Mehdi Hasan on Trump's midterms disaster | The News Agents

He is the reason they lost this election. He is the reason they did so badly. Everything goes back to Iran. The oil prices, the betrayed promise. Does he really care? It's not like he had much of a domestic agenda anyway. He will care if he gets impeached. He's Marie Antoinette. I mean, he's in his pure Marie Antoinette period. He makes Marie Antoinette look like Mother Teresa. You'll have no objections to me on Tallarico. I'm a fan. Tallarico could be a presidential contender in 28 if he wanted it. Is Vance the big loser? He is a big loser in general. Sorry, I couldn't resist. The News Agents podcast is brought to you by HSBC UK. Opening up a world of opportunity. This is a global production. When I was standing on this balcony two years ago overlooking the White House in Washington D.C. during the 2024 presidential election. It felt as if there had been a transformation of American politics, a reordering of American politics. People were talking about a realignment in American politics. Trump and MAGA were hegemonic, all powerful. Trump seemed king of all he surveyed. In fact, people started calling him a king, saying that there might never be a fair and free election in America again. Well, they were wrong about that. And we were wrong that there was a realignment, a permanent reordering of things, as is often the case in American democracy. It always retains its ability to confound and surprise. The Democrats are coming back to Washington in January. We will move from a Congress which has been among the most supine in the history of the American Republic to a Congress which will probably make Donald Trump and the Republicans' lives a daily political hell. What does this all mean for the politics of America in the next two years, the final two years of the Trump presidency? And what will it mean for the 2028 presidential election? One that I think it's fair to say is shaping up to be a blockbuster. Well, who better to turn to than Mehdi Hassan, the founder of Zeteo and Zeteo UK, the British-American journalist based in the United States. I think it's fair to say that he has some strong, characteristically strong views. With what the Democrats should do with their new power. Welcome to the News Agents. The News Agents. Well, Mehdi, welcome back to the News Agents. Great to be here. I think we spoke about sort of a year or so ago, and it still felt there. I mean, MAGA still felt hegemonic. Did he just throw it all away, or was it always bound to unwind, do you think? It was definitely bound to unwind because Donald Trump is Donald Trump. And to quote Rick Wilson, everything he touches dies. And that's always been the case with Trump and first term Trump, second term Trump. Obviously, any president in the midterms does badly. I mean, Joe Biden did all right, but most presidents do badly. So all of those structural things, they were always going to kick in. It was always going to unwind. There was always going to be a public backlash in the midterms. Having said that, did he throw it away on top of all that? Sure. Did he throw away quite a golden inheritance that he got? And also because, I mean, we were talking at the time, right, or everyone was talking at the time, about the possibility of a proper realignment, right? And it kind of went that way. They were bragging about having a new coalition of voters, of young people, of Latinos. That's all gone this week, as some of us warned it would, based on the policies. They were bragging about being the people who had dominance on the domestic scene. You had big tech. Cultural vibes. Big tech, big universities, big law, all rolling over for Donald Trump. Trump was just bragging a few weeks ago that, you know, in the old days, I couldn't get the Google guy on the phone. Now I call them and they change maps for me. Well, that all changed this week. And of course, the big one is Iran, right? All roads lead back to Iran. You know, you don't want to say this in a weird way, but liberals on the left of the United States, this will be spun badly. I don't know why I'm even saying it. But like the Iranian government helped deliver this result. Had Iran just rolled over and been defeated a few months ago? Trump would be in a very strong position today, but they didn't. The war was a disaster, as many of us warned it would be. The Iranians themselves held out for the midterms. U.S. intelligence reported the Iranians had an eye on November. They were holding out because they knew it would damage Trump. And it has. Everything goes back to Iran. The oil prices, the betrayed promise, etc. Do you think that in terms of what Trump does now, do you think he cares? I mean, and this is a sort of weird question, right? Because you think an incumbent president, of course, they'll care if their party sort of You know, it takes an absolute shellacking, as Obama famously said, of his performance in 2010. Does he really care? It's not like he had much of a domestic agenda anyway. It all went into the big, beautiful bill. That was ages ago. Congress was doing very little. Does he really care? I think he cares on two levels. Number one, he cares because he's a very bad loser, as we know. There's reporting that he sat in the dark with Natalie Harp, his human printer, watching the results coming in. That's all I said. Human printer in the dark. That's the reporting, believe it or not. Clearly, it bothered him. You heard him on Fox on the night. He was in a very... The tone was very different. You know what I like? You know what I like? How he instantly went to, yeah, they... They've done very badly. They said I was on the ballot. Had I been on the ballot, we'd have done better. The problem is he is the one who undermined them, right? They lost because of him. It's an awful party, but they were dragged down by a president. On the eve of voting, he was talking about a reflecting pool here in D.C. That was his last sell. He was talking about ballrooms. And you say, does he care? I'll tell you what, though. He will care if he gets impeached now. I think it's unlikely he gets impeached, especially the noises we're hearing from usual figures in the Democratic leadership. But he'll definitely care if they come after him and his family personally for their graft, for their alleged corruption. Presumably he'll just issue a load of pardons almost immediately now, right? That won't stop investigations. But yes, Elon Musk is definitely angling for a pardon, I'm sure, this week. Where do you think this puts his power now, his currency within the Republican Party? Because obviously his great strength politically over 10 years now has been that absolute sort of ironclad grip on the Republican Party, his endorsements, his ability to primary people or to make sure that people lost the nomination at any given moment. But this is the first time it seems to me that MAGA has been properly repudiated. I mean, actually, every other election. He's tended to overperform, even when he lost the election in 2020. It didn't feel like a repudiation of him because he did better. And it was pandemic, right? And it was pandemic, exactly. He'd probably have won without it. Does the fact that this is the biggest repudiation of him... Does it start to loosen his power on the Republican Party? But of course, he will spin it as not a repudiation of him, right? Going forward, as will his people. Everyone will know that the emperor has no clothes. It's definitely a moment for anti-Trump forces to coalesce, have that momentum, have that confidence. Because a lot of what we saw last year, you talk about hegemonic. It wasn't just that he was in a powerful position. It was his opponents were just so on the ropes. We're so beaten down. Your Democrats just have no energy. I remember listening to Kim Jeffrey saying last year, well, we've got no leverage. We don't control anything. What can we do? And that's now gone, right? They control two chambers. They control a bunch of state governments, by the way. The number of governors now. 75% of the American population will be living under a Democrat. Big change, because even when Democrats are doing well federally, they were not doing well in the state. And it's across the board. I mean, in Texas, they won state Supreme Court justice seats. So there was a dominance across the board, and that will restrict his abilities. My worry, of course, is that he would just... Tune out of domestic politics and say, you know what? Well, as every president in their lamed up period, I have a lot of freedom abroad and I'm still worried about Iran. I know J.D. Vance has put out this statement this week saying, well, Iran cost us votes. It's classic J.D. Vance poster. I'm just a commentator. Not that I'm the vice president in the administration that attacked Iran illegally, but my worry is that he looks abroad and says, "Well, I can" do whatever I want abroad because that's where Congress can't really restrict the president. A lot of freedom in foreign policy. Obama used his last two years. In office to do good things abroad, the Cuba reopening, the Iran nuclear deal, Paris. Trump could do it to do some real damage on the international stage. He's got the authority. I mean, he's obviously got the power because he's the president. But Congress can still try and defund parts of the Defense Department. And also his authority within the Republican Party. Yeah, you have more confidence in Democratic leadership in Congress than I do. I mean, they've got an opportunity in December to defund the war, and Chuck Schumer's not taking it. He said, we'll do it in the new year. When we take control. No, no, you can do stuff now. A lot of people in the Democratic Party are quite hawkish themselves. They don't want to look weak on defense. Donald Trump could just ignore. He's ignored the War Powers Resolution that went against him this year. There's a lot of stuff he can do. I think the people who are really upset about these results are people like Stephen Miller. Who actually do have an ambitious domestic policy agenda. Deputy Chief of Staff, de facto shadow prime minister. He's the guy really running the domestic agenda. They have grand plans for transforming this country, for making America great again, slash white again. And I think for those people, I think they're going to struggle because they don't have that power base in Congress. And look, Trump is the reason we have to keep saying this in these media programs. People like me have to keep pointing out. He is the reason they lost this election. He is the reason they did so badly. He forced out Tom Tillis. And left a vacancy in North Carolina for Roy Cooper to fill. He picked Ken Paxton over John Cornyn, who could have beaten Tallarica probably in a way that Paxton certainly couldn't. So he is the person who is toxic for their party. Is Vance the big loser? In terms of looking at 20, he is a big loser in general. And in terms of this week, sorry, I couldn't resist in terms of this week. Yes, I actually think all of that. I think Rubio is also a big loser. I've said for a while, and I'm glad that people are now coming around to this view, that this idea that the next Republican candidate in 2028 is either Rubio or Vance, just a complete nonsense. We're two years out. A lot can happen. And I don't understand how a Republican candidate can go into 2028 and win. While being attached to Donald Trump, and therefore it has to be someone outside of the Trump circle. Ron DeSantis, who I've always mocked as a very weak figure with a glass jaw who got beaten badly. He got beaten badly in the last round. You've seen him make a lot of noise this week. And I'm finding myself nodding to Ron DeSantis clips. He's doing an analysis of the Republican Party that they don't want to hear. And he's right. How does Rubio or Vance run when they backed the Iran war? They backed deportations. They backed all this stuff. And presumably the space is now open on the Republican side. I'll talk about the Democrats in a minute. But on the Republican side, presumably the space is now wide open for, as you say, a non-Trump-affiliated person to come along, maybe a Tucker Carlson or someone like that, and basically go, the problem wasn't MAGA. The problem was that Trump wasn't MAGA enough. The problem was that he repudiated or went back on the principles that MAGA was built on, economic populism, got too close to big tech, the Iran war, foreign adventurism and so on. And that is presumably the most likely. Which is the Marjorie Taylor Greene line. Some of these ex-sycophants of his who have turned on him. Tucker, Marjorie, Thomas Massey. This is their line. They haven't given up on the. underlying racist authoritarian principles behind MAGA. They just think he's not a very good messenger of it. He and his family are such corrupt grifters that they're busy with that and not doing the real stuff. And there's a validity to that critique. Ron DeSantis ran this line in 24. It didn't work for him then, which was, we liked what Trump did. It was just Trump himself was too chaotic. That was the line. I'll be a more efficient deliverer of the MAGA agenda. And I think you're going to get a lot of that. But the problem is they don't really have anyone. There's no real dynamic person. The bench seems really thin to me. The bench is thin. And also, well, they did, Trump has made that bench on purpose. And also, don't forget something that the media doesn't talk about, which is there's never been a race like 2028 that we're going to see. Because in every previous race where there was a sitting president, they go back to 2000. Al Gore is running against George Bush. Al Gore is the vice president to Bill Clinton, who is two terms, term limited out. Clinton has been impeached. Controversial. Does Clinton interfere in the election? No, he stays away from it. Al Gore runs and he stays away. Do you think Donald Trump is going to stay out of the 2028 election? When J.D. Vance is asked... Well, it'll be like one long season of The Apprentice. Like with your 2028... He would be the sitting president at the time, able to screw over anyone. If J.D. Vance is asked as the candidate in 2028, hey, what do you think about Iran? And he goes, yeah, I think we made a mistake. You think Trump's going to just sit quietly and not put out a Truth Social by saying, F you, J.D. Vance. J.D. was on his knees begging me. He's going to screw over whoever that Republican candidate is. Trump is going to be backseat driving that campaign. What effects do you think this has now on the kind of wider radical right movements around the world? I'm thinking about the UK, obviously, principally, but not just that. Because obviously, I mean, they're running a mile now, putting as much space between them as possible. You listen to people like Farage and Jenrick and so on. But they became very, they associated themselves indelibly. And not just that, but they sort of sucked in on the same cup, didn't they? They sort of like, they rode the same intellectual political winds that Trump and MAGA did. And when they had momentum, Trump, that is, and MAGA, these other groups have momentum. Do you think it's problematic? I want to be optimistic about that, but one thing I would slightly push back is the momentum was not always one way. Trump had a lot of momentum because of them. Orban and these other people are people that the MAGA folks looked at for inspiration. Tucker Carlson was doing a show from Hungary. Steve Bannon was going doing conferences in Italy with the fascists in Italy. And, you know, we still got a French presidential election to come where Marine Le Pen is still the favorite. You know... Reform have taken a big hit in the UK this year for their own reasons, separate to anything that happened here. No, I wouldn't write off any of these far-right forces because they have capitalized on, you know, attitudes and trends that they've weaponized over the years. One thing I would say is, if I'm Farage, God help me, or Jenrick or any of these Rupert Lowe or Marine Le Pen or whoever it is, I mean, the message you take away from this election is A, don't get involved in ridiculous Middle East wars, which a lot of them are not necessarily that hawkish. And I know Reform was, but a lot of the European far right are not that hawkish on the Middle East. And there's the other thing is like, well, don't try and enrich yourselves while you're doing this. Try and be a little bit more competent and effective as a leader. And I think, you know, Nigel Farage, interestingly, has been accused of all sorts of financial things of making money and donations, which have hurt him. We haven't talked enough about the corruption piece of this. A Fox poll on the eve of this election, a Fox News poll, found that the number one issue for voters was corruption. I never thought I would see that in my lifetime. Americans never put anything above the economy or immigration. They put corruption above it. And also, something I noted in Texas a lot, I mean, Talarico was talking about this, but also people bringing it up, noting the link between the two things. Actually drawing the link between cost of living and corruption. I mean, Talarico did this brilliantly, right? He basically goes, look, the reason that you're paying more at the pump or the reason you're paying more for your grocery bills. ...is because there is a sort of rigged system, which is the whole thing is basically the political class being bought by people like Musk. Well, he was aided by Musk. Elon Musk money backfired in Texas, I think, for sure, where this guy moves to Texas and tries to buy the Senate race and allows Talarico to have this foil against the oligarchy. And it's funny because we're going to talk about moderate Democrats. You know, this idea of moderate Democrats. All the moderate Democrats sound like Bernie Sanders now when it comes to the economy. They're all running as anti-corporate populists. And what's interesting is the American public... They look at their gas prices. Even MAGA people have made that connection. They see Jared Kushner doing amazing deals in the Middle East while we're fighting this war in the Middle East. They see Don Jr.'s company, drone company, is making money off government contracts while they're not. And I think the corruption, this idea of, you know, stagnant real wages, high gas prices. But the Trumps are doing really well. And then Donald Trump leans into it. Donald Trump does a rally where he's like, well, if you went to Mar-a-Lago and I gave you a $5,000 check, you wouldn't even be able to buy a burger in Mar-a-Lago. Are you insane? Why would you say that out loud? Because he's Donald Trump. He's Marie Antoinette. I mean, he's in his pure Marie Antoinette period, right? I mean, he just... I think he makes Marie Antoinette look like Mother Teresa. Well, we'll talk. If you want to go down a historical analogy. We'll talk a little bit more about the Democrats right after this. Now it's time to thank our partner, HSBC UK Commercial Banking. When you're growing your business, you need a banking partner as invested in your success as you are. And with HSBC UK, business financing is about more than just money. They support ambitious UK businesses looking to grow, whether that's accelerating technology adoption, expanding into new markets or strengthening their workforce through upskilling. And they're not new at this. With over 160 years of experience, sector specialists, regional expertise, tailored financing solutions and a global network to tap into, they bring deep insight into what it really takes to grow your business. That's why they've launched the second edition of their HSBC Financing for Growth report, offering an in-depth look at what's driving business growth ambitions and borrowing trends and how investing is turning ambition into action. So, whatever your business ambition, HSBC UK is here to support you. Just search HSBC Financing for Growth. Lending is subject to status. Eligibility criteria and T's and C's apply. So, Maddy, to what extent, what lessons do you think the Democrats can take from these elections? In the sense that, again, I think when we talked a year or so ago, you know, the Democratic brand looked moribund, deeply unpopular. Thank you. Their polling isn't that great now, I mean their actual brand, it's not great. Did the Democrats win this election or did just Trump hand it all to them? I think it's a bit of both. I think clearly, you know, there's a phrase in the UK, as you know, that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. That is very much the case when it comes to all midterms, as we discussed earlier. Certainly, Trump gave them a golden opportunity. Had there not been an Iran war, had there not been the gas price rises, cost of living crisis, corruption, it would have been harder for them to run. Well, it would probably have been like. His first midterms in 2018, right? They probably, the Dems were- They ran on healthcare and they did well, but it wouldn't be this kind of route, right? Where, you know, 50 year type victory. A half a century type results. I mean, we're seeing results where in places like Iowa, just to put this in context for your audience, a state house Democrat suspended his race in September. He goes, I've got health issues. And he won the race. He's like, oh, I've been elected. I wasn't even running. And he said, I have still got the health issues. I've still got my health issues. So I'm going to have to work. In Arizona, a 19-year-old just got elected as clerk of the fourth biggest county in the United States of America. So this is the kind of kind of, you know, people are, it reminds me of 1997. I remember when Labour won their 179th seat. There were MPs who were coming in. Who are these people? And people in Labour HQ are like, who are these people? So this is the level of the win. And that clearly is to do with this being a unique moment which Trump has delivered. Having said that, Democrats ran strong candidates in a lot of races. They ran people like Tallarico. They ran people like Abdul El-Sayed, who I do think is a strong candidate, despite some of the centrist propaganda against him. They ran Roy Cooper, a popular two-term governor in North Carolina. They ran people at house level, strong candidates, populists, as we said a moment ago. And that helped them. And they ran with the right message. Now, the question is, the brand, they should. They shouldn't get carried. They shouldn't get high on their own supply. The brand is still unpopular. People in this country are still angry at the political system, at this two-party system. And they don't have much time. The clock is ticking. If they don't deliver fast, people will turn against them again. One thing to notice about American politics, and you know this better than me, having been in the UK. We're living in a febrile moment. People are swapping prime ministers and presidents. They're swapping parties in parliament. Like that. You can be carried away, as the Republicans did, with the talk of realignment, right? It lasted 18 months. Yeah, what kind of realignment is that? It barely got going. It's highly contingent, it feels to me, right? What do you think... What would the mistake be for the Democrats? What would the bad thing, in terms of both what they take from this, but also in terms of what they now do with their power, what would the mistake be? For me, there are many potential mistakes in terms of, for example, not stopping the war. If they kind of relax on that front, it will be a mistake. But number one for me, I'm very worried about the Hakeem Jeffries, the man who will be probably Speaker of the House, the leader of the Democrats in the House. You're not a fan. Most people are not a fan. I mean, 80% of Democrats say they want a replacement in Congress. Depending on which poll you look at, between 60% and 80% of Democratic voters say they don't want Chuck Schumer as the leader of the Senate. They don't want Hakeem Jeffries as the leader of the House. Because they want fighters. In terms of, in terms of... We... Wait, he didn't do well. In terms of the candidates that he picked out. Did he? Did he? And didn't he pick Hayley Stevens for Michigan? That worked out well. She literally tried to rat F the Democrats on the eve of the election. He picked Janet Mills. And he didn't pick the winner in Maine. No, that's certainly true. But he is credited. I mean, no, he's going to be there. Is he? I hope not. Let's see. I don't think the Democrats can stop Hakeem, but there is a path to stopping Chuck Schumer. So you think the mistake would be to stick with Hakeem Jeffries and... Well, 100%, that's my number one objection, but I'm a realist. I recognise that Hakeem Jeffries will definitely be Speaker, given the majority they've won, and it will be historic to have an African-American Speaker, for sure. And I think in the Senate... Chuck Schumer will probably be the leader, but it's not guaranteed. So what's, but look, I think there's a leadership issue. Why, let's talk about personalities. Why, why do I object to them? Because I don't like them. Put that to one side. It's because I worry that they are not the leaders for this moment. This moment is a moment of populist anger at a rigged economic system and at a corrupt political system. And people, Democrats in particular, the base want their people in part. We've elected you to Congress now. They're saying you've got to go fight for us. No rolling over. No, let's be bipartisan. Let's reach across the aisle. We'll be friends and have kumbaya moments. That's not what you're there to do. You don't think there's a danger of overreach? No, I think there's a danger of underreach. I think Robert Garcia, who's going to be running the Oversight Committee, I think it was exactly the right moment. What did he tweet on election night? He said, lawyer up. That is exactly the reaction that Democrats want politically, but also, put aside the naked politics of this moment, American government needs this. We need an accounting. We need a reckoning. So when you hear someone like Tallarico say, I want to work with Trump, And I want to reach across the aisle and all that stuff. You think that's the wrong approach? Well, he's not just saying that. No, he's not just saying that. But even Zoran Mandani, who I'm a big fan of, has worked with Trump to get stuff done. That's different. If there's a specific bill that you think you can work on, that's one thing. But if you're rolling over and letting the corruption go, letting the ICE abuses go. I mean, Robert Garcia has been very strong in saying we're going to investigate ICE. We're going to investigate the foreign corruption. We're going to investigate. 100%. If ICE carries on as a rogue racist militia next year while Democrats control both chambers, good luck. Look at the poll ratings then. Every poll shows that on immigration, the voters want a change in direction. There's no point winning a landslide and then not doing what the voters asked you to do, which is end a war, change direction on immigration, deal with the economic crisis, deal with corruption. What would you say to the argument, which you've just referred to it, and I've heard it. Particularly from a certain type of kind of centrist Democrat commentators, which is to say that, look, actually the lesson from these elections is you tack to the middle. You look at Ossoff, you look at Tallarico and these people that they're running campaigns which aren't highly progressive. How did Ossoff tack to the middle? And highly, just let me put the argument here. Go on. And actually, if you look at certain candidates, particularly like Abdul El-Sayed, for example, who are running on the more progressive end, that those are the candidates who actually underperformed the national. I mean, look, El-Sayed won by what, seven points in Michigan, 13 points nationally. Ossoff won by 20 points in Georgia. Is there not some truth to that argument? No, I don't. I think the whole numbers argument, I've had this argument with people like Matthew Iglesias, who pushed this line. It's absolute nonsense because it doesn't factor in specific context and races. It doesn't factor in candidate quality. It doesn't factor in opponent quality. It doesn't factor in cost. I mean, Abdul El-Sayed had over $100 million spent against him in Michigan. First, AIPAC spent $30 million in the primary. And Tallarico was outspent by $200 million. And Tallarico's the only good, which is why I think Tallarico's race was insane, which is why I'm the one saying Tallarico could be a presidential contender in 28 if he wanted it. You all have no objections to me on T Tallarico, I'm a fan. I'm saying if you compare, for example, Abdul El-Sayed to a Roy Cooper, who won by double digits in North Carolina, which some do, I think that's an insane comparison. That's a former two-term governor who didn't have the same campaign against Abdul El-Sayed on the eve of his election. had his opponent try and screw him over. Show me an analogy for any other Democratic candidate who had to go through that. Do you think there are other reasons that Al-Sayed... Islamophobia? Can we talk about that? 45% of people in Michigan said they would never vote for a Muslim for president. He's also a bit dislikable sometimes. No, I think he's actually the opposite. I think he's actually got Obama vibes. What about the James Matthews thing? Yeah, that was bad. Let's just play that to people, because I think people won't necessarily see it. Are you registered to vote in Michigan? Are you registered to vote? I'm not. I'm registered to vote in the UK. So why would I care to have a conversation with you? I will. Just explain to me. Why would I care to have a conversation with you? I'm a journalist. I'm a journalist. You're a journalist in the UK. You know how many votes I want to get in the UK? Zero. I am never running for office in the UK. But this election matters. This election matters to the world. So I actually do not care what you think or the questions you ask because you literally… You're bidding to be a senator in… A senator in where? What country? What country? In the United States. Yes. And what country are you in? The leader of the free world. What country are you in? But you report for where? Where are your viewers? Where are your viewers? They're international. No, no, no. They are international. Sky News is not viewed in the United States of America. It is. It's only viewed in the UK. It is. Like five people watch it. We have an international audience. So I'm just going to tell you. I'm just going to tell you. Abdul, is your election not relevant? I've answered all the questions. Is it not relevant to the UK? I've answered all the questions. Is your election not relevant to the rest of the world? For viewers in the United Kingdom. Is it not relevant to the rest of the world, Abdul? So I'm going to ask you to stop chasing me around. Please. Thank you. Abdul, I'm not chasing you around. Thank you. I'm asking you questions. It's the end of a long campaign, maybe he's just a bit pissed off, you know, have these moments. Yeah. Trump bullying like to me, don't you think? But it felt quite... Exactly how Trump deals with him. Not exactly how Trump. I mean, he was still, he didn't call, he didn't call James Matthew a traitor, scum or fake news. He did, he did, he did, he did. And look, Abdul, it likes to throw punches, clearly. And that's why a lot of people like him. They'd be waiting for a Democrat to throw some punches. But that probably. No, come on. Because he's a polarizing figure. No, if he's a polarizing figure, how did he win by seven points? How did he win by seven points? Because he was standing in a tsunami election. You can't have it both ways. You can't have it both ways. I was told, I was told, I'm sorry, I have a memory longer than a goldfish. I was told in August and July and June that Abdul El-Sayed, oh, he might not win. And if he wins, he'll win by half a percentage point. In fact, Abdul El-Sayed said in May, I'm going to win by seven points. First of all, pretty good. Prophecy there. He won by seven points. People belittled that. People said he would not win. So first the bar was he won't win the primary. He won the primary. Then they said he won't win the general. Hold on, hold on. Then they said he won't win the general. He won the general. Then they said he'll win narrowly. I said fan club. He did win that. No, it's not about fan club. It's about this. I need to push back on this bullshit narrative, which is underperformance by a progressive. We're being told that Troy Jackson underperformed in Maine. Yeah, well, yeah. Sorry, Susan Collins was senator for 30 years. Chuck Schumer sent his favorite people to beat her. They failed. This underperformance nonsense has to stop. Maybe, maybe, maybe. And by the way, I look at someone like Zoran Mamdani, who I often joke about. This guy is a Muslim mayor of New York. They try and call him a jihadist. Everyone looks at him and says, that guy, jihadist, don't be silly. He's always smiling. He's the nicest guy. Abdul El-Sayed, it's easier to throw the trope of angry Muslim man at Abdul, clearly. And that's something for his own perceptional purposes he'd have to work on. But look, Democrats want a fighter. I can assure you next year. Who is going to be a more popular Democrat in the Senate? Abdu'l-Sayed or Roy Cooper? I promise you it'll be Abdu'l-Sayed because he'll be doing stuff people want to be done. And Islamophobia, you're right, is on another level. On another level. I mean, we've seen in this campaign. Islamophobia, the pro-Israel funding against him, the Haley Stevens factor. You can't just wipe this out and say underperformance. I just want to push back on the Ossoff thing. You mentioned John Ossoff. Yeah. Great candidate, won big. What was his campaign? Every time I saw his campaign, it was corruption. Every clip that went viral was, I'm going to hold Trump to account for corruption. He also said in his victory speech that when his daughter asked him, what do you do to stop fascism? He will say he did what he had to do. So you tell me about moderation. No, I want Ossoff to go in the Senate and hold hearings. I want him to pull Jared Kushner and Elon Musk and Stephen Miller into a hearing. In terms of '28. Who, I mean, just talk us through the candidates. Who do you want to run? Who do you think will run? I think about 30 people are going to run. It's going to be insane. It's going to be huge, right? I keep reminding people in 2016, there was a kiddie table debate on the Republican side because there were 18 candidates. The night before, they had like all the losers, Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley. They went like the night before, the big night. Carly Fiorina. All the randos went the night before. For the Democrats, they may need three nights of these TV debates if everyone actually runs because there's at least 25 to 30 people who want to run. Now, whether they all run, we'll see. I think, you know, let's do some British, we're in the US, let's do some British political quoting. Harold Wilson said a week is a long time in politics. In the US right now, 24 hours is a long time in US politics. The idea that we know in two years who's going to be up or down, these polls take them with a shovel of salt that show AOC, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, they're all going to change. Do you think though, I mean, do you think there has been a sort of generational turning of the page? I mean, it feels to me, I mean, the sort of Newsom's, the Harris's old hat now? Not just old hat, is can they adapt to what the voters want? As I say, the voters are in a very populist place right now. They want fighters, they want people who are going to call out corruption, they want people who are going to change the system, they want people who are going to... campaign for Medicare for all, take bold positions. When people like me talk about the ratio with Israel, for example, people say, well, voters don't care about foreign policy. That's not the point. I agree. Most American voters, it's not their top issue whether we sell arms to Israel. But what they do care about is someone who's willing to take a strong unpopular stance, not unpopular, but a stance against the establishment. And that's why people like Abdul El-Sayed and others and Zoran Mamdani and others and AOC have stood out because all these issues, like standing up against Israel or fighting for the release of the Epstein files, they're issues where the voters say, oh, that person, they're different to the establishment. I mean, Israel's relationship with the U.S. right now, I mean, it feels to me, I mean, this is something that had- Like something I've never seen before in my life. The transformation is a- J.D. Vance came out against Israel in his statement. It is post-mortem. Yes. Even on the Republican side, they're having a reckoning. And on the Democratic side, we saw across the board, the Democratic voters wanted to change their relationship with Israel. AIPAC money didn't work to stop Abdul El-Sayed in the primary or the general. There is going to be a resetting of the ratio, but look. To go back to what we talked about earlier, Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are still the leaders of the party, and they are hardcore pro-Israel, so there's a little bit of a disconnect there between the leadership and the base. Just thinking about British politics for a moment, on the left, do you think Andy Burnham and Labour can learn much from what's just happened in the midterms? It's a good question. I sometimes think, as you know, you cover both countries. Sometimes it's very hard to kind of stretch comparisons. The U.S. midterms are very particular to this moment. There isn't a Trump in the U.K. But one thing I would say is, look, I am someone who said for a long time, campaign against corruption. People have been mad about corruption since at least 2008. In the sense of a rigged system. In the sense of a rigged system. Labour never capitalised on the financial crisis. Blair and Brown never capitalised on the financial crisis in the way they should have. And the right took advantage of that over the last decade and a half. Instead of the public going, you know what, we're going to move to the left because Wall Street screwed us, because the City of London screwed us. It never happened, right? Instead, we went anti-migrant and the right-wing populists came along. This is a moment to say people are very, very upset with a rigged system. Campaign on that. And by the way, who are the candidates who did well? Authentic candidates. Tallarico, Ossoff, Abdul. Andy Burnham has authenticity going for him, surely. That's how he got the job in the first place. I mean, actually, I mean, just find it. And it strikes me, it strikes me that one of the things that is, that Trump did wrong in the last two years. I mean, I saw a stat, I saw one of the exit polls that the other day, which I couldn't believe, although actually it completely sort of cohered with what I was seeing in Texas. 57% of Americans said that data centers and AI were a factor in how they're deciding to vote. 57%. Now, it feels to me America is further ahead or further along in this than Britain, but we'll catch up. Trump's choosing to associate, choosing with big tech, with Musk, with AI. Has been really lethal for him, hasn't it? Very lethal. Big tech was supposed to be the way he was going to transform the country. Remember the inauguration? Again, how time flies. January 2025, the big tech bosses are standing in the best row. They've got the best seats in the house behind Trump at the inauguration. You've got Bezos and Musk and Altman. They're all there. You think, wow, what a realignment. These guys were all once Silicon Valley was liberal. It was democratic. Now they're with MAGA. Five shifts. And, uh... This could be another vibe shift. I think they know what's coming. I think they know that they're going to get investigated. I think they know they're going to be hopefully held to account. And I think, look, they are hugely unpopular. They know it. They're coming out saying, regulate us, regulate us more. They're going to have a huge PR campaign now for the AI folks, I can assure you, going forward, because they've seen the data centers are so unpopular. And again, to go back to this whole moderate versus progressive, when you say the moderates did better, moderates were running against AI data centers. You know, people in Texas. Yeah, I mean, as somebody pointed out on Twitter the other day, moderate Democrats now sound like Bernie Sanders. Fine with me. Tell me. Finally, are we actually, I mean, Trump, I mean, whatever one thinks spin. There's no doubt he has dominated American politics for longer than pretty much any president since FDR, you know, over three terms. Even Biden's term, he completely dominated in his own way. But is the sort of chapter, is Trump's chapter in American politics, are we finally seeing the page being turned? On him personally, maybe. I've always been of the school of thought that Trump may not go in 2028. People laugh at me and say that's so hyperbole. I said, do not rule it out that he does some dodgy stuff in 2028. I am feeling a bit better about that this week. I feel with Democrat control of both houses. I mean, people, I remember, People saying the midterms were bad. Yes, so that's what I'm saying. Look, when the facts change, I've changed my mind. This week has made me feel a little bit more optimistic because, number one, he didn't do a I'm not accepting the results for the midterms, but he wasn't on the ballot. And number two, having Democrats in control of the House of State and, more importantly, governorships in Wisconsin, places where they could do all sorts of dodgy things, they can prevent that from happening. I feel a bit better about the fact that he won't be running or trying to stay in office in 28. Having said that, so are we going to turn a page on Trump? Yes, in two years, inshallah. Subtitles by the Amara.org community Are we turning a page on Trumpism? No. I actually think it's only going to get worse. I think the fever dream on the right, the fever swamp is only going to get worse. I am of the view that in 2032, you're looking at a Nick Fuentes-type Republican candidate if they carry on in the direction they're going in. Really? People don't realize in this city, go to Congress. Go see who's working for Republican Congress. Not the Republican members of Congress. Go look at who their staff are. All their young aides straight out of college, they're all groypers. They're all neo-Nazi adjacent. They're all fans of Nick Fuentes. They're all white nationalists. I'm sorry to say, and this is not just me saying this, Republicans are saying this. They say we can't hire anyone out of university because they're all crazy. These are the people who are going to be running the party in four, eight years time. Think about who the candidate is going to be. If a Democrat comes in in 2028 and actually does some serious change, progressive change, Republicans are going to react really badly to that in 2032. So is Trumpism gone? No, I think we're going to see, as you mentioned earlier, like a purer. Dare I call it a purer, more extreme... Oh, I remember that. Yeah, oh, God. I think it wasn't so bad. Yeah, Donald Trump, we missed the incompetent fascists. So milquetoast. We missed the incompetent fascists who were obsessed with ballrooms. Now we have the real thing obsessed with concentration camps, God help us. Well, we'll know on which to leave it. Optimistic as ever. No, I am optimistic. I'm optimistic. He's smiling. Can't say that all the time. Mehdi Hassan, right for your time. Thank you. Somehow, we always seem to finish with neo-Nazis. That's it from us for this week from Washington, D.C. and our midterms coverage. It has been an extraordinary week in American politics and doubtless we will be covering the long-lasting effects for weeks, months, indeed years to come. We will be back on Monday from London. Thanks so much for watching all of our coverage and listening as well. We'll see you then. Bye-bye. The News Agents podcast is brought to you by HSBC UK, opening up a world of opportunity. This has been a global production.