Well, I'm sad to not be physically with you like we were last night at Politics and Pros. It was so fun.
I know. Last night was awesome. Um, but we're now here virtually and it's going to be awesome again. So, we're back.
Yes, we're back. Okay. Normal life. You don't want to spend time talking about our wonderful night. Um, not like in a date way. It was a book event for I Disagree. So, buy I Disagree and leave a review also. I'm getting really nice reviews, but I want more of them. If you have something bad to say, I don't particularly want that, but I won't have them take it down either. I'm not one of those people astroturfing the situation.
Welcome to the Parnas Perspective. I'm Jessica Tarlov.
And I'm Aaron Parnas. And if you haven't subscribed yet, hit that link top left corner and subscribe.
Hit the top left. Um, all right. We got a lot to get to. We are now under 40 days to the midterms, which feels crazy.
That's what I meant by right under 40. A growing number of Republicans, including Senate hopefuls in Michigan and Iowa, are publicly breaking with Trump. They're going after a number of unpopular policies and actions. I mean, what took you so long? War in Iran, rising gas prices, immigration operations, even in Kansas. That one blew my mind when Roger Marshall had to be like, "These ICE raids are out of control." And it's like, "Did you just wake up? Have you not been around here for the last almost two years?" But I digress. Questionable funding for Don Jr.'s wedding was also a hot topic. John Curtis from Utah leading the way there. Um, yeah, that funfetti cake is going to haunt them. One of the many reasons that voters are turning against Trump is obviously the affordability crisis. Mortgage rates now at 7.5%. Diesel prices at historic highs and gas prices are up 27% year-over-year. Um, I'm not sure if it's just my algorithm. Everything is usually just your algorithm, but I have been consuming these incredible ads from candidates who you wouldn't expect to have any shot. So, Adam Hamilton has one out. Dan Osborne that I'm loving. Todd Achilles in Idaho. Um, Gina, how do you pronounce her last name?
Inhosa. Um, where she actually has a January 6th in her ad against Greg Abbott in Texas. And it makes me feel like the map is wide open for us. I know that a good ad doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to win. Um, but the polling also indicates there's a reason that they're cutting these great ads. Um, what do you think the current state of play is? Do you think it's too little too late in terms of turning on Trump for someone like a Mike Rogers or Ashley Hinson?
Well, I think Americans are smarter than this. I mean, I think the funniest thing that I see right now are these Republican candidates scrubbing Donald Trump from their website. So Byron Donalds did it last week in Florida. And then just today, Jay Feehery, who is MAGA, MAGA all the way in Arizona's first congressional district. Once he had Trump's name and his face on his website, today he no longer has Trump anywhere near him. I think voters remember. Voters are not dumb. You can't — A, the internet is forever. B, you can't just like all of a sudden say, "No, we didn't do what we just did over the past almost two years." Like no, none of everything you're seeing is not actually what you're seeing. I think that they see the writing on the wall. Every single poll that comes out, and I'm not a big believer in polls, but at a point, literally every poll shows Republicans hemorrhaging support across the country. And it's not just in like generic R versus D polling. It's in issues-based polling. Immigration, they're underwater. The economy, they're underwater. And take polls out of it. I judge how an election will do based on how the economy is doing in November. And right now, the economy is complete [__]. If the economy was great right now and Americans were making money and your 401ks were in fact booming and not just were they booming, but you could actually afford to invest in your retirement fund, I think Republicans could hold on to the House and the Senate. If gas prices were at $3 a gallon, I think we'd be having a very different conversation. But that's not where we are right now. And I think the White House has blinders on as to what the actual reality is on the ground right now.
Yeah. I mean, you said you're not a big believer in polls. I am a big believer in polls. Um, I also like staying employed and worked in polling and I think it's an important indication. You know, it's a snapshot of a moment in time and the trend lines are definitely moving dramatically in Democrats' direction. Um, there were a few results that stood out to me like while everything is going blue, Susan Collins was up three in one of the most recent polls against Troy Jackson. That's a concern. That's a major pickup opportunity. Chris Pappas only polling kind of three to five points ahead in a best case scenario in New Hampshire that wasn't really on anyone's radar as something that we are going to need to spend big to defend and looks to be an issue. Um, I was heartened to see Abdul El-Sayed and Jocelyn Benson are now running at the same level ahead of their Republican opponents. Abdul had been lagging behind her. Um, so that's good news. But it feels as if it's just like too good to be true and that maybe there's some massive polling error coming. I don't want to think that, but it seems unrealistic that you could have a world in which this blue tsunami happens while public approval for the Democratic party has not inched up that much. Like they still don't like us.
I don't think it's going to be a blue tsunami. I never did think it was going to be a blue tsunami. I think it's going to be a successful blue wave, but for example, I think Democrats are going to pick up somewhere around 30 seats in the House of Representatives. Give a Democratic speaker about a 20 to 22 seat majority. That's a pretty big pickup, but it's not going to be amazing.
It'd be huge, but it's not going to be anywhere near 60 to 70 seats. I don't envision that type of swing. Same thing in the Senate. Like, if Democrats win the Senate, I anticipate it being a very tight win. Um, but I think the more likely scenario today is that still Republicans hold on to the Senate just given the map. But I think Republicans are going to lose some seats in the Senate. I think North Carolina at this point I would rate as likely or as solid of a D as really there is in the country with Roy Cooper at the top of the ballot. I think Georgia will hold on. I think Democrats are going to have trouble in Maine. I think Democrats are still going to have trouble in Texas, although it's going to be closer in Iowa, in Alaska. I mean, these are reliably red states in a traditional year. And so every Democrat there is running as a major underdog. I think you'll have a couple of those flip. I don't know which ones will flip, but I mean, if you were to ask me today what's more likely to flip, a state like, for example, Sherrod Brown in Ohio or even Susan Collins in Maine, I personally would probably argue Sherrod in Ohio just because of the strength that Susan Collins has in Maine and has had for longer than...
Yeah. Even though she said she'd only run for two terms.
I don't like being lied to. Um, I just want to talk about this new court ruling, but wanted to add that there was a quote about the Georgia race about Mike Collins, who is a particularly bad candidate running against Jon Ossoff, who is so on top of his game. Um, but they said that it was basically the spending now would be just to keep the patient comfortable, which felt like a pretty brutal ruling or explanation for what's going on in Georgia. Um, the Supreme Court just cleared the Trump administration to use sensitive federal data to help states identify people deemed ineligible to vote. Critics warn it could lead to eligible voters being purged ahead of the midterms. Um, this to my mind was always the goal and you see the numbers always ticking down like they say something like 16,000 illegals are registered and then it goes down to absolutely no one. Um, but what do you make of this court ruling? Excuse me. [clears throat] I'm sorry. What do you make of this court ruling? And it definitely had been looking like there were a string of successes at least for the rule of law and protecting your right to vote from the Supreme Court, but this feels like a bit of a setback.
Well, there is some solace that everyone should find in this ruling, which is that it actually probably won't apply to the November elections. There is federal law that prevents voter roll purges 90 days before an election. So unless they violate the law, which is — I mean, I don't put anything past them — this Supreme Court ruling shouldn't apply for the midterms. Now it's coming ahead of the midterms and it will apply definitely for voter rolls and off-year elections in 2027 and then most certainly in 2028 for the presidential. And so I think we have a very real and very serious situation on our hands. But at the end of the day, no one should be surprised about this. The fact that I was surprised that the United States Supreme Court blocked Trump's executive order concerning USPS and mail-in voting — like that to me was a shock because of the track record of this court. And so it doesn't come as a surprise to me that this court is ruling in favor of the president. Doesn't come as a surprise to me that the court is allowing this to continue because that is the norm with a 6-3 conservative majority on the court. So, I don't know how much it'll impact November, but it will impact elections moving forward.
So, what do you think in the worst case scenario that they have cooking? Because I am definitely getting some panic text messages from people saying, you know, that they're hearing kind of rumblings about the potential for seizing voting machines and that we could be headed towards not a redux of January 6 in terms of the storming of the Capitol, but the, you know, all-out war being waged on your vote getting to count. Are those things that you're hearing or that you're concerned about as well?
Well, I mean, Trump allies like Peter Thiel and Tina Peters have been urging him to declare martial law repeatedly. They've been urging him to declare what is called a national emergency and federalize certain elections. Here's the thing, can't do any of it. Legally speaking, and once again, this requires the courts to follow the law, and I do envision that they would in this case. Legally speaking, only Congress can declare martial law. The executive branch can't. When you declare a national emergency, the scope of a national emergency cannot allow you to go into states and interfere with state-run elections. It's constitutional law 101. So where I'm more nervous — I'm not fearful in the sense that Trump is going to declare martial law and we're going to have police on our streets and turn into a police state. I think anyone suggesting that is fear-mongering at this point. Where I am more nervous personally is say we have a scenario where the House is decided by three votes and the three votes are in California and California takes three weeks to count and Republicans start up on election night and then slowly as mail-in ballots are counted Democrats take over in four congressional seats and after three weeks the balance of power shifts from a three-vote down Democratic minority to a one-vote up Democratic majority. And then in that case you have Trump sending in folks to stop the count essentially in certain counties and certain districts. That's a terrifying scenario because then you can get into the situation of will Mike Johnson even seat some members who are duly elected? Will he not? Will he fire the clerk? I mean there are so many issues that could arise out of a situation like that. That's the terrifying scenario. Not is Trump going to seize the ballots because he can't. Well, believe in them trying to devise a way to do anything. And we know Mike Johnson won't seat people. Remember Congresswoman Grijalva who sat there for a couple months right waiting for her seat that she won with 70% of the vote.
One of the elements that I think could be connected to how they are approaching election season is this war on the press. And if [clears throat] you control the press or the information that's going out, you can cook up just about anything. So, Donald Trump, it's days since he banned CNN, Politico, and MSNBC from the White House over their quote-unquote unfavorable coverage. And now they've launched Trump TV, which is a 24/7 YouTube stream akin to what goes on in China and North Korea. Um, ratings have been small. Um, not surprising. Uh, but I still think it's important that they've done it and that's where their head is at. A federal court has ordered Trump to reverse the ban on media outlets. Reporters from three organizations were allowed back into the White House yesterday, but then CNN and MSNBC were denied access to cover the guest arrivals at the Xi Jinping State Dinner last night. Um, what is your take on the state of play here?
That's a loaded question. Uh, yeah, listen, I mean, I think my take on it all is you have a president who's panicked, who doesn't really love all the bad and negative coverage he's getting, and so he's trying to test the bounds of the Constitution to see how far he can go. I presume he knew that he would get quickly shot down in the courts, but with China's President Xi Jinping coming into town, I think part of him hoped he would have CNN, MSNBC, Politico out of the White House for the state visit. Um, they wouldn't be there. Kaitlan Collins wouldn't be asking tough questions and he could kind of show that as like a, oh wow, you can do it in China, I can do it here in America type of thing. But the courts prevailed, the First Amendment prevailed, the Constitution prevailed. I find it interesting they're at the National Archives today looking at the United States Constitution as Trump is trying to limit constitutional rights on a daily basis. I think though that this state visit was a lot of pomp and circumstance, but I don't think it really went anywhere. There was not a lot of substance coming out of it other than I guess they agreed, according to Trump, to call artificial intelligence superintelligence. But other than that, I'm not sure if there is any other — and I wouldn't even say that's substantive — but there isn't anything else really coming out of it. I also find it interesting. I mean, like the headlines out of these state visits because CNN, MSNBC, and there was a pool TV reporter covering them for part of it. You actually didn't really see much of it. All you saw was Trump wincing at the B-2 bomber flying overhead. You saw too loud, right? And then she just kind of standing there like in a power move. You saw Trump showing Xi, who is a brutal authoritarian, a picture of Biden's autopen. Um, and then the two of them laughing about an American president. Um, you see the stupidest [__] coming out of the state visit. And then you have Trump TV, which isn't a TV channel despite it being called Trump TV. It's a 24/7 YouTube stream, which is actually not different than anything we've had in the past in this administration. They've had these 24-hour streams before. But if you want to know how bad it is for them, more people in the past week have watched a blank screen with a box fan than they did Trump TV. Same thing with a squirrel eating nuts live stream than Trump TV. And listen, I mean, people love I guess squirrels, but like this is an embarrassment for the administration on epic proportions.
Don't undersell the cuteness of a squirrel eating nuts. We play this game on The Five where you have to guess how many nuts the squirrel has in its cheeks [laughter] and then you get a prize. It's not like a huge prize, but it is a little statue of a squirrel and I have won several times. Um, I'm glad you brought up the autopen thing. I, you know, I might be too attached to my norms and standards, but for an administration that gets angry if even a negative word is uttered about Donald Trump on the international stage by someone who's in office or even out of office, I thought it was astounding stuff. And I was going back and looking at old interviews that Trump had given about having a state dinner for the Chinese president because Obama did it. And he said I would get him a McDonald's hamburger and say we have to get to work. It did not look like a McDonald's hamburger last night. And in 2011 he called Obama stupid for hosting the Chinese president. Um, the hypocrisy knows no bounds to say the least. Um, there were protesters outside of the state dinner. Tuxedo-filled the room and Trump asked if anyone wanted to see the ballroom construction. Another thing that a dictator loves. Let's look at a clip.
As a special treat in honor of President Xi and Madame Peng, I'd like to invite everyone in the room to visit through that beautiful curtain in the back. The door, it's all lit up and looks beautiful. It's one year away from completion, the new ballroom that you've heard about, and you will see something that I think you will really love. Anybody wants to walk into a construction site that's nice and clean and sparkling.
Um, I'm sure she is also thinking like, I would have this thing built in 20 seconds. Like it's so embarrassing that it's going to take you a year and a half to be able to do this. Um, but I was listening to Josh Rogan, who's a national security analyst and a columnist for The Washington Post, and he was talking about how Donald Trump genuinely thinks that he's friends with President Xi and that they see the world the same way and that he's actually not a China hawk at all. And now that the China hawks are out of the administration like Pence and Pompeo from round one and that Rubio to a large degree has been neutered essentially in terms of his old-school, you know, neocon way of looking at the world and has been given Latin America essentially as like the toy dangled in front of him saying like you've always wanted, right, to have control of our hemisphere. Um, that we essentially are in no position and don't have top thinkers in the administration who are actually concerned enough about the pernicious threat that China poses. Obviously, you know, that comes to fruition with the fact that we had no deliverables coming out about this. There is no evidence that they had any sort of substantive conversation about AI. Tariffs will probably just be extended as we have it, will just be extended. Um, IP conversations. I heard this incredible stat that there's a cyber attack from one of our enemies with China being the number one threat. Obviously, Iran is in there as well. Um, every 39 seconds. Um, so yeah, it just happened again. I won't make you sit here for 39 seconds. Anyway, it's happening all the time. Like...
Multiple times through the Parnas Perspective. Subscribe to the show by the way. Anyway, it's very overwhelming to me how silly and childish his approach to dealing with this person is. And the Chinese of all people are into the optics and they understand what looks good and what looks bad. And I mentioned it, I don't know if with you or with Scott earlier in the week, but the fact that we did the red carpet and the B-2 bombers and the big flyover for him and that he didn't even come to the airport to meet Trump, it's like the whole game to these people.
Oh, 100%. And I think Trump desperately wants to display this show of strength, I guess, in front of Xi. I don't think Xi really cares like that. Like he's just kind of going along with Trump. I found it so ridiculous that they walked out and Trump was like, "Let me show you my helipad that I just built in the back of the White House." And Xi's probably thinking like, "Okay, it's a helipad. Like, I build these things literally in a day." And that because of lack of labor laws and I mean like horrific, horrific things happening over there. But setting all that aside, like this is not a show of strength to the Chinese president. And I will say this, listen, the White House, I think, is an impressive structure. Um, if anyone's been there, but it's not more impressive than some of these massive, immaculate temples and palaces that we see worldwide, including in Beijing. And so, I think part of the reason Trump is even building this ballroom is just for the optics. But I don't know how much a gold-leaf ballroom is going to really compare to what we're seeing elsewhere. But I also feel like there's a part of President Xi that's like, "Sorry, um, police going by." Um, that's like, "Oh, you want me to be all excited about your helipad? Let me show you my concentration camps with millions of Uyghurs in them." Because I can pull that off and you all just sit around and pal around with me. Like, no one mentions Jimmy Lai even. And like...
Yeah. I mean, but also like it is crazy to me how Trump isn't even talking publicly about how China is literally helping Iran kill American soldiers. Like China has given Iran sat...
Okay. Yes, they dispute those numbers. China is helping Iran in a war. And I remember when South Korea wouldn't help the United States, Trump suggested like — I forget exactly what he suggested — but like abandoning the South Koreans for North Korea. Like when China does it, it's just like, "Oh, gee. Let me show you my ballroom."
Yeah. He didn't mean to. Uh, also, we already won that war, so it's no big deal anyway, whatever China's doing.
No, it's just a little kerfuffle. Um, I want to talk Mark Carney. Uh, he continues his — I guess we're up to like almost a month now of just badass diplomacy on display. Um, he was here for the UN General Assembly meeting. He went and sat with many, many New York Times reporters. I think there were like 12 in the room that did this with him. Um, he shared that he's considered the remote possibility of an invasion from the US following the escalation of Trump's trade war and increasing hostility from Canada's closest neighbors, aka US. Um, it didn't seem that surprising to me when people were like, I can't believe he would think that that was possible. It's like why wouldn't you think it was possible? And the Danes took it seriously, right? And they said as much and that's why they — I mean the Greenland deal we could have gotten from day one anyway. But...
They see Donald Trump as an unhinged character with a support team that bows down to whatever he's interested in doing, including whatever Pete Hegseth is interested in doing. So I thought it made complete sense that Mark Carney considered the possibility.
Yeah, for sure. But I also think there's been no world leader who's raised his stock more in the past 18 months than Mark Carney. I mean, Mark Carney's turned into such a badass for the Canadians. And also, it really just shows like Canada may not have a massive military with B-2 bombers flying overhead, but they're doing more to push back against the United States of America than anyone could have ever imagined. Um, the Canadian nationalism, patriotism, like their idea that their love for their country and their love for each other is really just amazing to see. So, shout out to Mark Carney. Um, and I think that it's giving a rude awakening to the American president. Really, it really is.
