What the Harris Campaign Needs to Win, with James Carville and Paul Begala
45:58 Share

Welcome to The Political Scene, a weekly discussion about the big questions in American politics. I'm Susan Glasser, and I'm joined as ever by my fantastic colleagues, Jane Mayer and Evan Osnos. Hi, Jane. Hey, Susan. Hey, Evan. Good morning, guys. The Harris-Walls ticket made its debut in front of an electric crowd of 12,000 in Pennsylvania just last week. Ready?

It was a high energy event, unlike anything we've seen from Democrats in recent years. And that got us thinking about some previous campaigns, especially the 1992 campaign when Democrats were also inspired, although in a very different way. So we went back.

And we were inspired to rewatch The War Room, which is the classic campaign documentary going inside the 1992 Clinton campaign, day in and day out with the staff, not the president or the would-be president himself. It's really an indispensable movie for anybody who cares about campaigns. And wow, it sure spoke a lot to this 2024 campaign as well in ways that

that surprised me and that I think are why we were so excited to have this conversation today with two of the architects of the 1992 Clinton campaign, the man who was responsible for the iconic phrase, the economy stupid, the Ragin' Cajun himself, James Carville. James, thank you so much for joining us. Hello.

Glad to be here. And, of course, his partner, the campaign strategist Paul Begala, who went on to serve in Clinton's White House as counselor to the president. Paul, thank you so much as well for being here. Oh, thanks for having me, Susan. This looks like a Zoom meeting that would put the fear into the hearts of many an elected official right here. Well, I have to say, this is, guys, we're so appreciative of you doing this. Peter Baker is very upset that he's not with us because it actually was his idea, not my idea.

So the two-second, like, you know, context for this is that we were watching the debut of the Harris-Walls ticket on that Tuesday night rally in Philadelphia. And it was such a, like, rousing thing. It felt like a whole convention event.

in full. And there was something about the vibe. I don't know. I said, you know, it really reminds me of 92 and Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow. And then Peter said, well, let's rewatch The War Room. And so we did. So,

So that's the whole sort of context, basically, of this conversation. Excellent. I used to watch The War Room almost like self-care before we had that term. I would watch it periodically if I was homesick. There's just something about it. It felt it was very important in my understanding of politics. You know, a movie a movie y'all should watch is called Crisis by Robin Drew.

And Penny was like a assistant director. And Crisis is the...

Robert Drew is the father of all of this kind of documentary filmmaking. And you'll see it. And it's an excellent movie. It follows Bobby Kennedy and George Wallace. Oh, wow. Leading up to the integration of the University of Alabama. It's one of the most stunning documentaries I've ever seen. It's terrific. Oh, that sounds great. So this is our foray into podcasting goes to movie recommendations.

And we actually did a summer reading one before. But I'm so glad, actually, that you said that because I want to take a minute on the movie before we get to the election today and the conversation that inspired it. Because I agree with Evan. It has always been. I've rewatched it at many points along the way.

as well. I came out of that and still think today that that 92 campaign in some ways was the first modern election, the first election of the modern era, certainly the first post-Cold War election. And maybe it's just generational and I'm just dating myself my age, but, you know, I think it

taught us so many lessons about politics, many of which endure today. But for you guys, it must have been, I mean, it cemented how people see each of you. Do you, are you glad you did the movie? I think the 92 Clinton campaign, you can talk about how good we were. And, you know, if Paul and I would have never lived, Bill Clinton would have won the general election.

OK, that was going to happen. I mean, I but the one thing the 92 campaign was, it was a significant cultural event. It was the most culturally significant campaign ever. I mean, the war room, the sister soldier moment. Don't stop thinking about tomorrow. Arsenio Hall. Arsenio Hall. I mean, the cultural impact of this campaign event.

still lives with us. And it is evidence by the fact that J.D. Vance's campaign song is Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow and Steve Battin's podcast is called The War River. Can't you sons of bitches think anything new? And how many times have people stolen it's the economy stupid or it's something else stupid? I mean, if only you'd trademark that, James. Well, the actual quote on the whiteboard is the economy stupid.

But I'm not so anal. But it was three things. The top line. That's right. Change versus more the same. Then it was the economy, Steve. And don't forget health care. And I had a totally different experience than James because I was on the plane, the bus. I was with the candidate. And as great as the war room was, I wouldn't have traded for a minute. If you ever get a chance to spend a year of your life sitting next to Bill Clinton on a plane, I highly recommend it.

It was just phenomenal. But that was put up there to remind us it really wasn't to the voters, the economy state, but it was to, you know, Carl and I used to tease Clinton and Gore that we were the only state school people in their whole campaign. You know, everybody was this Ivy League Rhodes Scholar, you know, Georgie and Bruce Reed and just everybody. And we wanted to remind everybody that.

as we say back home, to put the jam on the lower shelf where the little folk can reach it. You know, let's not get too deterred here. That is a line that did not make it into the movie. You know, a question about that cultural phenomenon that James was just describing, and I think, Paul, it speaks to your experiences. You know, there was a kind of young energy on that plane. What I'm trying to understand about 92 was, was it a moment of a kind of transition in politics from one set of

generational ideas to another generational set of ideas. Is that why 92 looms so large or is it something else? Do you think was some, was that happening at the time? Well, I think what happened was in 1992, remember I made, I was 48. I always tell people I lived 48 years without being James Carville. And he was the first non-World War II president.

And you couldn't imagine that in 1976, you couldn't imagine a president didn't have World War II connections. And I think it is hard to, you know, I'm old enough that I can remember that. You know, he was also the wife was out front. They were younger. The gores, Tipper, Paul, what do you think?

Well, I think you're right. It was a generational thing to begin with. You're right. And World War II is the most important moment of the 20th century. And yet from 52 to 92, you have presidents who are World War II veterans. And then Clinton not only didn't serve in World War II, he didn't serve in Vietnam. That became a big cultural issue in that campaign. And his ability to sort of understand the zeitgeist and the change, you know, to me, Arsenio Hall was a huge thing.

Because there had been these riots in LA. I went with Clinton out there. We went days after the riots had subsided and the smoke was still coming up. And it was really an important moment. Hillary actually had seen Arsenio Hall clear his audience

You know, I think the first black host of a late night show. Right. And he cleared the audience out. He had this really serious conversation about race and policing. And we had missed it because we were actually in L.A. Hillary saw it and she called her husband and she said that you need to go sit down with him. And nobody had ever done anything like that.

So he went on the Arsenio Paul show to talk about, and they had a really, you know, he played a saxophone. He wore my sunglasses. But it was, that's what people remember is the visual. But the conversation was really serious. And it's why like today I love, I don't know if she has, I want to see Kamala Harris go on Charlamagne, the God. Right. Because it's another, he's sort of the inheritor maybe of, of that kind of conversation.

Well, and that's why I think we think of it as the first modern campaign. If we can play, we'll play a little clip from the movie where, James, you're talking about George H.W. Bush. And I love this quote. Yeah.

He is so yesterday. If I think of yesterday, if I think of an old calendar, I think of George Bush's face on it. Clearly, that was the generational message was part of why when Peter and I were watching Harrison Wall's

We thought of this movie, right, that we thought of this this generational moment. You've spoken out in the last few weeks repeatedly about how Democrats now have the opportunity in this election to be the change, to be the generational change. But I have to say, like George H.W. Bush said.

It was kind of a queen or a different kind of Republican. I mean, you guys were really good at making him into the enemy, but I bet you'd rather have him today. Oh, God, I'd give anything to bring him back. You got to remember that, as Paul pointed out, the economy, stupid, was second on the white board. More to say. So I have to, you got to give people a visual. Think of an old calendar. Go back in history. This is what you're looking at. I mean, I always teach my students,

Verbal communications is visual. Anytime you verbally communicate, but when a person listens to it or reads it and they see something, you're going to be five times more effective.

And that was just sticking on message. That was sticking to point number one. We always considered it a gold watch strategy, though, too. Bush was not a bad guy. It was a gold watch. He'd been a Cold War president, CIA and all that. We didn't ever...

personally attack him. And Governor Clinton then would never have allowed it. Bush was, God rest his soul, a supremely good person, a really decent guy. He was like another father figure of Bill Clinton. So Susan, I'll tell you just one story. I think you and Peter appreciate this.

Mary and I invited to go to the Bush Library at Polly Station, the name of a college I can't quite get out of my mouth. It's a remedial school we have in Texas. And they said, look, President Bush is excited to see you. He wants to talk to you. But I got to tell you, Mrs. Bush will never speak your name. Wow. So I'm going, oh, shit. I was scared to death of her.

So was everybody else. The spouses always carry the grudges, too. Barbara was the one who who who definitely held the grudge from 92 campaign. There's no question that we go to the table, a signed table and have me sit next to her. I'm like, oh, shit, you know, my long night. I'll pull the chair out for the lady. Don't slurp your soup. Speak only when spoken to. I just had these like all these things I was told in the seventh grade come through my mind.

And she was communicating big. And then she got there after the say something. So I'm sitting here with my new friend, James Carville. I just like to, my whole body just went limp. I was so scared. You know, what's amazing is at the point where you're talking about George H.W. Bush, you also mentioned Roger Ailes. Coming right down the stretch. It's going to come out that Roger Ailes is behind a lot of stuff before the election that you've been saying about Governor Clinton.

OK, Ailes. And it's it's interesting to remind people, 1992, Fox News hadn't even been established yet. And yet here we are today. We're still in some ways living in the world that Roger Ailes made. I was quite struck by that. Yeah, I was I was really interested in, you know, because in that speech, James, you give this amazing speech where you it's right after Jennifer Flowers died.

has come out, you know, a moment of huge peril on the campaign and you've got to rally your troops somehow. And you say to them, just remember who the real enemy is. And the real enemy is Roger Ailes. Roger Ailes. Georgette Mosbacher. By the way, I'm not sure how many people got that reference, but I loved it. You know, she's the secretary of the person closest to Bush. You know what she said? She can't wait till this election's over so she can get her Maserati and her jewels back.

And then you say, like, if we win here, we'll never have to deal with these people again. If we win this, then you have knocked this shit back forever. Okay? And I'm wondering, is that true? Did it happen? Are you still fighting the same people? You gotta get people

People's desperation and consequence. Here's the final battle. We're on the field. Victory and all of the future's bright and rosy defeat we do. But remember, Ailes was a big character in 92 because he was the Willie Horton guy. So every Democratic volunteer, I was talking to people at the headquarters. They all knew who Roger Ailes was. They all knew about Willie Horton. There was a terrible defeatist attitude there.

that Democrats had. Oh, it doesn't make a shit what we do. They're just gonna pull something out. We're gonna lose the fucking thing again. Yeah, that was the dominant middle state of almost every Democrat in 1992. Well, can I jump in here? Because it's exactly the same today. And it drives me crazy. '92, we'd come out of the Dukakis campaign, right? And the rap on the Dukakis campaign was that he didn't answer the charges.

Right. Bush charged him with with opposing the death penalty, et cetera. Dukakis didn't answer. That was it. That's not what we did in 92. And James really gets the credit for this. I mean, it was it was Clinton's election. He would have won it without us. But James changed the culture of the Democratic Party, which he he looked at the rule book and he said, you know, it turns out.

We're allowed to launch attacks and make them respond. Instead of sort of passively, oh, how do we respond to them? Why can't we attack George Bush? Why can't we talk about the lowest economic growth in the last 50 years? Why can't we talk about that being a political hack as drugs are in this country? Why can't we talk about the fact that he has...

done nothing about education, the environment, the deficits out of control. He said no taxes. Yeah. I mean, you know, you can just go. Why is it that I'm always asked, what are we going to do when George Bush attacks us? Why don't you go ask George Bush what's he going to do when we hold him accountable for all, you know, the wrong that he's done to this country? You know, I'm a George S. Patton Democrat.

The purpose of war is not to die for your country, it's to make the other son of a bitch die for his country. The purpose of a campaign is not to answer their attacks, it's to make them answer ours. So watch what the Democrats are doing with Sergeant Major Walz's record. 24 years in the National Guard, Republicans are attacking the same guy who did the swift boats to John Kerry. And everybody says to me, how are we going to respond? How are we going to respond? How are we going to respond? And my answer is counter-attack.

Counterattack, you are supporting you Republicans. I have nominated a man who called our war dead suckers and losers. You are supporting a man who faked bone spurs to avoid service himself. You are supporting a man who said he doesn't want wounded warriors at his events because, and I quote, "No one wants to see that." You are supporting a man who praised Adolf Hitler.

That's what you're supporting. You can attack Master Sergeant Walser's record. I won't take lectures from you. That's what the Democrats ought to be doing. Instead of today, they put out a letter. Nineteen veterans say, well, he's actually a good guy. Every time I see a headline says defend, I get angry. Sorry to go on that rant. All right. Well, this is the perfect moment to take a break, because when we come back, we're going to talk about this 2024 campaign and how you both see it.

The political scene from The New Yorker will be back in just a moment. I'm David Remnick, host of The New Yorker Radio Hour. There's nothing like finding a story you can really sink into that lets you tune out the noise and focus on what matters. In print or here on the podcast, The New Yorker brings you thoughtfulness and depth and even humor that you can't find anywhere else. So please join me every week for The New Yorker Radio Hour, wherever you listen to podcasts.

Both of you were early voices suggesting that Democrats needed to do something very unprecedented in this campaign, which was to change course midstream, to change out the incumbent president and to go with someone different.

James, you in particular, I think, will always be associated with being a loud public voice for this. I was always struck that there were, you know, many veterans of the Clinton campaign as well as the Obama campaign, previous Democratic presidents who were the ones out there making the case that Biden needed to step aside. Why do you think that is? Is it just you guys playing your role as the sort of elder statesman that you're not on the inside anymore so you can kind of speak truth to power? Yeah.

I'm sure that's part of the motivation. I actually think my motivation was, if anything, a little purer than that. I'm going to be 80 in October. So I have some sense of what old age entails. And unlike most people, I have some vague idea of what the job entails. Paul worked in the White House. He had a better job. And I just didn't see somebody that...

was going to be 86 when they left office, being remotely able to do the job. I mean, and you could look at the polls. 72% of the people did not want something. Goddamn, give the people what they want. They're not asking to start a war. They're not asking for a new entitlement program. All right? They're just asking for something different. And if the political system can't supply that basic demand, then we're good all week.

So how are you feeling now that there's the change? Paul, what did I do? I feel better. I'll be honest with you. It's great to be a Democrat because a few weeks ago, rightly, everybody said, well, you guys are so depressed because we were. Now everybody's saying, well, you guys are irrationally exuberant. You're too excited. Well, that may be too. I mean, this is a toss up race. OK, it's a it's a jump ball. But I'd much rather be Harris than Trump.

Because there's only two messages in life, not just in politics. Stay the course, time for a change. Okay, your career, your marriage, your neighborhood association, your church, do we stay the course or is it time for a change? 75% of the country wanted a change. Neither party was running a candidate who could run on change.

And Nikki Haley said this. She's the first one that dumps their 80-year-old to go win. Democrats are now running on change, on the future. And that's a better, I think, track to be on when 75% think we're moving in the wrong direction to be able to say, I'm the future, I'm change.

How do you measure a phenomenon in the moment? Meaning, you know, we're now in this period, as you described, this kind of sense, there's a sense of exhilaration if you're out on the trail, if you go to some of these rallies, but you also have to keep it in perspective. You know, James, I hear when it's interesting because I hear you're almost sort of modulating your willingness to be

excited now. It seems deliberate because you're saying, look, they were behind before. They may be up a few points now. How do you keep it in perspective? Essentially, how do you know when something is a really durable surge and when something is not? You don't. And I point to the fact that I said that I thought the range was Harris plus five to minus one and a half.

And people go, wow, that's really optimistic. Not if you think about it. Most quants say you need two and a half to three in a popular vote to win the electoral college. And a lot of them are closer to three.

So let's not get too excited here. Then in 2016, we had the experience of people saying the polls are wrong. Actually, they were not. The national averages were about as close as polling can get. But they said, well, we didn't poll in the swing states, in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania at the end, and we didn't pick up Trump's surge. Fair enough. So he did a lot of that in 2020.

But they'll had Biden up by eight and it ended up one. So you can't sit, you can look at this and say it's better. Look, I think there's a better chance, you know, with one and a half to five. I just pull a number out of my ass. I don't know if it's based on anything, but that's not necessarily good news. It's better than losing a popular vote by two, which we were doing. The range then was minus three and a half to plus one.

Well, I'll take this, but understand what that means. It's not all that great. Paul, what do you think about the battleground? In some ways, what's old is new again, although I'm struck that, you know, when Biden won Georgia in 2020, it was the first time since Bill Clinton that Democrats had won that state. But, you know, Michigan, we could have had that conversation in 92 about Michigan, right? Well, and Pennsylvania. I mean, but the maps do change. Look, this is how much things have changed.

Carmel and I start working for Bill Clinton and we start looking at the map. And California was the most reliably Republican big state. It had gone Republican in nine of the previous 10 presidential elections. Okay, now nobody even looks at it. So things really do change. But I think you're right. I think Biden won because of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, those blue wall states. And then he picked up the Sunbelt states, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia. He had lost those Sunbelt states.

they were gone and he had the narrowest path to 270 and and i didn't think he'd get there vice president harris has now reopened those those states she she can and i think probably will run strong and probably win in in arizona nevada georgia she now got north carolina basically a toss-up and don't sleep on florida we're within five there harris is that's five's a lot

And abortion rights are on the ballot there. And we have a good candidate. They have a weak candidate. Rick Scott, the senator there, always wins, but he wins very, very narrowly, and he's the richest guy in the world. We have a good candidate, Debbie Marquez Powell. So, I mean, when you start talking about Florida now again, which used to be a swing state and had been pretty Republican, particularly in the Trump era, I think she has broadened the map again.

Can I ask you guys about gender politics for a minute? James, you sort of jumped into this thing on the preachy females ruining the Democrats' message. And we're now looking at what's got to be the most anti-female campaign we've seen in a long time coming from the Republicans. I'm wondering, you know, which is harder and more important, for the Democrats to win over the men or for the Republicans to try to get some women in their column? How do you see this thing playing out?

Well, first of all, there are too many preachy females in Democratic campaign culture. All right. But I mean that they are sometimes they're unrelatable to people around the country. And, you know, if you say something, you got to say something that sticks. OK, I could have said Democratic campaign culture is overly feminized.

All right. But I don't know, James, you're going to be there's a large segment of our listenership and not only have the female persuasion that I understand. I do myself as a kind of provocateur.

All right. And it was a little bit of don't do this, don't do that, do this. You've beaten the wrong thing. You're watching the wrong stuff on TV. Yeah. And we're going to appeal to the better angels in you. And, you know, believe me, I knew exactly what I was saying. I wouldn't say something that more endowed and not.

I mean, I went into it, but I guess you would say malice and forethought. So is it still a problem or, or do you think. Look at Walt. Yeah. He's the most male vice presidential nominee that you could ever think of. Right. Are you thinking out of where to. And, you know, but, but,

But James, that's a great follow up to Jane's question, though, because the Republicans are immediately attacking Walls and saying he signed a bill to put tampons in kids' bathrooms at schools, which is insane. And Donald Trump yesterday at his long rambling press conference, he used this nickname for Governor Walls. Maybe it's because they see him as a threat to

But they are aggressively basically trying to brand him as part of the feminized party. But this is where...

Again, in '92, Sam Popkin, a political scientist, well, he's got this theory of low information rationality, right? Throwing stars up in the constellation. And then we connect up and we form something. We don't just say, "Oh, here's your service in the National Guard." We infer from that that you're patriotic, right? That perhaps even you're bold and courageous. So look at the stars they put in the sky for Governor Walz, who my mama did not know existed until Kamala picked him, right?

Teacher, football coach, hunter, which for guys like me is a huge deal. National Guard. Those are really powerful. And people use heuristics and connect them all up. And you're not going to make him into some crazy lefty, anti-whatever. You know, it's

They have done such a terrific job of rolling him out. And he is authentic. He actually wears blaze orange. OK, only orange Trump wears can be a jumpsuit in a federal penitentiary. He's comfortable in a Carhartt coat. Who do you think you're going to run into at the tin roof dairy barn in Baraboo, Wisconsin? Governor Walz or Mr. Trump?

Or J.D., for that matter. He's an authentic middle American guy. They put out a thing the other day. I married a woman from Wisconsin, so I can say this. And he was talking about apparently Kamala Harris is quite a good cook and Indian food is delicious. And they actually know how to use spices. Oh, I know that. Yeah. He's like, I like tacos, but just ground beef and no black pepper because that's too spicy. It was just hilarious. It was so middle America, so Midwestern.

So I found out over half the states require schools to provide tampons. Among those are Utah. And just when I saw that, I said, "Goddamn, this is a good idea. How would you like to be like a 12-year-old girl with no money and everything in the world embarrasses you?" I had two daughters.

I mean, I think this is staggering policy. I can't believe that we all don't do it. It should be a national law. It sounds like this is kind of what you both want to hear from them next week when they go to the Democratic Convention in Chicago. I'm curious, like, what does it mean to even have a convention in this day and age? There's no suspense, right? It's not like there's any actual function of this convention.

convention. But in this short campaign, maybe there's higher stakes for Harris and Walz than a lot of the recent conventions. Well, first of all, they give you a chance to tell your story, all right? And people don't know her. I can't emphasize this enough. Now they know who she is. So what happened in 92...

is everybody thought that Clinton was a privileged, you know, dilettante, you know, was summering in Europe and was trying to get out of the draft. And we found out that once they found out he was a child of a single mother and an abusive father and grew up in, you know, very ordinary circumstances in a very ordinary place, that changed the whole trajectory of the campaign. And the whole conviction was biographical.

And she's got a chance to tell people who she is because, of course, they're going to tell a different story about her. And so I actually think we can do some good in Chicago. I do. They are confirming events, not deliberative events. But it is particularly for Kamala Harris, who is less well-known. There's going to be a test of strength. There are going to be protesters there.

And I checked the uncommitted anti-Israel folks have 30 delegates. There's 4,600 delegates. And they want two speakers. Okay, which is if every 30 delegates gets two speakers, it'd be 308. It's preposterous. And we honor that they got 30 delegates, but they get the power of 30 delegates. And I, for one, want to see strength. Keep in mind, you know, Bill Clinton gave the sister soldier speech.

And he did it because an artist, not in her art, had called for killing people because of the color of their skin. That's what she said. She said during those riots. And Clinton said, that's simply wrong.

And it showed people that he could stand up to extreme elements, even in his own coalition. Trump can't. Right. He embraces them. Stand back and stand by. He says to the proud boys. OK, so I want to see what will happen when and they will come. The protests come. It happened in Detroit. And I thought the vice president handled it masterfully. She had actually shaken hands with him before. She'd offered to meet with them. They interrupted her anyway. And having raised four kids, I know that look.

It's the same look Nancy Pelosi used to give when her crowd got too boisterous. She looked at those young protesters and like, you hush now, mama's speaking. And I loved it because it showed real strength. One of the through lines that goes from 92 through the conversation we're having about this year's campaign is this idea of.

the inertia that can set in inside a campaign and how you have to disrupt it. I mean, what you did in 92 was essentially said, we're going to chuck out the hierarchy. We're going to chuck out the sort of siege warfare approach and be more nimble. And this year, you had this profound example of inertia, this assumption that you couldn't change the candidate. It was done. It was cooked. This seems to be an enduring lesson. If somebody is out there who's listening, who's thinking about campaigns or how you run them, how do you remain consistent

you know, more a Marine than an Army unit, meaning more, you know, more willing to improvise. How do you do that? How do you build that into the culture? Well, it's hard, right? And Trump has added five more advisors. The one thing we know is that if you have three people and each have an IQ of 150, you don't end up with an IQ of 450. You end up with an IQ of 50, okay? That's...

That's the main thing. But the thinking behind establishing a world room was this, that we thought there were compressed news cycles. It used to be, you'd say something, they'd say something, and it would be in the paper, and somebody would write a column, or it'd be on the 6 o'clock news or 6.30 news. And it was just a recognition that everything was compressed.

And you had to start the day with an opening salvo, one thing or another. And you had to respond immediately. You couldn't wait for somebody, for David Broder to write a column about what all of this means. And of course, that world is a million times more compressed today than it was in 92. But that was the thinking of we got to have a...

reconnaissance unit here that's ready to go at a moment's notice. And that was what we thought political warfare had turned into. Again, I credit Bill and Hillary Clinton and James. They created a culture that rewarded successful risk-taking more than it punished unsuccessful risk-taking. So when you screwed up,

That's when Bill Clinton had your back. That's when Hillary would step in and say, no, no, no. And here's the example. I was 31 and an idiot. And we just survived New Hampshire. And we're very excited. We're flying to Georgia where Carville and I had run a campaign for Zell Miller. And we knew what was going to happen in Georgia. Right. Zell was waiting with like a fungo bat.

And I, God rest his soul, but we were in a primary against Paul Tsongas and I was all spun up with contempt for Paul Tsongas, which is a weird thing to have. But it's the middle of the night, we're flying all night. And I say to Adam Nagourney, then of USA Today, America's newspaper, I say, you know, you live by the puff and you die by the puff. And you, you, Adam, you guys have puffed up this son of a bitch and we're going to take him down when he gets to Georgia. Yeah.

Adam, being a great journalist, writes it down word for word. There I am in America's newspaper calling the sainted Paul Songis cancer survivor a son of a bitch. So I'm on the plane with Clinton and some of the people really want to be fired. Clinton called me up front. He's got the paper, said, did you say this? And I said, yes, I did. He said, yeah, it sounds like you. And I said, what do you want me to do? And he said, I want you to apologize to Songis, which I did.

And so I did. I literally wrote a letter. It was a stupid thing to say. And I told him I was sorry. And Songus was using it. Right. This is how Clinton, you know, conducts his campaign. This is terrible barnyard epithets where. And after I did that, people were telling him that I should go. And he put his arm around me and he said, don't let this take you out of your game, Polly. I need you in there swinging for me. And from that day to this, I'd go through a brick wall for that guy because I effed up. OK. And he had my back. That's.

That's loyalty. It's like, you know, you don't need them when you're right. You need it when you're wrong. And Carville in a war room, Clinton and Hillary on the plane set up a standard that said, if you're trying for me and if you're in there pitching for me and you screw up, I'll have your back. And that's what the, that's what every campaign needs to have, but especially vice president Harris's. Uh,

I'll never forget, Paul, when I had that kind of song to sing, I'd talk to my mother every day, and I said, yeah, I'm really kind of worried about this guy's son. She said, son, don't worry. Nobody's going to vote for that poor little man to be president. He just didn't, you know, he didn't look like

go president to her. You still, what are you worried about? You know, that was going to be for him. I did not expect that this conversation would take a Paul Sanga's turn, but I did expect that we could talk all day and into many days about that historic 1992 campaign. But I appreciate that we've come full circle here. The reason we're still talking about 92 is

here in 2024 is because of what you guys did and also the great movie, The War Room, which we are urging all of our listeners to take a rewatch of. So let me get a little hucksterism here because it's me. There's a new film coming out about me that's going to open in a film festival in Western Colorado. I can't say the name of it.

But more importantly, we've just accepted an invitation to the Middleburg Film Festival. Right here in the neighborhood. Right here in the neighborhood. And I think Maureen Arthur and Luca Russell are going to interview us after the show and the film. So I want to be sure that y'all are all invited to it. I got to say, we got a little sneak peek.

Those of us at the Political Scene Podcast, it's fantastic. It is so great. And you guys, I mean, you only look maybe a day older from after those early years. For political junkies, talking to you two is like talking to, like,

Brando and Pacino about The Godfather. It's a little, you know, it's nice to see you guys going strong and we're looking forward to the new movie. Absolutely. Congratulations. And thank you for continuing to shape how we think about campaigns. This has been a hell of a campaign for the record books and I think we're all grateful to both of you for helping us to understand what the hell is going on. You're going to make an old man cry. Yeah. Thank you all for your coverage and commentary, which is indispensable. I want to thank

The political scene from The New Yorker will be right back.

Hi, this is David Remnick, and this year's New Yorker Festival returns October 25th through the 27th. We'll be joined by Rachel Maddow, Sarah Bareilles, Atul Gawande, Seth Meyers, Mohsin Hamid, Audra McDonald, The National, Julio Torres, Ayed Akhtar, and many others. Plus live podcast recordings and panels on politics, literature, technology, and much more. And you can learn all about it at newyorker.com slash festival.

All right. Well, that was amazing. And I have to say, I did not expect the Paul Tsongas thing. I remember seeing Paul Tsongas at that 1992 Democratic convention that's chronicled in the war room in the lobby of the New York Hotel. It was the first convention ever.

I went to and, you know, he was this sort of sanctimonious, you know, Democrats used to produce these figures. He was sort of the Bill Bradley, kind of the I'm doomed to lose, but I'm going to bring up very important issues kind of candidate. That feels like a different world to me now. And yet actually Carville and Bogala seem so relevant to this world, right? Yeah, I don't know, Susan, because I mean, basically what struck me is

These guys, and they had been around a long time,

They were the ones that really led the effort to say, we got to get a different candidate for the Democrats. They were the ones fighting the status quo still. I mean, and the Democratic Party was kind of just shuffling along behind Biden and not willing to take the chance of change. And they said they're the ones who are still the aggressors. So I'm not sure the Democratic culture is.

has really gone their way. It seems like they're still the instigators here. It is true. It's kind of surprising in some ways that the James Carville that we needed in 2024 was James Carville. I mean, it's not as if, like, you know, the natural thing in a...

conversation of this kind of say, okay, who's the Carvel of today? Well, it turns out it's Carvel. Yeah. No, his endurance is unbelievable. And especially when you think about the incredible amounts of, you know, shit that he was willing to take, uh,

There was incredible pushback. There was just a story in The New York Times yesterday saying Joe Biden was not only reluctant to drop out, as we all saw, but that he he really believed even when he dropped out that he could still somehow win. He, according to this reporting, still believes that today. And yet it must be incredible for him to see the reception to Harris and the, you know, the joy on the campaign trail, the the huge crowd.

rally crowds that weren't showing up for Biden. What do you think of that, Jane? I mean, I think it's got to be painful to him. I mean, I have heard that he thought not only that he could win, but that he was the only one who could win. And that's what was propelling him onward. And obviously, we don't know what the outcome of this election will be. But

the amount of excitement and electricity out there is just, you know, night and day behind Harris. Yeah, I mean, it's, yeah, there's no mystery that he thought that. He said it over and over again. I think it was one of the things when he said, I essentially, you know, I can do this. I'm the only one who's beaten Trump. It was a, there was a way in which he was becoming more

more and more wrapped around the first person singular pronoun. It was becoming a personal project. And it's very noticeable that when you go out on the road, the Harris campaign, it's all we, we, we.

When we fight, we win. And that sounds like a subtle distinction, but it really does capture the difference in the feeling. It feels more like a movement out there. And, you know, to your point, Evan, which I think is the essence of the point, it's also what Carville and Begala were saying to us earlier.

We won't go back. We won't go back is the signature chant of the new Harris campaign. It was not the signature chant and was not really available to the Biden campaign. But we won't go back is the

The modern version of that 1992 don't stop thinking about tomorrow. Harris has gotten not only her own messaging, but that of her crowds is about owning the future lean, owning the tomorrow lean, being the change candidate. And I think when you look back at that war room movie, that's that's the lesson. That's the message. Yeah.

I mean, if anything, I think that message is even more resonant almost now because literally what we're looking at is a campaign in which abortion is a big issue. And for so many women, it means going back 50 years at least. And so it's almost a literal kind of battle cry. We are not going to let you take these rights away from us. That

that we had for 50 years. And I think it makes an incredibly strong message. Yeah. You know, to return to where we started today, watching this movie, The War Room, today, you know, it's easy to kind of go down. There's a tactile quality to the time capsule. Everybody's talking on a landline, and there's a lot of, like, you know, George Stephanopoulos in his denim jean jacket and stuff.

But there is an essential truth that is as urgent today as it was then, which is that when campaigns slip into a sense of fixed thinking that this is how it's done and this is who must be in charge and this is how it shall go.

That's a losing strategy. And in a sense, you have to be willing to blow it up. And I think that's the lesson that turned out to be true this year. And it was to some degree in 92. And the other thing about the war room that comes through to me is...

For people who haven't seen it, you got to go see it because it's quite joyous. And, you know, it's tense. There are a lot of tense moments. But these are kids, young people who are idealistic and who are having a good time, at least some of the time. And I think that's a very infectious emotion. Well, in the spirit of looking ahead and thinking about tomorrow, we'll do this next week from Chicago. And Jane?

Evan, it's great to be with you. What a conversation this was. Yeah, that was one to remember. Thanks, guys. Such fun.

This has been the political scene from The New Yorker. I'm Susan Glasser. Thanks again to James Carville and Paul Begala for joining us today. We had research assistants from Alex D'Elia, Julia Nutter, and Sheena Azaki produced today's episode. And our editor is Gianna Palmer, mixing by Mike Kutchman. Stephen Valentino is our executive producer, and Chris Bannon is Conde Nast's head of global audio. Our theme music is by Alison Leighton Brown. Thank you for listening. My name is Madeline Barron.

I'm a journalist for The New Yorker. I focus on stories where powerful people or institutions are doing something that's harming people or harming someone or something in some way. And so my job is to report that so exhaustively that we can reveal what's actually going on and present it to the public.

You know, for us at In the Dark, we're paying equal attention to the reporting and the storytelling. And we felt a real kinship with The New Yorker, like the combination of the deeply reported stories that The New Yorker is known for, but also the quality of those stories, the attention to narrative. If I could give you only one reason to subscribe to The New Yorker, it would be... Maybe this is not the answer you're looking for, but...

I just don't think that there is any other magazine in America that combines so many different types of things into a single issue as a New Yorker. You know, like you have poetry, you have theater reviews, you have restaurant recommendations, which for some reason I read even though I don't live in New York City. And all of those things are great, but I haven't even mentioned like

The other half of the magazine, which is deeply reported stories that honestly are the first things that I read. You know, I'm a big fan of gymnastics and people will say, oh, we're so lucky to live in the era of Simone Biles, which I agree. We're also so lucky to live in the era of Lawrence Wright, Jane Mayer, Ronan Farrow, Patrick Radden Keefe. And so to me, it's like I can't imagine not reading these writers.

You can have all the journalism, the fiction, the film, book, and TV reviews, all the cartoons, just by going right now to newyorker.com slash dark. Plus, there's an incredible archive, a century's worth of award-winning work just waiting for you. That's newyorker.com slash dark. And thanks.