CNN's first reactions to high-stakes Senate debates in ME, IA & GA

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: The Senate candidates in Iowa, Georgia, and Maine square off in debates with less than three weeks to go. For voters, the main issues this midterm cycle remain the economy and cost of living. Moody's now estimates that Trump's war in Iran is costing U.S. households $2,000 each. Now, new polling from Gallup showing Americans think that Democrats will do a better job of handling the most important problems the country is facing. That had some Republican Senate candidates breaking with the president last night. [00:00:31] Speaker 2: I agree that the president did not have a good plan. He should have anticipated the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which part of the world's oil travels. And I don't feel that that was well anticipated, although it should have been. We need to lower gas prices in this country. [00:00:54] Speaker 3: We need to lower diesel prices, but I don't think we need to be making a deal with Russia to do it. [00:00:58] Speaker 4: Diesel price is high. The supply is coming. The supply is coming now, and the prices will continue to come down. They're already coming down, but they're going to continue to come down. [00:01:09] Speaker 1: So today in the group chat, we have Tamara Keith, senior political correspondent at NPR, Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, and Antoine Seawright, Democratic strategist. Okay, Tam, I know the NPR Politics Podcast has been following all of these debates, even the ones we're not mentioning here. Can you talk about who's having them and who isn't? Because I have been surprised here and there where there are not debates. [00:01:31] Speaker 5: And now I'm going to draw a blank on who's not having debates. So thank you for that. [00:01:35] Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I think it's Texas and Georgia. [00:01:37] Speaker 5: Yes, you're right. Oh, well, no, Georgia just had one. [00:01:39] Speaker 1: Oh, Keisha Lance Bottoms on stage by herself with a chair. [00:01:43] Speaker 5: Yes, in the gubernatorial race. So there are debates happening. There are also a lot of congressional house races where debates are not happening. [00:01:52] Speaker 1: Are debates hopeful or not helpful? [00:01:55] Speaker 5: I mean, I think that candidates can clip them and put them out on social media. I think that there are still some serious voters out there who want to watch a debate and learn. But also voting has already begun in a lot of states and a lot of people vote on fields. And so I think that we in the media pay a lot of attention to debates, as we should. But I don't know how many people are tuning in in the middle of playoff baseball and everything else. [00:02:21] Speaker 1: Oh, good call. Well, one of the things that's interesting is we've talked about this and we'll talk about it. More the red states that are competitive in ways that maybe Republicans wouldn't have anticipated two years ago. And in a way, this has all become a referendum on Trump's policies specifically. Here's a sample of the conversation about tariffs, for example, in Iowa and in Maine. [00:02:44] Speaker 6: Our farmers are hurting. It is because of the tariffs, which Ashley Hinson voted in favor of five times. [00:02:50] Speaker 3: I talked to President Trump just last Wednesday about soybeans and making sure we are getting that deal across the finish line. [00:02:56] Speaker 2: I've been able to negotiate and get certain items removed from the tariff list. Troy would have gotten nothing. [00:03:07] Speaker 7: A band-aid for a real big problem with a narcissist in the White House that is going to do whatever he wants. I mean, three things that she got off the list. There's thousands more that people are dealing with. [00:03:21] Speaker 1: So, again, the impact of those tariffs right now, let's say on a state like Iowa, $2 billion, right, hit to their economy. You've worked for campaigns or with campaigns. What is a candidate supposed to say in a situation where the populace is angry about the president's policies? [00:03:39] Speaker 8: Well, I think they should be also angry at the policies that have been implemented over the last several decades that have shelved our jobs overseas. Look, there's going to be some hiccups here. There's going to be some upsets here with the economy. But we've got to look long term. We've got to rebuild our manufacturing base as a simple matter of not just our economy even, but as national security. So, you've got to make the long term play. President Trump campaigned on these tariffs. The American people voted for him in office. And so, they're kind of getting what they want. And maybe they just need to be a little bit more patient on the tariff. And now, I will say there are some mess up. I think the Iran war has obviously been a disaster. It's led to $5 a gallon of gas, $7 diesel. [00:04:17] Speaker 1: Yeah, we should say J.D. Vance actually announced that the administration plans to use a wartime authority to boost fuel production at Texas refineries when it comes to gas prices. And this is notable because we were listing the other day all the things the White House has been trying to do to deal with high prices. Whether that's turning to Russia and saying, hey, you get to do exports. Whether that's the changes on red dye fuel. Do those changes make a difference? Is that something people can debate on? [00:04:47] Speaker 9: The president and this Congress has had plenty enough time to course correct in terms of economic policies and how they deal with an economy that's hemorrhaging. They've essentially doubled down. The problem in Maine is heating oil prices has Susan Collins on the defense and her being essentially a quarterback for some of the economic agenda items or policies of this administration. In Iowa, the issue is this unconstitutional warped choice that's driving up diesel costs. Here's the broader issue with the president and the Republican Party at this tick of the watch. Their promises on the campaign have now become their political problem. And voters are saying, we gave you an opportunity to do what you said you were going to do. Instead, you turned your back on us. So now we're going to turn our back on you. And you're seeing that play out across the board. [00:05:36] Speaker 1: So we should say in Iowa right now, the polling is tight, tight, tight. But the Republican is still leading, at least, across there. And then in Maine, you've got Susan Collins looking like she's still fighting for her, what, sixth term in the Senate. I want to play something for you last night, which is the conversation in Georgia. As you mentioned, the gubernatorial race didn't work out so well, but the Senate race was fireworks. So let me play a clip of something between Ossoff and the Republican in the race and Collins, where the conversation suddenly gets into Epstein and the Epstein files and neo-Nazis. [00:06:16] Speaker 10: How weak a person do you have to be to be unable to stop someone under your own roof from disseminating neo-Nazi propaganda while you run for the Senate? You have not denounced, you've not condemned. [00:06:35] Speaker 4: Give me Reid Hoffman, one of your largest donors out there, one that's been supporting you with over a million dollars. Why don't you denounce that? Why don't you return that money? [00:06:44] Speaker 10: So you're going to allow neo-Nazi propaganda to continue to be produced from your home while you run for the U.S. Senate. Is that correct? You're just going to let the neo-Nazi propaganda continue. Is that right? You put the commercials out. Is that right? Make the commitment. In three weeks, no neo-Nazi propaganda. Make the commitment, John. [00:07:05] Speaker 1: Choice for the voters. [00:07:07] Speaker 5: What is it called in the transcript where it's like cross-talk? Yeah, yeah, cross-talk. That is a race, though, that is not particularly close. That is a race where Republicans are starting to do triage and moving money to other states like Iowa. And the race in Iowa is much closer. The race in Maine is much closer. [00:07:29] Speaker 1: Because Ossoff is very popular or because Collins has struggled? I mean, our own K-File did the reporting on the idea that his son-in-law posts neo-Nazi imagery or anti-Semitic imagery online. That's something from our reporting. But I don't know if that's necessarily the kind of thing that penetrates locally. [00:07:46] Speaker 5: I think the answer is both. Ossoff has, you know, he is famous for these clips that they put out on the Internet. But in the state, he's known for very strong constituent services, for reaching out to local leaders. He is a known quantity. So this is the candidate quality thing. This is a crazy thing. Members of Congress doing the job of a member of Congress. And as a result, he's gotten some endorsements even from Republicans. [00:08:14] Speaker 11: Let's talk about the landscape that we're seeing three weeks away, Karine, because Senator Collins is trying to thread a pretty important needle. She's trying to distance herself. But is that effective in a place like Maine right now? [00:08:27] Speaker 12: Look, two things are really going to work for her. One is just proving her bipartisan record. That's what she's going to have to hammer home over and over again, because this is the main attack that Troy Jackson has against her, just trying to align her with Donald Trump. The truth is that Senator Collins has a pretty bipartisan record. The second thing that's really going to help her that I've seen and heard from voters on the ground is that everyone really knows who she is, because she's helped fund plenty of programs throughout the state of Maine. And what I've just anecdotally speaking to voters, the type of excitement you hear around Troy Jackson versus Graham Plattner, pre-all the scandals coming out, it's lower for Jackson as a candidate. It's more what he represents, an opportunity to flip the Senate. So what Collins is really running against is, one, does Maine want to flip the Senate blue? But two, can she distance herself enough from Trump? [00:09:16] Speaker 11: I want to go to Georgia for a second, for you guys to weigh in, because Senator John Ossoff, he's also walking a fine line. It's a political tightrope, frankly. And whether he would put any conditions on continued military support for Israel. Listen to what he said. [00:09:29] Speaker 10: We should assess in every case whether that foreign government is acting consistent with our interests, our laws, and our values. Israel had every right to go to war with Hamas after the despicable October 7th terrorist attack. I also believe that it's right for U.S. senators to ensure that American laws and international laws are being respected by those who fight with our weapons. [00:09:59] Speaker 11: It wasn't the most direct answer, Ashley. Is that the right strategy for this particular topic? [00:10:06] Speaker 13: Yeah, no, I thought it was actually a superb answer. I think it's a reasonable answer. I think it's one that would have resonance with Democratic voters, independents, and disaffected Republicans. You know, Senator Ossoff has really proven to be one of our most effective communicators in terms of for the Democratic Party. He's been able to sort of turn the mirror on Donald Trump, sort of mirror back to Donald Trump himself. He's been able to sort of speak about the substance of the issues that are affecting people's lives. And he's been able to do it in a way that sort of not only feels authentic and real, but that also speaks to his years of investing in these communities. So, I mean, I think it was a good answer. I think it was very solid. You know, there's still this push and pull in both parties around funding for Israel. And so I think he walked that line very tightly and did well. [00:10:56] Speaker 14: How do you think about it, Tiffany? I mean, look, it's an uphill battle for Collins, I think. But on the side of it, Collins is a workhorse. He's fought hard. He fought hard for the Lake and Riley Act, which I think is important to a lot of voters in that state. Certainly an uphill battle and something to watch. But I guess it goes back to what do Georgia voters want for the future and who's presenting it and laying it out, you know, in the most effective way. And I think they want to know who's going to go fight and work for us. And right now, the Democrats, really, their vision for the future and for America, there's really no leadership. There's no direct, you know, vision for what they will deliver for the American people. I think it's definitely a race to watch coming up. Do you see a lack of vision among Democrats? [00:11:38] Speaker 15: I don't. I think Democrats are pretty squarely focused on the issue that voters care most about heading into this election, which is cost of living. I mean, in every single battleground state in the country, cost of living is the top issue by at least 10 points. That's true in Maine. That's true in Georgia. Both states where the Democratic candidate has, like, a close to a double-digit point lead on the issue of cost of living. So as long as those are kind of the, that's the political terrain that we're having this battleground on, I think Democrats are coming out ahead. [00:12:04] Speaker 11: And by the way, there's a new Gallup poll that found there's been a shift on which party Americans believe would do a better job of keeping the country prosperous. Democrats are now holding a 14-point margin. And just three years ago, Republicans held that same advantage. So when you look at this and how the White House might view their decision, Jeff, to go to places that they were very prosperous, I'm talking about politically prosperous, and just a few years ago, is this their version of reactive desperation or strategic proactivity? Yeah, I phrased that for you. There you go. [00:12:38] Speaker 6: Do I have to choose one of those two options? Yes, you do. Yes. I think the White House views it as, certainly as being proactive. I don't think it's the race or the travel schedule that they probably intended or expected to have in terms of going to some of these deep red states. I was speaking to a White House official earlier today, though, who said, don't necessarily read into the red state travel as being only related to specific races. What else would you do? I think that's a fair follow-up question. But the point that this White House official was making is that these are ways to get his message out in places that are important, but clearly they're important because these races are tight. And they are tight because President Trump's popularity is low. And the polls show that. And the polls' popularity and approval ratings for presidents absolutely manifest in midterm elections. And that's why, as President Trump has been saying repeatedly for the last few months, historically, the person who's in power or the party's in power loses seats in a midterm election. He's trying to turn that wave the other way around. Right now, the polls do not suggest that he'll be successful. [00:13:50] Speaker 13: Can I call for another explanation as to why the president might be going to some of these red states? It is because Donald Trump has an ability to turn out low-propensity voters, not just on the right, but on the left as well, like no one else can. So what I think the strategy is, is you go into these states and you gin up the MAGA voters who think this guy walks on water, those low-propensity voters, and you get those folks ginned up and turned out. Because no sort of standard bearer Republican today can turn those voters out. Those are uniquely Trump voters. So he's going to these places because he's going to lose some Republicans. He's going to lose a lot of Democrats, going to lose a lot of independents. So who do they need? They need those low-propensity Republican voters. And he's got the ability to turn them out. That's what's making him an asset in these red states. [00:14:37] Speaker 11: Is he galvanizing enough for people to talk about the red undertow, right, and the idea that people are not honestly buying what Democrats are selling. They might not be thinking about them as the most viable opposition. And yet, they don't want Trump in some of these areas. But does that mean they're going to stay home? Or does that mean they're going to possibly turn out? That's the big question everyone's trying to answer. [00:15:00] Speaker 12: Yeah, I think this is going to matter, especially in Texas, where the polling, at least, is behind James Tallarico in that Senate race. And I spoke to a lot of voters, and with Republican ones in particular, you hear a lot of, well, we're either going to hold our nose or we're staying home for Ken Paxton just because of the scandals that he has in his past. So it makes a lot of sense that the president and a lot of Trump administration officials are going there and trying to gin up the base. But look, I think the other issue is that Republicans in these really tight races aren't just having to run in a difficult year. They're having to run against difficult policies. And this is coming up across the board, especially in places like Maine and Michigan, where tariffs are substantially raising the cost of, in trade with their northern neighbor, Canada. So Republicans, in a lot of ways, in these very tight races are having to run against their own party on those policies in particular. [00:15:49] Speaker 14: But can I make a point about Maine with Susan Collins? Everyone, every time she's up, everyone says, oh, she's behind. Oh, someone can beat her out. And she always pulls through every single time. That's true. I know her. I've met her. She's very principled. She stands up for Maine. In just five years, she's brought back over a billion dollars to Maine. So whether they disagree with her or not, they know who butters their bread. They know who's going to come back and deliver for Maine every single time. I just don't think that's fair to think the Democrats can flip that Senate seat. And then in Texas, I look at Texas, and they haven't had a Democrat senator since 1988. I don't know that this is the year that they will get a Democrat senator. Texas loves President Trump. And he was out there last week to gin up the early voting. He is aware that early voting is beginning soon. So he was ahead of the game on that. [00:16:37] Speaker 11: And by the way, when you say early voting, we should all say that also means mail-in voting sometimes. So if you're for that, I'm just going to put that out there, President. You're chanting it. Which he is not for. Well, now he is. [00:16:47] Speaker 13: Can I just step here in Texas? I'm a Texan. And this is the first time in my lifetime I've seen both a Republican governor and a Republican president underwater in the state of Texas. You've got Gina Hinojosa, who's now been endorsed by all the major newspapers in the state of Texas. You've got James Tallarico that's up five to six to eight points on Ken Paxson. Is he that far up? [00:17:08] Speaker 14: But can we really trust the polling in those areas, too? And it's a very negative race for both of them. [00:17:14] Speaker 15: The Republicans are pulling millions of dollars out of districts that Trump won by nine points to invest in districts that Trump won by 18 points. They already know the scale of this wave is taking place. That's why he's campaigning in red states like Tennessee and Alabama and Alaska, and why they're spending a quarter of a billion dollars in states like Texas and Iowa.