Republicans Have Been Working For YEARS To Rig The 2020 Election

Republicans will do anything to win elections
as long as it doesn’t involve coming up with policies that are actually going to help American
citizens. That’s the one thing they will not do, but
what they’re doing across the south and that is both the southwest and these southeast
here in the United States is that Republican controlled states since the year 2013 have
just been shutting down polling places left and right. In fact, almost 1200 polling places across
the American south have shut down in just the last six years gearing up for a massive
attempted rigging of the 2020 presidential election and here’s how they were able to
get away with it. Obviously 2013 we had that massive supreme
court case for the voting rights act of 1965 where they went in there and tried to dismantle
the parts that said, hey, all these states that have to go through a review of any voting
changes because they have a history of discrimination. How about we scrap that because that’s what
the southern states wanted. Eric Holder and the Justice Department at
the time went in there and tried to save it and did a really horrible job against the
very conservative court. And the conservative court said, nope, no
more reviews. You discriminatory states no longer have to
submit your plans for review before you can enact them and you can basically just do whatever
the hell you want. We’re not going to double check Ya. And that’s what’s happening today as a, a
major majority of these polling places that have shut down the roughly 1200 of them happen
to be in minority areas. Here’s what’s happening in the American south
that is causing more and more of these polling places to close. And it seems counterintuitive, but we are
having larger voter turnout. Larger voter turnout you would think would
mean, oh, we need to open more polling places. But that’s not what the Republicans who control
every one of these states wanted to do. Instead they said, hey, high voter turnout
always hurts Republicans. We saw what happened in Georgia. I mean we saw what happened in the Alabama
special, a Senate race when Roy Moore got defeated. But there were other reasons for that, but
still freaked Republicans out enough to start closing polling places. Florida always neck and neck, no matter who
the people are. It’s always neck and neck. Texas starting to look a little more blue
so they’re trying to shut them down. Arizona, same thing. Nevada, same thing. And all they can think to do is we’ll, we’ll
just close the poll in places where the Democrats go and vote. You know those areas with more black people,
we just will shut those down. So now you’re going to drive 40 miles over
to the next precinct to cast your vote. Oh, but we’re also going to cut down early
voting. So you really only have, you know, the one
or two days to do it. We’re going to cut down the polling station
hours cause we don’t want to have to have people standing there all day and this is
all forms of voter suppression that in the past would’ve been prohibited by the Voting
Rights Act. But the supreme court killed that and that’s
why we have what we have today and make no mistake about it. This is so that Republicans can rig elections
because the only way they can win is by cheating.

The Republican Party’s Biggest Problem In 2020 IS NOT Trump

You know, it’s easy to think that Donald Trump
would be the republican party’s biggest liability heading into the 2020 election. I mean, the guy is struggling to get an approval
rating up to 50% I know he tweeted out Friday morning that it was at 50% but that’s literally
based on one single pole from Rassmussen who always is a little bit pro Republican. So their numbers are a little bit inflated. So his real, his aggregate approval rating
is still below 50% but George W. Bush won reelection with an approval rating slightly
under 50% and it’s the incumbent bounce. So Donald Trump is already in a fairly decent
position heading into 2020 yes. Most people don’t like him. Most people still, according the latest polls,
think that collusion happened. They don’t like his policies. They don’t like his tax cuts. They don’t like his wall, but he’s still in
decent shape. He is not the Republican Party’s biggest liability
ahead of the 2020 election. Their biggest problem, the Republican’s biggest
problem is that they don’t have any ideas. And yes, I know before you say it, I know
I have said this many times over the last few months and guess what? I am going to continue saying it until probably
I stopped doing this all together because the Republican Party has no ideas. But the reason I’m bringing this up today
is because earlier this past week, Washington Post’s conservative columnist, Jennifer Rubin
finally also admitted this, you know, she has been a huge critic of Donald Trump and
the direction of the Republican Party. That’s true, but she also agrees that Trump’s
not their biggest liability in 2020 it’s the fact that they don’t have any ideas and the
few things they tried to do, which is really two things, a, a repeal and replace, which
the public got furious about and cutting taxes for the wealthy. Those were horrible moves. The public hates them. Both the public is pissed off because people
are a middle class and working class people there, they’re paying more in taxes while
the wealthy elite get to write off the entire cost of a private jet. So yeah, the scam is up. We see you for what you are and you are a
party with no ideas to take it back. As I so often love to do here, since 1980
the Republican party has had two ideas, cut regulations and cut taxes for the wealthy. You show me any point since 1980 where they
have come up with a specific policy proposal that didn’t involve deregulation or cutting
taxes. That’s all they’ve got. They are one trick ponies and at this point
everybody in this country knows what that trick is. So here’s why it matters. Heading into 2020 you have more Senate Republicans
up for reelection. Then you do Senate Democrats, essentially
control of the Senate is up for reelection in 2020 control of the house has always up
for reelection, but with Democrats with their 40 plus a seed advantage, they’re probably
in pretty good shape to hold onto the house. Hopefully they can add more seats, but the
Senate man with some of these senators screwing up left and right, drawn the ire of the American
public. You’re going to see Senate races, much like
you did with Cruz and Beto O’Rourke, where you have all this outside money flowing into
the Democratic challenger, you’re going to have huge support for democratic challengers
for people like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham because people want them gone. That’s not going to bode well for Republicans
who have to go out there and defend themselves, not only against the big money attacks from
wealthy liberals, but also in front of their actual constituents. They’re going to have town halls. Maybe they’ll have debates and I hope everyone
in any of those audiences, every time one of these things happens, has the courage to
stand up, raise your hand and say, excuse me, do you have any ideas that don’t involve
deregulation or tax cuts? Because if not, everybody in the audience
is wasting their time and you have no reason to stay in Washington DC. Some of these people have been in there for
20 upwards of 30 years, and throughout their entire tenure, the only thing they’ve been
able to do is cut taxes and deregulate. And if that’s your idea of governance, if
that’s what you think is best for this country, then clearly you don’t deserve to be in Washington
DC anymore. So I guess the moral of the story is this,
Republicans are in bad shape heading into 2020 Trump himself may not be, Trump could
easily win reelection, but if the Democrats lose the Senate, uh, excuse me, Republicans
lose the Senate and they continue to lose the house that’s gonna make for one very interesting,
lame duck session for Donald Trump’s second term. Should it happen.

Republicans Freak Out As Data Shows That Their Party Is Dying Off

Republican pollsters started freaking out
earlier this week after new data analyzed by the New York Times was really showing that
young voters are absolutely abandoning the Republican Party. The gap between the current
18 to 24 year old and 18 to 29 year olds in party identification has never been more stark
than it is right now. Right now of that age group, you have 60% who call themselves democrats.
60% of that 18 to 29 age group says, I am a democrat. 33% say I’m a Republican. Okay, 60 to 33 a 27 point gap, and that’s why Republican
pollsters and analysts and strategists are kind of freaking out right now because they
know that the Republican Party’s biggest demographic happens to be the people who already have
one foot in the grave right now. That also happens to be Fox News biggest audience and
it’s not sustainable. You know when you have a party or a TV network like Fox that is 100%
dependent on people who know that they’ve only got a few years left on this planet,
that’s not exactly a good indicator for the longevity of your party. Now I know it’s been
a very long time in this country since we’ve had real viable third parties or since we’ve
had one of the major parties kind of disintegrate and then a new one pop up. It’s been well
over a hundred years, but it’s happened. It’s happened many times in US history. And it could certainly happen again, especially
given what we see about the Republican Party today. And here’s the thing, the political
scientists who looked at these numbers and said, yes, the Republicans have a big problem
and that’s what freaked out the strategists. But they looked at this and they said, here’s
the thing. Events that happen, uh, between the ages of 14 and 24 are three times more
likely to affect your future political beliefs than any single event that happens over the
age of 40. So what are these 14 to 24 year olds all have in common? How, what are the
18 to 29 year olds all have in common? Well, they’ve only lived through two republican
presidents being one or one and a half the last a year
and a half of George h w Bush’s term doesn’t really count. They don’t remember it. So the
two presidents that they were conscious for, George W. Bush and Donald Trump on the republican
side, not exactly a, you know, huge glimmer of hope for the future of the Republican Party.
But that is what an entire generation in this country knows. There is an entire generation
in this country who from experience only knows Republicans as parties of endless war parties
of lies, parties of tax cuts for the wealthy elite parties that don’t give a damn about
the middleclass parties of devastating economic policies, parties that don’t know what the
hell they’re doing. That has a massive impact on those voters. And as the political scientist
point out, those views are going to carry over with those people for the rest of their
lives. Yeah, there’ll be some fluctuations here and
there, but the damage being done to the Republican Party today by Donald Trump, that’s unlikely
to be undone among this age age group. The damage George W. Bush did isn’t going to be
undone, and that’s why Republicans are freaking out. They don’t know how to overcome this.
They don’t know if they can overcome this, and in all likelihood, they won’t be able
to overcome this. So if their fears are correct, we might just might actually be only one generation
away from some decent government here in the United States. Once this entire age group
gets active, start voting consistently, and let’s their voices be heard from their hometown
all the way to Washington DC, that is dramatically going to change the political system here
in the United States.

How is the Democratic fundraising fight shaping the 2020 race?

JOHN YANG: The crowded race for the Democratic
presidential nomination has started to winnow, and this week we will learn which of the remaining
21 candidates will be on the debate stage next month. It’s likely just half of the field will meet
the polling and donor requirements. Lisa Desjardins reports that the 2020 hopefuls
are competing for attention and dollars. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), Presidential Candidate:
So, please, please go to and sign up and join our campaign. We need your help. LISA DESJARDINS: As the 2020 Democratic candidates
debate policy, at the heart of the crowded race is a fight for money. The race’s top five candidates in the polls
are also the top five fund-raisers. PETE BUTTIGIEG (D), Presidential Candidate:
I hope I can look to you to continue helping us grow this movement. LISA DESJARDINS: Leading the pack, the mayor
of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg. He raised nearly $25 million from April to
June of this year, according to financial filings. Former Vice President Joe Biden followed with
$22 million, then three senators, beginning with Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren,
$19 million, then Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, $18 million, in fifth, California Senator
Kamala Harris, $11.8 million. REP. TULSI GABBARD (D-HI), Presidential Candidate:
A dollar, $5, $10, whatever they can, to make sure that we’re able to get our message out
there. LISA DESJARDINS: After that, a stark gap in
the field, in both money raised and polling, with a brutal fight for funds among the remaining
candidates. MICHELLE YE HEE LEE, The Washington Post:
It’s been a real slog trying to come out of the crowd the LISA DESJARDINS: Michelle Ye Hee Lee covers
money and politics for The Washington Post. MICHELLE YE HEE LEE: The more and more that
the five do better, the gap just continues to grow. REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MA): I am running an insurgent
campaign. LISA DESJARDINS: Unable to close that distance,
Massachusetts Congressman Seth Moulton And Washington Governor Jay Inslee dropped out
of the race last week. Both had yet to meet fund-raising or polling
qualifications for the third Democratic debates in September. JULIAN CASTRO (D), Presidential Candidate:
People pitching in a dollar, $5, $10, $20. And that’s the spirit that I’m going to move
forward in, in this campaign. LISA DESJARDINS: Julian Castro last week became
only the 10th candidate to qualify for the debates. So far, that leaves 11 others off next month’s
stage. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), Presidential Candidate:
I am asking for your help. LISA DESJARDINS: But even the top five fund-raisers
have been struggling to pull in steady funds among the crowded field. And how they’re going about it varies greatly. MICHELLE YE HEE LEE: You see Joe Biden really
coming out of the gate with a fund-raiser, a private fund-raiser held at the Comcast
executive’s home. And he is — this is kind of like old school SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), Presidential Candidate:
I’m not taking a dime of PAC money in this campaign. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) MICHELLE YE HEE LEE: At the other end of the
spectrum is Elizabeth Warren, who has rejected that type of fund-raising overall completely. And she’s only raising money from grassroots
donors, and she’s doing really well. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:
I stand before you to officially launch my campaign for a second term as president of
the United States. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) LISA DESJARDINS: And then there is President
Donald Trump’s reelection campaign, which he kicked off right after his inauguration
in 2017. Mr. Trump’s reelection effort has so far outraised
all the Democratic candidates and the Democratic National Committee combined by about $100
million, with a mix of small donors and multimillion-dollar closed fund-raisers. That’s giving his campaign a decided advantage
at targeting voters. MICHELLE YE HEE LEE: He’s been able to shape
the message online and on TV, run ads, really get to know the voter base very well, and
know how to reach these people, so that they could turn out on Election Day for him. LISA DESJARDINS: Democratic donors on the
other hand, especially the high-dollar ones, are largely still untapped. Many donors are still waiting for the race
to narrow before making their contributions, while smaller donors are spreading their money
across several different candidates. MICHELLE YE HEE LEE: They know the money is
out there. The question is whether the money spigot is
going to really open up in time for the presidential nominee to be able to catch up to the lead
that President Trump has. MARIANNE WILLIAMSON (D), Presidential Candidate:
Please give at least a dollar, so I can get those donations up. LISA DESJARDINS: Candidates who don’t make
the third debate stage in less than three weeks will likely need to reevaluate whether
they have the cash or support to stay in the race. And that’s good news for anxious Democratic
donors, who say a final Democratic nominee can’t come soon enough.

Mark Shields and Ramesh Ponnuru on Trump’s trade war and Biden’s lead

JUDY WOODRUFF: As we have been reporting,
President Trump continues his disputes with China and the Federal Reserve, as economic
jitters grow. And three Democratic presidential candidates
have now bowed out of the 2020 race. Here to help us understand the politics of
it all are Shields and Ponnuru. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and
Ramesh Ponnuru of “The National Review.” David Brooks is away. And hello to both of you on this Friday night. We have got a lot going on and a lot to talk
about. Mark, I’m going to start with you. Today, we started out with China announcing
higher tariffs on, what, $75 billion worth of American goods, somewhat expected. But then the president unleashed a barrage
of criticisms, not only on China. By the end of the day, he had slapped new
tariffs — said he was slapping new tariffs on more than $500 billion worth of Chinese
goods. He was attacking the chairman of the Federal
Reserve, and on and on. What are we to make of it? MARK SHIELDS: I wish I knew, Judy. I really do. I mean, it’s a performance of staggering instability,
more than anything else. You look at the president attacking his own
chairman of the Federal Reserve, and comparing — saying that his damage to the United States
is greater than that — greater threat than that of Chairman Xi. Quite honestly, China is a human rights abuser
of historic dimensions. There’s million people who are Muslims right
now in reeducation camps. There’s religious persecution abroad. I mean, this is so unfair, unjust, and inaccurate. But, in a larger sense, domestically, it’s
unnerving to the United States, to those who want to invest in the country, employers who
want to hire, want to expand. They’re looking for predictability. They’re looking for stability. They’re getting absolutely none of that. Three times this week, the White House changed
its position on a tax cut. I wish I knew. I bet Ramesh has a lot better answer. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, massive instability,
Ramesh? RAMESH PONNURU: Well, the president’s tweets
today attacking the Federal Reserve chairman that he himself appointed, declaring China
an enemy, but possibly not as much of an enemy as that appointee, were — they were appalling
tweets. But one of the points he made was absolutely
true, which is that China has abused the trade system, its intellectual property theft, forced
technology transfers. Those are real abuses. The problem is, Trump has created a problem
for himself. He has backed himself into a corner. He has made a big part of his identity that
he is going to be the president who, for the first time, takes those abuses seriously,
holds the Chinese to account. And he’s finding that, the way he’s done it,
going unilaterally, going with — in with vague demands, without even a unified team
of his own negotiators, is not working. And I think that is the frustration that is
boiling up in these tweets and now boiling up in actual tariffs. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Mark, can we write it off
then to just frustration with the problems that he’s had inside his administration? I mean… MARK SHIELDS: Judy, every presidency — and
I have been through 11 of them now — is basically a mirror reflection of the man at the top
— and eventually will be a woman at the top — but the strengths and weaknesses of that
individual. This is — Donald Trump, the pattern is familiar
by now. He finds somebody, they’re the best, because
he knows the best, and the best people want to work for him, and he hires them. He praises them to the sky. They get in trouble, he loses confidence,
he banishes them to the outer darkness. I mean, outstanding Americans, like General
Jim Mattis and others have just served, served their country, and been gone. I mean, so the instability begins right at
the top. JUDY WOODRUFF: But, I mean, even on top of
that, which is something I discussed earlier with Catherine Rampell, Ramesh, and that is
his ordering, in a tweet, ordering American companies to stop doing business with China. I mean… RAMESH PONNURU: And, of course, presidents
can’t do that. Presidents don’t have that kind of authority. But I suppose, if you’re the sort of person
who thinks that, as president, you should just be able to say something, and it happens,
that would add to your frustration. JUDY WOODRUFF: But does this help him politically,
all this? RAMESH PONNURU: I don’t think so. I think that it is undermining the economy. The reaction of the stock market suggests
they don’t believe — the people with real money on the line do not believe that this
is going to produce Chinese concessions that are going to be worth it for the economy going
forward. And I do think that, as fashionable as it
is to say that nothing can dent President Trump’s approval ratings, the one thing that
could is a weakening economy. JUDY WOODRUFF: And you’re saying this could… (CROSSTALK) MARK SHIELDS: Let me just pick up on Ramesh’s
point, because I think it’s a good one. Judy, in the final analysis, it’s a personal
assessment people make of their president. And there is a very simple four-part question
that has been asked for the past 45 years. I like the president personally and I agree
with most of his policies. I like the president personally, disagree. I dislike the president, don’t agree, dislike
the president, agree. With Ronald Reagan, 75 percent of Americans
liked him, liked him. That is formidable job when you’re trying
to unseat somebody. JUDY WOODRUFF: Whatever they thought of his
policies. MARK SHIELDS: That’s right. Even Bill Clinton, going through the Monica
Lewinsky and impeachment, was at 73 percent approval rating, and with 65 percent liking
him. Donald Trump, Donald Trump, with the lowest
unemployment in 50 years, has 30 percent of Americans who like him, who like him. So that’s the benefit of the doubt he has
going. And I just — I really think he’s in enormous
political trouble. And I think he understands that, and I think
that’s anxiety-generating in him. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let’s turn — I mean,
there’s a lot to say about all that happened today, and the Federal Reserve and China,
but let’s spend a few minutes talking about the Democrats. Ramesh, we lost three more of the — I guess
you could say the candidates who hadn’t really caught on this week. Today, Seth Moulton, the congressman from
Massachusetts, announced he’s not running. But you still have a good 20-plus candidates
in the race. Where does this Democratic race stand right
now? Has it firmed up? Is it — is it all over the map? How do you see it? RAMESH PONNURU: Well, I think that Vice President
Biden has shown stronger staying power than people might have thought, even after that
first debate, where he seemed to be rattled by Senator Kamala Harris’ attack on him. He has maintained his leadership at the polls. He’s maintained, I think, very importantly,
a multiracial coalition. You don’t need one of those to win a Republican
presidential nomination. You do to win a Democratic presidential nomination. And, right now, he’s doing better among blacks
and Hispanics than he is among white voters. And there’s nobody else really at the top
level of the party who can say that they have got a similar really broad coalition. So he’s riding maybe a little too much on
electability. Maybe he doesn’t have enthusiastic support. But I still think you might rather be him
than any of the other candidates. JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you see this Democratic
race? MARK SHIELDS: Well, Bob Strauss, the great
Democratic chair, said once that the toughest thing is not to announce that you’re running
for president and throw your hat in the ring or take a chance. The toughest thing is to admit you have lost
and to withdraw. And that takes an awful lot of guts to do
it. And so the people who left, Hickenlooper in
Colorado and Inslee in Washington, were people of accomplishment. I mean, they have been governors. They have been mayors. They had a record of achievement. I mean, my bias for executors vs. legislators
is admitted. And so I think they’re — they’re a loss to
the party in that sense. And Congressman Moulton launched a challenge
to Nancy Pelosi for the speakership, and in the presidential nomination, did just about
as well. And they all have to get back to trying to
get elected, as with Senator — Mayor — Governor Hickenlooper is trying to do right now in
Colorado. JUDY WOODRUFF: So he’s running in Colorado
for the Senate. MARK SHIELDS: He’s running in Colorado for
the Senate. So, no, I think, Judy, that Ramesh’s analysis
is pretty solid. Joe Biden is running on electability. The only drawback to electability is, you
have to win. And if you don’t win Iowa and you don’t win
New Hampshire, then your electability, even though it looks good in November, is undermined. I think anybody who looks at the Democratic
race has to be impressed by what Elizabeth Warren has done. She came in under the worst circumstances,
self-created, and forswore any big money. She’s managed to… JUDY WOODRUFF: Took a lot of criticism. (CROSSTALK) MARK SHIELDS: Took a lot of criticism, has
raised — has raised money, has generated enthusiasm and great response. And her numbers are up. And Kamala Harris’ numbers, she went after
Joe Biden. She was the one that hit them. She belled that cat. And she’s paid for it. I mean, — she’s her own numbers have shrunk
in the meanwhile. JUDY WOODRUFF: Last thing I want to ask you
both about is what we just heard in that report from John Yang. And that’s the legacy of David Koch. Here you have a multibillionaire, Ramesh,
who gave millions and millions, I don’t know what the total is, to conservative causes,
as well as to charitable causes. What’s his legacy in American politics? RAMESH PONNURU: Well, I think that he was
able to move the needle on some issues, not so much conservative issues, as libertarian
issues, where a lot of conservatives weren’t with him. But he was a principled libertarian. And he supported drug legalization. He supported… JUDY WOODRUFF: Which a lot of people don’t
remember. RAMESH PONNURU: That’s right. Supported same-sex marriage. He gets a lot of criticism from the left,
but, because of those principles, he was willing to work with liberals on those issues. I think, though, his death comes at a time
when that philosophy is waning in America. JUDY WOODRUFF: The libertarian… (CROSSTALK) RAMESH PONNURU: The libertarian philosophy,
the small government philosophy. You see Republicans like Donald Trump moving
in the direction of tariffs and immigration control. And you see Democrats moving in the direction
of national health insurance, Green New Deal. So you do wonder whether this death is maybe
a little bit more symbolic. MARK SHIELDS: I met David Koch in 1980. He was a vice presidential nominee on the
Libertarian ticket, a party that was dedicated to the abolition of the federal income tax,
abolition of child labor laws, and the repeal of Medicare. He is proof of the golden rule in American
politics. He who has the gold rules. They put in hundreds of millions of dollars. They put in dark money. It was — it against any disclosure. JUDY WOODRUFF: Money… MARK SHIELDS: Money that was not revealed. JUDY WOODRUFF: … was unlabeled. MARK SHIELDS: And, Judy, whether you’re talking
about opposition to clean air laws or clean water laws, under libertarian philosophy,
yes, but there’s no question about it, the air is less clean and the water is less clean. And I just — I just think that with the dark
money, you talk about climate change. You saw Brazil today. The two are bookends, that and the Koch brothers
and what they have done politically. JUDY WOODRUFF: But your point, Ramesh, is,
the money moved the needle, at least to some extent, on some of these huge issues. MARK SHIELDS: It did, elected a lot of people,
a lot of state legislators. RAMESH PONNURU: And advocacy as well. JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark Shields, Ramesh Ponnuru,
good to have you both. Thank you. MARK SHIELDS: Thank you. RAMESH PONNURU: You’re welcome.

The Republican Party Is On Its Deathbed

According to new surveys by the Pew Research
Group, uh, we might actually be just a generation or so away from some really good government
here in the United States, and here is why the two youngest generations right now, you’ve
got the millennials and what they’re calling generation Z. They happen to lean to the left on nearly
every issue out there. Even the ones who call themselves Republicans,
and there’s lots of different reasons for this, but the biggest thing that this a pew
research center survey found is that these two generations view the government as a tool
for good. Whereas the entire Republican party says,
we need to shrink government, as Grover Norquist said to the point where it’s so small, you
can drown it in a bathtub. The younger generations disagree. The younger generations want the government
to do its job. The younger generations think that it is the
government’s responsibility to address the issue of climate change and try to protect
this country. The younger generations overwhelmingly want
debt free college, $15 minimum wage, medicare for all. Even the ones who identify as Republicans. They want the government to come in with solutions
instead of just being a blind bureaucracy that occasionally passes bills that don’t
really do anything, you know, just procedural, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. They don’t care about that crap. They want answers. They want solutions than they want our elected
officials to be the ones to do that. Again, even among the ones who call themselves
Republicans, but there is a bigger issue with these two younger generations that the older
generations don’t have and it’s a positive for the youngers. It’s because they’re more racially and ethnically
diverse than the older generations and in fact every generation is more diverse than
the one that came before it. So generation Z is actually more diverse,
has more viewpoints and opinions, you know, backgrounds than even the millennials who
are already very diverse. They were the most diverse and now generation
Z is so they’re less likely to hold the same prejudices that say the baby boomers are. They don’t view people as inferior based on
their race or their religion or their sexual orientation or their gender identity. They are accepting on a much larger scale
of what the baby boomers like to call the others. They get it, they understand, they live through
it. They live in a more diverse world and they’re
ready for their more diverse world to take over from these aging old white guys who continue
to do nothing in Washington DC, especially. Nothing that’s going to help anybody but they’re
old white guy donors. These kids, these young Americans, they want
something better and it just a generation or so, hopefully they’re going to be the ones
who give us something better.

The Republican Party Has NOTHING To Offer American Voters

I’ve been talking a lot recently about one
certain theme and that theme is that since the 1980s the Republicans have had only two
ideas, tax cuts and deregulation. And the reason I keep harping on that theme
aside from the fact that it’s true when you look back at their history is because we are
officially in an election season now, folks and Republicans have nothing to offer the
American public. They haven’t had anything to offer the American
public in 40 years, nothing they have done, be it tax cuts or deregulation. None of it has ever benefited the average
working class here in the United States. And that’s a problem. You know, Reagan came along and he killed
the labor unions and they never recovered. The numbers are still going down today and
when he did that, he effectively killed the middle-class that has been dwindling ever
since. He did that. But that wasn’t the only thing Reagan did. And this is the second part, aside from having
no ideas other than tax cuts and deregulations republicans stay in power through two devices,
hate and fear, and they actually really go together. Just think back to Reagan. Reagan told us that we need to be angry. We essentially need to hate black people because
they’re taking all of our tax dollars by being on welfare. He invented the welfare queen. You know these well to do black folk who would
rather sit around and collect their unemployment checks and their food stamps then go to work. It was a lie. It was a myth, but it worked. Reagan got us to hate the others in order
to fear for ourselves and our livelihoods to vote for Republicans even though they had
nothing to offer. That’s how that works. That’s how that cycle goes. W Bush though, he spoke a great game about
Muslims, did not demonize them in his speeches are in his talks. What did he do? He got America to hate Muslims through his
war on terror. That’s what he did and a lot of people have
pointed out to me. They said, well, he didn’t say go hate them. He was very clear to separate the people who
did nine 11 and the bad guys over in Afghanistan and Iraq from normal everyday Muslims. He certainly was, but you know who wasn’t
literally every other Republican in this country and Bush knew it. He knew exactly what he was doing. You had Christian leaders telling us that
Muslim Islam was a religion of hate. Fox News told us that every day they still
do it. What they’re doing with representative Omar
now is absolutely sickening and they’re doing it because she’s a Muslim. So Bush, in spite of offering us nothing but
endless wars and tax cuts gets reelected. Why? Because of our hatred that he fostered of
the others. In this case, the others were Muslims. Now, what’s Donald Trump doing today? He’s cutting taxes. He’s deregulating and he’s getting us to hate
a new group of people. The others down there at our southern border
immigrants, they’re the bad guys. Now verse, it was a black people then it was
the Muslims. Now it’s the Hispanics. I can’t help but wonder who the next republican
president is going to tell us that we need to hate. Who is the next target? Who’s the next group that we need to hate
and fear so much that we’re willing to vote for a party that hasn’t had a new idea since
1979 if they had ideas, if they had a plan, if they had a platform, they’d be running
on that. But instead, every day, every day since 1980
we have been told by a different Republican leader which group we need to hate and why
we need to vote for Republicans to keep us safe from that imaginary threat.

What’s at stake for 2020 Democrats during Detroit presidential debates

JUDY WOODRUFF: Almost half of the candidates
seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination faced off in Tuesday night’s debate in Detroit. As Amna Nawaz reports, the ideological rift
in the crowded field was on full display. AMNA NAWAZ: For the 10 Democrats on stage
last night, an existential question: How far left to go? More moderate candidates like former Maryland
Congressman John Delaney set their sights on the party’s left flank. JOHN DELANEY (D), Presidential Candidate:
So, I think Democrats win when we run on real solutions, not impossible promises, when we
run on things that are workable, not fairy tale economics. AMNA NAWAZ: From Senators Elizabeth Warren
of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the party’s two liberal leaders standing center
stage, a united front. SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), Presidential Candidate:
You know, I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president
of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), Presidential Candidate:
I get a little bit tired of Democrats afraid of big ideas. AMNA NAWAZ: It’s a divide that played out
for nearly every issue, as Democrats debated the best way to defeat President Trump. South Bend Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg: PETE BUTTIGIEG (D), Presidential Candidate:
Nominate me, and we will have a different conversation with American voters about why
the president of the United States thinks you’re a sucker. AMNA NAWAZ: On health care, the moderates,
like Montana Governor Steve Bullock, in his first debate appearance, expressed doubts
about the health care overhaul known as Medicare for all. GOV. STEVE BULLOCK (D-MT), Presidential Candidate:
At the end of the day, I’m not going to support any plan that rips away quality health care
from individuals. This is an example of wish list economics. It used to be just Republicans who wanted
to repeal and replace. Now many Democrats do as well. SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN: Let’s be clear about this. We are the Democrats. We are not about trying to take away health
care from anyone. That’s what the Republicans are trying to
Republican talking points in order to talk with each other about how to best provide
that health care. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) AMNA NAWAZ: Sanders also defended his signature
proposal against attacks from Ohio Congressman Tim Ryan and former Colorado Governor John
Hickenlooper. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: For senior citizens, it will
finally include dental care, hearing aids and eyeglasses. REP. TIM RYAN (D-OH), Presidential Candidate: But
you don’t know that — you don’t know that, Bernie. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Second of all — second of
all… JAKE TAPPER, Moderator: I will come to you
in a second, Congressman. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I do know it. I wrote the damn bill. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) JOHN HICKENLOOPER (D), Presidential Candidate:
Think if we’re going to force Americans to make these radical changes, they’re not going
to go along. Throw your hands up. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: All right. (LAUGHTER) (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) JOHN HICKENLOOPER: Oh-ho, I can do it. But you haven’t implemented the plans. AMNA NAWAZ: Similar to the last debate, the
debate around immigration centered on a plan to make crossing the U.S. border a civil offense,
instead of criminal. Former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke: BETO O’ROURKE (D), Presidential Candidate:
And I expect that people who come here follow our laws, and we reserve the right to criminally
prosecute them SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN: The problem is that, right
now, the criminalization statute is what gives Donald Trump the ability to take children
away from their parents. We must be a country that every day lives
our values. AMNA NAWAZ: In downtown Detroit, a city that’s
over 80 percent black, night one of the debate featured an all-white field of candidates. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar responded
to President Trump’s recent attacks on Congressman Elijah Cummings and Baltimore. SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN), Presidential Candidate:
Little kids literally woke up this weekend, turned on the TV and saw their president calling
their city, the town of Baltimore, nothing more than a home for rats. And I can tell you, as your president, that
will stop. AMNA NAWAZ: While author and spiritual adviser
Marianne Williamson focused on the water conditions in nearby Flint, Michigan. MARIANNE WILLIAMSON (D), Presidential Candidate:
It’s bigger than Flint. It’s all over this country. It’s particularly people of color. It’s particularly people who do not have the
money to fight back. And if the Democrats don’t start saying it,
then why would those people feel that they’re there for us? And if those people don’t feel it, they won’t
vote for us, and Donald Trump will win. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) AMNA NAWAZ: Expect race to come up again tonight,
as 10 more candidates prepare to take the stage, among them, former Vice President Joe
Biden and California Senator Kamala Harris, who clashed over desegregating schools during
the first debate last month. SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D-CA), Presidential Candidate:
Do you agree today — do you agree today that you were wrong to oppose busing in America
then? Do you agree? JOSEPH BIDEN (D), Presidential Candidate:
No, I didn’t oppose busing in America. AMNA NAWAZ: Biden said last week he was — quote
— “overly polite” last time. Heading into tonight, Harris signaled she
will once again set her sights on the candidate leading in the polls. SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: My mother raised me to be polite,
and I intend to be polite. I will express differences and articulate
them. AMNA NAWAZ: They will share the stage with
eight other candidates hoping for their own standout moments, before the polling and fund-raising
thresholds double for the next round of debates in September. For analysis of last night’s debate and what
to look for tonight, I’m joined by Stuart Rothenberg, senior editor of Inside Elections,
Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report and host of “Politics With Amy Walter” on WNYC
Radio, and Karine Jean-Pierre, a senior adviser to Welcome to you all. Let’s jump right in. Stu, let me start with you. Last night, one of the central themes was
all about the moderate vs. progressive candidates. Did one side do better than other at making
the case? STUART ROTHENBERG, Inside Elections: No, I
think both sides did very well. And you’re right. That was the context. It was created by the question from CNN folks,
but also it’s an honest division within the party. And you saw the two obvious progressives,
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, energize, articulate, you know, about their positions. And you saw the pragmatists, who I think did
a really good job, a number of them, whether it was Delaney or Ryan or whatever, trying
to poke holes in their arguments. So I think both sides did quite well. AMNA NAWAZ: Karine, you noted there from Stu
some of the lower polling candidates were taking aim frequently at Senator Warren, at
Senator Sanders. Medicare for all was one of the big topics
last night. How do you think they did in defending their
turf? KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, Democratic Strategist:
I think they did a pretty good job. Look, last night — what I saw last night
was a debate about policies and just substantive issues, which is incredibly important. It’s part of the process. It’s part of having a primary, and I think
they did well for themselves. And I think now we move on to tonight and
see how that goes. AMNA NAWAZ: Amy, let’s take a look at how
people are deciding who it is they actually want to vote for. I want to point you to something that always
stands out to me. This is from our “PBS NewsHour”/NPR/Marist
poll. When you ask likely Democratic voters, have
they made up their minds, 82 percent say, no, they have not. That is a lot of people. So if you’re a Democratic voter out there
watching the debates, are you — what are you gleaning from this kind of format right
now? AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: Well,
what you’re really looking for right now, Amna, I think, when I talk to voters, what
they’re telling me is, they are hoping that this field gets narrowed, because there are
just too many choices for them. They just get kind of intimidated by the number
that are on the stage. So I think, even though we saw some new names
in the mix — Stu mentioned John Delaney and Steve Bullock, who it was literally his first
time on the stage, the governor of Montana — I think this race really still is consolidating
around four, maybe five candidates. And as those candidates are getting challenged,
or maybe challenging another candidate, you will see their numbers rise and follow, as
other people challenge them. But I don’t think we’re going to see one of
these candidates that right now is polling in the low 1’s or 2’s suddenly break out from
the top. And just overall this fundamental debate about
pragmatism and one that’s more structural reform, sitting here in Michigan right now,
this is a debate that happened in 2018 in the governor’s race, and it happened in 2016
in the primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. So folks in the state are pretty used to that
conversation. In 2016, it was the more progressive candidate,
Bernie Sanders, who won the primary. In 2018, it was the more pragmatic, who’s
now the governor, Gretchen Whitmer, who won her primary. AMNA NAWAZ: Karine, I got to ask you, when
it comes to the issues, they covered a lot of ground last night, climate change, health
care, immigration. Race came up as well, which is obviously going
to be huge in the 2020 election and how we talk about it. It’s unfortunate it was an all-white panel
just based on the random draw of the way the candidates ended up. But how do you think they did at developing
an overall message of how they’re going to make the Democratic case to voters of color? KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: Yes, it was very unfortunate,
Amna. We have a very diverse field. And, like you mentioned, it was a pretty much
all-white — all white candidates on that stage. And, tonight, that will change. But I am — I’m actually really glad that
they — the question of race was asked to the white candidates. And they took an opportunity to answer that. What we saw the past three weeks with Donald
Trump and the way he’s brought up race and how he’s using it for his 2020 reelection
is quite concerning. And so it’s an important conversation to have. We need to bring it up. And you have people of color living in this
country that is very worried as to where this country is going. And I think it’s a good — it was great to
see these candidates on this stage talk about it last night. AMNA NAWAZ: Stu, Karine mentioned Donald Trump. I want to point you to another recent showing
from our poll, that PBS/NPR/Marist poll. When it looks at what Democratic voters are
looking for in their candidate, do they want someone who actually aligns with their values,
or do they want someone who can actually beat Donald, the majority still say they’re looking
for someone who can beat Donald Trump. So did you see that messaging? STU ROTHENBERG: I think president didn’t get
as much attention last night as I expected he would get or that he will get tonight. But face it, Amna, voters want it all. They want somebody who can beat Donald Trump,
and they want somebody who reflects their values and priorities and views. And they’re going to — they’re going to hold
off deciding until much later in the year. I know we expect, we think that we have already
had debates and there have been town halls and interviews. But we have got a long way to go before people
actually make choices of who they’re going to support and who they aren’t. AMNA NAWAZ: Amy, it’s worth noting the Trump
campaign put out a response after the debate last night. They said, it’s the same radical Democrats,
same big government socialist message. This issue of socialism comes up again and
again. Pete Buttigieg, during the debate, actually
kind of foreshadowed that. He said, look, whatever we do, they’re going
to call us socialists, so we should just do what we believe in and move forward. Is there some truth for that to the Democrats
right now? AMY WALTER: Well, we know what the playbook
is going to be for Donald Trump and for Republicans. They have been using the socialist label now,
really, since the 2018 campaign. It wasn’t particularly effective in that race. But, again, that was a midterm election, where
it was a referendum on the president. This is going to be a choice between the president
and another Democratic candidate. But, look, I think that, when we’re asking
whether or not the candidate who appeals to the more left or the more center is going
to win, we miss another fundamental question, which is, who’s the candidate that has the
vision, the message, who’s able to connect, who has a narrative and a story? And so this is where I think some of the moderates
didn’t do — they were not as effective last night, in that they were able to sort of try
and poke holes in what the progressive candidates were saying about a Medicare for all system,
mentioning how difficult it was going to be to pass, how unworkable it was, but they’re
not offering, I didn’t see last night, a real sort of vision or optimistic message to voters
who are looking, as Stu says, for everything, but also who want to beat Donald Trump and
see a candidate who has a realistic path to getting there. AMNA NAWAZ: So, Amy, very briefly — I feel
like one of the debate moderator — 30 seconds or less, if you can. (LAUGHTER) AMNA NAWAZ: What are you looking for tonight,
when 10 more candidates take the stage? AMY WALTER: Yes. Well, Joe Biden now becomes the face and the
voice of that moderate, in a way that the candidates last night — yes, they tried to
play that role, but the real role is going to be played by Joe Biden, and how he holds
up under what I think is going to be pretty aggressive, I don’t know I would use the word
attack, but they’re definitely going to aggressively challenge Joe Biden tonight. Can he hold up? He didn’t do particularly well in the first
debate. AMNA NAWAZ: Karine, what about you? What are you looking for? KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: What I want to see, which
is — we didn’t see last night, was, I really want to see the contrasts from — with Donald
Trump. I mean, we talked about health care. More than 35 minutes was on Medicare for all,
which is great. But nobody mentioned that, right now, the
Trump administration is in the courts trying to take away health care from tens of millions
of people. Like, that type of thing is what I want to
hear tonight from these candidates. What’s the contrast? How are we going to beat Donald Trump? And I agree with Amy. I think Biden is going to get a lot of the
attention. People are going to be focusing on him tonight,
especially after the last debate. But I also want to say that I don’t think
we’re going to see much change after — after tonight. I think the third debate, the one in September
in Houston, where the field will whittle down a bit, we won’t — I don’t think we will have
more than one debate — I think that’s where we will see some movement with numbers and
how people are standing in this race. AMNA NAWAZ: Stu, I will give you the last
word here. What are you looking for? STU ROTHENBERG: Biden, Biden, Biden, and Biden. (LAUGHTER) STU ROTHENBERG: He’s the leading progressive
pragmatist. He is the — if he falters, which is certainly
possible, it will create an opening for somebody else to take that place, because this is a
party that’s split, that wants to win, but wants to win with a certain agenda. AMNA NAWAZ: Stu Rothenberg, Karine Jean-Pierre,
and Amy Walter, thanks to you all. STU ROTHENBERG: Sure. AMY WALTER: You’re welcome.

Tamara Keith and Kimberly Atkins on Trump’s Baltimore attacks, Detroit debates

JUDY WOODRUFF: Now it’s time for Politics
Monday. Here to break down the political implications
of the president’s tweets over the weekend and preview the 2020 Democratic presidential
debates to come, I’m joined by Tamara Keith of NPR. She co-hosts the “NPR Politics Podcast.” And Kimberly Atkins of WBUR Radio. Hello to both of you. It is Politics Monday. So, before we talk about those other things,
I want to ask both of you — and I’m going to start with you, Tamara — about Amna’s
report from Virginia. This couple, they are very devoted to each
other, but they have got real political disagreement. How common is that? And how emblematic is it, do you think, of
the larger political divide in the country? TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: I think
it’s more emblematic of the political divide than it is common at this point, because,
as the report indicated, there are a lot of people who don’t want their children to date
someone from the other political party, for instance. There is there is amazing polarization right
now. And sort of the bipartisan couples used to
be more common than they are now. JUDY WOODRUFF: What do you find in your reporting,
Kimberly? KIMBERLY ATKINS, WBUR Boston: Yes, it’s the
same. They’re certainly a microcosm of the kinds
of divides that we are seeing in this country in the way that people on different sides
position themselves, with him saying, yes, the president, I don’t like what — everything
he tweets, but I think he’s doing a good job, and the other side saying, no, I find what
he says and does appalling. I can’t imagine how difficult it must be within
a relationship. JUDY WOODRUFF: It’s curious, because you see
something like that, and you wonder — I mean, you know there are some examples that have
gotten some publicity. But it doesn’t seem to be the norm. But it does say a lot about our country. So let’s talk about the news, Tam, of the
last few days. The president started tweeting furiously on
— at a rapid pace on Saturday morning about Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings. We have been reporting on it on the program. Stepping back and looking at the president’s
criticisms of Baltimore, of the congressman, and then Al Sharpton today, does this help
President Trump politically? TAMARA KEITH: Well, there certainly is a strong
pattern in the people he goes after and the way he goes after them, the people and places. Does this help the president? In 2016, he campaigned, came down the escalator,
said some Mexicans are rapists. He had a fight with the Gold Star family who
were also Muslim. He said a Mexican judge couldn’t be fair. So President Trump in 2016 was doing and saying
— and never — don’t forget the birther thing — doing and saying many of the same things
that he is doing now on similar themes. And his campaign defends it in the same way
that they did then, which is, he will go to bat against anyone who goes to bat against
him. Will it work? It did work in 2016. I talked to a number of people today. One Republican pollster said, it can certainly
work again, depending on who the Democrats nominate. Basically heard the same thing from a Democratic
consultant. And then also I talked to some political scientists,
though, who’ve done some research that finds that independent voters and Democrats are
going to be turned off and mobilize in sort of in opposition to the president, in much
the way that he hopes that his base will be motivated. JUDY WOODRUFF: How much of this is determined,
Kimberly, though, by which states it comes down to? I mean, it helped him — apparently helped
him in those states that made the difference that was — we talk about them over and over
again, in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. KIMBERLY ATKINS: It makes a big difference. I mean, we have — the Democrats are in Detroit
getting ready for this debate. Michigan is a key city. And Michigan is one of those — Michigan is
one of those states where the black vote was — didn’t turn out in 2016 the way it had
in the two previous presidential years. And there is a concern that this kind of talk
will depress the black vote. And so it’s incumbent on the Democrat, Democratic
Party, to try to get out and motivate those voters to get out and vote. We don’t know what will happen. But we have seen this president go to this
not just during the campaign, but throughout his presidency. He likes this cultural divide. He likes this cultural division, the stoking
of cultural division, particularly after he gets off of something tough, if he has a political
loss. We just had Mueller testifying. And that was directly where he went. So it is a pattern. JUDY WOODRUFF: It is interesting to — some
folks have looked already at the way the president — President Trump, Tam, talks about cities,
inner cities, and the way that he talks about people who live in rural areas. TAMARA KEITH: Right. And the term infested, he saves for inner
cities. And when — I went and looked through all
of his tweets. And going back throughout his tweets, whenever
he talks about someone being racist, he’s in almost every case referring to a person
of color being racist. He just — he does this. It is a pattern that he repeats again and
again. JUDY WOODRUFF: And we don’t know, of course,
what’s in his head, whether — to what extent this is deliberate, to what extent it’s what
he’s just thinking at the moment. But it is — as Tam says, there seems to be
a pattern. KIMBERLY ATKINS: There is absolutely a pattern
that goes back decades. It goes back to the way he talked about the
Central Park 5. It goes back throughout his life. (CROSSTALK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Literally decades. KIMBERLY ATKINS: Yes. TAMARA KEITH: Yes. KIMBERLY ATKINS: Yes. So he — this is the way he has repeatedly
spoken about people of color, especially people who challenge him. Elijah Cummings, of course, is the chairman
of one of the committee’s that is investigating the president and his administration. So we saw him go straight to that sort of
attack. It seems to be a place where he retreats to. He seems very comfortable there. The problem that it creates, of course, is
Republicans who refuse to call them out — to call him out on it. And they sort of have been twisting themselves
into circles to try to really make other excuses, that it was about policy or something else,
when it was clearly an attack on people of color in Congress. JUDY WOODRUFF: In the little bit of time we
have, I do want to turn to the Democrats. The 2020 candidates, Tam, they are going back
to the debate stage this week. Ten of them will be there tomorrow night,
Tuesday night, the other 10. And we have got a picture of the lineup, the
10 who will be there on Tuesday night and then the other 10 for Wednesday night. What should we be expecting? TAMARA KEITH: So, Tuesday night, I think the
most interesting thing will be whether Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren bring out their
contrasts in some way, or whether they sort of ignore each other and talk about their
policies. Pete Buttigieg and Beto O’Rourke are two candidates
who need a moment. They had been polling really well. Pete Buttigieg has raised a lot of money. But he didn’t have a standout moment in the
first debate. JUDY WOODRUFF: Kimberly — and we’re hearing
some more efforts on the part of these candidates to define themselves, to distance themselves
in some instances from each other. KIMBERLY ATKINS: Yes, they’re trying to set
out their agenda. We saw Senator Kamala Harris, who will be
on that second night, laying out her health care plan. We already saw surrogates from both sides
of both Senator — well, from Senator — former Vice President Joe Biden’s team. Sorry, there are lot of candidates on the
stage. (CROSSTALK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Name all 24 of them right now,
I insist. (LAUGHTER) KIMBERLY ATKINS: Already fighting back and
saying that — pulling it apart. So I think in the center of the stage, where
you have Cory Booker and Kamala Harris flanking Vice President — former Vice President Joe
Biden, is going to be where the real sparks will fly. JUDY WOODRUFF: And that’s going to be interesting. And that is Wednesday night. But, Tam, again, I mean, as you said on Monday,
this is the night — this is the last debate before the middle of September. So for — and where the rules get tougher,
the threshold gets tougher. TAMARA KEITH: Well, and not very many of these
people who will be on stage have qualified for the September debate yet. JUDY WOODRUFF: For the September debate. So this may be the last chance some of them
— it will be the last chance some of them have to make an impression. TAMARA KEITH: Yes. Indeed. JUDY WOODRUFF: We thank you both. Kimberly Atkins, thank you. Tamara Keith, thank you. TAMARA KEITH: You’re welcome. JUDY WOODRUFF: Politics Monday.

Why Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg believes he’d make a good president

JUDY WOODRUFF: The race for the White House
in 2020 is in full swing, and 10 Democrats so far have declared their candidacy for the
party’s nomination. With just four months to go before the first
Democratic presidential debate in June, Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana,
recently announced that he formed an exploratory committee. If he wins his party’s nomination, he will
be the first openly gay candidate of a major party to run for the White House. Mayor Buttigieg joins us now to discuss his
book, “The Shortest Way Home,” and why he could be a good president. Mayor Buttigieg, thank you very much for being
with us. PETE BUTTIGIEG (D), Mayor of South Bend, Indiana:
Thanks for having me. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, first obvious question,
why would a 37-year-old mayor of a small city in the Midwestern part of the U.S. be running
for president? PETE BUTTIGIEG: Well, I believe we’re in a
moment that calls for something completely new. And, among other things, I think it calls
for voices from the Industrial Midwest, a place that, in particular my party, to its
detriment, largely ignored in past election cycles. I think it also calls for somebody from a
newer generation. You know, as a millennial — I’m just old
enough or young enough to qualify as an older millennial — I’m from the generation that,
for one thing, grew up experiencing school shootings as the norm. I was in high school when Columbine happened. We are the generation that’s going to be on
the business end of climate change, that’s going to have to pick up the pieces of the
fiscal mess that will be made by current tax policy. And, economically, we could be the first generation
in American history to make less than our parents if nothing is done. So I think that those kinds of voices have
been missing from the debate, and it’s time to step forward. I get that it’s a nontraditional path, compared
to, let’s say, being in the Congress. But, as an executive, with on-the-ground experience
in government, I would also argue that the more Congress starts looking or Washington
starts looking like our best-run cities and towns, instead of the other way around, the
better off we will be. JUDY WOODRUFF: You mentioned tax policy. That’s one of the issues that we’re already
hearing these early announced candidates talk about. Where do you put yourself on the spectrum
of the people who have expressed an interest in the Democrat nomination? There is Kamala Harris. There’s everybody — Elizabeth Warren. Bernie Sanders may get in. Start with tax policy. Where would you put yourself when it comes
to taxing the wealthy? PETE BUTTIGIEG: Well, I think it’s pretty
clear that there are plenty of people in America Well, I think it’s pretty clear that there
are people in America right now who are not paying their fair share. The concentration of wealth has increased
to a level that is almost incompatible with democracy, especially at a time when it feels
like dollars can sometimes outvote people. I think that we need to look at ways to tax
wealth more than work. We need to consider a financial transactions
tax. And we need to ask whether the top marginal
tax rates are really appropriate, given that the effective tax rates paid by the wealthy
are often actually lower than those paid by the rest of us. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let’s talk about something
that’s been before the Congress just in the last few days. Yesterday, the Congress, Democrats and Republicans,
came together in support of this spending proposal, including language about border
security. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, was for
it, but the newly elected Congresswoman from New York Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was against
it. What would you have done? PETE BUTTIGIEG: I don’t have a problem with
enhanced border security, perhaps to include fencing. I think the mistake is believing that border
security is as simple as just putting up a wall from sea to shining sea. And, by the way, I also think it’s a mistake
to believe that security in general in the 21st century is as simple as military and
border security matters. At a moment like this, when 21st century threats,
from cyber-security to climate security are demanding action, many, especially the majority
party in the Senate, don’t seem to show any interest in tackling that at all. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, in connection with that,
the president looked at that and said, it’s still not enough money. As you know, today, he’s declared a national
emergency, so that he can get more money from — taken from other places in the government
to go toward a border wall. Should he have done that? And whether you agree or not, if you were
president — for example, you have said you think the climate — climate change is a national
emergency — could you see yourself declaring an emergency over that? PETE BUTTIGIEG: I may be the youngest person
in the 2020 conversation, but I’m old enough to remember when conservatives and liberals
alike were skeptical of presidential power grabs. And the idea that he can assert an additional
power based on an emergency that’s not a true emergency — to the extent that there is a
humanitarian crisis, it’s one of his own making because of the cruel policies being implemented
at the border. And, in the meantime, something like climate,
something that has the destructive power of perhaps a depression or a world war, that
is a much more real emergency, is demanding our attention. Now, does that mean that a future Democratic
president ought to take a page out of President Trump’s book and declare an emergency? I would rather see this resolved through the
regular legislative process in which Congress funds national priorities largely as set by
the president. It’s just that it doesn’t seem to be a priority
for those in leadership who seem to regard climate and so many other future issues as
somebody else’s problem. JUDY WOODRUFF: And just quickly, on health
care, you have said you are for some kind of single-payer system. There’s a lot of conversation about Medicare
for all. Where are you on that spectrum? PETE BUTTIGIEG: I think most Americans understand
that we deserve to have universal health care, as enjoyed by most citizens in most developed
countries. Now, there are some legitimate questions about
the pathway to Medicare for all. The flavor that I prefer is what I would Medicare
for all who want it. In other words, take a version of Medicare
or something like it, make it available as a public option on the exchange. And then if people like me are right, that
this will over time become the most efficient and preferred means, then this will be a very
natural glide path to a single-payer environment. JUDY WOODRUFF: Different subject, but, as
we have said, you would be, if you ran on the Democratic ticket, the first openly gay
person to seek the presidency in a major party. Do you think that would end up — in 2020,
would that be an asset for you, or could it be a liability? PETE BUTTIGIEG: Maybe it’ll be both. It’s very hard to say. I’m certainly conscious of the historic nature
of a candidacy of the first out elected official ever to seek this office. At the same time, when I think about my own
life, my marriage is probably the most normal thing in my life. It holds me down to earth. I have a husband who wants to know if I did
the chores, as well as how I did on television. And it helps me relate to other people, most
of whom happen to be straight, who are also married. JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you think the time is coming
when we’re not going to be asking that question? PETE BUTTIGIEG: I hope we will get to a day
when it is not newsworthy, when — I thought about this a lot when I was getting ready
to come out. And I thought about the fact that straight
people don’t have to come out. So, someday, I would like for somebody in
the position I was in, in a reelection year, when I realized it was personally time to
get ready to come out, and agonized over how to do it, that I would just show up at some
social function, and my date would be of the same sex, and people would have a look at
that, shrug, and go about their business. But the reality is, we’re not in that world
yet. As a matter of fact, the reality is, in many
parts of the U.S., people can still be fired for being gay. And we know that there’s basically an assault
on the rights and dignity of trans people in this country, too. So the journey is — is still very much in
progress. But I also believe, especially somebody who
came out while Mike Pence was governor of Indiana and got reelected with 80 percent
of the vote, I believe that progress is accelerating. JUDY WOODRUFF: Mayor Pete Buttigieg, the mayor
of South Bend, Indiana. The book is “Shortest Way Home.” Thank you for stopping by. PETE BUTTIGIEG: Glad to be here.