Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Donald Trump Makes 360 On Mail-in Voting; Former President Obama Show His Support For Abdul El-Sayed; Democrats Warn Possible Blocking Of MAGA Justices If GOP Wins; Sen. Tillis Warns That Trump Is Risking If The GOP Will Lose The Midterms. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired October 05, 2026 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
ELIE HONIG, CNN HOST: Tonight, after telling Americans that mail-in voting is corrupt, a change in tune for Donald Trump as the midterms draw closer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Vote early, vote by mail, or vote in person on Election Day.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HONIG: Plus, as Democrats look to expand the map, one of the party's most famous figures will appear with one of the party's most controversial.
Also.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAN CRAWFORD, CHIEF LEGAL CORRESPONDENT, CBS NEWS: So, you'll be kind of reconsidering this probably every year, rethinking it.
SAMUEL ALITO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yes, I think I have to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HONIG: What happens if a Supreme Court justice leaves during Donald Trump's final two years?
And an outgoing Republican senator says he's concerned the president might do something dramatic if the party loses the midterms.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): I think there's a risk, I really do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HONIG: Live at the table, Cornel West, Scott Jennings, Neera Tanden, Jason Rantz, and Carine Hajjar. Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other,
but here they do.
Good evening, everyone. I'm Elie Honig here in New York, filling in for Abby.
Well, don't look now, but midterms are less than one month away, so we've got a lot of news to discuss and a stacked panel of experts and analysts ready to break it down for you.
First up, President Donald Trump appears increasingly desperate to shore up support. Tonight, he hit the campaign trail in Nebraska, a state he won by more than 20 points just two years ago. The president also is suddenly changing his tune on mail-in voting, despite years of railing against it.
Now, here's a reminder of some of the things the president has said in the past.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Mail-in ballots are inherently corrupt. Mail-in voting means mail-in cheating. I call it mail-in cheating.
You can never have a real democracy with mail-in ballots. Mail-in ballots are a big fraud.
We as a Republican party are going to do everything possible that we get rid of mail-in ballots.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HONIG: And here's the president's message to Republicans now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: If your state has early voting, do not wait. Go out and vote. Vote early, vote by mail, or vote in person on Election Day, November 3rd.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HONIG: And in another reversal, Trump announced on Truth Social just hours ago that he will no longer use taxpayer money to pay for a series of gauzy campaign-style ads featuring himself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: So, God made Trump. God had to have somebody willing to go into the den of vipers, call out the fake news for their tongues as sharp as a serpent's.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HONIG: So earlier today, the vice president said that those taxpayer- funded ads are, quote, "not partisan." A few hours later, however, the president said he's standing down.
So, Scott, were they partisan after all?
SCOTT JENNINGS, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, of course, of course they're partisan. I mean, a lot, I mean, the ads, some of them came from the political campaign apparatus and they put a different disclaimer on it. President has made a good decision here. I actually think the idea of the government running PSAs is a good one. A lot of presidents have done it. Presidents of both parties have done it.
I think if they thought about it in the beginning, they could have run ads, PSAs on things they've done that would benefit the American people, say, sign your kid up for Trump accounts or go visit America.gov, the new front door portal for getting things done with the federal government. These things would have been unassailable. And guess what? They can still do it. So that'd be my advice.
HONIG: If they were partisan, was it wrong then to use taxpayer money to pay for those ads?
JENNINGS: Yes, he should not have taken campaign material and paid for it with tax dollars and put a different disclaimer on it. Again, I think PSAs are fine and there were different vectors they could have done here and there's still a chance to get it done.
HONIG: Neera, what do you think?
NEERA TANDEN, FORMER DOMESTIC POLICY ADVISER, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: I mean, I think desperate times call for desperate measures. The fact that Republicans have been critical for the first time of things like the PSAs, the fact that Scott is willing to say that they were wrong, I think is a sign that, you know, people recognize that there's a lot of anger in the country, a lot of anger in the country around corruption and other issues.
And the idea that the president is going one month ahead of the election to use taxpayer dollars to promote himself does smack of really using government to help yourself. That is a kind of corruption.
[22:05:03]
So, I'm glad they've stopped it. I'm glad people recognize it. But we should ask ourselves why the president decided to do that and why is it, did it take him a week or two to figure out that it was wrong?
HONIG: Well, look, the president doesn't back down a lot, Jason. So why here?
JASON RANTZ, HOST, SEATTLE RED RADIO: Well, he got everything he needed out of this. He was able to air these ads and then have every network talking about the ads by playing those ads. So, I do think there might be a little bit of a strategy there. I think he was also getting pushback from conservatives, not because we were outraged by some sort of corruption. This is not inherently corrupt in any way. What I think is, it's just a part of a core principle of conservative values where you don't want the government spending money on things like this, especially when you've got the money that you can spend.
But to Scott's point, it's not like Donald Trump did not invent this. I mean, the Obama administration did this right before the midterms on Obamacare. His EPA did this and actually was found to have violated the law. So that is a case in which the law was actually broken. In this case, that hasn't been established at all.
HONIG: Dr. West, is that a fair comparison?
CORNEL WEST, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: First, I just want to say it's a blessing to be here with you. We're praying for Sister Abby. She sets us a high standard.
HONIG: You're doing good.
WEST: You and Sister Sarah and --
HONIG: Thank you.
WEST: -- Brother John do a wonderful job.
Now, your question was about hypocrisy, was it? Is that right?
HONIG: Yes, sir.
WEST: Well, that's nothing new, is it? There's nothing new at all. People changing their minds, different two-faced and so forth. But the important thing is, I think anytime we talk about desperation, you don't think of desperation in a party, but you think of desperation of fellow citizens, fellow sufferers, poor people, working people who are living every month paycheck to paycheck.
That's the kind of desperation that both parties need to speak to as they deal with their respective hypocrisies. I see hypocrisy in both parties in that sense.
HONIG: Carine, you've been out reporting in the field. What are you hearing about this?
CARINE HAJJAR, OPINION JOURNALIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: About the ads in particular, not so much about feelings of corruption, frustration with that, just perception on both sides that something is fundamentally broken with government, both with Republicans and Democrats. That's top of mind.
And so I think this move really surprised me from the White House. It was the type of thing that Republicans got a ton of pushback on when Kristi Noem did it at DHS, running these ads in front of Mount Rushmore on a horse, talking about different immigration programs. So, I think it was a silly political move. And what really surprised me about it was the speed of how quickly the president backed down, because President Trump has made some mistakes before, and it takes much longer for him to back down if he backs down at all. And so that this was done so quickly, I think it was just clear to everyone that it wasn't the right move.
HONIG: Well, speaking of Donald Trump backing down, he's done it more than once recently, right? He spent months and months telling people that mail-in balloting was inherently mail-in cheating, and now he's changing his tune. What's the strategy here, Scott? Which one is it? Is it cheating, or is it something that Republicans should do?
JENNINGS: Well, first of all, he hates mail-in ballots. He's hated mail-in ballots for a very long time. A lot of Republicans don't like mail-in ballots because they're inherently less secure than in-person ballots. That's the same.
Number two, it's not the first time he's actually called for Republicans to vote any way you can. He did it in 2024. In fact, he's done it in every election. So, two things can be true. You can hate a system, but also recognize these are the rules of the game as they are presented to me, and I have to play by those rules. That's what's happening here. But the position of the president's always been clear. Mail-in ballots, in his opinion, are inherently less secure than an in-person election.
HONIG: You know, the president actually was asked about this by reporters before he got on the helicopter. Let's take a quick listen to what he said about this claim that there is widespread fraud through mail-in ballots.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: What we're concerned about is there seems to be a lot of, not seems to be, there is a lot of cheating in vote-by-mail.
UNKNOWN: Where, Mr. President? Where?
TRUMP: A lot of cheating all over. I'll tell you what. Start off by taking a look at California. Take a look at --
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: There's no evidence in California.
TRUMP: Take a look at -- no evidence --
UNKNOWN: No.
TRUMP: -- with millions and millions of ballots. You are fake news.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HONIG: Jason, where is this evidence? Where is this evidence of massive fraud in California? He talks about it all the time. Where's the evidence?
RANTZ: Yes, so I don't see evidence of massive fraud. Fraud occurs, and I think the president falls into sort of the trap that I think liberals fall into. On his side, he says it's massive fraud. On the left, for the longest time, we're told there was no fraud whatsoever. And of course, we get stories of fraud, and then we're like, OK, well, now it's not enough to change an election. Fair enough.
We would like to get it to the point where there is zero fraud. And to Scott's point again, there is higher likelihood or a chance of fraud when dealing with mail-in voting. I'm from a state that is exclusively mail-in, and I've said to my audience the same thing this entire time.
You might not like mail-in voting, and President Trump's message has been a key piece as to why so many people are not trusting on my side of the elections. But it's still the system. Work within the system. Vote.
[22:09:59]
Make it so hard, if you actually believe there's cheating going on, make it so difficult for them to cheat by going out and voting, and then make any kind of change that you would like to so that we can get to a system that is as secure as possible.
HONIG: The president just told Americans, though, that there's millions and millions of mail-in ballots. That's false, right?
JENNINGS: No, they send a lot of ballots out in California.
RANTZ: Yes. So fraudulent --
JENNINGS: So you're talking about two different things. He's saying they mail out a lot of ballots in California, and they have this system in California called ballot harvesting, where someone can go to someone's house and carry that ballot to the polls that's not the voter.
This system ought to be punted into the sun, because, I mean, inherently, this makes ballots less secure. It makes voting less secure the way they do it in California. And there are people on both sides of the aisle who agree that the system is terrible.
TANDEN: Yes. I just want to be clear that there have been study after study of voter fraud, and we're talking about one out of a million, three out of a million cases. So you're right, it's not zero. But the fact is that fraud is something that is almost nonexistent. And what I think is kind of odd about this whole discourse is it's not like the president was telling people over the last, like, six, seven years, oh, just do mail-in balloting. It's all fine.
Maybe on occasion he would say that, but for the most part, if you think that there's rampant fraud, I mean, there's an inherent illogic to this. If you think there's rampant fraud, then it's weird to tell people, go vote by mail. So I think the truth is that the president recognizes that his, like, his statements for months and years, basically, saying mail-in balloting is fraudulent, discourages voter participation of his own side, of Republicans, and he's cleaning it up a month later. And it's what I think it shows is that it was wrong to say this for the last several years.
HAJJAR: Yes, I want to paint a picture. I was in Texas last week, and I stopped at a Buc-ee's on the way to the state fair in Dallas, and I took it as an opportunity to talk to voters down there. And I think the message really is spreading among Republicans that they should not trust mail-in ballots. But the problem is, at the same time, the president has a fundamental math problem, especially Texas is a good example.
Ken Paxton is going to need Republicans to turn out in bigger numbers than at least polling is showing right now. He's going to need a strong performance. And so, I was talking to a voter, and she said, I just fundamentally do not trust mail-in ballots. Well, a lot of vote, I mean, a big chunk of the vote does come from mail-in ballots.
So, if voters are listening to the president on this, and he all of a sudden, pivots, well, you know, he better hope that they're listening closely to him, because this message has percolated to voters.
RANTZ: Well, and I hope he does pivot in a bigger way. We're playing one small clip of a larger video one time that he made. I think Republicans --
HONIG: He says it a lot. He says it a lot.
RANTZ: I'm saying to actually vote by mail.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: Yes, that is unusual for him.
RANTZ: He's not doing that message all that often. So I hope that he takes this as an opportunity to start talking more about that. We have to get out the vote.
WEST: But I think the deeper danger is, is that Brother Trump has a proclivity towards saying when he wins the elections, they're fair. When he loses the elections, they're rigged. And in that situation, you've got a deep crisis of massive legitimacy, whether it's mail-in or not. Now, we don't know what exactly what he's going to say, but there's a possibility of either one of those options being real as we move toward November.
RANTZ: Respectfully, because I don't necessarily disagree with that.
WEST: Yes.
RANTZ: But Joe Biden also, when he said that don't pass the vote by mail legislation that he was pushing, that there could be the potential of someone stealing this election as well or the illegitimacy of it. This thing happens over and over again.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: He says that after an insurrection, by the way. The president of the United States --
WEST: Gangsterism is ideologically promiscuous. It will lie with any party, any group, any church, mosque, temple, or fraternity or sorority. Crack vessels. So, in that sense, I agree. But in this sense, we're talking about Trump.
HONIG: All right, folks. We'll see. Good conversation. We've got more on the midterms coming up in just a minute.
Everyone loves Buc-ee's, by the way. 100 percent approval rating on that.
Next up, Barack Obama will be campaigning for one of the lightning rod candidates of this cycle, Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan. That worry Republicans.
And a quick reminder, we invite you to join the debate at home. Head over to CNN.com/Abby and weigh in. We will get to some of your comments throughout the show.
[22:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HONIG: Tonight, the Democratic Party's kingmaker stepping into a key race. Now, later this month, Barack Obama will campaign with Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed as the former president ramps up his involvement in the midterms.
Now, Obama's planned appearance in Michigan is notable after El-Sayed defeated the more moderate Democrat Haley Stevens in a hotly contested primary. And after El-Sayed faced significant controversy over his past statements and appearances with the streamer Hasan Piker, as Democrats work to unite a divided party before November, Obama has recorded two dozen ads for Democratic candidates for governor and for Senate. Those will be released in the coming days and weeks. Obama also is expected to hit the campaign trail with more appearances to be announced soon.
Now, Scott, it's easy to understand why Obama's appearance in Michigan could help El-Sayed. But from the broader Republican perspective, do you welcome or fear Barack Obama's involvement in these midterms?
JENNINGS: Well, neither, because it's expected. He campaigns in every election. He's the most partisan, ate up with politics ex-president we've ever had. I expect him to show up in every race, in every jurisdiction of the country. He can't stand it. He has to be involved in politics all the time.
[22:20:03]
What it tells me, though, is that all this Democratic confidence you hear out there about El-Sayed is a little misplaced because I don't think Obama would be going there if they were so confident about it.
And it also tells you something critical about the weakness in his coalition. He has significant trouble with African-American voters in the Democratic primary. He has not shored up that support in Michigan. They need Obama to try to do that. I'm not sure it's going to be the total answer, but it's not really a surprising development to me.
TANDEN: Can I just ask, is Donald Trump planning to campaign for Mike Rogers in Michigan?
JENNINGS: I believe he is going to Michigan.
TANDEN: Really? Are they going to campaign together? Is Mike Rogers going to be seen with him? Because, you know, Greg Abbott tonight announced that he would not be seen in Texas with Donald Trump next week.
Talking about politics all the time, isn't that a little weird that you have a sitting president who can't be, who the governor of Texas won't be seen with?
JENNINGS: He's literally doing 35 events in like 32 days. He's campaigning all over the country.
TANDEN: Not with people in close races. And not in this thing.
JENNINGS: He's in Nebraska tonight.
TANDEN: Yes, he is.
JENNINGS: A close race.
TANDEN: In Nebraska, a state which he won by 25, 30 points. I guess I was just saying.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: In a state where the Democrats are running a sham independence.
TANDEN: The big difference here is that Barack Obama, who is, I think he has twice the popularity of Donald Trump. He's in the 60s while Donald Trump is in the mid-30s. He's an asset to Abdul El-Sayed, but I think Abdul El-Sayed has done a phenomenal job of uniting the Democratic Party behind him. Gretchen Whitmer, Elissa Slotkin was campaigning with him.
Barack Obama will be campaigning with him. And I expect on election day you'll see a strong, united Democratic Party behind him that is attracting independence with his message of how he's going to be a leader (inaudible).
JENNINGS: Do you think that includes the Jewish Democrats in Michigan?
TANDEN: He has a lot of Jewish support in Michigan.
JENNINGS: A lot.
TANDEN: He does. He does. He does. He actually has more.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: That is absolutely false.
TANDEN: That's ridiculous. If you actually look at the polls, a majority of Jewish voters.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: Is he struggling? So you're saying that he's not struggling.
TANDEN: Hold on. Hold on.
HONIG: Let her.
TANDEN: In any data, a majority of Jewish voters have supported him. Dana Nessel, the Jewish Attorney General, just did an event with him last week. So I mean, he is unifying the party. Now, I think the real charge of --
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: You think we can go to that convention because (inaudible).
TANDEN: I think the issue here for Mike Rogers is why he's doing so poorly in this state. In most polls we've seen, Abdul El-Sayed is winning by five, six, seven points against him.
RANTZ: Kind of like --
HONIG: Dr. West. Hold on.
RANTZ: Of 13 points that he was going to win during the primary.
HONIG: Dr. West, talk to us about how the former President Obama resonates with the Democratic Party here now in 2026.
WEST: I think he resonates deeply. I think he's got tremendous support in the black community. But I'm concerned about the moral and the spiritual issues. You got, brother, that's the thing on the one hand. You got genocide in Gaza. You've got Wall Street bailed out. And you've got single-payer health care. Those are crucial issues for him. Brother Barack Obama opposes all of those. Why? Because he is part of the central, moderate, neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party. And he is a masterful campaigner. You can't downplay that. And he helps candidates.
But there is a certain hypocrisy saying, well, these red lines are genocide in Gaza, single-health payer, and bailing out Wall Street. When he's got a critique of corporate America that I resonate very deeply. But he wants to win, so I can understand that. And I would rather see him win than Brother Mike Rogers. There's no doubt about that.
RANTZ: In other words, that's the actual.
WEST: But that's part of the hypocrisy of both parties.
RANTZ: That's the actual desperation. President Trump going out there, going to rallies that is perceived as desperate. You're calling in Barack Obama. And I'm wondering if El-Sayed is going to point out that you had a whole bunch of drone strikes under Obama. The warmongering. WEST: Killing innocent people.
RANTZ: We had the deporter-in-chief under Obama.
WEST: That's right.
RANTZ: So, all of a sudden, he's not going to take any of those positions because he's in a desperate position.
WEST: That's right.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: I don't think --
RANTZ: To try to bring in black voters. That's why he brought in Kamala Harris a couple weeks ago. That fell flat. It didn't really get that much coverage. I doubt it did anything on the ground. That's what he's --
TANDEN: But he's doing well.
WEST: No, I think it had some impact. But I think you're right about that.
HONIG: Neera.
TANDEN: I mean, I think the truth of this is that I guess I would disagree with you, Cornel, --
WEST: Sure.
TANDEN: -- because I think Abdul El-Sayed has shown that he is reaching out to unite the whole Democratic Party. And there might be issues --
WEST: Right.
TANDEN: -- that I disagree with him. And there might be issues where you disagree with Barack Obama. But it's important to recognize. And I think Abdul El-Sayed recognizes this as well as Barack Obama and the whole party. That despite some of our differences, they appeal in comparison to the differences between a Republican Senate that has been a rubber stamp for Trump's policies that have raised costs on working people who are struggling every day.
And that is what unites Abdul El-Sayed, Elissa Slotkin, Barack Obama, Haley Stevens, and Gretchen Whitmer, all who have come to support El- Sayed.
HONIG: So, Carine, as somebody who spent time in the field recently, including in Texas and around the country, how is El-Sayed playing outside of Michigan? Is he helping the Democratic brand? Is he hurting it?
[22:25:01] HAJJAR: It's a great question. And I think one of the questions that's been surrounding this race is, was an adult going to come in and say, enough is enough? You shouldn't be talking to people like Hasan Piker. You shouldn't be flirting with outright socialism.
The tent is supposedly big for Democrats, but it can't be that big. And Obama appearing with El-Sayed, I think, is a sign that Democrats have said, all right, this is the direction the party is going. We haven't been able to find a clear, true north for the party. And so we're going to have to, you know, run with the people that we have.
I think it's a huge liability for Democrats going forward. Is socialism the answer to the economic problems? I mean, it's an alternative right now, and people are hurting, so they're keen to look at it. But I don't think that that's going to help Americans down the line should El-Sayed be elected.
TANDEN: El-Sayed has said he is not a socialist. He's not a member of the DSA. He has said he's a capitalist. He sees criticisms in capitalism like a lot of people, but he is a capitalist. And I'd say the Democratic Party is putting forward candidates all throughout this country. James Talarico in Texas, Josh Turek in Iowa, Abdul El-Sayed.
This is a broad tent. They have different views on a lot of issues. But Abdul El-Sayed is perhaps more liberal, but you have a lot of moderates who are actually were defeating right now in the polls, it's a month out, but doing really well against Republicans in very red states.
HONIG: To these points, I want to throw one out to the whole table. We're going to go around. OK? Who is the leader, as we sit here in October of 2026, who is the leader of the Democratic Party? Who is the spiritual and political leader? Scott first.
TANDEN: Are you sending that to Scott Jennings?
HONIG: Yes, Scott. Let's hear what he says, and we'll go around. Go ahead, Scott.
JENNINGS: Oh, the spiritual leaders are Sanders and AOC.
HONIG: OK.
JENNINGS: That's the direction and energy of the Democratic Party. That's their leadership.
HONIG: Dr. West.
WEST: No, well, Bernie is not a member of the party. I'm not a member of the party. I've got good friends who are in the party, but I don't --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Neither of us are Democrats. WEST: Capital D. That's the only thing. As long as we are. No, but I think the party in some ways just doesn't have enough high-quality leadership, so it's hard to zero in.
HONIG: Carine, what do you think?
HAJJAR: I think Scott is right that AOC and Sanders have the most energy right now. I think a lot of Democrats were quietly hoping that President Obama would come in and set the party straight, and that is not what is happening.
HONIG: Neera?
TANDEN: I think, actually, in November we'll see a whole range of new leaders. I think a lot of these candidates are going to win in states like Alaska, Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina, and I think a lot of those leaders will be the new leaders of tomorrow. I think James Talarico is a great example of a next-generation leader for the Democratic Party.
HONIG: All right, Jason, you've had the most time to think, so (inaudible).
RANTZ: I mean, I agree that it's AOC, but I mean, spiritually, they're more Mamdani. Now, obviously, he can't completely be the leader of the party. He's not going to run for president. He can't run for president.
However, that is clearly where this party is headed, and that's where the base is getting the energy from.
HONIG: Yes.
TANDEN: I mean, I just have to say, when you look at all these swing districts in swing states, you're seeing former generals, former prosecutors, people from all walks of life, teachers, union workers.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: Who aren't getting the people excited the way that Mamdani?
TANDEN: They are.
RANTZ: So, who do you think brings in --
TANDEN: Mamdani is the mayor of New York City, and that is an important role, but he's not the most -- you can see more popular leaders across.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: So, who's filling seats? Who is filling seats?
TANDEN: James Tallarico is actually getting much bigger rallies in Texas today than Mamdani.
HONIG: All right. Quick last word. Scott, go ahead. JENNINGS: I mean, but you -- I'm sure you've looked at the polls.
TANDEN: I think all these candidates are fantastic.
JENNINGS: And I have seen you actually --
TANDEN: It's a big, diverse party.
JENNINGS: I've actually seen you make some comments about this, so I know you've seen the data. In the Democratic Party, socialism is far more in vogue and in favor right now than capitalism, is it not?
TANDEN: I think the truth is that there are a lot of Democrats who are concerned about runaway capitalism.
JENNINGS: You can just say yes.
TANDEN: But -- no, no.
(CROSSTALK)
HONIG: Jason, I'll get -- Jason and Neera is going to finish off. Go ahead.
RANTZ: The polling is consistent on this. Specifically, within the Democratic Party, there is a huge surge of interest in socialism. Now, I do think it's true that they probably can't define what socialism is.
TANDEN: Yes.
RANTZ: But they are still electing people --
TANDEN: OK.
RANTZ: -- who do know what socialism is.
TANDEN: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. In the Democratic --
(CROSSTALK)
WEST: The value of capitalism generate an interest in socialism.
TANDEN: In a new Democratic Congress if there is 200 and say and, say, 20 members of the Democratic Caucus. There will be five, six, seven members of the Democratic Socialists of America. That is not a majority by any stretch. It's a broad tent. It should include a lot of different people, but the broad swath of the Democratic Party is going to be defined by senators and leaders in our swing states, not just in New York City.
RANTZ: What is the base thing?
HONIG: All right, folks. Next up --
TANDEN: The base is electing and nominating those people for primaries.
HONIG: Justice Alito has been talking. Would Democrats return the favor and block any Trump Supreme Court nominees if the Democrats take back the Senate? Let's hear what they're saying.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HONIG: Tonight, Senate Democrats give us a glimpse of what the next two years could look like if they win back the chamber next month. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer tells NBC News that if they pull it off, the party will block what he calls, quote, "MAGA justices" from the Supreme Court and the lower courts.
Now, this comes as Justice Samuel Alito publicly addresses the possibility of a vacancy opening up on the high court.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAN CRAWFORD, CBS NEWS CHIEF LEGAL CORRESPONDENT: You decided not to retire this year despite, I think, some pretty intense pressure. What made you decide to stay on?
[22:35:05]
SAMUEL ALITO, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: I thought about it and I will continue.
CRAWFORD: You did. You considered it.
ALITO: Well, it's something I think that somebody at my age has to think about every term. But I thought that I could still make a valuable contribution.
CRAWFORD: So you'll be kind of reconsidering this probably every year, rethinking it.
ALITO: Yes, I think I have to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HONIG: Very interesting for us Supreme Court watchers.
So, Neera, if Democrats should win majority control of the Senate, and then there's a Supreme Court vacancy in 2027 or 2028, should Democrats give Trump's nominee a vote on the floor? And if so, how long can they hold off?
NEERA TANDEN, CEO, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS, AND FORMER DOMESTIC POLICY ADVISER UNDER THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: I mean, I think they should evaluate the justices, but I think we should recognize that nominees, Trump nominees like Kavanaugh, I mean it was eight years ago today that Susan Collins voted for Kavanaugh and she said that he would support precedents like Roe v Wade and she was wrong.
He overturned Roe v Wade after conveying to the senate that he was, you know, support precedent like Roe v Wade. And so I think there has to be an incredibly high bar because now we live in a world where nominees will basically lie about what they plan to do in the future. And I think Democrats are going to be very skeptical about Trump nominees now everybody should get a hearing and maybe he'll find someone in the middle so like things are shocking.
But I think that Democrats will feel -- a lot of Democrats will feel that Trump nominees will say one thing to get a vote and do another thing on the court, and there's going to be a very high bar for that.
HONIG: So Chuck Schumer and Richard Blumenthal and other Democratic senators have said or suggested that they're not going to give anyone a hearing, even throughout the full two years. Do you disagree with them? Do you think that's wrong, the wrong position?
TANDEN: I think what they're saying is they're not going to get extremist judges through. So you can have a hearing, determine whether someone's an extremist, and go from there. But I think there is a strong opposition to right-wing justices basically operating like political actors.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, HOST OF "THE SCOTT JENNINGS SHOW" ON SALEM RADIO, AUTHOR, "REVOLUTION OF COMMON SENSE", AND FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Is Susan Collins also voted for justices nominated by Democrats?
TANDEN: Sure, but they didn't overturn Roe v. Wade. How does that have to do with anything? She actually said the biggest issue.
JENNINGS: She's voted for justices that were qualified, sent up by Presidents of both parties, which is a central argument in her campaign. She's the most bipartisan senator in the country.
TANDEN: She literally said that --
JENNINGS: She came out here to suspend her. Susan, I just want you to stick up there.
TANDEN: I just want to be clear. She went and said to all of Maine, to the whole country, that she believed Brett Kavanaugh would uphold Roe v. Wade. And then he didn't, and today she doesn't regret her vote.
So I think this is an important issue to recognize that people will cover for these justices who lied to them.
HONIG: So Scott, Mitch McConnell, of course you've worked for, famously or infamously blocked President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland.
JENNINGS: Famously.
HONIG: Famously in your view, probably infamously in others. That was -- TANDEN: That a pretty important precedent, I think.
HONIG: 293 days he blocked that nomination. So is it fair for Senate Democrats to do the same now if they take back the Senate?
JENNINGS: Well, in that case, you're a divided government, so I guess, let's see, we'll have a Republican President if they were to win.
TANDEN: Yes, it would be a divided government.
JENNINGS: So I guess it would be a similar situation.
HONIG: So it's fair.
JENNINGS: And I expect Democrats to try to do it, although at the time they argued that it was wrong. Now they'll be changing positions. My expectation is they will try to block the President.
Also, the idea of blocking lower court vacancies, I mean, I just looked at it, there's like 27 Article III vacancies. Now, all the district courts may be 15 more. So there's several out there that could be in play. That would be an escalation of the judicial wars. I'm not sure it would be a good idea to --
HONIG: So just so we're clear, are you saying that Mitch McConnell was wrong to block Merrick Garland?
JENNINGS: No.
HONIG: So he was right to block it for 293 days?
JENNINGS: The Senate has a role in this, and he did what the Senate is able, capable, and constitutionally allowed to do. And if you're a conservative out there and you're wondering whether or not you should vote in this election, understand something.
If Democrats are in charge of the Senate, they will probably, and there's a vacancy, they will probably take it to the Congress.
HONIG: Dr. West is ready. Go ahead, doctor.
CORNELL WEST (I), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, AUTHOR, "TRUTH MATTERS", AND DIETRICH BONHOEFFER CHAIRMAN, UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY: Scott, Mitch was wrong. There's two left shoes.
JENNINGS: Why?
WEST: I'll tell you, the reason is this is that one of the rules of the court is to be a counter-majoritarian force so that you don't have a tyranny of the majority. If the courts simply become the expression of the majority, then John Adams was right.
The demos can become as tyrannical as any tyrant when you had vast numbers of Americans voted for what? Would have voted for slavery.
You had to have some courts attempt to take a stand. The vast majority of Americans voted for Jim Crow and Jane Crow. That's a tyranny of the majority, you had to have courts saying there's something beyond just what the majority says.
[22:40:07]
The voice of majority is not the voice of God. There has to be some counter-majoritarian role. That's the role of the courts. Once you politicize the courts, it's majority all the way down, which is power.
JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST, AND AUTHOR, "WHAT'S KILLING AMERICA: INSIDE THE RADICAL-LEFT'S TRAGIC DESTRUCTION OF OUR CITIES": They've complained, anytime they lose a case, they say we have to expand the court so that they don't lose their cases.
When a case goes their way, they don't say anything. They'll put out the press release and say, hey, they made the right decision here.
WEST: But that's part of the politicization.
RANTZ: So that is that it's coming from the Democrats here.
TANDEN: I mean, did they expand the court under Biden? No, they didn't.
RANTZ: Should they expand the court?
TANDEN: I'm for expanding the court. I'm for Supreme Court.
RANTZ: But the other side of the problem is that there is some argument that the Democrats are making that when we lose something we have to change the system so that we do not lose by the way. Hashtag No Kings.
HONIG: The number one complainer about the U.S. Supreme Court is who? The President, Donald Trump, every time he loses, he takes to social media and blasts his own justices. Not like this.
(CROSSTALK)
Other Presidents said that justices are an embarrassment to their families, fools, and lapdogs. And let's keep in mind, the justices who Donald Trump is talking about there include his own appointed justices including Amy Coney Barrett who has to wear a bulletproof vest and Brett Kavanaugh there was an attempted assassination. I want to hear from Dr. West on this. What do you think?
WEST: Well, it's just sad. People have to wear these protections when it comes to threats against their lives and so forth. That's a level of politicization that leads toward a criminalization of people just trying to be public servants.
RANTZ: Where is that coming from?
HONIG: I want to hear from Carine.
JENNINGS: Who tried to kill -- RANTZ: Chuck Schumer is the one who told people that we're going to
send -- Pramila Jayapal is out there. We're going to fight tooth and nail against this court while there were threats going on against them.
CARINE HAJJAR, OPINION JOURNALIST, "THE WASHINGTON POST": But also, that's the court that has to win. That's the court that has to win.
HONIG: Hold on. Let's hear from Carine.
HAJJAR: The Democrats are also acting as if this court is enabling everything the President wants to do, but in fact, conservative justices have thwarted major parts of his agenda, just off the top of my head. Birthright citizenship, IEPA, mail-in voting. So, you know, to act as if they're just doing the President's bidding at all times, that's why he is more scathing towards conservative justices than others.
JENNINGS: And before social media was a thing, Elie, I'll remind you that Barack Obama stood at the State of the Union with the Supreme Court sitting right in front of him and blasted them and insulted them to their faces over Citizens United.
TANDEN: What did he say? What did he say, Scott?
JENNINGS: The President's bearing upset when Supreme Courts don't do what they want them to do. It's not new. It didn't just start happening under Donald Trump.
TANDEN: You know, there's a slight difference between the President of the United States of the State of the Union saying, I think this decision was wrongly decided.
JENNINGS: It wasn't quite that polite.
TANDEN: It was pretty close to that, versus you're basically scumbags. These are different things. I mean, maybe you can't tell the difference between those things.
JENNINGS: Are you denying that Obama stood there? He blasted them to their face. To their face in front of the whole country at the state of the union.
RANTZ: At the state of the union blasting norms.
TANDEN: This is like a tan suit in comparison to what happens every day around here. Saying at the state of the union you had a disagreement. Sure, people didn't like that.
But here, he's basically attacked them personally and their families and I mean, I just think it's ridiculous to say these are the same. They're not the same.
HONIG: All right, folks. Good discussion. We're going to be watching Justice Alito real carefully. Everyone's going to be on retirement watch for the next year or so. JENNINGS: Hang on. Hang on, Sam.
HONIG: All right. Next up, outgoing Republican Senator Thom Tillis says he's worried about the President's reaction. If midterms don't go his way, we will discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HONIG: Tonight, outgoing Senator Thom Tillis says he's concerned the President might do something dramatic if his party loses the midterms. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROSS DOUTHAT, "60 MINUTES" CORRESPONDENT: Do you have any concerns about how this same President who you've been condemning for January 6th will react if Republicans have a bad night in the midterms?
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): I think there's a risk. I really do. It would be another political unforced error if we do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HONIG: Donald Trump has claimed large-scale fraud in elections that he has won, elections that he has lost. He has claimed it in generals and primaries. He has claimed it in Democratic elections and in Republican elections.
Does anyone at this table think that if Donald Trump, if the Republicans lose the Senate or the House, that Donald Trump will accept that?
RANTZ: We're going to have an election, right? Because I remember the Democrats telling us we wouldn't even have this midterm election.
JENNINGS: Not this time last year.
HONIG: Okay, but that's a diversion.
RANTZ: It's not a diversion.
HONIG: Do you think Donald Trump is going to win?
RANTZ: Thom Tillis is selling a book, which goes on sale tomorrow. Thom Tillis has been a critic of this President since his career was destroyed by the President. So I don't necessarily go to Thom Tillis for any kind of objective response here.
Is the President going to be upset with how this turned out? We'll find out.
HONIG: Let's try this real quick. You think he's going to accept the loss?
RANTZ: Yes, I think he ultimately will accept the loss.
HONIG: First time ever.
[22:50:01]
HAJJAR: What I'm going to say is some of his voters are already bracing for a bad night, too. This came up in Texas with Republicans, Republican Paxton voters even, worrying that Republicans weren't going to turn out enough, worrying that Talarico was gaining too much ground. So even Republicans, and I'm talking MAGA voters, are pretty worried about election night.
JENNINGS: I'm surprised. We're only talking about Trump here. A number of Democrats, elected officials and party people, have come out in public, including, I think, on this network, and already sort of preset the idea that Republicans are out there rigging or trying to steal the election.
I wonder why we're not having a dual conversation here, Elie, because for all the complaining about Donald Trump, we've had a number of Democrats lately saying, well, we have to make sure they're not out there stealing the election.
There's no evidence that anyone's stealing the election.
TANDEN: Are these Democrats in the room with us right now? Like, who's actually saying?
JENNINGS: Sometimes they are. Sometimes they are definitely in this room here at CNN.
TANDEN: Who is saying?
JENNINGS: I just wonder, are Democrats going to accept the outcome if this doesn't go the way they say the polls are pushing right now?
TANDEN: My favorite part of this is that Donald Trump threatens elections. He, just so we're clear, you know, led an insurrection to oppose the results that he did not like around the 2020 election.
So you can imagine Democrats would be concerned at the tactics he could use with the Justice Department. So the fact that people may be concerned about that shows that they like, worry and are taking precautions, but they're not doing anything other than telling people to vote.
Vote early, that is what Democrats are saying. They're not saying cheat, they're not saying rig, they're saying, please vote. That is their response.
WEST: You know, my brother, the quickest way is sliding into neo- fascism. is when one party doesn't stand up for integrity, but simply says, well, the other party did this that was bad, so we can do it so it's bad, and you just go right down, sliding down the slippery slope to chaos and corruption. And so that's my fear.
TANDEN: But Cornell, where are you seeing, I mean, when you're saying one party does one thing and another party follows, Democrats are not saying they're trying to rig elections. They're not using the military. They're not doing the election.
RANTZ: Gavin Newsom saying we won't going to have an election, maybe Pritzker said exactly the same thing, Chris Murphy said the exact same thing. Those are the Democrats who are telling you --
TANDEN: That is not rigging the election.
RANTZ: It's worse than that.
(CROSSTALK)
WEST: I don't think it's equal, but you still have enough voices on both sides that they push integrity out and it becomes just a matter of power manipulation that's not a good thing.
HONIG: All right, stay with us everyone. Up next, we'll react to your feedback, can't wait to see this, from cnn.com/abby.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HONIG: All right, now it's time for your viewer feedback from cnn.com/abby. Everyone ready?
All right, we're going to convene a Constitutional Convention because one of our viewers has suggested we need term and age limits for the Supreme Court, Presidents, and Congress. Max age 75 and/or 20 years. Who votes yes?
Yes, votes. I'm a yes on that.
RANTZ: No.
HONIG: Why alone? No.
JENNINGS: Yes, you're alone. Why are you?
RANTZ: If you get someone who's really good and is effective and they've got, like, they know how to work the system, I want them representing me.
I do think that we should have cognitive tests. I think that that's totally fair. That should be made public.
HONIG: So why are you against it?
TANDEN: I mean, I'm actually for younger people running and being in office. I guess I really like Nancy Pelosi. So, and she was like -- RANTZ: She's 200 years old.
TANDEN: I mean, she's very effective when she was 17, 79.
JENNINGS: I'm with Neera, actually. Look, we have term limits already. They're called elections.
The American people can limit your term anytime they feel like it. And so, and that's --
Now, on the Supreme Court, we give these people lifetime appointments for a reason because you would think accumulated experience and wisdom would be good and you want them insulated from politics so I don't agree with you.
HONIG: I've been outvoted 5-1.
TANDEN: I'm definitely for term limits on the Supreme Court.
HONIG: One of our viewers writes in, a mail-in ballot cost me a lot less than the cost of the gasoline it would take to drive to a polling place. Sick burn, Scott.
HAJJAR: I guess we know how they're voting.
HONIG: Exactly, what do you mean?
HAJJAR: Well, this is one of the biggest complaints I'm hearing from voters. It's gas and that was something that the Trump admin actually had on their side earlier on in the administration. People were like, okay, gas prices are going down.
But now it is literally the number one thing I hear no matter where I'm going in the country.
HONIG: Do Democrats have a plan, though, on gas? They talk about affordability.
TANDEN: End the war. We should end the war.
JENNINGS: You want to surrender now to the country that's economically collapsing, literally today?
TANDEN: I don't know.
JENNINGS: Surrender to terrorists. That's the Democratic plan.
TANDEN: I have to say, you know, I think the war was a really bad idea, but I actually think most Americans think that their gas prices should be a bigger concern to them, to the President, than this war that he is flailing at.
JENNINGS: Flailing? They're defeated, their navy is sunk, their air force is destroyed, they have no defense industrial complex, their economy is collapsing. They are defeated.
HONIG: Scott, if it's over, if we've defeated them, why isn't the war over?
JENNINGS: We have the blockade on because we are pressuring them economically right now. Look what's happening to their currency, it's literally worthless.
[23:00:05]
They can't even pay their teachers and nurses. Their economy is collapsing right now, the entire Middle East is aligned against them.
TANDEN: We're all suffering. We're suffering in (inaudible) Scott is happy.
HONIG: The last bit of your input. A viewer writes, Cornell West is such a blessing. Amen.
Who would disagree?
WEST: Well, I'm just a crack vessel trying to love my crooked neighbor with my crooked heart.
HONIG: Before we go, everyone, you can stream the show live or watch on demand anytime with an all-access subscription. Scan the Q.R. code on your screen or go to cnn.com/watch to learn more.
Thank you for tuning in to "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
