Adam Mockler: Dems' missed Hegseth vote a ‘lapse in leadership’

Let's talk more about the road ahead for Democrats and priorities for progressives that want to see some change in the party now that they will have the power. Adam Mokler of Midas Touch is back up late with me tonight here live on the Final Five. Adam, it's been some time. The last time I saw you on TV, you were handing it to Scott Jennings, but that's another story for another day. It's good to see you tonight. Thank you for having me, Jim. I'm excited to have this conversation. And I mean, it's pretty clear which party is winning at this point. So I want to get your sense, though, of where things go from here, because every time when you have the power, when you have the gavel, there is still a power struggle as to where you go. Is it about investigations? Is it about affordability? There seem to be the question is, can Democrats thread the needle on both of those? Because that seems to be The two priorities. I think that the two go hand in hand, and I know that's trite and everybody is saying that. But at this very moment, if Democrats can have a unique surgical focus on single issue bill after single issue bill, not big, broad omnibus bills that are confusing, but. Clear bills, like banning gerrymandering, or banning money out of politics, or at least attempting to pass single-issue bills that can get these issues on the record, I think the American people will see that we are trying to rewire a broken system away from special interest groups, lobbyists, and the people who want to distort the incentives of politicians. So while we focus on affordability, and while we investigate the corruption, I think you'll see the two go hand-in-hand very cleanly. Of course, it all comes down as well to who's going to guide the messaging. And that comes down to the leadership right now. They have yet to vote on who will lead the caucuses in the House and Senate. Hakeem Jeffries would love to be speaker. Chuck Schumer would love to be majority leader. It doesn't seem to be the same fervor against Hakeem Jeffries as there is for Chuck Schumer, where you have the likes of Bernie Sanders and Alyssa Slotkin coming out and saying maybe it's time for a new leader. Is it time for a new leader for the Democrats in the Senate? The reality is this was a midterm of generational change. And while the House seems like a foregone conclusion, you have everybody from AOC, Ro Khanna, even Zoran Mamdani saying Jeffries is going to be the person who's speaker. I think the Senate is still an open field. Chris Van Hollen has flirted with the idea of running against Chuck Schumer, but it's not an enviable position. You are going to very quickly become unpopular as the speaker. So I mean, yeah, If we have the same leaders in charge of the same party after voters voted for generational change, and if those leaders are missing votes, or at least allowing votes to be missed, people are going to be angry. It still is going to be seen whether or not Chuck Schumer wins. I think that right now, if he's running unopposed, then yeah, I mean, there's nobody running against him. He's the only one running. You mentioned about missing votes yesterday. There was that vote in the House to impeach Hakeem Jeffries. There were a number of Republicans who didn't show up, but 11 Democrats didn't show. There were some like Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico who had said, hey, there was there was traffic getting from the Capitol after some event on Capitol Hill. But the reality is they don't have the majority. We know that they don't have a majority yet. But is that a lapse in leadership, not being able to get your members for this vote that they've been They've been waiting for for some time. It is absolutely a lapse in leadership. And listen, there are procedural nuances. Yes, this was a procedural vote, and Democrats will have more expanded authority to run investigations in January. Those arguments are valid. But when Hakeem Jeffries is already being questioned as a leader, if I were him, I would do every possible thing I can to make sure every single person in my caucus was there voting, even if it is a symbolic vote and the real vote happens in a few months. So it is a lapse in leadership. We can't be making traffic excuses one week after the American people elected us to show up. What do you want to see day one when they get that gavel back? What should be is there is there a signature piece of legislation that they should be working on now to prepare for day one, even though they know whatever it might be might might meet the buzzsaw of the president's veto pen? Yeah, I hinted at this earlier, but it's not a signature legislation. It's single issue bills. Ban gerrymandering federally, force that on the table. Increase health care access for Americans. Raise the minimum wage federally. Ban congressional stock trading. Ban stock trading within the executive branch. And if we can pass these bills, we help the American people. If Republicans want to stand in the way, then we're just showing voters the list of pending bills for the Democratic president in January of 2029. So it's time to be aggressive, push clear bills, communicate clearly, do a media blitz, and focus on affordability. Adam, right before we go here, the big news today has been Mississippi. That Senate seat will go to Scott Colome with Democrats making gains in Mississippi, Iowa, Kansas, Texas. What's what's the lesson there? What should be the message for those next two years before the next time we vote for House and Senate? The term that has been floating around is supermajority thinking. The Democratic Party, any political party can build a supermajority if you have a dynamic, diverse set of players in different areas. Scott Colome can win in Mississippi. Zohran Mamdani can become the mayor in New York. He may not play as well in Texas, but we have Tallarico there. We have John Ossoff in Georgia. The point is, we have dynamic, flexible players in different states running We're running on platforms and I think that is super majority thinking. Adam Munkler joining us here on the Final Five. Adam, always appreciate it. Good to see you again. Thank you, Jim. And we are after this. After this on the Final Five, Congressman Glenn Ivey joining me.