Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump's DOJ Sues Alaska To Block Certification If Republican Loses; Trump Campaigns In Florida, Which He Won By Double Digits; Musk Helps Fuel Cost Of Record-Breaking Texas Race; Millions of Dollars of A.I.-Generated Ads Flood Midterm Elections. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired October 23, 2026 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: One Democrat suggested that if it's ranked choice voting, people should just vote for both so they don't get it wrong. But that's them saying that in order to get your vote right, you have to do an extra action.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I mean, you probably should be informed.
OK, does anyone know this Eddie Murphy movie, "The Distinguished Gentleman" from 1992? One viewer points out that this storyline was covered there.
All right, we've got one more. Can we pivot to something positive for one moment? Abby, when is your baby due?
Well, funny you should ask. He is due literally any minute now. So I'm going to sign off tonight and go do my most important job.
Bring this baby into the world. So I will see you all in a couple of months, everyone. Thank you very much for being here.
Before we go, "Have I Got News for You," their crew is back with another new show tomorrow night. We've got a preview for it. You watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROY WOOD JR., COMEDIAN AND HOST OF "HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU": Bonus points. What else did the President give Ohio voters this past week?
AMBER RUFFIN, COMEDIAN AND TEAM CAPTAIN, "HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU": A little pinch on the butt.
WOOD JR.: But you're close.
RUFFIN: No, boy.
WOOD JR.: It involved that ass.
RUFFIN: No.
DAVID PAKMAN, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It's Houston's ass.
MICHAEL IAN BLACK, COMEDIAN AND HOST, "HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU": Oh, yes.
PAKMAN: And his muscular hands.
WOOD JR.: Points to you, new guy.
(APPLAUSE)
Trump gave out more compliments for Senator John Houston's big, beautiful butt.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I'm studying his body. I've never studied the body of a man before, but it's never been my thing, to be honest with you. But I looked at his ass.
And then I looked at his legs, and I said, his ass, it's like a pile of muscle. Then I looked at his shoulders, and I tapped him on the shoulder, and it actually hurt my hand. It was like a piece of steel, and he said, this guy's a monster.
BLACK: Tear, oh, tear. Now I know why the President was sweating so much. Good luck.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: You can catch the all-new episode on Saturday at 9 P.M. on CNN, and streaming the next day with an all-access subscription.
Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." Tomorrow morning, be sure to catch "Table for Five" at 10 a.m. Eastern, right here on CNN. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CROWD: USA! USA!
TRUMP: Every place wants me. I'm the only one that can get 25,000 people to show up.
REP. BYRON DONALDS (R-FL), FLORIDA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: Mamdani stays in New York, but he's not coming to Florida.
UNKNOWN: There's a lot of people who have buyer's remorse.
UNKNOWN: The Trump administration is suing Alaska.
MARY PELTOLA, ALASKA SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: This is just a desperate attempt to silence Alaskans.
UNKNOWN: The ad, it was just icky, it was gross.
VIVEK RAMASWAMY, FORMER 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: They are lying about an ad that is about lying. KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, FORMER DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR U.S. PRESIDENT: We see Scott Colom as the next United States senator.
CROWD: We love Scott!
TRUMP: I look so forward to Michigan, and I think it's going to be wild because he's a total phony.
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: Republicans don't deserve an A+. They all deserve a pink slip.
TRUMP: Let's go out and do what we do best. We win, win, win on November 3rd. Win.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR AND NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good evening. Welcome to a special edition of "Laura Coates Live: Countdown to Election Night." I'm Erica Hill, in for Laura.
The midterms are just 11 days away now, but President Trump's Justice Department is already suing to block the certification of the results in a race that could determine control of the Senate. It is a lawsuit that targets one specific outcome, a narrow Democratic win in Alaska, and the president says he's the one who ordered it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Any thoughts on the Alaska lawsuit? With the ballot?
TRUMP: Well, I'm the one -- I'm the one that said do it. They have two guys run named Dan Sullivan running. So, the Democrats put up a guy who never thought of -- I don't think he ever voted before. All of a sudden, he decides to run for the Senate, and his name is Dan Sullivan. One is Daniel S., one is Daniel J. The Daniel J. is the fake.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: It is, in fact, a tale of two Sullivans, incumbent GOP senator, Dan S. Sullivan, and Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a retired schoolteacher who is also a registered Republican.
The DOJ alleges the second Sullivan is running for one reason. That's to confuse voters. They claim the plan here is to siphon off enough Republican votes from the incumbent to hand Democrat Mary Peltola a win.
Daniel J. Sullivan denies he's a Democratic plant, but Trump has been complaining about the Sullivan situation for weeks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I'm talking about the real Dan Sullivan, not the fake Dan Sullivan, not the Dan Sullivan put up by the Democrats.
Well, it's close for one reason, that they have a phony Dan Sullivan.
[23:05:02]
Think of it. They have a man named Dan Sullivan running against them, the Democrats. I think, Todd, you have a legal case on that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: Well, that case is now here. It's not the first legal battle, however, over the two Dan Sullivans. You may recall, Republicans already challenged Daniel J. Sullivan's candidacy. Alaska election officials kicked him off the ballot. He sued and won, and the state appealed all the way to Alaska's Supreme Court, which ruled he could stay.
Here's what Alaskans will actually see when they go in to vote. So, Dan Sullivan, you see there, registered Republican, incumbent, on the ballot there. Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. is listed by his full name. No party affiliation.
Despite the state Supreme Court weighing in several months ago, the DOJ now wants a federal judge to block Alaska from certifying the results, but only if Mary Peltola wins by a margin small enough that Daniel J. Sullivan's vote could have changed the outcome.
And it's also important to note the timing of all of these. It was just yesterday. Attorney General Todd Blanche was asked about whether the DOJ would intervene in the certification process.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Any action from the Justice Department in terms of certification process of states? Is there any scenario in which DOJ would weigh in on that certification process or try to block states from certifying?
TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: I mean, is there any scenario? Yes. Of course, there's scenarios that we could all come up with hypothetically. You know, some doomsday scenario, for example, right? So, I don't think it's proper to make any kind of conclusory statements about what's going to happen in the future because I have no idea what's going to happen in the future.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: Let's meet my panel tonight. Former Democratic congressman, Tom Malinowski, former chief counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Alex Vogel, director of strategy for the Free & Equal Elections Foundation, Mike Leon, advisory board member of the Renew Democracy Initiative, Rina Shah, and the president and CEO of Democracy Forward, Skye Perryman. Nice to have all of you with us.
And, of course, just a reminder for everybody watching at home, we also want you to be part of our coverage. You can send us your questions and your comments at cnn.com/engagepolitics, and the panel will be answering them live on air later this hour.
When we look at where things stand, let's just go to the legal first, if we could. The president was very clear. He gave the directive. This is all on him. When we look at it from a legal perspective, Sky, does the DOJ have a legal leg to stand on?
SKYE PERRYMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, DEMOCRACY FORWARD: No, they don't, and there's no basis for this. It's frankly even unclear if they have standing. But there is -- there is no basis for this lawsuit. I think you're going to see it be quickly dismissed as have many of the president's attempts recently but, yes, there's not a legal basis.
HILL: There's much that has been made of this lawsuit because it is very specific, right? There would have to be this narrow margin. And the case there is that it's because people would be confused. When we look at this ballot again, it's very clear that there are two different Dan Sullivans. Alaska, of course, also has ranked choice voting. When you look at this, is there really a case potentially for confusion?
RINA SHAH, ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER OF RENEW DEMOCRACY INITIATIVE, POLITICAL STRATEGIST AND COMMENTATOR, GEOPOLITICAL RISK ADVISER, FORMER SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL GOP ADVISER: Yes, name confusion is real. But preemptively, blocking certification of an entire Senate race is a totally different animal. And I think that's what hit me, and I said, whoa, whoa, whoa, what's going on here, because that's not election integrity, that's election management and that crosses a different sort of border that we are mostly used to here.
And it's happening from Washington because Trump is admitting it here. So, states run elections. Let's be clear. Everybody listens to that. States run elections. That's a fact. But that has been the rule for a long time. And I think, right now, it's getting twisted in this moment.
And I would just say we, as people who understand this process, that, yes, name confusion is real, this thing is happening, we need to understand it needs to stay that way, that states need to run this thing.
Trump doesn't need to rear his head into this. I don't care how you feel about him. He doesn't need to rear his head into this.
PERRYMAN: Let's take efforts to make it less confusing by putting, and you put it up on the screen, incumbent registered Republican.
MIKE LEON, PODCAST HOST, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGY AT FREE & EQUAL ELECTIONS FOUNDATION: You know, I came from living in Florida where we had a couple ballot initiatives that had confusion. Vote "no" would actually equal "yes" in a Republican direction.
If you look back in 2022, I think it was in Western Pennsylvania, there was a Mike Doyle. There were two Mike Doyles in Western Pennsylvania. One was a Democrat, one was a Republican. The Republican was actually running, and the Republican was, like, I'm not running against that Mike Doyle, I'm actually running against the candidate. And Mary Peltola is in this race, which I think a lot of people are not talking about. But I heard Joseph Moreno on Jake's show earlier today. I think it was today or yesterday. Again, Republican strategist, DOJ prosecutor, talking about the legal standing of this.
To your point, there is nothing for this. The state already certified that he could participate in this. And there has been no confusion from voters. If you just look at ranked choice voting in the primaries, he had, like, about 4,000 votes.
ALEX VOGEL, FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL TO SENATE MAJORITY LEADER BILL FRIST, FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL FOR RNC: So, look, I think you make some valid points in terms of the novelty of the remedy and there may be standing issues, but the name confusion is real.
[23:10:04]
And as Haley Barbour once said, I was born at night, but it wasn't last night. It wasn't an accident that a Dan Sullivan showed up. And when he filed the paperwork, accidentally put the incumbent's middle initial. He filed to be on the ballot as exactly the same name, and then said, oh, sorry, yes, sorry, I have a different middle name.
It sure looks like someone was trying to get into this race just to sow the chaos. And, look, I'd rather they're worrying about this now and going to court about it now. We haven't counted votes. We haven't had an election. This feels like a wholly appropriate time to do it. And in the context of a court, this isn't, you know, taking --
(CROSSTALK)
TOM MALINOWSKI, FORMER NEW JERSEY REPRESENTATIVE: Can I mention something that's literally a million times more important? Because the lawsuit is pathetic. It's not going to go anywhere. What's important is what is the attorney general of the United States worried about, what keeps him up at night. Is it crime? Is it terrorism? Is it cyberattacks?
Did you know the Justice Department prosecuted 15 percent fewer violent crimes since 2025, first two years of Trump, compared to the first two years of Biden? The National Security Division at the Justice Department, 40 percent of the prosecutors are gone. The Public Integrity Division that prosecutes real corruption, from 40 prosecutors to five.
Those are not the things that keep Todd Blanche up at night. What he's worried about is doing something that will get a story in the paper the next day that pleases Donald Trump, that satisfies his urge to go after his opponents even if it's not going to go anywhere in court.
What worries me is that the Justice Department is not protecting us. It's doing this silly crap. That's got to change.
HILL: Alex, you said you're happy that this is happening preemptively. When you look at this, though, we heard from President Trump for years under the Biden administration, railing against President Biden, railing against that administration, saying the DOJ was essentially corrupt and they were doing the president's bidding. You have a president who said, this is all me, this was my decision, I told him to do it. Are you comfortable with that?
VOGEL: Look, President Trump made very clear from the beginning of this administration that the Department of Justice is part of the executive branch, the attorney general serves at the pleasure of the president. I get that lots of people suddenly are like, oh, this should be some sort of wholly independent agency. That's not the reality that the president is coming at this with, and that has been consistent throughout this administration and throughout different issues.
The one thing I would just say about DOJ's ability to focus on public corruption and other things, we saw just yesterday, the attorney general was part of the team that was announcing the indictments in Virginia for public official, money, weed sales, guns. I think the attorney general --
MALINOWSKI: If you are -- if you are a Republican.
VOGEL: -- at the same time.
MALINOWSKI: If you are a Republican right now, a Republican elected official, somebody who supports Donald Trump, and you take a bribe on national television, you are not going to be prosecuted. Everybody knows the truth.
HILL: OK, guys --
SHAH: Don't lose sight of the story, though. This is really important --
HILL: So --
SHAH: -- voters know.
HILL: In terms of the story, here are two things I do want to point out. We have heard from Senator Murkowski, who was weighing in, who put out a tweet earlier saying, "Alaskans don't need any help voting for their preferred candidates, and the state of Alaska has already handled this by clearly distinguishing the candidates on this year's ballot. The Department of Justice should never have filed this lawsuit."
MALINOWSKI: Dan Sullivan distanced himself from it. He says he has nothing to do with this.
HILL: There is distance. There is also --
LEON: It has been adjudicated already.
HILL: It has been. There's also a question of how would you actually know that there was confusion, right? How are you -- are you going to go to every single person who cast a ballot and say, how did you vote, who did you vote for, and oops, did you vote for the right -- the person you meant to vote for?
SHAH: We're talking about behavior, right, of Todd Blanche. He knows that this is less about a slam-dunk legal theory and understands this is about engaging the base and planting a flag before the results come in.
And at face value, I would say, no, Alex, I don't agree with you, but actually, I do, because election experts I've talked to, lawyers, say, you know what? Doing these preemptive moves is actually -- it's a long shot. So, actually like it. Do this preemptive move. Get ready to lose Trump world.
I'm just saying, ranked choice voting in Alaska already sorts preferences, as you alluded to. The state put the names on the ballots knowing the distinction. And I just think voters see incumbent and they see party labels. So, let's not make this too complex for America. This is very easy.
And I'm a huge proponent of ranked choice voting, and I think it has helped here. And let the party do this preemptive stuff. They're going to lose in the long run. And Todd Blanche knows it, too. He knows. Again, it needs to be said, there's no slam-dunk legal theory here.
PERRYMAN: And even having this discussion, understanding that, yes, Alaska has addressed any potential confusion issue with how they've done the ballot, this is not how elections run in the United States of America. They are run by the states. The Supreme Court of Alaska has weighed in here.
[23:14:57]
All of a sudden, the Department of Justice isn't interested in states' rights anymore and wants to come in and try to assert standing that it doesn't have. So, I think this will get dismissed.
But the concern is that people across the country become so concerned that the Department of Justice is going to threaten them or do something or that these lawsuits are going to keep them from voting. I think that's what you see in Senator Murkowski.
HILL: We're out of time. We're going to have to -- we're going to have to leave it there. The good news, though, is I can guarantee this is not the last time you will discuss this particular story. We're moving on to the next one. President Trump rallying the base in Florida today where nearly two million people have already cast their votes. The former Republican congressman from the district where the president was today joins me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:19:57]
HILL: Eleven days before Election Day, President Trump spent in the afternoon in his adopted home state of Florida campaigning. Trump has won that state all three times he ran for president. In fact, he increased his margin of victory in 2024 compared to his two previous runs.
Yet Democrats sense an opportunity in the Sunshine State because of the national headwinds against Trump. Some Democrats believe their candidate in the governor's race, David Jolly, can upset Republican Congressman Byron Donalds.
Now, publicly, Trump may not be acknowledging that possibility. Actions, though, do speak louder than words. The president today trekking down to Donald's district, there to campaign for him and also telling voters what he thinks of Jolly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I never told Byron this, but I knew Jolly. I knew him as a Republican. I knew him. He used to be a Republican. And he was thrown out of the party like a dog. We threw him the hell out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID JOLLY, FLORIDA GUBERNATORIAL NOMINEE, FORMER FLORIDA REPRESENTATIVE: I don't think people of goodwill really pay any mind to Donald Trump any longer. I think we're a nation looking past the president. And, frankly, many Republicans are looking past the president. But the reason he's down in Florida is because this race is a toss-up tonight.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: My next guest represented the 19th district before Donalds, former Florida congressman and ambassador to the Holy See, Francis Rooney. Nice to see you again tonight. Is this race really a toss-up at this point?
FRANCIS ROONEY, FORMER FLORIDA REPRESENTATIVE, FORMER AMBASSADOR TO THE HOLY SEE: I think it is. Some of the polling you read about says that Donalds has a high margin, but most of the polling says it's within five to six points, which is the margin of error.
I think you just heard David Jolly acquit himself very well. And the fact that Trump is there in such a Republican stronghold to campaign for Byron says a lot about how they feel about the race. I think David got a real chance.
HILL: So, you think he has a real chance. You represented, as I noted, the district where the president was campaigning today. And we look at some of the most recent polling, even the most recent CNN poll. The president's approval rating overall, 32 percent. It is not great. Even lower when we look at feelings about the economy, about inflation.
What are you hearing from your former constituents? Just how much could the president's unpopularity on key issues here like the economy drag Byron Donalds down?
ROONEY: Yes, it will be hard for a lot of the people in our district not to vote for a Republican. They'll have to really swallow hard to not vote for Trump. But they're not immune to the headwinds that are facing all Americans right now with high gas prices, high diesel prices, high food prices, and unaffordable housing. This country is falling apart largely because of the invasion of Iran and a few other policies which should not have been put in effect.
HILL: The president has told voters that they should pretend he's on the ballot. To that point, to what they are seeing, what everyone in this country is seeing when they go to the grocery store, when they go to fill up at the gas station, you were pretty complimentary there of David Jolly, you think he has a chance? Does he have your vote?
ROONEY: Yes, he does. David is a good man. I've helped him. He was a good Republican. He wasn't kicked out of the party. The party kind of left him a little bit. He wasn't quite conservative enough for it in Tampa. But he's a moderate Bush-Reagan type of person, Clinton kind of person. And I think we need to return to leadership that's more in the middle, more embracing of all the values of American people and not the lunatic fringes on either side.
HILL: You talked about how hard it would be for people in that district to not vote for a Republican. But the way you lay things out, is David Jolly that person, you think, that could get them to not vote for a Republican?
ROONEY: I'm going to be hopeful. He's got a Republican background. He represented Tampa or St. Petersburg as a congressman, as a Republican. And he's a very logical and sane guy.
And, again, people are hurting in this country, and they're hurting in Southwest Florida, too. In fact, in Southwest Florida, we have a lot of people on retirement incomes, fixed incomes, and they're even hurting more when they have to go to the store or put gas in their tank.
HILL: President Trump has most recently been known to vote by mail despite railing on mail-in voting. He is now saying he plans to vote in person tomorrow there in Florida. How much damage do you think the president has done when it comes to mail-in voting? I mean, do his words carry a lot of weight with not only voters and how they look at the integrity of elections in this country but also in terms of voter turnout?
ROONEY: You know, things have gotten so bizarre with him. I'm not sure how much people are paying attention to what he says anymore. You look at the figures of how many votes have been cast, and I don't have all those figures. Your guy that gets up with the board is the expert on all that.
HILL: We rely on Harry for a lot.
(LAUGHTER)
ROONEY: Yes. There has been a lot of votes cast, a lot of mail-in votes cast. And a lot of people, it's the only really way they can vote. It's a legitimate option for people that can't get to a poll. [23:25:01]
HILL: If Democrats do take control of Congress, they have vowed, of course, to investigate the Trump administration. I know you have said that impeaching Donald Trump, it would be a waste of time. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries seems to have a different target in mind. Take a listen to who he's talking about.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You have a vote when you get back into session about whether to impeach Pete Hegseth. Are you going to vote to impeach him?
JEFFRIES: I've been very clear about my feelings as it relates to Pete Hegseth. He never should have been confirmed. So, we'll see what happens in terms of that vote. But I believe Pete Hegseth is in deep trouble.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: Is Pete Hegseth, you believe, in deep trouble? Is that the right strategy, to go after Pete Hegseth, should Democrats take control?
ROONEY: I hope Hakeem is right. I think this Hegseth guy has been an aberration of all the fine secretaries of defense that we've had over the years. He has come up with a lot of ideas that I don't think are so great, including public execution of a heinous criminal.
And I think there's some explaining he should do the American people. He has had a bully pulpit protected by Trump. And putting him on a stand in a congressional hearing where the people can hear his answers and he can be questioned fairly is not a bad idea.
HILL: Francis Rooney, I appreciate you joining us with your perspective. Thank you.
ROONEY: Thank you.
HILL: Still ahead here, it is the most expensive non-presidential race in American history, fueled by the world's richest man. So, what's with Elon Musk's obsession with Texas? My panel is back to dig into this one next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: We know everything is bigger in Texas, and that does include the Senate races. The Lone Star showdown between Republican Ken Paxton and Democrat James Talarico just became the most expensive congressional campaign ever. That is not a typo on your screen. More than $544 million has been spent on ads so far. That includes the primary and the contentious GOP runoff. Now, we're also learning $150 million of that came from one man, Elon Musk. All of that went to support Paxton and the Republicans. Musk has a vested interest in this race. You may recall, he moved to Texas from California. He's also making his feelings about Talarico very clear in the last couple of days, posting a slew of baseless claims about Talarico on his platform, X.
The panel is back with us now. Elon Musk is such a polarizing figure even in Texas. What is the impact of his money in this race?
VOGEL: Look, here's how I view this. Look, $544 million is a lot of money to be spent in any --
HILL: Some may call it obnoxious.
VOGEL: Here's the headline. Rich Texan spends money to impact Texas Senate race. Look, Elon Musk is no different than George Soros or any of the people on the --
HILL: Do you think -- but is it just about Texas for Elon Musk?
VOGEL: I think a huge piece of it is about Texas. He moved his company there. What does he care about more than that? I mean, he definitely -- this is not just a I'm lean-in Republican. There's lots of other places he could spend the money. He clearly has a unique and understandable interest.
You can argue about, you know, Citizens United and what it should allow people to do in terms of individual contributions, but you've had Soros on the left. Now, you've got Musk on the right this time. You know, it doesn't seem shocking to me that he's choosing to spend his money there.
HILL: Talarico not surprisingly firing back. I just want to play one of the latest ads targeting Musk.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Elon wants to buy up our land. He wants to buy up our water. And now, he wants to buy his own personal U.S. senator. He knows that if his millions drag the most corrupt politician in Texas across the finish line, Ken Paxton will owe him everything.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: Mike, when we look at this, when we do look at the money aspect of it --
LEON: Yes.
HILL: -- if a figure like this, right, and again, $150 million of that $544 million coming directly from Elon Musk, if that doesn't get Paxton over the finish line, what does that say?
LEON: It says that you didn't get a good ROI on what you spent. If you look at the latest Emerson College Polling, I'm going to read you something that Spencer Kimball, the executive director, said there, because the margin right now for Talarico and Paxton is about 48-46.
But there's Ted Brown, the libertarian candidate, and then there's somebody else that's polling -- undecided, excuse me, the five percent, nobody, it's an imaginary figure.
That six percent makeup, and this is what he said, if support for the libertarian candidate was at three percent on the final ballot, melts between now and Election Day, Paxton will likely see his vote share increase as third-party voters are primarily independents or Republicans.
So, you asked me about the money being spent. In that state and in my day job, I was telling you this off-air, I just recently had the Talarico campaign because I work in sports. I'm supposed to be in Texas tomorrow for a big fight that we have, Mexican versus an African-American, huge fight, and then we have next week another big fight with Canelo Alvarez. The Mexican population, this is what they're trying to do now, reach on the ground out there, because they know they need to drive out this voter support. But at the end of the day, it's that number I just mentioned. It's that six percent, it's that sway.
Has Musk convinced that six percent? I don't know.
[23:35:00]
We're going to find out, and we're going to see if it's the biggest race ever.
MALINOWSKI: I think I'd rather have Talarico's response than all of Musk's money. And I think --
HILL: You're saying that is more powerful?
MALINOWSKI: I think it's more powerful. I think -- look, I ran in a race earlier this year and got beat by dark money. But I think America has changed just in the last few months. You see the A.I. companies were going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in this race. They didn't AIPAC was going to spend $100 million in this race. It is destroyed as a force in the Democratic Party right now.
Having that kind of money behind you from somebody, from a weirdo tech billionaire like Musk, when everybody knows that that's what it is, I actually think it's probably going to hurt Paxton more than it helps him. But we'll see. This is a test.
PERRYMAN: I'm from Texas. I have my boots on. We're all watching this very closely. The early vote counts have been outstanding, and that only tells a bit of it, but you do see this energy. I do think, I agree with you, I think that actually having Elon Musk behind you in Texas right now is not what voters want.
It's not just what Elon has done over the past year that many people think is so extremely out of control. In Texas, in the prior legislative sessions, he has really been able to bulldoze his way through and get everything from taking land around beaches to making it unlawful for people to be able to have their own personal drones if it gets in the interference of SpaceX.
And so, I think that there's a lot of that building in Texas. You see that now with the data center piece, I think, exactly. So --
HILL: You also -- you said Elon Musk. You know, he basically -- you know, he has been very clear about what he wants. There are questions about -- we played that, from Hakeem Jeffries talking about Pete Hegseth. How much of a focus do you think Elon Musk will be if Democrats take control of the House in terms of investigation?
SHAH: Oh, I mean, I think he'll be one of the biggest, most important tasks for them to undertake, right? He himself is somebody that is redefining the money picture here, right, because big money has always mattered. But what he has done, made different, is the concentration of the money. That's what we're talking about right here. One person can now move the needle in a statewide race the way that parties or a few MAGA donors used to.
PERRYMAN: Congress has got to investigate DOGE --
SHAH: DOGE. Exactly.
PERRYMAN: -- which is more when I was thinking about it. Yes. I mean, and we think it might have even cost taxpayer money.
SHAH: But I think because we're in a total season. We need to remember that -- and it is spooky season, guys, OK? So, I just want to remind people, this is scary because on a number of fronts, it's just redefining the money conversation. What does money in politics mean?
But I would just say, this doesn't make the votes invalid, but it does change the conversation that voters want to hear. So, I can kind of see both sides right now. I can see that Talarico is smart to make it about influence. And I can also say that Paxton's team is, I don't want to say smart, but smart to treat it as just another outside group.
PERRYMAN: They don't have that many friends, but they've got Elon.
SHAH: Well, there's again just another outside group.
HILL: We do have more Elon to talk about, too.
VOGEL: Running against Elon Musk in this race is not a path to success. It's not a sign of strength if you're Talarico. He raised $67 million himself. His campaign, $67 million in September. That's a lot of money. There is relative parity. He is not going to lose because he was, you know, $300 million short.
The reality is, he clearly has work to do to convince Texans that, hey, you should vote for me. I get that Paxton was a challenging candidate for a lot of Republicans, but trying to turn this into a Musk fight, I don't think that's a sign of strength from the Talarico folks.
HILL: We have 11 more days to watch and see how it all plays out. Stay with us. From a simulated drag dance to a fake beauty salon, millions of dollars have now been spent on AI-generated attack ads this election season. Some of them, not clear you might be able to tell the difference between what's real and what's fake. We'll take a closer look next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: Tonight, Mississippi's attorney general issuing a blunt warning to Democrat Senate candidate Scott Colom to remove the AI-generated ad put out by the campaign or there will be consequences. So, here's a look at the ad in question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Cindy, why did you vote against healthcare for hundreds of thousands of Mississippians? Why did you tell people to pick another protein?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: That ad was meant to depict Colom's opponent, Republican Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith. The attorney general said it violated Mississippi law against using deepfakes in elections.
Now, the campaign has since taken down the ad, responding -- quote -- "Clearly this was parody. I will not waste those hard-earned dollars on costly litigation because unlike Cindy Hyde-Smith, my campaign is powered by everyday people."
This election cycle has seen an alarming rise in the number of AI- generated political ads. Researchers at the Wesleyan Media Project say more than $137 million were spent on them this year, mostly by Republicans, including this new A.I. ad in a North Carolina House race, which depicts Democrat Jamie Ager dancing with drag queens. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMIE AGER, NORTH CAROLINA CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: Do you know what we need more of in Washington, D.C.?
(MUSIC PLAYING)
Barn dances!
UNKNOWN (voice-over): Jamie Ager hosted a drag queen barn dance. Jamie Ager talks like you and me on T.V., but he's dancing with they/them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: The panel is back. We have a former candidate on the panel. I mean, when you look at that, how significantly do you think A.I. ads at this point have changed things for voters?
MALINOWSKI: I think we're heading to a really scary place.
[23:45:00]
And it's much more than just political advertising. It's whether we, as human beings, will be able to know the difference between what's real and fake. If I were in Congress, I would introduce a bill, one- line bill. All A.I. shall identify itself as A.I., always, under any circumstances. Video --
HILL: But how big does that identification have to be because that's one of the issues, right? Some of these ads are running into some content in very small letters, maybe A.I.-generated.
MALINOWSKI: There should be a universal symbol that literally every human being on the planet can recognize. And then if you want to make a fake funny video, fine, whatever, have at it. That's freedom of speech. But A.I. must always identify itself as A.I., not just for these political ads, but so that we still maintain our sense of what's real.
LEON: And to that end, really quick, the U.S. obviously doesn't have a comprehensive law about A.I. You know, my company that I work for in the daytime, we actually just released an A.I. video of an athlete doing an announcement because we couldn't get the athlete in time to a studio or location like this to shoot some piece of content.
So, back to your point, there should be some parameters that are larger than what we're currently seeing with these A.I.-generated videos. We're having to find the minutia. And I think, to take it a step further, all staffers should start to be trained on this because the problem is -- and I told you, I had Scott Colom on the show. I know Scott's people very well. Somebody in Scott's campaign should have looked at Mississippi law, first and foremost, before that even went out.
We saw that with the fake polling recently, with another network putting up fake polls that were generated by a company. We have to start the vetting process a lot better.
HILL: There are also -- you talk about educating staffers. There are real questions, certainly on Capitol Hill, but I think across the board in terms of how quickly the technology is moving, how people are learning it on the go, learning to harness it. The fact that there are 31 states that do have laws regulating A.I., most of them require disclosures, but only a handful have actually prohibited them in certain cases. I mean, even if the law is on the books in 31 states, are these states equipped to really crack down on it in the way that voters deserve?
PERRYMAN: I don't think so. I think, you know, we've seen a lack of national leadership on this issue. And then in the states, everyone is adjusting -- you know, I think trying to adjust, but we're very behind there. It's really a concern. It's going to be a bigger concern in '28. VOGEL: It's an unbelievably powerful tool that all kinds of creative
people are using for commercial stuff and sports ads. And almost by definition, it's going to get used in campaigns. I'm totally fine with that.
Disclosure is a really effective tool. I get people are going to say, well, I can't read it. Look, we've got disclosure on all the political T.V. ads now. People are able to understand who paid for what. That clearly is going to be a pathway here because I don't think you can ban it. I think it's silly to say, OK, you know --
HILL: Do you think people can discern though well enough right now in this season?
VOGEL: No. Absolutely not.
(CROSSTALK)
SHAH: I've written speeches. I've made campaign ads. I've written speeches. I've done both over the years. And all I can tell you is it's not the problem that we are putting words in real people's mouths or that it invents scenes and kind of presents them as a documentary. I used to do that, OK, but in a different format.
The real big problem here is that most voters can't reliably spot the good ones yet. Also, the secondary problem is that the state laws are a patchwork and that federal rules right now don't really exist for this.
So, we sit in a moment where we can say A.I. is a tool kind of like any other production technique, but I think that we need to worry a lot more because we used to worry about attack ads that stretched the truth. They're no longer stretching the truth. Now, we have ads that invent the truth and put it on T.V. or digital.
HILL: Politicians in general, lawmakers, we talk all the time about the president's approval numbers. They don't rank all that high necessarily for the American people, right? What does this do, right, to the trust? I mean, people expect a lot of this during a campaign, right? There's a lot of mudslinging. But what does this do to the trust of the American voter if this is now what they're also faced with?
LEON: Look, I worked in product and tech at a different life for 15 years. My dad is an engineer. So, I know it a little bit better than the average bear, right, to quote Yogi. But here's what I will say. Leadership stems from the top. The president started, what was it, a committee about A.I.? First thing we did, we changed the name to superintelligence.
Does that look like what leadership should be instead of what we're talking about, which is a federal law that supersedes every state law right now and actually makes regulations and guidelines and disclaimers and actually distinguishes what is a piece of A.I.- generated content versus what is not? So, leadership stems from the top. And, unfortunately, to Rina's point, the president hasn't really done enough about it, and it's going to continue to sow discord.
[23:50:01]
If you just look at that Neil deGrasse Tyson video that he made recently where it was him talking about something antithetical to his entire belief, and then he pulls out the phone and he goes, that wasn't me, that was a deep fake, go -- I highly encourage people to go watch that video. That's a nuclear physicist scientist that's doing that type of video, and he can't even get people to discern who was really him on camera. Leadership stems from the top.
MALINOWSKI: By the way, I could say or do something really bad and get caught on video doing it and say, no, that was a fake video, right? I mean, it cuts both ways. Video and image is how, for decades, we have proven the authenticity of things. It's how you as a journalist prove the authenticity of things. If I tell you a lie, you show me a video that contradicts it, I lose that argument. We're losing that if we don't solve the problem.
HILL: If the video is accurate, right? That's why we have entire teams of people, I will say, here at CNN. That is their job, right? To authenticate these videos and that we're very careful about it. But it is an increasing concern.
MALINOWSKI: It is all happening, obviously, in real time. I mean, you've seen just this last six months the things that have happened. This is a -- only Congress can step in and apply some sort of -- you know, the White House can't step in magically and executive order a national standard on deep fakes nor do I think they should. Congress, I think, will ultimately get there. Think about how long it took to address these things.
HILL: We can't trust this Congress for anything.
VOGEL: I don't think any Congress could do this fast.
SHAH: I did this dirty business. I'm just going to admit on national television, I did this. And to me, disclosure was the bare minimum. And I'll just say this, not because one party is worse, but because once everybody can do this cheaply, which is what we see President Donald Trump doing, then trust collapses for everyone. He on Truth Social constantly puts out these A.I.-doctored videos, right?
And so, again, everyone is doing it cheaply. The pace of technology is moving faster than anybody can handle, much less Congress, right? So, disclosure is the bare minimum. We need to advocate for everybody to understand this problem and move on it as citizens.
HILL: I love it when we can all agree on something. Stay with us. Up next, it is time for you at home to have your voice heard. The panel, we're going to prep them so they can answer your questions after this short break. You still have time to send them in if you haven't had that chance yet, cnn.com/engagepolitics. We'll see you on the other side of the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: We have been getting lots of great questions from you, so I'm going to get to them as quickly as I can because we are a little tight on time. That is a little signal to all of you here on the panel.
Skye, this first one is for you. Does anyone think the lawsuit against Alaska will be entertained by any judge in the country?
PERRYMAN: Well, I think the judges are going to dismiss it --
HILL: OK.
PERRYMAN: -- because it's not -- there's no basis for it. I mean, yes.
HILL: Alex, does anyone believe the Alaskan same name candidate was meant to sow chaos in the elections in any way compared to the chaos that Trump is creating to sow chaos?
VOGEL: No, not at all. I think running a candidate intentionally with a confusing name is inherently different. I think that is really playing games with the election process.
HILL: Our next one, I want Elon Musk to be held accountable, but I would love for a Democratic Congress to use the power of the purse to help me to afford a little more than the basics in life. What do you think they focus on if they win?
MALINOWSKI: Affordability, getting rid of the tariffs, and ending the war.
HILL: I think the question is, are they going to focus on affordability or Musk, or sort of Musk and retribution accountability moments.
MALINOWSKI: I think corruption is one of the reasons we have the policies that are making prices go up. I think most Americans want us to enforce the rule of law if I were in Congress and to take an action to make life more affordable. Those two things are actually quite connected.
HILL: And they can do both. You believe Democrats can do both?
MALINOWSKI: Yes, we have investigative committees, we have policy committees. That's what Congress is set up to do.
HILL: Can David Jolly upset Byron Donalds in the Florida gubernatorial election, Mike?
LEON: Oh, that's a great question. First off, more registered Republicans in the state than Democrats, number one. Number two, look at the margin of victory. I'm going to do my best Harry Enten impression. Look at the margin of victory, 2016, '20, '24. Miami-Dade, Fort Lauderdale-Broward, Palm Beach. As you go further up the state, that's where the biggest populace is. Panhandle doesn't really matter.
Tampa and Orlando, Orlando is kind of blue a little bit, Tampa is a little bit more red. Can he pull out sectors of Tampa? Can he pull out the Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade vote to get a little bit closer to the Hillary vote?
HILL: I like the play-by-play. Remember, we're tight on time, Mike.
LEON: Yes. Well, he won't do it. I think Byron Donalds is going to win. Again, Florida is Florida.
HILL: Rina, lastly, for you. Don't you think that money in politics is the big problem?
SHAH: Of course, I do. I'm a millennial.
(LAUGHTER)
Look, I've had the great privilege and pleasure of traveling this beautiful country of ours. Here in its 250th year, I genuinely believe there are people across the spectrum, whether deep red or deep blue, that know that Citizens United can be overturned in our lifetime. I think we can start with ending super PACs. There are great cases out there, at least one I know of, that are working to do that. I know it's possible.
HILL: OK. Do you want to weigh in? Give you a little bit more time.
PERRYMAN: Your question is money in politics is a huge trust issue. Just to go back to what we were talking about with A.I. I think a lot of people across the country, we know this, across political ideology, have a deep concern about it.
SHAH: Well, it protects the incumbent. That's when I go to, where I grew up, and was born and raised, deep red, West Virginia. They say I'll never be able to make it to Congress because I don't have the power the incumbent does, because of the big money that protects these men and women who stay here.
VOGEL: We spend more money on potato chips than we do on elections in this country. So, I get it. It's a big number. It's a lot more money than people used to spend on elections, but I'm OK with that.
[00:00:00]
HILL: It doesn't concern you. We are going to have to leave it there. It was a pleasure, in all seriousness, to spend the evening with all of you. Thank you all for coming. Thanks for being willing to play.
Remember, you can stream this show live. You can watch on-demand any time with your "All Access" subscription. Just be sure to scan the Q.R. code on your screen or go to cnn.com/watch to learn more.
Thanks again for joining us. "The Story is with Elex Michaelson" is up next.
