what, 53 point something in 1988,

Al Hunt: [00:43:10] it would be since Reagan, I think

Ron Brownstein: [00:43:12] Bush with just under. 54 in 1988. Um,

Al Hunt: [00:43:18] yeah, but there were no third party,

Ron Brownstein: [00:43:20] third party anyway. Yeah. Uh, that would be, you know, that would be, and that is not inconceivable.

I mean, I believe that, you know, if we're saying that, you know, I said before Trump, you know, if you can recover into the 46 range, he can. Possibly squeeze out the electoral college. Again, I don't think he can recover into the 46 range unless he can produce an electorate different than everybody is expecting.

I mean, I think, I think the, his struggles in metropolitan America. Uh, are such, I mean, just, just, just for the background here, he lost 87 of the hundred largest counties in America. He lost them by a combined 15 million votes, which is, you know, a pretty breathtaking number. Now he was able to overcome that by winning 2,600 of the other 3000.

Um, but. If you look at those hundred largest counties, they are the places that were hit the hardest by the administration's failure to respond effectively to the coronavirus outbreak. It's still the case that the, the, the, the death rates are highest in the most dense Metro places. And those are also the places where we've seen the biggest backlash.

Uh, in the aftermath of George flood, I think it's entirely possible that, um, he loses those hundred largest counties by even more than the 15 million votes that he did in 2016, which says to me that he will need even bigger margins, uh, in small town and rural areas. I don't think he can increase the share of the vote very much there.

And so I think there's one path for him, which is just turning out vastly more. Blue collar evangelical non-carbon voters than anybody I expect. So I kind of hold that off on the side and not traded that it's enough. If in fact you will get to something like what James, just, just, um, Uh, you know, laid out, uh, I think you would see a complete Metro collapse for the Republican party.

I think you would, uh, you, you know, you're what you're already seeing in Iowa, for example, in polling, you know, now, as you guys know is, uh, Metro Iowa is turning sharply against Joni Ernst, and I think you would see Metro Atlanta look at the look at the primary, uh, turnout Republicans and Democrats were in that County

James Carville: [00:45:20] County, Georgia.

That's that's ground zero.

Ron Brownstein: [00:45:24] Right? So if that happened, you would see Democrats winning an awful lot of Senate seats. You know, don't forget at 2016, first time in American history, every Senate race went the same way as the presidential and that state is not guaranteed, but generally now we're seeing 90%.

Of correlation people voting the same way for Senate as they do for president, maybe even higher. Uh, and so you could imagine Metro based democratic majorities, winning Senate seats in Georgia, uh, and Iowa, not to mention North Carolina and, uh, Arizona and Colorado, of course, and Maine. Maybe even, you know, getting close, probably not winning in Texas again, but possibly winning the state house, uh, because you would win so many, a Metro area, uh, Biden.

If you're, if you're up to that level, nationally Biden would be winning so big in the metros, even in Texas, the Democrats could win those seats. Even if Trump's rural strength allows him to eke out. The state question of course, is how would the Republican party react to that?

James Carville: [00:46:19] I don't see him honestly. I don't.

I don't see any guy in Texas.

Ron Brownstein: [00:46:23] You don't see County taxes, Trump.

James Carville: [00:46:25] Yeah, it's took now. Not really. It's a lot of those numbers and remember 18. Yep. You know, better those numbers that was driven by white. Yep. It was our non-right number was not overly impressive

Ron Brownstein: [00:46:40] or the turnout. Yeah. Right. But James Thomas, wouldn't you worry, given that turnout, given that registration and turn into minority communities has been very person to person intensive.

Can you really get the engagement you want in the Valley? If you have to do it all digitally,

James Carville: [00:46:56] I don't know. Somebody needs to do a consumption study. In a democratic party. And I mean, a really exhaustive consumption study on Don whites under 35. I don't think people have any idea of how to communicate. I mean, I've never seen anything, anybody talk fresh about it because that's where the Slack is.

If you want to know where the last diversity is in turnout, I think it's an nonwhite under 35.

Ron Brownstein: [00:47:25] Yeah, I, you know, I looked at our CNN poll the other day. I had them run from me. The enthusiasm about voting among non-whites under 50 is not high at the moment. I mean, Biden clearly has work to do in convincing those voters that, you know, voting for him would advance any of the things they care about now.

The contrast with Trump is very clear. I know the groups like next gen America and others are, are relatively optimistic that they can do that. But if you, I mean, that's the last piece to get to the kind of outcome that you're talking about, because if you're, if you have the suburban, you know, you get to a point where, where Biden's winning 60% or plus maybe plus 60% or more of non-college white women is splitting or slightly winning non-college white men and is now running.

Uh, winning seniors overall and maybe losing white seniors by only two or three or four points instead of the 20 that Hillary did in 2016. Yeah. Obviously he wins in that scenario. If you add to that, a better than expected turnout and return to 60% plus margins among voters under 35, which is not at all inconceivable, given the Trump's approval rating and them as struggle to get above 25, 26, you put all that together.

Then you're in the ballpark for the kind of victory that no longer seem possible in American politics. Given how dug in this is,

James Carville: [00:48:34] do you need any billionaire please fund this project? Please fund. Um, and I'm, I'm talking about a huge survey of nonwhite under 35. You did, you could, you could, you could really change the world with that.

Ron Brownstein: [00:48:49] By the way, if that's the most, if that's the most movable piece that could, could advantage Democrats, I think the most movable piece for Trump would be returning to some of his cultural themes and trying to drive back some of those whites over 50. I mean, I think the suburban whites are a lost cause. Uh, the ones that are the ones that have moved away to the Republican party, you're not coming back, but I mean, there are a lot of white people over 50.

Uh, uh, who might now be saying they're voting for Joe Biden, who might be receptive to arguments, for example, blaming China for the Corona virus and saying Biden's too close to China, or that he is going to open the flood Gates to undocumented immigrants. I mean, it's, you know, those voters have not been Democrats for a while and there are reasons they have not been Democrats for a while, largely cultural reasons.

Uh, they don't like Trump. They don't like Dan Patrick and other Republican saying they have a duty to die so that people can go back to the mall and get their nails done. Um, but it, it seems to me that if there's one piece of the Biden, uh, coalition, as we see it stand here in June, uh, that is most vulnerable to kind of a Trumpy encounter attack.

It would be those, those older whites. And by the way, you know, this is kind of a, this is kind of, I think, a one time, one time sales offer. I mean, I don't think there is a long term movement back among older whites, uh, to, to the democratic coalition. I think. But the contrast between Biden who is acceptable to them and one of them, uh, and Trump's volatility and in particular, the way he's handled the outbreak, uh, kind of recreate creates this, this a unique little window where Democrats can expand the map without necessarily expanding the electorate, which has been the assumption.

I think for many years now you have to expand the Electra to expand the map. Biden may never do that. Biden may never, James, no matter how much is put into communicating with younger non my teammate ever, he may not be the guy to pick that lock, but he can easily win anyway, by improving just a few points among the older whites who do reliably vote.

No.

James Carville: [00:50:40] Yeah, yeah. That's going to be, it's going to be a tough slug, but there some, you know, there's some that didn't vote in 18 that, you know, there's a lot of, a lot of them don't like Republicans, but they

Ron Brownstein: [00:50:50] like Trump.

James Carville: [00:50:52] That that's, that that happens. You see some of that. How much, I'm not sure, but I'll agree.

There's some of that out there,

Al Hunt: [00:50:59] Ron, you wrote the other

Ron Brownstein: [00:51:00] day

Al Hunt: [00:51:01] that even if Trump loses, he's

Ron Brownstein: [00:51:03] still going to be

Al Hunt: [00:51:04] a huge force in the Republican party. You ain't got to be the case, even if he would lose decisively the way James just outline.

Ron Brownstein: [00:51:13] I, I think, I think the, the, the, the quantity, the magnitude there's a loss obviously matters.

I don't, I think Trump is a huge factor, not because of him, but because of the party. I mean, I think that the Republicans are caught in this kind of classic spiral where the voters most alienated by Trump's racial nationalism and his intolerance, and his kind of very narrow exclusionary vision, you know, his, his, his, his stamp on the party, those voters.

Are leaving and have left the party and what's left tend to be those who are most okay. And in fact, not only okay with, but excited by, uh, that vision, uh, you know, I always go back to this number in a public religion research Institute poll last year, two thirds of people who would approve Trump, say whites face as much discrimination as minorities.

Uh, there's polling from Pew that 80% of Republicans now say that people alleging discrimination where it doesn't exist. Is a bigger problem and then not finding it where it does exist. That's the core of the party at this point. And I think no matter how badly Trump does, Mmm. If you want to find, if you want to change direction, you need an electoral base from which a beachhead from which to launch that counter revolution.

Um, and that's not there at the moment. I, you know, I know a lot of more centrist Republicans there. They're universal hope is that if Trump loses Biden and the democratic. Uh, Congress, um, impose an agenda that is more left than is acceptable to a lot of those suburban whites. And they come back into the Republican primary in 2024.

Uh, and that allows the, that creates the foundation for an anti Trumpism. Plus is Trump going to go away? I mean he's, I mean, it's hard to believe he isn't going to at least dangle the possibility of running again in 2024, if he loses which he could do, uh, to keep himself in the news for three years and make it harder for anyone else to emerge much less anyone to emerge and challenge his vision, but let's, let's face it there.

And one final point, there are very few Republican. In terms of credibility to challenge his vision. I mean, this is not exactly been a profile in courage for four years. The party has, you know, I think basically said that as long as you, when, and give us the power to impose the things we want, we will excuse anything.

You do, no matter how racist, no matter how authoritarian, I mean, it has been owl. You, you covered the Republican party even longer than I have. I mean, it is. It is astonishing just to watch a major American political party behave in this way. And I don't, I think, I think it is something out of our experience.

I think what we've watched the last three years, it doesn't even fit with the American political tradition as a Richard Hofstetter would call it. I don't think behavior.

Al Hunt: [00:53:52] I mean, I don't know what the Lamar Alexander's in the Rob Portman's and the others. Maybe they don't have a conscious thing where, but you're right.

Just one final thing then back to James. You talked about young Ivy league educated, right winners like Tom cotton and Josh Hawley. I in 2024, embracing the Trump base, but really running as a respectable version of Trump that might suggest an oxymoron kind of like an honest Bernie Madoff. How can you be a respectable version of Trump?

Ron Brownstein: [00:54:21] Well, that's the question, right? As someone said to me, they're trying to replace personality with policy. So if you, if you have the core elements of Trumpism, you know, hostility and immigration, suspicious of trade, uh, uh, dubious dubious about international alliances, but you don't have the constant belligerence and belittling and the open appeals to racial, racial, resentment, it's all a little more buttoned down.

Is that sufficient to get you to those elevated super majorities among the constituencies attracted to that? I don't think we know the answer. Um, but there's no, I look, Trump, Trump is on a treadmill. I mean he and the party is on a treadmill as long as it allows him to define it, which is that, you know, his answer to every problem is to double down on cultural and racial division to try to mobilize more turnout among his base.

The treadmill is each time he does that. Uh, he reinforces the concerns among not only white collar whites, but also some of the blue collar, white women about his personal fitness to be president. And I think, you know, the party may discover the flip side of that and a cotton Holly candidacy, which is that if you, if you try to, uh, recapture some of the people who have drifted away, because they don't like Trump's behavior by being more moderately behaved, Do you get the super intensity of commitment on the other side that Trump's breaking of all these windows has gendered

James Carville: [00:55:45] well, in your recent piece, you quoted Stan Greenberg saying the base voters that don't from 60 to 67% of the party because of the exit of a lot of female.

So as of now, th th there hold on, the party is stronger than ever. Now in bolster journal poll, it was only 33%. Self-identified compared to 45 democratic, but they might be getting what they want a small appear, a party, which means you're not going to win.

Ron Brownstein: [00:56:17] Yeah. Whatever happened to that Stan Greenberg guy.

When did he ever make anything himself? Uh, after those, after those focus, I wrote about those focus groups in 1985 in McComb County that, you know, that made Stan Greenberg and in many ways, you know, anticipated the modern political world that we, uh, that we live in with, with the, the class of version. But yeah, I mean, this is look, I mean, what, when parties.

Uh, when parties make a veer in a direction like this, it is not simple to simply undo it and reverse them.

James Carville: [00:56:48] I got full relief. It was widely assumed and reported in

Ron Brownstein: [00:56:55] believed

James Carville: [00:56:56] that the country was at loggerheads of 50, 50, very few swing voters. It was all about getting the base out. Oh, I got one word. That needs explaining Michigan.

Alright. I did not even compete. It's not even good at it. How in this highly polarized place, you can't tell me people will change their mind.

Ron Brownstein: [00:57:22] Yeah, no, I think, I think that's right. I mean, I think that there are, you know, look, this is an extreme case, right? I mean, Trump is such, such a departure or aberration from anything that is anyone who has held that job before and in almost every aspect of, of the presidency that it really is kind of the maximum stress on, on party.

Loyalty, but having said that, you know, Gretchen Whitmer one Oakland County outside of, um, the white collar County outside of Detroit, by twice as big a margin as Hillary Clinton did. I mean, people moved, you know, and if Colin are red and, and, uh, and, uh, and Fletcher down to Texas, you know, they weren't any house seats.

Democrats have never won that before. They had to be some people who were voted Republican before who voted democratic, uh, Maricopa County. Right. I mean, Kirsten cinema won it by 60,000 votes after it was the largest County in America that Trump won that isn't all just differential turnout. So I do think that, you know, we are going to see that there are limits to a party loyalty, you know, again, I don't rule out Trump finding a way to claw back to 45 and making this close in the electoral college.

But right now you'd have to say the odds of him losing big. Are higher than the odds of him winning, uh, at all before you, before you exile me, I have to ask you a question, which is, who do you guys like for vice president?

Al Hunt: [00:58:40] Oh, I know that we were going to ask you, uh, if I had to pick, I would knowing absolutely nothing.

If I had to guess right now, I would do the conventional wisdom and say Camela Harris, but that is based on no reporting whatsoever.

Ron Brownstein: [00:58:55] I don't

James Carville: [00:58:55] care. I said, don't tell him that he picked Sarah Palin. I'd say it's the greatest charge in the world.

Ron Brownstein: [00:59:00] I, I, I'm kind of with you out. I mean, I, I, you know, as, as Stan can tell you, Stan Greenberg, I believe since Biden announced, that would be the ticket.

Uh, more recently I had come around to the view that there's a lot of merit and Elizabeth Warren. Um, uh, I think that Warren, you know, has shown herself to be a good campaigner. She's got a genuine national audience. It would probably excite and surprise the party. Um, but I think after everything that's happened this spring, I mean, how do you not pick an African American woman?

And if you pick an African American woman, how do you leapfrog over Kamala Harris to someone who has much less national experience? Uh, so, you know, uh, I think. I, you know, I thought Biden's personal preference probably would have been Amy Klobuchar and he probably would have been talked out of that.

That's obviously been, you know, pushed to the side by, by her role in, in, in policing issues in, in Minnesota. Um, and I think there is a very strong case for Warren, but I would be surprised if it isn't Kamala Harris.

Al Hunt: [01:00:00] The case was stronger before, uh, before Minneapolis. Now, now the fear I think would be. If you don't pick an African American, it would almost look like a rejection.

James Carville: [01:00:10] Thank you, Lauren is going to be as attorney general.

Ron Brownstein: [01:00:12] Yeah, well, I believe he should announce it broad. Can I, can I throw in a last thought I wrote a piece about this. I wrote a piece about this a few weeks ago. You know, Biden, look, there's only going to be so much enthusiasm and excitement ever about electing Joe Biden as president.

Not only because he's 77, but because he has never been a big. Broad inspirational figure. He has been someone who's been very effective in operating within the four corners of the Senate, but he's not bill Clinton and Barack Obama. He has never shown, I think I've, I've covered him since his ADA campaign.

And he's obviously an incredible, incredibly decent and empathetic guy, but he's never shown the capacity to fundamentally change the national debate or to kind of think outside of the box. And I, and I, I don't think there's going to be this like, Oh boy, we're electing Joe Biden. Where he has been the most effective ever I thought is when he talks about himself as a bridge to a new generation of leadership.

The last event he did before the Corona virus shut down the campaign Monday night before the Michigan primary, when he stood on stage with Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Gretchen Whitmer and use that kind of language. And you could kind of envision that you were not just electing Joe Biden, you were calling forth a generational.

Transition in leadership that reflects the diversity of the country in a way that every one of these Trump photo ops surrounded by white men, like the church, uh, with Kaley as the exception, uh, does not. And so I think that there, there might be value in not only naming his attorney general, but basically saying, look, uh, without getting very specific about jobs, this is my national security team.

This is my team. That's going to handle the environment and climate change. This is my team that is, you know, it's okay. Sally Yates and Stacey Abrams. And they're going to do criminal justice and voting reform. Uh, uh, I, I think that several people used to meet the Avengers as, as kind of the metaphor, um, you know, Biden as the leader of the Avengers, uh, I think is more.

Plausible to Americans as a vehicle for change, then Joe Biden as the solitary visionary leader, Allah, the one as they called Obama or Clinton. Mmm. I just think, I just think that's a better look for him and. Uh, I know they're very risk averse. Um, and there are lots of reasons why people have not done this, where they've looked at it, but not done it.

But I think there's a case for Biden to surround himself and say, look, you're not just getting me, you're getting us. In fact, I said a very good slogan for Joe Biden might be not me, us as someone else used in the, uh, in the campaign only with a different only with a different purpose.

James Carville: [01:02:46] They are showing voted argument.

Ron Brownstein: [01:02:48] There are, there are. And, and who knows, like I said, I mean, you know, telling there's only so much you can do in a vice president, there is no vice president of the signals, everything to every constituency that you have to speak to and why stop there. I mean, you know, he asked some really good people to Chad and Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren and Andrew Yang and Julian Castro and Sally Yates and Stacey Abrams and Susan Rice and Admiral Mike Raven.

And you go through the list. And, you know, the ability to reach down to some of the mayor's Garcetti and bottoms. There is a lot of talent, reflecting, different experiences, different parts of the country, different ethnic and racial groups. There's a lot of talent out there. And I think putting that in front of the country, in contrast to what the Trump administration has been, which is essentially overwhelmingly older white men running things.

Mmm. Is I think a very powerful, I know all the reasons why people don't do it and it's a pain in the butt and you got to vet people a little bit in the summer. Um, but I think there's a case for it,

Al Hunt: [01:03:57] but you don't even have to specify. You can say you can list 10 or 12 people. That's what, that's what Trump does with the justice.

Ron Brownstein: [01:04:04] I think you say, this is my team. This is going to be my national security team, you know, so that Tom Donaldson, doesn't strangle you for saying it's going to be Susan Rice as secretary of state or vice versa. You just say, this is my team. You know, and, uh, maybe you identify a couple people like Elizabeth Warren as your attorney general, if she's not your vice president.

Um, but mostly you say this is my team and people to judge is going to be my UN ambassador who better to represent America to the world and a polymath gay veteran, you know, Road scholar. So, uh, uh, I think there's, I think there's value in that, but, you know, look he's winning. He seems to be pretty comfortable, you know, letting the clock tick by day by day without, you know, taking a lot of risks.

And, uh, I, I don't anticipate Joe Biden would do this, but I think, uh, many people I talked to thought there was a case for it.

Al Hunt: [01:04:55] Well, you didn't have to announce it ahead of time, but I hope they think carefully about it. White house chief of staff, because based on so, so many years here, I am convinced in some ways that's the single most important, uh, task for a new president,

Ron Brownstein: [01:05:06] uh, blows.

That is, that, is that claim or who is that?

Al Hunt: [01:05:11] I don't know. I mean, I, you know, I'll tell you who I would pick. Sylvia Burwell.

Ron Brownstein: [01:05:16] Okay. Yeah.

Al Hunt: [01:05:18] He may not be comfortable with that, but it's just, it's a mess. I mean, Clinton did well when he had a good white house, chief of staff, Jim Baker of course, was legendary. Um, you know, I think Rahm Emanuel served Obama very well.

Those

Ron Brownstein: [01:05:31] first two years as kind of a prime minister, you know, it was kind of a legislative prime minister. Right.

Al Hunt: [01:05:35] So,

Ron Brownstein: [01:05:36] but we'll see, even though he gets a lot of opprobrium use, you know, from, from the left, but you know, Truman. Nixon Clinton. None of them got their healthcare bill even to the floor of either chamber.

And really it was rom who cut the deals, who made the ACA possible. Uh, so that alone, whatever else they decided on an immigration, uh, partially that was Nancy Pelosi. Yeah. And, and, and, you know, but look, the other, the other thing to keep in mind, one last point, um, is that if in fact. Uh, you know, one, one thing we didn't discuss is that this democratic, both parties really are more homogenous and unified than they were.

Uh, you know, this is a very different democratic party than the last time they had a unified control of government or even the house majority back then, and even Oh nine, 10. There were a large number of blue dog and rural Democrats who didn't want to do gun control, who didn't want to do immigration many voted against the ACA more voted against the cap and trade bill in the house.

It was a, it was a kind of somewhat tenuous, urban, suburban, rural coalition. That's gone. I mean, you know, there very, very few rural members left. If there isn't, the democratic majority is overwhelmingly. Uh, based in Metro America, everywhere in the country. I mean, every state, uh, and you saw that and there are nine or 10 bills that they voted on their, you know, their H one through 10.

I think they were out a total games, a total of two, no votes from Democrats on all 10 bills. Over the 10 bills. There were two, no votes. Um, and that's unprecedented. And so there is the possibility, you know, obviously if they win in Iowa, it will be because they wind two loin and the growing suburbs outside the Moines.

And if they win in Georgia, it will be Atlanta and the growings they're there. There's not going to be. Uh, Ernest Hollings or John Murtha or ice brat, it doesn't exist anymore. Uh, people are Democrats, but, but, but are responsive to rural constituencies that are dubious about many of the things that the party wants to do other than protect social security and Medicare.

So, I mean, there, this is, this is going to be a very different party. And, and the pressure point will be weather, not so much the cultural issues that divided it in the past, but the spending issues and whether they can hold enough of those suburban whites and particularly men, if they go ahead, uh, with the kind of, even the kind of agenda that Biden has laid out, I think the answer is.

Well, yes, but not guaranteed.

Al Hunt: [01:07:58] Yeah. The threat for Joe Biden. Won't internal threat. Won't be from, from the modern day, John Murphy's it will be from the AOC. Uh, I mean, that's what they have to worry about, but that's down the road, James, a final thought with Ron.

James Carville: [01:08:10] Well, no, I mean, it'll just, Darly enjoyed the conversation.

My best guests. If we went to post today, he'd have 42 and that's not. That's based on everything that I see and I keep questioning myself. And question myself and that's where I end up. I hope I'm right. But I can change. I can definitely change.

Ron Brownstein: [01:08:31] James. How high do you think he has to get, to have a chance to win the electoral college?

James Carville: [01:08:35] Yeah, I defer to you made cone, you know,

Ron Brownstein: [01:08:40] Yeah, I don't have, I, I'm not the guy on that either. I, I kinda think, I think the five, the fours and fives seems unrealistic to me, given that, given the point I made before that Biden is strong among older voters and they're everywhere. I don't think a five point Boston is going to win Arizona

James Carville: [01:08:57] during the simulation in a bag. And the third party is a real faculty here. When you start talking about that now they've got six, I think in 16, it feels like three or blood. That's one factor. We got plug into the equation here because it's gonna be significant on the

Howard French: [01:09:17] margins.

James Carville: [01:09:20] So, but I, I, I'm just thinking it's going to be 55. 42, three. Wow.

Ron Brownstein: [01:09:26] This, this has been thoroughly enjoyable guys. Thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.

James Carville: [01:09:30] All

Al Hunt: [01:09:30] right. Before we go to branch scene, one quick question. Will there be a baseball season?

Ron Brownstein: [01:09:34] I don't think so.

Al Hunt: [01:09:35] Oh, I'm afraid you may be right.

Ron Brownstein: [01:09:36] Well also, is it worth it like for a, you know, a 55 game season where they want to play in Arizona, in Florida, they didn't happen in any more.

Arizona is, you know, collapsed. Arizona may be the state that has the hospital collapse, that we've all been fearing. Uh, which is interesting given that it may be the state that also picks the president in Florida is burning out of control right now. Uh, Bernie very highly, at least right now. And so I don't see how they do it.

I don't see why they would do it at 55 game season that no one would treat seriously. And you risk Mike trout or Mookie Betts having an illness that could change their lung capacity for the rest of their lives. I, I wouldn't do it.

Al Hunt: [01:10:12] Ron brass, senior the best, uh, except you're married above yourself. So say hi and thanks

Ron Brownstein: [01:10:18] for being with us.

Thanks for having me guys.

Al Hunt: [01:10:21] James we did. Okay. By ourselves today

James Carville: [01:10:23] for sure, Dan, for sure it is. All right.

Al Hunt: [01:10:25] Will you be safe out there? Okay. All right. Good. And I want to thank everybody for listening to 2020 politics war room. And follow the show on Twitter at politics were them. You also can email us politics, war rum@gmail.com.

It's politics, we're rummage, email.com. And if you have a comment or question for us, let us know what you think of the show. Thanks for subscribing. And please tell all of your neighbors from a safe distance. Of course, James, you be safe and we'll talk to you again next week.