Handicapping Dems' Chances in November

In Iowa, Republican voters delivered a shock defeat to a Trump endorsed candidate for governor, while in a Senate race, the Democratic establishment prevailed over a progressive challenger. All of this comes at a crucial moment for Democrats. President Trump is facing record low approval ratings while claiming he doesn't care about the midterms. But are the Democrats doing all they can to bolster their chances of recapturing the House and possibly even the Senate?

To dig into all of this, I'm joined by Jonathan Martin. He's a senior political columnist at Politico, uh joining me from Minnesota. Jonathan, great to have you on the program. So let's start with California. We know votes are still being counted there. Deep blue state, deep blue city of Los Angeles, and yet Republicans ran strong on voter anger over the cost of living, homelessness, the wildfire response. Trump backed Steve Hilton is the top.

Is in the top two for governor. Reality TV Spencer uh star Spencer Pratt is fighting for number two for the LA mayors race. Um What does this showing this strong say about the state of the Democratic Party in California in particularly where Democrats run everything?

uh on different candidates, uh candidates who were unconventional, like this fellow Pratt. uh running for mayor in LA and obviously Hilton you can hear that accent. Uh obviously grew up in in the UK. I just think it's a different story when you get to the fall.

You know, you know, don't forget California has this top two system in which everybody runs on the same ballot in June, then in the fall it's the top two vote getters. I think uh in the fall, uh the California's blue deep blue nature, especially at a moment where Trump is so unpopular.

will revert to form and they'll elect Democrats as governor and mayor. But there's definitely a sense of frustration uh among voters everywhere, but certainly in California because of the sort of unique nature of of some of the challenges in California.

you know, lose the general election to win the primary. They gotta have Trump on their side or oftentimes they do to get through a primary. But once you're in the general election, certainly in blue America, but uh in purple America too, it's a huge liability. And so, you know, Spencer Pratt is not gonna wanna have Trump next to his name this fall, but certainly Karen Bass, the mayor of LA, is gonna make that

a central case against him and assuming that the the the the deep blue nature of LA will revert to form in November. But I gotta say that clearly Californians Angelinos want uh, you know, some kind of change. There's there's deep frustration with establishment politicians. We're seeing that everywhere. And we saw it last night, by the way, in the middle of the country too.

Uh in a lockout for the governor's race. Now there's an undo the top two repeal effort. Uh, for twenty twenty eight. Is the system genuinely broken or is this a sign of perhaps some weakness or concern among Democrats about their standing in with these particular candidates in the in i uh in the upcoming election?

Schwarzenegger, Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom, who were the governor of the biggest state in the country, and the Democrats couldn't find somebody of that stature to run this time, and so they're left with somebody who's just uh n not a top tier candidate, frankly. Interestingly enough, though, the top two system is something that Schwarzenegger was passionate about because the whole point of the top two, the jungle primary.

is you want to incentivize people in both parties to run toward the center and forge coalitions that aren't just at the flanks, right? So the the California model was seen as a reform model nationally. And I think you could see more of that going forward nationally because obviously everywhere people are trying to figure out how do we incentivize the voter.

um to reward people running toward the center. And that's really hard to do in a closed primary system. And maybe we can do that if you have this top two system where everybody's on the on the ball.

Jonathan Reed drew the congressional map last year to add seats, flipping districts like San Diego's Area 48th, where Daryl Issa opted not to run. Um, based on Tuesday's results on last night's results. W was that a gamble that paid off?

uh Democrats were hoping to to pick up with the redraw, there you may actually get two Republicans make it through into the fall, which obviously would mean backfiring. It's a complicated system and it's possible when the when the votes really fractured. that two people of one party can get through in the fall. And obviously that was the Democratic fear in governor. That's not going to happen, but it could happen, uh as you allude to in some of these house races.

And then Thomas Massey, all of whom he said were not loyal enough. Then his pick, however, Friday for governor of Iowa, Randy Feinstra, had narrowly lost to a uh Maha backed outsider. How much should we read into this?

Trump endorsed him. Now Trump endorsed too late. It wasn't enough to get in the bloodstream. But still Trump was for Randy Feenstra, a sitting member of of the House, and Feenstra couldn't win the primary loss to an outsider who had never been elected to anything before. Similarly, uh across the Missouri River in in South Dakota.

You've got a situation where the sitting governor and the house member at large are both gonna be outpulled by another outsider who's never been elected to anything before. That tells me. the in the Republican Party, there's still a lot of energy for outsiders, folks who do not come from the the the the elected class of politicians and certainly aren't part of the Congress today.

Uh having a representative or senator in front of your name if you're a Republican clearly is now a liability in this primary.

That may not be as surprising as some of the the uncomfortable responses I would say from establishment Republicans who are now seeing sort of a theme. uh of the president making choices that they don't agree with, that they don't think benefit the party or the country. First there was the endorsement uh of Ken Paxton for Senate in Texas. Um this is a different type of pick, but I'm just wondering how much pushback you think this is gonna get from the Republican Party itself.

n naming your housing guy who's really your political enforcer who's trying to go after your enemies real and perceived as the head of national intelligence. It These members know that that this is not right. They're deeply uncomfortable with it.

But look, a lot of their voters don't care or they like it. So it's awkward because they don't want to be openly critical of Trump. But at the same time, they're not comfortable with this. So there has been pushback. And by the way, the pushback on the weaponization fund, Viana. Got through to Trump. He dropped the idea. So we'll see if Pulti survives. I'll say this I don't think he can get confirmed.

as the permanent head of national intelligence. He can be acting, he can be temporary. The votes, I don't think, are there in today's Senate, given the frustration with Trump and his own party to confirm this man to be the full DNI.

For the Democrats, you could say that two separate wings of the party, the progressive and the establishment, could claim victory last night, um from New Jersey to California. Uh where do you think the the po the party is right now and just walk us through some of the wins both for the progressive uh part uh of the party in New Jersey and uh for some of the establishment candidates as well.

Uh you saw some progressives win house primaries. Uh but as you go further west on the map and you look at the Keenelitz uh who were running for the the the Democratic nomination, uh obviously in Iowa, uh in the Senate. Uh Josh Turk, much more of a Schumer approved establishment candidate winning the nomination in Iowa. Rob Sand

Unopposed for governor, a really promising candidate for the Democrats for Iowa governor, uh, but somebody who clearly i is is okay with the establishment wing is is no progressive flamethrower. And then in California.

The mayor of LA, Karen Bass, who as you alluded to, has got a really uh flawed record as mayor. And y you know, even hardcore Democrats aren't happy with her. She still easily outpulled the far left candidate there in the mayor's race. And then lastly, Yeah, in the governor's race in California, Tom Steyr, a billionaire, reinvented himself as the sort of descendant of Karl Marx and sort of a traitor to his class, really ran far left uh and is not gonna make it through.

to the fall. It doesn't appear. And Javier Becerra, who's a much more conventional Democratic pick, uh basically blessed by the kind of Sacramento Democratic establishment, uh is clearly gonna be. the Democratic candidate this fall in California. So uh more wins last night from the establishment than not.

his campaign. He's now uh avoiding uh many interviews. Um I think today I saw something suggesting that uh despite all of these scandals that Mayners Uh still are supporting him. Could he be the noose around the Democratic Party that perhaps uh Ken Paxton is for Republicans? And what does that mean for Democrats' chances in the Senate?

uh in which Collins i is facing profound structural challenges. Senator Collins, that is the Republican. But again, let's see what else is out there. But this is why the Senate map is so important. Because if Democrats can't count on Maine, which should be the easiest day looking at the numbers for them to pick up. Boy, uh North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, Texas, and Alaska.

You gotta find four from that list if you can't count on Maine. And Ohio and North Carolina, okay. You know, Obama won, you know, each of those states at least once. But you're talking about Alaska and Texas. And Iowa, you're talking about pretty darn red states in American politics. And it's possible this year because Trump is so unpopular, but that that creates enormous challenges for Democrats on the map if they can't count on Maine to start.

Uh Wes Moore or Gavin Newsome, hypothetically, right? Because all of them are saying they're not even focused on twenty twenty eight. No idea where that kind of question or idea could come from. But you talk to about basketball and I wanna play this clip.

Uh but still a competitive side, as you just alluded to there with Governor Shapiro. Now it does come with doctor's advice. Now, if you're watching this, you're gonna get hungry and and you're gonna see folks eating on air, which you don't always see. People should notice. So does come with a a uh PG thirteen warning.

Um that that we're gonna be eating on the air. But look, I I think we're learning a bit. These guys are competitive. Uh a lot of them wanna run for president. They don't wanna say it out loud just now. Um but that they do wanna show a side of them that's more accessible. And I think they understand the world is changing and you gotta do shows like this that are a little bit different and that yes, do show uh grown adults eating on camera.

So what exactly does it mean to be a patriot in today's America? To explore that question, our next guest looks back to the nation's founding, tracing the evolution and contradictions of its ideals. It's all in his new book To Love a Country The Problems of Patriotism in America.

author and historian Dominic Erdazane joins me now from Atlanta. Dominic, it's good to have you on the program. Uh congratulations on the book. I think it does uh seem quite fitting to have a Brit write a book about America. celebrating its two hundred and fiftieth anniversary. Um especially with this president in office, I have to say, he he really has. inserted himself just about in every facet uh of this celebration. Um he has floated the idea that he'd host a giant

MAGA rally now after some artists dropped out of what they believed was going to be a nonpartisan celebration. Uh Congressman Hakeem Jeffries wrote this on X. He said, Get over yourself, the upcoming July fourth anniversary is not about a wannabe king. It is about celebrating the American journey. Uh the Trump administration considers any sort of criticism like that unpatriotic. So what kind of American patriotism are we seeing in Trump and his supporters, in your view?

and the problem of a certain kind of exceptionalism leading to a kind of merging of egoism with the greatness of the nation. And it's something that some of the early founders warn very explicitly about.

That if you can love your country without worshipping it. But the problem is if your version of patriotism is a form of exceptionalism that says we're preeminent. then you're going to tend into that direction of uncritical um affiliation. I mean so another person who springs to mind is r is the historian Richard Hofstadter who says

Uh really as an a as an aside in one of his reviews, he says it's been our fate as a nation not to have ideologies, but to be one. And when you are that ideology, it can make you a a blind follower, you know, a a kind of In a sense a subject rather than a citizen.

the ideals and the ideas rather than our appointed spokesman of the time, our team. And you know, they talk a lot about factionalism. Um And I think, you know, it's again back back to Orwell. Orwell has this great idea of transferred nationalism when a party or an ideology becomes

the avatar or the synonym for your nationalism and therefore supporting the party becomes your way of supporting the nation. And the effect is that you end up undermining many of the values and and commitments of that nation.

For the people I'm you know, it's a historical book rather than a philosophical treatise. And one of the processes you see is that the more patriotic people are, the more they're inclined to sacrifice their liberties, their their freed freedom of speech. um, their freedom not to be drafted into an illegal war, for example. And this is something that Thoreau talks a lot about in civil disobedience, is that patriotism makes us

proud but oddly lacking in self respect at times, that that we sort of sign away our liberties without thinking about it and a and that kind of ability to think on your feet. Um I mean an another one, if you forgive one more quotation, is um Is Dwight Eisenhower in his famous farewell speech he warns about the military-industrial complex? He says we need a knowledgeable and alert citizenry to protect our democratic processes and to prevent the encroachment of the military-industrial complex.

But which is r absolutely right, but the kind of patriotism he promoted as president is the kind that puts us back to sleep.

So what does that line reveal about how patriotism could in fact enable harm?

You know, you've got this glorious thing called the Declaration of Independence, this s assertion of of human dignity and equality and and the right to life and liberty. And then you have a constitution that allows people to be classified as property. Uh then you have patriotism that protects the constitution, it that that prevents structural analysis, structural radical change. So for people like Garrison to be a patriot was to rivet the chains of so many million um enslaved people.

So, you know, that the clearest rhetorical version of this would be someone like um Douglas himself sort of mocking the Patriots by saying, you know, who were your daddies? Referring to the founding fathers as your daddies, to say that just because they made this covenant with death, it doesn't mean we can't change it now. So for them it was a kind of counter-revolutionary force that sort of denied the core ideas.

Whereas Adam says that maybe we need a bit more than that. Maybe we need a a more forward-looking patriotism that isn't linked to militarism in any way. He says she she's kind of breezy in her disdain for the for the great generals of the Civil War and say we need a different kind of man.

Whereas he's saying we've got to breathe life into this experiment and it's gonna happen now.

uh then we are not going to have a union without compromise. That made the country possible, but it was a starting point for this competition and this conflict we've had ever since.

uh where I am, and Massachusetts can be bound into the same unitary republic. You have people in New York, like the Federal Farmer, who's one of the you know, they all have these kind of flamboyant pseudonyms, um, saying that This is like a forced marriage and it's gonna result in divorce, if not civil war. That it's one thing to compromise, but it's another thing to put

polar opposites. You have people in Georgia, uh not sorry to beat up on this state, but you have the one of the um representatives at the Second Continental Congress who's saying, you know, the r the principles of republicanism are the principle of devil. You know, they have no interest in the democratic experiment and a few years later they find themselves in a state and they have in in in in in a federal state and they have the power to veto

um many of the things that people in New England and Pennsylvania, for example, wanted to implement. So it's more than a failure to compromise, it's we we're talking about ideological polarities of some extreme, which we're we we're living with still today.

the the significance of the points you're making here from the experience that you've had. You said you you you find yourself defending this country abroad. Um what it what did you learn uh in writing this book? that you perhaps had yet to know about this country when you wrote your previous book about guns.

and I felt the weakness of that. And then writing this book, I found this cast of characters that I didn't know existed. I mean I always had this problem with Lincoln and the Civil War and the violence of resolving that conflict through through war. And I felt a bit of a loner, I was even afraid to discuss that. And then studying it, going back to the primary sources, um

f just filled me with some confidence that there are other people who think differently. I feel more at home here in the in the US, having written the book and and felt that there is this kind of company of of witnesses that I can bring to play. I think as a scholar I've always been on that side of, you know, some historians are purists, they don't believe in applying their research to the present, but I've always been with kind of E. P. Thompson, who's a great social historian.

Who says, you know, the pastor's alive, it's it's it's teeming with energies that we can bring to our side, and that's how I felt when I wrote this book.

stems from a lot of the research uh that you've been able to put together for this book. So well done, Dominic Erdzan, thank you so much for the time. Great to have you on. Congratulations. on the book, incredible timing, we should note. And full disclosure, uh Dominic is married to a CNN executive who we just adore. So um there's something i in the water there in Georgia that just makes the Air Desens uh a wonderful family. Really appreciate it. Thank you for the time.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military carried out its own strikes near the Strait of Ormuz. In a new piece for the Atlantic, foreign policy scholar Robert Kagan argues that Iran's leverage in the strait leaves the U.S. with few options. He explains why to Walter Eisenhower.

says a million things one way or another, he's gonna attack, he's not gonna attack. But if you look at what's actually happened, uh it's clear that Trump is unwilling to escalate. Uh and so we've been in this kind of sort of cold war situation with with nothing really happening for four months, other than the fact that the strait has been closed.

uh how quickly and at what price, because they're certainly going to charge for it eventually. And this gives Iran enormous leverage in the region uh and in the world and we're already seeing that leverage playing out today. uh with uh with the crisis in Lebanon and how Trump is handling that.

And you'll see Iran exercising influence over Israel's behavior as it is doing right now in Lebanon. I Iran wanted an end to Israel's bombing of Beirut. They they demanded it and Trump called up Bibi Netanyahu and told him to cut it out.

That that's the future. Uh Israel's gonna find itself tremendously isolated. Iran is gonna be in a position to have leverage over countries as far away as Japan and Korea, who are of course utterly dependent on access to the energy supplies of the Gulf, which Iran will be able to control that access.

for a long time so that you had a new regime. And I just think there's no way the American people are interested in doing that and I'm not even sure I would recommend doing that at this point, because the costs are gonna be enormous. So You know, w we have to accept the fact that that this is a loss. I mean, we have lost in the pa we we've lost previous wars in in Vietnam, obviously. Unfortunately, this one has much as we've been discussing.

much greater strategic ramifications than the loss in Vietnam did actually.

Um and I think he would like to change the subject a a and move on. But you know, i i i even an increased bombing campaign is not gonna solve the problem. I mean, we we bombed Iran w very effectively, it seemed, for thirty seven days without changing

uh their course. I don't know what the occasional tit for tat bombing is going to accomplish. In addition to which we cannot solve the problem, which is at the heart of this, that we cannot prevent Iran from wreaking un untold destruction uh on its neighbors in the Gulf and also and perhaps, you know, from

From the world's point of view, just as importantly, the energy infrastructure. Iran is capable of destroying energy infrastructure in such a way that it could take years, if not longer, maybe even a decade. uh to repair, which is which would have implications for the global economy uh that are disastrous.

Uh and maybe the CIA uh warned him that this that this could happen. I they would be remiss in their jobs if they didn't, but he didn't listen because He's Donald Trump. He he saw a glittering object baby Netanyahu presented with this possibility for a big win and he will go down in history and have his head on Mount Rushmore. uh for getting rid of the Ayatollah and the Iranian regime. And he didn't think too much about day two, obviously.

That people like Rubio and the CIA director said that they didn't think this was going to work, and Trump did it anyway. But it's clear that this was an Israeli idea, which I gotta say the uh the the tragic irony from Israel's point of view is that uh I think this is gonna turn out to be the biggest setback in Israelis in you know, biggest strategic setback in Israeli history. Um and it was definitely an Israeli decision to go ahead and do it.

uh right before our eyes. This is this is the future. So Israel's gonna be highly constrained on what it can do uh against Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza because Iran will be able to pull the string.

uh on oil suppli oil and gas supplies if Israel if Israel does something that it doesn't like. That's a very weak position. Plus Israel is now going to be more isolated than it's ever been before because in addition to the fact that the whole world is now you look at the UN Security Council resolution yesterday, it was unanimous except for the United States. And support in the United States for Israel is at the lowest point, I think, probably in its history. Neither party is very pro-Israel.

And Trump and this thing this is important. Trump is now turning against Israel. He may turn his MAGA followers against Israel too. And anyone who assumes that MAGA is diehard. uh supporters of Israel and can't be shifted if Trump gets annoyed with Netanyahu are are mistaken. So Israel I just think Israel's gonna find itself in a very isolated Israel's used to being somewhat isolated. This is more isolated'cause I don't think they have the United States behind their back anymore.

uh talked about making at least a temporary deal with Iran. Uh they're gonna have to come around. I don't know. The UA the United Arab Emirates seems to be still sort of in the Israeli camp. I don't know how long that'll last, but the others are not. And it was pretty clear Uh at least from what we picked up that the Saudis in particular were not in favor of this war.

Uh, they could see very clearly over the course of the war that the United States prioritized Israel do defense over the Gulf States defense. Uh I mean look, if you if you're the Gulf State now, you put all your money on the United States. The United States then initiated this war at Israel's behest. Uh and the war has been disastrous for the Gulf states, disastrous for their economies. Uh so I I you know, I don't see why they don't uh react to that by turning both to Iran but also to China.

uh which is an important player, an increasingly important player in the region, partly because of its alliance. uh with Iran. Um and so you're gonna see an overall shift in the balance of power away from the United States and Israel and toward other powers in the region.

They have been saying for decades that they have no intention of building a nuclear weapon. So I'm wondering whether Donald Trump could have them say that yet again and then declare victory and and go home. He's gotta find some way to declare victory. Um uh so it's possible they'll give them that. But the reality is uh Iran is not gonna make any fundamental concessions on on the on the uranium or on anything else.

responsible for providing security to our allies, which has been our main mission uh for eighty years. And so those alliances are falling down. And in Asia too, where we haven't pulled out Uh, we we have as a cour o over the course of this war drawn down huge amounts of military capability which are intended to deal with a China Taiwan scenario or or another kind of Asian scenario, so everybody can see how weakened we are.

which means that countries like Japan are gonna have to go their own way. So that was sort of all that was sort of in place. The Iran war has exacerbated all of that because In addition to us d uh making it clear that we're not gonna defend our allies, we also are not capable of of playing the role that we've played for eighty years in keeping, you know, international waterways open. That was a major American

uh task. It's one reason why nations in the world depended on us and therefore listen to us. I mean, you know, we we always are unhappy about the degree to which nations depend on us, but it also gives us enormous influence. That influence is going to be gone as nations go their own way, as we prove that we are incapable of finishing a war we started, as we prove that we are incapable of dealing with by the way,

a pretty lesser power that was already very weak. I mean, again, a lot of sort of uh of war boosters on the Republican side were t were bragging about how much damage we've done and how China and Russia are gonna be scared of us. I'm sorry, that is not the lesson of this war. The lesson of this war is that we took on a very weak and damaged power and have not been able to complete the job. I think the world is gonna see what that means.

Now these enthusiasts who play for teams in the United Arab Emirates hope to take it even further as they head to the Asian Championships in Indonesia this August. Good luck to all players. Alright, that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching. Goodbye from New York.