The Race for Senate Control
57:38 Share

We all belong outside. We're drawn to nature. Whether it's the recorded sounds of the ocean we doze off to, or the succulents that adorn our homes, nature makes all of our lives, well, better. Despite all this, we often go about our busy lives removed from it.

But the outdoors is closer than we realize. With AllTrails, you can discover trails nearby and explore confidently with offline maps and on-trail navigation. Download the free app today and make the most of your summer with AllTrails. Get to Smoothie King today and try the new blueberry, raspberry, or watermelon lemonade smoothies. They're all made with real fruit, real juice, and no bad stuff. Just check out the no-no list at SmoothieKing.com. Try the new lemonade smoothies at Smoothie King today.

I'm Henry Olson, and welcome back to The Horse Race. This week, we analyze the race for Senate control with Inside Elections' Nathan Gonzalez, talk all things Trump with Newsmax's John Gizzi, explore the use of on-air profanity in the ad of the week, and bring you another edition of Primary Night in America. The horses are at the starting gate. They're off. ♪

We hear a lot about the presidential campaign, but equally as important to the governance of the country is control of Congress and particularly control of the Senate. That's because the Senate not only has the filibuster rule, which means a minority can hold up legislation proposed by the majority, but also because of its crucial role in confirming judges and justices to the Supreme Court. So here to talk with me about the race for the state

of control of the Senate is Nathan Gonzalez, one of D.C.'s most knowledgeable and eminent political analysts. He's editor of Inside Elections and an elections analyst with CQ Roll Call. Nathan, welcome back to the Horse Race. Thank you for having me. Well, let's start with the 50,000-foot overview. Republicans go into this campaign with a 53-47 advantage, including the two

independents who caucus with the Democrats. Where do you see the state of play as far as what seats are in play and what the likely outcome is, given what we know the state of the electorate is?

Well, I want people to listen to this whole conversation, but if we skip to the punchline, the bottom line of this, I think Democrats are more likely than not to control the United States Senate in the next Congress. The simple math of it is that Democrats need a net gain of four seats to get to a majority, but they can control the Senate by gaining three seats and

coupled with a White House victory because then the new vice president could break any 50-50 ties.

And because I believe that former Vice President Joe Biden has at least a narrow advantage in the presidential race, then that lowers that threshold necessary, what Democrats need in the Senate, to three seats. And another big picture item is that Democrats are simply on the offensive in almost every competitive race.

And there are multiple paths to controlling the Senate. They don't have to win every competitive race in order to get there. And so that allows some room for if one of their candidates stumbles and falls or if one of the Republican senators ends up being exceptional. There's some wiggle room in there. And so that's that's basically why I think Democrats are at least narrow favorites to control the Senate.

Well, let's walk my listeners through kind of the path that if you ever play one of those kids games, you kind of have to wander a path and you get to the end or get to the castle in Candyland. Any Democratic chance to pick up has to deal with their highly unlikely hold of a out-seating, deep-bred Alabama candidate.

If Republicans win that back, that gets them to 54. And of course, the Democrats, to get that net three, have to pick up four. What do the polls show about Doug Jones' likelihood of beating Tommy Tuberville in the Alabama Senate race?

You're absolutely right that Doug Jones in Alabama is the most vulnerable senator. I think he is likely to lose. But I think this race is going to be more difficult than what it's not. It's not a gimme for Republicans necessarily. And what I mean by that is I don't trust a recent morning consult poll that showed Coach Tuberville losing.

up in the teens against Jones. I think it's a closer race. Doug Jones, you know, Republicans just figured out their nominee just a few weeks ago in the runoff with Jeff Sessions. And meanwhile, Doug Jones was stockpiling millions of dollars of cash. I mean, he had an $8 million cash advantage starting the general election. And so Republicans are going to have to

uh, to ramp things up in the end. I think Doug Jones is going to lose and Republicans are going to, or Democrats will have to make up for that somewhere else. But I, I think this is going to be a little bit more of a fight than what we might've thought six months or a year ago.

So then let's move on to the next tier. If the Democrats have to pick up four additional seats to get to 50-50 and control through the vice presidency, if you're right about Alabama and Jones losing, what are the four likeliest pickups for the Democrats and what's the state of the race in each?

I would, I think it has to start with Colorado Senator Cory Gardner and Arizona Senator Martha McSally. I think the president is...

looking less likely to carry those states at the top of the ballot and it makes it difficult for the senators. You know, they have to form coalitions of voters that both like the president and don't like the president. And that's increasingly difficult in sort of our polarized parliamentary. We don't have a parliamentary system, but that's sometimes how we're voting up and up and down the ballot. So I think McSally and Gardner are, are,

Two of those four, I would put Susan Collins of Maine in there and Tom Tillis of North Carolina. The Maine Senate race is kind of a divisive issue right now. I feel Republicans are very emboldened by her current standing. Some Republicans believe she is ahead outside the margin of error.

When I look at the majority, I think the majority of data, the majority of data that I've seen demonstrates that it's a much closer race and she is in a much worse situation. And I feel like a broken record, but I think the president is struggling in Maine and that makes it difficult for Collins. And I hate to simplify races because races are complex organisms with lots of moving parts.

moving pieces. But her vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, I think was a watershed moment. It really closed off her ability to get as many crossover Democratic voters as what she has enjoyed in the past. And so I think she is, she's in that top four. If we're looking, if someone maybe disagrees with those,

Top four, I think the next ones would be Joni Ernst in Iowa and Steve Daines in Montana. We have those both rated as a toss-up, as well as Maine and North Carolina. And those are very competitive races as well. So walk me through a little bit the North Carolina race. This is a state that...

Tends to be close and competitive, but went for Trump in 2016, went for Romney in 2012, although it backed President Obama in 2008, has elected Republicans in close Senate races for the last few years. Why is Tom Tillis in trouble there? Is it simply because of Trump's weakness or is there something that Tillis or his opponent, Cal Cunningham, brings to the table?

Well, North Carolina also doesn't have a problem throwing out incumbents, whether it's Elizabeth Dole, Kay Hagan in recent years. They don't have this deep affinity for reelecting their senators. But taking a look, you're right. North Carolina always tends to host close races.

You know, there is tension between the rural parts of North Carolina, but these growing suburban areas where President Trump is struggling and thus the entire Republican Party is struggling. Tillis, like many of his colleagues, Ernst, Gardner, Daines, are first term senators and they're still getting known nationally.

to their constituents. I would be interested, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but with the growth in North Carolina, like what has been the growth in the population since six years ago when he was first elected? I would imagine there is a sizable portion who couldn't even vote in the 2014 election because they didn't even live there. And Tillis is still, I think he's still recovering from a brief,

moment of dissension with President Trump way back last year. He managed to kind of smooth things over and he avoided a difficult primary. I think there's still some residual impact from that. So he not only is facing pressure from kind of from the left or from left of center voters, but still trying to shore up that Republican base. And Cal Cunningham, most

kind of most Republicans that I talk to describe him as a kind of a generic Democrat. And in this environment, that's not terrible, right? I mean, that's not a, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but they, they have lines of attack. Republicans are going after him on Pete, you know, what he has said and actions he has done with companies he's involved in with PPP. So we will, we'll see how it plays out. But the, the, the bottom line is the,

the president's pressure or the president's performance at the top of the ticket is really overshadowing a lot of these races and making it difficult for Republicans. I think a lot of my listeners would be surprised that the next races you have on the potential Democratic pickup list are rural Iowa, which Trump carried by nine or 10 points, and super rural Montana, which he

carried by something like 18 or 19. Yeah, close to 20. Yep. Yeah. So walk everyone through why is Joni Ernst in trouble and why is Steve Daines potentially a target? Well, certainly a target, but potentially a loss. Well, when we when we zoom out, what

I guess I have either the blessing or the curse of trying to cover all of this, meaning we're trying to cover the presidential race. We're covering the Senate races. We're also covering House races. And what we're seeing is President Trump is underperforming his 2016 result by 8 to 12 points or more.

Almost across the board, Henry. It's really remarkable. Like whether, you know, for example, I've seen some data in Colin Peterson's district in western Minnesota. Trump won that district by 30 in 2016.

He's winning it, I would guess, an educated guess, he's winning it by about 15 this time. Now, that's not suburban. That's not a suburban district, but he's underperforming. He's underperforming even worse. And so, you know, we take Montana and Montana, Steve Daines being vulnerable is a combination of two things. It's a combination of

Trump's underperformance, but also Democrats getting Democratic Governor Steve Bullock into the race. That was just, I think, a legitimate game changer. We talk about things being game changers, and we're flipping with that, but I think that was crucial. And I think a piece of that was also Joe Biden winning, becoming the presumptive nominee

And what I mean is if Bernie Sanders had looked like he was going to win the nomination, I'm not sure Steve Bullock gets into the race because I think he probably looks at it and says, well, you know, there's no chance Bernie Sanders is going to carry Montana. Why would I why would I put myself through this? But that Biden emerging around the time Bullock making his decision was was important in Iowa.

Iowa has gone back and forth. It's one of those states that tends to go with the national trend, and we've been eyeing it as a potential backlash here.

Meaning, you know, when would farmers kind of stop giving President Trump the benefit of the doubt? And for three and a half years, I think they were giving him the benefit of the doubt. And now, though, the polls show that it's Iowa is a close it's very close. It's within a few points either way if it's not completely even. And and that's that it's impacting the Senate race as well.

Let's turn our attention for a minute to Georgia. Georgia has two Senate races on the ballot this time, one the normal term that will expire for Senator David Perdue and the other a special election because of the resignation of Senator Johnny Isakson due to health problems and the appointment of novice politico and businesswoman Kelly Loeffler.

Georgia has been getting a lot of attention from the national press as a potential flip state from red to blue because of Democratic surges in the Atlanta suburbs. Where do you rate the two Georgia races and do you think they differ in any meaningful manner?

So we have them rated slightly differently. We have the Purdue race rated as tilt Republican. We have a unique category rating category that others, most of the other handicappers don't have tilt, which is between toss up and lean. Basically my, my former boss years ago, Stu Rothenberg created a tilt category because we didn't want to throw everything into toss up, try to get people. Is there even a pinky on the scale? And that's where the Purdue races we have.

the Loeffler seat in a slightly better position for Republicans in our lean Republican category. But you've laid out the overall landscape well, that Georgia is, I think we have to call it as a legitimate, legitimately competitive presidential state right now. We're seeing evidence of that growth.

Trump collapse in the suburbs in two competitive. Get to Smoothie King today and try the new blueberry, raspberry, or watermelon lemonade smoothies. They're all made with real fruit, real juice, and no bad stuff. Just check out the no-no list at SmoothieKing.com. Try the new lemonade smoothies at Smoothie King today. House races in the 6th District. Lucy McBath in a rematch with former Congresswoman Karen Handel in the 6th.

And the 7th District, where Republican Congressman Woodall is not seeking re-election. We're seeing the presidential, Trump's numbers are just awful in those districts, making it tougher for Republicans to pick him up. But a couple of key things that both of the races in Georgia, if no candidate gets to 50% in November, they move to January runoffs.

And, you know, that's significant. If control of the Senate is hinging on a seat or two, then that could matter. And we may not even know who ultimately controls the Senate when the senators are supposed to be sworn in at the beginning of the year. The rules are slightly different in the Perdue seat.

As you said, it's the normal election. The primaries have already happened. Democrats nominated John Ossoff. Your listeners who are political junkies remember John Ossoff from the high-profile and expensive special election loss in 2017. But he is a credible candidate.

Republicans like to dismiss him because he's fairly young and they call him inexperienced and too liberal. But not having a legislative voting record to exploit is an asset for Ossoff. So we're watching that race. And then in the Loeffler seat, slightly different rules because it's a special all candidates of all parties are running together race.

Top two, if no one makes it across 50 percent, the top two go to to the runoff. And National Democrats really like Ralph Warnock, who is an African-American minister who but he has yet to.

I guess, put everything together or really introduce himself to voters. And right now there's the real possibility that Loeffler and Republican Congressman Doug Collins actually finished first and second and moved to the runoff, which would be a democratic disaster. I mean, that would be a disaster scenario for them. Uh, but it's a, it's a possibility until Warnock really gets his, uh,

his act together. Now, another Democrat who's running in the race is Matt Lieberman. And, you know, your listeners might recognize that name. And he is the son of former Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. So it's a lot of moving parts there. So for a lot of Democrats, they are

being cautious in the way they assess this race and assess the presidential race. They were burned in 2016 when they were counting their marbles on Hillary Clinton, only to be shocked on election night. But if the Democratic dreams of a massive landslide come true, that

Trump doesn't really get out of the low 40s and Biden's winning by 10 to 13 points in the national vote. What does that do to the Senate landscape and does it bring other states into potential play that we haven't talked about?

Yes, is the short answer. It really opens up a lot of possibilities. And that's why John Cornyn's race in Texas, Texas is a legitimate presidential battleground. We're watching that. We have it as a lean Republican, but we're watching that. Lindsey Graham in South Carolina, too.

Dan Sullivan in Alaska, Republican Senators Trump, as he is slumping, is opening the doors of possibility. There was a poll that just came out last night, that I got last night, in Oklahoma. Now, Senator Jim Inhofe is facing Abby Broyles, who's a former newscaster, and

And the Democratic poll has Jim Inhofe ahead. And

But looking at that presidential ballot, it still has the president up by 20, which is what we would expect in Oklahoma. But he won Oklahoma by 35 in 2016. And so that just adds into what I was trying to explain earlier, that we're just seeing overall this depression or this slump of President Trump. And that is really, I think, helping me, reminding me to be

open-minded about what states. My colleague, Jacob Rubashkin at Inside Elections, we were talking through races and I heard us saying a word over and over. We were using the word should, like this state should, you know, vote this way or this district should vote this way based on everything we've known. And I stopped us and I said, you know what, we're at the point of the cycle where we need to just follow where the data lead. Right.

because what we thought might have, you know, we just, we have to, we have to follow. And there's a chance that sure, there's a chance that the polling is wrong, but it would take, they would mean that basically everyone like all pollsters, partisan and nonpartisan are making the same methodological error independently on their own in the same direction. And, and,

Again, I tread humbly and cautiously, but I don't want to get to November and Democrats have this great year and we say, oh, well, of course this happened. Look at what the polls have been saying for six months. It's been pointing us in this direction. So I tread carefully, but also I feel like we owe it to our listeners and readers to say, hey, this is where the data is pointing to right now.

Now, there are two states you didn't put on your landslide list that some of my Democratic listeners might want to say, hey, why aren't they there? And those are Kansas and the battle to unseat the man that they call Moscow Mitch, the battle between Amy McGrath and Mitch McConnell in Kentucky. Why do you not have them on your landslide possibility list?

Because I just had a brain freeze. Well, particularly in Kansas. Kansas, we do have – we've had it rated as lean Republican for many, many months, even though –

Congressman Marshall won the primary and Chris Kobach didn't win the primary. We're going to keep that lean Republican rating for a little while and let the dust settle. And I, and I was, I think we were backed up by that decision when one nation, which is a GOP outside group that's affiliated with Mitch McConnell, uh,

announced they're going to start a $4 million ad buy soon in Kansas, you know, after the primary to kind of boost Marshall's chances. So Kansas is legitimate. I mean, I think Kansas is still probably more likely to flip than maybe even,

There was some semi cryptic reference in a Jonathan Martin New York Times piece a couple of months ago now where it talked about the presidential race in Kansas being competitive. And so, you know, Republicans, the primary is over, but Republicans aren't out of the woods in in Kansas, Kentucky, Kansas.

Sure, let's put it on the landslide list, but President Trump won Kentucky by 30 points. Let's say he slips to 15. That's still a big jump for Amy McGrath.

to cover. And we can't rule it out. Kentucky and National Democrats point to Bashir's, Andy Bashir's victory in the 2019 gubernatorial election that at least there's a roadmap for them. Now, replicating that is, I think, more difficult because McConnell is polarizing but not as unpopular as what Matt Bevin, the Republican governor who lost, was saying.

And McConnell has a specific connection to President Trump, whereas Bevin tried to create a connection. But McConnell, Democrats hate McConnell, maybe for multiple reasons, but one, because, you know, he's he's confirming the judges for the president. And, you know, they say he's carrying the president's water in the Senate. And in Kentucky, that's not as much of a liability as what it is nationally.

Well, my Republican listeners are surely saying, well, you know that the president could recover and go on to winning. What possibilities open up for Republicans if suddenly you see a fall recovery and Trump gets back to where he was in 2016, you know, coming close in the

in the popular vote and winning the electoral college? Are there Senate seats that in a rosy Republican scenario could come into play for pickups on the Republican side? The first one that comes to mind is Michigan. President obviously won Michigan narrowly in 2016.

Right now, I don't think he's anywhere near close to even in Michigan. I would say he's down eight, nine or 10 points. But if he were to recover in Michigan and be truly competing for it, then that would boost Republican chances. The nominee, John James, against Democratic Senator Gary Peters. Then it really, we really stretch. If he dramatically improves and he...

You know, Gene Shaheen in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire by less than half of 1%. I guess in this sort of almost fictional scenario where he gets dramatic, the president gets dramatically better. We'd start talking about New Hampshire. Minnesota was very close in the 2016 presidential. And Tina Smith is up for election to a full term. I guess we start talking about that, but it's a pretty...

We really have to kind of stretch now. But to your point, and I've been thinking about this a lot, what would it take for him to improve? And when talking with Republicans, at least two things really stand out. There is an assumption that Joe Biden will implode during the debates, that he will literally self-destruct and

Again, it's possible, but I think maybe there's an underestimation that Joe Biden's been around for a long time. This is not his first rodeo. He's done this before, and his ability to hold it together for 45 minutes of talking time, I don't think is too far out of the question.

And there's an assumption within that that Republicans, that the president is going to be stellar in a debate performance when we know that particularly in the first debate, some presidents, some incumbent presidents kind of mail it in on the first debate and really have to recover in subsequent debates. The other thing that comes up is, well, what if there's a vaccine issue?

And I think the president might have been tweeting about it. I think he did tweet about it very recently himself. And that's possible. You know, I'm not an epidemiologist. It seems like that is not likely to happen. But we'll see. And the bigger thing is Republicans and President Trump don't have until November 3rd to recover. Voters, some voters, are going to start getting ballots in September.

Like the window, tens of millions of voters will have voted already before we get to November 3rd. So this idea that, you know, it's technically true that there's three months until Election Day, but there is not three months until voters start voting. And that puts pressure on Republicans to recover more quickly.

Well, Nathan, that's magisterial as always. And I look forward to having you back in the fall as we get closer to Election Day and the margin for error in forecasting winnows down considerably. And I look forward to having you back on the horse race. No problem. Thank you.

Normally on Ad of the Week, I am showing you an ad that has a particular feature that makes it appealing to help one understand why a candidate says and does what they do in order to build a coalition. But that's not what this week's ad is about. This week's ad is about teaching about a obscure provision in federal law that actually gives candidates a lot of leeway in what they say to you.

This ad is from former Congresswoman Claudia Tenney, who's trying to regain her congressional seat. And I think you'll see why it's the ad of the week when you listen. Let's hear it now.

I'm Claudia Tenney, and I approve this message. Anthony Brindisi got elected promising to hold Spectrum accountable. He hasn't. Since Brindisi took office, Spectrum's raised rates six times. What's he done? Talk. The money talks, too. Behind closed doors, Brindisi's taken $360,000 from groups backed by Spectrum Cable's corporate PAC. $60,000 for every time they've raised rates under his watch. You're getting ripped off.

We sure are. You can't spell Brindisi without B-S. Yes, that's right. You heard it correct. Claudia Tenney ends her ad by saying you can't spell Brindisi without saying B-S.

Now, how does a candidate get away with saying that on the airwaves? Well, the candidate can do that because there is a federal law that requires ads from candidates to be run by stations. That's right. A television station cannot reject a television ad put forward by a candidate, no matter what sort of classification.

claim or offensive argument they make. There was even an ad that a station was forced to run in a New Mexico race in the last few years that started with the phrase F, and I won't say that word here, but it rhymes with clock,

the NRA. Now, normally no one could say that on a broadcast television, but because it's protected by law, candidates can use expletives, candidates can make charges, and candidates can outright tell fabrications

And the station can do nothing about it. This does not apply to third party ads. So if you, dear listener, had a multimillion dollar super PAC and you wanted to start your ad with the phrase F the NRA or say you can't spell Brindisi without using BS, you might have your ad censored because you're not protected by that federal law.

But because of the law, that means that candidates can make outrageous claims or colorful ones to use euphemism.

And that's something that you should understand as you're listening. The station is not liable for libel or defamation or slander charges as a publisher. And the candidate, of course, is a public figure and as a public figure finds it extremely difficult under New York Times versus Sullivan, the Supreme Court from the 1960s, to be sued for such.

So when you hear somebody using colorful charges or saying something that just can't be possibly true on your television screen,

Maybe it's not, but maybe they're saying it because the law lets them say. Claudia Tenney is running to recover her seat, which is a strongly Republican seat in upstate New York, and she may very well win. And the substance of this claim may very well be true. But the use of those two letters and their rarity in television usage outside of this is why her ad is this week's out of the week.

Joining me on Trump Talk this week is one of the Capitol's longtime and expert political observers and all things White House. He is John Gizzi. He is the White House correspondent and chief political correspondent for Newsmax Television. John, welcome to the Horse Race. Henry, always a pleasure. I'm glad I'm one of your thoroughbreds. Ha ha ha.

Well, you know, let's see if you can last 15 minutes. I've seen the two minute trials around the track. You told me off air that you were with President Trump yesterday. Tell the horse race listeners all about that. Well, it was my turn at bat, or I should say Newsmax turn at bat in the seat in the White House briefing room.

So every eight days we get a crack at either Kayleigh McEnany, the press secretary, or the man at the top, Donald Trump. Yesterday he called a news conference for 530, or perhaps I should say a news conference disguised as a coronavirus briefing. The president did give a statement on his meeting with Arizona's Governor Ducey.

what the administration has been doing on coronavirus relief. And of course, then questions were a cacophony of subjects ranging from the tragedy in Beirut recently to what the venue will be when the president accepts renomination of the Republican Party. For my part, I asked him about an esoteric subject.

We hear a lot about the first responders, the nurses, but the ambulance services, EMS, and the paramedics,

It turns out, their association tells me, they're not being paid. The money that is set aside for people who provide that kind of service, they've only been given $300 million, and they are owed, they say, $2.95 billion. And I asked the president what is holding it up and would he take action. He said that's the first time he heard about it.

But he would look into it. He said that all of these people in the ambulance service are doing good work and they should be paid. And we will see if he takes action on it. It's a story I'm following. I happen to feel very strongly about the people who work in the ambulances and do things for others. And we'll see if the president takes action.

One more thing. I did ask him about Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, who is saying and said at the Aspen Center the day before that what happened in Beirut is most likely an accident. The president, of course, has called it an attack. Instead of huffing and puffing and blowing off steam, he said some say it's an attack, some say it's an accident. We don't know right now.

All of that is code essentially for saying Mark Esper will hang on as the top person at the Pentagon, at least through the end of the president's term. We'll find out. Well, what's your assessment close up as to how Trump has been doing, particularly since he has resurrected his daily press conferences slash faux coronavirus briefings? Do you think it's helping him, hurting him or not having much effect?

Well, I think it certainly is helping him in the sense his base sees him on TV looking in command, even when people present alternative facts to him. And that always helps. He himself knows the value of being on television regularly from his years as the host of The Apprentice. That was a key reason for his election.

Now he has almost a daily show and he can cite to you when the ratings beat other programs in the afternoon. So I would say it probably helps because as one of his mentors, the late Roy Cohn said, it doesn't matter what they say about you as long as they say the name.

So you've been around the White House for a long time. What is your sense of what it's like to be in the White House as a staff person? And has it changed over the course of the president's tenure? I noticed one clear and distinct change, Henry. And that is that in previous administrations from Reagan to Obama,

Staffers were usually in their offices. Access to them was determined by whether one could get an appointment with them. And often this was very good for me. I might add I did better with Republican administrations than Democratic administrations. President Obama's press secretary, Josh Earnest, was very kind to me, though, and helped me on a number of things. Currently,

It's easy to run into people ranging from lower level staffers to the chief of staff right in the hallway because they seem to be moving about. My understanding is that the president in a job where schedules are tightly controlled by the chief of staff or in John Kennedy's case, by his appointment secretary, Ken O'Donnell, that's not the case with Donald Trump.

People seem to walk into his office, and we develop government by bull session. Now, Karl Rove, close advisor to President Bush, told me that's not productive.

It's better to have regular meetings and have output going from the top and then input coming back from the lower level to the senior staff level. This president apparently doesn't agree with that and talks to staffers on and off coming into the office. If I could share one story...

Not long ago, when he was still White House Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney was walking about and he confirmed a story as he was headed down to the National Security Council. Wasn't able to follow him there, but we did have a nice talk right in the lobby of the West Wing. That rarely happens under most presidents.

So what is the mood of the staff these days when you run into them? Certainly they, as any sort of political animals are, are aware of the polls.

And what is their mood with respect to just interactions with them when you run into them? Well, it's pretty good, actually. As long as they know it's off the record or on background where we would cite a source but not use a name, everything goes along smoothly.

I talked to a young man from the National Security Council yesterday, and this is a day after I reported that Robert O'Brien, the president's national security advisor, just back from a bout with COVID-19, essentially ended what I call the Bolton Doctrine on Libya and

positioned the United States back to being a peacemaker in Libya. We had a very nice talk about this on the street. He did not seem worried or unguarded, or guarded, I should say. And that's usually the attitude with most of the staffers. You can run into them quite easily and have a talk, as long as they know it's off the record, they're volunteering information freely, and they're upbeat.

So that's one of the things I think that people who aren't in Washington often find a little bit odd, this whole on record, off record thing. Can you explain to my listeners how that works and why it's important to reporters to be able to get things that people will say not for attribution, but rather to provide information? Well, these are...

around a lot longer than I've been around, and they'll be there after I'm gone, Henry. In fact, going back to Franklin Roosevelt's administration, when the current structure of press secretary briefings at all was created, we've always had a rule that if something is off the record, that means you don't attribute to anyone. You can write it, but it's never attributed.

On background is usually a senior administration official. Let me give you an example. Recently, I wrote a column.

with quotes from people in different levels, in and out of the administration, totally disparaging the claim of National Security Advisor John Bolton that Mike Pompeo belittled some of the president's initiatives, notably his outreach to the North Korean strongman, Kim Jong-un.

Pompeo denied this, and one person who was very high level in the administration said John Bolton had his own press secretary. He had his own plane because he had his own foreign policy and wanted to be secretary of state.

Strong medicine, all right. And I was allowed to use it as long as I wouldn't reveal the name of the person who still works in the administration. That's called on background. The point is, there's a lot of people in official Washington.

and on the cocktail circuit in Georgetown, who like to spread information and get it out, but they want no fingerprints on it. Former Secretary of State and Ronald Reagan's White House Chief of Staff, Jim Baker, was the classic leaker and someone who talked –

regularly on background and off the record with people, especially when he wanted to sink someone he didn't like in the administration. It continues to this day. How useful is that to actually informing the American people as opposed to giving the media a role in being players rather than

or reporters in the Washington scene? Well, if it weren't for off the record or on background,

I guarantee a lot of information would not come out, notably the declining status of cabinet members and people close to the president or people who happen to be on the rise. And with respect to declining status, you're not talking about this administration. You're talking about generally across. Yes. Across the board. Good example. Bill Clinton.

in his first term was surrounded by more people who were liberal Democrats than were cut from the cloth of the kind of Democrats

He sold himself as a different kind of Democrat when he was elected. Harold Ickes Jr., for example, the deputy chief of staff, was the embodiment of the Democratic left in office. His first chief of staff, Mack McLarty, good man who had a longtime relationship with President Clinton, was not strong enough to put down some of these people.

And hence, that's where you saw Clinton, elected as a centrist, moving to the left. Now, after the Democrats took a shellacking in the midterm elections of 1994, President Clinton brought in a very strong secretary, a strong chief of staff, Leon Panetta, who was very much a centrist. And second, he brought in Dick Morris,

who believed in the policy of triangulation, Morris being the political consultant. And he was definitely someone who reinforced the moderate side of Bill Clinton.

None of this would be known, the rivalry between the different factions, the disorganization around President Clinton in his early days, if there weren't people who had it in for someone in the White House and hence went to us guys in the fourth estate with that kind of information. It was around in Clinton's day. It is around to this day. So let's look forward a little bit for President Trump. Yeah.

The public polls say that the race is tightening, but he's still substantially behind. His job approval ratings have bottomed out and are slightly up, but they're still well below the level that in presidents who have won reelection have had this close to the election.

What do you think President Trump is likely to do over the next three weeks to try and both improve his job approval numbers and cut the barge in with Biden so that he takes the stage or, as they've rumored, stands in the White House rose garden to accept the Republican nomination on the last Thursday in August?

I'm not sure he's going to go and do that, but he will have some kind of backdrop indicating he's the commander in chief. You know, the last time a president did that was Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940. As soon as he was nominated and he got his choice for vice president, Henry Wallace,

He went right to the broadcast room in the White House and accepted his nomination by the Democratic Party for an unprecedented third term on radio. A newsreel camera caught a shot of it. Now, again, he was not out in the Rose Garden. He was not at the front of the White House. He was in the room he always used to bring his voice to the public via radio.

I predict in the end that President Trump will do something like that without a grand speech that will just raise controversy. I have to say that President Trump will do all he can to milk what he hopes will be lower figures in

death and illness with the coronavirus. If a vaccine somehow comes out before the election, you can rest assured he'll take credit for it. And he'll remind people that the market is still doing quite well. Although again, the unemployment figures and the more abundancy of small business is not helping him seek reelection. Most importantly, this president is going to go on the attack

Much like Harry Truman in 1948, he'll come out swinging at Joe Biden and we'll call him every name in the book. If Vice President Biden picks a running mate who is definitely on the far left of the Democratic Party, she will be a major target of Trump and the Republican team. So it's taking credit for things that are good.

and reminding voters of all he sees that's bad in the Biden blank ticket. Well, John, what parting thoughts do you have for our listeners as to how to understand what the media says about the Trump administration and how to understand how the media covers the White House more generally? When you say the media, Henry, that term has changed dramatically.

in my 40 years in Washington and in your time here as well. It used to be newspapers and the big three networks dominated most of the coverage coming out of the White House. Today, there's social media, there's cable news, and there's different forms of communication that's available through the apps. My guess would be

that the media covers this president, does a lot of instant analysis, and you get the counter-strike from those who support the president, all played out in the world of cyberspace. And of course, you've heard this expression often, the 24-hour news cycle, which make or break politicians in a short time.

Donald Trump, to his credit, has mastered this, and he manages to hang in from an assault which few presidents have experienced in the past. Put another way, he knows how to use the media, even the part of the media that hates him. And if he is reelected,

It's going to be four years of those who hate his gaudy guts. Nonetheless, grudgingly admitted, he knows what to do. If he loses, well, it'll be a sign that the media coverage and the president's response to it just was proved fatal. For as Julius Caesar said, when beggars die, there are no comets seen. The heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes.

I don't think I've ever had as eloquent a close on any of my episodes of the horse race thus far. And for that alone, I am indebted to you for coming on the program. And I look forward to having you return, John. My cup runneth over. Thank you. Are you ready? Are you ready? Are you ready? Are you ready? Are you ready?

Well, it's not Monday night. It's Tuesday night. But my rowdy friends are going to be up because there's going to be another primary night in America. Yes, there are a number of states voting on Tuesday. And

And I'm going to run down the races that we should be looking at. Unlike last week, there aren't quite as many, but there are still four races for Congress that will have national impact depending on who wins.

Georgia has a unique system that only a couple of other states share, where a primary winner has to get 50 percent in order to proceed on. And if they don't, the top two finishers go on to a runoff. We have two Republican House runoffs that are taking place in Georgia. In Georgia 9, which is a rural and suburban district in the northeastern corner, the battle is between state representative Matt Gertler and businessperson Andrew Clyde.

The race is very close from the first primary where Gertler led with 21% and Clyde was behind with 19%.

The first round returns were highly regionalized. Gertler did well in the suburbs, but ran up big margins in his state house district, whereas Clyde did very well in his home county and in surrounding counties. That's 60 percent of the vote, though, left for them to figure out how to get. And that went to people who were also regionally based, another state representative and a state senator.

Gertler is endorsed by the Club for Growth and has the benefit of their money, but Clyde is a wealthy self-funder. It's completely unclear who is going to come out on top, but the winner is sure to go through to Congress in this safely read seat.

The other runoff to look at is Georgia 14. Georgia 14 is a rural seat in the northwestern corner of Georgia, and it features Marjorie Taylor Greene and John Cowan. Greene beat Cowan 41 to 20, but that's not necessarily a sign that she can get to 50. Cowan's been out with a pole. Of course, an internal pole is one that you should take with a grain of salt, but he has the race tied at 38 apiece.

Green has attracted national attention because of videos she's posted that are best described as racist and anti-Semitic in many ways. I wrote a column on that. But, of course, she disputes that. Cowan has not been attacking that, but Cowan has been talking about her business, which supposedly does not participate in E-Verify, which means that her construction business can and perhaps does employ illegal immigrants.

immigrants. Greene is not from this district. She's a wealthy business person who lives in a suburban Atlanta community, but has, oddly enough, not been attacked for being a carpetbagger, at least not one that has been attacked in television advertisement.

One has to say at 41 percent that Green is the favorite. But there are many instances in runoff history where a first round winner ends up being a second round loser. The Georgia's governor's race from 2018 being a prime example where Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle ended up being clobbered in the runoff despite having a solid lead in the first round by current Georgia Governor Brian Kemp.

This, too, is a safe Republican seat. The winner will go on to become the next congressperson. Minnesota 7 is another race worth looking at. This is the most Republican seat that is held by a Democrat. Democrat Colin Peterson has represented this rural northwestern Minnesota seat for decades, but his margin has been slumping as the seat has been becoming more popular.

And he has won reelection with increasingly smaller percentage of the vote, winning only about 52 percent in 2018 against a candidate who did not raise very much money. National and local Republicans finally woke up. And there are two significant challengers this time who are battling for the nod to take on Peterson.

Former Lieutenant Governor Michelle Fischbach has received all the national attention because of her title and the fact that she is the candidate of the establishment. But local gastroenterologist Noel Collis has raised over $755,000 and is putting on a spirited race. He's aired six television advertisements and labels Fischbach a career politician and himself as a conservative outsider.

That theme worked very well in Michigan races this past week, where two self-funding business people defeated two career politicians who had been endorsed by either the Club for Growth in the case of Shane Hernandez or who had raised a significant amount of money on their own, Lynn Afandoulis.

Will Collis be another conservative outsider dealing that political death to a conservative politician? Michelle Fischbach hopes not, but that's a race to be watching. And then the main event that people nationally will be looking at is Minnesota Five. Yes, Ilhan Omar's primary challenge with Anton Melton-Mews.

or Moe, will be coming to a head next Tuesday. Each candidate has raised over $4 million for this seat based in the St. Paul area, and each has been flooding the airwaves with negative ads as well as positive ads touting their accomplishments and bringing down the other person.

Outside groups have also ran ads here, and it'll be a test to see whether or not Omar, who is perhaps the best known member of the four-member progressive squad beyond Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, can weather the storm and win her first reelection, or whether or not Democrats will choose for a different type of progressive in Antone Melton-Mews.

That will be the race you'll hear the most about, and you should be watching that as Primary Night in America comes to its exciting conclusion next year. That's all for this week's Horse Race. Join me next week as we profile the upcoming Democratic Virtual Convention and perhaps even Biden's vice presidential pick and bring you yet another Primary Night in America. I'm Henry Olson, and I'll see you in the winter.