Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi joins James & Al in the first interview following the vote on the Impeachment Inquiry. Then, it's a Countdown Roundtable 365 days out from the 2020 Election with Cook Report publisher Charlie Cook and New York Times columnist Tom Edsall.
Al Hunt: 00:02 Welcome to 2020 Politics War Room. I'm Al Hunt here with my partner James Carville. James and I have a combined 98 years of participating or covering American politics. We'll draw on that each week with insights about what's really going on in the 2020 national political race and throw in our take on impeachment. It'll be lively, it'll be unpredictable, and it's going to be fun, right James?
James Carville: 00:27 I hope so, and it better be because [inaudible 00:00:29] and I'm not going to do it. In my head, my age, I'm not engaged in any non-fun thing. So we're going to have as much fun as we can the whole way through. We've got some interesting guests. We're going to do a quirky thing or two here or there, and we'll try to remember as much as we can from our 98 years of experience, but we have probably a lot we're going to have to leave on the floor.
Al Hunt: 00:50 Yeah. I think if we can get 60% we'll be doing okay of that 98%. But we're going to have some fabulous guests starting now with the speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi.
James, we may have peaked with our first show, with our guest who is the speaker of the house of representatives, Nancy Pelosi. We're never going to do any better than that.
James Carville: 00:50 Never, never, never, but ...
Al Hunt: 01:17 Well Madam speaker, thank you for being with us today.
Nancy Pelosi: 01:20 My pleasure.
Al Hunt: 01:21 And this is ...
James Carville: 01:21 You don't want to born on third base, that's what ...
Al Hunt: 01:26 That, exactly. And this is her first interview since the house voted to authorize the rules and procedures for continuing on the impeachment inquiry, a huge vote. And now that you've said all of that, you have said this has to be fair, it has to be thorough, you've set up those procedures. Can you finish this by year end because some people don't want it to go into the election year?
Nancy Pelosi: 01:50 Well, I certainly hope so, but we will just go where the truth takes us and that will be up to the intelligence committee and then go to the judiciary committee. When we all agreed that we would get together and talk some politics and policy, little did we know that it would be just minutes after this vote would be taken on the floor. So again this evolves, we had no idea last week that we would be doing this, this week.
Al Hunt: 02:18 We are fortunate indeed.
Nancy Pelosi: 02:20 I am.
Al Hunt: 02:21 There is the question, should this... The hearings will make a difference, obviously on what comes out, but I get a sense that you would prefer a, when I say narrow, I mean a focused, focus on the Ukrainian effort to shake down the Ukrainians who dig dirt on Joe Biden and obstruction rather than broaden it to talk about Mueller [inaudible 00:02:44] and all that. Is that fair?
Nancy Pelosi: 02:46 Well I don't ignore all that Mueller has put forth. There may be some obstruction of justice though I don't know. That's up to the committees to examine. But what this is about for us is that no one is above the law. That is just the principle. We take an oath to protect and defend the constitution. The constitution has three co-equal branches of government. The president says he can use up that power by saying article two says, "I can do whatever I want."
So this is about the republic, if we can keep it and in Franklin's words, this isn't about his personality, his policies, his behavior, that's all for the election. This is about, was there a violation of his oath of office to the constitution of the United States? And how do we honor ours with dignity, with prayerfully, and with calmness, but nonetheless with the responsibility that constitution gives us.
Al Hunt: 03:42 One of the violations could be any attempt to cover up what has occurred. And the other day, the Colonel from the National Security Council said that that transcript they released on the call to the Ukrainian president, that there was important things that were deleted. Do you think that could be part of a cover up?
Nancy Pelosi: 04:04 Again, the committees will examine the facts, the truth, and take us to where we need to go. But with all of these things, we want to have as much clarity as possible. So there may be some irresistible other charges that could be made against the president, but we want to have the most ironclad constitution based argument as we go forward.
Al Hunt: 04:29 James?
James Carville: 04:29 If they could, you are, I would say the most famously skeptical about beginning this process, what was the kind of triggering that you made in your mind that that made you go from being skeptical to at least supporting a further look in this?
Nancy Pelosi: 04:47 September 17th, 2019, which was the anniversary of the adoption of our constitution. September 17th, 1787.
James Carville: 04:58 Hi you all cowboys and cowgirls back home. Remember that day, we're going to learn a little history here.
Nancy Pelosi: 05:03 And that was the very day that this issue exploded. That the president of the United States used his office to undermine our national security by withholding congressionally voted funds for military assistance to Ukraine. Undermine our national security to the benefit of Putin, correct? Jeopardizes the integrity of our elections by saying this will be granted or withheld depending on if you can help me in the election essentially. And in my view, a violation of his oath of office. And that was that day, September 17th this year. And this is why I was hesitant in the beginning to go down this path. This is very divisive, but indeed the president has been divisive. And in doing so, he's going down to a path where I question his loyalty to the oath that he took, the oath of office.
The public opinion changed dramatically. When I went out to make my statements, I was 59 oppose, 34 support. That has changed as people see a path and understand why we made this transition based on information that was readily available. Now let me just say this because the president says to me, "Hey, you see the notes? The notes are with you." We would have never seen the notes if there had not been a whistleblower. So it's not as if this is something that everybody said, "Everything's hunky dory around here. What are you making a fuss about?" We would have never seen those notes had there not been a whistleblower going to the inspector general who declared it credible and of concern and then the process went forward from there.
James Carville: 06:55 Do you think it's important to get the rest of that transcript? Or is that something that that may not be relevant before you were able to have a final resolution?
Nancy Pelosi: 07:04 I think it may be relevant, but I think it'd be hard to get. I don't think that they're going to be saying, "If only you saw the whole transcript, it's exculpatory."
James Carville: 07:15 I don't think they will do. I don't think they'll leave out stuff that's exculpatory.
Nancy Pelosi: 07:18 No, because there are some people who think, "Let's not make a fuss about the transcript. We know where it is. Let's just focus on what he did."
James Carville: 07:30 Right. Do you suspect that they will subpoena the transcript at some point?
Nancy Pelosi: 07:35 I don't know.
James Carville: 07:36 Don't know.
Nancy Pelosi: 07:36 That's a decisions decision.
James Carville: 07:38 So when this Bork told New York Time, "Let the senates do it." This is my theory, and see if you share it. I would much rather be a house Democrat voting on this than a Senate Republican. I think that this, politically, people were saying, "This is a big risk for the Democrats." And I was saying, "No, I don't think so. I think this is going to be a big risk for Tillerson, and McNally, and Gardener, and Collins, and Ernst and et cetera, et cetera." And I know people have constitutional duties to discharge, but it seems to me that the politics of this are lining up pretty good for the Democrats.
Nancy Pelosi: 08:19 Well, the more people know about the president's behavior and his cavalier attitude, article two says, "I can do whatever I want," whether he wants to take money from defense to spend on a wall, even though Congress has appropriated the money differently. But just to your point, politics never entered my decision whether to go forward or not. It was more guided by E pluribus unum from anyone. How do we unify the country? How do we not contribute further to what's happening because of the way he is? That was really it. It wasn't political. And we have an oath of office that we take, so we can't say politics stood in the way.
By the same token, we cannot go as the slowest ship and that would be the United States Senate. If they don't want to honor their oath of office, if they don't want to strengthen the institution in which they serve, if they just want to abdicate their responsibilities and be shields for the president, that should by no means be a measure of how faithful we are to our oath of office.
James Carville: 09:23 Trump of course, claims that he's a victim here. Has he told you that? And what do you say to him when he says that?
Nancy Pelosi: 09:31 I don't know that he has said that to me in just those words, but it's a tactic. It's a tactic and let me just say he's the president of the United States. When he became president, I thought we have to do whatever we can to help him be a good president for the people. Our whole agenda is for the people. This initiative to continue to go further down the inquiry path is for the people defending our democracy for the people. I don't even want to go into a psychoanalysis of this president, but I do think an intervention is warranted. Policy personally, in every way is something that's very strange.
James Carville: 10:12 Here's one out of left field that will surprise you and only would be asked in a podcast. Another critic, surprising critic, was Kenneth Starr, who was the Clinton prosecutor who said that the house is engaged in a destructive frenzy, that Trump did nothing corrupt, and impeachment is bad for the country.
Nancy Pelosi: 10:32 My goodness, how times have changed. When he would take a personal indiscretion and turn it into an impeachment and doing so in a way ... I can tell you I was here, they practically pulled it up, opened the trunk of a car and threw these things practically on the street without even showing to the president first. What we have afforded to the president and what we put forth today is better than what they ever gave in terms of respect and opportunity to President Clinton or even to President Nixon. We've come a long way since then. That's really quite sad. And it's really sad because they know, they must have known, they must have some judgment about the constitution of the United States.
James Carville: 11:18 I don't know what to say.
Nancy Pelosi: 11:20 Their hypocrisy is so raging and the inconsistency is so obvious that I don't...
James Carville: 11:26 For most Republicans in general, not just Starr.
Nancy Pelosi: 11:28 Yeah.
James Carville: 11:29 He was a man that was so appalled by what President Clinton did. And yet when he was president of Baylor, while he was president, there was the biggest rape scandal in the history of college athletics and I don't ... And this guy comes back and runs his mouth. He must be just impervious ...
Al Hunt: 11:47 He is.
James Carville: 11:48 ... to any shame and hypocrisy.
Nancy Pelosi: 11:49 Well, let me say that. I don't know what I'm talking about right now, but my path is always follow the money so that a future job or opportunity or appointment or something.
James Carville: 12:01 You mentioned both the Clinton and the Nixon impeachment that you're a student of this institution. What have you learned from those two extraordinary events in '74 and '98 as far as it affects this time?
Nancy Pelosi: 12:14 Well, in my view is that I had a different view about the impeachment of Clinton. I thought that proceeding with that investigation was using fruit from a forbidden tree and they shouldn't have even gone down that path. I was the one that was very defensive of President Clinton, not of his personal behavior, what a jerk, and to do such a thing. But what a wonderful president. But I just thought that ...
Some people said to me, "Well, don't let any of our candidates say what you're saying." I said, "No, but this is what I believe. I don't think that should have even taken place." Okay, so other things evolves. Somebody wants to not be fully telling the truth because to save the embarrassment to his family or something like that. Okay, then we go down that path.
In terms of Nixon, what was interesting to me is, until they had the tapes, the Republicans were nowhere on the impeachment of Nixon. And even when they had the tapes, public opinion did not swing until the very end. And in our case, we had the tapes from day one. This is Smoking Gun day one, the telephone call.
Al Hunt: 13:24 Well, he started a ...
James Carville: 13:24 One of the things they had that I covered the house of the judiciary committee in 90, that's how old I am.
Nancy Pelosi: 13:29 Well, it must have been for the college newspaper, no doubt.
James Carville: 13:33 But one of the things they had then there was a collaborative effort among Republicans and Democrats, even those who disagreed. Bill Cohen was a Republican freshmen. John Rhodes, the leader worked with majority leader O'Neill. Even the Nixon defenders like Charles Wiggins from your state at least understood the incredibly high level importance of this. You're not going to get that this time. I mean the Republicans are determined, I gather, to make a circus out of this.
Nancy Pelosi: 14:01 Yeah, they are and that's really... I don't see how they can honor their oath of office as they engage in the circus. But I do find that there is, listening to them as I do listen, tremendous poverty of knowledge and information both of substance and of the constitution of the United States. That's the only way that I think that one could justify they're ignoring the facts, ignoring the truth, ignoring that constitution, ignoring the oath of office that they take. It's really sad.
James Carville: 14:33 It is. Yeah.
Nancy Pelosi: 14:34 And by the way, I say to Republican friends, take back your party. This country needs a strong Republican party, a strong Democratic party. You have been hijacked by people who don't even believe in governance.
James Carville: 14:45 This is a typical Washington question, but you know a lot of Republican members, if this was a secret vote, how many Republicans in the house do you think would have voted for this?
Nancy Pelosi: 14:56 I don't know. I think that you have a room full of enablers. These are people who ... People who criticize, they say, "Well they must all disagree with the president on this, that, and the other thing," and I know this isn't a policy question. But these people here had been worse and for longer than Trump on any issue. Denial of climate, woman's right to choose, LGBTQ equality, gun safety, immigration in a fair way, a fair way to protect our country and name any subject. Fairness in our economy. They've been there and worse. So he's their hero. He's their guy, maybe a handful.
James Carville: 15:37 A handful. So [crosstalk 00:15:38] during the Clinton impeachment, its central part of our strategy obviously was to trivialize the underlying offense. So, okay, and we're ready, but then also, we really are going to go through that. They don't have that option.
Nancy Pelosi: 15:54 No.
James Carville: 15:55 As I go back and I think about we were able to present Starr as a person precede prudish guy and deep course he played the role perfectly for us, in the second part of our strategy was to say, "Yes, so what?" This strikes me as they're going to have a really difficult time executing that strategy going forward.
Nancy Pelosi: 16:16 Right? Well, there are two different things. We're talking about a personal indiscretion and then how that was treated. We're talking here about the national security of our country. And as I said to the president that day in his office, a couple of weeks ago, was it?
James Carville: 16:33 Which he foolishly tweeted it out.
Nancy Pelosi: 16:35 But he tweeted it out. Thank you very much you, I mean, really? Thank you and all roads lead to Putin.
James Carville: 16:42 Right.
Nancy Pelosi: 16:43 Who benefits by giving Russia a stronger foothold in the Middle East? Russia. Who? Who benefits by withholding military assistance to the Ukraine? The Ukraine lost thousands of people with the violence from Russia in this invasion and incursion into the Eastern part of Ukraine, and we're not going to give them the military assistance that Congress voted. Who benefits from his questioning our commitment to NATO in article five of NATO? Putin, and I didn't even go into that. That's, those three, I said all roads lead to Putin, but I didn't even go into and that you believe him rather than our intelligence community as to his disruption of our elections in 2016. I didn't want to get, man he's melting down. I didn't want him to fall off the edge.
James Carville: 17:34 Before we go, this is a busy day for you, I know, but let me just a couple political questions. Obamacare passed because of you. You got it through the house. You have long advocated it, building on it, and making it more accessible, and making it more affordable, but there's a huge element within your party now that wants to basically discard it and go to a government run single payer, including some of the leading presidential candidates. If that were to happen and the party were to adopt that, would that be a winner or a looser?
Nancy Pelosi: 18:04 I wouldn't do. I don't think it would be. Here's the thing.
James Carville: 18:06 You don't think it would be a?
Nancy Pelosi: 18:07 I think that we should all just say, "We want healthcare for all Americans." Oh, the Affordable Care Act is on par there with social security, Medicare and Medicaid, it is a major accomplishment. Millions more people have access to healthcare probably 20, but that's not the point. A 150 million families got better benefits, no preexisting condition, a note at lifetime limits or even annual limits, all the other things that affect so many people in our country apart from those who are getting the additional.
So the point would be if we ... The point is to eventually get to a place where we have a 100% coverage, which is our goal, then the path would be to follow the Affordable Care Act. If it leads to Medicare for all as an option, so be it. But to say, "We're throwing this out because we're going to have this and you're not going to have your private insurance," I just think, first of all is a ... I don't support that. But when I talk to these folks, because, I've been having my single payer and I said, those signs in my basement from 30 years ago.
I get the point. We want everybody to have it. Now, we have a responsibility to do it. I don't ... Sorry, it's a big price tag that the federal government and people say, "Well, you'll raise taxes." I think there's, look, we've had three hearings. Judiciary committee, no, excuse me, rules committee, ways and means committee, and budget committee onto Medicare for all. We're respectful of that idea. Put it on the table. Let's see what it means in terms of benefits to the patients and what it means to the cost, to the patient, to business, families, and to the country. So this is a big question.
I just think that if people want to talk about that, they really need to know. I don't think they want a single payer where government is administering the health care, but some people think that's what that means. So we have to have clarity. In the meantime, we must do better in what we do. We want to reauthorize some of the things that have expired. We want to expand some of the things we should have done in the first place, and now you can see in its implementation that there's more. We are on a really good path to this and I, whatever enthusiasms a new president may bring in, it's not something you can do by executive order.
James Carville: 20:38 Right because Rahm Emanuel, who is too intimidated by you too.
Nancy Pelosi: 20:41 Yeah, then what?
James Carville: 20:45 He says that his idea is to let people buy into the federal plan, which is one of the classic great plans. And I wonder when members of Congress who are Medicare eligible, when they have health issues that they pay with the federal plan or the Medicare plan. But you know that's a good way. The federal plan and I'd say very well negotiated and maybe we can get people in on that.
Nancy Pelosi: 21:08 Agreed, agreed. I think there are all kinds of ways to do it, but, and if you want to say Medicare, if you wish, because Medicare is not a good as benefit as the Affordable Care A
ct. There is no catastrophic there. You know they're ... And then they said, "Well they can just go buy another policy." I said, "Well that's not what you're advertising out there." And I am all for, and we hopefully will be able to increase the benefits for Medicare when we do our H.R.3 - Elijah E.Cummings, Lower Drug Costs Now Bill, which will reap benefits to the federal budget, use some of that money to expand Medicare benefits. That's a debate we have to have here. However, Affordable Care Act is a better benefit.
So again, I think that everybody, this is what campaigns are about. You put ideas out there about your vision. It may not be the practical application of it, but we should be respectful of everyone's enthusiasms. At some point though, I just said two words, Remember November, and where we have to win and we intend fully to be by this November to practically lock in our victory for next year as this engine moves that the house Democrats to help win state legislative governorships, senate races to keep our eye on the electoral colleges to where we can add to our numbers with the additionality of helping when those States for democratic president.
Al Hunt: 22:39 James, the speaker has gotten us off to a good start. Now, it's up to us.
James Carville: 22:42 That's the wrong question.
Al Hunt: 22:42 A lot of pressure on us to continue this thing. Just finally, and so this is an incredibly tense time. It's a really important time for the country. You're a workaholic. I mean, no one works harder than Nancy Pelosi. What do you do to relax? Do you eat more chocolates?
Nancy Pelosi: 22:56 Chocolate is ... First, I'm Italian American and I think a lot of my energy springs from that chocolate, the love of my dear husband and family. I relax when I look forward to all day is doing my crossword puzzle in the tab at the end of the day.
Al Hunt: 23:12 Wow.
Nancy Pelosi: 23:12 That's it.
Al Hunt: 23:12 I have a little civics lessons about our podcast, this is in the speaker's office. There's only one kind of chocolate that is served and that would be one that is made in San Francisco.
Nancy Pelosi: 23:27 There you go.
Al Hunt: 23:28 [inaudible 00:23:28] So I've been, to some extent, our politics is still local. One of my other favorite speakers said, "All politics is local."
Nancy Pelosi: 23:36 And in terms of health care, it is personal. But we do have to win this presidency. I just want to leave you this note. Our country is great. Our founders built something so visionary and we are eternally grateful to them and even our country can withstand one term, two terms would be very hard. The judgeship's, the court's, policy, the air our children breathe, the water they drink, we must win the presidential election. Remember November.
Al Hunt: 24:09 Madam speaker on this momentous day, I can't tell you how much we appreciate you being with us. Thank you very much.
Nancy Pelosi: 24:13 Well, I was looking forward to a little, shall we say, comment to leave here at this ...
Al Hunt: 24:16 Well, I hope you're invited.
James Carville: 24:19 You know speaker, one of the things that people say, "Oh, we're going to win, we're going to win," look at United Kingdom, Boris Johnson is a fool. They have people switching from one side down to the other one when he's speaking yet he will probably win a snap election because Jerry Copeland has made himself so unacceptable. And this is not a give me thing, you could lose this, you could throw it right over the fence.
Nancy Pelosi: 24:45 No, I understand, but you know what?
James Carville: 24:45 I know you understand.
Nancy Pelosi: 24:47 We have to, and we try to, with our races, own the ground and our mobilization message, right, mainstream, mainstream on the left wing, San Francisco liberal. So I can say to people ...
Al Hunt: 24:47 That's the old age.
Nancy Pelosi: 24:59 ... we're going mainstream and money. MMM you talked about M and M's and ...
James Carville: 25:05 Right, Mainstream money.
Nancy Pelosi: 25:05 Mobile this out, mobilize. We don't agonize over him. We organize and we fully intend to have a big election next year. But again, one good day, one good week, one good month, one big election.
Al Hunt: 25:23 James, this is our day. We have Mr. inside and Mr. outside. Nobody is more versed in what's happening in politics a year out from the 2020 election than Charlie Cook, who has overcome his Louisiana background to become an institution with a must read cook political report and no one is more versed in the underlying basics and fundamentals of American politics than Thomas Byrne Edsall. Great political reporter now column is for New York times.
Tom also knows the 2020 inside and Charlie the broader picture, so we really have scored big. James, my guess is you have a couple of thoughts or questions?
James Carville: 26:00 Well, I just did the math and we have 98 years of experience in participating covering American politics and between Charlie and Tom when you add it all up, there's 199 years of experience of something on this set, which I'm not ... No, but I doubt that that has happened very many times before any kind of a communication of television, radio, podcasts, you name it.
Charlie Cook: 26:28 It's a great appeal for millennials.
James Carville: 26:29 Right, great appeal to millennials. Man, I tell you. What, if we can just remember like a third of the stuff we know we'd have a hell of a show, won't we? So, all right. Let me just start here. I got a note to ABC Washington post poll, which I think most people agree is a pretty good, the amount was pretty good, has Trump approval, now at 74, among Republicans? In your guys' judgment, why does it have to get where people really get scared?
Thomas B Edsall: 27:01 I would say 60% starts to get scary because that means you're going to get some areas and some districts where it's below 50 and you start seeing defections from those. Trump cannot afford to see any significant defection beyond say Mitt Romney in the Senate. But you get below that. That's when people like Susan Collins are going to get dicey. All the competitors at close Senate races, and there's about four or five that are, look at Cory Gardner's another, that starts becoming real problematic in the purple and blue States.
Charlie Cook: 27:46 I'm a little skeptical, A, that it could get down to 60. I mean, of course 74 is down from the 85 to 90 where it used to be, but there's 35 to 40% that are going to be with president Trump no matter what. No matter what's found.
James Carville: 28:03 Right.
Charlie Cook: 28:03 But to be honest, there is no, there is no tolerance for dissent in the Republican party. You saw what happened to Senator Bob Corker from Tennessee, Jeff Flake from Arizona, where they couldn't run for reelection. Mark Sanford lost his primary, the Congressman Francis Rooney two weeks ago announced that he would consider supporting impeachment and had to announce his retirement the next day. There's just, and between the people that love president Trump and everything he does and the ones that are just sort of bought in with tax cuts, economy, regulation, judges.
I think these Republican members are so terrified, not just to president Trump, but his supporters that I don't think he could possibly reach a number that you would have any significant number of bail out, particularly anything like 20 Republican senators.
James Carville: 29:00 One more question about then I'm going to turn it over to Al. Everybody was saying about the Democrats take enough impeachment into political danger, and I'd ask both of you to comment on this statement. I would say this, I would much rather be a house Democrat right now than a Senate Republican. I think it's an easier vote.
Thomas B Edsall: 29:19 Oh, much easier vote. I think there are a lot of Republican senators for whom it is going to be a difficult vote. They do have this real problem that if they were to vote for impeachment, they're going to infuriate a significant part of their base that could just not show up for them, and that would kill them on a general election day.
James Carville: 29:37 Right.
Thomas B Edsall: 29:38 Conversely, they have significant middle of the road proponents who say Trump is a sleazebag. They are really caught betwixt and between. For Democrats, clearly from the voting we've seen so far, it's been an easy shot. And only two Democrats felt they needed to defect out of the whole bunch Al.
Charlie Cook: 30:03 Well, you look at Republican senators and there are three that are just going to have a really tough race no matter what and could lose if impeachment didn't exist, Martha McSally in Arizona, Cory Gardner in Colorado, Susan Collins in Maine. So, impeachment could theoretically seal their fate but they're already in deep trouble. But really Tom Tillis and Perdue in Georgia, those are the only two people that even are on the bubble that I think it could. I mean, Joni Ernst in Nebraska is not going to lose to Iowa.
James Carville: 30:36 [inaudible 00:30:36]
Charlie Cook: 30:36 ... John corn or Iowa, John Corn in Texas is not going to lose because of impeachment. I mean, so ...
Al Hunt: 30:43 Charlie, let me go back for half a minute because I actually should've seen clips and talked to some people out there. Joni Ernst has been struggling at town halls out there and the polls apparently have, she's still ahead of Greenfield or whatever her name is, but are you sure that that's just slam doc for her?
Charlie Cook: 30:58 No, what I'm saying ... No, I'm not saying it's a slam doc. I'm saying that impeachment ... if something was going on that she loses, I don't think it's going to be because of impeachment. It's going to be because small town rural voters did not turn out in extraordinary numbers that they did in 2016 for example. And that the suburbs around Des Moines, they were on fire.
James Carville: 31:18 Or the farmers.
Charlie Cook: 31:20 Well, there are some suburbs going the other way.
James Carville: 31:22 Yeah.
Charlie Cook: 31:25 But I don't think, I mean, there'd be other reasons why they'd be in trouble, but no, I don't think it's a slam doc. But I think you get past McSally, Gardner, Collins, Tillis and Perdue and wow, that's tough territory.
Al Hunt: 31:41 [inaudible 00:31:41]
Charlie Cook: 31:40 Yeah, that really is.
Al Hunt: 31:42 Tom, you agree?
Thomas B Edsall: 31:46 I mean I think there is this potential for a wave. It's only potential at this point. And the Democrats, especially on who they pick for the top of the ticket could blow it and lose the whole momentum that they have. But I think there is an underlying potential for this to turn into a second way of election really. 2018 was the first, and a lot will depend on how well Democrats handle the impeachment process, but it's very iffy at this point.
Charlie Cook: 32:22 But to each for Tom Tillis and David Perdue to lose that means there was a wave. I'm factoring the wave in. I mean, you don't need a wave from McSally, Gardner or Collins to go Democrat. You do need a wave and there's a big gap.
James Carville: 32:34 I'm confident that Tillis is behind right now. Okay?
Al Hunt: 32:38 Well, Charlie ...
Charlie Cook: 32:38 Yeah, in that case, he's behind somebody that's unknown but ...
Al Hunt: 32:41 Yeah, but Charlie you're right, about Georgia. But North Carolina I think is more purple than that.
Charlie Cook: 32:46 Well, it's becoming a swing state. But the thing is for Democrats to get over the hump with relatively unknown candidates, they, I think the wave would get them over the top. I mean, yes it's becoming purple.
James Carville: 33:00 Right?
Charlie Cook: 33:01 But I'm throwing in in the wave for those two.
James Carville: 33:01 Right.
Al Hunt: 33:05 You both agree the house is a done deal. There's no way Republicans can take it back.
James Carville: 33:08 Well, I don't say no way, but 95% chance that Democrats hold that.
Thomas B Edsall: 33:14 I agree pretty about that, yeah.
Al Hunt: 33:16 Let's talk about a couple and James, I want you to weigh in big time, but I want to look at a couple of States that fascinating me. Tom, you've written a lot about some of those son bill, including Texas even. You didn't say it's turning purple, but you said you know it's moving and it may move faster than people think and Arizona. Just tell me where you think they both stand right now politically?
Thomas B Edsall: 33:35 I think Arizona has a good chance of becoming a shifting to a purple state status. And I think Democrats have a good shot at the Senate there. I don't know what Charlie would say, but the interesting thing about Texas in particular, and it's true actually all throughout the South, as you're seeing upscale suburbs turning blue. That's where the Republicans have been taking it on the chin. Districts like George W. Bush's home district places in Houston and in Dallas, they were really the original Republican party in the South, way back in the Eisenhower years. This is where the sort of reformist Republican party began.
They are now leading the charge moving to the Democratic party. These are these well educated white affluent suburbanites do not like Trump and they are showing it in the South, which was quite intriguing as a process.
Charlie Cook: 34:40 Part of it, you know for Arizona and Texas, we've been saying for a long time, they are gradually becoming purple. But I think for too long we focused, because of the rising minority vote there when it really, it was suburbanites coming from other States and that bringing non-Texan voting patterns into Texas. So that's what's actually powered it more than Latino and I think at all four of those States, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, all four have a huge influx. I mean that's the difference between those States, between Georgia, and North Carolina, and Louisiana, or Mississippi, or South ...
Thomas B Edsall: 34:40 Of course.
Charlie Cook: 35:15 ... well, they don't have that in [inaudible 00:35:16] of out of state.
Al Hunt: 35:17 Obamacare in North Carolina and Ohio, McCain carried the long time North Carolina residents by a pretty sizable margin and Obama won narrowly by carrying those newcomers by a fairly, and they're a lot more newcomers coming in. Let me turn it around for a second Charlie and go to Wisconsin. My former colleague I respect a lot, Frank Wilkinson, went out there and what he really reported was that the Republicans are confident out there that there is what he called reserve troops. Namely non-college educated whites who did not vote in 2016 who are there to be had by Trump in 2020.
Charlie Cook: 35:56 I think there are, the question is are there more of those? I mean what we're seeing is a realignment taking place in this country. We're seeing a white college educated suburban, not exclusively but a whole lot of women, they're moving out of the Republican party or away from independence towards Democrats. But simultaneously you have a lot of working class whites, non-college degree whites, particularly in small town rural areas that they, used to be Democrats, they're moving towards the Republican party and in those three States that were the surprise States for 2016 you know, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, they were disproportionately with those non-college whites.
They're also, we're the industrial States that, between trade, technology automation, a lot of people have come on the losing end of the six. So I think there are some, but the question is, does it net out and in those three States, maybe, it might, but in these other four that we were talking about, the Arizona's and Texas, I mean clearly there are a lot more suburban than there are the small town rural.
James Carville: 37:01 Right.
Thomas B Edsall: 37:02 That's really part of the whole, the second big shift, which is part of this realignment, the growing areas in the country are going democratic and the stagnant areas are going Republican. The data ... Hillary only won something like 400 counties out of 3,000, but that 63% of the gross national product of the United States came from those 400 counties and only less than 40%, 37% came from the 2,700 counties that voted for Trump. They are and their process is going more and more. So you're getting this sort of bizarre, the Democrats are the winners and the Republicans are the losers. How long a losing coalition can hold up is an interesting question, but for the moment Trump capitalized on the losers and won with them, whether he can do that again is a real question.
Charlie Cook: 38:06 I think Tom's ride with the demographic trends are favoring Democrats so much. But I think 2016 was something of an anomaly and that that election was half about Donald Trump, but it was probably half about Hillary Clinton. I mean she had about 25 years of accumulated baggage, and I like to say that bill Clinton, at least until mid two, was covered in Teflon. She was covered in Velcro and it's just stuff stuck to her.
James Carville: 38:35 I was sort of curious to see that the state department, IG said to the email story, it was nothing, and it would've been glad if it wouldn't have been divorced judgment I've ever heard in my life and it's a go, the blah, blah blah, but, and also [inaudible 00:38:49] if the New York Times reported that Russia wasn't trying to help Trump, but I'm not going to get into that right now. Let's move on.
Charlie Cook: 38:59 It bought Republicans four more years before democrats started.
James Carville: 39:01 Right. I'm not going to get into that and I'm going to move on. Just want to make one point. It was John Bell who carried Jefferson Parish and got John Bell a chance to say, [crosstalk 00:39:12], which is the birthplace of the Republican party I believe. David was from it. It's evidence, more evidence to the fact that all of the first counties have a parish in the country that was turning red and now turning back blue.
Thomas B Edsall: 39:25 I guess.
James Carville: 39:26 Yeah, I know it did.
Thomas B Edsall: 39:26 Same it was true in Alabama, Mountain wrote ...
James Carville: 39:31 Mountain Brook.
Thomas B Edsall: 39:33 ... went for Dark Jones by a big margin I think, and that was the birthplace of Alabama's Republican party way back when.
James Carville: 39:42 Correct.
Thomas B Edsall: 39:44 So, it's a really strange flip, we're going.
Charlie Cook: 39:46 Well, that's true in the South, but it's also true. I mean, I grew up, James teases me about this on Philadelphia's main line. It was the center of Eisenhower country. I mean people just, and right now it votes, 55, 60, 62% democratic. There are two things that technically have nothing to do with politics that are become great predictors and one is population density. And the other is education, where education basically split it four year college degree. It's just moving like a freight train towards Democrats. So, yes.
Thomas B Edsall: 40:23 There's a real problem for Democrats in this, in that here's the party that says it's the party of the working class, that Joe Sixpack and Joe Sixpack, but it doesn't anymore. It's the party of the Volvo driver.
James Carville: 40:38 Right, right.
Thomas B Edsall: 40:39 And it's hard for that party to make the claim in places like Michigan and Wisconsin that were with you, regular working guys when really they are an elite democratic party has a lot of internal humidification problems.
Charlie Cook: 40:59 And give the structure of the electoral college and the Senate, Democrats have a problem you can't get buried in the small town, little American by certain people.
James Carville: 41:06 18% of the country elects 52 senators.
Charlie Cook: 41:09 Yeah.
James Carville: 41:11 So this leads me to, I agree it's setting up nicely to Trump approval which is not very good. The demographics are coming outweigh. We're doing better here. I have two gut wrenching fears going into this. The first gut wrenching fear that I have is I actually think this left turn, I mean it's extreme left turn can really be damaging. If you look at the UK, Boris Johnson is horribly unpopular. A heart, a complete fool who would probably want a snap election because the British Labor Party has made himself unacceptable.
And my other great fear is, Tom Mitchell has written about this, other people who I know and respect and have said this. That the democratic technology deficit with the Republicans is appalling and it's bad, and I am going to spend a lot of my time screaming and yelling about this. So I would ask both of you to comment on both of those two things, the left turn and the technology deficit.
Al Hunt: 42:12 Charlie why don't you take a left turn and then Tom, you go to the technology, which you just wrote a masterful piece about.
Charlie Cook: 42:18 Yeah, I don't think there are a lot of Democrats that have philosophically changed their minds that much. I think what happened is, when non-college whites left the democratic party, they were the most conservative, least liberal component within the party. You lop off starting in the 90s in the South, and then after that, after the turn of the search, in the North, you lock that off and let the center of gravity and the party is going to go left.
I think to me, the question on this one is what is the democratic party's risk tolerance? How much are they willing to risk reelecting president Trump to do what really feels good.
James Carville: 43:02 Right. You know they're most conservative, but I would argue the most conservative element of democratic party right now might be all the blacks.
Charlie Cook: 43:10 Well now, now.
James Carville: 43:11 Nah man, that is amazing. It's amazing that, you could say that and both of you would look at me like I'm not crazy.
Al Hunt: 43:14 On that point ...
Thomas B Edsall: 43:14 Well, I don't think that ...
Al Hunt: 43:18 ... we talked to Nancy Pelosi Charlie earlier, and she basically said, and I am, this is not an exact quote that single-payer, to run on a single payer would be a disaster for Democrats.
Charlie Cook: 43:29 Yeah, I mean first of all, anything, anything that involves privatized, getting rid of private health insurance, where 39% of democratic voters have private health insurance. And when you look at union members, all of that, man, that's deadly. But the other thing is anything that smacks of massive tax increases and it's not the Democrats are like innately anti-tax, it's what would lose? I mean when Walter Mondale, we were probably all four of us in the room when former vice president Mondale said, "President Reagan and I and I will both raise your taxes." He won't say it, I will and that's how you lose 49 States.
James Carville: 44:13 Exactly.
Charlie Cook: 44:13 The thing is the feeling of, well if we go with this, man, this is how you lose an election. That's the risk tolerance that I think Democrats need to really think about. But it's private health insurance specifically that I think really hurts if Democrats embrace this.
Al Hunt: 44:34 Tom, talk about why the Republicans are so far ahead of Trump rather so far ahead on technology and can the Democrats close the gap? Then what do they have to do?
Thomas B Edsall: 44:44 Well, technology that this whole thing has started with George W. Bush got way ahead 2004, then Obama pulled way ahead for the Democrats, but then in 2016, Brad Parcell if I'm pronouncing his name right, I don't know.
Al Hunt: 45:00 I think you're.
Thomas B Edsall: 45:02 When I really invested in this while Hillary Clinton did not, and they have developed very sophisticated ways of identifying Republican leaning voters and non-voters. That's the important thing for them. They want get to turn out every potential voter that they can, and that includes registering them, and they've developed techniques that are too hard to describe on the radio of pulling up all kinds of information that you don't know you're giving away.
And the Democrats in the meantime have been stuck in a battle against each other where all their efforts on Facebook and on other digital outlets are all geared to promoting their own candidacy and not promoting the democratic party. And the democratic party without a candidate has a hard time doing this and they don't have anyone except perhaps priority USA and one other, I forget which, trying to do some of this work, but it's really peripheral compared to the very doggedly hard work detailed, and you have to because it is all new technology you have to keep testing the validity of what you're doing. It's just a very long and hard process to make sure that what you're doing is actually working.
Al Hunt: 46:31 Okay.
Charlie Cook: 46:31 [inaudible 00:46:31] years in the 2012 RNC autopsy, part of it was Republicans have to do better with digital, but that was one that was the only thing actually they did out of odd, and so this happened post 2012 election, between 12 and 16, this happened, but that was one of the ... That was the only part ... They ripped all the other chapters and threw away.
Al Hunt: 46:55 All right guys, let's cut to the chase.
Charlie Cook: 46:56 Technology, you know that ...
Al Hunt: 46:57 We're getting the hook, but let's cut to the chase now. We're going to go and let's say who's going to be the democratic nominee. And the numbers have to add up to a 100 and I'm going to give you five choices, I'll even go first. It can be Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, or a candidate out there, some kind of savior. Who's going to come in? I'd say Warren at 40, Biden at 25, Buttigieg at 20, Bernie at 10 and five for an outsider. Who wants to go next?
James Carville: 47:23 I'll go next. I just think any predictive saying with levels of engagement this high is very dangerous. And I noticed it was a New Hampshire poll and they had set Warren at 20. Well, she's running a 100% ID in New Hampshire. All right. It tells me that there's a lot going to happen. This is not a kind of a year where you know what's going to happen in advance. I think we're at ...
Al Hunt: 47:50 You're right, Jamie.
James Carville: 47:50 ... and I don't ...
Al Hunt: 47:51 Come on, don't ...
James Carville: 47:52 I don't predict in turmoil. That's all [crosstalk 00:47:54].
Al Hunt: 47:53 You're going to be a [inaudible 00:47:55]. I'm so disappointed.
James Carville: 47:57 I'd be disappointed.
Al Hunt: 47:57 I mean, you will not rise to the occasion.
James Carville: 47:57 I will not raise to the occasion.
Al Hunt: 48:00 Tom, and so Charlie Cook.
Charlie Cook: 48:03 My colleague Amy Walters, he says the conventional wisdom is that Joe Biden can't win a democratic nomination. Elizabeth Warren can't win a general election. And I think that is the conventional wisdom. I would give Biden [inaudible 00:48:15] or Buttigieg together a 55% chance. And Warren and everybody else 45, which basically means Warren, because nobody knew he was getting there.
Al Hunt: 48:27 Yeah.
Charlie Cook: 48:27 Right.
Al Hunt: 48:28 So I'm going to agree. Nobody knows he's getting at?
Thomas B Edsall: 48:28 I don't think anyone knew he was getting, and I think if Warren is going to make it, she's going to have to do something on Medicare for all that is credible and she hasn't done that yet. And for her, I think that's going to be her make or break point. I have serious doubts about her as a general election candidate and whether it's a good choice, but I think I would put the odds on her if she can get over this Medicare for all, it could be her, the killer is out.
Charlie Cook: 49:03 She is head and shoulders better than anybody else in this field in terms of candidates in terms of organization. And her shortcoming is the plan and she's got to figure out a way to say, "Well, of course we're not going to have 60 seats in the Senate. We're not going to ... That we may have to settle for something less initially." I mean, she's got to make that turn somehow.
Al Hunt: 49:24 Right. Ah, boy, we have struck it rich as they say. James, we start with Nancy Pelosi and then we go to Charlie cook and Thomas Byrne Edsall. We're being carried today, but I want to thank Charlie. I want to thank Tom, and I hope you come back. It's an honor to be with you guys.
Now we have our special segment with our in-house researcher, Kristi Harvey.
Kristi Harvey: 49:58 Guys, I came to this thinking we were going to talk impeachment or Syria and I was going to do a deep dive into all these numbers, but October, November, in Washington DC there's only one topic and it's baseball. So I've got two phases of research for you guys just to make sure you know. So the first one is, in may, the odds of Washington DC, the Washington nationals winning the world series in Vegas were 1.5%. James, when did you start to have hope that this could actually go through and what are your thoughts here?
James Carville: 50:32 It's hard talking to Albert every day and being on that email thread, but all those old guys who like to complain the whole goddamn way and I'm like, [crosstalk 00:50:42] "We went in games, yeah." I never ... When I became kind of [inaudible 00:50:48] a little bit was after game five. I just said, "It's just too much has happened. It's just got to continue." There are some sports God thing here, and it's just like with LSU football, I don't even get nervous on third and eight anymore. I mean, this national drive is like the one of the best sports rides I've ever had in my entire life.
Kristi Harvey: 51:11 Hunt, what's the image it's going to stick out for you? I'm on all those crazy email threads with you and the texting. I think we have 700 texts just from this past couple of weeks on this. What's the image it's going to stick out?
Al Hunt: 51:21 Well, [inaudible 00:51:21] and I were wrong all the time, and David Martinez and Mike Rizzo were right, thank God. The image that stands out for me even more than that wonderful night when they won the world series was that wildcard playoff game. We're down three to one against the best reliever in baseball and a lefthanded reliever who was unhittable. And we had a 20-year-old kid up named Juan Soto. That game was lost. There was no way. We had never won a series. This was going to be the elimination and he knocked in the winning runs. That was, to me, one of the most magical moments in the history of baseball and this story has James said, there has never been a better narrative than the 2019 Nationals.
James Carville: 52:03 And I saw [inaudible 00:52:04] Kendrick home running and getting in Los Angeles.
Al Hunt: 52:09 You were way out there?
James Carville: 52:10 I don't know. Oh God. It was like ...
Kristi Harvey: 52:11 Amazing.
James Carville: 52:12 And it's a ... These guys have just run down and post seven and five elimination games, they had like three doubles, two home runs in a walk. I'm like, "God, oh my..." This comment is not coming around again people.
Kristi Harvey: 52:28 And that brings me to my second piece of two pieces of research here, which is I live about two blocks from the ballpark. And you can hear the crowd roar when things happen and the crowd roared during a commercial break. And we were like, "What's going on?" And we realized it was the crowd roaring with boos at a Donald Trump commercial that was airing during the world series.
And my second piece of research is that in game five of the world series at NATS ballpark, the crowd turned on Donald Trump and started booing and supposedly the decibel level got up to a 100 decibels. Here's a couple other things that are a 100 decibels. That's a jetliner taken off that is standing next to a jackhammer that's standing next to a speaker at a rock concert, so that's pretty loud. So Hunt ...
Al Hunt: 52:28 I was there that night Kris.
Kristi Harvey: 53:18 ... what do you think? Yeah.
Al Hunt: 53:19 It was incredible what they tried, they tried to be cute. What they tried to do was introduced Trump at the same time they were introducing veterans because they always introduce the veterans and everyone stands. The audience was too smart for them because Trump came on first, and before they had a chance to get to the veterans, that just incredible resounding chorus of boos, which look, you boo at baseball games, you boo everything, that's fine. Those people complain about it wrong. I didn't like the lock him up. I mean he began that. It's outrageous when he does it. I don't think other people should do it, but the booing was a glorious sound.
James Carville: 53:50 But I don't understand is, he has instincts. All right. He had to know this was going to happen. He's not that, he has survival instincts. I don't think he's very smart or anything like that. And he also is on a very protective of his image in his strength. And I don't know if somebody talked him into doing this or said this would be a good idea. That person, whoever he or she may be, and even if he did it himself, of course it's not going to be his fault. He's going to blame somebody else for it, that we know. I want to know who's going to beat a fault person here because there's going to be one.
Kristi Harvey: 54:25 What do you think, Al? Who's the fault guy here?
Al Hunt: 54:28 Well, I know that he didn't like it. I'm not sure that he didn't say ...
Kristi Harvey: 54:28 I take.
Al Hunt: 54:32 ... "Oh man, the Deep State booed me." I mean, that's sort of nonsense, but a lot of what he says is sort of nonsense, but I'm not sure he didn't welcome it, but ...
James Carville: 54:40 Yeah, he may have, but you got to be pretty tough, sophisticated person to invite yourself to be booed.
Al Hunt: 54:46 No, it's just it was. And I also would point out it was major league baseball that had Donald Trump there and the nationals, our beloved nationals invited Jose, the chef who has been one of the great people in the world that throw out the opening pitch.
Kristi Harvey: 55:01 All right, well if you'd like to weigh in as a listener on whether or not you should boo the president or not, or if you know what, that's just baseball, let us know at politicswarroom@gmail.com. That's politicswarroom@gmail.com and guys, that's my research this week.
Al Hunt: 55:15 You did it.
James Carville: 55:15 This is sophisticated and the greatest research in the history of the Washington area Ms. Kris Harvey, a brilliant, sophisticated, yap, total baseball.
Al Hunt: 55:26 And the chairman of the Kurt Suzuki [inaudible 00:55:28].
Kristi Harvey: 55:30 That's it.
Al Hunt: 55:37 As we wind down, we have an interesting exchange between two political protagonists, our own James Carville and that great trunk man, Sean Hannity at last weekend's political convention.
Sean Hannity: 55:51 Moody's analytics had him at 351 electoral votes in their analysis this week. That's where I think Donald Trump is headed. He will be reelected in my opinion.
James Carville: 56:03 From that 46.1 in 2016, you probably have got 44.8 in 2018. It was the highest turnout since women were granted the right to vote, the biggest popular vote majority in the history via congressional elections. So please, this is going to happen. He is going to be impeached.
Sean Hannity: 56:25 James is saying, "Well, Republicans are nervous," how do you think the 40 house Democrats in Trump won districts are feeling if Nancy Pelosi and the corrupt compromise fact witness in the case running Soviet union style impeachment hearings, how do you think those 40 Democrats are feeling?
James Carville: 56:47 I know. I know ...
Sean Hannity: 56:48 Hang on, hang on, hang on, I've got a question.
James Carville: 56:50 ... they're going to vote to impeach him. I know these guys. Okay. A lot of them are friends of mine. They don't fear Trump at all. I'm just telling you, that's the point.
Sean Hannity: 56:58 James, what crime do you want to impeach him on?
James Carville: 57:03 For leverage and his influence for personal political gain, which is, if you read the Federalist papers and you read anything else, is about the most serious thing that you can do. Plus they're not, they aren't just getting started ...
Sean Hannity: 57:16 What's the crime? I didn't hear it. What's the crime?
James Carville: 57:17 Again, what they're going to impeach him on is self-dealing while conducting the business of the United States. You may say it's not a crime, he will be impeached.
Sean Hannity: 57:28 What's the crime? Tell us. Tell the crowd.
James Carville: 57:32 The crime is simple as it is. That you used US influence to dig up something with a foreign government on your opponent. It's that. If you don't think it's a crime, then go on TV and say, "It's not a crime." I will go on TV on your show and read you ...
Sean Hannity: 57:48 I have the transcript. There's no quid pro quo. A president has a duty to faithfully execute the laws. Ukraine interfered in our elections.
James Carville: 58:00 He is going to be impeached, okay?
Sean Hannity: 58:01 Or what?
James Carville: 58:05 And you can, again, I'm not going to sit here and go back and forth. I'll just tell you what it is. If you want to defend that, that's fine. You can scream, you can yell. This is going to happen, and you're just going to be out there screaming at ... The moon pays as much attention to the dog barking at it as a Democrats pay to Trump. You get, bow, wow, wow. The moon don't know. It don't hear it. It has no fear.
Al Hunt: 58:40 Well James, this really was fun today and I actually think that listeners may have learned something. We'll be back next week from Heinz Field in Pittsburgh with the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and Highmark, and David Shribman, six o'clock Wednesday night, come to Heinz Field.
James Carville: 58:56 Ho, be at Heinz field.
Al Hunt: 58:57 Yeah.
James Carville: 58:57 That's pretty good.
Al Hunt: 59:00 Exactly.
James Carville: 59:01 Maybe Antonio Brown's show.
Al Hunt: 59:02 Well, we may not be at Antonio Brown's show, but we'll still have some. Come see us at 6:00 PM at Heinz Field next Wednesday night, November the sixth.