Return to Transcripts main page
Inside Politics
Trump Faces Headwinds After Flip-Flops Rattle Allies & Markets; Government Shutdown Looms With Funding Deadline 5 Days Away; Five Years On: How Has COVID Transformed U.S. Politics; House GOP Faces Medicaid Cut Hurdle: Their Own Constituents; Cuomo's Past Divides Democrats as He Launches NYC Mayoral Bid. Aired 8-9a ET
Aired March 09, 2025 - 08:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[08:00:08]
COY WIRE, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, the one hour time change, did you know poor Allie came out earlier this morning with two different shoes on? She was like, should I wear the cream or the black?
ALLISON CHINCHAR, AMS METEOROLOGIST: I went into the hair and makeup ladies to ask their opinion, and they told me. And then I totally forgot.
(LAUGHTER)
OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN ANCHOR: See? But she adjusted on the fly. That's why you're the best.
Good to see you both.
WIRE: You too.
JIMENEZ: Thanks for spending your morning with us.
INSIDE POLITICS with the one and only Manu Raju starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(MUSIC)
MANU RAJU, CNN HOST (voice-over): Whipsaw.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There will always be changes and adjustments.
RAJU: Trump injects uncertainty into a shaky economy as tensions rise over Elon Musk.
Does Trump have a plan?
SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): Am I worried that it could impact us? Of course.
RAJU: And as Democrats flail --
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): I think we need to avoid taking the bait.
RAJU: -- is Congress barreling toward a shutdown?
Plus, COVID five years on.
TRUMP: Each and every one of us has a critical role to play.
RAJU: How has the pandemic reshaped politics?
And back to the future? Democratic heavyweights test the waters as the next campaign has already begun.
INSIDE POLITICS, the best reporting from inside the corridors of power, starts now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
RAJU (on camera): Good morning. And welcome to INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY. I'm Manu Raju.
Well, it was a head spinning week in Washington. Trump's on again and off again tariff plans are rattling markets, allies and his own administration, with many wondering what comes next and if he actually has a game plan.
Now, despite blowback from businesses large and small, Trump is still threatening new retaliatory tariffs on Canada, which could go into effect any day. But it's not just trade. Take the war in Ukraine. On Friday, Trump said he was ready to impose new sanctions on Russia if Moscow continued pounding Ukraine.
But just a few hours later in the Oval Office, he asserted, Vladimir Putin held, quote, all the cards in the conflict and quote, is doing what anybody else would do.
And then there's the Elon Musk of it all. His DOGE continues his push to purge the government. Is the president taking steps to limit Musk's seemingly unchecked power?
A lot to unpack this morning with my terrific panel, including CNN's Jeff Zeleny, NPR's Michel Martin, Hans Nichols with "Axios", and Olivia Beavers with "The Wall Street Journal".
Good morning to you all.
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.
RAJU: Great to see you guys.
Jeff, you were busy. You had a story out this weekend with our colleague Kevin Liptak about the whiplash of it all, of Donald Trump's past week or so, as you can see on your screen there. So what is -- is there actually -- Trump is obviously a very impulsive
president, and we've seen that in the last week. Is there any strategy behind this?
ZELENY: It is the question and really day by day as the tariffs were on, were off. Others were exempted. Others were not.
The market reacted in such a way that the confusion was not clear. The uncertainty was really driving so much unknown about what his actual plan was. And then the president a few days ago said, I'm not looking at the markets. I think anyone who has watched Donald Trump for a long time.
RAJU: Since when is he not looking at the markets?
ZELENY: That is not true.
But one thing was clear: the markets were looking at him and were looking at all of this sort of confusion and uncertainty.
So look, he loves tariffs. He has long talked about tariffs. But the threat of them is wearing off in some respects. So I think when we step back, I think this was the first week where for all the planning that went into the second Trump presidency, there was a lot in terms of executive orders and what was going to happen.
RAJU: Which is a lot different than 2017.
ZELENY: Oh, totally different. But this was the week where the outside events were testing this White House in ways that we haven't seen so far. But look, it's week seven, so there's a lot to go. But the -- the uncertainty this week certainly was a worry for some of his allies.
RAJU: No question. And just to -- just to remind viewers about everything that happened with tariffs. I mean, he's been going back and forth from January on down saying that they were going to go forward, then pulling back from them and saying that the Chinese tariffs went into effect in early February. Then in March, for 25 percent tariffs went into effect in Mexico and Canada, saying the Chinese tariffs would double.
Then there was a tariff carve-out on March 5th and then later March 6th. The tariffs on Canada and Mexico were delayed for a month. And now maybe reciprocal tariffs are going into effect.
You know, Trump says he has a plan here in terms of he wants to stem the flow of fentanyl in the country, force the other countries in North America to ramp up in dealing with the migration crisis. But what is the risk for Trump in making these threats and then backing off?
MICHEL MARTIN, NPR "MORNING EDITION" HOST: Can I just jump in here? Because first of all, I think were all sort of grappling with the way our sense of the United States' place in the world has changed. Our traditional allies are as dumbstruck as we are trying to figure out, like, can they share -- can they continue to share intelligence with the United States? Has that jeopardized their own security? They're wondering whether, yes, they are actually responding to Trump's demand to ramp up their security spending, but at what cost?
I mean, this is the big question with Trump is, yes, a short term gain in his political objectives. But what's the long term cost? Is the juice going to be worth the squeeze in the long run?
But I can tell you, he may not be looking at, you know, at the markets. And like Jeff said, the markets are looking at him. But politicians really care about themselves. And there's going to be an early test of whether this, this strategy continues to hold in Virginia, right here in Virginia, because they have a gubernatorial election coming up in November, and they've got, you know, Abigail Spanberger running on the Democratic side, seems to be kind of the front runner, an intelligence former CIA agent running against the lieutenant governor who's kind of cast herself in the Trump mold.
Virginia has the second largest number of federal employees in the country, only following California. It's 3 percent of their workforce. So now we're going to see whether this kind of slash and burn approach to cutting the government, this approach to foreign policy, how that plays in just a few months.
And it seems to me, if the results are not what the Republicans want, then that is the time in which we will start to see some pushback to these policies.
RAJU: And a classic bellwether in that Virginia gubernatorial race, the off year election. Absolutely.
And, you know, and it's also just the uncertainty of this all. This is what one economist told "The Associated Press". Nicholas Bloom from Stanford University said, I have an increasing fear that we will enter into what may become known as the Trump recession. Ongoing policy turbulence and a tariff war could tip the U.S. economy into its first recession in five years.
Yes, a serious threat. It's a concern.
HANS NICHOLS, AXIOS POLITICAL REPORTER: Yeah. I mean, every economic cycle you start off with, there's going to be a downturn in the business. There's always the potential of recession. I think if we all had a nickel for every time economists warned about recessions, we'd all be a lot richer.
RAJU: I mean, they said that was going to happen during Biden and it didn't.
NICHOLS: There was 100 percent certainty. And then you saw at the time Janet Yellen went out and almost taunted the Bloomberg economists who said, you said 100 percent certainty we'd have a recession and we didn't. That's not to say that everything's fin in the economic data. There are a lot of warning signs. Jobless claims are ticking up. Unemployment report was a little soft. I think the big question that we're asking ourselves at this table is,
is there any real prospect of Trump doing a course correction? And I take your point, but I'm also impressed that you're thinking forward to November. I mean, I'm trying to figure out how to get to April, right?
(LAUGHTER)
NICHOLS: And there's -- and there's this -- and there's this theory, especially up in Wall Street, that Trump -- an unbound Trump who doesn't have to run for reelection, isn't as concerned about the markets as he was in his first term. I don't know if that's true, but that's a theory out there.
So if the markets aren't going to be a regulator or -- regulator on the president, then we get to elections. But those are long ways away, November and then the midterms again, we're looking at almost two years, which is a lot of weeks in those two years.
RAJU: Maybe he says he doesn't care about it now. But I guarantee you if it goes up, he'll start to tout how he's got helped get the market.
NICHOLS: And I don't -- to be clear, I don't know if he's -- he shrugged that off as sort of the barometer on his presidency. I just think there's a theory out there. If that's not the barometer, what sort of if those instruments he's not looking at, what sort of territory are we in? And I don't know the answer to that question.
OLIVIA BEAVERS, CONGRESS REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: And Republicans are even starting to shift some of their language. They at first said, we have a ton of confidence in how the president is going to handle this. And now some of them are gently, but they are expressing doubts.
And I had one Republican tell me that this was how tariffs were going to impact him back home. It's not a centrist, mind you. That's -- that's some of the narrative that is just centrist who are going to be bothered by tariffs. That's not the case.
This member told me I got a call from my newspaper publisher who was saying, my newspaper comes out of paper, that comes from Canada. It's a 25 percent tariff. And then I got a 10 percent tariff from Canada that comes out of it. That makes it impossible to sell gas. And we've signed all these contracts. That's what he was hearing from a natural gas marketer.
And then he was also hearing from a car dealer saying, I sell cars that are not made in the United States. How am I going to do this?
So they're hearing from a bunch of different people back home, and that is where you might actually start hearing pushback against the Trump administration.
RAJU: Yeah. And look, obviously, this is going to be a big issue for members who are in difficult races as well. Some of the moderate members, some in swing races, states. But you're right, there are conservatives who are worried about the increase in prices as well.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: Should he back off of it -- if it goes, if it starts to hurt your constituents?
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): When we start losing you, back off, you know? There's such a thing as a strategic retreat.
RAJU: What's the impact on your constituents if these tariffs go through?
REP. DAN NEWHOUSE (R-WA): It wouldn't be good. You know, I come from an agricultural area. Canada and Mexico are two of our top trading partners. It's certainly a concern.
MULLIN: It's going to affect a lot of companies. We're going to have to adjust some prices for it. But the president is tired of people taking advantage of our country.
REP. MARK ALFORD (R-MO): We all have a role to play in this to right- size our government.
[08:10:03]
And if I have to pay a little bit more for, for something, I'm all for it to get America right again.
RAJU: You think that a lot of your constituents feel the same way. They're willing to pay a little bit more?
ALFORD: Well, I think so.
If people are going to start making more money, it's just going to take a little patience on the front end.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: Are people willing to pay a little bit more? I mean, as Congressman Alford says. He says that, look, the argument is that in the long term, you'll be better off.
ZELENY: I mean, that's a central question in that interview that you did with him is probably going to show up in an ad if someone runs against him. I mean, look, the bottom line is prices are already very high, and that's already one of the challenges facing this president and this administration. He didn't talk about it a ton on Tuesday night, in his address to a joint session of Congress. But that is the thing when you talk to White House advisers, what worries you the most? It is high prices, stubborn inflation.
And this is sort of just contributing to that. But these farm state Republicans, you were picking up on this more than a week ago, real deep concern about the -- the tariffs and other things. And look, I mean, as the as the budget comes together, is the money going to be there to bail out some of these people when the markets aren't there? So I think its a slippery slope. But the bottom line is we should
point out it's a unified Republican Party behind this president. He has a lot of latitude to do what he wants.
RAJU: Just an ease.
ZELENY: Yeah. There is a sense of unease.
MARTIN: I -- you know, I agree with you because that is one of the things that stands out. You know, we just had a poll earlier this week that just pointed out just how much Trump has solidified the Republican Party.
But you have to remember that his campaign was not based on some concept of shared sacrifice. Those words were never spoken. This was a very transactional campaign, just as his relationships with our allies are transactional. It's -- this is what I'm going to do for you, and this is what I'm going to do for you, and this is what I'm going to do for you.
There was no language that prepared the public for shared sacrifice or for some personal sacrifice in pursuit of a larger goal. So he has not laid the groundwork for that at all.
RAJU: I don't recall in the campaign, I'm saying that the prices may increase here. So --
MARTIN: No.
NICHOLS: You missed the rally when he was telling waitresses that their taxes on tips would end, but he'd have to raise taxes on farmers. No, that wasn't there. But I mean, that's pretty standard for a presidential campaign.
I think this presidential campaign was on steroids, where there is going to be a chicken in every pot. And you saw Kamala Harris and you saw the now President Trump make a lot of promises that are just going to be mathematically difficult to deliver on. But math's none of our strong suits. And in the next block, we'll figure that out.
RAJU: That's why we're journalists, right? Okay. All right. So much to discuss.
And coming up next, put up a fight or fold. Democratic divisions have been on stark display. So with the potential government shutdown just days away, what is their next move?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: Would Democrats vote for that long term extension?
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): I don't know at this point. I think were generally opposed to it because of the collateral damage it does.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[08:17:14]
RAJU: Democrats are now facing a major choice, whether to block a Trump backed bill to keep the government open or supply the votes to avoid a shutdown by 11:59 p.m. on Friday. Yesterday, Speaker Mike Johnson unveiled a bill to extend government funding through September 30th. And Trump is telling all Republicans to support it. But Democratic votes will be needed in the Senate and potentially the House as well.
Now, Democratic leaders are already attacking the GOP plan, but others are signaling they could go along. It all speaks to the deep divisions among Democrats, which we're on full display during Trumps address to Congress amid protests from progressives who defied party leaders demands to show restraint.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): I think we need to avoid taking the bait. Trump specializes in inciting and baiting and bullying, and we need to be above it.
REP. MELANIE STANSBURY (D-NM): We're not going to normalize this. He's been dismantling the federal government, cozying up to Putin, essentially making America weaker, less safe and more expensive. And we're not going to pretend like things are normal right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: All right. My panel is back.
Let's start talking about the shutdown here, the possibility of a government shutdown because, yes, mike Johnson has a narrow majority. Yes, he has to get Republicans in line. There's a chance he could get all Republicans on board other than Thomas Massie. Maybe he's the only one they lose here. And then the Democrats will have a choice.
This is what the Democratic leader said in a statement yesterday. They called it a partisan House Republican bill. They say it recklessly cuts health care, nutritional assistance and $23 billion in veterans benefits. We are voting no. The top three House Democratic leaders in a statement there, the bill would increase defense spending by about $6 billion. Domestic spending would drop by about $13 billion.
So, that being said because the Democratic votes will be needed in some capacity, either in the House and definitely in the Senate --
BEAVERS: Yeah.
RAJU: -- what are the chances of a government shutdown?
BEAVERS: I mean, there's definitely a chance, but right now it seems like there's hope in the House, at least. Speaker Johnson has received a lot of assistance from the Trump administration in getting these Republican members in line. There are about a dozen or so house Republicans who have never backed a government spending bill under my watch.
RAJU: But now, Trump is pressuring them to do it.
BEAVERS: But now, Trump is there. In the Senate, Democrats haven't really revealed their hand about how they plan to act leadership, even privately telling them to kind of keep their cards close to their chest.
Now, some, like Senator Fetterman, are saying that they don't want to be part of a shutdown and would agree. And others are warning that a shutdown would only help Elon Musk. But there is this concern that there aren't guardrails on Elon Musk. And if they do this government spending plan, then they could basically be giving him money to make decisions about the spending as they will.
RAJU: And that's the tension within the Democratic Party, because there's this belief -- there is -- this is their first piece of leverage that they've had since Trump became president.
[08:20:02]
Their votes are needed. And they've demanded these guardrails on Elon Musk. Republicans have said no, but there's this effort saying, look, we can't shut the government down.
Some Democrats -- you mentioned John Fetterman. This is what he told me: I'll never vote for chaos to burn the village down in order to save it. It's pretty -- that's one of our -- that's one of our core responsibilities to keep the government running, he said. Don't burn the village down in order to save it.
But if they supply the votes, the base is going to be furious at people like John Fetterman and the Democrats who vote to keep the government open.
NICHOLS: Yeah, the base is already furious. I think, you know, John Fetterman is turning out to be a great quote for congressional reporters. You can go to him and he sometimes says the quiet part out loud. That's a good quote and we'll continue to go back to him.
To me, I think the most interesting development in the last 48 hours is the Jeffries letter. That was Clark (ph) Jeffries, the entire Democratic leadership. It should be preserved in amber as a thing of beauty that faked us out because when we first read that, at least when I first read that this was the error I made, first read that you're like, oh, he's threatening to vote against the CR. Wow. He's really laying it down.
And then you read it more closely. And to me, I think it's an escape hatch. It's a valve because he's basically saying if they cut Medicaid, that's our red line, right? There is nothing in this short term spending bill that does anything to Medicaid. It's all on the discretionary spending side. It does nothing with us on the nondiscretionary side. It has nothing on Medicaid, Social Security.
RAJU: So you think -- you think the Democrats ultimately supply the votes and keep the government?
NICHOLS: I think this letter gives them the -- the go ahead to say, well, you know, they didn't touch Medicaid in this.
RAJU: Yeah. And look, it's unclear whether the rank and file members, the moderates in swing districts, the people who are who may supply the votes.
NICHOLS: Those 13 -- those 13, you know, Democrats representing Trump districts, they're going to have a tough decision. But I think Jeffries and the entire Democratic leadership gave themselves an out with that letter, and they can still end up voting for this and vote to fund the government because, look, federal workers.
I mean, look, this is all kind of an exercise for us. If you're a federal government worker this weekend and this week are going to be especially tough for you, you're not only wondering if you have long term job security, but short term job security. And they're -- they're in a real difficult position.
RAJU: Let's take a step back, because there's this view among the Democratic voters on how they view the Democratic Party. And it's not good if you're a Democrat.
Look at among Democratic voters and this Quinnipiac poll out recently, 40 percent of voters, just 40 percent of Democratic voters approve of how Democrats are handling their job in Congress. And so, then how do you get back into the majority if you are the Democrats, given how dispirited the Democratic base is?
This is what Senator Chris Murphy told "The New York Times". He said it's an easy story. Elon Musk and the billionaires have taken over government to steal from the American people, to enrich themselves.
That's the message. It's true. It's persuasive. And if we repeat it over and over again, they won't win. Is that enough for Democrats to come out of the wilderness?
MARTIN: Yeah, it just doesn't seem like -- I mean, I think there's just to your point. I mean, its even if they manage to finesse the way they handle this government shutdown issue, the divide between it seems like the Democratic leadership and the people who vote for them is just growing wider, because what you see is that Democrats are angry.
I mean, rank and file Democrats or even people who are kind of loosely Democratic, want to see something that they can hold on to that makes sense to them. And this doesn't make sense to them.
Basically saying it's not that bad. It was not a winning message in the campaign, and it's not a winning message now. And to -- to your point, look, you know, there are 13 Democrats and Donald Trump won districts.
There's just three Republics -- there are just three Republicans in Kamala Harris won districts. So the Republicans, just in terms of having a coherent message that goes from the top to the bottom, they have the winning side there.
But Democrats, it just -- it just -- it seems like sort of all negative and all sort of minimalist. And I don't think its persuasive to people who are just kind of following this, casually.
RAJU: Uh-huh.
MARTIN: You know, in this area where there are a lot of federal workers, people watch these issues closely. Maybe that is a sort of a finesse argument, makes sense. But when you're talking about people who are just going through day to day and want to know what the Democrats stand for, it's a -- it's weak sauce.
ZELENY: It's unusual or it's different than the last time, because Trump was once the great unifier for Democrats, and now it's very much a divider in terms of how you're going to approach this.
But I think the -- the display in the house chamber on Tuesday night, I think was a bit of a wake up call for some Democrats that its not enough to -- but its not a unifying wake up call like some people saw it different ways. But I think id be surprised if any House Democrats voted for the spending bill --
NICHOLS: In the short term?
ZELENY: Yeah, I'd be surprised about that, but the Senate perhaps. But again, who owns the government shutdown?
RAJU: Yeah.
ZELENY: That's the central question. Can Democrats make Republicans own it or do Democrats own it? Whoever fingerprints are on it, you lose politically. So --
RAJU: Yeah. And then if you ultimately forced to cave, you'll look even worse if you're the one who caused it.
NICHOLS: What you saw there was the beginning of a bet from Zeleny to me on whether or not -- I'm not going to bet on it.
RAJU: I want to see -- I don't want to see it right here.
NICHOLS: I don't on the races that I cover. That's right.
RAJU: But I do. I want to ask you, Jeff, about what Tim Walz told "Politico" over the weekend.
[08:25:01]
Of course, the Kamala Harris running mate, the Minnesota governor, talking about what went wrong, in his view, in the Harris campaign.
He said: We shouldn't have been playing this thing so safe. I think we probably should have just rolled the dice and done the town halls, where voters may say, you're full of S bleep, expletive. I don't believe in you. I think there could have been more of that. What do you make of the -- of Tim Walz? Now we're seeing these 2000 --
potential candidates. We saw Gavin Newsom a couple of days ago talk about how -- breaking with his party on how transgender athletes and whether they should play in female sports. What's your takeaway from that?
ZELENY: I mean, Gavin Newsom wins the political, politically expedient sort of Democrat of the week. I mean, but separate of that, I'm not sure whoever the leading Democrat in 2025 is, is going to be the leading one in 2028, totally separate things.
But as for Tim Walz -- look, he was muzzled during the campaign, but he went along with it right before he was chosen. He was doing every interview, every podcast. He was out there.
And then the minute he was chosen, he was sort of Biden. And it was still sort of the Biden advisers who were wrapping people in bubble wrap, and he was muzzled. So he's voicing some frustration like that wasn't the right strategy, which I think is obvious at this point.
But look, going forward, the Democrats are without a leader. That is this moment. And that's what this time is, is to find one. But I'm not sure it will be either of those two governors.
RAJU: Yeah, we will see. I'm sure there'll be a lot of people throwing their hats in the ring and giving their assessment about what went wrong.
All right. Coming up, five years ago this week, COVID 19 upended the world from sports to social life to politics. We'll take a look at how the pandemic fundamentally reshaped American politics.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: What a scene in Oklahoma City. The NBA suspended its season after a player on the Utah Jazz tested positive for coronavirus.
GOV. JAY INSLEE (D), WASHINGTON: These events that are prohibited are gatherings for social, recreational, spiritual and other matters.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[08:31:23]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It goes away. It's going away. We want it to go away with very, very few deaths.
DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, FORMER DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: And as a nation, we can't be doing the kinds of things we were doing a few months ago that it doesn't matter if you're in a state that has no cases or one case. DR. DEBORAH BIRX, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE COORDINATOR:
We will see the number of people diagnosed dramatically increase over the next four to five days.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: Five years ago this week, the World Health Organization then declared COVID-19 a pandemic. And since then, the virus has killed 1.2 million Americans, and of course, reshaped our world as well as our politics.
My panel is back to weigh in on the latter.
You know, there was this interesting Pew Research poll that came out that was just published a few weeks ago. It was taken late last year.
It surveyed about -- 9,500 adults, much larger sample size than most surveys. But here, look, this is a widespread agreement among Americans. 72 percent of the U.S. adults believe COVID drove the country apart.
MICHEL MARTIN, NPR "MORNING EDITION" HOST: I think it was an intensifier. I mean, I've been thinking a lot about this. I think all of us have. Just because we're five years into this and we're all sort of living the results of this thing that none of us ever expected to live through, except maybe the small group of like analysts, public health and CIA analysts, who think about this stuff all day long. And --
RAJU: But it's a crisis. Sometimes you see crises in this country bring people together --
MARTIN: And it's the opposite. It's the opposite but I feel like the strains that COVID sort of brought forward were already there. I think the polarization was already there.
I think the disengagement of kids in the educational system was already there. I think if you look at the data, I think you see the seeds of what COVID really brought into the open were already there.
And what it did is intensify all of it. The sense of like you versus me. And leadership, I think does play a role in that.
But I also think that the way the public health community tried to guide us, I mean, they were guiding us according to scientific principles. They weren't guiding us according to, you know, public relations principles, where you have to have one clear message and stick with it so that people get it.
They were changing their guidance as they got new information. That's how scientists work. But that's not how the public receives information. And I think that people who are willing to exploit that did.
RAJU: The impact on the electorate, too, has been interesting because in some ways it's created this, you know, angrier, this anti- incumbent, anti-institution electorate that, you know, Trump in particular tapped into.
NICHOLS: Yes. I don't think we'll ever fully know the political tale of this. I think probably the more interesting question is what's the education tale on this? What does it do for learning loss for particularly kids who are in rural areas, people in inner city areas? It was really tough for a lot of families.
The political tale is harder to sort of divine. To me, I think the first indication we had was the Virginia election. It seemed to me just talking sort of through reporting that Glenn Youngkin won right in the first year of Biden's presidency. It was a bit of a COVID backlash.
I've never been able to fully price out how much Trump's reelection or his victory in 2024 was sort of a COVID hangover.
And I think when you talk to Republican strategists, they absolutely think that that had -- they were able to push certain buttons, it allowed them to sort of tap into this great, as you're mentioning, sort of distrust and unease that a lot of the country feels.
[08:34:52]
RAJU: Yes.
NICHOLS: And again, it's really hard to kind of put your finger on it and actually come up with --
ZELENY: At the at the local political level, though, there's no doubt that it impacted school boards and town halls and other things like these decisions that had to be made, which I think sort of seeped upwards.
So I think you're right about the Virginia thing. I mean, there's no question that there was a COVID hangover there in Loudoun County, other places. And that really echoed all across the country, which I think is still playing a key role in the politics right now today.
MARTIN: Is it the difference between an external enemy and one that is this sort of inchoate, invisible thing that's sort of around us? Because I was, you know, I was -- we all remember 9/11. I was in New York on 9/11.
And I remember people kind of lining up to give blood, people calling and saying what can I do? Like people who didn't even work in the media anymore, saying, what can I do to help?
And we didn't. We didn't really see that. I think people tried like certain celebrities like you remember, everybody remembers Tom Hanks, we're all in this together. Turns out we weren't.
RAJU: Yes.
I mean, it's interesting, just the partisan breakdown about how voters, particularly Republican voters, view public health officials. Just look at how much its dropped since from March of 2020 to October
of 2024. 84 percent of Republican voters back in 2020 had confidence in these public health officials, who then were responding to COVID. It is now 35 percent of Republican voters. That is 50 points in four years.
BEAVERS: And that totally matches, I think, what my conversations are with Republicans, they felt like after the vaccines came out, the rules about COVID were too restrictive. Government was overreaching, and they weren't having their calls for going back to work and the economy being heated.
I even have conversations with Republicans who say they distrust the media. They distrust the government except for maybe Trump, if he weighed in on this, that if there was another serious pandemic again, they have told me, you will not get me to stay home. You will not get me to listen to these restrictions.
So there is probably a possible threat down the line of the people -- the Republican base not being willing to listen if something -- another catastrophe --
NICHOLS: Where are we on a commission, right? I mean, I shouldn't ask questions on a TV show that I should know the answer to, but I'll go ahead and do it.
RAJU: Maybe we should call your sources.
NICHOLS: Yes. Both of them, right. They're sleeping in.
Where are we? I mean, this is so obvious that you need a bipartisan commission on something like this to actually -- and if you can get to a consensus and, you know, never be completely exact and precise, but like, like, are we -- are we going to have a commission on this?
I mean, and again, it's not just for looking backwards.
RAJU: But could they even have a commission that could do this in a nonpartizan --
(CROSSTALKING)
NICHOLS: But it's looking -- but it's looking forward, right, which they should be able to find common ground because this isn't really about what we got wrong, although it is. It's about what happens if you have a pandemic that's even worse next time and how do you actually manage that? And that's a tough question.
ZELENY: I mean, to Michel's point about the intensifier, the thing that's so right, also with misinformation and disinformation, I mean, the difference between 9/11 -- you're right. It was external, but there was largely an agreed upon set of facts until the war happened, obviously. But at that moment there was.
But this really just, you know, was fuel on the fire of the disinformation sort of age we are in right now. And there was no sort of general agreement on vaccines, on the cause, on the blame. So I think it exacerbated things that were already there.
RAJU: And to Olivia's point about how would the public health officials would respond to the next outbreak here? There's, you know, there's growing vaccine skepticism within the GOP, really, since this has gone up 26 percent in this poll of Republican parents say they've skipped or delayed childhood vaccines.
That is up since -- from 2023, 13 percent at the time shows you if there's -- if maybe, you know, maybe it's given rise to people. Someone like RFK Jr., who's now, of course, the secretary of Health and Human Services.
BEAVERS: Or even Elon Musk deciding to buy X, aka old Twitter, because there was -- there were conversations about Republicans feeling like the discussions during COVID were impacting their First Amendment rights.
And there's definitely a contingency now, who are -- more Republicans are not getting COVID shots now, even though COVID is still happening in this country. And there's you know, they're saying its equivalent to the flu even though we had about a million Americans die.
And there are still I think -- I saw a stat in "The New York Times" that 1,400 school aged children have died from COVID since school reopening.
So there's definitely still an issue. And vaccines are definitely an undercurrent in this.
RAJU: It will be interesting to see, you know, through four years how much that number of vaccine skeptical Republican parents grows. Does it stay the same? Does it change? How do Democrats view it as well?
All right. Great discussion guys.
And coming up for us, a top House Republican tells me why he's advising his members to avoid town halls in a brand-new analysis on how Republicans could be dooming their own majority.
Plus, why Andrew Cuomo's mayoral bid is dividing Democrats.
[08:39:50]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
RAJU: Across the country, voters have flooded Republican town halls, expressing anger over government cuts and over the possibility that the GOP-led Congress could slash Medicaid, too.
So what does this mean for the fragile House majority?
I want to bring in CNN senior political analyst Ron Brownstein, who's been crunching the numbers.
Ron, good morning. Thank you so much for joining me.
[08:44:50]
RAJU: You know -- yes, you know, Republican leaders are insisting that they are not going to cut Medicaid. Maybe they'll ultimately have to as part of this deal because they are clearly spooked about Medicaid cuts, even though they have long been supportive about turning it into a block grant program.
RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes.
RAJU: So Ron, you did an analysis. You dug into the makeup of House GOP and Democratic districts. So what explains this rather significant shift?
BROWNSTEIN: Yes. Look, I covered the '95-'96 budget battle between Gingrich and Clinton. Obviously, the 2017 effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And each time, Republicans didn't really have a lot of hesitation about trying to cut Medicaid because they viewed it primarily as a program for the urban poor.
Well, two fundamental things have changed to alter that equation.
One is that under the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid was expanded to cover more of the working poor.
And second, we've had that class realignment in the House where Republicans now hold many of those lower income, lower education, non- urban districts that were once held by blue dog Democrats.
And the result is what we found in this analysis of the data collected by the NYU School of Medicine and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Not only do dozens of House Republicans now represent districts where more people than average rely on Medicaid, but far more Republicans than Democrats, Manu, represent districts with greater incidence of underlying health problems. Serious problems like diabetes, high blood pressure, heart issues, obesity, breast cancer death and those are the places that are most vulnerable if health care coverage is rescinded or revoked.
And so there really is no way for Republicans to cut Medicaid, particularly at the magnitude they're talking about, without imposing serious costs on their own voters. That's why this sounds different than it did in '95, '96 or even in 2017.
RAJU: Yes, what a fascinating shift over the last couple of decades here.
And, you know, Ron, Republicans have been told to stop doing these in- person town halls that have been -- that we've seen over the last couple of weeks.
This is what the GOP campaign chairman of the House, Richard Hudson, told me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. RICHARD HUDSON (R-NC): Unfortunately, the Democrats have hijacked in-person town halls. They're paying people to show up and disrupt them to -- so they're basically a threat to democracy because we're not allowed to have a dialog with our constituents at these in-person town halls anymore.
So what I said was, don't create a format for that.
RAJU: It's going to hurt you, guys politically if they're doing these town halls. It will come back to bite them with some moments that may go viral.
HUDSON: Well, you don't want to -- you don't want to have a viral moment on YouTube. I mean, what good does that serve?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: The GOP has offered little evidence, of course, that Democrats are paying people to show up at these town halls.
But Ron, there's a lot to be said about how the Democrats are in the wilderness. They're struggling to find their own identity, but how much of their strategy rests on simply the outrage that we're seeing in these town halls?
And how similar is this to when the GOP in 2010 ultimately rode the Tea Party wave to recapture the House?
BROWNSTEIN: Yes look, the Democratic image is as weak as its been probably since the 80s under Reagan and Bush. But the reality is, Manu, that the last five times a president went into a midterm election with unified control of government, which is what Republicans have now, voters have revoked it.
No president has defended unified control of government in a midterm since Jimmy Carter in 1978.
The (INAUDIBLE) Tom Davis, the former NRCC chairman, says the midterm has become to put a check on the president, not give him a blank check.
And the Democrats, I think, are banking above all on this fight over the budget with taxes for primarily benefiting the top portrayed against cuts in programs like Medicaid that primarily benefit the middle and working class.
RAJU: All right. Ron Brownstein, always full of detailed information and great analysis. Ron Brownstein, thank you so much for joining me.
And up next, big pivot. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand pushed fellow Democrat Al Franken to resign over sexual misconduct allegations. So why is she signaling an openness to Andrew Cuomo as the New York City mayor?
[08:48:56]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
RAJU: Former New York governor Andrew Cuomo resigned in disgrace three and a half years ago amid a litany of allegations of sexual misconduct, which he denies.
But now he's considered the favorite to be the next mayor of New York city. So how are his fellow Democrats from New York responding to his candidacy? Well, they're badly split.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: You're supporting Cuomo, is that right?
REP. RITCHIE TORRES (D-NY): Yes.
RAJU: You believe him and his denials about the sexual harassment denials?
TORRES: I'm endorsing him because he has the competence to run New York City and because he has the courage to stand up to Donald Trump.
REP. DAN GOLDMAN (D-NY): Our city is ready for a new generation of leader.
RAJU: Do you believe Cuomo's denials about sexual harassment in particular?
GOLDMAN: I don't have an opinion on it.
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): I will not be endorsing Andrew Cuomo for the mayoral seat. I think as a city, we want to move on to new leadership and start a fresh page.
You know, I think we desperately need a mayor that we can remain focused, undistracted by any of the, you know, any of the weight of the past.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: Now, what about New York's Democratic senators? There's been some question about Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.
[08:54:50]
RAJU: Remember, she was the first and most outspoken senator back in 2017 to call on then-Senator Al Franken to resign following his own allegations of sexual misconduct.
But now she's signaling an openness to Cuomo and explains what's different to CNN's Ted Barrett.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY): Andrew Cuomo had, I don't know how many allegations against him. I called on him to resign. Senator Franken had eight allegations against him. I called on him to
resign, which is pretty much what most of our elected leaders did at the time.
This is a question of whether Andrew Cuomo, after he resigned, can come back into office, and that's entirely for the voters to decide.
We're a country of second chances. They will decide whether he deserves a second chance.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: And I asked the other New York senator, Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, whether he'd support Cuomo. But he walked into a closed-door meeting and ignored the question.
That's it for INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY. You can follow me on X @mkraju. Follow the show at Inside Politics. Follow me on Instagram @manu_raju.
If you ever miss an episode, just catch up wherever you get your podcasts and search for INSIDE POLITICS.
Up next, "STATE OF THE UNION WITH JAKE TAPPER AND DANA BASH". Jake's guests includes Senators Andy Kim and Rick Scott, as well as U.S. hostage envoy Adam Boehler.
Thanks again for sharing your Sunday morning with us. We'll see you next time.
[08:56:09]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
