Latest news with #DavidChalian
CNN
23-05-2025
- Business
- CNN
How the House GOP Passed Trump's ‘Big, Beautiful Bill' - CNN Political Briefing - Podcast on CNN Audio
David Chalian 00:00:01 Hey everyone, I'm David Chalian, CNN's Washington Bureau Chief and Political Director, and welcome to the CNN Political Briefing. Mike Johnson (clip) 00:00:09 We stand ready to continue our work together to deliver on the one big, beautiful bill, as President Trump named it himself. We're going to send that to his desk. We're gonna get it there by Independence Day on July 4th, and we are going to celebrate a new golden age in America. David Chalian 00:00:25 'House Speaker Mike Johnson delivered a major win for President Trump this week. Despite deep divisions and disagreements, the House GOP passed Trump's so-called "big, beautiful bill" early Thursday morning. It was passed, as expected, by a razor thin margin. The final vote? 215 to 214. The bill makes permanent the tax cuts passed during Trump's first presidency and cuts spending for Medicaid and food stamps. So how did this bill get across the finish line in the House? What got the GOP holdouts to agree to vote for it? And what can we expect to happen when this bill goes to the United States Senate? To help me answer all of these questions and more, I'm joined by CNN congressional correspondent Lauren Fox. She's been on Capitol Hill covering this marathon of a week of legislating, and I am thrilled she's joining us now. Lauren, thanks so much for being here. Really appreciate it. Lauren Fox 00:01:23 Thanks for having me. I appreciate it. David Chalian 00:01:25 So we're speaking on Thursday afternoon, and this morning around 7 a.m. Eastern time, the House accomplished what may be its most monumental task of the year, if not the whole Congress, this Congress, but Speaker Mike Johnson obviously scored an enormous victory by delivering this narrow majority on the President's agenda with the big, beautiful bill. I just want you to take me through, if you could, these last 72 hours or so and how the speaker achieved this victory. Lauren Fox 00:01:59 'Yeah, I don't think we can underestimate what a huge moment this is for Mike Johnson, in part because I think there were members in his own conference who didn't think that this was going to happen by the Memorial Day recess. I mean, I know senators were certainly voicing skepticism. And then just 24 hours before this bill actually passed, there was a group of House Freedom Caucus members in the Rayburn Room, basically arguing we could do this in a week or two weeks, but we're not going to be ready to do this in the next 24 hours. And then fast forward, they pass the bill, and Speaker Johnson is standing there with all his committee chairmen in the exact same room less than 24 hours later, declaring victory over this huge moment. And I don't even think you have to go back 72 hours. You can just go back 24 hours and look at what a massive shift started to occur. I think a couple of things were happening behind the scenes. I think Donald Trump's impact on this bill can't be underestimated. The fact that members don't want to disappoint him, the fact that the Freedom Caucus went over to the White House late yesterday, and the president made clear, according to reporting from our colleague Jeff Zeleny, that this was a priority, that he was not going to be afraid to call them out if they didn't go ahead and support it. And I think that that did weigh on these members, because their base is the MAGA base. And then I think the fact that Mike Johnson is such a different speaker than we've seen. You know, in some ways we forget that he's still semi-new at this job. He's still kind of new at corralling such a diverse conference. But I was talking to Richard Hudson, who is the chairman of the NRCC, the campaign arm for the House of Republicans, and I was asking him to sort of take me behind the scenes, like, what's Johnson like in these meetings? And he said, he's so incredibly patient, comparing him to Job, obviously, a character from the Bible. And he was saying, you know, it's kind of remarkable. He just never loses his cool. And he's said, I have been part of negotiations with McCarthy, with Boehner, with Paul Ryan. And it is so different than any other speaker I've seen. And I just, I say that because he is really calm, and he doesn't seem to hit a point where he's going to cross a line with a member, irritate them to the point that they're gonna vote no just to spite him, and I do think that that cannot be underestimated in Washington. David Chalian 00:04:23 'Now maybe I'm being naive, and you could tell me so, that's fine, but I kind of bought into Speaker Johnson's message from the get-go, which is that failure was not an option. I mean, this is, this really was the singular piece of legislative work that Trump was looking for in this term. And it is at the very definition of being a Republican. I mean, the tax cuts, this is the stuff that drives them, the border. So this is stuff that they, their raison d'être. You know, so that to me, combined with the reality that if indeed they weren't able to get this done, that that would be such a massive blow politically out of the gate here for Trump in his second term. So all of that it just seemed like they were going to get to yes. Am I being naive? Was this really in danger of falling apart? Lauren Fox 00:05:20 I always thought they were gonna get to yes. I don't know if I thought they were gonna to get to yes this week. I think I'm still a little bit surprised by that reality, but you're not wrong that you couldn't get to the end of the year and let Donald Trump's 2017 tax bill completely expire. That just really wasn't going to be palatable. David Chalian 00:05:39 When taxes would go up on Americans, like 68% of Americans, I think would see a tax increase if that happened. Lauren Fox 00:05:44 'Exactly. And like, yes, there are so many pieces of the tax bill that go to higher income Americans, but there are also things that everyday middle-class Americans depend on when you're talking about the standard deduction and other items in that tax bill, that they really were going to potentially face backlash from their constituents. Not to forget about the fact that the debt limit, increasing the debt limit, is also a part of this bill. And that deadline is coming up likely at the end of the summer. Obviously, that number can shift, and the date can shift, but that's also really... David Chalian 00:06:17 It also may shift whether it stays in the bill or not, perhaps. Lauren Fox 00:06:20 That is true. That is true, because the House is just one part of this. David Chalian 00:06:23 Now that it is through the House and you look ahead to the Senate, again, I will say my sort of bias is success is far more likely than failure in the Senate, that something's going to get to the president's desk here for him to sign. But I don't want to prejudge it. I'm not suggesting there's not going to be a ton of hurdles, a lot of legislative drama and back and forth. But can you give us a sense of A, what are the biggest pitfalls now as you move towards the Senate in this process and B, how closely aligned was Thune with Johnson through this process so that the Senate process was actually also underway right now with these House negotiations? Lauren Fox 00:07:02 There are some big differences between what House Republicans are looking at and what Senate Republicans are looking at. But if you talk to Johnson, he really does want to make this at least appear like he and John Thune, the majority leader in the Senate, are working hand in glove. And he actually brought up a really interesting anecdote last night that there was a member on the fence who wanted assurances from the Senate. And he basically got John Thune on the phone to give those assurancess before this person was willing to move forward. Now he wouldn't say who that person was, but I thought that that was... David Chalian 00:07:34 You anticipated my next question. Lauren Fox 00:07:36 I know, I could tell. But I thought that it was a really illustrative moment because it sort of shows Johnson does not want this to feel like it's House versus Senate. That is just not a position that he wants them to be in. And he went to the Republican Senate lunch the other day to sort of make the case. Okay, guys, remember, you're gonna get to choose what happens with this bill over here. This is your chamber, but this is a carefully negotiated bill between my conservatives and my swing district Republicans, and we are gonna have to be very careful and closely coordinated before we make any substantial changes. David Chalian 00:08:13 Which is, of course, why Johnson wanted and ultimately won the battle for the big one, beautiful bill, that it all had to be in together. That's the only way he felt he was gonna be able to piece together and knit together that winning coalition here. And by the way, when I say winning, I mean 215 to 214. I think the vote outcome proves Johnson's point that he needed this whole thing to be one thing. To have that kind of success. Remind us, how many votes could he lose in this process? Lauren Fox 00:08:48 He could lose no more than three Republican votes. David Chalian 00:08:49 And he lost two, right? Lauren Fox 00:08:51 And he had one voting present. And then he had 1 representative who he said at his press conference fell asleep and therefore did not make it in time for the vote. And that was sort of this very funny moment. He kind of called out Representative Garbarino about, you know, being not present for the vote, and he was like, that was going to be a yes vote for sure. But it just shows you sort of the tension he's under. He was kind of joking, like, you know, he's a good friend, but I really could and strangle him in that moment. David Chalian 00:09:18 And Garbarino was one of the ones fighting on SALT, on the state and local tax deduction, from New York. Although of those New York members, his district out on Long Island, I think it's like an R plus six district. I think Trump won it by 13 points or so. So this was not necessarily a truly vulnerable or not one of most vulnerable Republicans, and yet he fell asleep on the job and didn't even cast the vote. Lauren Fox 00:09:39 Yes, exactly. David Chalian 00:09:41 So what does the new timeline look like? You mentioned the debt ceiling piece of this. You know, if Johnson promised this would be done in his chamber by Memorial Day, is Thune promising this is done by July 4th recess? Lauren Fox 00:09:52 Well, don't worry. The Speaker of the House is already promising that this is going to be done by the July 4th recess. And, you know, senators love to be told by the House of Representatives what exactly their timeline looks like. It's really incredible, though, in part because I was talking to Josh Hawley today. He's a Republican who has expressed some concerns about the direction of the house bill at various times, especially on when it comes to Medicaid changes. And he was saying, I think the House needs to accept we're to change the bill, and then they need to just basically eat it. They need to not worry about what our changes are. They need to just pass it. We can't just be going back and forth, back and forth. And it's sort of this amazing moment where, you know, there just always is inherent tension between the House and the Senate. It doesn't even matter if you're part of the president's same party. David Chalian 00:10:40 We're gonna take a quick break. We're going to have a lot more with Lauren Fox. Now that we've discussed how the bill got passed, we'll take a look at what's inside of it. Stay with us. So let's delve in, Lauren, to the specifics here, because not only is it important for people to understand what is actually in this House bill that just passed, but to me, it's also important to understand how are Republicans now going to go out and sell? It's one thing to pass a bill, but now they gotta sell this bill to the American people and have them understand what's in it and try and make it as popular as possible for their own electoral future with the midterms next year. So let's start with maybe one of the more challenging aspects of that, which is on Medicaid. This is the, you know, state and federal program for poor people, lower income people, for their health care. They are reliant upon it. Just so people are clear, like, Medicaid is not something that just like blue states utilize or Democratic voters utilize. There are a lot of the president's supporters who are reliant upon Medicaid, and these Republican members just slashed a huge amount out of the Medicaid budget. Lauren Fox 00:11:58 'Yeah, I mean, there's really several pieces of the changes that came forward as part of Medicaid. And while some of the most aggressive changes that they had initially been floating didn't make it into the bill, there are some really big changes. One of those is new work requirements for Americans who are able-bodied between the ages of 19 and 64. And that certainly could have an impact on who's eligible for this program. There's also a really weedy piece of this, which changes how states can move forward with provider taxes. That's really important, though, for rural hospitals. And a lot of Republican states rely on rural hospitals for health care for their constituents. And if you start to roll back how much a state can tax on the provider tax of things, you really do start to get into a situation where states have to make up the difference. And all of a sudden, the burden goes onto the states to make decisions about how are they going to continue providing the service? Are they gonna cut other parts of their budget on education? Are they going rollback benefits? Are they are going to have tighter restrictions around who's eligible for the program? So some of that we don't know the answer to right now, but that's why Democrats are arguing that this bill is so bad for people who are already on Medicaid, and it's why Republicans are arguing this isn't a cut because they perhaps won't necessarily have to be the ones to make those hard decisions. David Chalian 00:13:28 'So we heard the president up on Capitol Hill a couple days ago as he was talking to the whole conference to try and get this over the finish line. He just kept repeating, as Donald Trump does as a message man, waste, fraud, and abuse. Waste, fraud and abuse only. Waste, fraud and abuse only, waste, fraud and abuse. That's all that's being touched in Medicaid. I won't let them touch anything else in Medicaid. Do we know the answer to that? Do we yet know is this purely the savings that in here on Medicaid, is there a way for us to sort of fact-check that right now as true or false if this is only waste, fraud and abuse and not one benefit will be altered for an American? Lauren Fox 00:14:01 Well, Democrats would argue absolutely it's false. I think Republicans would argue absolutely it's true. And I think the reality is it remains to be seen exactly how this breaks down. And I do think that Republicans are in this really interesting position where, you know, they included a provision that basically says that eligibility checks are going to be every six months instead of every year. Well, perhaps that does cut down on waste, fraud, and abuse because someone who's enrolled in the program, gets a job, no longer qualifies. You know, you're gonna know that sooner than you would at the year mark, but there are other huge questions about how exactly this breaks down for people and how this breaks for states that we just don't know the answer to right now. And I think that that is a huge question mark. David Chalian 00:14:46 And of course, as you were talking about, what the burden may ultimately be on the states, you know, a lot of states have to have balanced budgets, unlike the federal government. That financial relationship could make or break a state budget in the way that it doesn't federally. Lauren Fox 00:14:59 And absolutely, I mean, think of a state like California. So another provision in this bill deals with the fact that your state Medicaid program cannot allow people who are undocumented to be accessing your state health care program, or you start to lose a federal contribution for your Medicaid expansion population. Well, in a state like California, where they do allow undocumented immigrants to access the state's, not the federal, but the state's Medicaid program. All of a sudden you get into a position where the governor has to start to make some tough decisions if he's going to continue with that program or not, because all of a sudden you're losing 10% of your federal match for Medicaid expansion. David Chalian 00:15:40 So let's talk about the tax cuts. A full extension of the 2017 tax cuts that Donald Trump put into law, is that what's inside this bill? And then what is the price tag associated with that? And what is that doing? It seems like the bond markets are concerned about what it's doing, but what is that doing to our deficit and our debt? Lauren Fox 00:16:01 'The estimate right now, and we should be careful with this because the Congressional Budget Office scored the bill in its form right before the manager's amendment, so right before those last-minute changes, but the estimate was essentially that the tax portion of this could contribute $3.8 trillion to the federal deficit. And, you know, that is a significant number, and it's a problem for even some conservatives, right? I mean, you've heard that from Tim Burchett, who told Manu yesterday, yeah, that's a big problem. And he ultimately still voted for the bill. You also have heard that from other senators, like Senator Ron Johnson, who has said there need to be more severe cuts in this bill in order to make up for that, but Republicans are also sort of banking on the fact that, as they have in the past, that cutting taxes will help the economy and therefore, this is a good bet. David Chalian 00:16:52 Can I ask on that last line, do you have a sense from talking to Republicans that they think this bill is already instantly popular with the American public or that they have a sales job to do? Because it seems to me, Democrats are convinced it's a political winner for them. And I haven't heard quite that level of confidence in terms of the public consumption of this bill from Republicans just yet. Lauren Fox 00:17:21 I just think that the two parties are going to focus on the different aspects of the bill. I think Democrats are going be talking a lot about health care. That is a winning issue for them in their minds. That has been successful in the past. I think Republicans are going focusing on the tax piece of things. My biggest question on that though is if nothing changes for you, you know, there are some small changes in this, there's some increases in the child tax credit for a period of time. But if nothing's really changing for you, and it doesn't revert back to before the 2017 tax bill, do you count that as a victory or do you not count that a victory as a voter? And I don't know the answer to that. David Chalian 00:17:59 I think it's a fantastic question, and I think it gets at the critical difference from the first major legislative push of Trump 1.0, which was the repeal of Obamacare, and that failed, right? And why I think we're in a different moment here, perhaps. Remember, Republicans got that through the House also, under Speaker Ryan, and then it was John McCain's thumbs down moment in the Senate, right, that caused that not to go. That was going to take something away from Americans that they were already starting to feel better about or at least comfortable with, right? This is why I'm not sure we're gonna see a John McCain thumbs down moment, obviously not from John McCain anymore, the late senator from Arizona, but why I think that kind of political history won't repeat itself in the Senate, and again, back to my initial prediction that they're going to get something to the president's desk, because this is not necessarily going to be something that people, that everyone, broadly, in the public, feels changed their life, which means to me, Lauren, that there's going to be more incentive, given that this is the very core of the Republican ideology, for Republicans to get on board with this. They're not having to fear ripping something away. Now, Democrats will say, no, they're taking away this Medicaid coverage. I understand that, but that everyone is going to feel. I just think that's a little different part of the calculus here. Lauren Fox 00:19:29 'Yeah, I think that's the challenge really for both parties, right? Is that it moves the needle but doesn't move the needle in a way that's so significant. In some ways, it's similar to like an Inflation Reduction Act kind of moment for people, where I'm not sure that every American understood the impact that that bill really had on their day-to-day lives. And so it'll be interesting to see how it gets messaged. I mean, obviously we have had an opportunity, a little bit of a preview from, you know, a 20-hour rules committee meeting to an overnight debate on the House floor of how Democrats are going to go after this. They're passionate, they're obviously well-spoken about the issue of what it means to take healthcare away from Americans. Can they sell that? I think that's a question. David Chalian 00:20:11 Yeah, take healthcare away from Americans for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is really how they are framing it. There's no doubt we have seen right here the very beginnings of one of the big 2026 midterm battles with the passage of this bill. Because now, as you say, it is a race on both sides to define what it will mean for Americans. Lauren Fox 00:20:31 Can I just take a minute to say there was another very small, interesting moment this week in the Senate when Jacky Rosen went to the floor and asked for a unanimous consent agreement to pass no tax on tips, which is like the one part of this Republican bill that, you know, Democrats can't argue is just for wealthy people. And I thought that it was such an interesting moment because the Republicans didn't object in the Senate. They let her pass it. I don't think it goes anywhere in the House. But it just was this moment of trying to neutralize the one argument that sort of Republicans are really glomming onto over and over again, which is look at this example of a provision that's obviously helping people who are waitresses and cab drivers and are working really hard for their dollars. David Chalian 00:21:14 That's why we saw both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris support that policy provision, specifically in battleground Nevada last year in the presidential race. Lauren Fox, your work has been tremendous this week. Thank you so much for helping all of CNN's audiences get through this very complicated process. And your work has just begun because now you have to go cover it in the Senate. Lauren Fox 00:21:35 Joy. David Chalian 00:21:35 Thank you, so much. Lauren Fox 00:21:39 Thanks. David Chalian 00:21:39 That's it for this week's edition of the CNN Political Briefing. Remember, you can reach out to us with your questions about Trump's new administration. Our contact information is in the show notes. CNN Political Briefing is a production of CNN Audio. This episode was produced by Emily Williams. Our senior producer is Dan Bloom. Dan Dzula is our technical director and Steve Lickteig is the executive producer of CNN Audio. Support from Alex Manassari, Robert Mathers, Jon Dianora, Leni Steinhardt, Jamus Andrest, Nichole Pesaru, and Lisa Namerow. We'll be back with a new episode next Friday. Thanks so much for listening.
CNN
25-04-2025
- Politics
- CNN
The ‘Fun Part is Over' for Trump's Second Term - CNN Political Briefing - Podcast on CNN Audio
David Chalian 00:00:01 'Hey everyone, I'm David Chalian, CNN's Washington Bureau Chief and Political Director, and welcome to the CNN Political Briefing. Next week, President Trump's second presidency will reach the 100-day mark. A lot has happened since his inauguration in January. Trump has issued nearly 200 executive actions. His administration has made aggressive moves on immigration, started a global trade war that has injected a ton of uncertainty into the country's economic health, and made major changes to the federal government. Trump has picked battles with the courts and elite universities, and he's testing the limits of presidential power. Kaitlan Collins is CNN's Chief White House Correspondent and hosts The Source at 9 p.m. Eastern here on CNN. Jeff Zeleny is CNN's Chief National Affairs Correspondent. They have both witnessed and reported on the defining moments of these first hundred days, and they joined me to share takeaways so far from covering Trump's second term and to give us some behind the scenes insights into this White House. Kaitlan, Jeff, thanks so much for being here. Jeff Zeleny 00:01:13 Hey, it's my pleasure. Kaitlan Collins 00:01:14 Thanks for having us. David Chalian 00:01:15 'So I just want to start at the 30,000-foot level here, as we approach the 100-day mark of Trump's second presidency. How do you tell or encapsulate, Kaitlan, the story of Donald Trump's first 100 days? What do you think the story his first 100 days is? Kaitlan Collins 00:01:31 I think what's notable is that we're entering a new phase of his presidency the second time around. The first 100 days have largely been marked by a lot of the things that they wanted to do that were relatively easy given, you know, it was a lot executive orders, pardons, things of that nature that he wanted to take on. I've been speaking to White House officials as they're reflecting on this period. They're entering the difficult time where the work is going to get a lot harder legislatively, but also when it comes into what's happening on the foreign policy front, with the U.S. economy and the president's trade war that's underway, and there is an acknowledgment that the fun part is over. The glow of being back in the White House and the excitement of being back on the campus and in the grounds and in the Oval Office, that is starting to fade a bit, which obviously is going to happen with any presidency. Sometimes it happens a lot sooner than a hundred days. And so they are in an acknowledgement that they are entering a much more difficult period of this, which they're still hopeful will be successful. The question is also, is it as disciplined as the first 100 days, if you would define it that way. They certainly would. There's a real question of how that looks. And I think also just the enormity of it and the scrutiny is wearing on staff in a way that it had not been in the last few weeks. Jeff Zeleny 00:02:42 I think back to that very first day on January 20th when he walked back into the Oval Office, and it was not an unfamiliar place, and we have never seen that in our modern day history. Of course, only one other time. And I think the bottom line is he knows how to do the job. That doesn't mean that there are not pitfalls and hurdles along the way. There are. There may be more of them. But I think just overall from the president, just really throughout the administration to even young staffers who have sort of been in the West Wing before, just that sort of rush to be back. And I think in some ways that has benefited him. I think, in some ways, it has caused him more challenges of being so assured at how this job works. I think it's caused him to potentially take more risks, and I think that we do not know yet the outcome of his return, but I think without a doubt he knows how to do the job. David Chalian 00:03:34 'I think within the first hundred days, and, to Kaitlan's point, I mean, I remember some White House advisors early on, a few weeks in, they're big, every time you would go chat with them, it would be like, we're having so much fun; we're having so much fun. And then also, I had a senior advisor say to me, we're kind of wrapping up on the 80-20 issues. I don't know that his math was exactly right of where popular opinion was on all of those issues, but you get the point, the easy stuff that was more popular than not, and now heading into a lot of stuff that is actually more unpopular than popular. I kind of look at it, and I'd love to hear you guys respond to this, like there were the first 63 days, like the first almost two-thirds of this hundred days, where it really was just daily him ticking through a lot of campaign promises and agenda items. And then I was just writing a list right before I started chatting with you of the last 37 days of this first 100 days. Signalgate 1, Liberation Day, tariff blink number 1, followed by, and some may argue this is a positive for the administration, the battle with the courts and Abrego Garcia dominating, followed by attack on Fed Chair Powell and tariff blink number 2 and then throw in the Hegseth chaos and all of that. That's in the last third of the 100 days, and so it felt to me like there was a distinct sort of turn for them in managing the administration. Kaitlan Collins 00:04:53 'Yeah, that's why there's been a shift in the attitude also of the people who were insisting that they were having so much fun, because that is what, and I've spoken to other White House reporters about this, they also were hearing that from officials about this emphasis on the fun that they we're having and being back in the Oval. Trump has been spending all this time redecorating. He's just announced he's putting 100-foot flagpoles, the American flag in front of the White House that he says he's paying for. He's really spent a lot of time making it look more like he wants it to this time around. But in terms of where it's going, and I think the last few weeks have been that reality check for them in terms of, one, what is of their own making, especially with Liberation Day and the tariff war that the president himself firmly believes in and has enacted. But, obviously, we've seen how the economy has reacted to that. That's been a huge concern for them over the last few weeks because it's not just the stock market's down. It's the dollar, it's the bond markets, it's everything that is kind of happening at once. That's really been a big emphasis for them. But also, it's on the foreign policy front what is unexpected, Ukraine and Russia and what that looks like. And it's not as easy to solve as the president repeatedly promised on the campaign trail. And so, the last few weeks have been a shift for them. That doesn't mean that they think it's not going to ultimately end up in their favor. They're looking forward to the international travel and whatnot. But yeah, the 80-20 issues that they have, they've pretty much ticked through all of them. David Chalian 00:06:17 Jeff, on the economy, specifically, I mean, given how we know strong the support is among the president's base, no matter where his poll numbers are, I'm not even sure that that, I mean I know he follows them, but I don't know that that sort of infiltrates in the way that it used to in American politics, you know, whether with his own fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill or inside the administration, because of how much support he has within the party. That's different than the first time around when it was Speaker Paul Ryan and, you know, Senate Leader Mitch McConnell. Like, that's just not the scenario that he's in anymore. And so, with that unanimity or near unanimity, it seems that like the one thing that is checking him right now, the markets, and that they are responding to economic indicators, that that's the pressure point that may alter behavior. Jeff Zeleny 00:07:08 'I think certainly it's the biggest pressure point. I mean, we have seen him back away again and again from specific movements on the economy on tariffs. I'm mean, we saw him standing in the Rose Garden announcing Liberation Day, and it wasn't, you know, that many days longer, a couple of weeks, I guess, when he was sort of pulling back. And I think we've seen that again and again. So this just a yo-yo policy on tariffs. Yes, he has believed in tariffs as a practical matter for a very long time, but this is not the country of the 1980s when he first started formulating these views. So one thing I'm sort of struck by as we sort of look through a longer lens at this is who he's surrounded by this time is very different than the first term. There were so many guardrails we talked about, and for all the criticism that his daughter, Ivanka Trump, and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, got from being in the West Wing, they were also key guardrails in the first term, there's no doubt about it. That does not exist in the second term. But, as we are nearing the 100 days, we are seeing other forces, and that's the Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent. He has emerged as one of the market whisperers, calms the markets, and really the president has turned to him as a key advisor. My question is, how long will that last? Because this is something that is very fraught. The economy is something that he was elected with, you know, on lower prices and things, and this is his biggest challenge. And it could define his presidency in ways that I would have never imagined just three months ago. David Chalian 00:08:42 Do you believe he believes it is the economy that elected him president a second time? Kaitlan Collins 00:08:46 To a degree, certainly. I mean, he knows that that's a huge part of it. I don't know if he attributes that to everything. Like, obviously, he thinks he achieved that. Two other things I will say to watch play out now that we're getting to the 100 days and passing it. One, the other restraint has been the courts. That has been only thing, and the mindset has kind of been, F it, just do it, and we'll let it, battle it out in the courts. They've kept the Justice Department incredibly busy over the last few weeks. But now, you know, the courts take a little bit of time. We're seeing that come to a head with some of the immigration cases and other fronts where the president has been like, just let it be fought in the courts. But eventually that time comes due, and Trump doesn't always succeed, and so if it makes it to the Supreme Court, we're starting to see that play out, which is something key to watch in terms of how that tempers their decisions or emboldens them. The other thing is staffing. You mentioned Secretary Pete Hegseth of the Pentagon. The president is extremely reluctant to fire any cabinet member, much less Hegseth, who he fought so hard to get confirmed. But I do think, once you get through this period, there are some staffers who are not working out the way that they had hoped, that they're unhappy with. There are some like Secretary Bessent who have done better than people expected because he was kind of in this holding period of getting that job. So that's another key thing to watch is who does Trump have his eye on once he feels like he gets to a safe enough place where it's been enough time that it won't chaotic that he can replace them. David Chalian 00:10:09 Which is so fascinating, because when you think back to Trump 1.0, the drama around the staff and the personnel was a major, major storyline of the beginning of that administration, almost all the way through that administration quite frankly, and that just hasn't been as central to this one. We're going to take a quick break. We'll have a lot more with Kaitlan Collins and Jeff Zeleny in just a moment. One of the big storylines at the front half of this first hundred days was everything Elon Musk was doing and his centrality to the administration, and not only what he was trying to implement in DOGE but also the reaction to it and the pushback from it, even from perhaps some friendly quarters, Jeff, and yet, the DOGE things, I don't know if this is us in the press that just like lost interest in it as much. It seems to have taken a backseat to these other larger stories that have been front and center, but it doesn't mean that that work is not still happening. Jeff Zeleny 00:11:15 'Look, I think the work is happening, and this will be one of the lasting legacies, for better or worse, depending on your point of view, of this administration, what has happened to the federal bureaucracy, sort of the mind share, just this institution of public thought, has been largely changed, perhaps changed forever in terms of layoffs and other things. But I think one thing, and we've really tracked it and seen it day by day as Kaitlan and I are at the White House with our team every day. You can just see the level of visibility of Elon Musk has decreased, certainly in the last few weeks. Initially he was omnipresent. Elon Musk was in the Oval Office, he was in a Cabinet Room, he was going to Mar-a-Lago, and he's still around much more than a lot of advisors, but it's not near as much as it was. And we've now heard Elon Musk, of course, his company has taken a massive, massive hit. So he is saying that he will not be around quite as much of course his time is nearing an end as a special government employee. That's what he is, technically is, but I think we don't know yet how involved he will be going forward. He said he will be involved as long as the president wants him. He's still very key friend and advisor, but he definitely ruffled feathers. And I think... David Chalian 00:12:27 Inside the cabinet, right? Jeff Zeleny 00:12:28 Inside the cabinet, among Republican senators, that's because DOGE to me, one of my biggest surprises of this entire first 100 days, how much of a local matter this became in every district across the country. Every town, big and small, had some example of funding was cut, and this and that, and it caused a lot of consternation for people. It's not just cutting Washington. It's cutting a lot things in my home state of Nebraska, in Kaitlan's home state of Alabama. It really has become a big national story, and that's, you know, he's a lightning rod. David Chalian 00:12:59 Things got cut in New Jersey, too, Jeff. My home state, sorry. That image, though, of Musk with the chainsaw, I mean, that's going to be in every Democratic ad. We already see it a lot because of exactly what Jeff is describing. Is there any sense inside the administration that, like, they didn't calibrate the DOGE/Musk thing properly? Kaitlan Collins 00:13:18 'I think there will be some people who are happy to see him leave because of the presence he has, because he does have a lot of influence. I mean, he was just lamenting that he didn't have enough influence to stop Trump from implementing tariffs. Now, there are others who love Elon Musk and like him being around and like what he's doing. But there's been a point where, you know, Elon Musk is going to these cabinet secretaries, some of who have only been on the job for, you know, six weeks, eight weeks since they were confirmed, and are essentially being told, here's your budget you've gotta slash, here's the people you've gotta slash. And they're like, hold on a minute, I just got here, and I'm looking at this, I'm making this decision. So that has been a point of frustration. But also I think, two things, one, Elon Musk came into this initially saying two trillion dollars we were hearing. Then it was slashed to one trillion. Then we heard 250 billion. I'm not even sure he's gotten to that. They say they're so transparent. They put out numbers, and then they remove them quietly when they've been fact-checked or debunked. And so, yes, they have certainly canceled a lot. We've seen them shutter USAID. But it's not even clear fully what the reach of DOGE has been. We know we can hear it from people, and lawmakers are getting an earful. But in terms of what they told people they were getting, there is a question of that. The other thing with Elon Musk being a special government employee where he has a certain amount of days, it's not clear he'll fully have run that out. And so there is a thinking that he could come back and use them later on and fulfill that if you don't do it consecutively. That's a real question, I think, if he returns. But Tesla's profits dropping 72%, I think, you know, was a huge wake-up call. Jeff Zeleny 00:14:49 'And a lot of it was low-hanging fruit. We've not even really gotten to the big cuts and the biggest part of discretionary spending, and that's the defense budget. So he will effectively be taking his leave before most of that gets started. So I think at the end of this administration, you know, years from now, we will still be trying to figure out exactly how this whole DOGE wrecking ball worked. I'm not sure we know that yet. David Chalian 00:15:12 'The other place, obviously, that we've seen Donald Trump try to disrupt the previous order of things is on the world stage. He had promised a solution and resolution to the Russia-Ukraine war on day one. He loves to say it never would have happened if he were still president. Same thing with Israel-Gaza. And yet, we've see both of those global conflicts become, I would argue, perhaps more intractable than less over the course of these first hundred days, not to say that resolutions can't be found, but they certainly got more complicated, not less, in this first stint. So what do you make, Kaitlan, of how, and that Oval Office meeting, of course, that you were in covering with Zelensky sticks in mind, like the first hundred days of Trump on the world stage this time around, given Jeff's note that he's more comfortable in the clothes of the presidency, if you will. Kaitlan Collins 00:16:05 He certainly is. And in terms of, I mean, Ukraine obviously also is still shaping his perception of that from what happened the first time he was in office when he was impeached after his phone call with President Zelensky. And so that is obviously still very much looming in the background of all of this. But if you look at the words of the Secretary of State, the Vice President and the President himself on this, they are growing increasingly frustrated with what is playing out. They are way more public with their criticisms of Ukraine, but also Russia is there as well in the background because other world leaders are talking to President Trump saying, don't get played by Putin here, don't let him get the upper hand, kind of phrases that they know will work with his psyche. And I do think he's getting frustrated because there is a conventional wisdom that Putin is dragging his feet here and is not trying to end this quickly. And so, they are getting increasingly frustrated, and it is the question of how this ends. And do they ultimately walk away from the table as they're threatening now with the negotiations? What does that look like if they do? Because obviously no one thinks the status quo would remain between the United States and Ukraine. And so that is the real question here that people in the White House are not sure how it's going to end. Jeff Zeleny 00:17:16 I think in terms of how world leaders view the president, that's something that we've also noticed. I mean, there has been a parade of world leaders coming to have that Oval Office meeting, even if they don't agree necessarily with the Trump administration. They know that personal relationships are very helpful to him. But I recall thinking back eight years ago to the very beginning of the first Trump administration. The world was uncertain what they were getting. Because Donald Trump at that point, he was not expecting to win the presidency. It was all new to him, and now they know exactly what they're getting. World leaders from allies to adversaries alike have expressed they're afraid of him in some respects of his unpredictability but also the exasperation factor, I think, is also pretty clear, but what he says about Ukraine and Russia, he's long said that Ukraine would be the more difficult side to make a deal. That has not proved to be true. And so the question of Putin, like it did in the first term, hangs over this presidency in ways that at this moment, we do not know how that storyline will end. David Chalian 00:18:20 'You guys obviously both covered Trump 1. You're both covering it this time around. And I do, as I'm sitting here thinking of all these topics we're discussing, I know the word unprecedented gets so overutilized, especially as it relates to Donald Trump. But we are seeing like economic disruption, based on his 40-year commitment to this tariff regime and tariff policy, not working out to the way I think he initially designed it. We do see increased tension or at the very least distance from some reliable allies of the United States. And we do have this constant looming threat, to your point, Kaitlan, about the courts. And yes, the administration rushing to court to get these battles fought, but also this looming constitutional crisis issue, and I just wonder, like, do you, in covering this, how do you separate how norm-busting he can be and his administration can be from the norm of your job of covering the administration? Like, do those two things fit in your brain space at the same time as you're doing your jobs? Kaitlan Collins 00:19:27 'I think there's often a criticism of the press that they don't know how to cover President Trump. I think it's actually shifted a lot from the first time around and from how we covered him, and I think because of the norm-busting things or the things that were just, you know, unheard of or unthinkable for a sitting U.S. president to do or say, they got so much attention in the first administration. I think the second time around, his second term, we're more used to it. We understand the Trump style. That doesn't mean that people are saying, you know, this is an endorsement of him saying this or doing this. But I think people just understand it more. And so when they look at the coverage of him, certainly from what I think of our colleagues and our team, we look at it in terms of what actually matters. What is important to the voters? What's going to break through with them at the end of the day? And what is something that's going to be more defining of the Trump legacy because, yes, there were so many stories from the first time that you probably couldn't even remember at this point, but you remember the big ones and the decisions that mattered, and so our job is to sort through what actually hurts people: egg prices, being able to build a home, the tariffs that are squeezing small businesses and what that looks like. Those things obviously matter more than the day-to-day drama among staff, and so I think it's just, in terms of triaging, what's important, what's urgent in this moment and looking at it from that perspective. Jeff Zeleny 00:20:45 'I think that's right. And also we see, I see many differences, and this is one: He has not traveled out into the country to do a sales pitch for his agenda. He really, aside from going to Florida virtually every weekend, occasionally in New Jersey, he's gone to some sporting events like the Super Bowl and NASCAR. He's only twice traveled to a non-sporting or non-home state. That was once in North Carolina on his first Friday in office and then to California that evening to look at the wildfire. So he, I believe, is approaching this job differently. He does not travel as much. He's not running for reelection. I also think that his age is very apparent. He's 78 years old, the oldest president ever to be sworn into office, still a couple of years younger than President Biden when he was in office. But I think the age of the president is something that is notable to me. He certainly has high energy at some points, but I think going forward in the rest of these next three and a half years that will be something to watch because I think he is a very different man in that respect. David Chalian 00:21:47 Kaitlan, Jeff, it is such a pleasure to call you colleagues. You do tremendous work for us every day at CNN. Really appreciate it. Thanks for taking the time. Kaitlan Collins 00:21:54 Thanks, David. Jeff Zeleny 00:21:55 Thanks, David. David Chalian 00:21:57 That's it for this week's edition of the CNN Political Briefing. Remember, you can reach out to us with your questions about Trump's new administration. Our contact information is in the show notes. CNN Political briefing is a production of CNN Audio. This episode was produced by Emily Williams. Our senior producer is Dan Bloom. Dan Dzula is our Technical Director, and Steve Lickteig is the Executive Producer of CNN Audio. Support from Alex Manasseri, Robert Mathers, Jon Dianora, Leni Steinhardt, Jamus Andrest, Nichole Pesaru, and Lisa Namerow. We'll be back with a new episode next Friday. Thanks so much for listening.
CNN
04-04-2025
- Politics
- CNN
What Made These Special Elections...Special - CNN Political Briefing - Podcast on CNN Audio
David Chalian 00:00:01 Hey everyone, I'm David Chalian, CNN's Washington Bureau Chief and Political Director, and welcome to the CNN Political Briefing. Judge Susan Crawford 00:00:10 Wisconsin stood up and said loudly that justice does not have a price. Our courts are not for sale. David Chalian 00:00:22 'Earlier this week, liberal judge Susan Crawford celebrated her win in a critical state supreme court race in Wisconsin. For an off-year state judicial election, this race attracted a ton of attention and a lot of money. Elon Musk pumped more than $20 million into the race to back Crawford's opponent, the conservative judge, Brad Schimel. But Musk's money and an endorsement from President Trump were not enough to put the court in conservative hands. In Florida, Trump-backed candidates had success. Two Republicans won their races in special elections there, shoring up their party's narrow majority in the House of Representatives. Here's Republican Randy Fine, crediting the president for his win in Florida's 6th District. Rep. Randy Fine 00:01:08 I thank President Donald J. Trump, who asked me to do this and who trusted me all along the way. Mr. President, this win is yours far more than it is mine. David Chalian 00:01:20 So what do these elections tell us about the national political mood? And have they taught us anything about what to expect in the future? I spoke with party leaders from each state, the Democratic Party Chair for Wisconsin and the Republican Party Chair in Florida, to get their takeaways. What worked for them? What didn't work? And what did they learn about where their parties stand in their home states in this first hundred days of Trump's second administration? First up, Ben Wikler. He is the chair of Wisconsin's Democratic Party. Ben, thanks so much for joining me, appreciate it. Ben Wikler 00:01:57 Thanks so much for having me, David. David Chalian 00:01:59 'Obviously, an enormous victory for you and your team in battleground Wisconsin this week. Any Democrat I talked to in Wisconsin before did not see a 10-point victory, I will say. So what is your takeaway here? What happened? Why such a substantial victory for Crawford this week? Ben Wikler 00:02:16 So first, Susan Crawford ran a spectacular campaign. She was the right candidate for this moment. Her focus on protecting people's rights and freedoms on integrity and independence was a massive contrast to a candidate who basically was running as a MAGA henchman and was visibly clearly bought off by the richest person in the world to do whatever he wanted. So that contrast spoke volumes. But the other side of this is that there's this pent up well of rage in the electorate of people furious with the way things are going, with what this administration is doing. Anyone who is an ally of this administration is going to face that wrath of the ballot box. We thought it was gonna be closer because we could see that what Republicans were doing was engaging more Republicans. It was driving up the MAGA base turnout. We thought was probably helping us to turn out our folks just as much. But what we saw was right. You know, the Schimel campaign actually got more votes than Janet Protasiewicz did in 2023 when she won by double digits. It's just that on our side, there was like a geyser, this release of this massive wave of intense pressure that people wanted to find any way to fight back. So Susan Crawford, and I'm just still wrapping my mind around this, she got more votes than every Republican who's ever run for governor in the state of Wisconsin. She got more votes than Scott Walker has ever gotten in the state of Wisconsin, and this was in a spring supreme court election, which is normally low turnout city. David Chalian 00:03:39 'Right. And that, to me, because one of the pieces of conventional wisdom in American politics right now is that Trump has this ability to dig deep and turn out, and so, in the context in our recent presidential elections when Trump is on the ballot, that large, huge turnout which used to always kind of be seen as something that would benefit the Democrats because of low propensity voters turning out, now is something that benefits Republicans in the Trump era. And reliable voters who vote in like every election tend to be more college-educated now and more friendly to the Democratic party that in special elections or off-year elections, the Democrats can perform better if turnout is a little lower. And it seems like you blew that concept out of the water here. Ben Wikler 00:04:27 I think that's right. I think what we saw maps much more cleanly onto the midterm elections than anyone could have anticipated. You know, if you get as many and enough votes to win the 2018 midterms, which Susan Crawford did in a special election, that suggests that a high turnout midterm environment is really good. Now, this is still lower turnout than a presidential election, but we're not going to have a presidential election until 2028, and the organizing and the work, I mean, we saw this happen in 2020, that the huge amount of organizing that happened on the Democratic side and the constant communication, the rage, the protests, all that led to blowout turnout in 2018 and in 2020 and led to Donald Trump's defeat. You know, the Biden coalition was a very high turnout coalition. So I think that this idea that it is also the case that Democrats are stronger when fewer Republicans show up for the polls, but there's really a tide that I think is only going to accelerate now with the tariffs and what is probably a recession that we're going to spin into rapidly of people who are just saying, this is not what we signed up for. This is not acceptable. We need to change. We needs people who actually believe that this should be a country that works for everybody. David Chalian 00:05:31 So that leads me to my next question, Ben. Can you help me, and I know there aren't exit polls and we don't have a full sense of this, but can you help separate out how much of the voter response and the big Democratic victory this week do you think is attributable to Trump policies and this political environment versus this Elon Musk sort of message you guys ran so hard on that a billionaire was trying to buy the election and, you know, chainsaw Musk responsible for this and that, you know, his numbers are, he's less popular than Donald Trump is. And I'm just wondering if you could separate, I know you made it one package, but do you think, absent Musk, that what is going on in this Trump 2.0 era is still potent for your side? Ben Wikler 00:06:20 'Absolutely. It's hideously, hideously unpopular. This was a three-layer cake. So the first layer was candidate versus candidate. If you watched TV through the course of the spring, there were ads about crime and public safety. That was the core Republican message. Susan Crawford got to beat Schimel to a standstill on that front. The second piece of that part of the cake was the argument about abortion. And the abortion ban is still incredibly unpopular and very motivating for Democrats and persuasive to Independents and some Republicans. And the campaign discovered that and zeroed in on that, even though the national conventional wisdom is that abortion has lost its potency. We saw it last year in state legislative elections and Tammy Baldwin's race. We saw it again this spring. The second layer is the biggest one in driving this turnout differential is the overall sense of what Trump and Musk and Republicans in Congress, the whole Republican machine is doing. Disappearing people in the streets, the gutting of social security, the threats to the Veterans Administration, this just sense of precariousness that the country's falling apart, our Constitution's being trampled. The Schimel campaign was advertising about Trump. All their ads were about Trump. I think those energized our voters more than they energized Republican voters. And then the third piece was Musk himself. And Musk, you know, we were communicating about Musk. Musk's ads were all, the ads Musk was financing, first they were about crime, then they were Trump. His flyers that his canvassers were going out and delivering to people were all about Trump, so he was trying to make it about Trump, but Musk himself, in mid-March, there was a poll that found that Trump is underwater by six points in Wisconsin. Musk is underwater by 12 points. Musk coming to Wisconsin, bribing people, handing out giant checks to the head of the college Republicans as though he was giving them out to regular people. The kind of slap-in-the-face insult of grabbing money from people's Social Security with one hand while handing out $100 payments to sign a petition with the other, it did not land well at all. So I think that he was the kind of the maybe the frosting on the cake. I don't know where it is. He definitely helped Democrats more than he helped Republicans. But Crawford would have won even without Elon Musk for sure, and I think even even without the Trump thing, we were constantly modeling an even turnout scenario. And she was going to win not by a lot, but she was gonna win in that scenario, too. Then we had this gigantic hyper gusher of turnout fueled by Trump and Musk and what they're doing, and that led to the kind of blowout that we saw this spring that is going to inspire people to run for office next year. David Chalian 00:08:33 Which, looking at that blowout, getting a little dorky here county by county, you know, there were 10 counties that Donald Trump won in the presidential just a few months ago in Wisconsin that Crawford flipped, including places that Trump won repeatedly, like Brown County, where Green Bay is. He won three times as a presidential candidate, whether he won statewide or not, Crawford flipped it. But even outside, you know, go a little further out of Green Bay, Winnebago County. Again, Trump won it three times, and it went to Crawford. What is that? Is that something that Democrats, like, will that just revert back to norm in 2026, or you think there is something shifting? Ben Wikler 00:09:09 There's a real possibility that those are blue in '26. We, you know, in Winnebago County, I was knocking on doors there with Gordon Hintz, who's the former Democratic assembly leader. He's now the county executive of this presumably reddish county. And I'm sure he'll do a great job there. That is Ron Johnson's hometown, is Oshkosh, Wisconsin. David Chalian 00:09:25 This is home to Oshkosh, everyone that's listening, yeah. Ben Wikler 00:09:28 You know, and the BOW counties, they've been overperforming for us. Like we also won the BOW counties in the spring supreme court race in 2023, and we've gained ground there. If you look election by election by election, there's a shift. And right now, you know, talking to a ton of people there, people are going to protests every single week outside of Republican congressional offices, outside of, you know, any place that has a Tesla logo on it. Like there's a well of energy and fury that could put those counties into play in the statewide races in 2026 in a very real way. The place that swung the most, and this is a real danger sign for Republicans, relative to 2024, the biggest swings were all in western Wisconsin. Southwest Wisconsin, the kind of western rim along the Mississippi, that's the third congressional district. That's a district held by Derrick Van Orden, a far right Republican congressman who was at the insurrection on January 6th. And his number has come up. This is a really, really bad time to be a Republican representing a bright purple district that went bright blue in the Supreme Court race just now, and the level of energy for Democrats in western Wisconsin on the back of this, having had conversations already this morning about it, is through the roof. David Chalian 00:10:34 Well, it's interesting because, as you said, you think the lessons from this week may be more applicable to a midterm election than a presidential election, obviously. And I'm intrigued to see how that plays out because, you know, we saw in '23, Protasiewicz, you know, big victory and then, you know, a year and a half later on the presidential level Trump comes in and wins the state. So it is not obviously necessarily predictive, but you make the argument it may be more applicable to the midterms. Ben Wikler 00:11:00 'I think that's right. I mean, the presidential elections, more than any other election, are connected to everything about the state of the world. That, you know, if there's a massive recession, which seems like Trump is just really determined to create, and the country is failing working people who vote their pocketbook, don't really pay attention to politics right now, then it'll be a Democratic year, almost regardless of what either of the campaigns or candidates due. If, miracle of miracles, lightning strikes, and maybe there's an AI breakthrough, and suddenly Grok is powering a giant explosive moment of GOP-led abundance, which I find unlikely, but, you know, this is a crazy world we live in. Then maybe Republicans are suddenly getting all the credit, and people who, again, don't think about politics much turn out in the other direction. It seems like this administration's doing everything it can to disadvantage working people. They're attacking things that people have relied on. They're gutting labor protections. They're gutting things that keep our air and water clean and attacking Social Security and healthcare. They're planning to give this multi-trillion dollar tax cut to the ultra wealthy. All those things kind of set you up for a 2006, 2008-type scenario, and I think, you know, for people that are thinking about their own political futures across the country, like, this really is the time to dig in and get involved. I think candidate recruitment could be just extraordinary. I think the senators like Gary Peters and Jeanne Shaheen and Tina Smith that are kind of passing the torch in '26, they're doing that knowing that those seats are very likely to be blue. Honestly, this might be, you know, knock on wood, but it's not just the House majority that might be in play in 2026. If you look at 2010 and Senate seats that Republicans won, including Scott Brown in Massachusetts in that special, it feels to me like there's that kind of wave, and it's driven by people, definitely Democrats, but also Independents and some Republicans, who feel, as I personally do, that we're in a moment of deep crisis, of profound crisis as a country, people who want to figure out anything they can do to try to make a difference in changing that. And that kind of energy can fuel outcomes in midterm elections that go beyond the normal sloshing back and forth in American politics. David Chalian 00:13:07 Well, Chairman Wikler, I'm sure we will be in touch over the next year and a half to see if some of those predictions come true. Thank you for your time, really appreciate it. Ben Wikler 00:13:14 Thanks so much, David. David Chalian 00:13:17 We're going to take a quick break, when we come back we'll hear from Evan Power, the Republican Party Chairman of the state of Florida. We're here with Evan Power, the chair of the Florida Republican Party. The GOP secured two key victories in special elections this week. Republicans Jimmy Patronis and Randy Fine both secured seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Chairman Power, thanks so much for joining me, appreciate it. Evan Power 00:13:51 Thank you for having me. David Chalian 00:13:52 Obviously there were two big consequential special elections in two different Florida congressional districts, and you guys were successful at adding to the Republican majority in the House, padding that very thin majority that Speaker Johnson and Donald Trump are needing to navigate as they try to get through the president's agenda. So, congratulations on that. What do you make of the takeaways? Because, obviously, you guys won these races, but you won them by far smaller margins than Trump did in these districts or the members running just a few months ago in November. Why do you think that was? Evan Power 00:14:29 Well, if you look at the history of special elections in Florida, they're always close. In the past, we usually have not been successful in specials, but we are this time, and we were seeing great turnout on election day of people who were sending the message, and they told our candidates at the polling places while they're waiting to vote that they were there to send a strong message that they wanted to support President Trump. So I think double digit wins are a big win in a special election in Florida. David Chalian 00:14:54 'So you see no, there's nothing to learn from a Trump plus-30 or Trump plus-37 district having that margin sliced in half or more? Evan Power 00:15:04 'I don't think there's any long range, it's just the nature of being the party in power versus the party out of power, and Florida's special elections, and there's also some election law dynamics with vote by mail and other things that factored into those races. But I think, you know, double-digit wins are a solid sign that our people are happy with what the president's doing and want it to continue. David Chalian 00:15:25 And, correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of the advertising I saw from your candidates and the outside groups supporting them featured Donald Trump. They were running as full Trump allies in these heavily Republican districts. Evan Power 00:15:39 'They were. And I think, you know, that was the message. The president did two tele-town halls, one in each district. And, I think the other thing about these races that was interesting is just the Democrats pumped so much money in. We were outspent 9-to-1 or 10-to-1, depending on the district, and the president's help led to record election day turnout. We actually turned out more Republicans on election day than we were expecting, and that led to a big win. David Chalian 00:16:04 'I know in the 6th Congressional District, to replace Waltz, I know the Democratic candidate out-raised your Republican candidate 10-to-1, but actually Republicans outspent overall when you look at the total ad spending, outspent the Democrat. And that was because there was some concern that now Congressman-elect Randy Fine, or Congressman Randy Fine, I guess he's been ceremonially sworn in at least, was not performing at the level that was making the party feel totally confident that this was going to go as it needed to go and sort of came in with a rescue operation. What did you make of what Fine was not doing that he needed to do? Evan Power 00:16:43 Well, that's an interesting district, and so the polling didn't look great, and neither candidate running in that race was actually originally from the district. So there was a factor there. And then beyond that, a lot of those people vote on election day. So our turnout at the very beginning was lower because we didn't do extremely well in vote by mail, which we didn't anticipate. But there was a feeling that we needed to rush there to make sure that we turned out all our people on election day, and in the end we did. David Chalian 00:17:10 Now in the 1st congressional district where the vacancy was left by Matt Gaetz, the Democrats overall did outspend your team on this. A, why, if you are the incumbent party, would the opposition be in a position to outspend? So why don't we start there? Evan Power 00:17:27 Well, I think a lot of it has to do with ActBlue. I think there's an investigation into ActBlue going on and how they leverage donations, and I just think that there's a small group of Democrat activists who are donating money, and they really just want to win whatever they can. And the Florida Democratic Party sells this hope every couple of years that they can win a seat, and every time we end up embarrassing them by not allowing them to do that. David Chalian 00:17:52 'Particularly of interest to me, in the Florida 1st Congressional District as an observer of elections, again, this is the one that was more pro-Trump. He won it by 37 points, and it is an even more Republican district than the 6th is: Escambia County. We saw a 22-point swing. I think Trump won that county by 19 points in 2024. And, actually, the Democratic candidate here in the special won Escambia. What happened in that county, and is that, do you see that there is some sort of trend that you need to be aware of to guard against going forward? Evan Power 00:18:27 'I think that was a candidate-specific thing. The Democrat candidate there is from Escambia, and she had worked very hard. She ran against Matt Gaetz just a couple of months ago. She was able to qualify for this special by petition within like two or three weeks of announcing the special election. So she had some infrastructure there. Our candidate was a statewide elected official but hadn't spent that much time there. So I think this is a candidate-specific, election-specific result. I'm not worried about Escambia County in the midterm at all. David Chalian 00:18:57 But I bet you got a lot of incoming about that Escambia result this week. Did you have to calm nervous jitters in your party? Evan Power 00:19:04 'There's people who are concerned, and we look at everything, and I think, by and large, we spend the off year trying to rebuild the vote-by-mail file because it empties out every two years. So, we're going to spend some effort there, making sure that we have the resources in place going forward. David Chalian 00:19:20 You know, you're talking about specials in general, but obviously, we've seen a pattern over time, and this applies to sort of both parties. When you are the party out of power, you could thrive a bit more on motivation, opposition to what is going on. Do you think, even though, again, you were totally successful here at winning these seats, as you said, by double digits, do you think that you are seeing in the fundraising, in some of the turnout numbers that we're talking about, that the Democrats right now are just more energized than the Republicans are in Florida? Evan Power 00:19:52 I think there is a group of Democrats that are more energized, because they're upset, and they're making their irrational arguments on why they're upset. It's also, we won so big, we had record turnout in Florida in November where we won by 13 points the most since 1988. And it's hard to motivate those people to go out and vote, especially on the short timetable that we had. And I think once we were able to get that message through, we were to turn out our voters like we did at the last minute in CD6. David Chalian 00:20:18 'And so is there anything that you watched and observed on Tuesday night that you are putting sort of on a to-do list for you as chairman of the party to ensure that Florida stays as red as it has been in recent years and doesn't shift back into a more purple competitive state? Evan Power 00:20:36 'For us, it is continuing what we've been doing, which is registering Republicans, out-raising the Democrats and outworking them. And if you look at what we're done voter registration-wise, even since the election, we've added another 100,000 Republican voters since the election. So we're gonna continue to work on that and continue to register, to out-register, out-raise and outwork the Democrats. David Chalian 00:20:56 Florida Republican Chairman, Evan Power. Thank you for your time, sir. Appreciate it. Evan Power 00:21:00 Thank you. David Chalian 00:21:03 That's it for this week's edition of the CNN Political Briefing. Remember, you can reach out to us with your questions about Trump's new administration. Our contact information is in the show notes. CNN Political Briefing is a production of CNN Audio. This episode was produced by Emily Williams. Our senior producer is Felicia Patinkin. Dan Dzula is our Technical Director, and Steve Lickteig is the Executive Producer of CNN Audio. Support from Alex Manasseri, Robert Mathers, Jon Dianora, Leni Steinhardt, Jamus Andrest, Nichole Pesaru, and Lisa Namerow. We'll be back with a new episode next Friday. Thanks so much for listening.
CNN
28-03-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Former Trump Staffer on Signal War Plans - CNN Political Briefing - Podcast on CNN Audio
David Chalian 00:00:01 Hey, everyone. I'm David Chalian, CNN's Washington bureau chief and political director. And welcome to the CNN Political Briefing. Senator Mark Warner 00:00:13 You are not on this group chat. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard 00:00:13 I'm not going to get into the specifics. Senator Mark Warner 00:00:14 You refused to acknowledge whether you were on this group chat. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard 00:00:18 Senator, I'm not going to get into this. Senator Mark Warner 00:00:20 Why are you why are you going to get into specifics? Is this. Is it because it's all classified? Because this is currently under review by the national security? Because it's all classified. If it's not classified, share the text now. David Chalian 00:00:31 That's Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, questioning Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard about a now infamous text threat. This week, regularly scheduled hearings about global threats turned into grilling over a group chat on the messaging app signal. That chat included top Trump administration officials and a journalist. The editor in chief of The Atlantic, Jeff Goldberg, was accidentally added to a group where cabinet members texted about U.S. military strike plans in Yemen. Goldberg in The Atlantic revealed tech showing exchanges about specific operational details for the strikes. But President Trump and his allies have continued to deny that any classified information was shared. Here's what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said after those texts were published. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth 00:01:23 There's no units, no locations, no routes, no flight paths, no sources, no methods, no classified information. David Chalian 00:01:34 Olivia Troye is a former national security official. During the first Trump administration, she served as homeland security and counterterrorism adviser to Vice President Mike Pence. She also worked in the Pentagon as a George W Bush appointee. And she joins me now to share her insights on this incident. Olivia, thanks so much for joining me. Olivia Troye 00:01:56 Thanks for having me David. David Chalian 00:01:57 Your name popped into my head of somebody I wanted to talk to when this story emerged out of the Atlantic and Jeffrey Goldberg being inadvertently. Added to this group text and then pretty sensitive information being shared by the Secretary of Defense. I want to talk to you because obviously you've had a ton of experience as a national security official dealing with information that is highly sensitive, that is classified. And I know there's a lot of semantics around classified or not classified and war planning or attack planning. We can get all that. But I want to first just get a sense from you about how abnormal what occurred is. Olivia Troye 00:02:39 Yes. First of all, I mean, I I'm still in shock over the what's happened this week. Quite honestly, I must have read that article. I mean, at least three times, I, I also felt, as I was reading the article, you know, Jeffrey Goldberg in the article says he couldn't figure out, like, is this real? Is this like a scam? Is this a I like what is happening here? And I also felt that way because I was like, it's one of those things where I was like, my being punked. Like, is this a fictional story happening here? Because I just couldn't believe what I was reading. And it's, you know, I have coordinated so many principles, committee meetings that are referred to cabinet level meetings, deputy meetings, even policy meetings. I've attended them. I've been on the distros, I've been a part of it. And to think about the fact that these types of meetings are basically being held on signals, that's what this showed us, right? That the National Security Advisor convened this cabinet level meeting basically on a group chat, almost like almost like a group gossip session is so mind blowing to me. And yes, we can disagree or agree on whether it's classified or not, but I've got to tell you the level of detail on there. I have not seen that level of detail on anything unclassified in terms of operations that I've been a part of. David Chalian 00:04:02 I know, you know, part of the administration's response, as it is often, is to sort of blame the reporter who exposed the story, Jeffrey Goldberg, in this case, blame the press for covering something hyperbolic. Lee. I guess what I want to get a sense from you is, is this just a fascination or. I know they pointed that the military exercise was successful, but is there potential danger in what occurred here? Olivia Troye 00:04:35 Oh, absolutely. I mean, yes, the mission was successful, but thank goodness it was successful this time. Thank goodness that no one disrupted the operation. Thank goodness that we don't lose lives, that our planes weren't shot down. That there wasn't an escalation to preempt this measure, because that's what really could have happened if it got into the wrong hands. And look, I'm not convinced that it didn't get into the wrong hands. I'm not convinced that our foreign adversaries don't have access to these signal chats. And the worst part of it, to me was then finding out, you know, that I've got friends of the Department of Defense who were equally in shock because the workforce was warned about using signal and the possibility of vulnerabilities on the application. And so they were warned to be careful when using the signal app on their phones. Right. And here we are with the leadership of our country, having a whole conversation about sensitive locations, targets, even down to the timing of it. And so I think they can blame Jeffrey Goldberg all they want for saying, you know, he was part of this conversation. He which by, you know, complete accident and in many ways not wanting to be and at some point he's like, wait, this is real. And he gets gravely concerned about it. And I, you know, I give him credit because he is the one that actually use tremendous judgment in what he first decided to report or not to report. And the fact that, you know, thank goodness he wasn't out there real time posting it on social media. Some might have. Right? I mean, they would have reacted that way. And in which case, I just can't imagine the anxiety to of people who are working in these communities now thinking, okay, so for the next operation, I can't even trust the leadership of our country at the highest levels of my agency or community to protect me in this situation, to have my back well, and going into this scenario and risking my own life for the sake of what we're doing here. David Chalian 00:06:33 So let's get into some of that, what you described as very specific information. I want to focus in on what Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, added into this chat. You said he talked about specific times. I mean, he said it would be, you know, at 2:15 in the afternoon, guaranteed the first strike will happen. Then he talked about specific weapons that were going to be utilized in your experience. And again, I know I don't I just want to illuminate for our listeners. Would that kind of information be classified? Olivia Troye 00:07:09 Yes. Especially because he connects it all. That's the key. Sometimes it's considered and classified, if you're just talking about one small bit of it and you're not connecting the dots to everything else. But I don't see how you can actually sit there with a straight face and say, this isn't classified. When every operation I'd ever seen, especially, by the way, the audience that usually receives this type of detail is a very small audience, and they're either on classified distros or they're sitting in the situation room, or they're sitting in a military command center. I mean, I've been at the Joint Special Operations Command centers overseas, where I have watched by the minute an operation go down. But I can guarantee you that the only people that we're aware of to the minute detail are the people in a very small distribution. And it's controlled and it's certainly not being shared in any unclassified channel. But it was also the fact that, like, he connects the dots on it. He's saying, okay, the planes will depart here and they're going to this target, and then they're going to do this. And then he confirms, actually, one of the things that I noticed was he mentions a terrorist in the location and he's he's entering the building that's targeted. I mean, how much more specific can you get? And Mike Walsh says a building has collapsed. And he, you know, Pete Hedges said it's like having this conversation. There is clearly confusion in the text. But also this is why you shouldn't be having these conversations is just a the fact that you're tying it all together is also and I'll say this because I'm seeing them say that they're not talking about sources and methods. David Chalian 00:08:42 Yeah. I was just about to say, while you're saying this, I just want to Hegseth just specifically talked to reporters on the tarmac earlier this week. He's traveling abroad, or he may have been in Hawaii right before he was heading abroad. And he said, no sources, no methods, no targets, no routes. He said nothing classified, that is how he defines it he put nothing inappropriate in that chat. Olivia Troye 00:09:08 That to me is completely ridiculous, and it sounds like maybe he needs to sit down and have his own refresher on classifying things. What different levels of classification mean, and what it means when you tie things together and how. Yes, basically he was describing sources and methods and how they were going to do things here. Right. And he's also basically giving away the knowledge that we had going into this operation, which is also part of why all of this is considered sensitive. And so I think I think the dangerous part of it is that anyone if it got into the wrong hands, they would have known in detail what the plan was ahead of time. And we just got very lucky this time that that didn't happen. But the concern for me is, well, how many other operations or other policy planning or other sensitive discussions are happening in these signal groups. I mean, it's labeled Hootie group at the top. And I kept thinking like, okay, so are they going to be is there an Israel group? Is there a Gaza group? Is there a Venezuela group? I mean, what how many policy discussions? I'm just kind of imagining the distribution for this. Having handled a lot of this coordination, even for Pence on the Covid task force, was like, I, I can't in a million years picture a situation where I would be developing distribution lists on my cell phone in an unclassified application, and discussing remotely even a smidge of what was discussed in this conversation. And quite frankly, I think if Mike Pence would have found out that I was doing this, I would've been fired. I've been walked in building immediately for that kind of breach, and I'm I probably would have lost my security clearance and everything else that comes with it. So I to me, this is just completely reckless and complete lack of judgment by many. Who should have known better? Especially people like Mike Walz. He's got a lot of experience in this. He was supposed to be the rational, professional, experienced person who really understands kind of how national security operates. And he had a similar role to me and Vice President Dick Cheney's office back in the day. I mean, so this is someone who worked in the Pentagon. He served in the military. So did you get Pete Hegseth, right? I mean, they should know better. David Chalian 00:11:31 We're going to take a quick break. We're going to a lot more in just a moment. Stay with us. David Chalian 00:11:59 Welcome back. We're here with former national security official Olivia Troye. Olivia I want to get to sort of the whole accountability piece, which you hinted at at the end of our conversation in the last block about what would happen to you had you done something like this and you would have been marched out of the white House and maybe lost your security clearance? We'll get to that and how the Hill is and should respond, and other accountability measures that may or may not be employed by this administration in a moment. But beyond the operational details that I've put in, I wondered what you thought of seeing in in this tech chat, Vice President Vance sort of disagreeing or presenting a counter argument with the president's, apparently, according to Stephen Miller in the chat, already greenlighted operation and calling into question and suggesting maybe it was a mistake. The American people don't usually get insight into that kind of internal deliberation in near real time. What do you make of that? Olivia Troye 00:13:02 Well, to be honest, the first thing I thought was, oof! When the president reads that, he is going to be livid because now he has a complete insight into what's happening behind the scenes by his own vice president. So if I were J.D. Vance, having seen my previous boss navigate this dynamic, I would probably be feeling a little nervous and sheepish about the fact that now the cards have been shown that he was basically countering what was being discussed and what good for him. He was providing a different viewpoint and saying, hey, maybe we need to take a pause. Maybe we need to think about this. And actually, I think that was a positive sign to me because I said, okay, well, there's someone actually thinking of the pros and cons of this kind of trying to think through that. But I also thought it was very interesting and evident, and it's been my experience in the past of working with some of this, that people in the same circles and personalities that Stephen Miller completely immediately chimed in. It wasn't the chief of staff, Susie Wiles. Right. It was Stephen Miller who turned in, and he's like, no. The president was very clear, and he basically says, like, this is moving forward. And so, you know, for lack of a better word, David, he trumps the vice president and says, now get back in line. This is what we're doing. David Chalian 00:14:18 And I also just want to get your take on what the exchange that Vance and Hegseth were having about Europe, because so much of the foreign policy posture of this administration, Trump 2.0 to date has been to really reimagine sort of who's an ally and who's an adversary. And obviously, the U.S. relationship with Europe is going through transformation. And and it was interesting to me to see I, if not revelatory, I think we kind of knew where Vance and Access were on this. But I'm just curious where you thought that conversation about Europe playing out in this group chat leaves us in terms of U.S. foreign policy? Olivia Troye 00:14:58 Yeah. So the first thing I thought of was, wow, our allies or European allies are reading this now and they're like, okay, well, this is truly how they really think about us. And, you know, I think there's mentioned to them and that are freeloading, which is inaccurate, right? That's not true. And I think it's very evident that this is an administration who is going to aggressively counter our alliances. And in many ways, we've seen side with potentially foreign adversaries like Russia. And so I think in that real time conversation, they're having these discussions. And it was fascinating just to see them blatantly being like, oh, the freeloaders. And yeah, it's absolutely pathetic. I think that was some of the terminology used in the chat. And I think that is evident to the rest of the world about what's really happening here in our foreign policy and the kind of discussions that are shaping the international dynamics. And to me as well. I was just sitting there thinking, I can't imagine being one of our European allies and watching this and being like, hey, one, this is what they really think. And to get to know that this is how they're conducting foreign policy and military operations and discussing sensitive things, because I'm not sure that I want my country to be sharing the information if it's going to be out there for everyone to read. David Chalian 00:16:20 So let's talk about how the administration has responded so far. We mentioned when Hegseth was saying that you obviously said was a bit of absurd kind of rhetorical response. What do you make of how President Trump has responded? Seems to be wanting to distance himself from this, suggests he doesn't have knowledge, maybe even, you know, putting Mike Wallace on the hot seat and sort of suggesting he is to blame here. And then yesterday suggesting when a reporter asked about Hegseth and what he wrote, he was like, why would you even bring Hegseth into this? What is Hegseth have to do with this? He seemed to really want to wall off any kind of blame for his defense secretary. So what do you make about how the president and the administration overall has responded to this. Olivia Troye 00:17:03 I think first of all, I think it's it's very typical for Trump and sort of this operation. Obviously the first thing they'll do is try to discredit the source, right? So they're trying to discredit the reporter, even though the reporter exercised the best judgment out of the entire group, I would say, because that was our first go to move is just like, oh, the press hates us. And this is another hyperbolic situation. You know, Trump likes to use the words witch hunt. So he's already kind of tossing that out. And so that was to be expected. But the reality is I think Donald Trump is pissed. I think he's pretty mad because honestly, this is embarrassing. It's embarrassing for the entire cabinet, the white House, I think behind the scenes, like he's he's probably very, very annoyed that this is. David Chalian 00:17:49 What gives you what gives you that sense? Olivia Troye 00:17:51 I mean, I've seen it in the past where he's sort of like, we had this leak. How did this get out there? I mean, he's been very angry in the past when these situations and also I think it's, you know, when it makes his entire cabinet look ridiculous. And right now, that's how they're looking. It ultimately looks bad on him. And so I think that's why you saw him kind of he's trying to figure out like, okay, who is a person that gets the blame here. Who's the scapegoat in that situation. And personally, I thought it was going to be my fault because he's the one that right. Obviously he's the one that puts the chat together and then adds the reporter. David Chalian 00:18:27 And he also is the administration official in most tension with MAGA world at the moment. Yeah. You know, there's a lot of skepticism from from some of the most ardent Trump supporters that he's a bit more sort of national security establishment, kind of a Republican. Olivia Troye 00:18:42 Yes. And then the other thing I think for them is I think Trump is trying to figure out, I mean, this is not a good news story, right? I mean, this is making them look completely ridiculous. He knows it's bad. He's got Republicans that are actually. You know, in one rare moment right now, which is very, very and not not heard it very common right now. He's got Republicans criticizing him and what happened here. And he's got people, influencers on social media and everything that are coming out. And also calling this out and being like, this is not okay. And he knows the gravity of the situation, I think. And so I think from his perspective, he wants this nightmare to go away. This is like taking all the attention. And then also I think, you know, I thought it was very evident where he talked about signal and he seemed confused about what signal was. So it's clear that I didn't. Trump is sort of at a like I'm like, what actually kind of happened here and he doesn't know signal application like what it is. I think there's just a lot of loose ends here that are probably making him feel very unsettled and angry about it. But ultimately, I think he's like, you're making me look bad. It's really not about actually you're you should be protecting these sources and methods and you should be protecting the operation. I think it's more so the fact that it brought embarrassment to the white House and the entire cabinet. David Chalian 00:20:00 My last question for you is We've seen Senator Roger Wicker, the Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, call for an investigation. We have seen some Republicans express some concern that this was a screw up, though we've not seen sort of the floodgates open and sort of demand a what should happen from here, should there be an investigation and should somebody lose their job over this? Olivia Troye 00:20:26 I mean, in any other scenario, if you are a military member or a intelligence officer or anything, somebody would lose their jobs and there would be accountability from all the way from the top down to the lower level. On how this happened. And so there should be an investigation. There should be an investigation to like, how did this happen? What were the actual facts that led to this situation? Why is this happening? Why are they using signal? First of all, I would be asking that question. This is not how we conduct traditionally major senior level policy and intelligence. And then also I think there has to be accountability. Like somebody needs to take responsibility for their actions, if only also for what you're saying to the communities that these people lead, because it really is about leadership comes from the top. And so when you have intelligence officers, military service members, all of this community is watching this happen. And they, by the way, hold sensitive operations in high regard. They're held to a certain standard. And I think the leadership needs to show that they're going to hold themselves accountable and to that standard high standard as well to protect this information. So I do think that this needs to happen. And I think, you know, I don't think that this is a Partizan thing. This isn't about politics, isn't about Republicans and Democrats. It's actually about protecting the American people and national security. It's about protecting everything that our country stands for when it comes to these types of sensitive operations and things. And so I think it should be bipartisan. I commend the Republicans that are saying, yes, we need to get to the bottom of this so that it doesn't happen again. We can at least work on that together. David Chalian 00:22:10 Olivia Troye, thanks so much for your time. Olivia Troye 00:22:12 Thank you. David Chalian 00:22:13 That's it for this week's edition of the CNN Political Briefing. Remember, you can reach out to us with your questions about Trump's new administration or contact information is in the show notes. CNN Political Briefing is a production of CNN audio. This episode was produced by Emily Williams and Grace Walker with support from Dan Bloom. Our senior producer is Felicia Patinkin. Dan Dzula is our technical director, and Steve Lickteig is the executive producer of CNN Audio. Support from Alex Perry, Robert Mathers, John Dionora, Leni Steinhardt, James Andrest, Nicole Pesaru, and Lisa Namerow. We'll be back with a new episode next Friday. Thanks so much for listening.
CNN
21-03-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Howard Dean's Prescription for Democrats - CNN Political Briefing - Podcast on CNN Audio
David Chalian 00:00:01 Hey, everyone, I'm David Chalian, CNN's Washington Bureau Chief and Political Director, and welcome to the CNN Political Briefing. 'Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (clip) 00:00:09 This isn't just about Republicans. We need a Democratic Party that fights harder for us, too. Sen. Bernie Sanders (clip) 00:00:21 And let us never forget: Real change only occurs when ordinary people at the grassroots level stand up against oppression and injustice and fight back. David Chalian 00:00:38 'That's the Democrats' two most well-known progressive politicians speaking at a rally on Thursday in Las Vegas. Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez booked stops in Nevada, Arizona and Colorado as a part of Sanders's ongoing "Fighting Oligarchy" tour. The Vermont senator told my colleague Kaitlan Collins this week that he's been hearing on the road how frustrated some voters are with the Democratic Party. Sen. Bernie Sanders (clip) 00:01:06 In the Democratic Party, you've got a party that is heavily dominated by the billionaire class, run by consultants who are way out of touch with reality. It has — the Democratic Party has virtually no grassroots support. David Chalian 00:01:21 That lack of grassroots support is also what my guest today sees as a core problem for his party. Howard Dean is a former chair of the Democratic National Committee, a onetime candidate for the party's presidential nomination, and he also served six terms as Vermont's governor. Before that, he worked as a physician in the state. He argues that his party has got to get back to basics and that rebuilding the Democratic brand can't be done without knocking on a lot of doors. Governor Howard Dean, thank you so much for joining me. Really appreciate it. Howard Dean 00:01:57 Thanks for having me. David Chalian 00:01:58 I have wanted to talk to you in this moment because there's a lot of talk, as recently as this week — Chuck Schumer was invoking this — of thinking about the current troubles in the Democratic Party, if you will, or the current conundrum that the Democratic Party finds itself in compared to 20 years ago, after George W. Bush's successful reelection effort in 2004 and where the Democrats sort of found themselves in 2005, and you may have some perspective on where the Democrats found themselves at the time. That was the time that you took over as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and I'm wondering, do you see parallels to this moment for Democrats? Howard Dean 00:02:43 'There are, but it's, you know, it's a lot further down the track now. I was elected by people who were outside the Beltway. In fact, the inside the Beltway people didn't want me, and they ran sequentially a whole bunch of different candidates against me, and they didn't last long. I had a hard time convincing the DNC that I should be their chair, but they gave in. And the first thing I did was just let the D-Trip and the DSCC know that they weren't getting any money from us because if you want to win races, you have to be out in the states, and it worked. We took back the house, and, you know, the House people were calling people who had financed their own campaigns, and we were calling up governors in places like Kansas and saying, who's the best candidate for this? You know, and we won, and we took back the House, and we took back the Senate, and then we took back the presidency. We also had a fantastic candidate. Barack Obama was a great candidate and had a great campaign. I will huff and puff a little bit. His data people were pirated from my campaign. My campaign, I hired them to redo all the DNC's data, which was pretty much nonexistent. And then Obama hired them away from me in 2006. The key thing that has to be done today is a much higher, more complete version of what we did. You can't — you're not going to win this in Congress. And the problem is, as I always like to say, that Congress is basically, or Washington is middle school on steroids. They work hard. They're smart, and it's all about them all the time. And they do not invest in city council races or school board races or, you know, those kinds of things. And if you don't do that, then the message of the Democratic Party is what the Republicans say it is. And that's exactly where we are right now. David Chalian 00:04:22 So, right there at the end, you sort of tied the mechanics of it to where the brand finds itself. And we had a poll out this week at CNN — just 29% of Americans have a favorable view of Democrats. That's the lowest favorability number for the party, just a measure of popularity, in all of CNN's history of polling on that question going back to the early 90s. So, why? Howard Dean 00:04:47 The Democratic Party brand is what the Republicans say it is. They're good at this, and they're on the podcasts and all this kind of stuff, and they have the, you know, an inveterate liar as the president of the United States now, and he's successful at it. I mean, you can say a lot of things about Donald Trump, but one thing he's incredibly skilled at is resentment politics. And he's really good at it. David Chalian 00:05:06 And it works, apparently? Howard Dean 00:05:07 'And it works very, very well. So here's our problem. If you want the brand of the Democratic Party to be what Donald Trump says it is, which may or may not be true, and it isn't true, but it's still a very — he's a great messenger. If you want it to be different, what you do is you have people knocking on doors not five weeks before the presidential election. You do it when some young guy or gal is running for the legislature, and then they get their brand of the Democratic Party. They're going to lose the first time in these red states, but eventually they're going to win, because the Republicans are not so good at running anything, and they're not very nice. And their rhetoric is really awful, and people get sick of that. You switch the brand from being politicians in Washington who are out of touch, which the Democrats fall into pretty easily, as we saw last week. And you switched that brand to, oh, this gal is knocking on my door. I remember teaching her in school, and I know her father, and that's now the brand of the Democrats: nice person, working hard, cheerful, knows the neighborhood inside out. It's expensive, and it's hard to do. And it's hard to get donors to fund that stuff because they, you know, they want to say, I met with the president, and I told senator so-and-so. That doesn't get you anywhere, and there'll be a lot less senator so-and-sos if we don't get the message and start doing things differently. David Chalian 00:06:24 You mentioned last week you're referring to the vote that happened in the Senate that prevented a government shutdown, but, in doing so, advanced and allowed to pass a continuing resolution, a spending bill put forth by Donald Trump and Mike Johnson and the Republicans, that was, save one person in the House, almost uniformly rejected by Democrats in the House. But Chuck Schumer led the way for ten Democrats to actually join with the Republicans, to move that forward into law and keep the government open. Your critique was you saw last week that they were out of touch with where the Democratic grassroots are across the country. Are you suggesting a shutdown would have been the preferable outcome? Howard Dean 00:07:04 I think not voting for a bill that violated a large number of Democratic Party principles and harmed our people that we support, you know, that was a mistake. And we voted for the Republican version, which basically takes money away from middle class and working people and gives it to their billionaire supporters. David Chalian 00:07:23 But the alternative was a shutdown, right? Howard Dean 00:07:25 That, well, that's correct. And the reason there would have been a shutdown is because the Republicans passed some ridiculous bill that had no business being signed into law. Now, look, I am not one of those people that thinks Schumer should leave or any of that kind of stuff. He's a very able leader and maybe close to the most able Senate leader, maybe since George Mitchell. The problem is, though, he is a leader in the Senate, inside the Beltway. And what's going on inside the Beltway is very different than what's going on outside the Beltway in the Democratic Party. And I don't think there are many people in Washington that get that, especially in the Senate. David Chalian 00:07:59 One of the things, as you know, Schumer has been talking basically nonstop since the vote in trying to constantly explain his position and why he did it. But one of the things he points to, which I think, if I was talking to Nancy Pelosi, she might say the same thing. In addition to what you are talking about, your 50 state strategy and investing in these state parties and state legislative races and the like, they would say that, in 2005, after Republicans had a pretty sweeping election victory in 2004, they waited for this moment of potential overreach from President Bush at the time, privatizing Social Security, and you all collectively in the party in that moment seized on that and that that, according to Schumer's telling of it, is what unified the Democratic Party, leading to those 2006 midterms that were successful for the party. Howard Dean 00:08:47 I hate to say this, but that is a classical inside the Beltway analysis because it was something they did. What won that was my going to every single one of the 50 states and seven territories and then putting money into those, each one, each single party, except for a few of them that were very big from big states, and they thought they knew better. We basically put data and computerized their voting lists and all that kind of stuff, and then we gave them, I forgot how much it was a year, on the condition they were trained five times, and they had to come to Washington, and we went out there. And if they didn't do the training, they didn't get the money. You know, you can have these quote unquote moments that people talk about in Washington. They don't do any good if you're not at the people's doors. And, you know, you cannot do this long distance through media. That's important. It's important to be in people's houses doing the kind of thing we're doing right now. But if you're not out there in person with a recognizable person that you know instead of a politician, then you're not going to win this race. I don't care how many podcast you do. David Chalian 00:09:46 And do you see the Democratic Party doing that right now? And I don't mean just the organization of the DNC that you once led and perhaps you, you know, maybe Ken Martin is doing this right now as chair of the DNC. But do you see, broadly, the Democratic Party heeding the advice that you're saying right now? Howard Dean 00:10:01 Well, I have high hopes for Ken because he did come from a state which I think is important. He's not an inside the Beltway guy, and I think he's trying to do the right thing. But, you know, everybody in Washington who, except for the DNC, thinks that the DNC's job is to make you look good and get elected. It is not the DNC's job. The DNC's job is to win elections. And they can't do it by just spending all their time in Washington. And they can't do it if they don't fund people outside the state who aren't capable of funding themselves. I don't believe in the theory that this was the turning point, and it's some issue that got voted on in Washington. The turning point is 10,000 times when somebody knocks on your door from the neighborhood and says, I'm running for school counselor or city council or school board, would you support me? And whether they say yes or no doesn't always matter. And the interesting thing now is most of that work is done by people who are Democrats, but they're not associated with the Democratic Party directly. Run for Something is one of them. They've had like 1,500 candidates who are young people from every background you can think of who are running for offices in red states, a lot of them, and they're winning. Indivisible is another one. And so there's tons of people who are grassroots organizations. I think those people are more effective. What they need is coordination and some money. David Chalian 00:11:20 We're going to take a quick break. We're going to a lot more with Governor Howard Dean in just a moment. Stay with us. David Chalian 00:11:36 'Welcome back. We're here with former Vermont governor, former DNC chair, former presidential candidate Howard Dean. I guess I could say the doctor is in, as your campaign posters used to say. We asked in our most recent poll, an open question. We didn't give any names or options. We just asked a question about who is leading the Democratic Party and represents the — asking of Democrats — represents your values and who you know, who do you see out there that represents your values, leads the party? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez came out on top in that, offered up as a name. Does that surprise you? Howard Dean 00:12:15 It does, but I think it's great news. We can't win without the under 35 crowd, and she can mobilize them. I am really impressed with her. When she, I was very impressed with her opening campaign. She beat a guy who I know and like, and she did an incredible job. And in the beginning she was sort of out there. I mean, she's obviously a very principled person, which matters. But there are things you have to do in order to build coalitions, and she has gotten really good at it. I think she now qualifies as being one of the major leaders of the party, and I think that's a good thing. David Chalian 00:12:46 I would imagine, given sort of the dry spell that Democrats find themselves in in this moment, that your party is going to have, I don't know, maybe up to 20 presidential candidates emerge for the 2028 contest. I mean, it could be a very crowded stage like it was four years ago. Do you think there was something that you observed in that 2019, 2020 Democratic primary that should be a cautionary tale for the Democrats, as they organize themselves to try and win back the White House? Howard Dean 00:13:14 I don't think so. I mean, my theory of the case is that Biden won because people were exhausted by Trump, and then it came down to Biden and Bernie. Bernie is exhausting, too, because he's, you know, believes very strongly in what his message is. And I think it's a good message. But I think people were just and then, of course, they were exhausted by the pandemic. And Biden seemed like, you know, a good, solid choice that wasn't exhausting. Let me just defend Joe Biden. He did some things that were not right at the end. He should have probably not run again. But the fact of the matter is, I think he's going to go down in history as the most effective domestic president since Lyndon Johnson. David Chalian 00:13:51 I wasn't planning on spending a bunch of time on Joe Biden in this conversation. But now that you've brought it up, let me just ask, though, don't you think the decision, as you say, which probably wasn't the right decision for him to run for reelection, given the threat that he and his team and the entire party was putting forth to the country, that, Donald, that a return of Donald Trump to the Oval Office presents? Don't you think then his decision to do that, the clear negative position that put in the party, the path it created for Donald Trump to go back to the White House, negates all of what you just said? Howard Dean 00:14:21 No, of course not. Yes, he — it was a terrible mistake. In retrospect, he shouldn't have run, given what I know now about his health and what I didn't know then. But the fact is, you're never going to take away the achievements that he had. David Chalian 00:14:36 I want to go back to what you were saying about the need to be knocking on these doors repeatedly, talking to people, identifying with people they know. My next question to you is, okay, you're at the door. You're having a conversation, you're invited into the living room or it's a community event and you're around with your neighbors. What is the message? What are Democrats offering in that conversation right now? Howard Dean 00:14:56 A lot of it is the kind of stuff that Sanders is talking about. He's been talking about it for his entire life, but it is particularly resonant right now. We need to get you a decent health care plan that's not going to bankrupt you. We need to guarantee some job opportunities so your kids can go to college. We need to make sure that the education system works, works fairly, and we need fairness in this society, and I think that's a very important message. But it has to be delivered. And I also think my generation needs to get the hell out of the way. I hope the next candidate that we have is between 40 and 50, not between 60 and 80. David Chalian 00:15:33 Why do you say that? Howard Dean 00:15:34 'Because we got creamed with young people, and that's a disaster. Young people have always been the, sort of the light. You know, I'm 76 years old. I remember what it was like to be 20 and protesting against the Vietnam War. And we fought for civil rights. And the country has changed dramatically over the last 50 years for a lot, for a lot of what we did. The Democrats turned off that generation, and we can't do that. And so that's why I want somebody that all those young voters, anybody under 40, can really relate to. And it's somebody that they see as their leader, and I think it is — I am for term limits. That's that's an old conservative thing, and you wouldn't be surprised to have a liberal Democrat advocating it. I think we ought to have term limits in the Senate, term limits in the Supreme Court and term limits in the House. This is supposed to be a part-time job, this legislation. If you professionalize the legislation, then all you're going to do is create a class of people who are out of touch with the rest of the country, and I think that's true. And I think it's true of the Republicans, too. They're actually far worse than the Democrats, just much better with the dishonesty factor. David Chalian 00:16:37 You were in your mid 50s when you caught lightning in a bottle with your presidential campaign. I know it wasn't ultimately successful, but you defined internet, online fundraising. You were able to generate enthusiasm. You were able to go at the more establishment picks for a while there. A lot of that was due to young people, but you were in your mid 50s. Does it have to be a young person that generates the enthusiasm from young people? Howard Dean 00:16:59 It doesn't have to be young in terms of the number of years you live, but it does have to be young in your terms of your willingness to tell the truth without trying to manage every word that you say. That kind of cardboard stuff just doesn't go. Especially the younger you are, the less B.S. you want to put up with. And, you know, there's a lot of B.S. in Washington on both sides of the aisle. David Chalian 00:17:21 And thinking about your presidential run, and it's like eons ago now, and it's a different media environment and everything — but do you think there's something in what you experienced in 2003 that you could offer as advice for this next generation of Democrats that will be seeking the top job? Howard Dean 00:17:37 I think the time has long passed that people in their 70s and 80s ought to be giving people advice. You know, it's a whole different world out there in terms of how this all works. And, you know, what do I, what do I know about the media? I just had a bunch of smart kids working for me, because I told the truth about what was going on in Iraq, which was based on a lie. And I told the truth about what the Congress had been doing, including the Democrats. And that is — the truth is an incredibly attractive principle in politics because there's so little of it. And that's all I did. And, you know, my campaign had tons of faults. But it did change that generation. Now that generation's in power. A lot of them are county chairs, state chairs, in state legislatures. We need the generational turnover. I'm, you know, I'm not ready to sit in a rocking chair and do nothing. But I want the next president of the United States to be 40, if it's possible. David Chalian 00:18:32 About President Trump, and we're, you know, in, I don't know, what day we're at, but we're nearing at the end of April will be is first 100 days mark here. Are you seeing an administration that you anticipated? Is it worse than you expected? Is it about what you expected? You know, he still, while he's unpopular, and his numbers are upside down, he's still at his highest popularity in his entire career. Howard Dean 00:18:56 The problem this time around is that he has really people who don't believe in democracy working for him. They have a blueprint to make sure that only white male Christians are allowed to run anything, and they're executing on that blueprint. You know, I mean, Elon Musk is the perfect example of that. The scary part is we really could lose our democracy this time. You know, I was pleased when John Roberts, who I have very little in common, nor do I like much, came out and talked about, you know, the need to not talk about impeaching justices. We'll find out what John Roberts is about after he, you know, voted for this ridiculous sweeping presidential immunity bill a year ago. We need somebody to stand up, and the Congress hasn't done it, and they're not going to do it until after the midterms, when we hopefully control at least one of the houses. So the courts are going to have to do it. David Chalian 00:19:44 Do you see Democrats, I know they're not in power, but is any Democrat in your mind standing up right now effectively and capturing the imagination of the country? Howard Dean 00:19:53 I do think AOC is, and Bernie always has for young people. And there are I think there are people who could — I'm very interested in Gretchen Whitmer. I'm very interested in Wes Moore, for president. I'm sure there are other people out there. I think Andy Beshear, although he comes from such a red state, I don't know, but he certainly is telling it like it is. We just can't have politicians who are willing to lie and say whatever the hell comes into their head or hedge the truth. That's just not an attractive principle. This country is going to be a wreck after a couple more years of Trump. Look what he's already done to the stock market. He's abandoned our Democratic friends. He's getting in bed with Vladimir Putin, who may be certainly in the running from the most evil person on the planet. This is ridiculous. And his presidency is a disaster so far, and we're only 60 days in. So there's plenty of time for somebody to emerge. And it's going to take some time. I don't think the race is really going to start until after the midterms. David Chalian 00:20:51 I know you just named, obviously, as a former governor, you're right to only throw the names of governors out. But AOC and Bernie Sanders obviously serve in Washington. But what do you see as Hakeem Jeffries's and Chuck Schumer's responsibility and role in this moment? Howard Dean 00:21:05 I think their role is to get — make sure Congress and the Senate continue to be Democratic or are Democratic. That's their role, and they're good at it. David Chalian 00:21:13 And not to be, I mean, faces of the party nationally? They obviously are. Howard Dean 00:21:18 Obviously that didn't work so well last week, did it? David Chalian 00:21:20 I know. You — so even though you support Chuck Schumer, you don't buy his explanation that a shutdown would have been worse? Howard Dean 00:21:28 'No, I do buy it. I buy his explanation. I just don't agree with it. I don't think he understands — look, I told you, he's a terrific leader, and he's very smart and very good on tactics. I do not think he understands the country as a whole. And, you know, it's very rare that majority or minority leaders in the Senate end up being presidential candidates, and that's why. So no, I'm not anxious that, you know, anxious at all in getting rid of the House or the Senate leadership other than, you know, the people who've been there for 109 terms. It might be nice to get some 40-year-olds in there, but I'm not I — and Schumer did a great job when he was majority leader, getting Biden's picks on the judiciary through. He even appointed more judges than Trump did. So, I am not one of the people who thinks that Schumer should be fired or any of that kind of stuff. He's very good at what he does, but I do believe that we have to figure out a way to win elections, and that is not going to be done from inside the Beltway. It is not. David Chalian 00:22:28 Governor Dean, thank you for your time. I really appreciate it. Howard Dean 00:22:30 My pleasure. Thank you. David Chalian 00:22:34 That's it for this week's edition of the CNN Political Briefing. Remember, you can reach out to us with your questions about Trump's new administration. Our contact information is in the show notes. CNN Political Briefing is a production of CNN Audio. This episode was produced by Emily Williams. Our senior producer is Felicia Patinkin. Dan Dzula is our Technical Director, and Steve Lickteig is the Executive Producer of CNN Audio. Support from Alex Manasseri, Robert Mathers, Jon Dianora, Leni Steinhardt, Jamus Andrest, Nichole Pesaru, and Lisa Namerow. We'll be back with a new episode next Friday. Thanks so much for listening.
