Andrew Bacevich on the Future of Foreign Policy, Michael McDonald on Florida's Fate and Billy Begala on Trump's Texas Titanic
While Trump's outrageous behavior may still shock some, there are plenty of the most savvy and seasoned political veterans who see him for what he really is: a desperate charlatan who is capable of anything. Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft president Andrew Bacevich is even able to look forward, beyond this dark period, to the larger issues America faces as a global player. Dr. Michael P. McDonald, professor of political science at the University of Florida, predicts a brighter future for Democrats. And Texas Democratic Party consultant Billy Begala enjoys a hearty laugh at the recent follies of Trump supporters in his state.
Show Notes:
01:00 – Intro
02:00 – A president who'll do anything
04:30 – The new foreign policy priorities
10:30 – Little will to change
16:45 – Limited successes in the global theater
22:00 – When generals speak out
26:00 – The purpose of dissent
31:00 – Even more voter turnout
36:00 – Talking numbers
40:00 - Florida on Election Night
45:00 - Trump's favorite governor
49:00 - Calling a close race
56:00 - Sinking ships
59:00 - A Texas dog fight
1:03:45 - Do as we say, not as we do (when it comes to poll watching)
Transcript:
Al Hunt: [00:00:00] And the podcast, nice white parents reporter Hahna jockey wall. You may know her from this American life. Started looking into this one school in her neighborhood after her kids became school age in New York city, Hannah examines is public middle school, traditionally filled with black and Brown students.
After a number of white families arrived and then not satisfied, fully understood what she was seeing. She went all the way back to the family of the school in the 1960s, and then up to the present day again. Eventually Hunter realized she could put a name to what was getting in the way of making the school better.
All these years. White parents. Nice white parents. Fascinating. Listen. That's deeply relevant today. It's made by serial productions in New York times company. Same people who made the hit podcast, serial and S town. All episodes are now available. Wherever you do. Get your podcast.
Hello and welcome to 2020 politics war room with James Carville. I'm Al hunt. We're proud partners with the sign Institute and American university in Washington. We hope someday to be back in their studios. Thanks for spreading the word about the show. We're glad that you like it. We hope that you'll subscribe and hit your subscribe button on Apple podcast, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcast.
Good show today, James. Matter of fact,
Andrew Bacevich: [00:01:28] really good show today.
Al Hunt: [00:01:29] Andrew. Bacevich a West point graduate, retired army Colonel who served in Vietnam and the Persian Gulf and a national security expert of great renown professor emeritus to Boston university, president of the Quinsy Institute for responsible statecraft.
His son, Andrew was killed in the Iraq war, Andrew James and I are both big fans. Uh, and we thank you for joining us. I'm sure it must've been personally painful as well as professionally repugnant to read about the president coined slain American soldiers losers
Andrew Bacevich: [00:02:05] in a way. It wasn't, uh, it wasn't in the sense that, uh, I have come to take nothing that the president says, uh, seriously.
Uh, you know, is it, Y Y Y be offended with someone who is so manifestly lacking in empathy, uh, decency. Uh, so I, I, I tend to, to sort of discount those kinds of, uh, Uh, remarks, however, outrageous they may be.
Al Hunt: [00:02:34] That's that's good advice. You know, one night I, I said I'm in front of my family, the trumps sometimes ex more like more like an animal.
And my daughter, uh, you know, was furious. She said, that's an insult to animals. But he doesn't show, he seems, I think you called him a moral cripple. He is incapable in this or other matters of showing any, uh, personal or social empathy.
Andrew Bacevich: [00:02:56] We have to be careful. We don't stray into territory where we're trying to, uh, you know, be by a psychiatrist or something, but Australia anyway, he really does seem to be a deeply damaged, uh, uh, human being, you know, uh, From what we now know about his upbringing and his.
Relationship with his father and I guess the father's personality and absence of, of character. Uh, it does appear that the president's, uh, you know, twisted personality and absence of character has, has deep roots. Yeah, sure does. On
Al Hunt: [00:03:36] this story, I, I worked next to Jeffrey Goldberg for two years. I didn't always agree with him on policy.
But I respect him as a report. He would not write that story unless it was foolproof. He would not have written that story unless he had firsthand multiple reliable sources. So it's clear that the story and also is in keeping with things that Trump. Uh, had said earlier, and it does give lie to Trump's claim that he's the best friend that troops ever had.
Andrew Bacevich: [00:04:02] Well, you're right. I mean, I don't know a Goldberg at all. The Atlantic certainly is a reputable magazine, but I think you made the key point. Is that in a way we shouldn't be surprised by what the president said, because if we recall his contempt for Senator John McCain, His disrespect for the gold star family, uh, back during the 2016 campaign, this, these new remarks are really all of apart.
This is, this is this, this is, this is the guy. This is, this is the real Donald Trump.
James Carville: [00:04:36] If I'm right, I hope I am that he's not going to be around January the 21st or the 20th of next year. And so they call you and said, President ECMO spent 15 minutes with you and we walk in. And what advice would you give to him?
And I think I'm correct in this, because I think my class too two, and we talked about this, she wrote a book on the limits of power. What would you advise him strategically knowing Smallwood about how to use American power and I to specifically go these, I beat China
Michael McDonald: [00:05:14] because I
James Carville: [00:05:14] think we can all agree to China.
He was
Michael McDonald: [00:05:16] an adversary.
James Carville: [00:05:18] And how would you advise him to deal with this issue? What's your overall view strategic or whether the United States needs
Andrew Bacevich: [00:05:27] to go? The first thing I would say to him is that, uh, mr. President elect you are going to face very, very powerful pressure to revert to what. To revert to the pre Trump model of so-called American global leadership.
You're going to be, you're going to be pressured to revert to a, not simply the policies of the Obama Clinton administration, but also of the George W. Bush administration. And what I mean by that, the definition of American global leadership, which, which great emphasis on accumulating being prepared to use and then using.
American military power know, I'd say mr. President elect, before you give into that pressure, take time to undertake a realistic evaluation of what adherence to that paradigm has produced have, have as a consequence of our. Emphasis on having a using military power dating back to the to the fall of the Berlin wall.
Is our country becoming safer? Is our country becoming more prosperous, more equal? Is the world becoming a more stable place? Because I personally think the answer is no to all those. And therefore, instead of, you know, reverting to. The standard U S approach to national security policy. And I think he needs to stop, take a deep breath and consider what the alternatives are.
James Carville: [00:07:15] Give us an example of an alternative.
Andrew Bacevich: [00:07:17] I think an alternative is to while acknowledging that. There will never come an end to geopolitics, to the competition between nation States, for power, the jockeying for interest that that's a, that is a permanent part of, of our existence on this planet. That said, I think there's an argument to be made.
And it's an argument I share that we are now moving into an age. We may be already in an age. When a new set of problems should take priority over those old notions of geopolitical struggle. And you know what I'm referring to, I'm referring to climate change. I'm referring to global diseases. I'm referring to the deterioration of the global comments.
I'm I'm referring to these wildfires that we read about out West. Alright, see ya every, uh, on the nightly news day after day, year after year. So I think there's a, there is a, there has emerged a new national security agenda did actually should take precedence over the question of our rivalry with China that you alluded to.
And indeed would argue that for the wellbeing of ourselves and the wellbeing and the planet we need to. Bring the Chinese around to sharing our understanding, the understanding that I just tried to outline of the most pressing security challenges that we face. And what I just said, like in a, in a, in a too long sentence, uh, makes it sound like it'd be easy.
I think it's going to be monumentally hard, but I think that if, if we give into the notion that a new cold war with China is more or less inevitable, Then we'll never get to that larger agenda of, of security issues that I think are really more important. I
James Carville: [00:09:17] very much agree that it, you know, we have to figure out a way to that people have figured out a way to live with water because water is coming our way.
That's inevitable, no matter what we do,
Andrew Bacevich: [00:09:29] that's a good, succinct way to put it where water's coming our way.
James Carville: [00:09:32] Cause she's of just, it's not gonna stop anytime soon. And there's a lot of people. That lives in Delta. A lot of people that are being affected by, you know, the combination of sea level rise. And I completely agree,
Andrew Bacevich: [00:09:49] you know, I, you I'm sure, you know, Biden, I don't know Biden.
I've never met, but
James Carville: [00:09:54] not, well,
Andrew Bacevich: [00:09:55] I don't, I don't. I think apart from me having met Michele Flournoy a couple of times, I'm not sure I know any of those people who are sort of his. Are, or are likely to be his principal national security advisors that said from what I know, and from what I read, it sounds like they are a very conventional sort.
James Carville: [00:10:20] I know some of the people around him, but I tend to agree assessment. They're pretty conventional and the kind of Clinton Obama, but not overly.
Al Hunt: [00:10:36] No. I agree. Totally look. I think most of the people we, you know, we always engage in this conjecture. Now who's going to be in a cabinet, but the most probable types and the people who are often mentioned are people who were high level officials in the Obama administration, as you Susan Rice and Michele Flournoy and Tom.
And Tom Donlan. And you know, every, in this century, every single new president comes in, basically suggesting they're going to pay more attention to soft power and hard power. They're going to end endless Wars. And it usually takes a, you know, a matter of months, uh, for them to change. And my, I guess my question is you mentioned earlier, you know, Michele Flournoy.
Is there any reason for you to be more optimistic that Biden
Andrew Bacevich: [00:11:19] could be different, but again, you know, I really don't want to give the impression that I have a sort of a much of a feel for these people, but, you know, I, I, you can go to their campaign websites and you'll find promises to fix everything, but I thought Biden's speech when he accepted denomination was certainly telling.
Where he based in that, basically he did explicitly said that his purpose was to save the soul of America. Now I think the soul of America is in great jeopardy, so, so we need some savings. Uh, but I also believe that if we are to undertake the sort of comprehensive domestic renewal, that that speech suggested, then we're going to have to.
Radically rethink our role in the world to, to break away from the paradigm of militarized, uh, leadership on that point just a little while ago, this morning, I was reading this interesting essay that Michelle flora and I published in foreign affairs, I think in June where she lays out her views on. What she calls deterrence in East Asia deterring the Chinese, but between the lines deterrence has dominance.
I mean, she won't say this, but deterrence means we will acquire so much military power and have it available that those, those guys want, think of doing anything that's going to, uh, you know, uh, be contrary to our interests. And that is indeed a recipe for, uh, for a cold war for a, for a further arms buildup and arms competition.
Of course, the difference is this would be a cold war that we be happening with our antagonist also being our what number one, or number two trading partner in the world and a holder of, of. Trillions of dollars of American debt. So, you know, how all that plays out to our advantage? I don't know, but my point is it is, and she is, I think, widely seen as the, as the likely, uh, the Pentagon chief for Biden.
It's. It's old thing. It's not new thing. And it's old think that I don't know how Biden would be able to mesh with his agenda of saving America soul. Now, now, maybe, maybe James Carville would tell me, well, don't take that kind of rhetoric seriously. That's just what they say when they're accepting a nomination.
But I,
James Carville: [00:14:07] I would not tell you that who are some people. Who are some people that you find particularly provocative and insightful on this question about future use of military power, diplomacy, foreign affairs, et cetera. Are there any people that be like really respect
Andrew Bacevich: [00:14:28] I'm involved in this, uh, Quincy Institute for responsible state craft, which is a new, a startup think tank in Washington that we exist to promote a foreign policy of restraint, you know, Less reliance on military power, greater reliance on creative diplomacy.
And I'm sorry, sort of the figurehead. I'm like the queen Elizabeth, you know, I sort of preside, but I don't really do anything, but we got some young people that I think are extraordinarily thoughtful and talented and, and push back against the braining paradigm. I've got a young guy named Steven Wertheim, for example.
He's got a book coming out from Harvard university press, uh, next month, uh, he and others. I mean, I will give you a laundry list of names. I, I do believe that there is a, a generation of younger thinkers on security matters, who, who have, have lost patience with the depression, dime that to put it bluntly, you know, got us, uh, Into Iraq and, you know, permanently lodged in Afghanistan.
So I do think there's people out there, but, but they're not, they're not sort of on the short list of who's going to be, uh, a top official, I mean, one of you mentioned a couple of minutes ago, Susan Rice, I imagine Susan Rice is going to be on, you know, going to be secretary of state, something like that.
Um, she's a Hawk. Uh, you know, I, I. Just as, just as I'm very relieved to vote for Biden because he voted for the Iraq war. Not that I will vote for Trump, but you know, rice rice is, was one of the drivers for the Libyan intervention of what was that 2011 disaster. Uh, and yet it was supposedly undertaken because that was going to be an opportunity to demonstrate a American leadership.
All we did was to, to do great evil, uh, So I just wished that there was a different set of names that were being bandied about, uh, as people that Biden was likely to consider for, uh, for senior posts.
Al Hunt: [00:16:43] I would, I know I would, you know, you make a very telling point, uh, you know, looking over the last actually six years because I haven't considered Vietnam ill-fated disaster too, but the only foreign policy adventure that seemed.
So I think you could argue was at least a short term success was, you know, Bush 43, his first Gulf war in the sense that he had a limited objectives. Uh, he had, uh, a global Alliance. There was a cause for it. Saddam had gone into another country. Uh, one could argue how big a cause that was, but all those factors haven't been present and anything else we've done, Andrew?
Andrew Bacevich: [00:17:24] Well, so let's talk Bush 41. No question. He's the last president we've had, who from a foreign policy, national security perspective was actually prepared to assume office, uh, you do you other people, uh, you know, bill Clinton, George w uh, Barack Obama, basically it was on the job training in many respects, and I think Bush had two profound successes and yet.
Their successes with an asterisk and the asterisk deserves our attention. Success. Number one was bringing the cold war to an end the way he did. Uh, I mean, I think the cold war ended because Miquel Gorbachev, uh, Came to understand that continuing to competition with the, with the Western United States simply was not going to pan out to the benefit of the Soviet union.
So we embarked upon this bold, uh, program of reform, which didn't work. Uh, but nonetheless, his, he was, he was the initial initiator, but, but we're, we're George H w Bush comes in. Was when Gorbachov decides to call it off it's Bush, then who was able to negotiate, uh, keeping a United Germany part of the West in NATO, uh, I think was an, uh, uh, an, uh, uh, a, a triumph that we.
Probably will never appreciate because we take it for granted that Germany is a peaceful country. Uh, well, it ain't always been so that I think that it's a great job, but, but then you say, well then, then what, what happened to that triumph? Well, what happened to that? Triumph is Bush himself. And then his successors starting with Clinton, uh, you know, succumb to victory disease and decided did that.
They incorporate Eastern Europe. Into NATO, uh, which meant that the post cold war NATO was inevitably going to be perceived by the Russians as a security threat. I'm not, and I would not argue that, you know, we should have said the hell with the Lithuanians and the polls, but I do think we need to appreciate that, that, that inclination to incorporate all of your up into the West.
Had a downside and we're still dealing with their downside today in this rivalry with the Russians, you know, and it's focused on, uh, uh, uh, Ukraine or on the caucuses or whatever,
James Carville: [00:20:08] I'd say honestly, the Bosnian intervention pretty intelligent application of American.
Andrew Bacevich: [00:20:14] Fair enough. Fair enough. But, but, but I also would say that from a, from a, from a grand strategic, from a grand strategic point of view, that was not exactly.
A central episode, but why wasn't the point as well?
James Carville: [00:20:24] If you, if you were subject to a genocide, you were pretty happy about it. I think that the, uh, you know, starting with good writer, you know, we had made some pledges as I understand it to the Russians
Michael McDonald: [00:20:38] that we wouldn't expand. Correct.
James Carville: [00:20:40] It certainly Putin brings it up in every discussion that he has.
Andrew Bacevich: [00:20:45] Yes.
James Carville: [00:20:46] I say it gives a very valid. Observation to make that we would probably, you know, could have done a little bit
Andrew Bacevich: [00:20:56] of what we overplayed our hand a little bit.
Al Hunt: [00:20:58] Andrew, we don't want to take much more of your time. What was the second success with the caveat
James Carville: [00:21:02] that you were alluding to
Al Hunt: [00:21:03] a minute ago for Bush?
Andrew Bacevich: [00:21:06] Second one is, is, uh, is the Gulf war of 1991. I mean strong arguing to me made that, uh, Saddam's invasion of, uh, of, of Kuwait totally unacceptable, required a response. We led the response, uh, impressive putting together the coalition, largely impressive, uh, uh, uh, campaign and then the big, but is because Saddam managed to survive.
That administration made the decision affirmed by his successors to begin maintaining large numbers of us forces in the Persian Gulf permanently, which we had never done before. Uh, and, and that ended up eliciting a hostile response from people like Osama bin Laden and others. And then lo and behold, here we are, whatever it is now, 30 years later.
And we're still militarily engaged there, even though we can't figure out what exactly we're fighting for now.
James Carville: [00:22:03] I want to make one
Michael McDonald: [00:22:04] point here,
James Carville: [00:22:06] general Madison general Kelly say that the, you know, they shouldn't, that won't come forward. And it's a tradition, two of my favorite general offices or general David's shoot for the Marine Corps in general Ridgway, the United States army.
And they didn't mind telling Lyndon Johnson that Vietnam was fricking
Michael McDonald: [00:22:24] disaster.
James Carville: [00:22:27] And that's not a hard bound tradition of the military to
Andrew Bacevich: [00:22:33] wait, wait, wait, wait. Number one. Uh, and correct me if I'm, my facts are wrong here. Shoup was on active duty as the commandant. He
James Carville: [00:22:43] was he, and he was a hell of a Marine by the way, understand
Andrew Bacevich: [00:22:48] that.
And I believe I'm correct in saying that he expressed his dissent in private to the president, mr. President. This is stupid. We shouldn't do it. That is entirely appropriate. Ridgeway was retired by the time we get to Vietnam. Uh, and again, that puts him in a somewhat different category. Uh, I think, I mean, if you're opening a, uh, a new subject called civil military relations, and I think that the place to begin discussion that subject to my mind is always the imperative of honoring the principle of civilian control.
So we don't want open arguments. Between active duty military leadership and the commander in chief, we should want candid honesty. But between, uh, from, from our military leaders to the president on matters of basic policy, but it needs to stay in the oval office. It needs to stay, you know, between the principles and not become part of a larger of our larger politics.
At least that's my view.
Al Hunt: [00:23:54] But Andrew, that doesn't apply to retired officers, general Ridgeway general Gavin during the Vietnam war that wouldn't apply to general Mattis or general Kelly today, would
James Carville: [00:24:03] it.
Andrew Bacevich: [00:24:05] Well, well, I don't, I'm just, I'm just a professor. And so I am, but, but no, but erasing your isn't a very important point.
And I think the question there is is, is a tired forest. Our general really you're retired guy or, or is, is that person still implicitly walking around? Where enforced stars on their shoulders and therefore is seen as speaking on behalf of the military. I think it's, uh, it's, it's, it's complicated. There's no easy thing here suggesting for a second.
Did I retired? Four-star is posted in a button, his lip and disengaged from, from public affairs. That would be, that would not serve the country well, but, uh, If, if, if we have, if we have sort of, you know, huge arguments, public arguments between the retired four stars and the serving commander in chief, that that will, I think, bleed into.
Public disputes between the military and the commander in chief and therefore potentially undermine the principle of civilian control. That's where I always go back to, we got, if we don't, if we don't have civilian control, then the constitution is in jeopardy and that's, that's always, my concern
Michael McDonald: [00:25:22] general matters
James Carville: [00:25:23] was a all star general.
We both hold was saying right today should be fine. I know at times. Refuse to salute back because you said I'm not in the army anymore. And I, we have a quibble here,
Andrew Bacevich: [00:25:41] but no, I think, I think it's a pretty big disagreement actually. I mean, I understand that he is no longer on it active duty. Right. But, but when he speaks, you know, to the press, right, he speaks as a four star general.
That's where his authority comes from. Uh, and, and he earned it. I mean, God knows he earned it.
James Carville: [00:26:07] We just, we have a, we have a disagreement.
Al Hunt: [00:26:11] Well, let me, let me, let me just take it one and just ask
Andrew Bacevich: [00:26:15] you to make sure
Al Hunt: [00:26:16] that I understand what you're saying. If, if general Mattis and general McMaster in general, Kelly and secretary Tillerson were just say before the selection.
We served in this administration. This was our role, not as a four star general or a three star general or Exxon chairman, our role in this administration. And it is our considered view that Donald Trump is, uh, uh, is a, a threat not capable of conducting, uh, the national security interest of the United States.
Would that be
Andrew Bacevich: [00:26:49] well? What, what, what, what good do you think that would do? In other words, there are lots of people. Who say loud and clear, Trump is incompetent and Trump is dishonest. Now Trump should not retain this office. What, what, what is the benefit of Madison McMaster and whoever else, uh, joining that course.
So
James Carville: [00:27:12] I guess the benefit is it's just the truth sometimes.
Andrew Bacevich: [00:27:20] I mean, I'm trying to probably confuse it, confusing myself here. I don't want to restrict anybody's freedom of speech. Uh, I'm just not sure whether they would add anything in particular to the, you know, the pub public debate, but to actually answer directly the question, I'd be okay with that, you know, with the, with the McMaster Mattis, uh, you know, a statement if they preface it by some kind of a, of a.
Clear appreciation of civilian control. We have, we, we recognize the importance of civilian control. And yet we also are good about to say these things about why this guy shouldn't be reelected to make, just, just to make sure there's no blurring of that, uh, that principle.
Al Hunt: [00:28:09] Well, it's a fascinating topic and it's always fascinating talking to you, Andrew.
And I hope that button people listen to some of the people that you have suggested, and I hope we can stay in
James Carville: [00:28:21] touch with you. I really, I really I'm a huge admirer of yours. And one of the things that you do before we leave, I have to say this, aye. You know, when they roll out, uh, you know, some
Michael McDonald: [00:28:36] quadruple
James Carville: [00:28:37] amputee.
Wheelchair and put them in a pitcher's mound and Fenway park and fly over some FAA jeans and everybody clapped and goes back to the ball game. I just find that in ours was uncomfortable with that bridge or reading, you know, it really is how you stop it. It was just something that it just irritates the hell out of me every time I see it,
Andrew Bacevich: [00:29:03] it goes back to the creation of the all volunteer force.
You know, where, where the American people root for the troops, but don't have any skin in the game.
James Carville: [00:29:12] Right. That's great. Thank you for your service guys, your uniform beers and some shit like that. You know, I just want to say you really opened my eyes to that in ways that it wouldn't. I did, I didn't start with some.
And, you know, it started with the Iraq war when, after post nine 11, if you didn't stand up. And if you didn't put your hand on your heart, you know, fidget around doing the Anthem, you know, people would criticize you. I, you know, I just, I just don't find that, that I'll find it. I found it unattractive then.
And when I read it, I found it more than on a tractor, but I just wanted to make that point to show him. I really am. And I hope we going to get you back on. Thank you very much.
Al Hunt: [00:30:08] Well, that makes, that makes two of us, Andrew and I can't thank you enough for being with us. I agree with you both on that 60 seconds of standing cheering, and then going and
James Carville: [00:30:17] forgetting about it while there's a ball game
Al Hunt: [00:30:19] or something else, but
James Carville: [00:30:21] it's the way it is.
Al Hunt: [00:30:22] Hey, thank you. Be safe up there and walk hall. Uh, and I hope we can have you on again. And if this ever, ever gets cleared up to see you in Washington,
Andrew Bacevich: [00:30:31] I'd enjoy that very much.
Al Hunt: [00:30:41] Michael McDonald, a full professor at the university of Florida and political science and a Brookings fellow is the foremost expert on voter turnout. In American elections. He runs a U S selections project and his special expertise in redistricting and other electoral issues. Michael, first of all, Dan in Florida.
Thanks for joining us. And when we spoke to you last, it was in the turn of the year before we knew about the pandemic. And seems like a century ago go, you were forecasting, a massive turnout. There's November. What's your estimate today?
Michael McDonald: [00:31:13] Yeah, we can actually see that if anything, interest is ticked up even more, uh, after the pandemic, uh, looking at the primary turnout rates, uh, that were going on before the pandemic hit, they were running Oh, about on par with, uh, uh, 20.
Since 2016 and maybe a little bit above, not quite 2008 on the democratic side. And on the Republican side, there was actually a lot of interest for a contest that was largely uncontested rates were well above the 2004 numbers for Bush. Uh, and then the pandemic hit. And initially there was the shock to the system where, um, the, uh, uh, the turnout rates went down, the States were struggling to run the elections.
And then, um, the States got more or less, although there's still problems. They got their act together. And, um, after the, uh, initial hit on the system, Turnout rates actually are now above the levels that they were prior to when the pandemic hit. And we've seen unprecedented on record turnouts in some of the States that have held their elections, I would say within the last two months or so.
So it looks as though that if anything, turnout rates have actually increased after we got past that initial shock.
Al Hunt: [00:32:39] And Michael on both sides. And I divide between in person and male voting intentions.
Michael McDonald: [00:32:46] Um, well, yeah, this is going to be a very unusual election, um, you know, for a number of reasons, but one of them is that.
We've already seen unprecedented numbers of people who are voting by mail. Um, we've seen, uh, numbers of people voting in a primary election, which is, you know, much lower turnout than a general election, um, superseding the 2016, uh, mail balloting. Uh, bye. You know, orders of magnitude in some States. So this is not, it's not even close it's.
These are record numbers, they're off the charts. Uh, and it's primarily coming from Democrats, uh, registered Democrats in States where we can see the party registration of the people who were, uh, voting by mail. Um, Republicans, um, they're about at the same level. So they're, it's not like they dropped off the face of the earth.
Some of them are voting by mail too. Uh, but it's really, really unprecedented increases in mail balloting for Democrats as a consequence. When you look at a state like North Carolina and Florida, We're seeing these huge lopsided numbers in ballot requests now that are showing up for the general election.
In fact, they're actually voting in North Carolina right now. As of this morning, there were over 1300 people who had cast ballots in North Carolina. And again, we're seeing these really lopsided numbers in favor of registered Democrats. I would caution everybody. It's, this is all uncharted territory. And, um, we're going to see a lot of Republicans voting in person on election day.
So it's going to be a. A tug and Paul, yeah,
Al Hunt: [00:34:29] I saw your numbers and they are stunning, not just in places like Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Maine. I mean just huge democratic advantages, but I think Republicans would say, Hey, our people survey show are going to vote more in person. So therefore that may be deceptively encouraging for them.
Michael McDonald: [00:34:47] Yeah, absolutely. We could actually see it in the August primaries in Florida, where again, we have these really huge numbers of, of. Democrats voting by mail. And usually in the Democrats vote in person early. That's their best method of voting in Florida. And Republicans actually had more people voting in person, uh, early in Florida.
So, um, Then the Democrats did that's unprecedented as well. So even among the in-person early voters, we're seeing this big shift, um, of Democrats voting by mail, and now they're not voting in person early. And Democrats are even winning that in-person early vote in Florida, so are really different. What I would say here is, so as we move forward, we're going to see these really.
Um, jaw dropping numbers for the Democrats in the early voting numbers and especially with the mail ballots, but where we should look. Is the States that haven't changed their method of voting to get a sense of the lay of the land on the election. That will be the, um, all mail ballot States of Colorado and Oregon and Washington.
Um, and, uh, we'll get good data from Colorado and Oregon, and it should give us a sense of the overall turnout. And we should be able to get a sense of the relative enthusiasm of registered Democrats and Republicans cause both Oregon and Washington and Colorado are party registration States.
James Carville: [00:36:11] Well professor at the bet in sports Caldwell over under, so LSU, Florida, the over under is 52.
If the total number of points scored is under 52 to underwent. If it's over 50 to the oval window, if you, the idea that the odds maker wants to draw, make it as difficult as possible and draw an equal amount of money on both sides. If you were setting the agenda for the total number of people, I'd vote.
What would it be that you would say, I don't know if this is the way it is and we'll draw an equal interest on both sides. What would you put the total?
Michael McDonald: [00:36:49] Well, it's funny that you even say that because recently a, um, uh, bedding organization asked me, um, to do this for them. So, um, I to come up with some numbers,
Al Hunt: [00:37:03] We want to split.
Michael McDonald: [00:37:04] Yeah. So this isn't just an academic exercise and I don't do the betting market. So I feel like it would be a huge professional conflict of interest. So I don't engage in them. Um, but here's what I look, um, maybe 150 million people voting nationally. Um, and half of those are, will be people voting by mail.
Um, which again, these are both unprecedented numbers in modern elections. That would be the highest turnout rates, 1908, uh, for, um, eligible voters. If we look at the overall turnout rate and of course we've never had 75 million people vote by mail in this country. So those are both unprecedented numbers, but there's a lot of them certainty here.
Um, and, uh, yeah, once we get closer into the election, uh, we'll get a better sense on, on these abroad estimates. I'm giving you, um, So I, if right now, if I went with 150, I probably would shade it on the, under on that. Um, because I think it's probably more like 148 million. I'm trying to give a round number that really give the sense of like, this is a estimate, not a really good, hard and fast number.
James Carville: [00:38:14] Right. And, and, and as the season Progressive's and Bella shoes authentic is better than people's ankle for artists, defenses. You know, but, but it will adjust, but right now you'd set it somewhere around 150 millions your best
Michael McDonald: [00:38:27] guess. Yeah. Yeah. There's an interesting aside on all this, there's a really important reason why we're going to come up with the turnout numbers for each state in advance of the election.
Because I also, um, work with, uh, Edison media research, which runs the national exit poll. And, uh, this year, uh, we are going to, instead of report percent. Precincts that are outstanding. We're going to report the percent, uh, outstanding and votes that we think has yet to be cast. And so we're going to come up with these initial estimates of what we think the vote will be.
And then on election night, as the numbers start coming in, we'll be looking at those very carefully and making adjustments. If we get a County that's a hundred percent reported and we know that. There are very few male ballots or provisional ballots. It might be outstanding in that County. We can start tweaking our, um, uh, turnout estimates, both within that state and nationally as well as we start getting information from other States.
And so hopefully, you know, we'll see. By the end of the evening on election night, we'll have a much better estimate of what we think the overall turnout rate will be. And that will be reflected in that outstanding vote to be counted on. And that will be really important too, because they're going to be, some States are going, gonna be slow on their reporting, and we need to have an estimate there so that people are aware that there's a lot of vote left to be, uh, uh, counted yet, um, and other States.
So it's going to be pretty quick. So, um, but we need to get that right.
James Carville: [00:39:53] You all happen to be located in the state of his undoubted, the King of swing. All right. How will we know? How soon will we know a good idea to results in Florida? Well, we know that election night.
Michael McDonald: [00:40:08] All right, let me give a, you know, just to get a baseline for the primary election that we just held in August.
Um, over 99% of our votes were counted, uh, on election night. Um, we're a fast reporting state in Florida. Now there are some military and overseas civilian votes that are counted and accepted late, and they're provisional ballots that are counted late. Um, but the overwhelming majority of the votes are counted on election night.
So, um, unless it's really close, unless we're 2000 Florida recount doomsday scenario, we should know on election night. Uh, who won Florida.
James Carville: [00:40:46] If there's one County in Florida, if you could see the result, you feel like you could predict a whole state. Now I'm asking people around the country. Yes. If you just to look at one whole card, what County would you look at that would give us?
An idea was w w we're just gonna go,
Michael McDonald: [00:41:07] God, I, you know, I knew the state too well to get that answer, um, because it's going to matter like our, um, uh, uh, African-Americans turning out down in Miami date, um, are, uh, how are those, uh, Puerto Rican votes around Orlando? How are they? Uh, voting, are they, uh, which direction are they voting?
Um, cause there's been some uncertainty in the polls about that. So I, yeah, I'm, unfortunately I'm going to hedge on this and say, I don't know, um, where I would look, uh, I'm going to look at several locations around the state and, and see what happens. Um, and you know, if, you know, if I saw Duvall, for example, one by Biden, I'm like, yeah, well that's yeah.
Um, cause that's, uh, uh, I have a military area. So
James Carville: [00:41:54] if, if, if, if Biden, if I'm looking at it Duvall and I see that Biden wanted to Deval can be fairly confident. He's going to win the state. That's the kind of. Check I'm looking
Michael McDonald: [00:42:04] for, right? Yeah. And that's a heavy military vote, both for veterans and there's some military basis there.
So it's why that, but there's also a strong African American community. So it's, it's got a lot of markers that, you know, might look, but, but it's, it's a County, that's generally a one by the Republicans in the state. So that's why I'm saying, if I see it go the other way, then. It's over.
Al Hunt: [00:42:28] Yeah. Michael, let me ask you, um, when you say 99% of the voters in election day, Democrats say, yeah, but let's not forget.
Who's the governor of the state, the closest ally, probably Trump has in the state house and their nightmare in their Merrison scenario. Nightmare. Excuse me, is that, Hey, governor desanna said. Eight o'clock says, look, we have evidence of a lot of fraud. There's 52% of the vote by mail. We're going to impound that we're going to stop things.
It's not unusual for foreign election officials to muck up an election.
Michael McDonald: [00:42:59] Well, um, you know, that's a thread everywhere. I mean, um, uh, there is that scenario, but I, you know, I hate to. Go down these rabbit holes into conspiracy theories because I, um,
Al Hunt: [00:43:13] you don't think it has any, any real practical
Michael McDonald: [00:43:16] feasibility it's it seems to me it'd be a very unlikely scenario because, um, uh, Trump himself has, has blessed mail balloting in Florida.
Um, and so he said, it's, you know, fraudulent everywhere else, but Florida knows what they're doing because it's Republican government. And, uh, and so he said that publicly. Um, and I, I, so I, I kind of doubt that that sort of scenario would. Unfold, but the other part of this is that elections are run at the County and local level across the country.
So it would be difficult for DeSantis to come in and make a blanket, declaration and halt everything. Um, it, uh, you'd have to go County by County and you'd have to get, uh, um, uh, you know, courts involved in all of that. And so I, that, that scenario couldn't happen. I don't think, um, Yeah, but what could happen in the one that I worry more about, um, in that sort of again, low, very low probability event.
Yeah. The way in which, um, Biden could win the electoral college, but actually lose the election is if, uh, say the Wisconsin Republican. Who who are much more diligent than the Florida Republicans, if they come in and just clear that their state ha uh, uh, Knowles their state elections and just directly elect their electors and that's something they can do in their constitution.
And the U S constitution, state legislatures can appoint the electors if they want to.
Al Hunt: [00:44:43] Well, the Congress can reject that, but let me ask this, we talked about governor Shanna's, uh, no, governor's closer to Trump. No governor has more screwed up the COVID-19 response. I think that is just clear. Cut Florida now has about the highest rate of infections per capita, much higher than New York or California.
Does it matter? Is his popularity plummeting? I saw one poll. This suggested it was not, is he a liability for Trump down there?
Michael McDonald: [00:45:09] All right. So you're referencing that NBC poll that came out, uh, um, just recently. And I, you know, look. The polls are going to come and go. The other polling that we've seen not afford to suggests that he's not that popular, that he took a hit on his popularity because of what's happening with COVID.
Um, so I I'm a little distrustful of any single poll. I'm looking at the overall trends on the polls. Uh, you know, you know, just afterwards we had this huge poll, um, uh, nationally by Reuters. Which shows a 12 plus 12 advantage for Biden among likely voters, that that poll can exist in the same universe and be right as the NBC poll showing Florida, uh, even, um, one of the two of them are wrong and most likely both of them are wrong because there's random sampling error that goes with polling, among many other things in their secret sauce of how polls are made.
And, um, so they're, they're probably both outliers and we should just, you know, Take the averages.
Al Hunt: [00:46:11] Yeah. I, I should not have focused on Paul's. I'm not trying to, I'm trying to focus on the sadness. What is, what is the, there's the sadness matter in the presidential election down there? Yeah,
Michael McDonald: [00:46:22] that's a really good question.
I would have to look at Paul's to know the answer to it, but hat is the COVID response by governors affecting voters, perceptions of the presidential election. Um, It's possible. I, and I mean, there's some evidence of it. If you look at, you know, some of the States that are in play that like Arizona has had a terrible outbreak as well, um, and Texas, and those States are in play.
So, um, it could be, it could be that there's some, uh, trickle up that's happening from the governors to the presidential election.
James Carville: [00:46:59] So I'm just not bought into this. We're not going to know election night theory. All right. I'm just not into it. I think that the range we would say would be a narrower Trump electoral college victory.
All right. Or you could have a 1980 type Biden victory. The, the range of that is about where it could end up. We're going to know North Carolina probably before
Michael McDonald: [00:47:29] midnight,
James Carville: [00:47:30] and there's no way. If I'm carriage, either one of those two States that he's going to lose,
Michael McDonald: [00:47:36] it just can't happen.
James Carville: [00:47:38] And I just think there's look at, if he loses North Carolina and Florida closely, then you didn't, you gotta get nervous.
But if he cares either one, stick a fork in it. It's done
Michael McDonald: [00:47:51] I'm with you 100% on this. I mean, I, I understand why we want to pair people for the doomsday scenario where we don't know Michigan and Michigan has pivotal or a, you know, a Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, all three of those States, the state governments, the Republicans have, uh, withheld the ability for, uh, election officials to count those mail ballots and prep them.
Uh, for counting before election day. So they're going to be behind in those States. And we know that, um, if Biden wins Florida game over, if Trump wins Florida by a large amount, then it's game over too, because we know that there's probably been a national swing to Trump. That seems unlikely given the polling, but yeah.
We have to put that in the range of possibility. It's only in this doomsday scenario where Florida is like in a recount situation and you know, we're waiting for the other States to do their reporting. It's going to be a little late that we don't know who the president is. It seems like the least probability, probably ability of things that could happen on election night.
Al Hunt: [00:48:52] Well, I think you all, I think you are ignoring the fact that North Carolina and Florida might be a very close race in that Edison group that you're working with. Michael and the AP I know are going to be extremely cautious on election night having been burned in the past. So let's say Biden is winning North Carolina and Florida.
It looks like by two points. No, one's going to call that. That's going to still be up in there and it may well be ultimately will make no difference, but the idea that midnight will be okay. We'll certainly ask where it is. If. Biden wins them by four or five, or if Trump wins them by five or 10 year.
Right. But if it's much narrower, I think that's a much harder call given the caution that's going to take place.
Michael McDonald: [00:49:34] No, not at all. Because, um, if Biden is up by even like a percentage point Florida, we know that that outstanding vote tends to break towards the Democrats. And so, um, most likely then, I mean, and we would get confirmation from other States as well.
It wouldn't just be those two States. We could look at other. Patterns that we're seeing in Colorado, that's going to be a fast reporting state and a Texas, you know, they didn't actually do mail balloting, right. They didn't expand mail balloting. So we're going to get Texas numbers in pretty quickly to, um, we're going to get a sense of the overall swing national.
And Biden's up by just a little bit in the, in Florida. Um, we have very strong expectations that those additional votes are going to come in for Biden. They're not going to break towards Trump.
Al Hunt: [00:50:17] And, and, and Edison's gonna say that in an election man,
Michael McDonald: [00:50:20] if it's by 1%. Yeah, I think so. Um, that will be outside the margin of a recount.
Um, uh, if it was the other way around, we might be really looking closely where if Trump's up by percentage point and then we'd be saying, all right, is this enough? If there enough outstanding vote, just shift this over into a recount situation. If it is, then we won't call it. But if it's not, then like, if Trump's up by two percentage points, it's probably a call for Trump on election night, too.
Right?
James Carville: [00:50:45] Who gives a shit when the AP calls, if Biden went as far to, he's gonna win. I mean, it's just, there's not any doubt about it. And if he wins North Carolina, he's gonna win and they can call it whenever they want to. But that's just a fat and B, right? We're going to have all of this information for now.
If the race is truly close, if it's a 2016 scenario, then we're gonna, we're going to be in December fighting to stop. But that's a very pretty narrow chance. I admit that it exists, but I don't think that's likely. And if Trump wins far to my two, he's going to win the electoral college. I
Michael McDonald: [00:51:27] mean, it just is.
Yeah. And the amount of ink that's being spilled on this scenario is, is way out of proportion for what my actually happened. And I, what I get concerned about is that it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy then because people say, Oh, it must be narrowing. It must be very close because, um, uh, it could be close.
And then, uh, uh, you know, and people say, well, maybe I, yeah, yeah. Maybe Trump is doing a lot better than I thought he, uh, he should be in it and maybe I'll vote for him. And, you know, so I, I get concerned that we focus so much on the, the narrowing of the election. And we don't talk about the other possibility, which is, Hey, it's going to be a blow out election for Biden.
I mean, that's, that's where all the polling tells us.
Al Hunt: [00:52:14] James. You got a final question from Michael, the full professor.
James Carville: [00:52:18] One of the things that there are 700 lawyers in the Houston area that have volunteered to help with balance the character in elections. There are probably 2,500 what years in Florida that are on standby.
And if somebody, it may be the Wisconsin legislature would, would force the electorate to vote. For Trump, if you think there was some crap going on in Kenosha, you have no idea of what Milwaukee or Madison or any other place would look like. If the Wisconsin legislature just decided against the will of the people of Wisconsin to instruct our electors.
I mean, I noticed stuff is possible, but I one think. We're dreaming up stuff in happen that is highly unlikely to
Michael McDonald: [00:53:06] happen. Yeah. And where are the things pieces that are saying this is going to be a blow out election and what are the consequences of that? Because it's really important to the things that you're just talking about.
Uh, James, um, if this is a huge win for the Democrats, it means that they have a good chance of taking over, say the Texas house of representatives. Um, and that's really important that puts a break on the gerrymandering that would happen for the next decade in Texas, and could give the Democrats a real chance to take control of the entire state legislature in Texas over the next year.
And then that makes, you know, then the laws start changing in Texas and, um, and it makes it easier for people to vote. And then Texas. The, you know, it becomes battleground and maybe even moves a little bit more blue and that changes the electoral college strategy entirely. And that's not the only place where these sort of important things are happening in state elections.
So we don't really talk much about like, what, what does it mean for the. The Democrats having a control of the Senate. What does it mean for the Democrats to have control of some of these key state houses around the country? It means a lot for the next decade.
Al Hunt: [00:54:10] Well, I would argue in line with what you just said, the second, most important election of a decade, a decade we've just lived through where's the 2010 election after you know, which enabled Republicans are control, redistricting other things after the census.
And that's why a lot of these problems in laws exist today. And if Democrats, they need a big win, cause they need to pick up that Texas a M a Senate. They need to pick up the North Carolina house. They need to pick up a seat. And you know, one in Georgia, I guess they got some shot in Florida, boy. You're right.
That'll make a huge difference. And Republicans are pouring a fortune into those races right now.
Michael McDonald: [00:54:48] So I got breaking news. I just
James Carville: [00:54:49] got the Washington post of a headline. Woodward book. Trump says he knew about Corona. He knew coronavirus
Michael McDonald: [00:54:56] was deadly in worse
James Carville: [00:54:57] than the flu while intentionally misleading
Michael McDonald: [00:54:59] America.
Is there a video? Cause that's about the only thing that people are gonna be. I believe at this point
James Carville: [00:55:06] I just got the headline. Okay. I'll pull up the post website and write the story.
Al Hunt: [00:55:13] Michael McDonald, you have been terrific. Congratulations on your promotion of full professor. Uh, and we're gonna, we have to talk to you sometime before November three, just to see if any of this has been recalibrated.
Michael McDonald: [00:55:24] Oh yeah, absolutely. And I'll be tracking this all along, uh, on my website. So it's electric project.org. Um, and I'm also on Twitter under that handle as well, electric project. And, uh, you know, I I'm tracking yeah. 57 million people who have so far requested mail ballots in this country and doing it on a state by state state basis.
So, um, if you want to follow all that and you're welcome to do so.
Al Hunt: [00:55:48] Wait, we will do so.
Michael McDonald: [00:55:49] He
James Carville: [00:55:50] considered bookmark.
Al Hunt: [00:55:51] It's done. Thank you, Michael. Be safe.
Hey James. You know, last weekend textures Trumpers decided COVID-19 began. Let's have a big Trump vote rally. On Lake Travis. That was a great idea. Yeah. Except five votes and the Sheriff's rescue department. Okay. I have to be caught in the Trump triumph, turned it into Trump type 10. We have our expert on all things, Texas, Billy Begala who's working.
You put the democratic Senate candidate down there this year. Senator Paul Begala and any debate really about who has the political best political mind in your family is easy. It's your mother.
Billy Begala: [00:56:42] Absolutely. Yeah.
Al Hunt: [00:56:44] Right. Jealous about the saga Lake Travis. Right?
Billy Begala: [00:56:47] So this all took place on Saturday. Um, And just to sort of paint the picture.
Saturday was a perfect, beautiful central Texas September day. It was blue skies, low winds, high of 90, just couldn't ask for anything, anything better. And, uh, all these Trump supporters decided to head out to Lake Travis, which is, uh, a Lake about 20 minutes outside of Austin and hold one of their. Boat rallies.
Um, now I will say no one got hurt, so I feel better poking some fun and, and talking about this, but, uh, you know, these folks set sail and apparently, uh, the big boats were not. Playing nicely with the little boats and they weren't controlling their wakes and ended up swapping out a bunch of these little boats.
So, uh, around noon, the Travis County Sheriff's office received 15 distress calls. They had to dispatch EMT, higher fighters, rescue divers. And once all the dust settles, five boats had sunk. Three of them were towed away and two of them are still residing at the bottom of Lake Travis today. So it's kind of the perfect allegory for what the Republican party has become.
Um, I don't know if y'all know this, but recently, uh, Disgraced former Congressman Allen West was elected as the chairman of the Texas GOP, Florida, man, Alan West is now the chair of the Texas GOP and he promptly one of the first things he did was he changed the slogan of the Texas Republican party to an illusion to Q Anon.
It's a, their new slogan is now we are the storm and remarkably Alan was right. The Texas GOP managed to be the storm on a clear blue sky day that some five of their own boats,
Al Hunt: [00:58:33] Hey, Billy Hammerstein, it cost the taxpayers. Do we know?
Billy Begala: [00:58:37] That's, that's tough to say. Um, I know that the Sheriff's office had to dispatch quite a bit of resources to go and help these folks and, you know, thank God they did.
And, and no one was seriously injured, but. Um, you know, someone's going to have to go fish two boats out of the bottom of Lake Travis now, and you know, that's going to be coming out of my pocket.
James Carville: [00:58:56] So, so the, you know, Admiral Nimitz was from Fredericksburg. So it has a great Naval tradition. And I think it.
But the battle of Lake Travis and the battle of midway, but it is perfect allegory because the big boats slumped a little boats and that's the modern Republican party. Give us up on a more serious note. Cause you're very political, very plugged in. Give us your analysis of where Texas stands right now, going into November.
Billy Begala: [00:59:23] I mean, It's it's neck and neck. It's a dog fight right now. Um, you know, poll after poll shows either Biden up one, Trump up one, them in a dead heat. And quite frankly, it doesn't really matter whether it's Trump plus one or Biden plus one right now. Um, but it is a dead heat. It is a dog fight, and this is a battle that's being waged from the top, the ticket all the way down to the very bottom.
Um, like professor McDonald was saying, you know, you have a really good chance to take that to state house right now. Now we need nine out of 150. If you want state house seats to do so last cycle in 2018, we flipped 12 seats. So it's very much doable. You know, we have, um, polling, that's showing us ahead in a lot of these.
Targeted districts. And one thing that I think is really important for folks to understand is we can take back the state house, even if you know, Biden or, uh, my boss, MJ Hagar, if they get us close. So when he lost by a little less than three points, he actually won a majority of Texas state house districts.
The Texas Republicans have gerrymandered themselves backwards into a corner. And so we have a really good chance to take back the state house, to have a level of power going into redistricting. We have a chance to elect MJ Hagar, who was a decorated war hero, combat veteran purple heart recipient, uh, just absolute bad-ass war hero.
And, uh, we have a chance to kick out John Cornyn who has time and again, um, cozied himself up to Trump and McConnell and the big pharma lobby and corporate PACS. And. Has really done a number on Texas, his ability to respond to the coronavirus and to help folks that are struggling to get along right now.
So it's, it couldn't be higher stakes and things are looking really, really good. And we're, we're in for a fight right now.
Al Hunt: [01:01:11] You're also going to pick up too. You're going to pick up at least two congressional seats.
Billy Begala: [01:01:15] Oh yeah. The, the. Congressional map is really, really competitive here in Texas. You know, this is sort of, the Texas is the cornerstone of the D triple CS offensive strategy here.
Um, and we we've got Gina Ortiz Jones running down in South Texas for Willard's MTC. We have Wendy Davis running against chip Roy in Texas 21. Um, we have Shri Kulkarni running. We have, how did candidates up and down Texas, um, and you know, we could win. Between two and six congressional seats, depending on how this election goes.
James Carville: [01:01:48] I can see it. Not surprisingly. A pedigree is
Michael McDonald: [01:01:51] excellent. And
James Carville: [01:01:52] I think you, you listen very closely to your mother because your analysis, I don't believe a good report on a battle like Travis and a good report on the state of play in Texas.
Al Hunt: [01:02:04] I want a second ring. James said, Billy, I'll give you one bit of old man advice.
Stay away from Lake Travis.
Andrew Bacevich: [01:02:10] Okay.
Billy Begala: [01:02:11] We'll do
Al Hunt: [01:02:19] well, James. We had a really good show today and I'm going to do something that's rare. I, you get a lot of credit justifiably for engineering, the Clinton victory in 1992 and being a really important advisor to president Clinton for most of those years. But you really made. A you and Paul Begala made a big mistake when that Paula Jones case came up.
The one that ended up producing the only hearing Ken Starr tried to fake, uh, you instead of using outside attorneys and paid for him, you could have used the justice department. You could have had the justice department defending bill Clinton, uh, against the Paula Jones Sargent. Cause that's what Donald Trump is doing now with bill BARR.
Uh, and I I'm sure Republicans would have accepted that back then. Don't you think?
James Carville: [01:03:08] But David Kendall was such a good lawyer to Paula Jones case was dismissed with prejudice. So, yeah, but get that in, but, but I don't even understand the Siri upon which this rest. I'm sure they have one, but man, this is about is specious of use of government funds.
As you can imagine to me, uh, We have a lot of good lawyers at a friend of ours. Um, I'd be curious to see what the, what the theory of this case is because I don't see it really don't
Al Hunt: [01:03:40] know. I don't know either. I wrote our friend Walter Jones. I'll let you know what I hear back. Uh, but, uh, anyway, uh, any, any final thoughts before we go?
James Carville: [01:03:53] One thought is, you know, we, we, we, we have someone going through a year and. I claimed not to follow pose day by day, but I actually, I do somewhat. We just saw the example of NBC matters, which I think is probably, you know, honorable, honest, hardworking people and yeah, Florida 48, 48, the democratic party is, as we know it had a quartet, a collective meltdown because prior to that, all of those in Florida showed Biden would have small to moderate leak.
And then of course, I open up my computer this morning and I have the Cisco Ana college polar had Pennsylvania, Trump plus two that cause anxious and you correctly pointed out. It was a 15% on the side, but the same NBC Merris showed by nut by night and in Pennsylvania did the same thing that I think you and I can agree on to tell our listeners and subscribers is you can't be up nine in Pennsylvania.
And even in Florida, This is just not a possibility. And, you know, we should heat our own advice. And look at Poland averages and give greater weight to telephone poles than we do to online polls. That that's my, and I won't take my own advice because I'll freak out every little thing I say, but I'm gonna try not to.
Al Hunt: [01:05:12] Well, I totally agree with you and I have the same problem you do. I look at them every day and I looked at all of them and if one shows it different than I thought it was going to be, my heart will sink for about. Two or three seconds, and then you get over it, which you ought to look at averages out there.
And you also, there are some polls that are just having a stark record of being better. Uh, you know, the NBC wall street journal at the top of that list, uh, uh, anything in sells or does for Grinnell or any place else. Uh, and there's some, Paul's particularly some of the newer ones that are just done online that are more dicey.
And they're going to show these gyrations and don't pay if you, if you can. And I can't, if you can, don't pay any attention to them,
James Carville: [01:05:54] right. We don't follow our own advice. So I can't. Tell the other people too, but it just, every time that you, you, you, and of course, it's just part of the way. Yeah. People
Michael McDonald: [01:06:06] are,
James Carville: [01:06:07] they look for a bad problem, you know, and that we allow ourselves to get freaked out.
One other point before we leave, Tom, Betzel had a piece in the New York times it's unwise, and I don't know how I'd copy the paper and just talks about the idea that you can improve. Look human condition by the application of smart policy. And it's a very well done piece. And just how far it's been exposed, structural racism will, pandemic has been terrible for people of color as has policing, but, but we can't also deny that there's been real progress made.
And a lot of this over the last 25 or 30 years. And I think Tom did a good job of pointing that out. And I'm a big Tom,
Al Hunt: [01:06:57] it's a must read. He was on our first show, James, and, and one thing I'll make a commitment. Now we're going to have him back before November three. There is no better and more thoughtful journalists in America than Thomas Edsel or the New York times.
James Carville: [01:07:10] Right. And, and you know, both, you know, Michael Moore on Donald Trump wants you to believe that, you know, It's doomed and all, you know, there's nothing else. It's just not true and what to be careful not to fall in, to allow ourselves to lapse into that kind of. Doom and gloom,
Al Hunt: [01:07:27] right. Or that it doesn't matter because it matters big time.
Uh, it was a good show and I want to thank everybody out there for listening to 2020 politics war room. Follow the show on Twitter and politics were rum. Email us politics were rum@gmail.com as politics were running. gmail.com. Thank you for subscribing. Please rate the show, hopefully with a five star review, we'll be back next week with another good guest.
As the countdown begins in November 3rd, an election that will change the fate of the country in the world. Well, you spoke early. If you can and be safe.