US Midterms 2026: The country is about to get a new Congress. What do voters want? | This Is America

Welcome to this special edition of Al Jazeera's This Is America. So many questions about what comes next this final weekend before a hugely consequential election. Voters are anxious about the economy. They're deeply skeptical of both political parties. And now they're being asked a fundamental question. Should Republicans keep control of Congress or should there be more of a check on Donald Trump's power? Even if Democrats win, what can they do? How does it impact the war with Iran and the global trade wars, which have had such an impact on Americans' wallets? To answer these questions, we've assembled four guests. We have Michaela Montgomery. She is a Republican strategist who served as a coalitions director for Donald Trump in 2024. John Furey, he was a congressional staffer for three prominent Republicans in the House of Representatives. Malbert Smith is a Democratic strategist and was the political director for Kamala Harris's presidential campaign in North Carolina. And Eric Hamm, a former Democratic congressional staffer who was also a senior national security advisor in the Senate. Folks, thanks so much for being with me. We have a hugely consequential three days ahead of us before voters head to the ballot box. Many have been voting in droves early in this election, also by mail-in ballot. But we have a lot of issues that we want to get to today. Michaela, I want to start with you in this final weekend of campaigning. Trump ...is heading to both Iowa and Kansas to campaign with Republican candidates there. Why are Republicans struggling to hold on to seats that should be slam dunks? What we're seeing a lot isn't necessarily that we're struggling. It's more so we want to make sure voters know that we see everyone. So, of course, you have your states that you traditionally know are going to lean Republican, i.e. at Kentucky and more times than not in Iowa. And so we don't... But when campaign season comes around, these are also not states that are high on the priority list because these are votes that we pretty much just expect. And so President Trump and the administration, as well as the rest of the Republican Party, want all voters to know that we're paying attention to every state, every issue, every voter, as we're trying to not only make sure we maintain the level of trust that we have, but also gain some trust back that we might have lost. But does it not indicate a weakness if Trump is having to head out there right before the election? No, paying attention to every American, every voter does not show weakness On the Democratic side, here is a president with historically low approval ratings and people feeling like the country is going in the wrong direction. Eric, why is the Democratic Party, in terms of favorability, also underwater? Well, this is a party that is in the political wilderness. They've been there since President Donald Trump won back the presidency in 2024. And we see this with all parties that lose the presidency, struggle to try to find a message, and more importantly, try to galvanize around one particular leader. And so this is, I think, going to be a struggle. That the Democratic Party is going to have until, again, they regain the White House. You have several different leaders in the in the Democratic Party right now. And no one is necessarily listening to one particular person or one particular message, which is why it's so muddled and why they are, in fact, struggling. Not to mention the fact that many of the Senate seats that will determine the balance of power. Are seats that are in deeply red states, states that President Donald Trump won in 2024. Being in the political wilderness, does that also mean that it is lacking a central identity? Absolutely it is. In fact, we saw former President Barack Obama on the trail last week in a battleground state like Michigan. And, of course, many saw that magic. But, unfortunately... Former President Barack Obama is not on the ballot. He is no longer the titular head of the Democratic Party. And right now, what Democrats are attempting to do is try to find someone who can actually lead them out of the wilderness, very similar to what Barack Obama did when he won the presidency back in 2008. Why should Americans in this moment, John, look around, see a country at war, see prices soaring and say, I want more of this. I want to make Donald Trump's task easier with Republicans controlling Congress. Well, it's not that simple. I mean, obviously, there's those two things, but there's also a lot of good things that the president has done. He's really cut off illegal immigration. Crime is at an all-time low. Manufacturing jobs have been coming back substantially. If you look at actually the statistics about who's getting the jobs, it's really blue-collar. Working-class voters are getting most of the jobs. So there's a lot of positive things to say what the president has done The the Iran war was something that you know, obviously it's very debatable whether it was the right time or not But clearly you don't want to be on the side of the Iranian regime because you just saw they just executed a young lady And Iran who was you know, really just trying to express her own opinions It's really outrageous what this Iranian regime has done So defending that is not really a great place for the Democrats And you know, I think that if you look at the prices going up You know, they are not going up that substantially. They certainly have not gone up as quickly as they did during the Biden administration. And, you know, I think that they've been coming down. And, you know, wages have also gone up substantially. So, and if you look at the GDP for the last quarter, 3.4 percent, really amazing how quickly the economy is growing. So, I don't think it's all as bad as people think. We are going to get to affordability. Malley? President Trump, quite frankly, is on a red state desperation tour because he is historically unpopular. And he is historically unpopular because he ran on two central promises, ending inflation on day one and no new wars. And he failed or lied about both of them. When he came into office, inflation was 2.9 percent. It is 3.7 percent now directly because of his policies, illegal tariffs that were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. And he didn't even give the refunds to the American people. He gave them to big businesses, his health care cuts. Which are going to cut folks who are on Medicaid and spike Americans' health insurance premiums. And his war in Iran, a war of choice that we did not need to get into, has led to historic rises in gas and diesel prices. Gas has never been above $4 this long in our country's history, and diesel prices are as high as they've ever been. Sometimes it is hard to show Americans the consequences of your economic actions, but you can... tie a direct line to President Trump's irresponsible policies and the economic hardship Americans are facing right now. Keep in mind, the Democrats, when they were in charge, tried to get rid of all fossil fuels. Gas prices went up substantially during the Democrats. They actually I think it's well worth to try this, because if you want to get jobs back in America, you can't have jobs being exported back to... Since President Trump instituted his tariffs on Liberation Day, we have had essentially net zero job creation Unemployment was 4% when President Biden was elected. It is 4.2% now. What's higher, 4% or 4.2? All right, let's listen to some voters, because there has been one overarching theme to these races all across the states. Here's what Americans told us about the cost of living and how it's shaping their vote. Take a listen. I mean it's definitely the government everything's going up because I mean the war in Iran you know the president it's it's a combination of all the things. It's just too expensive. Very, very expensive, even from two years ago. My family doesn't even go out to restaurants in D.C. anymore because they're just ridiculously expensive at this point, but out of reach. Things have gotten exponentially worse. I mean, they campaigned on no more wars, and then they went to war in Iran. They said, Greg Abbott said gas prices would go down to $2 by the end of summer, and now they're at $4 or a little bit higher than that. So a lot of things that just aren't adding up, and people are frustrated. Eric, I'd like you to respond to something that John was just saying a moment ago, because this is what we hear a lot from Republicans when we talk about the high prices. Under Joe Biden, inflation spiked, grocery prices spiked, gas did as well. What can you point to to say that Democrats understand the economy better? Well, we've already heard from Democratic leaders saying that if they take back control of Congress in the first 100 hours, the first thing that they want to do is actually wrest control from the president and rescind all of those tariffs. This is a key issue that is driving many voters to the poll. We know that right now, tariffs alone are costing American families. Between $1,100 and $1,700 per family. If you look at key battleground states like Michigan, that number skyrockets to $5,600. hundred dollars and so Right now, President Donald Trump is at minus 37 just on the issue of tariffs alone. And so, yes, there were certainly issues of rising inflation under President Biden. But one of the reasons why Donald Trump was so successful in 2024 is because he ran on this issue of being able to tackle that inflation and bring those prices down for Americans. And what we're seeing now is Americans are paying more, not just in terms of self-inflicted wounds that President Donald Trump implemented through tariffs, But also if you look at this war of choice, That's an additional $1,100 per family that they are paying as a result of rising gas prices. So we're seeing where President Donald Trump not only compounded the problem, but he just made it worse. And now there seems to be no end in sight and how far these prices will continue to rise, making it increasingly anxious for many Americans who are struggling just to pay bills. Michigan is, yes, I'm going to let you respond in just a moment, Michaela, but I'm glad that Eric mentioned Michigan. For a number of reasons. It is, of course, a state that borders Canada. I was just up there. I was standing in Detroit on the next to the Ambassador Bridge watching these trucks go back and forth. So it's clear how important that trade is between the two countries and particularly between both sides of the border. We've seen Mike Rogers, the Republican candidate who's locked in a tight race with Abdullah Syed, actually try to distance himself from Donald Trump's trade war, walking a very careful line that I want to get into. So, Michaela, tariffs. Have raised costs. So how do Republicans defend that when they see, among other things, the prices going up at the gas pump? It's amazing to me how Dems have this knack of getting away with misinformation in ways that Republicans could never. So when we look at gas prices, correct, gas has gone up, but not in the way that other people would like for you to think that they have. See, the thing is, every state. governor has the ability to apply a gas tax. And unfortunately, if you guys go look this up right now, the states paying the highest amounts for gas are all blue states because their governors decided to make their citizens pay that much. Additionally, when we're looking at an issue of affordability and things like, or excuse me, job, the job market, I think we're failing to realize how many people voluntarily left the job market and pursued their own businesses. We are now I'm now living in a world unprecedented to anything like this. We have streamers and people are making more money from home than a lot of C-suite people who've worked their whole lives to get to where they are. So to go ahead and say that the numbers that we're seeing now are reflective of just failed Republican policies, if that was the case, especially since we're talking about midterms and local elections, then we wouldn't see so many people moving from blue states to red ones. People don't move from Texas to California. It's the other way around. People don't leave Georgia to go to New York. It's the other way around because people really enjoy what the. economy is like in red states. So when people are going to the polls and they're voting for their mayors and they're voting for their governors, they're thinking about how these local elected officials have impacted their state. And red states Overall, perform better economically than most blue ones. Malley, respond to that, if you will, because we are seeing a lot of Democrats blaming Trump for a number of things, but of course, tariffs foremost among them. What are Democrats for when it comes to economics and bringing these costs? Well, first off, on the blue state, red state comparison, blue states, if you look at the top 10 richest states in our country, they're mostly blue. If you look at the least rich states or the poorest states. They're predominantly red, and most major cities, which are the engines of economic growth, have Democratic mayors. And per capita, more people leave Texas to go to California than California to Texas. So let's put all of that aside. On your question on tariffs and what Democrats will do, there's a few things we can do. First off, we can pass laws to try to stop the president from instituting his tariffs. Now, he can veto them. But we can put him on notice that that is not something we should do. Second, we can try to reverse the Medicaid cuts. The affordability crisis is going to get worse because President Trump has talked about increasing the war in Iran after the midterms. The Medicaid cuts that pay for his big, ugly bill are all set to come in after the midterms. So we can try to reverse those. And then lastly, we can pressure the administration to end the war in Iran, which can help bring down gas and diesel prices. But I think Americans should also know, too, even if we win both the House and the Senate, we will only control half of government. So we will need a partner in Trump to do any of this. John, if voters are blaming Trump for these prices, and I have heard it from Democrats and Republicans alike, in these final three days, is there anything that, you know, Mike Rogers or Roger Marshall in Kansas, where there are a lot of farmers, is there anything that they can say and do in order to make sure that their voters come out and vote for them? Well, the number one thing they could say is what Democrats will focus on is impeachment, impeachment, impeachment and not anything to do with your prices. And the only way to really get prices down is by getting the economy stronger. And being against the Democrats' tax and regulation agenda, which really is what's driving up prices. You know, at this end, this part of the game, this is not a persuasion election. This is a get out the base election. That's why President Trump is going to all these different places, because he wants to get the Republican base out. And, you know, it's looking like it's going to be a bigger turnout election than people thought. So for Republicans, they have to get out. And bigger numbers than they have, otherwise they're going to be in big trouble. It is, especially in midterm years, all about the enthusiasm. People aren't being driven out to go vote for a president. So that's why Donald Trump has kept saying, pretend that I'm on the ballot. So, Michaela, are you sensing genuine enthusiasm among Republicans to get out there? I am, especially when we look at the wins that actually have been delivered by this administration. When we talk about agriculture and we think about the Big Beautiful Bill, nobody's talking about the fact that Trump went ahead and gave every state $1 billion as a part of the rural health care transformation so that people in these rural and poor areas could have access to the health care that Dems claim we don't care about. I also, when you talked about the trade between us and Canada and how important it is, When we have this conversation about expanding Medicaid or healthcare, I find it incredible how nobody ever brings up the example of Canada and the fact that it takes nine months to get a doctor's appointment. You will be dead by the time the doctor can see you. The baby will be born by the time you can get a gynecologist appointment. And for whatever reason, Democrats are pushing that this is the life people want when, in fact, the health care system that we have now could use some reforms. We'll go ahead and admit that. But acting like free health care for all is the solution and selling people on that dream. I think more people than Dems realize. I understand that that's not actually plausible, and that's why they're not seeing as much genuine excitement from their side. On our side, I can say that it's a bit different. But also, too, while this is certainly, as John mentioned, a get-out-to-vote election, most off-year elections are, it's always a struggle trying to get your people to the polls. What we are seeing, the issues that are driving people to the polls is... The economy, but what's eclipsing even the economy is the issue of corruption. And if we look at what people are actually doing right now, there's a spirited number of people who are going to the polls. If you take a state like Florida, in Florida, registered Republicans outnumber Democrats. But yet, when we look at the early vote totals right now. It is Democrats that are actually plus nine. If you take a state like Michigan, I've heard from the Secretary of State there saying in Southeast Michigan, in the Detroit area, which is going to certainly determine who wins in that state, they are seeing record turnouts in the Detroit area, which could bode well for Democrats. Georgia, we have seen black voters who in early voting, their numbers have surpassed 30% every single day of early voting. And so when we talk about We're going to have a spirited debate, get out to vote. What we're seeing is Democrats are actually turning out their numbers, and it's going to be a challenge for Republicans to actually match that enthusiasm on Election Day, because what we're seeing right now is Democrats are not only matching the voter turnout in terms of registration, but they're also doing it in a way that's going to make it much, much harder. For Republicans to actually surpass these numbers on the day of how much are Democrats banking on Republicans saying something like these prices are too high? Things are too corrupt. I'm going to go out and vote for the Democrat versus throwing up their hands and just staying on the couch on Election Day. I think it's a little bit of both. I also think you see it. It's state specific. I think in states like Texas where you have A Republican nominee who is incredibly scandal-plagued, Ken Paxton, I think you're going to see more Republicans go and vote, and maybe they don't vote for Ken Paxton, they leave that blank, or they vote for the Libertarian third-party candidate. But I think the reason Republicans are in trouble across the map is, first off, you've seen historic Democratic turnout, which you've talked about, among African-Americans, Hispanics, young voters. You see independents, at least according to the polls. Breaking heavily towards the Democrats, and you see Republicans not as enthused. So if you have one party's base turning out and independents breaking for them and then the other party's base not, that's a recipe for a pretty bad loss. Now, mind you, we should all have the caveat it's early voting data. We'll see what the electorate looks like on Election Day. But Republicans are in a hole going into Tuesday. Let's talk about candidates briefly, John, because and I think Texas is a good example, North Carolina as well. So we have Ken Paxton, who, thanks to Trump, defeated John Cornyn, the longtime incumbent Texas senator. Now, there's conventional wisdom that says that Cornyn could have won this Senate seat against the Democrat James Talarico. So candidate choice is very important in North Carolina, where the Democrat is is likely going to win Roy Cooper. If Tom Tillis hadn't run afoul of Donald Trump and stayed in the Senate, he might have been able to keep that Senate seat red. So has Donald Trump weakened Republicans' chances in this election? Yeah, I would. Your premise on the first point, Ken Paxton versus John Cornyn. And he'd go, God. Paxton won that race not because of President Trump. He won it because he was seeing it by the voters of Texas as far more conservative, even though Cornyn had a lot more money and spent a lot of money bashing Paxton, which is why Paxton's having a hard time in this election. I think he's going to win, but I think it's going to be a lot tighter. And the Democrats did a very good job with Roy Cooper. Pretty well-known governor, someone who's had been seen as a centrist. Michael Waltman really never got the resources he needed to kind of put poke holes in that record. And so I think that that was always going to be a struggle. I think it's still going to be very tough for Republicans to win that. But, you know, you have the same issue with Democrats. They nominated Abu Sayyed and El-Sayed in Michigan, and I think he's a very flawed candidate. And there's a big, deep divide with the Democratic Party in Michigan. And then you have Peggy Flanagan in Michigan. In Minnesota, he's extremely left-wing and is running into trouble with Michelle DeFoya. So, listen, I think candidates always matter in elections. And it's always woulda, coulda, shoulda. I wish we would have had this perfect candidate. But the voters do decide. In primary elections, the voters do decide. And I like Tom Tillis, you know. But, you know, he could have won again. But his last election that he won, first election especially, was extremely close. And the only reason he won that election was because of a breaking scandal from his opponent. You know, you never know what's going to happen. I mean, clearly, North Carolina is a state that is most usually Republican when it comes to the senators, but is often Democrats run the governor's race. So, you know, we'll see what happens. Yeah, I was in North Carolina a couple of weeks ago and asked a bunch of Republicans how they felt about Donald Trump visiting and campaigning for Michael Waltman. And they were very torn, even though they were supporters of the president. We also asked voters a harder question. How much they actually trust either party to deliver. Here's what they said. Now the system is definitely run and controlled by people with the most money, and those aren't the only voices that matter. There's no faith or credibility left in any establishment whatsoever. You know, they get their votes up, but it seems like they root for the same team. I feel like there is not genuine communication between governance and the folks that are governing. And the population is filtering through too much entertainment and media. People are elected and, you know, we put them in there and you have to trust that they are doing what they need to do. I think we've reached a place where politics is more about the interests of the politician and not the needs of the people. Mally, we now have 45 percent of the American electorate calling themselves independent. That is a record high. What does that say about the party's... I think we're in an interesting political moment because we are a very divided country and more and more people self-sort themselves into their political party. And there is quite truthfully less undecided voters and less voters who swing from election to election. Yet, if you ask people if they identify with either political party or if they approve of either political party. We have record high numbers saying, no, I don't approve of either party. So we're in this strange moment where Americans say they don't like either party, but they usually tend to vote for one party over the other pretty consistently. And I think that's because, like, if you look at Democratic approval rating of the Democratic Party, it's pretty low. And that's because you have a lot of people who are Democrats saying, yeah, I'm a Democrat, but I disapprove of the party. I don't see how we get out of that because I think. All leaders, to some extent, have created problems with trust in institutions. But I think one thing Democrats have to do, and I would say Republicans as well, is as much as we like to attack the other party, is present a positive agenda of what we want to do going forward. But that's tough in this environment. But then if you take a state like Florida, it's going to be those independents and those non-affiliated voters that are actually going to determine who actually wins in that state. Because when you look at the numbers in the state of Florida alone right now, while Democrats are doing gangbusters in terms of turnout and voting, it is still very much those independents and those non-affiliated voters that are actually going to tip the scales. Because what you're seeing right now is a 40 is a 40. 41 versus 40 percent in terms of turnout between Democrats and Republicans. And now everyone is looking at what those independents and those non-affiliated voters are going to do. The same holds actually for Texas. So whichever way the ballot swings, it's going to be non-affiliated voters and independent voters that will actually determine who actually controls Congress. But to Mally's point, Eric, how much do you think they actually are? In their minds, unaffiliated and truly independent. Oh, I think I think it's mostly just a name only. I think when you when they go into the polls and the way they vote, that determines whether or not they actually lean either, even though they don't actually hold the title itself of Republican or Democrat. But nevertheless, we are seeing with competitive races in Texas, in Florida and Kansas. I think that is making clear where people stand. I don't think that's the right thing to do, but I think that's the right thing to do. Michaela, what about what voters actually want? Because they say that they don't want division. They don't want negativity. They want to see people being more proactive and positive. But as Mally just mentioned, they also want to see aggressive candidates. Punching back at the other side. So which is it? Unfortunately, political theater has become just that and that's political theater and social media has exacerbated the issue in ways that I don't think we're prepared to combat. Unfortunately, you'll have people who will say, I wish our politicians just got along. But during the Obama and Mitt Romney era, when they really were amicable towards each other, nobody cared, you know. And then once you enter the political theater that we're in now and people are fighting and name calling and digging up. All kinds of dirt from people's background, now all of a sudden, All the discourse online, all the discourse at work, all the discourse at school is around politics, and we've never seen this before. I also feel like both sides are ignoring the fact that there's so much information coming from all these different channels that voter apathy is going to continue to be a problem that's harder to combat because these people are confused. They don't know who's who, what's what, who believes in what, and we're also ignoring the fact that a lot of our average voters are single-issue voters. that really matters to them, and that determines the choice that they make when they're in that ballot, when they're, you know, at the polling location. And so with that, somebody might not be for abortion, but they also might not be for or they might be all right with migration in the way that, you know, the other side says that it should be handled. You know what I mean? So we have to address the fact that some people, there's just too much On both sides for people to be able to say everything over here I agree with, everything over here I agree with, no matter what, there's going to be something on both sides that people agree with. Do you see it as a both sides issue, Mellie? Yeah, I mean, I would say also, too, one thing that worries me about our politics as well is I think social media algorithms do us no favor because it promotes conflict. Just as like a personal example, I take clips from when I do political arguments on shows, and any time I post a clip where it's a heated argument, it gets a lot of views. But if I post a clip of any time of me saying like, hey, I think you made a good point there, that doesn't really get views. So I think there's a social media problem where Twitter, Facebook, They, and partially it's what people want to see, I guess, but like those things of vicious arguments get attention while compromise or finding common ground does not. But John, how do you pull back from this hyper-partisanship when There's so much information out there. There's so many cameras out there. And there is a need for these candidates and politicians to be aggressive and be out there and be visible. Is there any way to come back from that? I don't know. I mean, maybe have politicians who try to. Be bipartisan and reach out. But it's very difficult to do that, especially reaching out in an election. Listen, I think what most voters want is they want more control over their lives. They want to be able to go to good schools. They want to be able to go to a good job that they can trust. They want to be able to take care of their kids. They want to have a bright future. And they want more control over that. But, you know, with society is rapidly changing. And, you know, with A.I. and the data centers and people are scared of the future. They're not really... I think this is the biggest challenge that all politicians have. When the elections, they try to scare voters, but almost no politician tries to reassure voters. The voters are kind of very much responding to what they hear from political leaders on both sides. And none of that is very reassuring. So you have this rise of independents who don't really trust either Republicans or Democrats, although they lean one way or the other. And if they go in the ballot box, they will consistently vote one way or the other. But the real problem is that a lot of these unaffiliated voters just won't vote at all or just give up on the political process. This is the biggest challenge for politicians. But just to push back a little bit on the on the both sides issue, I mean, Trump is a unique figure. And in terms of trust in political parties, Michaela, here you have a president and therefore many members of his party who don't want to cross him, who can't even admit who won the 2020 election. So why should people put that trust in the Republican Party? Because, once again, this is the midterms and we're looking at our local elected officials and your Brian Kemp is not President Trump. Your Byron Donalds is not President Trump. Your Ken Paxton is not President Trump. And so once we stop aligning the political party with whoever the candidate is at the time and we focus more on what the value system is and what the goals is we're trying to achieve and not who it is we're fighting with and how we need to defeat them, That's when we'll see more people come out of this state of confusion and really be able to articulate what it is that they're looking for. Because right now, I don't think too many people can tell you why they wouldn't trust something or why they disprove of something. Because like I said, so much information is coming to them in every direction. People don't know what to believe. So it's hard for any of us to really come up with a strategy to combat that because we're not everyone's algorithm. Eric, do you think it is fair for Democrats to have tied all of these Republican candidates as closely as they have to Donald Trump, when, as Michaela says, so much of it is at the local level, at the state level, and candidates are different from state to state, and yet it seems that the easiest thing for Democrats to go to is just to say, hey, that's a member of Donald Trump's party. Well, I don't think you can have it both ways. As you said, there are many candidates who cower of Donald Trump, many Republicans. And so we have seen Donald Trump continues to control his party with an iron grip. And when he what he says, they do. And so the party is very much in the image of President Donald Trump. So I think it's fair. For Democrats to tie many of these candidates to the president, we've only seen in the 11th hour candidates like Mike Rogers who are now trying to distance themselves from President Donald Trump's policies, particularly on tariffs, because they're so unpopular and they're recognizing how much of an impact it's having on voters who are actually going to the polls. So, again, I think it's important for candidates to establish an identity, but what we have seen in the era of Donald Trump. Donald Trump, above all, values loyalty, not independence, particularly for those who are in the Republican Party. Go ahead, Malik. Can I also jump off that? I would say Republicans only have themselves to blame for being seen as directly tied to Trump. President Trump, at his midterm convention, where many of these Republican candidates were at, made them all do a loyalty pledge, not to the United States, but a pledge to Trump himself. Michael Whatley, in my home state of North Carolina, when asked why he was running for the Senate, he said, because President Trump told me to. We have Darlene Graham, who is only in there and has pretty much zero qualifications to be a United States senator, because President Trump endorsed her. And all of these people, if they've been in Congress, have voted to cut people's health care, have voted against reigning in the president when it comes to Iran, have voted to protect his authority on tariffs. So, yes. A vote for any of these people is a vote for Trump. Democrats do the same thing, and they don't get half the flack that Republicans get for it. When Obama was in office, when Biden was in office, whatever they said to do, whether it was even signed by Biden or the auto pen, Democrats did it. And yet because we have a party that tries to work together and stay in alignment with one another so we're not confusing our base, all of a sudden now it's, oh, God, you guys are the party of Donald Trump. Donald Trump is on his way out. So everybody you guys are about to elect is not a Donald Trump clone. This is somebody who's going to... But continue to prevail in conservatism and not MAGA-ism. And I just I don't get why we don't believe that just because somebody doesn't like a candidate means that they have to leave the party. I miss when Obama made people pledge allegiance to him, though. But that we pledged allegiance in school all day and we don't see people loving America today. Not to repeat myself, but, you know, he is going around the country saying pretend that I'm on the ballot. So that I mean, he clearly wants to tie himself to these candidates. John party disciplines. Really important part of making the party run. So I think the idea that, I mean, you didn't have to do a pledge to Obama because everyone loved Obama on the Democratic side. You know, and I think with President Trump, people love President Trump. And if the fact is that. If you're running a congressional majority and in the leadership, you really need to have discipline, especially when it's a tight margin. Otherwise, you're not going to get anything done. It's very difficult, unfortunately, in the politics to get really bipartisan victories because there's so much vitriol in politics these days, even on some really important items. Like we're going to have to take on Social Security reform. We're going to have to take on entitlement reform. The only way we're going to do that. I think we're going to have to do that. I think we're going to have to do that. I think we're going to have to do that. I think we're going to have to do that. I think we're going to have to do that. I think we're going to have to do that. I think we're going to have to do that. I think we're going to have to do that. I think we're going to have to do that. I think we're going to have to do that. I think we're going to have to do that. I think we're going to have to do that. I think we're going to have to do that. I think we're going to have to do that. I think we're going to have to As the Democrats attempt to flip seats and take back the majority in the House of Representatives. Our Chris Minzalumi has more. Here lies the village of Sleepy Hollow, made famous by Washington Irving's classic horror story of the Headless Horseman. It's at the center of New York's 17th congressional district in a fiercely fought political battle. Tourists flock here for Halloween, but this year local shopkeepers are haunted by a frightening reality. Ah! brutal cost of living squeeze. All of our chamber members, we have 253. They're all small businesses, so they probably feel the pain a lot more than the big box kind of retailers. So from them, I definitely hear it. That nightmare is weighing on many local voters ahead of Tuesday's midterm elections. The fact that people can't afford to pay for gas and groceries is difficult. But not everyone here is so scared by the economy. I know the war is a big thing in Iran right now, and a lot of people are thinking about that. I would like to see it all come to a conclusion one way or the other, and I think the economic problems are going to solve themselves once it does. Sleepy Hollow is part of a suburban swing district just north of New York City. For the last four years, it's been represented by a Republican in the House of Representatives, and as an incumbent, he should have a huge advantage in the midterm elections come Tuesday. But there are signs local voters are spooked. Party leaders and funding have poured into the district, with Democrats attempting to tie Republican incumbent Mike Lawler to an increasingly unpopular president. I don't like that he votes with Trump almost all the time, and I don't, that's not acceptable to me. Conley even backs raising taxes on families. Similarly, Republicans have sought to link Democrat Kate Conley, an Army veteran and political newcomer, to the far left of her party. Kate Conley, the socialist's choice for Congress. I worked hard all my life, so I don't know, I'm just going to go Republican. Both candidates present themselves as bipartisan moderates, even as each stokes voters' fears about the other. Kristen Salumi, Al Jazeera, Sleepy Hollow, New York. There are big questions about identity crises, if you will, in both parties and something that Republicans have attacked Democrats over are their ties to socialism, how progressive or not they have become. Mally, do you think Democrats would have a better shot with moderate candidates versus progressive candidates when Republicans are trying to seize that argument, are trying to basically tie every Democratic candidate to the Democratic Socialists of America? Yes and no. Yes in that... I think if you're in a swing district or in a swing state, dominating a Democratic Socialist is not going to help you. I'm from North Carolina, and one of the reasons we look great in the Senate is we have Governor Roy Cooper, who's never lost an election, and people don't see him as a national Democrat. They definitely don't see him as a Democratic Socialist. They see him as a North Carolina Democrat, and that's able to make him seem more moderate and common sense. It makes sense. On the Democratic Socialist front, though, I would say I think Republicans have really tried to tie some of these other elected officials to people who are not even running in that race, like trying to make Mamdani an issue in Texas or trying to make some of those DSA candidates in New York who have won primaries issues in Kansas. And I think that's a little tough when you have candidates on the ballot. who don't seem anything like those DSA candidates. As much as they might try, Adam Hamilton in Kansas is not Mamdani. And it also doesn't help that President Trump seems to have a bromance with Mamdani. But so, yes, don't nominate them in swing districts, but I don't think it's as powerful as Republicans think it is. Eric, I see you nodding along. Yeah, if you take states where — that are going to shape the balance, states like It's like Alaska, Texas. Iowa. What you're saying from Democrats is they have put up middle of the road candidates that are actually doing very, very well in largely Republican and traditionally conservative areas. James Talarico in Texas, based on polling data, has led throughout this campaign. And until we saw this last latest influx of money from Republicans, he was even able to outraise Ken Paxton there. Ohio, former Senator Sherrod Brown. He was someone who has always been able to speak to both sides, to middle of the road voters in that state. He's very competitive there. And so I think if you take out an Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, what we're seeing here is Democrats have done very, very well in actually identifying candidates who can speak to voters, who can speak to voter angst. And I think that is why we're seeing them so competitive in places where Democrats have never been able to actually win. And Angie Nixon in Florida. Thank you, Korda. Do you think it is unfair, John, for Republicans to sort of paint these Democrats with this broad brush of socialism when, to Eric's point, so many of the main Democratic candidates are not even close to those positions? Listen, it's a political election. There's nothing that's unfair. I mean, you get tarred with whatever you're running against, whatever party you've got. I want to make two quick observations about that particular video. Mike Lawler has done two things that's going to help him very much. much. One, he has been very pro-Israel, and there's a lot of Orthodox Jews who live in I think that Lawler is the type of person who's going to be able to distinguish himself from President Trump because he's somebody who's actually done things and been a good congressman. And this goes back to the whole idea of being an effective, to your point about Roy Cooper. If you've been an effective leader, your constituents are going to, they're really going to support you. If you've been someone who's just been gone with the wind and not really done stuff, broke some china on behalf of your constituents, you're not going to win. In terms of the fairness question, now Democrats are in the hot seat in Alaska, which is a very hotly contested race, a big surprise in this cycle. Eric, do you think that if Mary Peltola beats Dan Sullivan after her campaign allegedly encouraged a second unrelated Dan Sullivan to run, that there should be some consequences? Shouldn't Republicans have the right to challenge that victory? Well, again, this is... The Republican is trying to have it both ways because this is the whole point of ranked choice voting in Alaska. Where you can actually rank the candidates and that should be able to, that is supposed to be able to address the issue of easily identifiable candidates through the ranked choice. This is why it was actually put in place. But one other issue that we haven't talked about, which is very striking, is how we have seen gerrymandering take place leading up to this election. And that was supposed to give Republicans an enormous headwind in these elections. And we saw it, of course, in places like Texas and Tennessee. Where you had many of these districts redrawn. And so that was supposed to be their waterloo. That was supposed to be their firewall. But what we're seeing here is it just hasn't really panned out the way they like. In fact, there was supposed to be a net gain of at least five seats for Republicans. But what we're seeing now is that has been wiped out. Largely because of many of the policies that President Donald Trump has orchestrated. I'm from Illinois. I can tell you, no one does gerrymandering better than Democrats. And if you look at what California... No one's done better in gerrymandering than what's happened. I think Texas might have something to say about that. I don't know. I think we'll see what happens. I think they've got a little bit over their skis on what happened in Texas. We might lose a couple of those seats. I also make the point that ranked choice voting is why there's a problem with Dan Sullivan. I mean, this is what... This is why you need a party representing the real candidates. And this whole thing with Mary Peltola, it's going to hurt her because she looks totally disingenuous. She's obviously lying and it's dirty tricks at an nth level. So I do think it's going to be I think there's going to be some sort of protest if she wins, which I don't think she's going to. But but, John, is is dirty illegal? I think in this case it is illegal, yes. Well, you know, that's what the courts can decide, but I do think it's illegal. I'm not a fan of it. I don't think it should have happened. But with that being said, the Alaska Republicans ran something, another Democrat against Peltola who was in jail, and it was another Democrat, simply to get votes, siphon votes from her when she was running for the House. So putting people on the ballot and trying to confuse them is something both parties play. It wasn't the same name, though. But let's be clear, too. Two, if Mary Peltola wins, Republicans cannot block certification of a duly elected official because there were quote unquote dirty tricks they didn't like. If the votes are cast by legal Americans who are here and all of their votes are legitimate, Governor Dunleavy, like he said, cannot do anything to block certification. Trump can't do anything to block certification. And people should not be intimidated by Republicans' attempts to subvert the outcomes of elections. I do want to jump ahead to Iran and foreign policy in just a moment, but Eric, I saw you wanted to get in there. Well, we're talking about dirty tricks. We have a Department of Justice that has raided the home of a sitting member of Congress just weeks before the election. We have seen other investigations or the DOJ actually going after members to try to intimidate people. We have seen ICE agents on the ground. So I think we have seen the waters muddied throughout this election cycle. And I think it's This is something that certainly needs to be cleaned up, but nevertheless, this is, I think, again, the game that is being played on the footing of Republicans. This whole issue of gerrymandering, that was not something that was orchestrated by Democrats. It was Democrats who were actually responding, and it was President Donald Trump who said that we are owed this, but that is not how elections operate. It is the people themselves who... But we have seen from the beginning of this election cycle, Republicans trying to place their fingers on the scale to actually tip this election in their balance, and it simply has not worked for them. Michaela, your response? gerrymandering was simply something for us and that we did it to try and cheat in an election then when it came out to be something that benefited democrats if you guys were truly the people of integrity that you claim to be then you guys would redraw those districts right back to where they were but that's not what happened so we're going to talk about corrupt and being let's make sure we address the fact that clearly both parties are okay with doing things that benefit both parties definitely gerrymander i will give you that but Democrats have supported reforms, a national gerrymandering reform, an H.R.1, which Republicans don't want to support. So here's the thing. I am not going to have my party unilaterally disarmed because we think gerrymandering should stop while you guys are doing it. I would always say that you guys are better at gerrymandering, and I'm from Illinois. I can tell you exactly the lines that were drawn to make sure there's only three Republicans, not the eight Republicans when I was there. I'm from North Carolina, one of the most gerrymandered states in the country. Yeah, we did a pretty good job there, actually. As I was about to say, we... As somebody who works for Trump, I also think it's important to know that when we read the Not often you hear that you are better is actually an insult. All right, folks, I do want to move along. We wanted to know how much the world beyond America's borders, wars, trade... We're going to have to wait and see what happens. We're going to have to wait and The problem with Canada is for so long we've ran up such see what happens. We're going to have to wait and see what happens. We're going to have to wait and a deficit to them and they tax see what happens. We're going to have to wait and our dairy products and a lot of our stuff 400 percent see what happens. We're going to have to wait and see what happens. We're going to have to wait and and all we want is a level trading see what happens. We're going to have to wait and thing and we've tried that for years see what happens. We're going to have to wait and see what happens. and Trump gets in and he's a man of money and he knows how to do fair deals. This illegal, unethical, violent, immoral war in Iran, a war of choice with co-sponsored by Israel. Um, it's influencing a lot of people's choice. So the Iran war, nah, that, nah, it's not, it's not having an effect, no. Do you feel that the... My vote was already in. Which I'm not going to say who I'm going to vote for. I don't like Trump and what he's been doing in terms of foreign policy, for instance. I mean, he's, he seems like he's for the dictators like Putin. Just to push back on that gentleman who said that the Iran war is not a factor, I would just argue that there are a lot more Americans who know what the Strait of Hormuz is versus when they did on February 28th. John, there is some public reporting. We also heard from Senator Murphy who said that they've been briefed on some more plans for after the midterms. So Trump is believed to be readying strikes against Iran. Big question whether Israel will be involved in that. If the plan is for after the midterms, isn't that just a tacit acknowledgement that this is A politically unpopular war and that it's not what the Americans want. Yeah, I mean, listen, I'm not going to defend the Iran war as a political winner for the Republicans because I don't think it has. I think it's also increased gas prices in a way that's been, you know, it's something that the voters don't really like. That being said, I don't think it's the number one reason why people are going to be voting in this election. I think they're going to be voting either because they like President Trump or they hate President Trump. And that's that's the prism for which this is this election is going to happen. You know, I think the president... Has tried to take out a regime that is a terrible regime that continues to do terrible things and really should be replaced. It's awfully hard to do that, though. And I think that, you know, yeah, he he would. I think ultimately he would like to get some sort of deal with the Iranians. But it's awfully hard to get deals with these people because they are. They don't like to negotiate in the way we want to negotiate, and they don't want to give up their regime, and that's a terrible regime. I'm not going to defend the politics of it, but I understand why Trump did it. In terms of the Israeli angle, because this has become a huge factor in the discussion on both sides, and specifically in the Michigan race. So let me ask you, Eric, support for Israel is one of the attack lines that Rogers is using against Abdullah Syed. But even after these midterms, this discussion is going to continue. It's going to be a very difficult one for Democrats. Is this division only going to get deeper within the Democratic Party as we look towards 2028? Absolutely, it is. And quite frankly, even if Democrats win and win big on Tuesday, I think this is an issue that could literally blow up the entire party. We saw some of this play out and why Kamala Harris wasn't successful in her run for the presidency in 2024. And we're still not only seeing it lingering now, but you're seeing those divisions play out openly. Even some of those DSA members who won in New York have already made made clear they will not support Hakeem Jeffries, if he is to become the speaker of the House. And so this is this is still a fight that is that is playing out. And right now you have Abdul El-Saeed and his primary opponent, Haley Stevens, in a back and forth with just days before the election in Michigan. And right now, I think this is a fight that is that could bring down the party. It could cost him that seat in Michigan. costing them power in Washington, and I think until the Democrats actually figure this out, this is going to be a problem in how the landscape of 2028 actually comes together. John just laid out the very many ways in which this Iran war is a quagmire, you know, short of walking away and admitting defeat. It's really hard to see how this war ends. So, Michaela, support even among Republicans is dropping for this war. After these midterms, Trump will technically be a lame duck. Do you expect Republicans to step up their efforts to try to pressure Trump to find an end to this war? Absolutely. And with Trump being on his way out, I don't see any reason for him to not want to unite the party, especially for whoever is going to take his place in 2028. So I think that since this is such a hot button issue, not just for voters, but for our legislators as well, they would have no other option outside of, you know, after the midterms. to solely focus on this issue that was greatly affecting how people voted in the midterms in the first place. So, Malley, whether it's the war in Iran, the trade war, the tariffs, in the best case scenario, Democrats take both the House and the Senate. But you have veto power at the White House. So what can Democrats actually do in terms of legislation to combat those issues that they are really putting front and center in these midterms? I mean, I think a lot of it is going to be messaging where we are going to pass bills to say, hey, if we were in charge, we would reverse these Medicaid cuts, but Trump will veto them. I do think there is a slim possibility that Trump as a lame duck with a Democratic Congress, they might be able to get a deal on some of these issues that they might not would have be able to get with a traditional Republican. I think Trump is more willing to be dealmaker than a lot of Republicans would be. So it wouldn't surprise me if we find some surprising areas of common ground. But I think the real battle is going to be, let's say the war stays where it's at or it ramps up. In a month or two or three, when we get to the next government funding battle, the battle will be, should we fund the government? While this war is ongoing, or will Democrats try to pass some sort of bill to cut the funding? All right. Well, we have to go. Unfortunately, there's a lot more to discuss. I'm not saying goodbye because I know all of you are going to be sticking around for the next few days. We're going to have a very exciting, interesting and probably late night on Tuesday night. So I want to thank all of my guests for a really terrific discussion. Thank you. And so much is now coming down to the wire. Just three days to go. Clearly a lot still to decide. But for now, from all of us here in Washington, thank you for watching.