This week, as Biden announced a new student debt relief plan, Trump waffled on his reproductive rights position. Former Senator Claire McCaskill and former White House Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri drill down on the implications of both for 2024. Then, MSNBC’s All In host Chris Hayes stops by to talk shop about a new recurring series on his Why Is This Happening? podcast. Claire, Jen and Chris highlight the unique moment we’re in: for the first time in over a century, we have two candidates that have presidential records to compare and contrast.
Note: This is a rough transcript — please excuse any typos.
Jen Palmieri: Hello, welcome to “How to Win 2024.” It’s Thursday, April 11th. I’m Jen Palmieri and I’m here with my co-host Claire McCaskill. Hey, Claire.
Claire McCaskill: Hey Jen. So, how’s your week been?
Jen Palmieri: I mean I’m just, I’m obsessed with abortion. You know, we talk a lot about it and there was the IVF decision in Alabama. And then last week, there was Florida and the six-week abortion ban. The court is saying that it was gonna take effect. And now this week, the crazy Arizona stuff. And it’s like, I can’t move on from it.
And my, you know, girlfriends that aren’t very political, you know, my high school friends and stuff like, I’m hearing from them about it. One of them posted this on, I can swear on this podcast. Yes, we can swear on this podcast. She posted this on Instagram and says, I would like all the women in my life to stop for a minute, take a deep breath and burn everything to the fucking ground. Like —
Claire McCaskill: The F-word. Is that the first time? I think it might be the first time we’ve had the F-word.
Jen Palmieri: I mean it’s like —
Claire McCaskill: And it was you, it was you.
Jen Palmieri: It was like —
Claire McCaskill: It was not me. I did not use it.
Jen Palmieri: But like this and it’s like this nice little Instagram post. And it’s like, I want you all to take a deep breath. And you’re like, oh, this is gonna be great, and burn it to the fucking ground. I was like, yes.
Claire McCaskill: Oh my Lord.
Jen Palmieri: That’s like just how pissed people are. But anyway, in addition to that, this week Biden has been talking about a reboot of student loan relief and capturing some viral moments, really important to get the digital content. And Trump announced, he tossed the question of abortion access to the states.
He did disappoint people on the right further by saying that he would not support a national abortion ban, but it’s all bullshit and you should not buy it, and we’ll get to that. And talk as well as about the Arizona Supreme Court case I mentioned. There are nod to an 1864 interpretation of reproductive rights before it was a state and before women can vote. And what that means for getting out the vote in 2024.
Claire McCaskill: Jen and I are also gonna talk with our colleague and friend, Chris Hayes. His podcast, “Why is This Happening?” is starting a really interesting series called the stakes. That will look at the records of what is pretty unusual. Two incumbent presidents running against each other. We don’t have to go on what these guys say.
In fact, with Trump, that would be a big mistake. We can look at what they did, what they actually accomplished in office. Not what they say their policies are, but what their policies actually were. Um, but first, we’ll get to the strategy session, right?
Jen Palmieri: Absolutely. So, okay, Trump’s abortion stance, so we will go through what he said this week. Even though, like I said, it’s all bullshit and we’re not going to believe it. Plus, he already did the worst thing possible, which is overturning Roe. So, he’s already had the most extreme possible position on this, but we got audio from him. Listen to that now.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
Donald Trump: My view is now that we have abortion, where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both. And whatever they decide must be the law of the land. In this case, the law of the state.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
Jen Palmieri: So, later he said that he would support a national abortion ban. And you know, people are saying like, oh, he is moderating a position, oh, this could be trouble for Biden. And they’re like, I just don’t think it’s going to be, if Biden stays, you know, if I were in the room, and by the way, it’s what they’re doing, it stays true to this just core message. He owns all of this. He did this. None of this would be happening if he did not overturn Roe v. Wade.
He is proud to have done it. He owns all of this and he will do nothing to protect women’s abortion rights going forward. The way it keeps popping up, Claire, and when you look at maps now that show, you know, last week we talked about how all of a sudden Florida is a big red blob, where women can’t get access to health care. And now you add the whole state of Arizona.
You know, I talked with a friend of mine yesterday who had a lot of difficulty getting pregnant and miscarriages, lot of tragedy, and just said the lack of control she felt after she had lost her baby and then to compound it with this sense of a lack of control for women. That they can’t make these decisions themselves, that Donald Trump and his court is gonna decide this, is just enraging to the core. And I just think it’s gonna be a big deal.
Claire McCaskill: Well, I can just see him in his little pea brain trying to figure out how he navigates this. And what you need to understand is that he is not trying to say out loud what he believes. He is trying to figure out a jigsaw puzzle. That if he can just do this over here and this over here, that he’ll be okay with everybody. And I’ve got news for him. On the subject of abortion, that is not possible. It is just not possible.
Jen Palmieri: This is not possible. Yeah.
Claire McCaskill: He wants to own that he ended Roe v. Wade, but he doesn’t wanna own no exceptions for rape or incest. He doesn’t wanna own the fact that they are banning outright all abortions, making it impossible to get abortions in most of the states that he’s got a slam dunk in.
Jen Palmieri: Yeah.
Claire McCaskill: And he can’t do it. So, here’s what’s driving me crazy. If I were in the room, I would be saying to the entire com staff at the White House, every time you talk to reporter, you’ve got to say to this reporter, have you asked Trump how he is going to vote?
Jen Palmieri: Yeah. In Florida, he’s got to vote.
Claire McCaskill: On the initiative petition. Have you asked Trump if he supports the six-week ban in Florida? Have you asked him if he supports the outright ban in Missouri? Have you asked him if he supports, I mean they’re not doing that. They’re not doing that.
Jen Palmieri: Yeah.
Claire McCaskill: And it’s driving me crazy. And by the way, this is much worse than just abortion. I want you to know in my state, we had Republican senators doing a press conference not that long ago, talking about how freezing embryos is reckless and should be illegal.
Jen Palmieri: Oh my God.
Claire McCaskill: Right?
Jen Palmieri: Yeah.
Claire McCaskill: Discarding embryo should be illegal. Then this week, they decided, even though no abortions are being performed at Planned Parenthood in Missouri, no abortions are being performed anywhere in Missouri, unless there’s all kinds of documentation that the woman is about to die. So you know what they banned this week, any money from Medicaid to Planned Parenthood for contraception.
So, women who are on Medicaid can now not get a way to prevent a pregnancy at Planned Parenthood. It is crazy town and Trump thinking, he can just say, well, it’s the states, when his people are planning to use the Comstock Act and Executive Order to outlaw them all over the country based on an existing law. And don’t tell me existing laws can’t be used, call the Arizona Supreme Court and check it.
Jen Palmieri: Yeah, yeah, right. And, you know, the one thing, I think one of the most powerful things that the campaign did this week was they put out this ad with Amanda and Josh, the couple from Texas. And if you have a friend who has lost a child through a miscarriage or only survived for a short amount of time, you have been through the experience of the box, okay. You know, your friend is devastated, she’s sobbing and she comes to you with the box that has the baby’s footprints. It has the baby’s blanket. It has the little baby’s hat. It has all the things.
And I have seen this, it’s like a ritual. They need to do this. They need to process it with you. And then it’s exactly what that couple did on in their ad, right. It’s exactly the same thing. And when I saw it, I was like, oh my God, it’s the box. That is going to resonate with millions of parents across the country. And then it just takes it to a whole other level where it’s not like, oh, should there be a 15-week ban or a 22-week ban or blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It’s just like, trust women to make these decisions, that’s it.
Like what are we even doing here? And this is all your fault. So, I think that you’re right about what they need to push Trump to answer. And he’ll probably say he’ll vote against it. And I think that the right wing will give him a pass because he overturned Roe v. Wade because they know he already did the worst possible thing, which is give them the power to control women. Let’s talk more strategy about Arizona, so people understand what the deal there is.
So, they’re likely to have a ballot initiative. There’s groups that are working to amend the state’s constitution. They say that they have acquired enough signatures to establish the ballot (ph) measure. Reminder, I mean Arizona was not looking so great for Biden. He won in 2020 by less than 11,000 votes.
Senate race in that state could be a game changer for Senate control. Kari Lake is not doing that great. It looks pretty good. She’s on both wrong sides of this issue. And so like, I’ve put Arizona on play, you know. I mean Arizona is always been in play, but I think it makes Arizona a better territory for Biden than we thought, you know, a week ago.
Claire McCaskill: So in addition to what they’re doing on abortion, which I think is great, I think the ad they cut immediately and put up in Arizona is terrific with Biden to camera.
Jen Palmieri: Yup.
Claire McCaskill: They’re breaking through on debt relief for students. I think that’s good. If I were in the room, I’d say keep it up because it is breaking through that he cares about student loan debt way more than he cares about carried interest tax breaks for Wall Street. And I think that helps.
Jen Palmieri: Yeah.
Claire McCaskill: And the other thing they’re doing that I wanna give him kudos for is they are capturing real viral moments.
Jen Palmieri: Yeah.
Claire McCaskill: This really happened. I have somebody in my family who came to me and said, I just saw Bernie and Biden on TikTok. That really helps Biden. Now this person happens to be 27-years-old, you know. And I admit I do not watch TikTok. I do not get TikTok. I do not see TikTok, but a lot of my family, that’s how they get all their information. The fact that somebody who’s not political came to me and said —
Jen Palmieri: Yeah.
Claire McCaskill: — Bernie and Biden on TikTok was really good. And they’re doing this with all these viral moments they’re capturing. They’ve obviously got a crew that’s following him and trying to capture real moments with real people, good for them. And they need to keep it up.
Jen Palmieri: Yeah.
Claire McCaskill: Because that’s gonna break through a hell of a lot more than a 32-second ad.
Jen Palmieri: Yeah. The event, right, basically anytime he does an event that you see news coverage of, there’s something that goes along with it. Like he paired a rally in Philly with a at-home sit down dinner with a small business owner.
He visited a Milwaukee campaign office, connected young boy there who’d written to him about dealing with a stutter. That became a TikTok thing. They have this new routine of how they’re making sure that every day it’s on his schedule, he’s doing digital content and it’s yeah, critically important.
So, we’re gonna take a quick break, but when we’re back MSNBC’s own, Chris Hayes joins us to talk about this unique election. That for the first time and over a century has two incumbents. Chris has been comparing their records on issues that matter. Back with that in just a moment.
(ADVERTISEMENT)
Claire McCaskill: Welcome back. As we mentioned before the break, we are in a very rare type of election this November. And we are thrilled to have our colleague and a big deal at MSNBC, our friend, Chris Hayes, join us. And we’re gonna take an inside look at the landscape and really evaluate how unique it is, with two incumbents running. So besides watching him on MSNBC, every weeknight, did you also know he hosts a weekly podcast called “Why is This Happening?” WITHpod.
Jen Palmieri: Why is this happening is what I think about all the time. Some part of my brain is never not on that question. And on his podcast, Chris has started a new recurring series called “The Stakes” where he digs into the candidate’s records on a lot of the major issues that matter to voters. So, we asked him to join us to take a look at this distinctive moment in history and what he’s learned so far. Hi Chris, thanks for joining us.
Chris Hayes: Thanks so much for having me on. It’s great to be here.
Jen Palmieri: So, this is a good idea. You have good ideas.
Chris Hayes: Thanks. Thank you, I try.
Jen Palmieri: He’s super smart.
Claire McCaskill: This is the first time since 1892 that we have two incumbents. And I think you taking a look at this election through the lens of having two incumbents is a great idea. And I know this week on your podcast, you have an immigration focus.
Chris Hayes: Yeah.
Claire McCaskill: Let’s listen to a little of the audio and then ask you to respond to that with what you learned about the different records in terms of immigration.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
Chris Hayes: Why have we gotten to this point? Like, has the Biden administration made decisions that have produced this or is this a sort of natural forcing mechanism from global demand? How do you see it?
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick: Yeah, I mean I really do see this on a spectrum. And you look at what has happened over the last decade and this has been building. You have to keep in mind that this isn’t new. This didn’t start under the Biden administration. And we had now three separate presidential administrations that have been trying to deal with this. And Congress has been completely absent.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
Claire McCaskill: So, what’d you learn? What surprised you?
Chris Hayes: Well, there’s a few things. One, I think in terms of the premise of the podcast where we’re looking at the records, immigration is a place where the executive has a lot of power, more than in some ways. You know, there’s a lot of discretion. There’s a lot of things the executive can do. One of the big things I learned is there’s been so much focus on the border because that’s what Republicans like to talk about. The rest of the immigration system doesn’t get spoken about.
Jen Palmieri: Right.
Chris Hayes: And the fact the matter is Donald Trump and Stephen Miller really, I mean this was really Miller’s, you know, his advisor, eviscerated legal immigration in this country. They just used every possible means from hiring freezes in the USCIS, which handles applications for visas and for citizenship on the refugee cap.
There are all kinds of ways in which it wasn’t just about the border, which I’ll talk about in a second, but on legal immigration, which I think there’s a pretty broad, robust American consensus in favor of. They did everything they could to destroy it and to limit it, and often incredibly bad faith ways. I mean one of the craziest things was at one point on applications, they implemented a policy where you had to, in the instructions, the application says, fill out every line.
So, there will be a place in the application where it says list your children. There’s five slots, okay. Now, if you have two kids, you list the first one and two, and you leave three, four, five blank. They would throw out the application —
Jen Palmieri: Oh.
Chris Hayes: — as defective, because they didn’t write N/A in three, N/A in four, N/A in five.
Jen Palmieri: Wow.
Claire McCaskill: You are kidding me.
Chris Hayes: This is true.
Jen Palmieri: Wow.
Chris Hayes: And this was done intentionally, so that people’s attempts to legally immigrate would be impossible. So, then you would get notified, your application was defective. You have to apply again, right? So, they were using every trick in the book they can. Forget the border, forget asylum claims —
Jen Palmieri: Yeah.
Chris Hayes: — which themself are legal and people who are coming in an undocumented fashion, overstaying visas, just forget all that. People who are playing by the rule books, people who are trying to apply for refugee status, who are trying to apply for visas, who are trying to apply for green cards, we’re getting absolutely screwed intentionally under Donald Trump. And it’s taken a while, but the Biden administration really has built that back up.
It’s been a recovery from COVID where embassies and consulates closed across the world. It’s been a recovery from the Trump administration eviscerating the mechanics of that from the refugee programs need to get word back up, because they’re basically gutted and destroyed, right. So like when you bring over refugees, you’re working with nonprofits and civil society groups. So, that’s one huge area that no one talks about because the Republicans —
Jen Palmieri: Yeah.
Chris Hayes: — wanna make the conversation about the border. And then when you look at the border, you know, one of the big takeaways there is the thing that really reduced the border crossings was COVID. All the stuff that Donald Trump and Stephen Miller —
Jen Palmieri: Of course.
Chris Hayes: — threw at the wall didn’t actually work that well. Some of it did, some of it would work for a little bit of time, Remain in Mexico. But ultimately dealing with the issue, that there’s a relationship between the two, which is that people wanna come to the U.S. And you’ve got to figure out a way to do it that’s orderly, humane, in the national interest and legal. And if you don’t do that, you’re going to create disaster at the border, which is obviously exactly what they want.
Jen Palmieri: It’s sort of surprising to hear that there was more going on behind the scenes in the Trump administration than we originally thought. Because you just have a sense it was chaos and they weren’t getting anything done. If there was one issue area where I guess it’s less surprising that they were up to nefarious things, because what you’re talking about isn’t even really policy changes.
It’s just trying to undermine the system really is what sounds like they were trying to do. Is that true from other areas, other issue areas you’re finding on Trump’s record, that there’s more going on than we understood? Because that’s super valuable to know.
Chris Hayes: We’ve done one on taxes and the same thing happened at the IRS. Now, the IRS was partly congressional funding levels. But when they put all that money for the IRS into the American Rescue Plan, it really has allowed. For instance, the auditing rate for rich people had plummeted below the auditing rate for poor people, for the poorest people. You are more likely to get audited, if you were among —
Jen Palmieri: Of course.
Chris Hayes: — the poorest people claiming the earned income tax credit than if you were among the wealthiest. And that’s because they’re easy to audit and it’s hard and labor intensive to audit rich people, and the IRS had been gutted. Now, partly that was congressional funding levels but partly that was also the —
Jen Palmieri: It’s probably what they requested, right? They probably requested less money.
Chris Hayes: They did request less money.
Jen Palmieri: Yeah.
Chris Hayes: But also even under Obama, in fact, one of the big things that Republicans did in those budget negotiations —
Jen Palmieri: Yeah, yeah.
Chris Hayes: — under Obama was to screw the funding. But then there’s a bunch of other areas and Claire, I think this will resonate with both of you, right, which is that when you’re outside government, it can feel a little opaque. But when you’re inside it, there are so many things that an agency like HHS or HUD or USDA does.
So, many decisions they make that cascade down from who’s running it and what their priorities are. That have such tangible effects for people, whether you’re person living in public housing or you’re person on Section 8 voucher or you’re a dairy farmer in Missouri, or you are someone who’s trying to get a government contract, that stuff really matters when —
Jen Palmieri: Right.
Chris Hayes: — who is running the government and what they’re prioritizing. And you see that in immigration, you see it in the tax system. And I think as we go through the series, you’re gonna see it in all kinds of different places throughout the government.
Claire McCaskill: Yeah. I think it’s important, first, I wanna circle back just for a minute on the immigration because I wanna ask a question. I noticed the other day where Trump said out loud, the obvious part, and that is why don’t we get more immigrants from Norway and Sweden?
Chris Hayes: Yep.
Claire McCaskill: In other words, his way of saying —
Chris Hayes: Yes.
Claire McCaskill: — we only want white immigrants.
Chris Hayes: Yes.
Claire McCaskill: So, I’m curious —
Jen Palmieri: People I might marry, yeah.
Claire McCaskill: Yeah, yeah.
Jen Palmieri: My marriage pool.
Claire McCaskill: Exactly. So when they were screwing with people’s applications, was there any evidence or has anybody looked into this? Has this been investigated that they were only throwing out the applications for legal immigration for people of color and letting the ones with two white children come through?
Chris Hayes: It’s a really great question. I truly don’t know the answer to. My sense from talking to Aaron is the desire to break the system overrode any fine-tune targeting. So, the system as a whole for everyone just got worse. It got harder to get in as a general matter. I don’t know if that was differentiated. Although I’ve talked to people who were trying to get work visas from the U.K. who had a terrible time. I mean people truly don’t understand —
Jen Palmieri: Yeah.
Chris Hayes: — how hard it is to come to the United States legally. When they say casually, like just come here legally. It’s like, no, you literally can’t. I mean like it’s really, really difficult, but it’s a great question. I don’t know the actual specific answer. What I do know is that they broke the whole system and it made things worse for everyone.
Claire McCaskill: Okay. So, this is a really good hearing for Gary Peters to do at Homeland Security.
Chris Hayes: I totally agree.
Jen Palmieri: Oh yeah.
Claire McCaskill: I will see if we can’t get that message directly to him, just in case he’s not listening to this podcast. But as the chairman of Homeland Security in the Senate or even the Oversight Committee —
Chris Hayes: Yeah, agreed.
Claire McCaskill: — that looks at, you know, investigations. This is an investigation that would be worth their time. So, I think going back to what you’re talking about in terms of comparing the two incumbents, what you’re referring to in terms of the government and the power of the executive branch. Cautionary note, I think it’s important to emphasize here is what they’re planning for a second administration. And that is what’s always been —
Chris Hayes: Yes.
Claire McCaskill: — frankly, the guardrails for political appointments in these agencies are really good career people —
Chris Hayes: Correct.
Claire McCaskill: — who care very much about the mission of their agency and just come to work every day with their head down, not looking left, not looking right, doing the job, blocking and tackling and not getting political. And they have stopped some of the worst instincts to try to play games that are —
Chris Hayes: Yep.
Claire McCaskill: — partisan and political and not frankly founded in congressional dictated policy. So, what they’re trying to do in this administration is blow up that civil —
Chris Hayes: Totally.
Claire McCaskill: — service system, right? I mean —
Chris Hayes: Yes.
Claire McCaskill: — talk about that comparison.
Chris Hayes: That is such a great point, right? And even in immigration, you saw rebellion from within the civil service against what they were trying to do to break the system. They’ve got this vision, and this is something they’re very explicit about and then it’s not just Project 2025, which was put together by an outside group. But is widely sort of understood a blueprint for Republican governance in the next administration.
It’s also Bannon has said it explicitly. Stephen Miller, Trump, I think, has even said it. There’s this thing called Schedule F, which is basically there’s a distinction in the federal government between career civil service, and this has been true since the late 19th century when we put in civil service reforms, and political appointees. There’s a tiny group of political appointees and an enormous amount of civil servants.
And the reason behind that is so that you don’t have a federal government operating like Tammany Hall, which is to say people get their jobs because of who they know and what their politics are and patronage. And if you try to run a federal government that way, you will lead to absolute disaster, will be rife with corruption. And that’s exactly what they’re trying to do. They’re trying to take the worst kind of 19th century political machine and graft it onto a 21st century superpower —
Jen Palmieri: Yeah.
Chris Hayes: — federal government. And the prospects for what that would mean, not just in terms of democracy, where you have civil service being like, oh, we’re not gonna actually, I don’t think we’re gonna give you this contract because we see that you donated it to a Democrat. So, you’re not gonna get this contract. So, that’s like the small democratic nightmare scenario. But there’s a ton of physical stuff this government has to do and do competently. When you start eating away at that, you are begging for catastrophe.
Jen Palmieri: All right, that is a great place to take a quick pause, but stick around for more with Chris Hayes. Back in a moment.
(ADVERTISEMENT)
Claire McCaskill: Welcome back. We’ve been talking about this idea of comparing the records of two former presidents, which we have running against each other for the first time, since Arizona was passing laws to make sure abortion was illegal, that are now on the books again, like the 1800s, right? It was the 1800 the last time we had two incumbents running.
Chris Hayes: It was 1892. It was Benjamin Harrison, who was the incumbent president running against Grover Cleveland who had been the president in the term before him. So, similar situation you’ve got Grover Cleveland, the challenger, had been president. Benjamin Harrison was the incumbent. Grover Cleveland actually won that election to become the first non-consecutive person to ever serve in the presidency. But you had the rare situation in which both men running had been presidents, which never happens because it’s all speculative.
I mean at some level when you’re covering, you know, Barack Obama, what’s Barack Obama gonna be able to do (ph) as president? Well, you could look at who is in his coalition? What is his voting record? What is his campaign positions? But it is unavoidably speculative, a certain point. This time, there’s no speculation, zero.
Jen Palmieri: Right.
Chris Hayes: Like —
Jen Palmieri: Right.
Chris Hayes: — we’ve got the records of both of them.
Jen Palmieri: When you’re deciding which issues you’re gonna tackle and in what order, did you go into it thinking I need to prioritize based on where I expect to find the most where they differentiate or the most important issues, or how did you approach a question of like, of where to look and where to look first?
Chris Hayes: So, I have to say, I am trying in good faith to do this as straightforwardly as possible. Because I do think like I’m just trying to do this sort of brass tax policy stuff that you used to get in like local public news on a mayoral race.
Jen Palmieri: Yeah, I know.
Chris Hayes: It’s like —
Jen Palmieri: Yeah.
Chris Hayes: — where the candidates stand on the issues?
Jen Palmieri: Right.
Chris Hayes: And honestly, if you are a person who really wants to dramatically restrict immigration of the U.S., both legal and you know, undocumented, and you wanna dramatically cut down people coming in, like Donald Trump has done that and wants to do it.
Jen Palmieri: Yeah. I mean did you think he was effective, like he was effective at that?
Chris Hayes: It’s one of the few areas, I think, where they really said we’re gonna do this and they did it. The other area is taxes for our second episode.
Jen Palmieri: Right.
Chris Hayes: Like if you think corporations and rich people should pay less in taxes, Donald Trump does believe that and has done that and will try to do it again. So, one of the things I’m trying to do, I mean I have my own views on this, but actually just to lay out for people. Like —
Jen Palmieri: Right.
Chris Hayes: — where are the issue differences? Where are the candidates on this? And it’s so wild.
Jen Palmieri: So novel.
Chris Hayes: No, it’s so wild to me how novel it is because this used to be the bread and butter.
Jen Palmieri: I know.
Chris Hayes: I mean I always give this example and Jen, I think you’ll find this interesting. You know, back in 2008, when McCain and Obama were running and Putin invaded Georgia, you had, and I remember you had at that time, the campaigns put together like conference calls with their experts.
Jen Palmieri: Right.
Chris Hayes: And they put out statements and they gave speeches and it was like, where are you on this issue matter?
Jen Palmieri: Right, right.
Chris Hayes: What should the U.S. do about Putin’s invasion of Georgia? Now, you’ve got war in Gaza raging for six months and Donald Trump has no discernible position. I mean —
Jen Palmieri: Yeah.
Chris Hayes: — literally there’s just no position.
Jen Palmieri: No, he doesn’t ever talk about it, yeah.
Chris Hayes: So one of the things I’m trying to do is be like, just go back to this, like here are the two candidates.
Jen Palmieri: Right, right.
Chris Hayes: Here are their positions on a matter of public import, whatever it is, abortion rights and reproductive care, immigration, taxes, labor law, environmental regulation, climate.
Jen Palmieri: Yeah.
Chris Hayes: Where do they stand?
Jen Palmieri: And I just came back from a conference at the LBJ Library about media and democracy and how media could do a better job assisting democracy and like, you’re so right. Like there’s just been a big loss of local news and the kind of coverage you used to get that would get down into details, also Trump makes it difficult. So yeah, this is really important. You’re doing it.
Claire McCaskill: One of the phrases that drives me crazy is when I hear voters talking anecdotally to reporters, and this happens a lot in our coverage on election day, when they pull somebody out of the line and say, why did you vote for Trump?
Chris Hayes: Totally, yeah.
Claire McCaskill: And they say, well, I don’t like him, but I like his policies.
Chris Hayes: Yes.
Claire McCaskill: I mean that should be needle pointed on somebody’s pillow. But whenever they say that, I’m dying for that field reporter to say, what exactly does that mean? Does that mean you liked paying more for a refrigerator because of China tariffs or does that mean you don’t acknowledge the fact that actually Joe Biden is pumping more oil right now than Donald Trump did during his administration? Are there places you’ve discovered where people will be most surprised at either maybe the similarity of their policies? Are there some places that people don’t realize that they kind of mirror each other?
Chris Hayes: That’s really interesting. I think there will be some places. I do think there’s some continuity in immigration. One of the continuities, honestly, is and there’s actually a continuity here from all the way back in 2014 under Obama, when you first started getting large numbers of people showing up at the border presenting for asylum is like what to do about. Because in 2014, relatively new, it is accelerated.
It’s been shifting in terms of where people are coming from, if they’re coming with families, if they’re coming solo. But you have seen a consistent thing throughout Obama, then Trump than Biden and they’ve reacted in different ways with different levels of extremism. But the Obama administration were the first one to contemplate child separation as an extreme means of deterring entrance.
Now they decided was inhumane and they threw it out. But what you see in that is there has been a continuity in trying to figure about what to do about the intense demand to come to the border that is happening, how to deal with it. And I think you’ll see, you know, in other places. I think one of the places you will see a little interesting continuity and we’re gonna do an episode of this is on China.
And China and particularly terrorist, which is that I think a posture of more adversarial view and disentangling on trade, particularly with China I think is one place where we see some continuity. I think, you know, you just talked about the tariffs. I think Trump is way more tariff forward. And then the last thing I’ll say, when you say I don’t like America’s policies, I also wanna say there are some people who answer that question rationally.
So if you say, I believe abortion is murder and I want it criminalized and Donald Trump delivered that, and I’m gonna vote for him again, it’s like, yeah, that’s probably your person. I mean that —
Jen Palmieri: Yeah.
Chris Hayes: — if that’s a really important issue to you and you believe that, you’re probably voting for the right person.
Jen Palmieri: When I do talk to Trump supporters, that is what they say. They say abortion, it’s immigration.
Claire McCaskill: Well, they also say regulation, which is an interesting one to me.
Chris Hayes: Yes, agree.
Claire McCaskill: Because I understand the regs and how they go into place and how they are removed. And trust me, this is not an overnight process. There are all kinds of publishing the rules and responding to the rules. So, this idea that Biden has waved a magic wand and all of a sudden there’s all this more regulation, it’s just total bullshit.
That just doesn’t happen. But have you guys taken a look at regulation? I mean is this one of these things where Trump just says it often enough that people think it’s true, that somehow regulations just magically disappeared during the Trump administration?
Chris Hayes: Yeah, I mean I think there was. I do think there’s a different posture of whether, like we we’re seeing it right now. Actually, today is a great example in the last few days. These chemicals called PFAS, PFAS, you know, which have some deleterious health consequences. They’re very common in all sorts of industrial production. Trump really did cut regulation of it and Biden really is increasing it.
Now, does take a really long time for those to go into effect but I do think there’s different postures on that. Of course, there’s also different kinds of regulation. Like for instance, Tammy Baldwin wants increased regulation in Wisconsin of what gets to call itself milk. And I always say this about the question regulation, when people say they’re anti or pro-regulation. I said it’s like being anti or pro laws.
You ask someone like, are you pro laws or anti laws? It’s like, well, it really depends on what the law is. Regulation is the same way. It just depends on what the regulation is, whether it’s a good regulation or bad. There are bad regulations that we should get rid of. There are lots of things we regulate that we shouldn’t. The specifics really matter here when you talk about regulation.
But I think, particularly on environmental regulation, I do think that the EPA under Trump was far more deregulatory in ways that were destructive. And this one has been more interested in regulation for sure.
Claire McCaskill: I just wanted to like veer a little bit off and get your take quickly, since I never get to ask you questions.
Chris Hayes: Please.
Claire McCaskill: You always get to ask me questions. I never get to ask you questions. This is like a fast round-robin. Do you think Mike Johnson will be speaker on November 1st? And do you think that RFK successfully siphons enough votes away from Biden, that nobody gets 270?
Chris Hayes: Oh, that’s a great question. So, let me start with Mike Johnson. I think it’s more likely than not that he won’t last. I think it’s —
Claire McCaskill: Do you think?
Chris Hayes: I think it’s probably 60 percent, I think it’s pretty close because I think a certain amount of fatigue sets in.
Jen Palmieri: He just can’t do the job.
Chris Hayes: Well, I think the thing that would keep him in office is fatigue with the nonsense.
Jen Palmieri: Right.
Chris Hayes: By Republicans. I also think, and I’d be curious what you think Claire, if he brought up the Ukraine aid package under suspension the rules, they passed it with two-thirds and then they try to ding him with the motion to vacate. I could actually see Democrats voting to keep him as opposed to last time when they voted against the rule, because you know, that’s just party line. Because I think they also don’t want to go through it again, but I could also see them not because it’s not their job, you know.
Jen Palmieri: He’s gonna have to ask for it. Remember McCarthy wouldn’t ask. McCarthy said he didn’t want democratic votes.
Chris Hayes: Right.
Jen Palmieri: You know, so like it kind of depends on Johnson.
Chris Hayes: I think it’s probably close to 50-50, but November is a long time away. And man, did they look like —
Claire McCaskill: Geez.
Chris Hayes: They can’t do anything. So, I think the RFK question is so fascinating. I have seen some data that suggests he’s hurting Biden more than Trump, but it’s also pretty contingent. It might even vary state to state. It really matters on who you think your turnout model is because he’s appealing most to the people that are most alienated from the political system. So, there’s a question of if he’s drawing people that weren’t gonna vote, right?
So like if RFK is not there, they don’t vote, which means you’re not losing a vote per se. It’s a really complex. It’s clear that both sides are worried about him. I don’t think he will get enough to challenge anyone for 270, but I do think he could tip states from Biden to Trump. And I think the fact that he has chosen as his running mate someone with essentially infinite resources they can get on the ballot in every state is incredibly cynical and also could be really dangerous.
Claire McCaskill: But what’s funny about this is that my mind is so sick.
Jen Palmieri: What is funny?
Claire McCaskill: Well, you know “How to Win 2024,” I always think about the bank shots, okay.
Chris Hayes: Yeah.
Claire McCaskill: So, I’m envisioning a paid media campaign in Michigan by Trump to remind people what a great environmentalist —
Chris Hayes: Totally.
Claire McCaskill: — RFK is.
Chris Hayes: Totally.
Jen Palmieri: Yeah.
Claire McCaskill: That Joe Biden is pumping more gas and then —
Chris Hayes: Totally.
Claire McCaskill: — he’s bringing oil out. And by the way, does that get some of those suburban Republican swing voters that don’t like Trump to go, wait a minute, if he is pumping more gas, then maybe we should be —
Jen Palmieri: Right.
Claire McCaskill: — for Biden. I mean there’s all —
Jen Palmieri: Oh yeah.
Claire McCaskill: — these ricochets. When the campaigns start trying to promote, I have a little experience with this.
Chris Hayes: Yes.
Claire McCaskill: When they start trying to promote a candidate, they don’t really want to win, ultimately it is really tricky. And I think both sides are getting ready to do that.
Jen Palmieri: You lose control, yeah.
Claire McCaskill: I think they’re gonna both try to convince voters that RFK is in fact, a demon.
Chris Hayes: I will say this, Hannity did an A-block the other night going after RFK, an A-block.
Claire McCaskill: That’s the prime real estate, man.
Chris Hayes: Don’t fall for RFK. He’s a lip basically was the thesis of the A-block. And I thought it was interesting because I thought —
Jen Palmieri: Yeah, that is interesting.
Chris Hayes: — oh, he’s worried that some of his viewers and Trump people are into RFK. That’s why he’s doing this. I think there’s lots of people on the democratic side who are worried too. There are reasons to think that he’ll pull from both, but it is a real huge open question in Pandora’s box.
Claire McCaskill: Yeah. If it wasn’t so scary, I would find it fascinating.
Chris Hayes: Yes, I agree.
Jen Palmieri: All I know is whenever I tweet something, now I’m gonna sound like a Trump voter in line at a rally, but with my anecdotes, but anytime I tweet something about RFK, the people who push back on me, I go back and look at their account and they’re MAGA, you know. So you’re like, I don’t think they’re (ph), you know, this is Russia or bots or like what this is. But the people who are pushing back and defending RFK, that’s what those accounts are.
Claire McCaskill: Okay. So one last question, before we let you go. Speaking of presidential records, one of these two is set to begin a criminal trial on Monday. You know, you like, mulling this stuff, stewing it all day. How are you feeling about how that’s gonna impact the campaign trail?
Chris Hayes: Here has been my thesis throughout. My contention has been that the public metabolizes and digests a conviction very differently than digest indictments. And we’ve seen that before. You know, we saw it with Menendez, you know, the first time where he was able to survive an indictment and then was not convicted.
So, I think it makes a big difference whether he’s convicted or not, basically. That’s been my contention the whole time, that people are underpricing what a conviction means, because I think a lot of people aren’t paying that attention.
Jen Palmieri: Yeah.
Chris Hayes: And I think the general posture people have is like, oh, he was convicted of a crime, like that’s not good.
Jen Palmieri: I agree to that, that doesn’t make distinction. But I have a thought that hearing all the sordid details play out day after day, that might impact people or do you think like people are just too inert to his behavior at this point?
Chris Hayes: I think it will be either neutral or bad for him. I don’t think it will be good for him, you know.
Jen Palmieri: Yeah.
Chris Hayes: And I sort of agree with that. I do think that the details are gross, but again, I do think like him being a gross and bad person is pretty priced in.
Jen Palmieri: Pretty priced in, yeah.
Chris Hayes: It is pretty priced in. Sometimes people overestimate his tefloness, I think.
Jen Palmieri: Yeah, yeah. You got it until you don’t.
Claire McCaskill: Well, let’s hope.
Chris Hayes: Yeah.
Claire McCaskill: Let’s hope they overestimate it. And here’s my prediction. As much as I hate to say it out loud, I’m predicting a hung jury.
Chris Hayes: I wouldn’t be surprised, honestly.
Jen Palmieri: Oh, she knows what she’s talking about.
Claire McCaskill: Chris Hayes, host of MSNBC’s “All In” and the podcast. “Why is This Happening?” Thank you so much for taking time today to spend some time with us. It was fun and we hope you’ll come back before November.
Chris Hayes: You bet, it was great. Thanks guys.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
Jen Palmieri: Thanks so much for listening. As always, if you have a question for us, you can send it to howtowinquestions@nbcuni.com or you can also leave us a voicemail at 646-974-4194. And we might answer it on the pod. And remember to subscribe to MSNBC’s “How to Win” newsletter to get weekly insights on this year’s key races sent straight to your inbox. Visit the link in our show notes to sign up.
Claire McCaskill: This show is produced by Vicki Vergolina. Our associate producer is Janmaris Perez. Paul Robert Mounsey is our audio engineer. Our head of audio production is Bryson Barnes. Aisha Turner is the executive producer for MSNBC Audio. And Rebecca Kutler is the Senior Vice President for Content Strategy at MSNBC.
Jen Palmieri: Search for “How to Win 2024” wherever you get your podcast and follow the series.