District Club: RNC Takes Dallas: Day 2

Imagine setting your makeup, then forgetting it's even theirs. Meet new groupie setting mist from Mavily New York. Gel to mist technology locks in your look for up to 24 hours, with flexible all-day-gum v-grip. No tightness, no stickiness, no residue. Just plump, dewy, hydrated skin that still feels like your skin. Try new groupie setting mist from Mavily New York. Maybe it's Mavily! What a few minutes with God could change the direction of your entire day. With Pray.com, you can begin each morning with powerful daily prayers, inspiring Bible stories, and messages created to strengthen your faith. Whether you need peace, encouragement, or a fresh start, Pray.com helps you make prayer part of your everyday life. Download the Pray.com app today. Good evening everyone and welcome to a very special episode of the District Club, presented by the Daily Wire. I am Mary Margaret Olahan and I am joined by my wonderful co-host Ben Dominic, the Daily Wire's opinion editor, and Tim Rice, our DC bureau chief. We also have a very special guest tonight, Aiden McLaughlin, the Washington correspondent for Vanity Fair. Thanks for joining us, Aiden. Thanks for having me. So we are here on night two of the Republican midterm convention. President Donald Trump just wrapped his remarks as the Vice President's JD Vance. The energy is very high here tonight. We got a lot to break down. I want to start right here with you first, Ben. What did you make of the Vice President's remarks tonight? Well, I think what we saw tonight was really, you know, in a certain sense, the beginning of JD Vance's campaign to succeed the President. I don't think that comes as a surprise to a lot of people. I think that he leaned heavily into his personal story, particularly his family experience. Again, that was something that we kind of expected. One thing that I don't think that we expected, though, is a big conversation that we had just the other day about what we would expect from this midterm convention was having an attitude of unity toward the Republican Party, one that was going to sort of bring everyone back together. I think that JD Vance's speech leaned a lot more into that explicitly than I expected it to do so. Eventually, he laid out his objections to, and he even cited them as young men who were frustrated with the President's decision to go to war in Iran. At the same time, you see this New York Times story that dropped this evening from some of their most respected writers that went through the Vice President's own misgivings about the war in Iran. And whatever you think of that approach, it's a lot more explicit about the divisions within this party than I think you might have expected from the Vice President. How that's read by the Republicans in Capitol Hill and across the country. We're going to see their reactions see that in the coming days. But I was just a little surprised that he was as upfront about that division as he was in this speech. Yeah. I mean, we sat here yesterday and said before the first day of speeches, like the best thing that could happen for Republicans is if either the President or the Vice President stood up and said, hey, you know, we understand that some things are going in a way that you wouldn't want them to go. We understand that you're maybe unhappy with the war in Iran or at the very least with the impact it's had on the prices of the pump. And I don't think any of us, certainly I wasn't optimistic that either the President or the Vice President were going to say it. And the fact that the Vice President came out and said, today I couldn't agree with you more, Ben. This was maybe the second unofficial, but the closest to an official beginning of his 2028 campaign that we're going to get until he officially launches it. And I also do want to say before we get back into tonight's proceedings, just quickly touch on last night, we got a very classic Trump speech. It was two hours. It was the weave. But the last 30 to 40 minutes of the President's speech last night was honestly an incredible midterm rallying cry. Our colleague Chloe Trappinato was saying today that she thinks that this whole convention is very much like a rousing half time speech by the coach and Trump is the coach. And at the very end last night, he went out and said, you got to vote, you got to get out. You know, we can't let Democrats take it back. This is what we've done since the Joe Biden years. This is what Democrats want to do. And I mean, I think it's the most classic campaign speech that we've ever seen the President give for other candidates. That's totally fair. What do you think? You've been here for both nights. What was your read on first of all, the night one, the President's two hour weave and leading into today? So my, the biggest takeaway that I had from night one was honestly the fact that we didn't hear Iran really mentioned until President Trump's speech. I mean, I watched most of the speeches. I don't think I heard really any of the speakers address that, which is a little bit shocking given. I mean, if you hear Trump tell it, it is a world historical achievement that he's been able to do. The war with Iran was a necessary thing he says to rid Iran of nuclear weapons. The United States had to do it. We had to go in twice. And then to see none of the, any of the speakers before him even so much as mention it on stage, to me that said something about where the Republican Party feels that issue is. And the fact that Trump had to bring it up himself and defend it, I thought it was fairly striking. I don't know what you guys thought about that. Yeah. No, I agree. There was some sort of messaging there, let the President lead on Iran, let the Vice President lead on Iran. I kind of, when the Vice President brought up Iran tonight, I brace myself because you know, it's such a contentious topic and I thought, where are we going with this? And you know, it was an interesting segue there. And I think we'd be remiss to not talk about all of the different highlights of that speech, including the 48 chant that we heard on which I believe Politico reported there was a 48 chant in private at an event earlier today. The USA Chance for the Vice President, his pitch to voters and to families. I was telling Tim earlier this evening, I had an excerpt from the Vice President's remarks that I had obtained and I was reading it as he was speaking. And one thing I thought was really interesting was, as Vance was supposed to read about this line that said, for myself, for Usha, for our kids. He changed it to for ourselves, for our families, for our country. And I wondered if he was dialing it back just a little bit, trying to not be so in your face with this more personal pitch on his own part, but leaning into that speech in a more general way. But I also think that is the move of a man who is running for President, right? That is a classic move. And the other was, when the 48 chant broke out, he kind of smirked and he looked at the crowd and he said, let's get through November, let's get through the next thing that we have to get through and then we'll move on to the next thing with a little bit of a twinkle in his eye. I mean, this is a man who is running a presidential campaign. I would also just note, I've watched a lot of JD Vance speeches at this point and a lot of them refer very explicitly to President Donald Trump and he talks about his leadership a lot and what he's been able to do with President Donald Trump. There weren't a lot of mentions of Trump in this speech. And to me, that signal that he was pivoting more towards 2028 and a presidential campaign. So I agree. It was definitely, it was I think a precursor to where he's going to go once the midterms are over. Yeah. No, I totally agree. And I specifically noticed his reference to the new clear family. This is a subject that Vance has been very good on in the past, especially drawing on, you know, he uses a lot of Catholic social teaching when he talks about these topics. I noticed that too. But then specifically, this reference to, I believe it's a Democrat in the Midwest who said that if the new clear family Vance brought it up and he basically said, stay the hell away from our kids, that had a huge response from the crowd. And there are a couple other moments like that as well when towards the end, he talks about the importance of protecting, you know, not just the things that we have built for our families now, but the legacies of our grandparents and things like that. It did feel like he was really putting out a personal statement here, talking about his future, the future of our country and really harkening to that 2028 presidential potential bid. You know, the thing that's interesting about this is that the choice that they're making in this election is to fully lean into the Democrats, the Democrats preference of having this be a referendum on the two of them, you know, in a certain sense, this is considered political malpractice by most consultants. They would say, no, you need to localize this election. You need it to make it about why this specific Republican in this specific congressional district is better than his opponent. Yes, a better servant to their constituents' interests is a better servant to the state, has delivered money. I mean, a perfect example of that, obviously, is someone who's seemingly disappeared from the entire radar of competition and that's Susan Collins and Maine, who has, you know, so successfully over the years, localized her elections and avoided these national trends. This is the president and JD Vance, essentially saying, we are just going to accept that this is going to happen and we're going to lean into it because we're confident that we will actually win that argument. I'm not sure that that confidence is well placed, particularly given the way that we see The poll numbers move. moving and shifting the fact that so many americans i think even tuning in this election may not have heard the kind of answers that they want when it comes to affordability in the like uh. the things that they care about the most in terms of pocketbook issues so you know look maybe the president's promise of uh. you know the big promise that he made last night maybe that's gonna change things but i think that the decision to turn this into a national election is going to be judged based on the result one way or the other well then i wonder and i think i know what your answer is going to be but i'm going to ask anyway do you think it's possible that there is some sort of conversation happening in the white house among trump and vance where we're nationalizing this midterm election precisely because we're already looking to twenty twenty eight we're looking to set jadey vance up on a right track we're looking to the future maybe we lose the house maybe we lose a couple of seats are thin majority maybe that was going to happen anyway so best thing that we can do is rally around the flag and really set us up not for november but for twenty twenty eight and beyond or is that just an optimistic gloss on what's happening i think that that and i think that that assumption would rely on them having a much longer term picture to what they're attempting to do then the way that this white house is typically operated it's possible certainly that you're correct but that would really be out of character in terms of the way that they've responded now i will say this is also a white house that feels like they have been judged by people who thought that they should do things differently when it came to certain political judgments where they resent the fact that they think that they've actually had better judgment in terms of how they spent their money where they spent it when they spent it uh. and that's something that i think that the president's political operation you know definitely has a chip on their shoulder about they've been bailed out by certain things we saw for instance the virginia redistricting battle in the way that they got bailed out by the supreme court ruling which was a margin of one i will point out uh. but i also think that this is a political operation that has a enormous confidence in their judgment of the direction of the country and rejects a lot of the people who they view as as you know what work critics of the approach as simply having sour grapes or wishing that they were running the show whether they're right to have faith in that again they have to count on bucking historical trends that have gone back for so long in situations like this uh. so hey it's a pretty hefty motsable oh boy okay i want to get back to the five k dividends because we didn't fully discussed this yet eight and give us your take on the dividends mood here last night after the announcement and then what do you think of them i mean the funny thing about the dividends is that i don't know if you guys notice but jade vans did not bring up the dividends no obviously it's it you know a major but you know policy the trump wanted to roll out in his first night speech uh. jade vans did not mention and i don't know if you guys saw him on fox news last night but he got asked to defend them and his defense was that the united states is raking in so much money from tariffs that will be able to redistribute the wealth uh. to taxpayers i don't know i'm not an economist but i think that would probably give someone an aneurysm to hear that the uh. the tariffs will fund uh. these dividends which are probably a cost what uh. more than a trillion dollars uh. to actually pay out so you know i don't think anyone expects those to happen the dividend uh. you know trump is promised several payouts in a second term uh. no checks have been sent out yet uh. it would also require the republicans to hold on to the house and the senate which uh. i i don't think is really expected either so i think more of a a pledge that an actual serious uh. policy proposal but i just want to make another point on on nationalizing the campaign for the midterms here that was a mistake it it's dangerous when you when you look back at twenty twenty four that was really a mistake that joe biden made when you know he was obviously hit a uh. thirty percent approval rating uh. seventy percent of the country thought uh. that america was on the wrong track under biden and yet he insisted that kama harris run on his record and you know i think it's pretty clear in hindsight that that was just vanity he wanted he did not want his record as president to be did he didn't want his vice president to distance herself from his record and that ended up being a disaster for democrats and so i think there's a real peril in in the strategy that the president is is pushing the republican party to pursue which is to say if you're a republican in a battleground state you have to tether yourself to a president who is unpopular right now uh. you know that'll work in in in deep red states where you know uh. candidates up by a republican candidates up by nine points it's gonna be a problem in a state where there were neck and that but biden let me let me push back a little bit against that isn't part of the calculus that the map over indexes really read states like right now if you look at the situation that we face uh. in terms of you know expectations about the polling averages you have states like ohio states like michigan states like the america states like alaska the democrats are all hoping to somehow pull off including him in even iowa okay i was one where the current candidate the republican side is ahead but in every other situation there the democrat the democrat is ahead either narrowly or by a lot even here in texas essentially a coin flip so to a certain extent they could be looking at that map and saying most of these states were deep red states or or if not deep red they were at least red tinge states when it came to just two years ago we're we want to nationalize this because we actually think the president is is going to all some of these guys over the fish finish line i think that could particularly be true by the way in a state like ohio like that that's a good example of like ohio should should absolutely respond to something like what they saw tonight this the senator from their state you know who's not the vice president you know the president stressing everything related to the midwest that he did last night they should respond to this if the theory that the white house has is correct right well i i think that everything you just had make sense been but if i can now kind of take the role that you just had my last comment i wonder if maybe it's not that thought out and maybe and i want to i would love to hear what do you think Mary Margaret because you're in the white house all the time is it possible that this is also just how electoral party politics work now right i mean it's hard to think as eight and said right with joe biden tellering everything to him with from comaharris on down trump is obviously doing this now it's hard to think back right it's crazy to think obviously you know you had george w bush didn't endorse trump that's a special thing obama was sort of slow walking by then that was also a new case but if you think even about bill clinton kind of agreeing to step back and let al Gore run without him because Gordon want to that wasn't that long ago but it feels like it was an eonago when there was a time when presidents especially in claim duck presidents would just sort of step back and say let's run let's let my vice president run by himself let's let the candidates run the map by themselves i mean do you feel this changing do you think it's more of viewing this is a intentional thing is it a trump vans partnership or is this just sort of the way things are drifting i think that would be a smart move to take a little bit of a step back and let the vice president lead but Donald trump will never do that it's very much a trump thing yeah Donald trump light he's in charge he is the kingmaker he is the vice or he is the president of the united states and as long as he is in office that is what his role will be however i do think he is more open now to uh having vans considered as that error apparent uh now obviously that could change so many things could change in the next two years uh vans is not the declared nominee so many much of that remains to be decided but at the same time he's giving vans a lot of leeway with this frauds are zarship uh vans is heading to another fraud event on monday i think i'm actually going with him uh and this this zarship is really been fruitful for vans in the way that uh Kamala Harris's Boris zarship was not fruitful for her you know it was the task assigned to him the world knew if he fulfilled it it would be good for him and the president be happy if he didn't it would be a sign he wouldn't be a goodbye a good be a good president so i think vans is is really stepping up to the plate now and the president is happy about that but no i don't think we'll see him taking over any time soon but it's also i think to what you just said that's great but i think again maybe there's a little bit more strategy here right i think we all can kind of accept and everyone sort of accepts that Joe Biden made Kamala Harris the borders are because he wanted to pitch it like he wanted to put her in a corner he knew that no one could solve the border crisis with the policies that administration was pushing certainly not Kamala Harris i think that Donald Trump gave jade vans the fraud zarship or all the other things that he's doing problem maybe in concert with jade vans but i don't think that it was a similar i'm trying to sideline my vice president i think john old trump to the extent that he thought about it did think that jade vans would succeed in that and it would help him i mean maybe trump wasn't thinking it will help him for twenty twenty eight but at the very least i think the president thought this is going to be good for my administration jade is going to succeed right well and i just want to add too if you look at the way the president's comms team talks about vans that's another reason that i think i'm very confident in the trump team's views on vans right now Stephen Chung Alex Bruce wits jason miller all of these guys are cheerleading vans very strongly i think it was chung that tweeted tonight saying you know talking about the jd the 48 chance so all of that too is is a very strong sign in my opinion that can i ask can i ask a broader question for a moment who was this four ultimately i mean i'm curious to aid in your perspective on this this is a smaller convention there i've been to state conventions that are bigger than this one, it's one that brought a lot of people who already love the president from around the country. It brought a lot of members who probably would rather have been in their districts here to spend some time and give some very short, pretty canned speeches. Was this meant to be sort of something that was just a breakout for them, or was it something that was really just built around the president, the vice president, and if so, why the need for a convention? Well, the cynical answer is that it's for Trump. I mean, this isn't really a convention, right? I mean, we're not, no one's being nominated, there's not a platform being debated. There was a, there was supposed to be a JD van speech on night one. By the way, they don't have platforms really anymore in real convention. Fair enough. I'd have noticed. But, so we were supposed to have JD van speak on night one. There are little more like guidelines. Vibes. Vibes, men. Right. Vibes platform. JD van's supposed to speak on night one, Trump was supposed to speak on night two, then a couple days before the convention we find out, Trump speaking on night one, JD van's speaking on night two, and then Trump speaking on night two again. I mean, really, this is a two-day rally. And I mean, to me, this feels like Trump wanted to throw a big party, because Trump really likes big parties, and he likes giving speeches, and he likes assembling supporters around him, and having people speak about him. And I think, really, that's why we're here. I mean, you speak to, I spoke to a Republican operative who's close to the White House earlier today, and they were, you know, rolling their eyes a little bit at this, and saying, you know, explaining why they weren't here. I was asking them why they didn't come. And their explanation was, you know, we're in the middle of a midterms battle to hold the House and the Senate, we should not be doing a two-day event, basically, in honor of an unpopular president right now. Candidates should be in their districts trying to win elections, particularly candidates that are in tough battleground states that don't really want voters to be reminded of the Orneran and tariffs. So, yeah, I think that's the cynical answer to that question. I don't know if it's the right one, but. I push back on that a little bit because I understand the consultant class is quite skeptical of this event. I understand legacy media in general heading into the event had nothing but bad things to say about it. I mean, what does it Tara told us on the show the other day that it was just weird at the end of the day, which honestly is the sentiment I saw from a lot of media suggesting that this event wasn't cool and there was no reason for it to happen at all. When I see that framing, first of all, I'm skeptical because it reminds me of when I was a homeschooler and everyone said we were weird and we weren't again, but at the same time, look, the president got up on the stage tonight and last night, and he said to all of these people, "I want you to vote in all of these elections if you care about me, you will vote." And I think he even said, "All right, let's all say it together, I'm going to vote." Yeah, he made them all pledge. Do you think that has an effect like on get out the vote, like this sort of rally like this? I genuinely do. Not just on the people in the room obviously, but on the people watching, on all the people watching on TikTok or Instagram tomorrow, who see everyone pledging to vote on all the people listening and hearing about James Telefrico or about the candidate who said, "F, the nuclear family, all of these examples, L Said." So I think it does have an effect and I think, well, we can say, yes, this happened because Donald Trump wanted it to happen. Donald Trump wanted everyone to see him campaigning with Republicans for the midterms. Maybe that was because he was concerned that people were saying he wasn't doing enough, but at the end of the day, he's here. He's trying to get out the vote. He's trying to help Republicans and you can't judge him for that. And I think it's as, you know, as a president, especially during this midterm election season when he's already not, the Republicans are already not supposed to do well. I applaud it. I think that's a, I think that's a great point, Mary Margaret. And Aidan, I wonder what you think about this because I 100% agree with your premise and I've been saying it for weeks. There is exactly one reason that we're doing this. And it's because Donald Trump wanted to have a Donald Trump rally. That said, is it possible that Donald Trump sort of stumped that we kind of snatched victory from the jaws of defeat in a weird way, right? I mean, just because something is weird and unprecedented and maybe planned biopically by a guy who is not up for election in November, isn't it possible as Mary Margaret was saying and as I think is the case that the follow on effects might be good for Republicans, even if that wasn't the plan. And I think particularly give it, I mean, the dividend story, right, is what made this not just a Trump rally, right? Where, you know, we've seen a million Trump rallies over the years. They don't really make news anymore. You know, I even think last night when you look at the ratings for the event on Fox News at least, it was about 2.5 million people watched, which is a pretty average night on Sean Hannity's show. So there wasn't really a Trump bump to that. That said, that, you know, $5,000 dividend was a massive news story. They're going to people that are going to hear that it would never have heard about an event like this otherwise. Like that's going to, that's genuinely going to be a massive national story. And if that convinces a bunch of Republicans or, or, you know, independence or people that wouldn't normally vote in a midterm election to come out and actually, you know, vote for a Republican, yeah, that's a big deal. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think so too. A big part of this too, I think, is again, we talked at the other day about setting the narrative, reestablishing for Republicans across the country. This is the way we want you to talk about these issues. We know how much Republican candidates pay attention to the White House and the President. They don't want to get on the wrong side by talking about an issue the wrong way or using the wrong language about things. He has the way that he wants to talk about things and he thinks that that should be imitated by a lot of these Republicans. I think that that's something that is going to actually have an effect. So at a certain level, it's almost like he was just saying, Hey, this is how you do this, you know, and that to be quite honest for a Republican party that is at a really hard time expressing in any real way why they deserve to be sent back to Washington. I think that that does serve a purpose. The other big question I think that we still have coming out of this, out of this convention is what's going to happen with the money? Is he actually going to deliver with this giant war chest that everybody's talked about? Or is he going to turn it into another example of Obama for America turning into something else afterwards or paying for the next stage of whatever he wants to affect. He wants to have an American politics. Is he going to keep that money flowing or are Republicans have to going to have to turn to someone like Eli Musk to bail them out? Well, Ben, sorry, that's it. Ben, you were maybe one of the only people who was out there saying the president is and the Republican party are going to kind of not donate to the Texas race because they don't want. You had an incredible sweet when when when John Kennedy went on a fox or whatever it was and sort of complained and asked the president to do it. You quoted the video and said when I said that this was going to happen, you all told me I was wrong, but obviously you were right. What are you doing? I'm right. I'm right. Come on. So I turned the question back to you because you've been right about this so far. What do you think is going to happen with the money? I think Elon's going to come in and I think he's going to try to drag Paxon over the finish line because Elon works in Texas and he doesn't want to see Texas ruin. He certainly doesn't want to deal with whatever things come from Italo Rico. I mean, Italo Rico said it when it's not just about Italo Rico. It's not just about six years of Italo Rico. It's about what it does to the Democratic Party in Texas, which is give them a foothold that they have not had for decades. And it's something that would inspire I think a lot more Democrats and a lot more Democratic investment in the state. Elon doesn't want to see that. He takes it personally because they will come after him here. And so I think that's something that is going to happen regardless of whether the president. But so you don't think the president's opening the purse. I don't know what the president's going to do. He seems to really hate Ken Paxon's face and everything else. We need to talk about that. He makes Ken Paxon more than any other candidate. He's not out of central casting. Okay. I don't know if you caught this. This was crazy. During his remarks, not I think tonight and last night, the president talked about how Ken Paxon wasn't nice to look at. Didn't dress well. Wasn't great to be around. But then he said, yeah, I still love him. What is with that line of attack? I don't understand. Is this a line of attack or is this a line of endorsement? It's not a line of attack. I think Trump said it in a rally once. I think it was it was ad-libbing. And the crowd really liked it because it's funny. And now Ken Paxon is cursed to hear this at every single rally Trump will do for the rest of his life because it's like a good bit. Yeah. And now he's just going to keep doing it because the crowd responds to it. And my favorite part of it was I was in the room and on the big screens. You know, there's sports screens. I don't know what you call them. Jumbo Tron. Jumbo Tron. Thank you. I'm on the Jumbo Tron. You can see Ken Paxon smiling, offering as he's processing what Trump is saying about him. I got to give it to him. He handles it pretty well. Very awkward. I want to ask him. And I know that we have. There's certain things we wanted to talk about beforehand. I was really interested in the Don Jr. speech. Yes. Yeah. What did you think of that? I mean, I it was slightly different than I thought it was going to be. But what do you know what you think? So I've heard swirlings that Don Jr. is interested in a presidential ticket in the future. I don't know exactly as president as vice president in this next presidential ticket whenever that happens. But I have heard rumors about this and a little bit of that and his his orbit. So I was curious watching his speech, wondering whether that was what was going to emerge. I didn't really get that vibe from his speech. It was much more about the president and mine. and it was about the future of the country, not necessarily with him tied to it. And I thought it was beautiful when he talked about Charlie Kirk and he talked about Charlie's legacy and he specifically talked about how pure and good Charlie was in a really beautiful and memorable way. And it was something that J.D. Vance said again later on, just how good Charlie was and how that's missing from the political conversation now, that goodness and, you know, as Don Junior said, that purity, we don't really see that now, it's much more contention and much more division. So I found that very moving, but again, I didn't feel that presidential pull there. And I think he really just came out to support is that, okay, okay. Let's hear it. - Okay, okay, let's hear it. I think that in the same way that J.D. changing the remarks to be about him and his family to be about us and our families, I think Don Junior keeping it very narrowly tailored, his dad, his buddy J.D. Vance, whom he was instrumental in getting on the ticket and his late friend Charlie Kirk, of course. And it's obviously the one-year anniversary of Charlie's murder, so it was an important time to talk about it. I think this is a man who, again, think about all the other speeches that Don Junior usually gives. It's usually my dad, my dad, he's great. They're trying to get my dad down. It's very like, you know, this was different. Eric Trump would not have given this speech. I think that this is him, maybe preparing. I'm not saying it's for a vice presidential run in 2028, but I also think, and I'm going to keep making bold predictions. That's why I think Trump's not loosening the purse strings. I think he's saving the Mago War chest for when and if Don Junior decides the run for something. - See, see, you're not the first person to say that. Aiden, what do you think? - Well, let me just ask something about the war chest. When is it too late? I mean, early voting is not far away here. I mean, at a certain point, you know, he's got what, $400 million. He spent some on darling Graham. I think he sent what, $10 million to Ken Paxton. At a certain point, it's over. There's no amount of spending on TV ads that's going to like swing a race. - The other thing is, and you, I mean, as a media or a focus reporter, to me, the lesson of everything that's happened, and I mean, if you've been in your hotel room in here in Dallas, you've been seeing ad after ad telling you that Taleriko's a moderate, if you've been paying attention to anything. The thing that is interesting to me is that, I think a lot of people within very smart, you know, people who do this for a living, believe that there's some menishing returns from this type of TV ad-based campaign, that the real wave of the future is the kind of thing that we saw Elevator Amandani, which was an army of influencers, as the New York Times and others have reported, you know, who were actively pushing this. Many of them, not even from New York, not voting in New York, not voting in New York City, certainly, who essentially came in and backed him and that you could get a lot more bang for your buck, is this just gonna be a bunch of money that goes to consultants' coffers to make crappy TV ads that don't really do anything? - Well, I mean, if you, sorry, if you added up the money that has been spent to get Democrats elected in red states that was lit on fire over the last 10 years, I mean, it would be more than a billion dollars. I mean, South Carolina, I mean, how much money are Democrats gonna spend on Andy Andrews? And she's probably gonna lose the darling Graham. I mean, it's, you know, Kentucky, Texas, with Beto Aurora. I mean, the Democrats have a long, long tradition of raising $100 million and blowing it on candidates who lose by five points. Tallerico, to me, I mean, you know, you know, no more about Texas politics than I do, but for the first time, this seems like, and I don't want to, you know, be someone saying Beto Aurora is gonna win five years ago, but he does seem like a candidate that has, has a much better chance of winning in Texas that Democrats have had in the last decade. - I mean, it's possible. If you saw him on his Fox News interview, I think it was just this morning where he talked about his radical change in stances on transgenderism, on parental rights. He went from some very radical stances. - I have a follow up about that, which is like, (laughing) why did you change your mind? - Exactly, but when I said there were six genders, I didn't really mean it. There's obviously two. I was as strong by a factor of three, as one is sometimes. - What do you, what do you, I, I, come on. This is like, you need to understand. What I was doing was called lying. (laughing) I was pandering to a bunch of stupid people in my coalition by lying. That's what I was doing. - That's literally tacitly what he was selling Fox News. It was fascinating to watch. And the reporter handled it really well. She followed up over and over. She kept pressing him. But he's really saying to the American voter, yeah, I was lying here, like Ben's saying. I was lying. But here's what I actually meant and why it's not so bad that I lied. And this is actually something we saw during the last election cycle. I wrote about this over and over and over. I'm sure you remember editing. Over and over, all of these Democrat candidates who formerly supported men and women's sports. They formerly supported transgender interventions for kids, surgery, tormos, puberty blockers. Right before election day, they're all flipping because they saw the polling in their districts and they freaked out and realized this is wildly unpopular and it's not gonna get us a win here. So I think Talleriko's reading the tea leaves, looking at the polls and understanding this is not gonna work for me. And I'm just curious what you guys think. If that little flip there is gonna actually help him out in the end. - Ben, do you think Talleriko's gonna win? 'Cause you and I talked about this like a month and a half ago. We've talked about this right after Paxton on the primary. That was like, there's no way Talleriko's gonna win and you made a very good case for why he might win. So I wonder if you're thinking his shot is off. - I still ultimately believe the Texas is still red enough that Paxton will get hauled over the finish line. But the hauling needs to happen is basically what I feel like. And they've got a little more than 50 days to do that work. They need to, I mean, I think, again, to your point. It's like, what are they waiting for? They need to be spending the money now. You can't even have a path to keeping the Senate that includes this. I mean, if the way that's so significant that you could lose a state like Texas, then you've got problems everywhere. But one thing that I do think is really a question about this is, are we going to look back on this situation as one that affected other people that needed more help? There've been so many examples over the past couple of years of people who got very close. You know, in either party, and people are just like, oh, if only they had an extra $10 million or $15 million from the RNC injected at the last minute, something different could have happened. I don't know if that's going to be a situation for some of these other folks, but it very well could be in a state like Michigan, where it's, again, a candidate who is, he's run statewide and lost before. And in this cycle, there's a lot of energy behind El Sayed. I mean, I realized he was being booed tonight. I assume he's going to put that in an ad. I mean, if I were him, I would. I don't know. It was a little bit of an aggressive attack on him by the vice president, at least. No, no, no, no, no, but like this audience, booing El Sayed is a great way to activate your base and say, you know, I'm the one who cares about you. Katie Vance doesn't care about you. You know, the feel. Well, let me just defend the political wisdom of Talleriko walking this stuff back in the way that he did. I think that is the best answer to a really hard question for a lot of Democrats who said things in 2020 that they now deeply regret, because they realize how politically toxic they are. Other candidates have not done that well. Abdul Al Sayed got asked about defunding the police. And he went on this long sililoquy about how defunding the police doesn't actually mean defunding the police. It means doing different things with the money that you send to police, which, okay, then you're not talking about it. What do you think in that? No, that's a definition of words. You say, you say other candidates haven't done it well. And Gavin Newsom's had to do it both ways. Right. Well, but I think Talleriko and Zoran Manami in New York have been very, very good at distancing themselves from opinions in 2020 that they no longer hold by just being honest about the fact that they got a little carried away and they were on Twitter too much. So I was gonna say so while you're perspective is someone who at the time, we were doing a little out of it. Hold on, what is your take on this as someone, again, who's looking at from a media angle, from a sort of messaging angle, do you think? And I think there's a lot of skepticism. Certainly from some of us here, is the broadly speaking though, oh, woke one was crazy. Talking boy, is that going to help Democrats? Like, will that catch? I think it's the only answer to the question. Right, but does it mean that it's gonna work? I think it'll work. Yeah, I mean, I don't, you know, if you're Zoran Manami, you're not gonna lose an election for mayor in New York by no matter what. So I think it is a much better answer to the question than trying to pretend that you did not say those things back then because everything is on video now. It's fair, it's fair, but when you say, you know, as a politically toxic, the politically toxic part of it is that we're talking about literally transgender surgeries, more of those impurity blockers for kids. So I don't know that you can really walk that back successfully. The vice president tonight suggested that James Talleriko is a pedophile. I don't know if you guys caught this. He said on national television that with James Talleriko, making saying that he cares the most about transgender kids, he said, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to check that guy's search history. Which, you know, I looked at my coworker, Breka, and I was like, oh my gosh, but you know what? I've actually stopped. thoughts similar things before if a grown man looks into a camera and says his favorite thing is trans children that's actually quite disturbing so the vice president is kind of on to something there and i think you know this idea that you know it's it's politically toxic it's true you're right but it's more than that it's it's something that was very evil and depraved in our culture and I don't think democrats can just drug it all i mean that was the freaky is thing that tala freko is that right and it's even take away the transgender part of it right when there's a what's the one that you care about more than your own family if you're a grown man who looks into the camera and says breathily other children like that's a weird it's hard to walk that one back with the time we have left i think there's one thing that we should definitely talk about that we haven't yet one of the biggest storylines that actually came out of this had nothing to do with the republican party they had to do with john federman yes the decision and and in fact i ran into date mccormick and i talked to him about it and and asked him today about how that came together and how quickly that came together um. and it was interesting uh. the the thing that i found what i'm certain about going forward is there seems to be a lot of confidence among some republicans particularly people here that john federman is destined to become some kind of independent candidate in the future that he's going to be someone who's this swing vote critical you know sort of in the in the u_s_ senate i don't know whether to read it like that or read it like i'm never running for anything again i'm curious what your thoughts are on that because i think you can read it either way yeah i'm curious to hear what's in things because him knows john federman and has interviewed him in the past i mean just briefly for my part uh. i thought it was a wild move for him to come here and do that and then say i will always be a democrat i i thought it was uh. politically not the smartest move in the world and i i don't actually know what his point wasn't doing it i think republicans should be grateful for his assistance there but not the smartest move on his part yeah i mean do you remember that i've uh. i've interviewed federman and spoken to him a couple of times and and my main takeaway every time i talk to him is that i really do think he's very genuine almost in a way that he doesn't have the political instincts to not be genuine he also maybe doesn't have god forgive me the mental faculties to not be genuine you know like there you go again suggesting that you have a stroke you become a republican i think i know what we all did but i think i do think that he really i think he he sees himself as a sort of industrial progressive democrat i think that obviously he's gen i i do think that he's very genuine on the israel stuff but i think then the more to your point kind of the most important thing is that he really found an ally in david mccormick and i think david mccormick you watched them around washington they go to events together they partner together and it's not just bipartisanship for bipartisanship sake it's he was a man alone he was a man struggling and his fellow member of the pennsylvania senate delegation really stepped up and said hey i'm here for you even over from different parties so i believe him when he says i'm never gonna be a republican maybe he'll go independent i don't know but i do think that i really think that this really does come down to when this is important because it's rare right like he has a friend in the senate right it's the it's the old line of uh oh no the dump you know they're not the enemy the russians are the enemy they're the opposition right it's it's almost an acronistic but i think those two guys have sort of found a way back to that right right i mean i think with with federman it all comes down to israel for him i mean he has said before that israel is his red line if the democratic party ever becomes a a party that opposes israel that he would that he would then leave the party uh you know i saw him at uh bill marz uh Kennedy center honors uh the martin prize and uh he was talking to a new york times reporter the york times reporter asked him a a pretty benign question about bill mar and uh when federman asked what what newspaper he was with he said the new york times and i saw federman go off for the next three minutes i know it was three minutes because i recorded it about uh the new york times his coverage of israel so this is an extraordinarily potent issue for john federman and and and became that way over the last couple of years uh and so that seems to be to me what is what is driving this but as he said after you know he spoke today uh last night he's he's still a democrat and i would argue though it's the primary but it's not the only because he's always he is consistently gone after democrats for defund the police rhetoric right for anti-cop rhetoric what he views as a you know for you know essentially rejecting that some of the president's protectionist policies which he favors you know there's there's certain things that he's said in addition to that but you're correct he is a democrat pretty much down the line you know at eighty eighty five eighty five percent yeah but but i think that this is going to be coming out of this in washington that that's the thing that i think people are going to be talking about in the next week is federman destined in a situation where the senate comes down to one or two votes to decide it to end up caucusing with republicans or just becoming it effectively and independent in terms of the way things go forward because that could have huge ramifications for the next two years absolutely but i think one thing we know for sure is that his fellow democrats are going to be very very unhappy with him in this next week well eight and thanks for being with us you've been watching the district club thanks so much for being with us and we'll see you all again next time