Face the Nation: Cramer, political panel

[0:04] Welcome back to Face the Nation. We go now to North Dakota Republican Senator Kevin Kramer, [0:09] who joins us from Bismarck. Good morning to you, Senator. [0:12] Good morning. Good to be with you. [0:14] I want to ask you about Ukraine. I know you just recently traveled there. A number of your [0:21] departing, some retiring Senate Republican colleagues have made clear they were very upset [0:27] with President Trump's decision to waive the Lindsey Graham sanctions off of Russia and buyers [0:32] of Russian oil. Senator Cornyn said Lindsey would be appalled. Senator Tillis said it is beyond [0:39] irresponsible, unconscionable to capitulate to Vladimir Putin. Where do you stand? [0:47] Well, Margaret, on this topic and a whole bunch of others, I think capitulating to a bully [0:51] generally means they're going to make more demands going forward. That's the problem with [0:55] taking sort of a business negotiation approach to negotiating with a thug, which is what Vladimir [1:03] Putin is. So I share those colleagues' positions on it. However, I also have to acknowledge that we [1:11] are a few weeks or a couple weeks from an election. One of the important topics of the election is the [1:16] cost of diesel fuel. It's really an important issue here in North Dakota. As Representative Turner pointed [1:22] out, and I was cheering him on, our allies throughout Europe have been buying energy from Vladimir Putin [1:27] and funding his war machine for decades, and they should stop right now. Having said all of that, [1:33] I expect this will be a short-term pause, and I certainly hope so. Because one of the things that [1:39] President Zelensky asked of us when I was with him on last Thursday, I think it was Thursday or Friday, [1:45] was that the president would fully enforce the Lindsey Graham sanctions bill, and I still take that [1:53] position. Yeah. And some European Union countries do continue to buy fuel products. India and China [2:01] would be the largest purchasers who would be hit by these tariffs. So do you think the president would [2:06] actually, even post-election, trigger the tariffs on China? Well, I certainly hope that he does, [2:14] Margaret. Again, speaking of thugs who will never agree to terms, or at least not continue to agree to [2:21] terms that would be negotiated. Xi Jinping is another one. I think we have to start approaching [2:27] our geopolitical negotiations the way that we ought to, and not the way that you do in a boardroom. [2:33] You know, this is not a finality outcome to a dictator. The outcome of a negotiation with a dictator [2:40] is more, you know, asking for more demands. And we have to start, you know, playing nice with our [2:46] friends and treating our adversaries like they are adversaries. [2:49] You just met with President Zelensky. As you know, President Trump publicly blasted him again [2:55] this week and said Ukraine needs another new president. Let me ask you something specific [3:01] about how they defend themselves and conduct this war. Star Shield is a U.S. military program which [3:08] Ukraine says that they use to fire into Russian-held territory. Last night, Secretary Rubio said Ukraine [3:15] does not currently have access to it, but they have asked to use it to fire deep inside of Russia. [3:23] When you were in Ukraine, as I understand it, you were presenting a proposal to President Zelensky [3:29] to allow for Star Shield access expansion if Ukraine stops striking Russian energy assets. [3:37] What can you tell us about that proposal, and what is the status of it? [3:40] So that, you're right, that was a proposal we brought to President Zelensky. Senator Wicker, [3:47] Roger Wicker, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, came up with that idea. [3:51] President Zelensky was enthusiastic about it. He said, I'd do that tomorrow. I would absolutely [3:56] stop attacking Russia's energy facilities if I could have access to targeting capabilities, [4:04] which is what Star Shield would provide them, to go deeper into Russia and attack their attackers. [4:09] In other words, their launch facilities, and kill the archer, not the arrows. Of course, [4:15] the third thing he asked for was the capacity to get licensed, to jointly produce, to co-produce [4:22] Patriot missile interceptors, which would help him defend against these much faster now jet-powered [4:28] drones and missiles coming into Ukraine. So his requests were three. They were simple, [4:34] and I agree with all three of them. So I would hope we can get to that point where [4:40] remembering that what President Zelensky is protecting are civilians. Russia has chosen to [4:47] go after civilian populations, while President Zelensky has simply gone after the launchers and, [4:53] more importantly, the war machine's funding source, which is energy. [4:57] Right. Bringing us back to where we started here. Ukraine has resumed just even overnight hitting [5:03] Russian oil refineries. They hit the St. Petersburg oil terminal. Russia has been targeting the energy [5:09] infrastructure inside of Ukraine. Secretary Rubio said there are talks ongoing. Have you talked to [5:18] Secretary Rubio about your exchange with President Zelensky? Who in the administration is actually [5:23] trying to bring this to a close? So I have not talked to Marco, although as I was watching your [5:30] previous segment, I just said to my staff, I wish I would have called Marco. But obviously he and others [5:36] are involved with it, including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. But I worry, Margaret, that there's a [5:42] disconnect. Once again, I go back to my earlier illustration. There's a disconnect between [5:47] traditional, mutually beneficial negotiations between business people and the difference between [5:55] somebody protecting humanity itself versus somebody who wants to take humanity down. [6:00] And so I worry about that. So who exactly is negotiating these things? I don't know who's [6:06] calling shots, but at the end of the day, I think the president is, you know, it's where the buck stops, [6:10] and I think he accepts that. So is Senator Wicker presenting this deal to the White House? Like, [6:15] what are you doing with what you negotiated? Oh, yeah, yes. Yeah, for sure. I mean, we had talked to [6:20] people in the White House at the Department of War and to the State Department, even prior to [6:26] meeting with President Zelensky. So do you join your colleagues, Senator Tillis and Senator Shaheen, [6:34] in calling for an investigation of what has happened here in terms of whether U.S. government [6:40] officials knew that Starlink was going to be interrupted, which impacts Ukraine's ability [6:45] to use its drones and defend its people? Well, I certainly support investigating, you know, [6:50] what was the source of that decision, if in fact it was a decision at all. It may very well have been [6:55] some sort of a technical glitch. I don't know for sure or whose call it was. So far, nobody's taking [7:00] credit for making that call or the blame for it. So I do support some sort of an investigation. [7:05] Certainly, Congress itself could and should investigate. I think that the letter that Senator [7:10] Shaheen and Senator Tillis are talking about would be an inspector general investigation, perhaps. [7:16] But sure, we want to get to the bottom of it. In the meantime, what's more important is that [7:21] that power is put back on full scale and that we actually enhance Ukraine's ability to hit these [7:28] launch facilities inside of Russia, deeper inside to like 300 kilometers, I think is what President [7:34] Zelensky was asking for. Yeah. President Zelensky said today that it has been restored, but it has [7:39] been throttled back. And in terms of that Star Shield expansion, as you say, no deal yet. Let me [7:45] ask you about something closer to home. You said this summer that you hate, that was the word you used, [7:50] President Trump's decision to import foreign beef tariff-free because it's not America first, [7:56] wrongheaded and threatens the future of U.S. food production. The White House did not reverse [8:01] course, despite those tough words from you. How negative has that been for your state? And is [8:06] that going to affect, I should say, the enthusiasm for voters to show up in November? Are these ranchers [8:14] just so ticked off they're not going to vote? Well, first of all, Margaret, it won't have any [8:19] effect in North Dakota in the election cycle. We don't have a governor up. The president's obviously [8:24] not up. We don't even have a senator up. And we're going to have an overwhelming Republican victory [8:29] here. Having said that, it's very discouraging to our ranchers. Again, I think there's a misunderstanding [8:35] of commodity cycles, commodity economic cycles. Ranchers rebuild their herds when prices are high. [8:42] Their herds are obviously made much smaller when prices are low. That's why the counter-cyclical [8:48] effect of commodity prices are well known to us, and why it's discouraging when we reduce or eliminate [8:56] the barriers to importing somebody else's beef, which is not nearly as safe or as high quality, [9:03] at the cost of our local ranchers. They rely on these higher prices. And by the way, I don't, [9:11] I doubt that bringing in a bunch of Argentine beef is going to bring the price at the grocery store [9:16] down. It has not. But it will hurt the market price of the cattle themselves. Now, ranchers are [9:25] going up against lots of other problems as well, including the concentration of meat packing in the [9:30] United States, where about a third or more is literally owned by the Chinese and the Brazilians. [9:36] So they're going up against a lot of things, but their input costs are also higher. They don't come down [9:42] because the price of a cow goes down. But yeah, so I still strongly oppose it, and I think it was [9:47] wrongheaded. Right. Well, I wanted to get your insight on that because we're seeing that dynamic [9:51] in other states as well, including Kansas. So, Senator, thank you so much for your time today. [9:57] We're going to have to leave it there. We'll be right back. Joining us now, our homegrown political [10:03] panel, Executive Director of Elections and Surveys, Anthony Salvato, is back with us. We're also [10:08] joined by political correspondent Caitlin Huey Burns and senior White House and political [10:13] correspondent Ed O'Keefe. Good to have you all here. And you're rarely here. You're on the trail [10:19] quite a lot these days, the both of you. I want to start with the two of you. More Democrats are [10:25] telling pollsters like Anthony, as he explained, that they intend to turn out to vote and smaller [10:31] number of Republicans intend to do so. Does that track with what the both of you are seeing in the [10:35] field, Caitlin? Yeah, absolutely. And what is really interesting here, when I talk to Republican [10:40] sources, they say the thing that they're most worried about when they look at this polling [10:43] is a dynamic that they haven't really seen before, which is that Trump is underwater on [10:48] the economy. And that has always been his calling card. And a lot of this is self-imposed when [10:53] it comes to tariffs and when it comes to the Iran war as the effect on diesel and gas prices. [10:58] So those are huge undercurrents in this race, obviously. But the other underestimated factor, [11:03] I think, running here is that Trump has to convince voters to turn out down ballot in a time where [11:10] he has shown no deference to Congress. In fact, contempt for it at some point. And this is a [11:16] Congress that has really ceded so much of its authority to the executive branch. And Trump has [11:22] gone at it alone, gone at it alone on a lot of policy fronts. So I think that really adds to the [11:28] challenge that he has here, which is to convince his own voters to show up for Republicans for whom he has [11:34] shown some contempt. That's it's a good point. Show up to vote for the body that I might not pay [11:39] attention to myself. Yeah. And I don't think there's any dispute that Democrats are eager to get out [11:43] there for the most part, if you are a partisan Democrat who has no love for the president and [11:48] maybe no love for whatever Republican is on the ballot. But the challenge they're going to face and [11:53] the part of where our travel has taken us is to these traditional Republican states. Part of the challenge [11:59] for any of these Democrats will be finding enough independent voters to vote for that person and [12:03] then peeling off enough Republicans. I was struck in your poll. Did you say only 5% of Republicans [12:09] in Texas are willing to vote for Tallarico? I would think he needs a number bigger than that [12:14] in order to help him in such a large state where Democrats haven't done well. And it's going to be [12:17] the same dynamic in Kansas, in Iowa, in the, well, Alaska to some extent, and in any of these other [12:25] states where suddenly the Republican incumbent is on the ropes. Anthony, I want to follow up on Texas. [12:30] You laid out tighter than expected, just two-point lead, right, by Tallarico in Texas at this point. [12:36] It's also tight for the governor's race. Yeah. So what does that say to you about the dynamic? [12:41] Early voting, I know, gets underway tomorrow. Right. The big picture here, picking up off what [12:46] you said in the ad, is also that I asked people, okay, no matter what your party affiliation, [12:51] what do you typically do when you go to the polls? And Tallarico was pulling 9% of people [12:56] who said that they usually are always vote Republican, but they're going to make an exception, [13:01] perhaps, this time. So that's one part of the dynamic that's in play there. The other part, [13:06] of course, is the down-ballot effect or the, the coattails, perhaps, if a Republican governor [13:11] and is related to a Senate race. And that's going to be the case in a number of these states, [13:16] number two. But, but again, on the point of turnout, you can look at a poll and say, okay, [13:21] that's just 1%, that's just 2%. But in a big state like Texas, that's hundreds of thousands [13:26] of voters. Anybody who does any kind of, you know, business or marketing knows that to get [13:32] 200,000 people to change what they normally do takes a lot of money and a lot of time. Do the [13:38] Democrats have that operation to do it remains a giant question. And that's the gamble the [13:42] president continues to make by making these stops, is that if he shows up, the last 10 years of electoral [13:48] history shows, his voters show up. And so if he can continue to visit, as he's going to again [13:52] in the coming days, Texas, Georgia, he's headed to Michigan, finally, other parts of the country, [13:59] the churn, they hope, is that enough of those people who were sitting on their hands before [14:03] get up and go. And if anything, keep the margins closer. And that's what he means when he says vote [14:08] like I'm on the ballot. I also, in this poll, was struck 59% of likely voters told Anthony Ken [14:16] Paxton does not have the right personal character to serve as senator. 45% said Tallarico does not. [14:22] Does that match what both of you have heard on the ground? I think so. I mean, you go ahead. [14:26] Absolutely. I mean, I was in Texas last week. And I mean, this is why the president went there [14:30] three times in the span of nearly three weeks, because he has to pull Paxton over the finish line. [14:35] He's wildly unpopular. But when it comes to Texas, the thing that I've been saying is [14:39] everything has to go wrong for Republicans and exactly right for Democrats in order to win there. [14:44] So it's not just enough that people don't like Paxton and depressing the Republican vote. [14:49] It's also that you have to turn out those independents and convert voters to the Democratic [14:54] side in a deep red state. Tallarico is going to have to build a coalition that no Democrat has [14:59] been able to do in over 30 years. It's a tall order. I will say we were there first in March [15:05] when the primaries were held and Tallarico was already on this focus on corruption, [15:10] which I think we've seen Democrats everywhere else, especially in the last few weeks, really [15:14] begin to pick up on such that it's starting to show up in polling. [15:16] For the president or for Paxton? [15:18] For everyone. But in that case specifically, he was linking Paxton and Trump together. [15:22] Got it. [15:23] Emphasis on Paxton, the head of the general. And now you see Democrats across the country [15:27] focused on corruption, either against the president or the Republican they're running against, [15:31] or, you know, the governor in that state. So he was, in essence, a leading indicator or, [15:36] you know, he saw something coming with the uniquely unpopular candidate that he has [15:42] that other Democrats have not been able to pick up on with all the examples we've seen [15:45] across the country. You say they got to pull off a miracle in Texas. Democrats need to pull off at [15:49] least four miracles on election night across the country in states where they've never done it before. [15:53] That's what makes this such a high bar for them to reach on election night. [15:58] I want to ask you about Michigan. I know you were just there. I like your vote bracelet. [16:01] It's made by my daughter, yeah. [16:02] Very cute. [16:03] Get out and vote. [16:05] You, the president talks about this race all the time, specifically the Democratic [16:13] candidate there who would be, if he wins, the first Muslim senator to ever sit in Congress. [16:18] This was one of President Trump's latest remarks. [16:20] Yeah, but Jihad is running in Michigan. He's not like leaning left. He was so far left, [16:29] there is no such thing as the word. This guy's a jihadist. [16:32] Abdul Al-Sayed, how is he handling that kind of rhetoric, which is basically accusing him of [16:38] being a terrorist? And is the Republican candidate comfortable with this? [16:43] Well, he's repeating it himself. We saw him give a speech this week just ahead of the Vice President [16:50] on Thursday in the Detroit area, where he spent about 90 percent of his speech laying out accusations [16:56] similar to what the President is suggesting, that he has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, [17:00] that he's too extreme for Michigan, that he hasn't denounced the IRGC and thinks that Israel's a [17:06] bigger threat than Iran. Al-Sayed has, in various ways, addressed this by saying, first of all, [17:12] no, he has no associations with the Muslim Brotherhood. He was asked by a voter, does he disavow them? [17:16] The answer was yes. It was followed by a long response targeting that person for raising it at [17:21] all and suggesting that the only reason Republicans are doing this is because he's Muslim or Arab and [17:27] is different. He ties himself to the legacies of John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama in being firsts. [17:33] But the difference was Kennedy and Obama, I'd argue, went out and sort of proactively addressed the [17:38] fact that they would be historic and different in speeches and did it in a, in a, I guess a more [17:45] positive way. Al-Sayed continues to sort of raise it or answer questions about it and then accuse people [17:51] of, of being, why, why would you raise that? Well, he's the one raising it to some extent by [17:56] pointing out the history of it. But then when people ask these questions, uh, gets quite defensive [18:00] and aggressive about it. The thing is, he's anticipating that voters in Michigan are more [18:05] upset about the economy, more upset about the war, less concerned about him. It is quite the gamble, [18:11] uh, and one that he continues to say he's going to win by seven percent. I don't think the polls show [18:15] that, but he's standing by a vow to win by seven percent. We'll see. Just quickly on Michigan, [18:20] you interviewed Mike Rogers and you asked him about his wife handing out $10 cards to go buy [18:27] gas. Yes. Is that legal? Well, buying votes is not legal, no. And I asked Rogers, what was your [18:34] wife doing there? And he said, well, she paid for these out of pocket and she was trying to raise [18:37] awareness of our campaign. How does that make a difference? I, I, that was his answer when I asked, [18:42] right? I mean, you said this was on social media, people caught this, but he also made the point [18:46] that she was doing this in, in black areas of Detroit. He has made a concerted effort to reach [18:52] out to black voters in that city, believing that there is softness for El Sayed. And the polling [18:55] suggests there is, and certainly what we heard this week suggests that he still has work to do there. [19:00] But Rogers is trying to make inroads there, handing out gift cards, meeting with pastors. He told [19:05] me at one point that he met a black pastor who had, in the 70 years that that church had existed, [19:10] no Republican officeholder politician ever shown up. That might work on the margins in close races. [19:15] We'll see. Um, Caitlin, you have spent some time in Kansas, President Trump's heading there. We were [19:22] just talking about beef prices with the North Dakota Senator. This is a problem for Roger Marshall. [19:26] I mean, I was there a couple of weeks ago, not a place I expected to be in the final stretch of [19:30] this campaign. No Democrat has won the Senate race in Kansas since 1932. That's nearly a century. [19:36] But there's a lot at play here that I think speaks to the broader themes of this election. [19:40] First of all, kind of going back to the point I made, Roger Marshall is a candidate, a current [19:45] incumbent that Republicans kind of feel meh about. They like the president, but not necessarily [19:50] translating to him. Everything you've been seeing across the country, the cost of diesel, [19:55] especially for farmers in Kansas is important. But I spent an afternoon with a cattle farmer [19:59] in Kansas who likes the president, supported the president time and again, still supports him. [20:05] But the decision that the administration made to allow beef imports into the market, that is [20:10] something that is directly affecting him. And he told me for the first time he is considering voting [20:15] for the Democrat, Adam Hamilton here, who I interviewed. And he said, you know, if you talk to him, [20:21] he often references that he's a former Republican. He's not campaigning on the national party brand, [20:26] which he can't do in a place like Kansas. But he's making it competitive because of kind of that [20:31] perfect storm of complications that Republicans have going for them. And then the nuances in a lot [20:37] of these races, administration policies directly affecting the constituencies that tend to vote [20:44] for Trump. So that gets to the turnout question. Is that enough to depress them and enough to convert [20:49] a couple of them? And that, Anthony, is what you're going to be focused on basically all night [20:53] on November 3rd? Yeah. Well, look, there's this national context to Caitlin's point is neither [20:59] party not only is viewed favorably, but neither one is viewed by most as able to help you financially. [21:06] Yeah. And that's important because, yes, it speaks to localized races or state-specific races. In many [21:12] cases, the Democrats would like this to be all nationalized because on the national level, there is [21:17] that opposition to the administration policies. But at the same time, when you talk about who owns the [21:23] economy and you ask that, it is the Trump administration in the minds of most because [21:28] of some of those policies, because of the war and because of gas prices. Okay. Very quickly, Caitlin, [21:33] any word on who's behind these 36 lawmakers receiving threatening envelopes? Yeah. As suspicious [21:40] substances, a lot of them intercepted before they reached Capitol Hill offices, but not only for [21:44] U.S. senators and lawmakers, but also for election officials, which is really startling. It's been 25 years [21:50] since the anthrax issue after 9-11. And what is really especially jarring is they haven't released [21:58] who or talked about who may be behind this. Federal law enforcement is investigating. But the uptick [22:03] that we've seen in threats against lawmakers and their families has risen in the past year over 50 percent. [22:09] Yes. It's something we are tracking very much in our public life these days. Thank you all [22:14] for this panel. Get ready. It's going to be a fun two weeks. We'll be back in a moment. [22:21] That's it for us today. We'll see you next week.