9/30: The Takeout with Major Garrett
00:04:08
And, Dov, Let’s get to some very basics. Flight took off from Dubai, heading for Tel Aviv. How many people on board? Do we know? I think it was around– yeah, around 170 people on board.
00:04:24
Got it. And what is the stage of the investigation now. Yeah. Right. OK, so Israeli officials that I spoke to, they think that this was a type of terrorist attack because of the way that the pilot acted aboard, stabbing his co-pilot, and then what seemed like he was trying to crash the plane intentionally in order to kill everyone aboard. But right now, the attacker, he’s with the Saudis, and they’re the ones who are interrogating him. So they have more information than the Israelis do right now. But it’s the way that that attacker acted that makes the Israeli thinks that this was an intentional attack meant to kill the people on board. We’ll only know more when we hear from the Saudi authorities. Very good. Dov Lieber in Tel Aviv, I appreciate it very, very much. Thank you. I want to turn now to Randy Klatt. He is the flight safety officer for the Foundation for Aviation Safety. Randy, I’m sure a lot of things are impressed upon you as you hear more and learn more about this story. What are they? Well, the biggest concern are two, really. One is that there was obviously a breach of security. How did someone, even an aircrew member, get on that airplane with a knife? Regardless of how big it was, he had a weapon. That shouldn’t have happened. That’s the first concern. And then related to that would be the emotional health or the manner in which pilots are dealing with their jobs every day. And how closely are we monitoring that? How closely can we monitor that, given privacy issues and that sort of thing? But obviously, this man either was intent on intentionally killing himself or other people on the airplane or some other act. We don’t really know the motivation. But bottom line is he did something that obviously pilots are not supposed to do, and we might be able to pick up those issues if we add a little bit more aggressive screening. But those are the two big things that come to my mind right away. Randy, when you mentioned screening, anyone who has ever flown to Israel knows that you go through a more elaborate, more precise screening process. That’s certainly been my experience. It’s been the experience of everyone I’ve ever talked to who’s traveled to Israel. This flight was inbound to Tel Aviv, so we can imagine there was that higher level of scrutiny of passengers and crew. Would this have been something where the crew members, meaning the pilot, might have slightly less scrutiny under normal circumstances? That’s the million dollar question, I think, Major. And I think that is true, that, typically across the world, we have what’s known as access points, known crew-member access points. So they don’t wait in line in security like everyone else does, like all the passengers do. They have their own access points. And yes, those are manned by security, and they are screened. But to what extent? That’s the big question. And that varies from airport to airport, from country to country. Sometimes it’s just a random screen, where most people are checked or some are checked, but others aren’t. You have a valid ID. You’re an employee of the airline. You’re a known person. You’ve had your background checks. All that sort of thing have been done in order for you to get that ID. So will your bags always be X-rayed? Maybe not. So that’s the loophole that we did close after 9/11. I was flying both before 9/11 and after, and it changed dramatically due to those concerns. Well, here we are 25 years later. I think some of those concerns have been allayed somewhat over time. Now, you’re right. There’s no more secure situation than anything heading to or out of Israel. However, this was in Dubai, which is where the aircraft departed. That’s where security took place, the employee of an airline in Dubai. So doesn’t mean that the security was any higher for the aircrew there than it would have been anywhere else. This could have been a catastrophe, Randy. It was not, meaning the flight data recorder is easily accessible and the person responsible has been subdued and arrested, which means we’re going to get to the bottom of this. You’re right. It certainly is a situation where an absolute catastrophe was avoided. And we’re very fortunate. The access to the cockpit is restricted, again, via 9/11. It changed dramatically. And of course, locked doors, codes to get in, and a panel in the cockpit that can deny access, so even if someone in the cabin was trying to aggressively access the cockpit and had a code because they forced a flight attendant or someone to tell them, they still can’t get in because the pilots in the cockpit would have the deny button essentially, and they could deny that access. Well, they also realized that that would be OK. But what about if two pilots were incapacitated for some reason? Obviously we’d have to be able to get into the cockpit. So there is a way that that deny button times out and people could get in. In this case, it sounds like the captain, who was attacked by the first officer, that’s the way this went up. It sounds like he was able to actually access the door and at least unlock it, if not open it, during his struggle with the FO who had attacked him. That really saved the airplane to start with because at least we had access to the cockpit, where the controls are. Now, second to that is there were actually other pilots on the flight that were in the passenger cabin in civilian clothes, who were then were actually able to take over the controls of the aircraft and put it down because, obviously, the captain was being treated because he was attacked and injured. And the other man was being subdued. So we are very lucky that all those things aligned and that we didn’t avoid a terrible catastrophe or didn’t have–
00:10:47
Powerful insight. Randy Klatt, I appreciate your time, sir. Very much. Thank you. You’re very welcome. Thank you, Major. Turning to the White House, where President Trump just announced new energy investments, in particular, a $54 billion project in Alaska. CBS News Senior White House correspondent Weijia Jiang joins us now. Weijia, what did we learn? Well, Major, the event is actually ongoing right now with President Trump taking questions. But he did announce this first big project that is part of a broader trade agreement with South Korea that was made last year. And you’re right. It’s $54 billion to build the long-planned Alaska liquefied natural gas project, which would eventually have the capability to move natural gas across the state of Alaska and then ship it overseas, although the president was asked for specifics on a timeline, Major. And it will take three years just to build the pipeline alone and then another two years to have the LNG capable of bringing it overseas. So it’s not like it’s going to be an immediate fix, although, of course, the president talked about how Alaska’s energy prices are going to tumble very soon. So they also announced eight large-scale nuclear power plants and a massive power-generation facility in Texas, Major, all part of that big trade deal with South Korea. And, Weijia, you know our audience is probably aware because it pays close attention to politics. There is a highly competitive Alaska Senate race going on now. So the timing of this announcement, possibly not coincidental. Well, and you had a great conversation about that yesterday when you talked about Iowa steel. So these are not only very carefully placed projects, but of course, the timing of the announcement is also something to consider because we are now just a few weeks away from those critical elections. The elections are coming, but the developments of these projects, steel and Iowa, LNG and Alaska, several years off. Weijia Jiang, thanks so very much. Sure. The Strait of Hormuz is open, and the Trump strategy just might be working. That is the thesis of our Aaron MacLean The number of vessels moving through the Strait and the US Navy tactics expediting that, well, they don’t get a lot of attention but warrant some inspection. Well, here to inspect, Aaron MacLean, who, as many of you remember– And if you don’t, I’m going to give you a quick reminder. He’s also the host of the most excellent School of Warpodcast. Break it down, the numbers and the tactics, because I think this would work. We need to pay more attention to this. Major, since early in the summer, Central Command has been fighting a battle for control of the Strait of Hormuz. And as you just suggested, there are new indications that it’s winning the battle. Here’s how it works. Ships gather at their normal transit points, origin points here in the Persian Gulf and sail towards the Strait of Hormuz. They register with Central Command and then, in the middle of the night, their transponders generally off, sail through the Strait under US cover. Now, we’ve been attempting this, we, the United States, have been attempting this for some time now. But as of the last couple of weeks, the industry watchers, the energy specialists say that the amount of oil getting through the Strait is about 13 million barrels of oil a day. That’s down from 20, but it’s very significant. And another amount of oil is getting out across that East-West pipeline in Saudi Arabia, amounting to about the pre-war number, 20 million. And when we talked about this a couple of weeks ago, Aaron, I said, what are the numbers? And we didn’t have them yet. The administration was making this bullish case that things are better than they look. Now we actually have hard numbers– That’s right. –to back this up. That’s right. And one of the interesting things about the numbers, Major, is before I think what was fooling people is they were counting the number of ships going through, which was lower than normal. Why? Because what’s happening is a shuttle service. It’s the Hormuz shuttle, a small number of oil tankers register with the military, have their own unique insurance arrangements and go back and forth. And they gather here, largely out of range of most Iranian weapons, and do ship-to-ship transfers. And then those ships sail out to their other ports all around the world, in Asia and Africa, wherever they’re going. So it’s a different method, which means we have to count differently. We have to count differently. It’s also an expensive method, by the way. I don’t want to say that everything is hunky dory. Oil is still very expensive, refined products extremely expensive. But the numbers could be much worse. And by the way, here’s another number that matters. How much Iranian oil is getting out of the Strait? Zero. Which is because of the blockade.
00:15:21
That’s right. Which is still ongoing. I got two questions for you, one on this and then one on the US forces leaving Iraq, which we’ll talk about later in the show. So on the question of these vessels and the numbers and the movement– I forgot my train of thought on this one. I’m going to get to Iraq. We’re moving out of Iraq. Tell me about that. So this is pretty significant. Viewers may wonder, didn’t we already move out of Iraq? Yes. This is the second phase too. This is the ISIS phase. That’s right. So 2011, we left Iraq. 2014, we went back to fight ISIS. At its peak, the ISIS caliphate controlled an enormous part of Iraq and Syria combined here. I mean, it’s a very, very substantial piece of terrain. The United States went back in in 2014 and whittled away at all these different areas. There was an enormous Battle of Mosul as well, Battle of Raqqa. This terrain shrank and shrank and shrank. American forces came out of Syria in the spring. They’re now out of Iraq. I remember what I was going to ask you about. Go back to the other map.
00:16:16
You got it. I’m flexible. And because my memory comes and goes. We talked about a couple of weeks ago, this East-West pipeline being attacked– That’s right. –by Houthis. Is it still damaged, not operational? How does that fit into this equation. Still damaged, but now operational. So this pipeline runs basically straight across the Saudi Arabia, across the Arabian Peninsula, East to West. Houthi attacks, interestingly enough, which seem to have originated in Iraq, which, by the way, is relevant to this question of withdrawing troops from Iraq, struck the pipeline, took it down completely there for several days. And reports indicate that it’s back up and running. The claim from Central Command is the amount of oil getting through there is four to five million barrels per day, higher than before, which contributes to that 20 million number. My memory sometimes falters. Aaron MacLean never does, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, sir, very much. Of course, Major. The intense and intensifying debate over AI safety, it’s been driven by disclosures of artificial intelligence models acting in unexpected, non-conforming ways, essentially going rogue. Well, a Senate hearing today explored this phenomenon, and Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley, who is chairman of the subcommittee, made note of who was not at the hearing. There is one witness whom we invited who you won’t be hearing from today, and that’s Sam Altman of OpenAI. We extended an invitation to him to be here and do his own panel, if he wanted, and he turned us down. I think that’s unfortunate because I think the American people deserve to know exactly what’s going on at all of these companies.
00:17:44
John-Clark Levin joins us now. He is the head of research at Kurzweil Technology, where his research focuses on AI and its implications for humanity. Significantly, he also served as head of research for Google’s chief futurist from 2012 to 2025. So, John-Clark, what is your level of worry, if you have any, over the current state of artificial intelligence and what dangers it may pose writ large? I want to be really clear with viewers, I am not an AI doomer. I yield to no one in my optimism about how much AI can help us if America gets this right but only if we take these risks head on and understand both the stakes and the urgency.
00:18:30
What are the stakes? And what is the urgency? And what does it mean from you, John-Clark’s perspective, to get it right? A lot of the media discourse on so-called catastrophic risks has focused on sci-fi Terminator caricatures of evil robots with glowing, red eyes. And that’s distracting us from very real scenarios, which rogue AI will likely become smart enough to cause sometime in the next 1,000 days, maybe as early as next year. One that I’ve studied in detail would be a cyberattack targeting nuclear command and control. So even though the launch codes that directly control our nuclear missiles are strictly isolated from the internet, the sensors and communication systems that inform the US president about whether to launch them are linked to wider networks that likely have numerous nodes vulnerable to the superhuman-level AI hacking that is arriving very soon. Imagine if someone spoofed satellite signals, showing dozens of submarine-launched Russian missiles minutes away from Washington, DC. If a president of the United States were jarred awake at 3:00 AM and given that information, how confident can we be that decide against immediate retaliation? So if I hear you, John-Clark, one of the things we need to ponder more carefully is not actual things running amok and doing damage by themselves but creating confusion in a space where human decision makers might be deceived and do the wrong thing. Absolutely. The potential for human error and human foolishness to be the sparks that ignite whatever catastrophe may occur is tremendous. And I’m quite worried about that because so often we have seen, over the course of AI development already, models going rogue in ways that surprise the humans. So the Hugging Face Hack over the summer was something that fairly simple precautions by OpenAI could have prevented. But they didn’t, and it happened. So John-Clark, again, back to the question of how we get it right, did this constitution, which the president called it, signed yesterday at the White House, do anything to help? No. Unfortunately, the idea of self-regulation is taking us in the wrong direction. The labs were already coordinating on some measures they were taking unilaterally to promote safety. But we shouldn’t have to trust the CEOs to regulate themselves. And more importantly, we shouldn’t force the CEOs to trust each other. So Dario Amodei, Sam Altman, and Elon Musk are somewhere between mild animosity and hating each other’s guts. And instead, they should all be able to trust that the United States government is holding them accountable, fairly and in the public interest. And my worry right now is that the American public cannot trust President Trump based on his actions over the past year or so to regulate AI fairly and in the public interest and not abusively or for partisan reasons. For example, the White House has been trying on and off to destroy Anthropic over its fight with the Pentagon, and that creates a really dangerous incentive for Anthropic to maybe conceal safety incidents that could be used against them by the White House. He tamed that pesky mute button, and I’m very glad that he did. John-Clark Levin, please come back. I appreciate your expertise very much. Great to be with you, Major. Thank you. [MUSIC PLAYING]
00:22:14
Air travel more expensive and crowded, CBS News senior transportation correspondent Kris Van Cleave speaks with the CEO of Alaska Airlines, and we share with you some of that conversation. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirms the Pentagon cutting 20% of its senior leadership. We have reaction to this broad reshaping of the US military. And last weekend, Pennsylvania Democratic Senator John Fetterman told me that he would support Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer as Majority Leader if Democrats retake the Senate. Now he is, quote, “going after party bosses” in a fundraising email that contains more than one or two GOP-sounding talking points. Our political panel will explore that and a lot more. The Takeoutreturns in 90 seconds. People are being creative. They’re flying on different– they’re going to fly Tuesday and Saturday. They’re using their points programs on their credit cards. So by being more creative about it, you as the customer can have a better experience, a more cost-effective experience booking a little ahead of time. And again, are these prices going to go down anytime soon? Probably not. They’re just not because the issue in Iran is not going away. And even when it does, you have a refining problem here in capacity. Welcome back to Takeout. That is Chris Sununu, former Republican Governor of New Hampshire. And he is the current CEO of Airlines for America, the trade group that represents the airlines. And he was addressing basically American travel workarounds. Higher jet fuel costs have pushed airfares, you probably have noticed, up, how high? To 10-year highs, according to Hopper, which is an air travel data platform, the cost of a typical round-trip domestic flight this Thanksgiving will average $402, a 31% increase over last year. If you’re curious, round-trip domestic flights for Christmas, $452. Joining me now, CBS News senior transportation correspondent Kris Van Cleave, who recently spoke to the head of Alaska Airlines. What did he tell you? Well, Major, look, Alaska is the fifth-largest carrier in this country. And like everyone else who has to fuel up, they are feeling the pain at the pump. Jet fuel prices are nearly $2 a gallon higher than where Alaska thought they would be when they built their current economic plan. And at that point, when we’re talking fuel above $4, it gets very expensive to operate, and the airlines are passing that bill along to flyers. And there’s really nothing you can do other than the workarounds that Chris Sununu described. Yeah, and so we asked Ben Minicucci, the CEO of Alaska, what are they seeing? Are they seeing that impact who is flying? We know people that can afford to fly are spending big on premium products. But what about everybody else? Take a listen. Is the idea of that low-fare flight deal gone? Can it exist at $4-plus-a-gallon fuel? I think it gets more difficult. Airport costs have gone up tremendously. Between fuel, labor, and these airport costs, that almost represents today 70% of our cost structure. So the only way to offset it is with revenue. Are there people that aren’t taking trips now? The strongest demand we’re seeing is in premium and less in main cabin. So that’s an area that we’re focused on, is, how do we get people that are not going on that trip because of the increase in fares? So more revenue comes from things like more premium offerings, but it also comes from raising airfares. And so now we hear from Alaska that they have seen some softness now perhaps in the economy cabin. So how do you recapture that while also trying to keep pace with the rising cost of fuel? That is their conundrum and the airlines in general, Major. And for the holidays upcoming, Kris, how much do airlines rely on that? They’re not as dependent as retailers are on that holiday shopping spree, but they need that revenue. Yeah. So the fourth quarter is typically one of the most lucrative for the airlines. They know that people who maybe only take one or two trips a year, one of those trips is likely going to be around the holidays. So it is going to be typically very busy. Planes are going to be very full. And people are going to be paying more now than they did last year and perhaps over the last decade. What we’ve heard is that demand has remained strong for the holidays. But the booking window has changed. More people are booking very early, hoping to lock in a lower price, fearing that fuel will push airfares even higher as we’ve seen a steady increase in fares. So that window to book before fares really start to climb is shorter than it would normally be. Hopper says do it by no later than Halloween but says the sweet spot might be right now. Kris, about 45 seconds, big picture. You talk to people in the industry all the time. There is a general shrugging attitude among American traveling public that it’s just a drag, air travel. How is that being addressed? How do they think about that sentiment? Well, it’s interesting because, Major, increasingly, your experience as a flyer depends on what you’re paying. Premium flyers have a much higher satisfaction rate than folks that are in the economy cabin. But overall, a recent JD Power survey found that consumer sentiment was up about 8% over last year, with the really big caveat that, as airfares go up, that tends to fuel discontent. But it’s really now, what experience are you getting when you get on the plane? If you’re in business class or premium economy or one of those fancy lounges, you like the experience a lot better. Well, maybe it’s just me then, Kris. I appreciate– You just got– –the time, sir. –to pay more, Major. [LAUGHS] Everyone keeps telling me. Everyone keeps telling me that. KVC, love to see you, man. Thank you so much. Good to be with you.
00:28:02
CBS News has gained access exclusively to a transcribed interview in 2024 with the victim of an alleged gang rape on the Cornell University campus. That transcript could change the direction of a newly reopened investigation. We’ll have more on that next here on The Takeout. [MUSIC PLAYING] Welcome back to Takeout. Thanks for hanging out with us. Here is a look at what else we and now you are watching this evening. Today, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed he’s ordered a 20% reduction in the number of generals and admirals. During a speech to service members at Quantico, Virginia, Hegseth called these cuts, quote, “long overdue.” On Tuesday, when these firings were first reported, Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona told reporters Hegseth was getting rid of, quote, “Some of the best leadership our military has ever had,” unquote. We’ll get to our next story now. But before we do, though, I want to let my viewers and listeners know the details of it are disturbing, and that’s putting it mildly. New information has emerged about an alleged gang rape in 2024 at Cornell University. Seven members of a fraternity have been sued in a civil action, and publicity around that civil action has prompted the reopening of a criminal investigation. Anna Schecter, CBS News’s senior coordinating producer for our crime and Public Safety Unit, and she joins us now. Anna, a transcript has been obtained about this interview in 2024 with the victim, and that is now playing an even more prominent role in a reassessment of this case. Pick it up from there. Well, this transcript is crucial because the Jane Doe accuser says, I can say with 100% confidence that I was raped. Now, we at CBS News put this to the district attorney, and he says, he never saw that statement. And that changes the game. He wants to get that transcript. He never had this transcript. So it’s really stunning that journalists have been able to obtain this. The district attorney is saying he never saw it. And still, questions remain about whether the University, the police, or the district attorney did enough in this case, Major. Anna, let’s go through the jurisdictions involved– campus police, the campus writ large, the county district attorney, and now everyone looking at each other and saying, who knew what, when? Well, initially, at three weeks after the incident, she went to police to report this, and they set a date for an initial interview. And a Title IX official from the University was there, as well as a Cornell University Police Department official was there, taking her statement. That’s the transcript in question, where she says she was raped, according to the transcript. Now, the police officer who was there, who took this six-page, single-spaced, typed, written affidavit that she signed, that police department gave it to the district attorney, who read it through and decided that there was no description of an actual crime because she was giving consent. This is according to the DA. That’s his reasoning for why he didn’t take this forward. Now, separately, Major, concurrently, there was a Title IX investigation that kicked off a panel of experts, who interviewed various players involved, various people involved in this. And it resulted in two suspensions– sorry, two men expelled, multiple suspensions, and two men where there were lesser consequences. But the University is saying that they feel they handled it and took it very seriously and that there were consequences. But they thought that that was the end of it. Now, fast forward two years later, you have an explosive lawsuit that was filed earlier this month that alleges gang rape, and the district Attorney has decided to reopen the case. That’s where we’re at. He’s going to want to interview Jane Doe and put all of the evidence that he gathers now to a grand jury. And there are contours of New York law in this space, Anna, that matter, and New York law is different than other states, who have recently changed their laws in the context of whether or not being drugged or drinking, even if you do so yourself, removes potential criminal liability for those who may sexually assault you. That’s a great point, and it speaks to the district attorney’s point. When he was reading the statement two years ago, he says that he has to enforce New York State law and that he did not read anything in that initial statement that violated New York State law. Now that this transcript has come to light, the explosive allegations in this lawsuit, he is now relooking at that. But I think, Major, it’s so important. Let’s take a step back and think about campus culture. The fact that this was happening at a fraternity just two years ago, I think that’s where a lot of the officials were sitting. We know this is wrong, but does it constitute a crime? And there are still more questions than answers, Major. And hopefully, as the district attorney conducts those interviews in a few days and a grand jury can look at it, we will be getting answers.
00:33:44
There was campus disciplinary action. We will see if this leads to criminal culpability. Anna Schecter, I appreciate your time very much. Voter surveys, as you know, one way to measure midterm momentum. Prediction markets, while they’re new to the scene, they’re another. Our Anthony Salvanto walks us through what matters and why next here on The Takeout. [MUSIC PLAYING] Welcome back to The Takeout. We have a new segment– analyzing how the prediction market Kalshi is gauging midterm outcomes. CBS News is using Kalshi as our prediction market sponsor and integrating its market data to evaluate what traders are seeing in the midterms. I want to bring in CBS News Executive Director of Elections and Surveys, your friend and mine, Anthony Salvanto. Anthony has our polling numbers as well as Kalshi’s predictive market data. Let’s start with our polling numbers. What are we seeing, Anthony? How are you doing, Major? So this is your top line right now. The voters are saying they have a preference for Democrats over Republicans in the battle for House control. In our model, that has Democrats up at 228 seats, and that would be enough for a slight majority. One of the big narratives in this– and this is one of the things you get from a poll– is whether people feel motivated to turn out. And right now, more Democrats say they feel motivated to turn out and definitely vote than Republicans do. And that’s one of the things that’s driving those poll numbers, Major. And what are Kalshi predictive markets seeing? So first, let’s define for everybody what these markets are. Prediction markets, like Kalshi, are platforms where people buy and sell and trade with others, and they can reflect what those traders think of a candidate or a party’s prospects. So here’s an example. Let me show the market right now on Kalshi for which party will win the House. This shows you that those traders think that Democrats polling lead that I just showed you is going to hold up in November. And you can see that reflected in the price. The price here for Democrats is much higher than that expressed by traders for Republicans. And the other part of this is the movement. This is what’s really interesting. And that price has climbed since Labor Day as, yes, some polls have come out in favor of Democrats, also as gas prices have gone up. That’s incorporated in there. Another one, let me show you, for the Senate because, by comparison, traders on this Kalshi platform are also giving the Democrats’ prospects of taking control of the Senate a little boost there since Labor Day. But it’s not a big a gap, as you see for the House. And part of that is the political story that the Democrats pass still goes through a lot of red states. One of those, for example, the Texas, this is the most traded on the platforms. And this, traders have Talarico right now favored somewhat to pull off the upset in Republican Texas, Major. Anthony Salvanto, very good. Oh, and wait one more second. Before I let you go, what are the differences between what the polls show and what you see in these prediction markets? So the polls let people express how they feel. The markets are the traders showing what they think may happen. A poll is a sample of voters nationwide. The markets are the traders. And we’re bringing all of this to you together to get this larger picture of everything. And if it changes between now and Election Day, because there’s still uncertainty around all of this, well, we’ll follow it. And then we’ll watch the voters decide, Major. Prediction markets add to our large data set. And Anthony Salvanto will explain what that data set indicates and what it might be showing us as Election Day nears. Anthony Salvanto, always a pleasure, sir. Thank you. [MUSIC PLAYING] Coming up, Ken Paxton, Senate Republican nominee in Texas, says that Republican midterm convention held in Dallas helped Democrats. Our political panel reacts. That’s next here on The Takeout. Welcome back to TakeoutWednesday. So here we are with Takeout Tavern. Political panel time, Chuck Rocha, CBS News political contributor, Democratic strategist, Tricia McLaughlin, Republican strategist, former very senior spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security under President Trump. All right. This is sound you’re about to hear from Ken Paxton at a private event. The sound is kind of muddy. That’s the technical term we use in our business. But we have put chirons, meaning texts, so you can follow it. But it’s about the midterm convention held in Dallas meant to help Republicans. Here’s what Ken Paxton said it actually did.
00:38:35
So to be honest with you, the numbers– when we did that convention, we dropped our numbers. Everybody’s numbers dropped. Right now, yeah, not good. Right now, not good. Chuck Rocha, you know something about this. You’ve been polling a lot among Latino voters nationwide. You’re very much involved in Texas. You’re an advisor to James Talarico, the nominee on the Democratic side against Ken Paxton. You believe something is going on that’s not just happening in Texas and that is a thematic part of this midterm cycle. Whether you’re in New York, Texas, California, not just Latino races–
00:39:09
Florida. –the anxiety that you hear in my Republican friends is not a misnomer. The bottom is falling out right now at the end, and a lot of that has to do with gas prices. That doesn’t mean that the Democrats have it all figured out or because we’re brilliant strategists. I saw the same thing two years ago with Democrats about Joe Biden. No matter what I told them about renewable energy and about building back better or this infrastructure bill, they were like a little old, a little tired. We’re going to try to give this Trump thing because we want to go back to an economy that’s pre-COVID. But now they’ve gotten even worse, and people are more pissed than I have ever seen. And the bottom is falling out. The bottom falling out, Tricia? I don’t think so. I think to Chuck’s point, we got to talk about affordability. We got to talk about gas prices, getting those down, what are Republicans going to do. But I thought this piece with Ken Paxton was a little confounding because, of any candidate that benefited from that midterm convention, it would be him. He raised a ton of money fundraising, “get the vote out” operation, voter registration. That all is benefiting Texas Republicans. So he should be really having cheered that midterm convention, which objectively was very well done. We mentioned this earlier in the program to set up this political panel. So I got an email today from John Fetterman because it’s a part of a conservative fundraising thing. And I get emails from liberals and conservatives because I keep track of everything the little messaging is sending out. And let me quote from it. “I recently stood in front of the iconic US Steel Mill and recorded a video talking about how my friend Dave McCormick and I banded together with President Trump to save this facility and the larger steel industry. But I’m not backing down, even though I know the media, the DSA, and the party bosses are going to try even harder to defeat me.” That would sound, Tricia, like a Republican fundraising email appeal, if you are talking about party bosses from another party. John Fetterman might be referring to the party bosses in his own party. Yeah, well, small dollar donors reportedly are down for John Fetterman, so he’s probably trying something new–
00:41:02
Prospecting in different places. Prospecting in different places. He does have–
00:41:05
Among Republican. –a lot of Republican– he got a huge applause at the Republican convention. He’s up for 2028, so he probably is looking to really grow that donor list– And for speculating about John Fetterman and the Republican Party, this will probably expedite that, don’t you think, Chuck Rocha. This is weird times that we’re living in. When you have the President of the United States, who’s a big Ken Paxton fan– stay with me– saying how ugly he is, how he can’t dress, how he don’t speak real well and then you have the Democrats going after their own Democratic leader, these are the times that we’re in where being an incumbent is not a good thing, when being an outsider is a good thing. And I’ll tell you right now, Fetterman is not very popular in the Democratic Party. No he isn’t. I want to play a sound bite from this afternoon from Charles Schumer, the Minority Leader in the Senate. But he might be the Majority Leader if Democrats run the table. Listen. This election is a close election. There’s no question about it. We do not want to be overconfident. But what we’re seeing in state after state after state is that people are sick of Trump. They’re sick of the Republican Senate going along with him. And they see the clear divisions we have drawn between what we stand for and what they stand for. That has put us on the edge of victory. Tricia, you’ve got 20 seconds. Then, Chuck, you’ll have 20 seconds. The Democrat party has difficulty with voter turnout. They don’t have a strong voter turnout operation. Money wise, Republicans weigh advantage, so we’ll really see. It’s going to come out to turnout. Voters are sick of their lives right now. They can’t get ahead no matter what they do. And Democrats ain’t in charge of nothing. It was the same thing two years ago with Democrats. That’s one of the things that’s different. And very quickly, Chuck, a lot of the Republican ads are, be afraid of this Democrat for x, y, and z answers. That typically works when they’re in office, not when they’re aspiring to office because there’s no other record. And the thing that people know about is they’re unhappy now. Right. And they know what, and they know that we’re not in charge. They know that Donald Trump is in charge. And they think he’s in charge of everything, and he kind of is. Chuck Rocha, Tricia McLaughlin, very much appreciate you coming in. Always enjoy the Tavern because I certainly do. There’s always coffee with me, always coffee.
00:43:05
No coffee here. Happy Wednesday. This is The Takeout, relentlessly curious, reliably civil, occasionally clever. We’re rushing, right, guy? We’re rushing through. Oh, yeah. The Daily Reportthat’s coming up at 2, 1, go.
