Trump's FINAL Midterm Message STUNS CNN Panel as Democrats Eye Blue Wave

[0:00] Good evening. I'm Michael Smirconish in New York for Abby. Tonight, the final stretch. We're just [0:04] hours away from the first polls opening. Early voting has been going on for weeks now, but the [0:09] question remains whether the blue wave the prognosticators are forecasting is as imminent [0:14] as they suggest. The last New York Times-Siena University poll before the midterms paints a [0:19] worrying picture for Republicans. Democrats hold a lead in the critical Senate races in Michigan, [0:24] Texas, Maine, Ohio, and Kansas. And in Alaska and Iowa, it's tight, but there's no clear leader. [0:32] Cook's political report releasing their final ratings for the House, they project Democrats [0:36] ending up with 230 to 240 seats. And in the Senate, Cook has five of the most important races as a [0:43] toss-up, but have shifted the Michigan race in favor of the Democrats. We'll have more on that drama in [0:49] just a moment. But with hours to go, Trump appears over the campaign season telling his supporters [0:54] at a rally in Kansas this over the weekend. You know, when God made vocal cords, [1:01] he didn't make him to do 30 rallies. I'm closing the sucker down. I'm getting out of here. I got [1:07] to get a little sleep. I've been doing a little too many of these. The White House praised the [1:14] president's travel schedule the last few weeks, calling it, quote, the most relentless and far [1:18] reaching for any modern presidency. But in one of his last opportunities to make the case to voters [1:23] before the polls open, the president chose to tout his construction projects, dedicating more than [1:28] 20 minutes of his closing speech to that. I'm thrilled to announce the official opening of the [1:36] Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Now we're giving serious thought to changing the name to the Trump [1:45] Reflecting Pool. Before we open it up to the table here, we invite you at home to join the debate. [1:53] Head to CNN.com slash Abby and weigh in. We'll get to some of your comments throughout the program. [1:59] David, I was in Washington. You knew I was coming to you first on this. I was in Washington recently, [2:05] went to Lafayette Square. Clean. Beautiful. Benches refurbished. Statues had been all scrubbed and [2:11] polished and so forth. I'm willing to give him credit for his care of certain of Washington's [2:15] monuments. But you would never have advised him to give his closing speech at the Reflecting Pool [2:21] in a climate of affordability. Now it's a little bit of a, you know, Marie Antoinette, [2:26] let them be cake moment. Almost akin to the, you know, come to five, get a $5,000 hamburger at [2:32] Mar-a-Lago. That wouldn't have been my closing shots there at the end. But, you know, he's a [2:38] different individual, Michael, as you know that. Is there no one close to him that he'll take [2:42] advice from? Surely someone would say to him, Mr. President, not the best idea. Yeah, I'm sure [2:47] I'm sure everybody told him that, right? And then he got in the beast and wrote over to the Reflecting Pool. [2:52] Maybe that's why he got in the beast and went over to Reflecting Pool. Because people did tell him. [2:55] I mean, I know, listen, on the campaign trail in 16 when I was Velcro with him, I would advise, [3:01] I would say certain things to say and not to say in Pennsylvania. And he would completely ignore me [3:05] and go on the stage and say what I just asked him not to say, right, about voter fraud in Philadelphia [3:10] and other things. I would say, you know, listen, that's really not happening. He would just go up and say it [3:14] and say, I decide not to listen to you. Lauren, what should the speech have been? [3:19] What could he have said today? Policy focused. Policy focused on the Democratic Party and how [3:24] they really don't have substantial ideas if they do, in fact, have a very successful night tomorrow [3:29] night. I was very critical. Look, you know, when he basically demolished the East Wing and historians [3:36] were up in arms, many of them I worked with were saying, this is the worst thing that's happened. [3:39] And I said, this is not really on people's radar because they're not focused on White House history. [3:44] They're focused on day-to-day costs. That cuts both ways. So there's no worse image [3:49] than being in front of the reflecting pool, talking about renovation projects and grass [3:54] and stone and pillars when people are worried about costs. [3:57] At the end of a campaign, and when you get to this part of the campaign, we've made over 250 [4:02] TV ads for 30 congressional races and Senate races. Persuasion's done. We're not persuading anybody [4:08] right now. But what this turns into, and it's good for folks to know why he's doing this, [4:12] is that there's one path for Republicans to win. I don't mean it's not going to work. It could work. [4:16] It's a strategy. You need to get a lot of people that turned out. And I give Donald Trump credit [4:20] for it. He got to turn out who had never voted before in 24. He needs those folks to show up [4:25] in a lot of Senate states. And he gets up and he does the rallies and he does the things that make [4:29] them feel good. He may talk about somebody's ass, make somebody laugh, but he's trying to get folks [4:33] to get involved to do it. Whether it works or not, we'll find out tomorrow. But that's his strategy. [4:37] The number of rallies was impressive. I mean, that was a lot of rallies. [4:41] Donald Trump is the best closing argument for Democrats. If he wants to go out there [4:45] tomorrow morning, come on CNN. I mean, call into the morning shows. I mean, talk about policy. [4:51] You know, the problem is that voters will tell you that over the last two years, black, white, [4:55] Hispanic, Democrat, Republican from Pennsylvania, South Carolina, their lives haven't gotten any [4:59] better. And they hold Republicans responsible. They're going to pay that price tomorrow. [5:03] Does this mean that voters love Democrats? Absolutely not. And if Democrats believe [5:08] that to be the message, then we've taken the wrong message from this. But Donald Trump is [5:12] an amazing closing argument for the Democratic Party and the imagery that he has. I mean, it's [5:18] this aloofness, like standing in front of a reflecting pool or spending $900 million on a ballroom [5:25] while people are trying to make ends meet, while farmers in Iowa, right, can't afford fertilizer. [5:30] I mean, the disconnect between the White House, it's similar to the same talking points my Republican [5:35] friend said when we were having debates about crime and immigration under Joe Biden. Now we're [5:41] talking about the aloofness of Donald Trump when it comes to affordability. [5:44] I think he's, just to use one word that I always mispronounce, he's indefatigable. [5:50] Indefatigable. [5:51] Indefatigable. See what I mean? I told you I was going to screw it up. [5:53] Two of us together. We got it. We got it. [5:54] I think he earned, West Point, I think he earned begrudging respect in 2016, 2020, and [5:59] even 2024, being a machine as an energizer bunny. But you've got to put him in the right [6:04] setting. You wanted to say something. [6:05] Yeah, I mean, you made the point that this is the best closing argument for Democrats. [6:09] I mean, just to give you a sense of how good it is for Democrats that he's doing this, [6:13] some Democratic candidates have actually put the renovations in their ads. And now he's out [6:18] there talking about the renovations the last day. I mean, this is what Democrats literally [6:22] put in their ads because of that, let them eat cake, Marie Antoinette kind of vibe to [6:27] it. Two thirds of American voters in a Washington Post poll talked negatively, thought negatively [6:34] about the renovations. So, I mean, as you said, this is exactly where Democrats want to land. [6:39] Can we just point out one thing about Donald Trump? To his credit, 2016, 2020, 2024, every [6:45] year he's been on the ballot, he's overperformed. Donald Trump's also non-transferable. Republicans [6:50] need to figure that out. He's underperformed when he's not on the ballot. No matter how [6:54] somebody tries to act like him. Well, you cannot be, you cannot, you cannot coalesce a MAGA [6:59] base if you are not Donald Trump. No, no, he's because no one else is going into the bodega in [7:03] the Bronx or black barbershop in North Philly. Nobody can do it. But to your point, Bakari, [7:06] what I think he could have done is point out, as you correctly said, like, what do you think [7:11] Hakeem Jeffries is going to go over to Tehran and end this war because it's Hakeem? Do you think, like, [7:15] nobody's voting for Democrats? They're voting against Trump. And if I was Trump, I would have [7:19] highlighted, like, tell me three things the Democrats have said. Sure, they want affordability. [7:23] They're going to make health care. But how are they going to do it? What's HR1 going to be? [7:26] That's what I'd ask. Tell me the three steps. We're going to get to that, actually, in a couple [7:30] of minutes' time. Let me ask this question. In the 2024 cycle, it was all about seven states. [7:35] It's all about seven states again, only one with an overlap, Michigan. In the presidential cycle, [7:41] Trump cleared the board. He took them all. Does it seem like tomorrow those contested Senate races [7:48] are all going to fall in the same direction? Does an independent in Michigan, when all is said and [7:54] done, have the same sensibilities as an independent in Texas? You're shaking your head. No, because I [7:58] think the candidate quality matters, right? So you've got a governor running in Iowa who's in Sands, [8:03] who's an incredible candidate. So I think you're going to get Sands voters and you're going to Ashley [8:07] Henson voters. I think you're going to get Abbott voters and Tallarico voters. So I think [8:11] there's going to be some cognitive dissonance in that polling place. I ask because if you believe [8:15] in it, put it up on the screen, the predictive markets are saying exactly what I just articulated, [8:20] that they're all going to go in the same direction, all seven. Anybody else think that they all go the [8:25] same way? It's two different electorates. It may go that way, but it's because if the same electorate [8:30] would show up, it'd be a much different map. We're working off of the whole different... When I go out and do [8:34] these ads, and I did these ads two years ago, I was talking to a different group of folks. [8:38] A lot of us talk to folks who didn't get talked to. There are Trump voters that are new. This year, [8:42] there's a lot of new voters showing up who aren't getting talked to. Where do they go? But it's a [8:45] different electorate. About 35% of the American people who showed up two years ago don't come back. [8:50] But also, I don't... The overlap, that's not a real... I reject your premise. I mean, I don't think we had... [8:57] We didn't have... I mean, we had... No, we had seven... We had seven swing states in the last [9:02] presidential. There are seven Senate races that are occupying most of the attention. And the [9:07] predictive markets today said all seven will fall the same way. Which part of my premise don't you [9:11] agree with? Because I think there are more than seven. And the way that you can prove that is, [9:15] not only are they different for the audience, because there was no way in hell in 2024 we were [9:19] talking about Kansas, right? Now, we weren't talking about Iowa or Mississippi. Michigan was the only one [9:24] I said that... Correct. But my point is also that you have Donald Trump, who's the president of the [9:28] United States, going to South Carolina two weeks before an election's over, right? You have black [9:33] turnout that is surging in South Carolina. Not saying we're gonna win it, but we have a puncher's [9:37] chance, right? And the reason being is the formula is quite simple to win throughout the South, which [9:41] is why Texas is such an intriguing race. Because if you have a formidable Democratic candidate that's [9:46] well-funded, you have a poor, piss-poor Republican, as in Darlene Graham or as in Kim Paxton, and then you have a [9:53] third party that has a heartbeat, like a Libertarian or a write-in candidate, then you have this [9:58] opportunity. And so I think the map is expanding. I mean, I've been looking at Mississippi numbers, [10:02] Louisiana numbers, not saying we will win, but the fact is, Democrats around the country are energized. [10:08] So I reject the premise of seven. Holly, my premise is that all politics are no longer local. All politics [10:14] today are national. There are no local media markets and local oracles that people rely on. And unfortunately, [10:20] there's outsized influence, I'll say it, in the cable world and among the sort of high-profile [10:26] pundits and prognosticators and podcasters. Your thought? Yeah. I mean, look, let's talk about [10:31] Pennsylvania, where a few of us here tonight are from. Candidate quality does matter. Brian Fitzpatrick [10:38] is a very strong congressman. He's survived a number of tough electoral cycles. He's facing probably [10:44] the toughest opponent that he's ever had before, a man named Bob Harvey. And still, Democrats tell me [10:50] he's, he is the one that they are least sure of in Pennsylvania, right? Because he does have that [10:56] local appeal. He does have those relationships. It's not all national. So I disagree with you a [11:01] little bit. I think that some candidates can rise above the national fray and we'll see if people [11:07] like Fitzpatrick. There aren't many. Brian Fitzpatrick. We'll say this. I think number one independent [11:11] in the entire Congress. I'm interested to watch Mike Lawler, Jared Moskowitz, and Brian. Those are the [11:17] three that have their own brand nationally, independent of the president, independent of [11:21] their party. Jared's a Democrat in Broward County and then the other two Republicans. So, [11:25] so we'll see. Lauren, I don't, I don't miss Peggy Noonan's column. Oh, yes, I know. I like her, too. [11:30] Peggy Noonan's column. This is what I hope for is the way she began. It won't be close election. [11:35] He does not skip it. He don't skip it. I took it the other way, too. I was like, I don't miss that. [11:41] Rebuke, a rejection, a rebellion, a rout. And here's the key paragraph that I want you to respond to. [11:47] She said, the new Republican Party, the one that will have a chance at being born, will keep the [11:52] good of MAGA. Man is not only an economic animal, but has a soul. The base isn't full of fools who know [11:59] nothing of policy and the good of the old establishment, professionalism, integrity and [12:04] understanding of the economic facts that fueled America's 20th century greatness. Party intellectuals [12:10] are at least trying to return meaning to Pat Moynihan's rye 46-year-old observation. Of a sudden, the GOP [12:17] has become a party of ideas. Is it possible that there's a wipeout tomorrow and the GOP is [12:22] reconstituted as Peggy Noonan has forecast? No, I love her. No, there's not. I love her. But the key term [12:28] she's worried about in that article, she uses the term stasis. She's worried about stasis. [12:33] That's what she thinks we're in right now. Well, that's exactly what's going to happen [12:37] if Democrats win even both chambers tomorrow night. If they get the Senate, if they get the [12:42] House, you still have a Republican president. Things are going to be even more dysfunctional [12:46] and more gridlocked. And there's going to be more bomb throwing and people are going to be on bad [12:51] behavior, chopping each other's heads off. It is going to be ugly with Trump in the White House [12:57] and a Democratic-controlled House and Senate. It's going to be even worse than right now. [13:01] Is stasis good or bad? Is stasis bad or good? [13:02] She says it's bad. But actually, there's a very unpopular argument to be made that [13:08] Washington, in its gridlock, that's how the founders intended it, and you've got to hash [13:13] things out. But I think we're going to see a lot of dysfunction. [13:15] And I think a lot of Republicans across America would recoil at her idea that somehow the Republican [13:22] party of old was the good old days, right? Like, she's assuming, like, the Bush... [13:26] You didn't like the Reagan and Bush ages? [13:27] No, I like the... Look, I like limited government, small government. I'm not sure that the Bush [13:31] years are something that any of the Bush years... I like 41, but, you know, 43... [13:34] I don't know why... Why can't it be 94? [13:36] Big deficits, foreign wars as well, so... [13:39] It can be 1994 all over again. When I was 10 years old, wasn't that the contract with America? [13:43] I mean, didn't Newt Gingrich get along with... [13:45] 71 seats. Absolutely. [13:47] All right. [13:47] It can happen. [13:47] Got to move on. [13:48] Next, as Democrats call Haley Stevens a traitor for backing the Michigan Republican, is it [13:53] possible she actually helped Abdul El-Sayed? Plus, if Democrats win back power, Donald Trump [13:59] says to call him Mr. Veto. We'll discuss as the polls open just hours from now.