February 16, 2024 • 36 mins
Political reporter and analyst Mark Halperin discusses the current political landscape, the 2024 election, and his views on the potential nominees. He believes that Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee unless he faces a severe health problem or his son, Hunter Biden, is convicted and faces prison time. On the Republican side, Halperin predicts who will be Trump's vice-presidential pick. He also discusses his new platform, 2WAY. 2WAY is a live video platform that allows participants to take part in informative and civil conversations online with people from across the political spectrum.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
In this episode of newts World, I'm joined by longtime
political reporter and analyst and best selling author Mark Halpern.
He's one of the most influential voices in reporting on
American politics with his morning newsletter entitled Mark Halprin's Wide
World of News, and I have to say I read
it every morning and I find it invaluable in offering
(00:27):
insights and frankly bringing together the key events of the
last twenty four hours in a way that I find
very helpful. He's recently started a new platform called two Way,
where political novices and political junkies alike can participate for
free in live, informative and civil conversations online with people
(00:48):
from across the political spectrum. Here to talk about election
twenty twenty four, our current political landscape, and his new
business venture. I am really pleased to welcome my guest, Mark, Mark, Welcome,
(01:10):
and thank you for joining me on the Newsworld as
your speaker clerk to be with you.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Appreciate the kind words and we're all living in Newtsworld.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
Before we talk about your new venture, two Way, I
thought we might catch up on some recent news around
the twenty twenty four election. Since you're based in New York.
Let's talk about the New York three Congressional District special election,
which took place on Tuesday, with Tom Swasey, the Democrat one,
taking over the seat George Santos Republican health until he
(01:40):
was expelled from Congress. Were you surprised? What's your take
on the outcome?
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Not surprised.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
I think that in special elections it's always important to
learn the right lessons and not the wrong ones, and
not overread into anything. The basics as you know of
this district is it's a Democratic district, it's a Biden district.
A Credit candidate was well known previously it held the seat.
The Republican candidate was not well known and not a
good candidate. And the Democrats spend a ton of money,
(02:08):
more than they can spend as an absolute amount or
compared to the Republican in other races. So Democrats should
have won the seat. But I think the important things
to look at are if there were a red wave,
if there was the mood of a very anti Biden mood,
and some polling in that district, private polling had Donald
Trump ahead of Joe Biden. So there's reasons to think
that there was a district ripe for the kind of
(02:29):
throw the bums out sentiment and the Republican was an outsider,
the Democratic insider, but that didn't happen. So there's no
current mood to say Democrats just can't win anywhere. And
then two more things that I think are important to
take away. One is candidate recruitment, something you spend an
enormous amount of time.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
On in your career.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Over the last few cycles, there's been a lot of
focus on Republican Senate recruitment failures. I think if you
look at the races around the country that are competitive
where Republicans would need to win to keep their majority
or expand it, I think you see the kind of
weak candidate recruitment potentially with primaries to come, that deviled
the Republicans in this district, where the candidate just wasn't
(03:06):
a very good candidate. She's got a good bio in
some ways, but she didn't run well. And then lastly,
I think President Trump has set the Republican Party back
in terms of early voting and vote by mail by
denouncing them. And I think he saw in that district
Republicans remain at a disadvantage there and that's going to
have to change for Republicans to do well. And so
those are kind of the three main lessons I would
(03:27):
take away from a not surprising result.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
It was sort of the ironic moment that everything we'd
warned about with early voting, they have a blizzard the
night before the election, and that morning you have snow
all over the district I think eight or nine inches deep,
and that further reduced turnout. So an election day focus
turnout runs certain dangers, and I was frankly disappointed that
(03:52):
all we'd seen about the whole idea of bank the
vote and all the Republican national realico, I don't think
it had any effect on this special election.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Yeah, I agree, And it's just a warning the party's
going to have to get better. The way he used
to be used to be a Republican thing, and it's
flipped completely saw that during COVID and President Trump.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
Is going to have to step it up.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
And I think good news to the Republican Party if
that happens. Is Chris Lasovita, who's been co running the
Trump campaign, has now going to also run a lot
of the RNC, and I think if he does go
over there, and he has given the authority that I
think he'll be given. I think this will be a
super high priority with him to work with the state
parties to get the Republican Party back to at least
parody on early vote and vote by mail.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
Everything we've seen the loss of Itta so far. He
is a remarkable talent. I mean, he and Susie Wilds
have done an amazing job of moving that campaign in
a very methodical kind of way. Now, probably the biggest
story of the last week special Counsel Robert Hurr and
the way he released his report. And I have to say,
(04:54):
I think if I were a Democrat, I'd be pretty
angry when he says, on the one hand, you know,
we're not going to try President Biden. On the other hand,
he says, we have to consider that mister Biden quote
would likely present himself to a jury as he did
during the interview of him as a sympathetic, well meaning
(05:15):
elderly man with a poor memory. I mean, maybe accurate,
but I thought it was a remarkably tough language for
a guy who's running for reelection. And I think it's
had a significant impact over the last few days. I
don't know that it has a permanent impact. A little
bit spending with that, and Biden can operate and prove
(05:36):
that he's capable. But what was your reaction?
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Totally inappropriate shades of what Jim Comey did. I think
these prosecutors who think that they're entitled to pretend that
what they're doing is apolitical, and then they're putting themselves
right in the midst of a presidential campaign, I think
are really out of bounds. And I say that regardless
of party. In the two examples I'm citing have hurt
Democratic presidential candidates. But I would say the same thing
(06:00):
about the way the Justice Department has approached Donald Trump.
It's just we saw it with both President Bush forty
one as well. It's just these prosecutors. I just don't
understand how they do this. And Joe Biden's own attorney
general could have influenced this, and Joe's not to so
both think it's fair. I'm troubled by the notion that
it's Joe Biden's memory, I say, respectfully, because you use
(06:22):
that word, and I see people use that word.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
To me. It's it's cognitive ability.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
I have a horrible memory, but I think my cognitibility
is still not good decent.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
The question is can he process ideas? Can he make
decisions on an informed basis?
Speaker 2 (06:34):
Memory is part of that, but I think it's too
narrow a definition of what the issue is. And I've
known Joe Biden for more than thirty years. I think
I saw him do a book of that in twenty eighteen,
before he announced he was running for president, and I
saw a man so diminished I felt bad for him
and his family. That was before he even announced he
was running the first time he's had substantial cognitive loss,
(06:57):
not as substantial as some Republicans say, more substantial than
those lying on his behalf claim when they say, oh,
he's hasn't lost a step, he's every bit as good
as he was. The reason I think the Special Council
report had an impact, as you said, and I think
we'll continue to have an impact, is I think in
an odd and crazy way. I think it provided a
permission structure for Democratic elected officials, for donors, and for
(07:19):
White House reporters who've been covering up for Joe Biden
to say, well, now that this intended Special Council said it,
now we can actually tell everybody sort of the truth that,
in fact, that this is a real issue. And I
think that, as you suggested, now the burden of proof
is on him. He can't just have his press secretary
and his senior aides try it out and say, oh,
he runs this ragged on the road. He took a
(07:40):
train to Kiev. He's in the best shape of his life.
Now he's going to have to demonstrate it. And of
course I'll say, finally, the American people didn't need the
Special Counsel's report. Seventy five percent or so of the
American people can trust their own eyes and ears and
see a significant cognitive decline, and they didn't need a
Special Council's judgment to already know that and have that
(08:01):
be a serious threat to Joe Biden's reelection.
Speaker 1 (08:04):
Do you have any serious doubts that he will be
the nominee?
Speaker 2 (08:09):
I'd say the only way he won't be the nominee
is one or both of the two ages if he
has a health problem so severe that his family says, well,
he can't possibly govern the country. I also think if
Hunter Biden were convicted and faced prison time, I think
it's possible he would pardon him and not run short
of those two things, neither of which can be anticipated,
and both of which I think have a pretty high
(08:30):
par This constant speculation, which you and I discussed on
a two way the other day, is constant speculation that
Michelle Obama or Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer is going
to be the nominee. With some conventions with Drew, it
doesn't accord with reality. He wants to be president again.
He thinks he's the only Democrat who can be Donald Trump,
and he thinks he's entitled to the nomination, as most
(08:50):
incumbent presidents do. So he's going to be the nominee,
barring one of the two ages.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
We will be pleased to know that. Even this morning,
a very very s guy who's pretty knowledgeable about politics
called me to say that he was certain that Barack
Obama had decided Michelle should be president and that the
switch would take place in June.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
I hear it every day. Hear it every day. Sometimes
it's June, sometimes it's July. I hear it every day.
It's not true, but I hear it every day.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Well, I was delighted to know what we're going to
do this today because I had to report that to
you because it fits so much what both of us
run into. And of course we could end up with
a lot of egg in our face if in June
she says to run.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Sure we could. But look, I can tell you this.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
As much as I'm expressing almost near certainty that Joe
Biden will be the nominee barring a health issue or
something with under Biden, I am more certain that Michelle
Obama will not be the nominee under any circumstances. She
simply does not wish to be an elective office. She's
not interested in running, or serving or doing anything related
to being elected. So if Joe Biden does he run,
(09:55):
it will be someone else. It will not be Michelle Obama.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
Well, and frankly, if you look at some of the
retirements in the Congress, they're expressing a similar sense of exhaustion.
Why would I spend my life going through this? I mean,
we have turned politics into a combination of blood, sport
and total logjam in a way that makes it dramatically
less pleasant than when I was speaker. I mean, this
(10:19):
is a much nastier, much tougher environment, I think than
anytime since the Civil War. I mean, it's just brutal
your working assumption that Biden does run. He clearly is running.
I mean he's got a nationwide operation that inevitably Kamala
Harris is the vice presidential nominee.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
Yeah, and I spend a lot of time on this too, both.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Reporting it and talking to people about it. She's not
interested in going anywhere people have suggested perhaps she shouldn't
be on a ticket. She's not interested in stepping down
and doing anything else. She wants to be vice president.
She wants to be president, and I don't see any
reason to think that will change. I don't see anyone
who could talk her out of it. Second, is Joe Biden.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
A lot, probably more than anyone alive.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
About vice presidents who are disrespected by their presidents, because
he was disrespected blessed by Barack Obama himself than by
Barack Obama's people. And one of the great uncovered stories
is the amount of time they've spent having her hooked
up with world leaders, both in the United States and
when she travels abroad. Days spend an enormous amount of
time setting those up and having her have those meetings
(11:21):
to get her ready on paper and in reality in
case she has to be president. And so Joe Biden
has spent his time doing the opposite of disrespecting her.
He spend his time making sure the staff treats her
well in every respect. And then finally, look, the Democratic
Party politics are such that even if you tried to
replace her with a black woman or a non white woman,
(11:42):
the elites of the party, particularly her closest allies, would
go absolutely ballistic if they tried to replace.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
Her, And even if they did.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
It before the convention, during the convention, wherever they did it,
it would be a.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
Blood bath within the party.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
And right now, I would put the top of Joe
Biden's list of immediate political problems is lack of support
from the base of the party because of immigration, because
of Israel, because of student loans, and other issues. So
the last thing he needs is to have a fight
with the base of his party and take his approval
rating down into the high twenties. So, yes, Amala Harris
will be the vice presidential nominee again, barring some hugely
(12:20):
unexplained issue.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
I think that the way she's evolved, I think on
the Republican side, we can't actually assess how confident she is,
because her style makes it very hard for Republicans to
take her seriously.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
Have you spent a time with her, No, I never have.
I knew her before she was a senator a little bit.
I don't know her well, but I've spent time with her.
I once actually spent a little bit of time with
her and Bo Biden, just the three of us, which
was part of why I was so confident in my
projection that Joe Biden would pick her as his running mate.
As I said earlier, Joe Biden is not as far
gone as Republicans say he is, and he's not as
(12:56):
solid in his facilities as Democrats claim.
Speaker 3 (12:59):
It's the same with her. She's not nearly as bad
as her publicans say.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
She's very brave, she's very self aware, she's very facial
about public policy. But she's not nearly as good as
Democrats say. She's very self conscious about criticism, and she
can't slough it off, and so she becomes someone who
blames the staff around her, demanding of her staff, looking
to feel aggrieved. And there are a lot of people
(13:24):
you and I have spent a lot of time with
people in politics who fit that profile, and that causes
her public performance to suffer. So I think those who
are at all surprised by they should look at her
presidential campaign, which, while it started somewhat strongly with a
good announcement speech, was reflected all of the problems that
she has now managing her staff, public presentation, dealing with criticism,
(13:49):
and as you know from studying people like Dan Quayle,
who's a very smart, able and nice guy, once the
narrative sets in that you're not up to the job,
it's very difficult to change it because the press and
the public sees and opponents sees on the things that
reinforce what people think. So, because I knew her before
she was famous, I see every day when she's visible,
(14:11):
her doing things that I think our is very solid.
Then I see her word salad, I see her being
indecisive about things, and I know it's going to be
a very very steep climb to get her out of this.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
To draw distinction from your perspective, if she did end
up ascending to the presidency, if something happened to Biden,
I get the sense you think she actually could do
the job.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Well, I'm sorry I gave you that sense, because I'm
not sure. Like I said, I think she'd be better
than her critics think.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
You wouldn't think it would be an automatic disaster, whereas
on our side, most of us think it would be
just a nightmare.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
As a citizen, I would hope she would pick a really,
really strong vice president to help her govern. It would
not be the nightmare that you and those on the
right think it would be in terms of definitively unambiguous nightmare.
On the other hand, I think she would have some
challenges because of this self conscious inability to process criticism
or let it roll off her back process.
Speaker 3 (15:08):
In a productive way. I really do think that's a
really problem.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
She's not dumb. She's a very charming person. She just
liked al Gore, Romney, like John Kerrey, like Hillary.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
They're just not able.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
To show their charming sides in a public presentation way
as much as they are privately. And I think she
would have that challenge as president. I think that's a
big challenge. But it's possible she could do the job
well enough that it wouldn't be some sort of disaster.
And I don't know that she could be a great president,
but if she had to serve as president for a
couple of years.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
Again, I think it's possible she could do it.
Speaker 1 (15:54):
I didn't realize that you had served as a senior
communications advisor for no LE.
Speaker 3 (16:01):
I did a couple of years ago. They asked me
to work with them.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
I believe in their mission of trying to have bipartisan
solutions and that a lot of the biggest challenges, like immigration,
as we just saw, can only be solved by the
parties coming together. So I did work with them, and
like I said, I really believe in what they're trying
to achieve.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
I think they're kind of floundering now because they're confronting reality,
which is that politics is messy and complicated business, and
you can do all the planning you want to, but
then you come to a crunch time, and I think
they're having a hard time filling the spot. They've done
a good job of organizing getting on the ballot, but
I was not aware of the Gallop had a poll
(16:41):
last month where Robert Kennedy Junior has a fifty two
percent favorable and thirty four percent unfavorable, which is substantially
better than either Trump or Biden, and yet he seems
to be sufficiently disorganized that even though he is a
general public popularity unless you could find an alliance with
(17:04):
no labels, so I think wouldn't take him, or with
the Libertarians. I mean he has said somebody who's already
on the ballot, it seems to me. Or he's popular,
he will be a relevant Yeah.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
Again, I'm not working with no labels now, but I
can talk about them and take a little bit of
issue what you said in terms of Kennedy unless he
takes the Libertarian line and they'll give it to him.
I think he flushed seven million dollars as Superpack did
down the toilet with a Super Bowl ad for somebody
voters can vote for. He's on two ballots, two state
ballots now, as I understand it, in states that requires
just a few thousand signatures. Getting on the ballot is
(17:35):
really hard, and so if he's a Libertarian candidate, they'll
get on most ballots and that will be interesting. In
terms of their labels. You know you said they're floundering
because they don't.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
Have a ticket.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
They haven't tried to name a ticket yet, and naming
a ticket is like, as I always say, it's like
finding a spouse in Alaska or a parking place in Manhattan,
you only need one. In their case, they need to
They need a president and the vice presidential ticket. I
think if you look at the public polling, let alone
the private pulling, with the public pulling up every news
organization in the country, the demand for a third choice
(18:08):
that is viable is quite high. If it's Trump versus Biden,
tens of millions of people, maybe as high as seventy
five percent, do not want to vote for Trump pro Biden.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
They just don't.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
And so the right ticket I think could win. And again,
you don't need to win a majority of the vote
to win, as everybody listening to his notes, To win
the electoral college votes of the state just need a plurality.
And I believe the right bipartisan ticket when Democrat won
the Republican I believe could win the two hundred and
seventy electoral votes.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
That would require them to come in first in a
remarkable number of states.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Well enough to win two hundred and seventy electoral votes. Yeah,
but again, the wrong ticket couldn't win a single state.
The right ticket could, I think win, And I wouldn't
have said that in any other cycle. I've ever covered.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
Now.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Pro ran a horrible campaign. You got nineteen percent senator vote.
He chose a veteran who'd served honorably, but a horrible
running thing. He quit the race. He claimed his daughter's
wedding had been disrupted by Ninja's I mean, did a
horrible job. But he was ahead before all that happened.
He was ahead in National Poland. And again he was
not that great a candidate. He had a great message,
(19:17):
and there were some things appealing about his candidacy, but
he was running against two guys who were both relatively
centrist and relatively popular. Compared to these two guys, these
two guys, President Trump President Biden are seen as extreme
right and extreme left and extremely unpopular. So Perro running
(19:38):
a horrible campaign when the mood of the country was
much more attached to the two major parties. He can
get nineteen percent against two centrists. I believe a strong
ticket against these two guys at this time can win.
Speaker 1 (19:51):
Well. I have to reopen my mind, because I respect
you enough. I'm going to have to think about that one.
Speaker 3 (19:57):
I've looked at a lot of data.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
I believe the theoretical postb So can you imagine the personality,
because it would hire somebody to catch fire. It would
have to become a movement almost overnight. It couldn't just
be a candidacy.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Correct, And it would have to be two people who
by virtue of it being a bipartisan ticket and by
virtue of the promising a bipartisan cabinet and naming.
Speaker 3 (20:20):
I think some of the people who they would like.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
To consider for the cabinet. I don't know that they
have to be the Rock and Ellen degenerous. I don't
think they have to already be famous or flashy, because
I think they've become famous right away.
Speaker 3 (20:34):
I prefer solid over flashy for this. But as long
as their tone.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
And their mood and their optimism and their policy prescriptions
stand in sharp contrast to the two major party nominees,
I think they would become famous in a day, and
I think the demand for them would be very high.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
You remember the Minnesota governor's race which turned a third
party professional wrestler, Jesse Ventura and the governor of a
state that thinks to itself is highly enlightened. He was
a magic moment.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
It was now, look he's the Rock model, right.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
He was famous, but he won in part because people
saw him as plausible. And that's why I think that
the key thing is these two people, whoever.
Speaker 3 (21:21):
They are, if they do go forward with the ticket,
and they.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
Might not, they really need to instantly live up to
the expectations people have in terms of where they are
in polling. A lot will depend also on Kennedy. Clearly
a fair amount of the Kennedy vote would be going
to the No Label's ticket. That Kennedy's not on the
ballot or is on the ballot, that makes it much
harder for a No Label's ticket to win because a
lot of the Kennedy vote is people who don't want
(21:44):
to vote for Biden and Trump. So if there's no
Kennedy and if there's a No Label's ticket, I think
they'll start at twenty. It's hard to pull. If they're
not famous. They might be famous, but if they're not,
hard to pull. But I think if people just say
here's this third ticket, and you know, here's the description
of this person in that part. Again, I'm not saying
they're the favorite. I'm not saying it's effortless, but I
(22:04):
do believe the right ticket would have a very strong
chance to.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
What in this sense of your focusing on substance rather
than litter. I was intrigued, and you caught me totally
blindsided when you came out the other week and said
that you predicted the senator Katie Britt, who is the
junior senator from Alabama, would be Trump's vice president pick.
And now they've had time to think of it for
a while.
Speaker 3 (22:27):
Do you still think that more dug in than ever.
I'm going all the way with Katie Britt.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
All I do When people say to me, oh, it's
not going to be Katie Britt, I said, well, you
tell me someone stronger. You know. The other names that
I hear a lot now are jd Vance, Ben Carson.
I just am happy to argue the merits of Katie
Britt as a governing partner and as someone who could
help electorally against anyone else. He's going to have the
biggest problem that he needs to solve with women. I
(22:56):
think that's a fact. That's going to be his biggest
electoral problem. He's going to have his big problem with
the establishment wing of the party. That's going to be
a big problem for fundraising and for media narrative. Katie
Britt solves those two better than anyone else I can name.
Speaker 3 (23:13):
Finally, I always say this is about her, not her husband.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
But her husband is a former professional football player, and
I believe Donald Trump will find that irresistible.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Speaking about Trump, I just was listening earlier today to
the evolving saga in Fulham County and Judge Scott mckefee,
who has apparently said pretty clearly that if it turns
out that the district attorney and her lawyer had a
relationship before the effort to go after Trump, that he
might in effect discabar both of them. That could easily
(23:59):
have spen this week.
Speaker 2 (24:01):
That case is dead, even if they somehow skape through this,
which I doubt based on what you cited and others
have said, that case is dead. And I continue to
believe that it's true about all four cases. All four cases,
to a greater or lesser degree. These are novel legal
theories applied to unclear facts. And I just don't think
(24:21):
the first time we send a former president to prison
or confinement or whatever he'd get, I just don't think
it should be a novel legal theory based on uncertain facts.
And that case, in particular, bring a Rico case against him,
for some phone calls. I just think the politics of
this are abysmal, and that case, given how many defendants
(24:42):
there are, given that it's a Rico case, it's not
going to happen before the election, even if these two
prosecutors somehow are allowed to stand in the case. So
I'm not that interested in the cases aren't going to
happen before the election, because I'm mostly interested in these
cases as they pertain to the question of impacting.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
The outcome, And if they're not happening before the election.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
They're not impacting the outcome. Accept the extent that they're helping
Donald Trump because his supporters believe he's not being prosecuted
but being persecuted.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
Has that surprised you If you went back to, say,
two years, and had been asked to project ahead all
of the legal things that he's been through, would you
have expected it plausible that he could go through and
actually gain strength?
Speaker 2 (25:20):
Oh? That part, Yeah, that part I believe because the
complicated reasons why they've helped him. Some of it's simple,
some of it's more complicated, like the elements of it
that connect to race, the race of a prosecutor, the
race of a judge.
Speaker 3 (25:32):
I think that's part of it.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
But again, these people look at these cases and they say,
where's the victim, what's the actual crime? Who's been prosecuted
for this kind of thing before? And so there's a
fair amount of rational negative feeling about these prosecutions and
a rallying around the leader of a movement. You and
I have both.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
Talked about this separately and together.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
It's different to be the leader of a movement than
to be the nominee of your party or a president.
We haven't had in our life time very many leaders
of movements. But when the leader of your movement who
has stood up for you on economics and national security
and culture, when the leader of your movement has come
after by prosecutors aligned with the other party, yeah, of
course you're going to rally.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
Of course you are.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
And some of it's a little bit mystical, and some
of it's mechanical. That Trump people have been brilliant at
war rooming through emails and online and through President Trump's rallies,
at rallying people to say they're coming after me because
they want to come after you. And that message is emotional,
and emotion is the thing that Donald Trump has been
able to parlay into this almost decade long run that
(26:38):
no Democrat active now can match.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
It would have been interesting to have seen Clinton at
his peak and Trump at his peak. Miil Clint was
extraordinarily effective and competent politicians.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
I agree with that, But I'd like to see Trump
against Bush forty three or Trump against Obama, because there's
not a Republican or Democrat who've gone up against Donald
Trump who's close to his equal or close to those
other three guys, sort of like I want to see
Bill Russell against Michael Jordan. I want to see the
greats from different eras matched up here, and unfortunately we'll
(27:11):
never see it.
Speaker 1 (27:12):
I agree with Obama. I'm not sure Bush forty three
was in the same league as I said that, based
on having worked in the eighty eight campaign the ninety
two campaign. The other person that would have been fascinating
was Reagan. Reagan would have seen it as a match
where he would stay at a distance and Trump would
desperately want to clinch.
Speaker 3 (27:33):
Yeah, that's great, perfectly described.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
I think Reagan is probably one of the greatest leaders,
certainly since FDR. His ability to understand the country, understand history,
and with a kind of style that was astonishing, which
Obama to some extent I think copied.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
We'll meet for some cocktails and talking about Bush forty three.
I think his political abilities are underrated. I think he
may not be in the league with Reagan, Clinton, and Trump,
but he's underrated.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
He won his nomination and reelection.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
Explain, and I think it's very interesting. We've done explain
the whole concept of two Way.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
So I've been trying in my whole career to come
up with journalism models that will work and for some
of the issues we've talked about earlier. To me, there's
two things that have to be true about a journalism
model for it to work.
Speaker 3 (28:24):
One is it has to make money.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
And the other is it has to be good for
democracy and it can't play to division. Too many of
our successful news organizations now succeed by playing to division
because they played to the red team or the blue team.
So what two way is is an attempt to succeed
as a business by bringing people together in live video
where all voices can be heard, and to have the
(28:49):
kind of conversations that are more sophisticated than cable. With
all due respect to my friends on cable, longer than
a cable news segment, and based on mutual understand and
learning as opposed to division. So some people say, well,
I would never have AOC on my platform because she's
two left wing, and some would say I've never had
(29:11):
Matt Gates on my platform because he's two MAGA. Two
Ways for everybody has both content providers and political figures
as well as an audience. So it's not a platform
for moderate centricce and independence exclusively. It's a platform for
anybody who wants to understand what's going on in the
country and share different points of view. So it's a
video platform. You come on live video and you listen
(29:33):
to conversations. Sometimes they'll be regularly scheduled. Sometimes they'll be
tagged to big events, so a big conversation on the
night of the State of the Union or the night
of the Republican Convention. And then sometimes they'll be based
on breaking news. And if you're a member of Two Ways,
you get an email saying, you know, a Supreme Court
justice is just announced retirement.
Speaker 3 (29:49):
What's going to happen next?
Speaker 2 (29:51):
And the idea is to convene people about politics broadly defined,
not just elections and exit poll data. And things like that,
but healthcare and trade and everything else. Fun vibrant, sophisticated
conversations where people who don't normally have access to talk
to people like you get a chance to talk to
people like you and listen to you have a conversation
with others that is again more sophisticated than is normally available.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
People can just go to your website.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
They should go to two Way the number two Way,
two Way dot tv sign up and eventually we're just
now launching. We're doing basically pilots of different sorts, but
when we're up and running, people will be notified by
looking at the app, or looking at the website or
buy an email what events are coming up that day,
that week, and then you simply log on. Right now,
(30:38):
we're doing them through Zoom. Eventually it'll be through the app.
You just log on and you're part of the conversation.
You can listen, you can ask questions, you can make comments,
and again, it will be a series of programs of episodes.
Some will be daily, some will be weekly, some will
be based on breaking news or special events.
Speaker 3 (30:56):
But the idea will.
Speaker 2 (30:57):
Be you can watch from anywhere, you can participate from anywhere,
and you can then be able to watch them video
and demand. There'll be some text content around them, like newsletters.
But the heart of it is bringing people together for
sophisticated conversations that they can just log on and they
can listen passively. But the reason it's called two way
is for two reasons. One is two way conversations. Some
(31:19):
of the most famous and popular creators in the country,
whether they're musicians or politicians or writers, they don't really
have two way conversations on a regular basis with their
fans and people who are interested in their ideas. They
might run into somebody at a restaurant and have a
brief conversation. But the two way is what makes us different.
If you watch cable news, it's one way. If you
read somebody on Twitter, it's one way. This is two
(31:41):
way conversation. And the other reason is it's all voices.
It's not just left wing voices or writing voices. It's
all voices, and that those two things will distinguish us
from others where the conversations are all one way and
they tend to be not legitimately letting all voices be heard.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
In addition to two way, you have of course, your
wide world news newsletter, which I cherish and think is
a remarkable product. And you have a concierge service which
really does bring together, in some zoom conversations, just some
of the most amazing people in American politics. I mean,
I'm astonished at year Arrange.
Speaker 2 (32:18):
It's really one of the things I'm proudiced of that
I've done in my career. And it's a big part
of the magic of it is the generosity of you
and other leading Republican voices and Democratic voices. Some people
will have heard of and some not, but curate it.
So it's a very smart group of people, and it's
very participatory. It's not a shout fest. It's meant to
educate and inform and to understand. It's an expensive service.
(32:41):
They're two tiers. I call them because my son is
a fan. I call them Mario and Luigi. It's not
for everyone. The top tiers forty eight hundred a year,
the other tiers thirty six hundred a year. But you
get the daily newsletter and then you get these conversations,
and these conversations I look forward to them. My tagline
for both services is Conversations like no other. These conversations
are unlike any conversations I've had in my career. Maybe
(33:04):
on occasion I've been to a great dinner that just
sort of came together, But these are thirty forty fifty
sixty people dedicated to exchanging information, ideas, analysis, perspective. We
talk about polling, we talk about country, the state of
the presidential race, the congressional races, and they're just for
someone who can afford it and who really wants to
(33:24):
know what's going on and to hear, you know, a
leading Republican and a leading Democrat talking civilly and asking
each other questions. I don't think there's any other service
like in the country. And like I said, I'm super
proud of it, and I couldn't have enjoyed them more.
I look forward to them because they're to me, they're unique.
We do focus groups, we bring in newsmakers. We've had
leading figures, including some who don't normally speak to the
(33:47):
press available. They're private conversations. And again, if you've got
the money to afford it and you're interested in politics,
you can go to walking duck dot com slash mark,
walking duck dot com slash mark if you want to
read about what comes with the service and how to
become a member.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
Love to have you, and is the newsletter also freestanding?
Speaker 2 (34:06):
No, the only way to get the newsletter used to
be freestanding, and occasionally I send a newsletter to.
Speaker 3 (34:11):
The regional wide World of News audience.
Speaker 2 (34:12):
But if you want the daily newsletter, the only way
to get it is to become a member of Concier's coverage.
Speaker 1 (34:18):
Well, it's a brilliant newslet. It's amazing. I have to
say that. I remember one time a Democrat who I'd
done a lot of TV with said he was on
some show and the producer says, in his ear, get angry,
And he said, I am going to get angry. I
was having a great conversation, and I think you're just
the opposite. You're not trying to get us to get angry.
You're trying to get us to genuinely have a dialogue.
(34:41):
And if I found all of them so far to
be remarkable, I want to thank you for joining me
on the news World. I truly enjoy reading your work.
I'm very impressed with both how well you understand American
politics and the range of acquaintances that you have. I
think that you have earned being very tremendously influential voice
(35:02):
in helping us understand the complexities of the world we're
now in. And I do encourage all of our folks
who are listening to this to visit your website and
look at two Way dot tv and look at the
in general of the things that you're doing. So I
really want to thank you for taking this kind of
time to be with us.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
Well, very generous words, and I'm very grateful to you
for your participation in a membership and following my work
and appreciate so much the ability to communicate with you,
so thank you and great to be here to talk
to your audience.
Speaker 3 (35:31):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (35:35):
Thank you to my guest, Mark Alprin. You can get
a link to his new venture two Way on our
show page at newsworld dot com. News World is produced
by Gingingrish three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is
Guernsey Sloan. Our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for
the show was created by Steve Penley. Special thanks to
(35:55):
the team at Gingrid three sixty. If you've been enjoying
news World, I hope you'll go to Apple and both
rate us with five stars and give us a review
so others can learn what it's all about. Right now,
listeners of newts World can sign up for my three
free weekly columns at Gingrich three sixty dot com slash newsletter.
(36:15):
I'm Newt Gingrich. This is neut World
In this episode of newts World, I'm joined by longtime
political reporter and analyst and best selling author Mark Halpern.
He's one of the most influential voices in reporting on
American politics with his morning newsletter entitled Mark Halprin's Wide
World of News, and I have to say I read
it every morning and I find it invaluable in offering
(00:27):
insights and frankly bringing together the key events of the
last twenty four hours in a way that I find
very helpful. He's recently started a new platform called two Way,
where political novices and political junkies alike can participate for
free in live, informative and civil conversations online with people
(00:48):
from across the political spectrum. Here to talk about election
twenty twenty four, our current political landscape, and his new
business venture. I am really pleased to welcome my guest, Mark, Mark, Welcome,
(01:10):
and thank you for joining me on the Newsworld as
your speaker clerk to be with you.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Appreciate the kind words and we're all living in Newtsworld.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
Before we talk about your new venture, two Way, I
thought we might catch up on some recent news around
the twenty twenty four election. Since you're based in New York.
Let's talk about the New York three Congressional District special election,
which took place on Tuesday, with Tom Swasey, the Democrat one,
taking over the seat George Santos Republican health until he
(01:40):
was expelled from Congress. Were you surprised? What's your take
on the outcome?
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Not surprised.
Speaker 2 (01:46):
I think that in special elections it's always important to
learn the right lessons and not the wrong ones, and
not overread into anything. The basics as you know of
this district is it's a Democratic district, it's a Biden district.
A Credit candidate was well known previously it held the seat.
The Republican candidate was not well known and not a
good candidate. And the Democrats spend a ton of money,
(02:08):
more than they can spend as an absolute amount or
compared to the Republican in other races. So Democrats should
have won the seat. But I think the important things
to look at are if there were a red wave,
if there was the mood of a very anti Biden mood,
and some polling in that district, private polling had Donald
Trump ahead of Joe Biden. So there's reasons to think
that there was a district ripe for the kind of
(02:29):
throw the bums out sentiment and the Republican was an outsider,
the Democratic insider, but that didn't happen. So there's no
current mood to say Democrats just can't win anywhere. And
then two more things that I think are important to
take away. One is candidate recruitment, something you spend an
enormous amount of time.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
On in your career.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Over the last few cycles, there's been a lot of
focus on Republican Senate recruitment failures. I think if you
look at the races around the country that are competitive
where Republicans would need to win to keep their majority
or expand it, I think you see the kind of
weak candidate recruitment potentially with primaries to come, that deviled
the Republicans in this district, where the candidate just wasn't
(03:06):
a very good candidate. She's got a good bio in
some ways, but she didn't run well. And then lastly,
I think President Trump has set the Republican Party back
in terms of early voting and vote by mail by
denouncing them. And I think he saw in that district
Republicans remain at a disadvantage there and that's going to
have to change for Republicans to do well. And so
those are kind of the three main lessons I would
(03:27):
take away from a not surprising result.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
It was sort of the ironic moment that everything we'd
warned about with early voting, they have a blizzard the
night before the election, and that morning you have snow
all over the district I think eight or nine inches deep,
and that further reduced turnout. So an election day focus
turnout runs certain dangers, and I was frankly disappointed that
(03:52):
all we'd seen about the whole idea of bank the
vote and all the Republican national realico, I don't think
it had any effect on this special election.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Yeah, I agree, And it's just a warning the party's
going to have to get better. The way he used
to be used to be a Republican thing, and it's
flipped completely saw that during COVID and President Trump.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
Is going to have to step it up.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
And I think good news to the Republican Party if
that happens. Is Chris Lasovita, who's been co running the
Trump campaign, has now going to also run a lot
of the RNC, and I think if he does go
over there, and he has given the authority that I
think he'll be given. I think this will be a
super high priority with him to work with the state
parties to get the Republican Party back to at least
parody on early vote and vote by mail.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
Everything we've seen the loss of Itta so far. He
is a remarkable talent. I mean, he and Susie Wilds
have done an amazing job of moving that campaign in
a very methodical kind of way. Now, probably the biggest
story of the last week special Counsel Robert Hurr and
the way he released his report. And I have to say,
(04:54):
I think if I were a Democrat, I'd be pretty
angry when he says, on the one hand, you know,
we're not going to try President Biden. On the other hand,
he says, we have to consider that mister Biden quote
would likely present himself to a jury as he did
during the interview of him as a sympathetic, well meaning
(05:15):
elderly man with a poor memory. I mean, maybe accurate,
but I thought it was a remarkably tough language for
a guy who's running for reelection. And I think it's
had a significant impact over the last few days. I
don't know that it has a permanent impact. A little
bit spending with that, and Biden can operate and prove
(05:36):
that he's capable. But what was your reaction?
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Totally inappropriate shades of what Jim Comey did. I think
these prosecutors who think that they're entitled to pretend that
what they're doing is apolitical, and then they're putting themselves
right in the midst of a presidential campaign, I think
are really out of bounds. And I say that regardless
of party. In the two examples I'm citing have hurt
Democratic presidential candidates. But I would say the same thing
(06:00):
about the way the Justice Department has approached Donald Trump.
It's just we saw it with both President Bush forty
one as well. It's just these prosecutors. I just don't
understand how they do this. And Joe Biden's own attorney
general could have influenced this, and Joe's not to so
both think it's fair. I'm troubled by the notion that
it's Joe Biden's memory, I say, respectfully, because you use
(06:22):
that word, and I see people use that word.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
To me. It's it's cognitive ability.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
I have a horrible memory, but I think my cognitibility
is still not good decent.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
The question is can he process ideas? Can he make
decisions on an informed basis?
Speaker 2 (06:34):
Memory is part of that, but I think it's too
narrow a definition of what the issue is. And I've
known Joe Biden for more than thirty years. I think
I saw him do a book of that in twenty eighteen,
before he announced he was running for president, and I
saw a man so diminished I felt bad for him
and his family. That was before he even announced he
was running the first time he's had substantial cognitive loss,
(06:57):
not as substantial as some Republicans say, more substantial than
those lying on his behalf claim when they say, oh,
he's hasn't lost a step, he's every bit as good
as he was. The reason I think the Special Council
report had an impact, as you said, and I think
we'll continue to have an impact, is I think in
an odd and crazy way. I think it provided a
permission structure for Democratic elected officials, for donors, and for
(07:19):
White House reporters who've been covering up for Joe Biden
to say, well, now that this intended Special Council said it,
now we can actually tell everybody sort of the truth that,
in fact, that this is a real issue. And I
think that, as you suggested, now the burden of proof
is on him. He can't just have his press secretary
and his senior aides try it out and say, oh,
he runs this ragged on the road. He took a
(07:40):
train to Kiev. He's in the best shape of his life.
Now he's going to have to demonstrate it. And of
course I'll say, finally, the American people didn't need the
Special Counsel's report. Seventy five percent or so of the
American people can trust their own eyes and ears and
see a significant cognitive decline, and they didn't need a
Special Council's judgment to already know that and have that
(08:01):
be a serious threat to Joe Biden's reelection.
Speaker 1 (08:04):
Do you have any serious doubts that he will be
the nominee?
Speaker 2 (08:09):
I'd say the only way he won't be the nominee
is one or both of the two ages if he
has a health problem so severe that his family says, well,
he can't possibly govern the country. I also think if
Hunter Biden were convicted and faced prison time, I think
it's possible he would pardon him and not run short
of those two things, neither of which can be anticipated,
and both of which I think have a pretty high
(08:30):
par This constant speculation, which you and I discussed on
a two way the other day, is constant speculation that
Michelle Obama or Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer is going
to be the nominee. With some conventions with Drew, it
doesn't accord with reality. He wants to be president again.
He thinks he's the only Democrat who can be Donald Trump,
and he thinks he's entitled to the nomination, as most
(08:50):
incumbent presidents do. So he's going to be the nominee,
barring one of the two ages.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
We will be pleased to know that. Even this morning,
a very very s guy who's pretty knowledgeable about politics
called me to say that he was certain that Barack
Obama had decided Michelle should be president and that the
switch would take place in June.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
I hear it every day. Hear it every day. Sometimes
it's June, sometimes it's July. I hear it every day.
It's not true, but I hear it every day.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
Well, I was delighted to know what we're going to
do this today because I had to report that to
you because it fits so much what both of us
run into. And of course we could end up with
a lot of egg in our face if in June
she says to run.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Sure we could. But look, I can tell you this.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
As much as I'm expressing almost near certainty that Joe
Biden will be the nominee barring a health issue or
something with under Biden, I am more certain that Michelle
Obama will not be the nominee under any circumstances. She
simply does not wish to be an elective office. She's
not interested in running, or serving or doing anything related
to being elected. So if Joe Biden does he run,
(09:55):
it will be someone else. It will not be Michelle Obama.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
Well, and frankly, if you look at some of the
retirements in the Congress, they're expressing a similar sense of exhaustion.
Why would I spend my life going through this? I mean,
we have turned politics into a combination of blood, sport
and total logjam in a way that makes it dramatically
less pleasant than when I was speaker. I mean, this
(10:19):
is a much nastier, much tougher environment, I think than
anytime since the Civil War. I mean, it's just brutal
your working assumption that Biden does run. He clearly is running.
I mean he's got a nationwide operation that inevitably Kamala
Harris is the vice presidential nominee.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
Yeah, and I spend a lot of time on this too, both.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Reporting it and talking to people about it. She's not
interested in going anywhere people have suggested perhaps she shouldn't
be on a ticket. She's not interested in stepping down
and doing anything else. She wants to be vice president.
She wants to be president, and I don't see any
reason to think that will change. I don't see anyone
who could talk her out of it. Second, is Joe Biden.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
A lot, probably more than anyone alive.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
About vice presidents who are disrespected by their presidents, because
he was disrespected blessed by Barack Obama himself than by
Barack Obama's people. And one of the great uncovered stories
is the amount of time they've spent having her hooked
up with world leaders, both in the United States and
when she travels abroad. Days spend an enormous amount of
time setting those up and having her have those meetings
(11:21):
to get her ready on paper and in reality in
case she has to be president. And so Joe Biden
has spent his time doing the opposite of disrespecting her.
He spend his time making sure the staff treats her
well in every respect. And then finally, look, the Democratic
Party politics are such that even if you tried to
replace her with a black woman or a non white woman,
(11:42):
the elites of the party, particularly her closest allies, would
go absolutely ballistic if they tried to replace.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
Her, And even if they did.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
It before the convention, during the convention, wherever they did it,
it would be a.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
Blood bath within the party.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
And right now, I would put the top of Joe
Biden's list of immediate political problems is lack of support
from the base of the party because of immigration, because
of Israel, because of student loans, and other issues. So
the last thing he needs is to have a fight
with the base of his party and take his approval
rating down into the high twenties. So, yes, Amala Harris
will be the vice presidential nominee again, barring some hugely
(12:20):
unexplained issue.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
I think that the way she's evolved, I think on
the Republican side, we can't actually assess how confident she is,
because her style makes it very hard for Republicans to
take her seriously.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
Have you spent a time with her, No, I never have.
I knew her before she was a senator a little bit.
I don't know her well, but I've spent time with her.
I once actually spent a little bit of time with
her and Bo Biden, just the three of us, which
was part of why I was so confident in my
projection that Joe Biden would pick her as his running mate.
As I said earlier, Joe Biden is not as far
gone as Republicans say he is, and he's not as
(12:56):
solid in his facilities as Democrats claim.
Speaker 3 (12:59):
It's the same with her. She's not nearly as bad
as her publicans say.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
She's very brave, she's very self aware, she's very facial
about public policy. But she's not nearly as good as
Democrats say. She's very self conscious about criticism, and she
can't slough it off, and so she becomes someone who
blames the staff around her, demanding of her staff, looking
to feel aggrieved. And there are a lot of people
(13:24):
you and I have spent a lot of time with
people in politics who fit that profile, and that causes
her public performance to suffer. So I think those who
are at all surprised by they should look at her
presidential campaign, which, while it started somewhat strongly with a
good announcement speech, was reflected all of the problems that
she has now managing her staff, public presentation, dealing with criticism,
(13:49):
and as you know from studying people like Dan Quayle,
who's a very smart, able and nice guy, once the
narrative sets in that you're not up to the job,
it's very difficult to change it because the press and
the public sees and opponents sees on the things that
reinforce what people think. So, because I knew her before
she was famous, I see every day when she's visible,
(14:11):
her doing things that I think our is very solid.
Then I see her word salad, I see her being
indecisive about things, and I know it's going to be
a very very steep climb to get her out of this.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
To draw distinction from your perspective, if she did end
up ascending to the presidency, if something happened to Biden,
I get the sense you think she actually could do
the job.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Well, I'm sorry I gave you that sense, because I'm
not sure. Like I said, I think she'd be better
than her critics think.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
You wouldn't think it would be an automatic disaster, whereas
on our side, most of us think it would be
just a nightmare.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
As a citizen, I would hope she would pick a really,
really strong vice president to help her govern. It would
not be the nightmare that you and those on the
right think it would be in terms of definitively unambiguous nightmare.
On the other hand, I think she would have some
challenges because of this self conscious inability to process criticism
or let it roll off her back process.
Speaker 3 (15:08):
In a productive way. I really do think that's a
really problem.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
She's not dumb. She's a very charming person. She just
liked al Gore, Romney, like John Kerrey, like Hillary.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
They're just not able.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
To show their charming sides in a public presentation way
as much as they are privately. And I think she
would have that challenge as president. I think that's a
big challenge. But it's possible she could do the job
well enough that it wouldn't be some sort of disaster.
And I don't know that she could be a great president,
but if she had to serve as president for a
couple of years.
Speaker 3 (15:38):
Again, I think it's possible she could do it.
Speaker 1 (15:54):
I didn't realize that you had served as a senior
communications advisor for no LE.
Speaker 3 (16:01):
I did a couple of years ago. They asked me
to work with them.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
I believe in their mission of trying to have bipartisan
solutions and that a lot of the biggest challenges, like immigration,
as we just saw, can only be solved by the
parties coming together. So I did work with them, and
like I said, I really believe in what they're trying
to achieve.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
I think they're kind of floundering now because they're confronting reality,
which is that politics is messy and complicated business, and
you can do all the planning you want to, but
then you come to a crunch time, and I think
they're having a hard time filling the spot. They've done
a good job of organizing getting on the ballot, but
I was not aware of the Gallop had a poll
(16:41):
last month where Robert Kennedy Junior has a fifty two
percent favorable and thirty four percent unfavorable, which is substantially
better than either Trump or Biden, and yet he seems
to be sufficiently disorganized that even though he is a
general public popularity unless you could find an alliance with
(17:04):
no labels, so I think wouldn't take him, or with
the Libertarians. I mean he has said somebody who's already
on the ballot, it seems to me. Or he's popular,
he will be a relevant Yeah.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
Again, I'm not working with no labels now, but I
can talk about them and take a little bit of
issue what you said in terms of Kennedy unless he
takes the Libertarian line and they'll give it to him.
I think he flushed seven million dollars as Superpack did
down the toilet with a Super Bowl ad for somebody
voters can vote for. He's on two ballots, two state
ballots now, as I understand it, in states that requires
just a few thousand signatures. Getting on the ballot is
(17:35):
really hard, and so if he's a Libertarian candidate, they'll
get on most ballots and that will be interesting. In
terms of their labels. You know you said they're floundering
because they don't.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
Have a ticket.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
They haven't tried to name a ticket yet, and naming
a ticket is like, as I always say, it's like
finding a spouse in Alaska or a parking place in Manhattan,
you only need one. In their case, they need to
They need a president and the vice presidential ticket. I
think if you look at the public polling, let alone
the private pulling, with the public pulling up every news
organization in the country, the demand for a third choice
(18:08):
that is viable is quite high. If it's Trump versus Biden,
tens of millions of people, maybe as high as seventy
five percent, do not want to vote for Trump pro Biden.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
They just don't.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
And so the right ticket I think could win. And again,
you don't need to win a majority of the vote
to win, as everybody listening to his notes, To win
the electoral college votes of the state just need a plurality.
And I believe the right bipartisan ticket when Democrat won
the Republican I believe could win the two hundred and
seventy electoral votes.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
That would require them to come in first in a
remarkable number of states.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Well enough to win two hundred and seventy electoral votes. Yeah,
but again, the wrong ticket couldn't win a single state.
The right ticket could, I think win, And I wouldn't
have said that in any other cycle. I've ever covered.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
Now.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Pro ran a horrible campaign. You got nineteen percent senator vote.
He chose a veteran who'd served honorably, but a horrible
running thing. He quit the race. He claimed his daughter's
wedding had been disrupted by Ninja's I mean, did a
horrible job. But he was ahead before all that happened.
He was ahead in National Poland. And again he was
not that great a candidate. He had a great message,
(19:17):
and there were some things appealing about his candidacy, but
he was running against two guys who were both relatively
centrist and relatively popular. Compared to these two guys, these
two guys, President Trump President Biden are seen as extreme
right and extreme left and extremely unpopular. So Perro running
(19:38):
a horrible campaign when the mood of the country was
much more attached to the two major parties. He can
get nineteen percent against two centrists. I believe a strong
ticket against these two guys at this time can win.
Speaker 1 (19:51):
Well. I have to reopen my mind, because I respect
you enough. I'm going to have to think about that one.
Speaker 3 (19:57):
I've looked at a lot of data.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
I believe the theoretical postb So can you imagine the personality,
because it would hire somebody to catch fire. It would
have to become a movement almost overnight. It couldn't just
be a candidacy.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Correct, And it would have to be two people who
by virtue of it being a bipartisan ticket and by
virtue of the promising a bipartisan cabinet and naming.
Speaker 3 (20:20):
I think some of the people who they would like.
Speaker 2 (20:22):
To consider for the cabinet. I don't know that they
have to be the Rock and Ellen degenerous. I don't
think they have to already be famous or flashy, because
I think they've become famous right away.
Speaker 3 (20:34):
I prefer solid over flashy for this. But as long
as their tone.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
And their mood and their optimism and their policy prescriptions
stand in sharp contrast to the two major party nominees,
I think they would become famous in a day, and
I think the demand for them would be very high.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
You remember the Minnesota governor's race which turned a third
party professional wrestler, Jesse Ventura and the governor of a
state that thinks to itself is highly enlightened. He was
a magic moment.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
It was now, look he's the Rock model, right.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
He was famous, but he won in part because people
saw him as plausible. And that's why I think that
the key thing is these two people, whoever.
Speaker 3 (21:21):
They are, if they do go forward with the ticket,
and they.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
Might not, they really need to instantly live up to
the expectations people have in terms of where they are
in polling. A lot will depend also on Kennedy. Clearly
a fair amount of the Kennedy vote would be going
to the No Label's ticket. That Kennedy's not on the
ballot or is on the ballot, that makes it much
harder for a No Label's ticket to win because a
lot of the Kennedy vote is people who don't want
(21:44):
to vote for Biden and Trump. So if there's no
Kennedy and if there's a No Label's ticket, I think
they'll start at twenty. It's hard to pull. If they're
not famous. They might be famous, but if they're not,
hard to pull. But I think if people just say
here's this third ticket, and you know, here's the description
of this person in that part. Again, I'm not saying
they're the favorite. I'm not saying it's effortless, but I
(22:04):
do believe the right ticket would have a very strong
chance to.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
What in this sense of your focusing on substance rather
than litter. I was intrigued, and you caught me totally
blindsided when you came out the other week and said
that you predicted the senator Katie Britt, who is the
junior senator from Alabama, would be Trump's vice president pick.
And now they've had time to think of it for
a while.
Speaker 3 (22:27):
Do you still think that more dug in than ever.
I'm going all the way with Katie Britt.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
All I do When people say to me, oh, it's
not going to be Katie Britt, I said, well, you
tell me someone stronger. You know. The other names that
I hear a lot now are jd Vance, Ben Carson.
I just am happy to argue the merits of Katie
Britt as a governing partner and as someone who could
help electorally against anyone else. He's going to have the
biggest problem that he needs to solve with women. I
(22:56):
think that's a fact. That's going to be his biggest
electoral problem. He's going to have his big problem with
the establishment wing of the party. That's going to be
a big problem for fundraising and for media narrative. Katie
Britt solves those two better than anyone else I can name.
Speaker 3 (23:13):
Finally, I always say this is about her, not her husband.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
But her husband is a former professional football player, and
I believe Donald Trump will find that irresistible.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Speaking about Trump, I just was listening earlier today to
the evolving saga in Fulham County and Judge Scott mckefee,
who has apparently said pretty clearly that if it turns
out that the district attorney and her lawyer had a
relationship before the effort to go after Trump, that he
might in effect discabar both of them. That could easily
(23:59):
have spen this week.
Speaker 2 (24:01):
That case is dead, even if they somehow skape through this,
which I doubt based on what you cited and others
have said, that case is dead. And I continue to
believe that it's true about all four cases. All four cases,
to a greater or lesser degree. These are novel legal
theories applied to unclear facts. And I just don't think
(24:21):
the first time we send a former president to prison
or confinement or whatever he'd get, I just don't think
it should be a novel legal theory based on uncertain facts.
And that case, in particular, bring a Rico case against him,
for some phone calls. I just think the politics of
this are abysmal, and that case, given how many defendants
(24:42):
there are, given that it's a Rico case, it's not
going to happen before the election, even if these two
prosecutors somehow are allowed to stand in the case. So
I'm not that interested in the cases aren't going to
happen before the election, because I'm mostly interested in these
cases as they pertain to the question of impacting.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
The outcome, And if they're not happening before the election.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
They're not impacting the outcome. Accept the extent that they're helping
Donald Trump because his supporters believe he's not being prosecuted
but being persecuted.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
Has that surprised you If you went back to, say,
two years, and had been asked to project ahead all
of the legal things that he's been through, would you
have expected it plausible that he could go through and
actually gain strength?
Speaker 2 (25:20):
Oh? That part, Yeah, that part I believe because the
complicated reasons why they've helped him. Some of it's simple,
some of it's more complicated, like the elements of it
that connect to race, the race of a prosecutor, the
race of a judge.
Speaker 3 (25:32):
I think that's part of it.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
But again, these people look at these cases and they say,
where's the victim, what's the actual crime? Who's been prosecuted
for this kind of thing before? And so there's a
fair amount of rational negative feeling about these prosecutions and
a rallying around the leader of a movement. You and
I have both.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
Talked about this separately and together.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
It's different to be the leader of a movement than
to be the nominee of your party or a president.
We haven't had in our life time very many leaders
of movements. But when the leader of your movement who
has stood up for you on economics and national security
and culture, when the leader of your movement has come
after by prosecutors aligned with the other party, yeah, of
course you're going to rally.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
Of course you are.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
And some of it's a little bit mystical, and some
of it's mechanical. That Trump people have been brilliant at
war rooming through emails and online and through President Trump's rallies,
at rallying people to say they're coming after me because
they want to come after you. And that message is emotional,
and emotion is the thing that Donald Trump has been
able to parlay into this almost decade long run that
(26:38):
no Democrat active now can match.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
It would have been interesting to have seen Clinton at
his peak and Trump at his peak. Miil Clint was
extraordinarily effective and competent politicians.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
I agree with that, But I'd like to see Trump
against Bush forty three or Trump against Obama, because there's
not a Republican or Democrat who've gone up against Donald
Trump who's close to his equal or close to those
other three guys, sort of like I want to see
Bill Russell against Michael Jordan. I want to see the
greats from different eras matched up here, and unfortunately we'll
(27:11):
never see it.
Speaker 1 (27:12):
I agree with Obama. I'm not sure Bush forty three
was in the same league as I said that, based
on having worked in the eighty eight campaign the ninety
two campaign. The other person that would have been fascinating
was Reagan. Reagan would have seen it as a match
where he would stay at a distance and Trump would
desperately want to clinch.
Speaker 3 (27:33):
Yeah, that's great, perfectly described.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
I think Reagan is probably one of the greatest leaders,
certainly since FDR. His ability to understand the country, understand history,
and with a kind of style that was astonishing, which
Obama to some extent I think copied.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
We'll meet for some cocktails and talking about Bush forty three.
I think his political abilities are underrated. I think he
may not be in the league with Reagan, Clinton, and Trump,
but he's underrated.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
He won his nomination and reelection.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
Explain, and I think it's very interesting. We've done explain
the whole concept of two Way.
Speaker 2 (28:11):
So I've been trying in my whole career to come
up with journalism models that will work and for some
of the issues we've talked about earlier. To me, there's
two things that have to be true about a journalism
model for it to work.
Speaker 3 (28:24):
One is it has to make money.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
And the other is it has to be good for
democracy and it can't play to division. Too many of
our successful news organizations now succeed by playing to division
because they played to the red team or the blue team.
So what two way is is an attempt to succeed
as a business by bringing people together in live video
where all voices can be heard, and to have the
(28:49):
kind of conversations that are more sophisticated than cable. With
all due respect to my friends on cable, longer than
a cable news segment, and based on mutual understand and
learning as opposed to division. So some people say, well,
I would never have AOC on my platform because she's
two left wing, and some would say I've never had
(29:11):
Matt Gates on my platform because he's two MAGA. Two
Ways for everybody has both content providers and political figures
as well as an audience. So it's not a platform
for moderate centricce and independence exclusively. It's a platform for
anybody who wants to understand what's going on in the
country and share different points of view. So it's a
video platform. You come on live video and you listen
(29:33):
to conversations. Sometimes they'll be regularly scheduled. Sometimes they'll be
tagged to big events, so a big conversation on the
night of the State of the Union or the night
of the Republican Convention. And then sometimes they'll be based
on breaking news. And if you're a member of Two Ways,
you get an email saying, you know, a Supreme Court
justice is just announced retirement.
Speaker 3 (29:49):
What's going to happen next?
Speaker 2 (29:51):
And the idea is to convene people about politics broadly defined,
not just elections and exit poll data. And things like that,
but healthcare and trade and everything else. Fun vibrant, sophisticated
conversations where people who don't normally have access to talk
to people like you get a chance to talk to
people like you and listen to you have a conversation
with others that is again more sophisticated than is normally available.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
People can just go to your website.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
They should go to two Way the number two Way,
two Way dot tv sign up and eventually we're just
now launching. We're doing basically pilots of different sorts, but
when we're up and running, people will be notified by
looking at the app, or looking at the website or
buy an email what events are coming up that day,
that week, and then you simply log on. Right now,
(30:38):
we're doing them through Zoom. Eventually it'll be through the app.
You just log on and you're part of the conversation.
You can listen, you can ask questions, you can make comments,
and again, it will be a series of programs of episodes.
Some will be daily, some will be weekly, some will
be based on breaking news or special events.
Speaker 3 (30:56):
But the idea will.
Speaker 2 (30:57):
Be you can watch from anywhere, you can participate from anywhere,
and you can then be able to watch them video
and demand. There'll be some text content around them, like newsletters.
But the heart of it is bringing people together for
sophisticated conversations that they can just log on and they
can listen passively. But the reason it's called two way
is for two reasons. One is two way conversations. Some
(31:19):
of the most famous and popular creators in the country,
whether they're musicians or politicians or writers, they don't really
have two way conversations on a regular basis with their
fans and people who are interested in their ideas. They
might run into somebody at a restaurant and have a
brief conversation. But the two way is what makes us different.
If you watch cable news, it's one way. If you
read somebody on Twitter, it's one way. This is two
(31:41):
way conversation. And the other reason is it's all voices.
It's not just left wing voices or writing voices. It's
all voices, and that those two things will distinguish us
from others where the conversations are all one way and
they tend to be not legitimately letting all voices be heard.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
In addition to two way, you have of course, your
wide world news newsletter, which I cherish and think is
a remarkable product. And you have a concierge service which
really does bring together, in some zoom conversations, just some
of the most amazing people in American politics. I mean,
I'm astonished at year Arrange.
Speaker 2 (32:18):
It's really one of the things I'm proudiced of that
I've done in my career. And it's a big part
of the magic of it is the generosity of you
and other leading Republican voices and Democratic voices. Some people
will have heard of and some not, but curate it.
So it's a very smart group of people, and it's
very participatory. It's not a shout fest. It's meant to
educate and inform and to understand. It's an expensive service.
(32:41):
They're two tiers. I call them because my son is
a fan. I call them Mario and Luigi. It's not
for everyone. The top tiers forty eight hundred a year,
the other tiers thirty six hundred a year. But you
get the daily newsletter and then you get these conversations,
and these conversations I look forward to them. My tagline
for both services is Conversations like no other. These conversations
are unlike any conversations I've had in my career. Maybe
(33:04):
on occasion I've been to a great dinner that just
sort of came together, But these are thirty forty fifty
sixty people dedicated to exchanging information, ideas, analysis, perspective. We
talk about polling, we talk about country, the state of
the presidential race, the congressional races, and they're just for
someone who can afford it and who really wants to
(33:24):
know what's going on and to hear, you know, a
leading Republican and a leading Democrat talking civilly and asking
each other questions. I don't think there's any other service
like in the country. And like I said, I'm super
proud of it, and I couldn't have enjoyed them more.
I look forward to them because they're to me, they're unique.
We do focus groups, we bring in newsmakers. We've had
leading figures, including some who don't normally speak to the
(33:47):
press available. They're private conversations. And again, if you've got
the money to afford it and you're interested in politics,
you can go to walking duck dot com slash mark,
walking duck dot com slash mark if you want to
read about what comes with the service and how to
become a member.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
Love to have you, and is the newsletter also freestanding?
Speaker 2 (34:06):
No, the only way to get the newsletter used to
be freestanding, and occasionally I send a newsletter to.
Speaker 3 (34:11):
The regional wide World of News audience.
Speaker 2 (34:12):
But if you want the daily newsletter, the only way
to get it is to become a member of Concier's coverage.
Speaker 1 (34:18):
Well, it's a brilliant newslet. It's amazing. I have to
say that. I remember one time a Democrat who I'd
done a lot of TV with said he was on
some show and the producer says, in his ear, get angry,
And he said, I am going to get angry. I
was having a great conversation, and I think you're just
the opposite. You're not trying to get us to get angry.
You're trying to get us to genuinely have a dialogue.
(34:41):
And if I found all of them so far to
be remarkable, I want to thank you for joining me
on the news World. I truly enjoy reading your work.
I'm very impressed with both how well you understand American
politics and the range of acquaintances that you have. I
think that you have earned being very tremendously influential voice
(35:02):
in helping us understand the complexities of the world we're
now in. And I do encourage all of our folks
who are listening to this to visit your website and
look at two Way dot tv and look at the
in general of the things that you're doing. So I
really want to thank you for taking this kind of
time to be with us.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
Well, very generous words, and I'm very grateful to you
for your participation in a membership and following my work
and appreciate so much the ability to communicate with you,
so thank you and great to be here to talk
to your audience.
Speaker 3 (35:31):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (35:35):
Thank you to my guest, Mark Alprin. You can get
a link to his new venture two Way on our
show page at newsworld dot com. News World is produced
by Gingingrish three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is
Guernsey Sloan. Our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for
the show was created by Steve Penley. Special thanks to
(35:55):
the team at Gingrid three sixty. If you've been enjoying
news World, I hope you'll go to Apple and both
rate us with five stars and give us a review
so others can learn what it's all about. Right now,
listeners of newts World can sign up for my three
free weekly columns at Gingrich three sixty dot com slash newsletter.
(36:15):
I'm Newt Gingrich. This is neut World
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!