Chapters
Shownotes Transcript
Thank you.
Welcome back to Beyond the Polls. I'm Henry Olson, and I'm excited to bring you an all-star lineup for our post-debate episode. Politico's Stephen Shepard will talk about whether Hurricane Adelia will make or break Ron DeSantis. The Des Moines Register's Brianne Fannenstiel will give us a tour of the all-important Iowa caucuses. And National Review's Ramesh Purnooru will analyze the GOP contest. All this and our new ad of the week,
Join me now and let's go Beyond the Polls. Joining me this week on Polling Barometer is Stephen Shepard, the Senior Campaigns and Elections Editor at Politico Magazine and a guru of all things American politics. Stephen, welcome to Beyond the Polls. Thanks so much for having me. Well, the big news in America is for once not political. It's nature related. It's the hurricane that is barreling down on Tallahassee.
What do we know about how natural disasters like hurricanes or earthquakes can impact a political leader from the state or states that it goes to? Yeah, they can have a big impact within those jurisdictions. You know, Ron DeSantis is governor of Florida, for example. Previous governors of Florida have had to deal with natural disasters, particularly hurricanes.
Jeb Bush really made a reputation inside Florida dealing with some of the hurricanes that state faced, especially in the middle of the aughts. And, you know, 2005, 2006 were some busy hurricane seasons in Florida. Rick Scott actually, you know, helped burnish his reputation as a manager and an executive that, you know, he won a very, very tight Senate race the last time he was on the ballot in 2018, ousting
then Democratic Senator Bill Nelson. And they were all able to burnish their reputations on managing and handling the run-up and then the after, the recovery from a lot of these storms. The one place that this hasn't really translated is when some of these figures like Jeb Bush or Bobby Jindal, who had much the same reputation in Louisiana,
when they've tried to seek national office. That hasn't always translated. You know, voters in Florida, I'm sure if, you know, Governor DeSantis gets good marks in the coming days and weeks for his handling of Hurricane Nidalia and the recovery from it, I'm sure voters in North Florida and along the Gulf Coast will remember that. But whether that impacts a
caucus goer in Iowa or a likely primary voter in New Hampshire come next January, there are some open questions about that. Now, that said, you know, a big part of Ron DeSantis' campaign thus far has been about competence, has been about execution. It's what he often says separates him from Donald Trump, who might be similar ideologically. You know, DeSantis is going to make those arguments on effectiveness both abstractly
as an executive, but also as a candidate who can win. And any kind of good news such as it is, given the tragic impacts that this hurricane is likely to have, anything that helps his reputation as Florida's chief executive can't hurt those arguments, since they would seem to reinforce a lot of the themes around which he's based his campaign so far. Now, one of the things that
seem to hurt somebody and stays with him years later is Chris Christie. Had Hurricane Sandy barrel into New Jersey. He wasn't a candidate, but he was a leading Republican figure. And he figuratively and literally embraced Governor Obama as the
President Obama was delivering federal aid, and that's something that still gets brought up in debates or on the trail. Obviously, if this is bad for Florida, Ron DeSantis is going to want federal aid, which means the man he's running up against, assuming he gets the nomination, is somebody who can help him. How does DeSantis not pull a Christie, but still get what his state needs? I mean, I think if...
you know, if there is a presidential visit in the offing, either later this week or next week, I think there's a way to collaboratively work together, show that you can be bipartisan in times of crisis without the full Chris Christie, Barack Obama, boardwalk bear hug. You know, and I think that the DeSantis folks, DeSantis and his team will try to walk that line. They were quick to...
apply for federal disaster aid, even as the storm was still forming in the Gulf of Mexico. They have credited the Biden administration for granting their request quickly. And I think you'll see a lot of that cooperation without the full-on embrace. Part of also what made that Christie embrace memorable was it came in the week leading up to the 2012 general election. Now, that might have been beneficial for Chris Christie running in a blue state
the following year, a year later, he was easily reelected after a really close competitive race in 2009. He was easily reelected in 2013, in part because he had that bipartisan cred.
What Ron DeSantis needs to do in the coming months is win a national fight for the Republican presidential nomination. That bipartisan credit isn't necessarily going to do him any favors if he embraces Joe Biden. However, I think, you know, showing that you can put aside partisan rancor in a time of crisis to work with the administration without openly bear-hugging them, you know, I think that's the line he's going to have to walk in the coming days and weeks.
So speaking of Biden, there's been a couple of polls out recently that talk about worry about his age, that large numbers of voters, not just Republicans anymore, are saying that he might be too old.
to be president. How much credibility do you give figures like that, both as far as what people are thinking when they answer questions like that, but more importantly, with respect to how it's going to impact them in the polls? Because one can say, yeah, I'm worried about it, I'm concerned, but it won't matter a whole lot because my partisanship or my factionality
over trumps that and some people it might go the other way what are your thoughts about the age question and the president's re-elect i mean i think it's a big question i think you know we saw a poll this week from the associated press uh and nrc at the university of chicago uh showing that basically
Three in four Americans say age is a bigger concern for them with President Biden than with former President Trump, even though former President Trump is only three years younger than Joe Biden. And either man, if they're both the nominees,
next year, either man, no matter who wins, would be the oldest person ever elected president, just as that was the case in 2020. If Donald Trump wins in 2024, he breaks Joe Biden's 2020 record as the oldest man ever elected president. So we're dealing with both candidates who are historically old, if they are indeed their respective parties' nominees. Look, I think, you know, we have...
Joe Biden has a record as president now for two and a half years. He's only gotten older since he ran the last time. He's running for another four-year term at an age when virtually all Americans are retired, or at least semi-retired from professional life. And so voters are looking at that, and they say they're concerned about it. And I think there's...
We look at some of the election results from 2022. We look at where the two political parties are on a number of issues. We look at some of the election results so far this year, although the big races, including federal races and governor's races, are still to come. But I think for Democrats, you dismiss concerns about Biden's age and his relatively low approval rating at your own peril, because those are
Certainly warning signs looming ahead of 2024. So speaking of Biden's approval rating, as of this morning, it was about 42 percent in the RealClearPolitics average, which is a slightly lower than Donald Trump's average at the same point in Trump's presidency. Biden's been spending the last month.
It seems talking about Bidenomics and running around the country, making speeches saying about how good Americans have had inflation on the way down, investment on the way up, wages up, etc. And his job approval rating doesn't seem to be moving much. What do you think is behind that?
The age part may be a big part of that issue. I think a lot of Americans also don't feel that the country and the U.S. economy is headed in the right direction, maybe despite some relatively good economic news that we've seen come out in the past few months, the potentially waning chances of a recession, which a lot of folks are worried about coming out of
the hyperinflation we saw over the past couple of years. That said, it's not so far translating. You know, you mentioned some of the reasons why we might expect it to, and it could be concerns about Biden's age and competence. Now, you know, I'm sure that
Folks in Wilmington, Delaware are looking at Donald Trump's favorable ratings and views of his presidency and the end days of his presidency and the four criminal indictments looming against him and the possibility of multiple criminal trials in 2024.
and can project confidence based on all that information. But the reality is, you know, I think if the 2020 election was largely a referendum on Donald Trump's presidency, the 2024 election, folks in Wilmington better hope that it's not a referendum on Joe Biden's presidency, because I'm not sure that that would go that well for them. Now, Donald Trump is such a well-known figure that if he's the nominee, I don't think it necessarily will be. But that's certainly a big factor to look at right now.
Well, you know, when you look ahead at the polls, one thing strikes me is Trump's always saying, oh, I'm ahead of the polls, blah, blah. And of course, he cherry picks, like picking the one of the eight polls that actually have him ahead by a reasonable amount. But the fact is, he is within a point or so on the real clear politics average. He's led in a couple of the polls in that average by a point or two. He trails by a point or two in others. And that led me to go back to the 2020 election.
Starting on the RealClearPolitics website, all of the polls in 2020 from January 1 until the election, Trump led in two.
Two others he was tied. Biden led every other poll. I didn't count them up. There were too many of them. There was a wave of blue of Biden leading, usually by five to ten points. And it's not that Trump is doing better than he was in 2020 in this year's polls. He's running around the same. It's that Biden is down, that when Biden wasn't well-known, he was kicking Trump's behind. Now he's in a close race. What's behind this?
Well, I think that the fact that Joe Biden has a record as president that most voters disapprove of so far, I think that's a big factor. Look, you know, we can look at 2020. I do think increasingly 2016 might be a better comparison point. You know, we spent a lot of time in 2016, or at least after 2016, trying to explain what happened, looking at the roughly two in 10 voters who said they disliked both candidates.
Come 2020, there were very few voters who said they disliked both candidates. Most Republicans had come around to Donald Trump and almost all Democrats liked Joe Biden. I think based on everything that has happened since November 2020,
between January 6th, the criminal cases against Donald Trump, Joe Biden's record as president, I think you're much more likely to see an election if it is, again, those two as the nominees, where a significant slice of the electorate dislikes both candidates. And he
And even though it would be the same two candidates as last time, that would be a different dynamic and much more akin, I think, to what we saw in 2016 when it was Trump against Hillary Clinton than what we saw in 2020 in the first Trump-Biden matchup. And that block of voters is going to be an important watch. Look, if you look at the voters who said they slightly disapprove of Joe Biden's job performance in the exit poll last year, they actually went narrowly for Democratic congressional candidates. Republicans were not able to bring over those sort of soft candidates
Biden disapproving voters, whether they're moderate Republicans or Democrats who are, you know, not thrilled with how the president's doing his job so far. That is a must, obviously, for Republicans. Right now, the polling...
that shows Joe Biden five or 10 points off of where he was in 2020 reflects those folks not saying they'll vote for him. When push came to shove in the 2022 midterms, in a lot of the key Senate races, those voters went for the Democratic candidate. And, you know, they're going to be the ones to watch again in 2024. Again, if we're dealing with a rematch of the 2020 election. So
Those are a lot of the dynamics at play right now. I think looking at the polling now and just the margin misses that big chunk of voters who are undecided that wasn't quite there in 2020. But those voters are really important. And we saw them swing one way in 2016. We saw them kind of swing a little bit the other way in 2022 in the midterms. And, you know, that's going to be a huge question mark over the next year and change as we head into November 24. Right.
Certainly makes me hope that some pollsters are going to be doing deep dives into both of these groups, the somewhat disapprovers and what I'm calling the double doubters, the people who don't like both parties nominees, because right now I was trying to prepare for this and I look through, gee, does anybody have any crosstabs on these groups?
No, you know, the thing is, most people who publish polls, they show you that they exist, but they don't actually break down where they're leaning. And I would hope that pollsters will take your advice to heart and start giving us the data we all crave to go beyond the headlines.
Well, it probably requires rolling up a few polls worth of samples, because even in 2016, when you had those two historically unpopular candidates for office for president, it was still only 20 to 25 percent of voters who said they had an unfavorable opinion of both candidates.
So if you're dealing with a poll of only 1,000 voters nationally, it's only going to be 200 to 250 who say they dislike both candidates. But if you do that poll every month, you can roll up those numbers over the course of a few months and do a deep dive into who these people are. And again, yes, ask questions.
Well, I understand you say you're undecided, but if you had to choose, would you lean toward one or the other? And I think that that would give us maybe some clues as to, you know, which way those voters would lean if push came to shove. Well, Steve, it's been great talking to you. Where can my listeners follow your work?
So politico.com, I publish a column every Saturday and write occasionally on top of that and help edit some of our great political coverage of this campaign and campaigns for also for down ballot offices, big governor's races this year in Kentucky and Louisiana, Mississippi. Also, I'm at politico underscore Steve on X or Twitter, whichever name you prefer to use for the platform. And you can follow me there.
Well, that's wonderful. Thank you very much, and I look forward to having you back on Beyond the Polls. My pleasure. Thank you. Well, there's no bigger state in play than Iowa. So here to join us on State of Play is Brianne Funenstiel, chief politics reporter of the Des Moines Register. Brianne, welcome to Beyond the Polls. Thanks so much for having me, Henry. Well, everyone hears about the Iowa caucuses. Iowa caucuses this, Iowa caucuses that.
It's not a primary. How do caucuses, as they are conducted in Iowa, differ from a primary, and why does that matter?
Well, a primary is very much like normal election day, right? The polls open in the morning. They stay open until night. You can drop in whenever it's convenient for you, cast your vote and then be on your way. And caucuses are very different. It's a much higher level of commitment. So people who are coming in need to be able to commit, you know, a much higher level of commitment.
more serious amount of time. So caucuses begin usually 7 p.m. on a Monday night in January. Anyone who's been to Iowa in January knows that that's not the best time to be out and about in the evening. So you've got to be there at a certain time. You show up, everyone participates all at once. And there's usually other party business that happens. They may invite in
people to speak on behalf of the various candidates. You're there with your friends and neighbors. You're having a conversation back and forth. People may be trying to persuade you to change your mind at the last minute. So it's very different in that way. It's a much higher level of commitment than a primary requires.
Yeah, so you've got to kind of stand up and be counted. You've got to probably spend at least an hour on a Monday night sitting down, if not longer, as well as getting yourself to this place that may or may not be easy to get to depending on the weather.
One of the things that the Democratic caucuses do that strikes me as interesting is literally have people stand up at various points to get into a physical group with their members to see whether or not they break a 15 percent threshold. And then they say, well, you have to move to another group. You know, so there's literal literally it is anything but a secret ballot.
How do the Republicans do it? Do they have that level of public declaration and public cajoling? Or do you actually, after you've talked to people or heard from speeches, do you actually just fill out a piece of paper and hand it to somebody who counts it?
The Republicans are much more straightforward than the Democrats. They do essentially have a secret ballot. So you go and people talk. They may try to persuade you. But at the end of the day, you're writing a name on a piece of paper and dropping it in a shoebox and someone's going to count that. Right. So there is a level of of secrecy and privacy that that, you know, you don't have to share who you're voting for in the way that with Democrats, you do physically have to stand up and be counted and and show who you're caucusing for.
So some of the things I hear from campaign operatives is that the fact that this is this sort of commitment, that it's public, that there's people who will stand up and give speeches, that the ground game of a campaign is much more important in a caucus than in a primary.
Tell me what a typical Iowa ground game would consist of. And do you agree that it's something that matters more? Or is this one of those great overhyped campaign lore stories that people love to tell in bars in the middle of January in Des Moines? Yeah.
Yeah, I think it still matters a lot, you know, and I think why it matters is because who's turning up to caucus is a much smaller universe than a primary. You know, one of the arguments against caucuses is that they are very limiting. It's a much smaller pool of people who participate, you know, so they're really people who are active. They're very committed. They've taken the time to get themselves informed. They've talked to their friends and neighbors. They've been out to see these candidates in person.
And so there's a smaller universe of people who are participating. But what that means is that the campaigns can be really aggressive in trying to identify those people, trying to reach out to them individually. There's a lot more conversation that happens, I think, in the caucuses versus other states where a lot of the messaging is done.
across TV. It's done via mailers, right? You're inundated with all of these kinds of paid media. And in Iowa, there's very much a sense from the smaller universe of people who are going to be caucusing that they want to meet these people face-to-face. They want to interact with the campaigns. They want to be courted.
And so that's where we look to the ground game, right? You know, maybe a year out from the caucuses, we start looking at, well, who have they hired, you know, well before candidates announced who, you know, even whether they're running or start really appearing in the state elections.
actively campaigning for president. They're hiring people. They're talking to people on the ground. They're making those early connections. So that's something that I really start to look for early is who are they talking to? Who are they hiring? Are they hiring Iowans? Are they hiring people with good caucus experience? Are they bringing in out of staters who've never done this before? So that's an early indication of ground game and how they kind of ramp up their staff and their operation and who they've got physically working for them in the state.
Is there any one of the Republican candidates who stands out as far as crossing the bar of seriousness as far as that criteria is concerned?
Yeah, I mean, I think top two are clearly Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis at this point. You know, it's interesting having covered Donald Trump now across a couple of these caucus cycles. In 2015, it was really kind of a ragtag group of guys who weren't maybe taken so seriously at the time. They didn't really seem to have a whole...
a real strategy necessarily for the state in the way that caucus campaigns played out before. But this time, obviously, they've done it before. He's got resources. He's very he's taken very seriously. And so they've got a really organized footprint here in the state. And then, you know, Ron DeSantis, too, again, is someone who who just has a lot of resources behind him, particularly his super PAC.
And so he's doing something really different this time that we haven't seen to this degree before, where his super PAC, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, they just can't coordinate with the campaign, is coming in and basically running his organization in the state and then inviting him to attend events. So they've hired...
a ton of people and they've had people on staff for a very long time. It seems like they were very quick to kind of vacuum up all of the staffers with a lot of experience in the state. So they're very well staffed. They've hired a bunch of volunteers and many of those come from out of state, but they've got an enormous footprint here on the ground. They've been door knocking. They've been hosting these events. They've been pulling in data from people who are attending these events, which is a huge
piece of what this campaign looks for. So I think those two are really kind of top tier, but certainly people like Vivek Ramaswamy has really been on the ground a whole lot. He's someone who maybe would have surprised us early on because he hasn't been in this game before, but he's
um, you know, got his own personal financial resources that he's able to bring to bear on this. Um, you know, Tim Scott has hired a lot of people and, and we'll see whether, um, you know, some of these smaller operations, Mike Pence is here a lot. He's got, um, staff who I think are very, um, you know, familiar with the caucuses. They know what they're doing, but it's a much smaller footprint than someone like Rhonda Santus.
Yeah, I was in Iowa the weekend. I flew in the weekend of the state fair where everyone came out and looked at the butter cow. And I immediately drove all the way out to Sioux County because I wanted to see how the Dutch reform community was voting and got the wonderful ice cream in Lamar's, which everyone knew about. Strangely enough, I guess it's a statewide legend. Yeah.
Well, one thing that was impressed upon me before I went was that the DeSantis people are the Cruz people. That Jeff Rowe, who had Super PAC, was Cruz's campaign consultant, and some of the other people underneath that are the same people who won Iowa for Cruz in 2015-16. Is that something that matters, not only that they've done it before, but they've won it before?
Yeah, I think experience in Iowa and having run a campaign like Ted Cruz's really matters. I mean, who you've got running this thing and the way that they can bring those resources together, the way that they can use the data, can kind of put all of the puzzle pieces together, I think is really important. You know, we saw it.
Ted Cruz win in 2016, Donald Trump wasn't too far behind. So there's something to be said for just the sheer power of, you know, appealing to caucus goers. But certainly, you know, somebody like Jeff Roe really knows the state, knows what they're doing and kind of bring things together. Ted Cruz was someone too who really worked
you know, the evangelical community in Iowa and was able to bring those caucus goers together and really kind of ride that wave on caucus day. But he's someone who does, you know, there's a kind of a famous political adage in Iowa and it's organize, organize, organize, and then get hot at the end. You've got to know when to have your moment. And Ted Cruz really saw his star rise at the end of 2015 and was able to sustain that into the 2016 caucuses early that year.
Well, everyone is flying out there. You know, I was there, as I mentioned, when everyone was flying in for the state fair. Tim Scott is up with Randy Feenster in the northwest corner. Ron DeSantis says he's now been to 53 of the 99 counties, courtesy of the Super PAC.
You probably have seen these candidates multiple times by this point. Who's kind of standing out to you, either with respect to how they're coming across on television with the people who are covering their visits, but also given how important personality and personal contact is, how are they coming across to the people who take the time to go out and listen to them? Who's standing out for you as making an impact?
Yeah, well, you may have been at the state fair the day that Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump both were there. And it was really interesting watching Ron DeSantis. He attended an event hosted by Governor Kim Reynolds, a Republican who's just very well respected in the state by Republicans. And so
It was a very well attended event. He had a nice event. He left. He was kind of mobbed by cameras and by people wanting to shake his hand and take a selfie. And it was quite a crowd. And he was moving through the state fair and kind of moved over to the pork producers tent, which is a must do. If you want to be president, you've got to flip pork chops at the pork tent at the Iowa State Fair. And so he's doing that. And of course, Donald Trump's
private jet buzzes over the top of the fairgrounds kind of announcing his imminent arrival. And once Donald Trump got there, I mean, he really stole the show. You know, there were just enormous crowds kind of following him and following him from place to place, even though he was kind of, you know, hidden for much of that. Most people
probably didn't even get a good glimpse of him while he was there. But it was really interesting just the way that that crowd materialized for Donald Trump. And so he's someone who really hasn't been campaigning very aggressively in the state in person. He hasn't held the big rallies that we've grown used to, but he's still very much kind of in command of a really core group of caucus goers. So that's an interesting dynamic. But, you know, the thing that that
What is interesting about Iowa caucus goers is they really do keep an open mind for a long time. They're really vetting these candidates and trying to hear people out.
So, you know, somebody like Vivek Ramaswamy, I think people really were really interested in early on. And he, you know, he's risen kind of in the national polls, not so much, you know, according to our last Des Moines Register Iowa poll. But that was right before this debate where he had a big breakout moment. So he's had some bigger crowds in Iowa this week, but he's also facing, you know, higher level of scrutiny. So we'll kind of see how that evens out over the next couple of weeks.
But I think Iowans are also really interested in Tim Scott. You know, he's someone who's been in the state quite a bit. People really like him. He's got the highest net favorability rating of anyone in the field right now in Iowa, according to our last poll. And so, you know, people like him a lot. I think they say that they felt like maybe he faded into the background a little bit in the debate. And so is he going to have
Is he going to have that moment or, you know, is he trying to, to be a Ted Cruz here and have a moment later in, in November, December. And Nikki Haley is someone that is attracted to it, to a certain group of caucus goers. You know, I think, um,
Democrats seemed more focused on finding someone who was quote unquote electable, like a general election candidate than Republicans are this cycle. But the group of Republicans who I think are looking to a general election really like someone like Nikki Haley.
So what are you going to be looking for over the next few months? Let's say the Labor Day to Thanksgiving period. Is this a time when people kind of like start to show whether they've got it or can you really break through even if you have a poor fall? Yeah, I mean, this Labor Day is really kind of game on, right? This is this is where there's
it may feel like there's a whole lot of time to caucus day, which right now is set for January 15, but it goes really quickly and it's easy to, to lose track of, of that time here. So I'm looking for people to really start ramping things up. People like Tim Scott, who have been, you know, kind of just, um, playing nice a little bit, um, you know, getting his, his favorables up, introducing himself to Iowans. He's really been, um,
you know, talking, talking about his bio, his, his stump speech has been very bio heavy to this audience. He's trying to introduce himself. And I think people are ready now for, for some policy. They're ready for him to engage and really talk about why, why he's the right person to, to win the nomination. Somebody like Nikki Haley, I think needs to have, you know, needs to put together some moments. There's,
There's historically, you know, three tickets out of Iowa, right? One, two, and three. And the person who places fourth, you know, typically doesn't go on very well. So you don't need to win Iowa to still be in the race, but you need to claim some kind of momentum. And if you assume Donald Trump right now has, you know,
you know, one of those tickets, Ron DeSantis looks like he's got maybe number two. And so who's fighting for number three and can they get close enough to Ron DeSantis to really claim that number two spot and claim some really big momentum there. You know, we're looking for people to close the gap.
And to build out that ground game so that they are amassing endorsements, they are amassing a big file of data so that they can stay in touch with the people who've come to their events. You know, so much of what's happening right now between now and caucus day is going to be behind the scenes and it's going to come down to how well organized they are.
you know, how their volunteers are able to talk to people between these big events. You know, Nikki Haley is not in the state right now, but for some people, she had a big moment on the debate night and she may not be back for a while. So what's happening in the in-between times? That's something that we're trying to piece apart through reporting and to keep an eye on. So what are the candidates doing face to face? Are they connecting with voters and having a moment? And what are their campaigns doing behind the scenes to really seal the deal?
With respect to endorsements, are there DeSantis is saying he's been endorsed by all these people talked about when he was in Lyon County that he was endorsed by the former?
State chair who apparently switched his endorsement or had been behind Trump at some point in the past Are there endorsements that aren't out yet that might actually matter either in terms of people changing their mind when they hear? Oh well person X is behind person Y or because it indicates Strength among a group that is likely caucus goers. Yeah, you know in in
In this day and age, it's hard to think of endorsements that truly are going to move the needle, especially on their own. So I think...
You know, there's maybe one person in this state who could really do that, and that's Governor Kim Reynolds. She has said, she said pretty firmly at the start of this year that she doesn't plan to endorse. Lately, she's opened that door a little bit. She said, never say never. So I think she's signaling that she could be in play. And she's someone who, again, is respected enough by enough Iowa Republicans that she could bring people along with her.
But I don't think any candidate should truly count on that. I think what might move the needle is if some of these elected officials, some of these top-level Iowa Republicans are able to coalesce behind a candidate. If there's a movement of people to get behind Ron DeSantis and help him close that gap with Donald Trump, for example, I think that would be meaningful. The other group that I'm watching is evangelical leaders.
Again, this is a group that historically has turned out in above average proportions on caucus night. They've done they're very organized. They're tight knit. They're able to actually turn people out, you know, to to move their followers with them so that it's not.
you know, just one person. I think an endorsement is only as good as it changes people's minds, right? And I think if you get a group of evangelical leaders who are, again, coalescing behind a Tim Scott, behind a Ron DeSantis, and bringing their followers along with them, that's something that could be meaningful. And so we'll see kind of how those things play out. Well, Brianne, how can my listeners follow your work?
Well, I'm on Twitter at Breanne DMR. We're also at the Des Moines Register dot com where we're posting every day. We've got a newsletter that you can sign up for there that pushes out Monday through Friday. Wonderful. Well, thank you very much. I hope that we can have you back before caucus night on Beyond the Polls. Thanks for having me.
This week's guest on Republican Rumble is a Republican extraordinaire, Ramesh Panuru, editor of National Review and follower of All Things GOP. Ramesh, welcome to Beyond the Polls. Thanks for having me, Henry. Well, you and I were both watching the debate, as apparently 13 million fellow Republicans were doing last week. What's your brief takeaway, both on the debate itself and its possible impact on this phase of the GOP context?
Well, it was an odd debate because of the absence of the frontrunner, Donald Trump. And I think as a result of that absence, there was also the absence of the kind of critique of the frontrunner that you would normally expect. And it ended up to a large degree being a debate over who was going to be the runner-up to Trump. And in that respect, I don't think it really settled much.
But I do think that the interest in it suggests that there are a lot of Republican voters who are shopping for a candidate. Doesn't necessarily mean that there's going to be a massive change in the rankings, but I think it does leave open that possibility. So one of the things we've heard from the debate is some...
both in terms of polling and reported fundraising, that maybe Nikki Haley got a favorable bump. So the question I've got is, is that real, or is this just another example of a debate shooting star that quickly leaves the political solar system?
Well, I do think she conducted herself well during the debate. I think she was steady. Whether you disagreed or agreed with everything she had to say, she's the one who got the most effective dunk on
on another candidate when she said that Ramaswamy's lack of experience showed and the audience applauded. Of course, the effectiveness of that dunk was probably also helped by the way Ramaswamy had been conducting himself
I wonder about how much staying power there is going to be for Haley. I think she is a formidable politician. But at the end of the day, I would like to see a little bit more...
evidence that she has a sort of a theory of where the Republican Party is today, as opposed to where it was in 2014. If she wants to campaign as sort of the candidate of restoration of the old Republican coalition, I don't think that that is going to work.
And at some point, as you know, if if she takes off a little bit more, I think she's going to draw more scrutiny along those lines. What kind of Republican Party does she envision?
So let's just kind of riff off of that for a minute. How would you say any of the other candidates have answered that question, both based on what you saw in the debate and also based on the general tenor of their campaigns? Are some of them effectively restorationists? Are some of them embracing Trump or putting their own spin on it? Where would you say some of the other non-trivial candidates are on that question?
Well, I think that DeSantis and Ramaswami have quite clearly...
that Trump has changed the Republican Party in an irreversible way, or to be a little bit more philosophical maybe about it, that there are irreversible changes in the party that may have led to Trump and that Trump accelerated, that there is less of an emphasis on economic libertarianism
than there used to be, that there's more of a premium on combativeness now
and cultural conservatism, that there's a bigger working class orientation, and that the old formula of free trade, entitlement reform, deregulation, is at the very least insufficient as the basis for a successful Republican politics, either intra-party or with the electorate at large. I think that there's question marks about a bunch of the other candidates who
where you just don't have as strong a sense of where they're coming from. So I wouldn't say that anybody is kind of explicitly a restorationist candidate, but the question, I think, hovers over candidates including Christie and Haley, and to the extent that he even matters, Asa Hutchinson, Doug Burgum.
So before I move on to another topic, the person who's conspicuous by his absence, that is Tim Scott.
Oh, right. Yes. Yes. Scott, I think. Yeah. But Scott, Scott would fit there. I think Pence's is also sort of an interesting case because, of course, in some ways he harkens back to a pre-Trump party. But obviously he also was Trump's vice president. Yeah. And that's the interesting thing. When I listen to Pence's, it's kind of like the Trump Pence administration, as he always tells us it was.
in his telling, basically did nothing that was non-controversial within Republican consensus. And it's kind of like, hey, wait a minute. What about the tariffs in China? What about the wall? What about the Muslim ban? Those are never part of the story Mike Pence tells. Well, he does positively cite Robert Lighthizer, who is, of course, trade representative for Trump, and suggest at least that...
that fair and free and tough trade deals are something that he would continue.
So he is, I think, associating himself with that aspect of the Trump record without necessarily explicitly distancing himself from free Trump Republicans. Well, one of the things that Mike Pence is distanced from with respect to the Trump-Pence administration is criminal indictments. Lots of people in that administration are being hailed before the courts of law. Obviously, Mike Pence is not one of them.
The consensus seems to be that the short-term effect of these indictments is to enhance Trump's standing in the Republican Party. So my two-part question is, is the consensus right for the short term? And is there a potential difference over the long term? So I think it's very clear that the first of the...
for and counting indictments that we've gotten had a positive effect on Trump in the Republican primaries, this being Alvin Bragg's indictment in New York. And I think that that indictment helped to color the reception of the subsequent ones, because it was the easiest one to portray as a reach
where people were were political enemies were simply trying to find some way of criminalizing his conduct and once that had been done I think you know people were more skeptical of the the later indictments sometimes more skeptical than than they should have been on the merits I think
So there's sort of short, medium, and long-term. And I think the short-term effect has been clearly positive in the primary. I think the long-term effect in the general election of 2024 is pretty clearly negative. And the big question mark is, is there a medium-term effect? And what direction does it go? Do Republicans at some point decide, you know,
of the drama? Do they decide, you know, I like him, but he's got too much baggage, he's too hobbled by all of this? Or do they think, you know, do they just get hardened in their resolve to nominate him? Nobody's going to tell me who I can have as my president. Well, I guess the question I would ask to follow up then is,
Right now, every poll has Donald Trump ahead by double digits. It's a smaller lead in the most in the three important early states, Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire, but it's still substantial. Nobody's going to win unless at least a quarter of people who say they're voting for Trump in those states decide to vote for somebody else. Because nobody, if he's winning these states by 15 to 20 points, he's going to sweep to the nomination. How do you make that case?
Or do you as a Republican not make that case at all and kind of hope that somebody else makes it for you? Do you abandon the question of he's hobbled and he can't be our leader, whether it's fair or not, and hope that somebody else makes that case? Or is it something that you actually have to deliver when push comes to shove?
Well, I think that the prevalent strategy of Republicans who would like to move past Trump for six or seven years now has been hoping that somebody will do something about him or that he will fade away on his own. And, you know, tomorrow could always be different than yesterday, but the strategy does not have a great track record of success. I tend to think that
In particular, and here I'll get into controversial, maybe even counterintuitive territory, I think that the people who want to defeat Trump for the Republican nomination have to take on a couple of options.
have to kick out some of the props from underneath the Trump campaign, in particular the idea that he won or may have won in 2020. Trump has been very successful in creating a climate of opinion in the Republican Party in which it is somehow rude to point out that he lost in 2020. And I can see why the Republican rivals don't want to harp or dwell on that point or even make it because the polling suggests that so many Republicans...
are willing to entertain the fiction that Trump won. But I think that it's hard to make the case that we should move on from him if he has won two presidential elections in a row. And it's hard to make the case, maybe even impossible practically to make the case, that we shouldn't dwell on 2020 if it may have actually been stolen.
So I think that, you know, quite apart from the fact that it's simply true, the Republicans have to say he lost in 2020. He is a loser. You can't, I think, begin to make the kind of case that they want to make about him and electability and his effect on everything Republicans would like to see happen unless you're willing to say that.
But then you've got the first mover problem is the person who makes that attack in point and makes and keeps it up because it can't be sustained and be successful if it's just a one-off. That person is going to take all of the brunt of Donald Trump's anger and probably it'll probably be a murder-suicide pact. You know, if he takes down Trump or she takes down Trump with that, they're not going to be left standing.
Is there somebody in the race well positioned who can decide it's in their interest to be the person who brings down Donald Trump, knowing that that probably means the end of their own ambitions? Or is somebody just going to have to swallow hard and take the chance that this analysis is wrong? Well, I mean, you could see a certain...
advantage to pence being the person who does that who says look i worked very hard on every priority of the trump pence administration i worked alongside trump in trying to win in 2020 you know he didn't always take my advice but i was a good soldier and the fact is uh unfortunately i
um we lost more people voted for biden uh more people vided voted for biden in the key states we could have beaten him unfortunately we didn't and that is part of the trump legacy you can see pence making that case um yeah of course you can see christy making that case because because christy doesn't mind being a kind of uh almost purely anti-trump candidate anyway uh but oddly you know but
You know, but he hasn't even really made that the focus. One of his, you know, he hasn't really emphasized the defeat in 2020 so much as he's emphasized other things that are sort of associated with it, like all of Trump's lying, the disgrace of January 6th and so on.
And Pence, for his part, has emphasized January 6th because it's the part of that story where he's such a main actor, and it's a story that shows him in such a good light. But he hasn't really talked about the larger story, which was Trump campaigning to overturn an election that he lost. Right.
Yeah, I mean, I agree with you. One of the things that's frustrated me about the responses to this is so much effort is talked about, taken to talk about the effort to overturn the election or reverse the result in January 6th. And that's like the house that Trump built on the foundation of the fraud myth. And no one takes on the fraud myth.
So if the foundation is firm, why should you be surprised that people keep wanting to reconstruct the House on the basis of it? So eventually this might be something that occurs to these people, but until it does, I think January 6th continues to be the sort of argument that convinces the convinced, as opposed to moving people in the Republican Party to say, hey, wait a minute, I need to rethink my support of the president.
If you look at it like an anthropologist among animals, you know, these guys, and you alluded to this earlier, they give off the sense in many cases that they're afraid of Trump attacking them. And you can't possibly beat him if that is the impression that you convey.
Yeah, one of my favorite quotes in politics is one that Ro Khanna says Nancy Pelosi said to him when he came in and said to her, well, she's speaker, I'm going to be challenging one of your incumbents, Mike Honda, in the South Bay Area. And she says, well, you understand, I'm going to back the incumbent. And, of course, he understands that. And as he tells it, he's leaving. And she says, but Ro, understand that power isn't given, it's taken.
And that's what people taking on Trump seem not to understand is they actually have to take it. It's not going to be handed to them. Yeah, totally right. Well, Gomesh, where can you are prolific? Where can my listeners follow your work in their many outlets? I have a regular column in The Washington Post with a number of other distinguished columnists as my colleagues.
I'm the editor of National Review and nationalreview.com, and even better, our print magazine are places where you'll often find me. And for my sins, I am on Twitter, or X, at Ramesh Paniru. Well, let's hope for plenary indulgence and salvation from Twitter purgatory. And thank you very much, Ramesh, for joining me on Beyond the Polls. You're welcome. Thank you.
This week's ad of the week looks at an ad produced by the Biden-Harris campaign that talks about abortion. I think you'll agree that even though it's a minute, it's worth listening to all of it. And here it is.
Reproductive health care decisions are among the most personal a woman will ever make. They are choices that should be made by you and your doctor. And the last people who should be involved are these guys. First of all, I'm the one that got rid of Roe v. Wade. Florida Governor DeSantis quietly signed into law one of the nation's strictest abortion bans. Governor DeSantis, you signed a six-week abortion ban in Florida. I believe in a culture of life. If I were president of the United States...
I would literally sign the most conservative pro-life legislation that they can get through Congress. Do you believe in punishment for abortion? Yes or no, as a principle? The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment. For the woman? Yeah, there has to be some form. President Biden and Vice President Harris are determined to restore Roe v. Wade, and they will never allow a national abortion ban to become law. As long as they are in office, decisions about your body will be made by you, not by them.
We know that Democrats believe and have good reason to believe that talking about abortion is a vote winner for them. The polls all show that this is something that energizes their base, that a lot of Democrats are strongly invested in
in returning Roe versus Wade and ensuring a national access to abortion, at least in the first trimester and likely well beyond that. This ad hammers away at that, but it does it in a way that's not really partisan, which means that it also has an appeal to a group that Democrats also hope will be attracted by the abortion issue, pro-choice women who don't necessarily think of themselves as Democrats.
The visuals support this overall targeting idea. Most of the visuals...
when Biden or the Republicans aren't on the screen are of women. They're women of childbearing age. They're women who are the doctors when that word comes up. They're women who appear concerned and serious, but take charge of their lives. These are all good visuals that target the sort of person that they are aiming at. The woman who cares a lot about her body.
The fact that you have a male-female dynamic going on in here is also helpful. That Republicans have a female candidate for president, Nikki Haley. She is a pro-life governor. But you won't hear Nikki Haley in this ad because they want to create the idea that men, Republican men, are trying to restrict a woman's right to an abortion versus a woman's right to choose. So that's why you have the phrase, these guys, right?
That creates a subtle dynamic that is likely to resonate with their target audience who already believe that Republican men are the problem and don't seem to focus on the existence of Republican or independent women who are also pro-life. This is a good choice by the Biden-Harris team.
Then you have the final quote from Donald Trump, the punishment question. Now, the fact is, virtually nobody in the pro-life movement talks about that. They don't want to have a punishment for them. But Donald Trump, who is not part of the pro-life movement by heritage, is somebody who stumbled into saying something that nobody in the movement otherwise believes. But he is the leading Republican presidential candidate, so his opinion is perfectly valid to bring up. And this strikes the...
fear, the ultimate fear in the heart of these pro-choice women, that not only can they have their decisions circumscribed or outlaws, but that they could be punished. That's not something they want to hear. Donald Trump has given that gift to the Biden administration. Then we turn to the visuals with the Biden administration, well lit, the strong looking pictures of
President Biden, including his female vice president, who also looks strong. It's good, short, positive visuals to make you think these people have the determination to actually restore Roe versus Wade. And now let's talk about that final message. Returning to Roe is something that has supermajority support in the polls.
Now, pro-lifers and Republicans like to point out that there's a lot of things that go along with that, that the way Democratic bills that they allege are endorsing a return to Roe often don't have some of the limitations on abortions that the original Roe v. Wade and the follow-on Casey v. Planned Parenthood decision had allowed legislatures to make. But the fact of returning Roe
providing legal access to abortion nationwide is at this moment a vote winner and a huge motivational issue for Democrats. This ad conveys this effectively from beginning to end, and that's why it's this week's ad of the week. That's all for this episode. Next time, we'll be joined by Cook Political Report's Amy Walter and FiveThirtyEight's Jeffrey Skelly. So together, let's reach for the stars and venture beyond the polls.