Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Who's Really Got The Edge In The Iowa Caucuses?; War Between Texas, DOJ Over Border Policy; Where's the Line Between Public Information and Invasion of Privacy?; U.S. and U.K. Carry Out Strikes Against Iran-Backed Houthis in Yemen. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired January 13, 2024 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[09:00:00]

MARTIN LUTHER KING III, HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST: And so, you know, and frankly, I just don't even -- don't even acknowledge it exist.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Martin Luther King III, thank you so much for being with me and an early Happy King Day to you. Thanks so much.

KING: Thank you so much, Victor. Thank you.

BLACKWELL: And thank you at home for joining me today. I will see you back here next Saturday at 08:00 a.m. Eastern. Smerconish is up next.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Is it over before it begins? I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.

Before a single primary vote has been cast, has Donald Trump already sewn up the 2024 GOP nomination? Or is it still up for grabs? Everybody has an opinion, but the data tells a pretty compelling story. Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal writing this week, "I refuse to see the story is over. The voting begins now."

After Chris Christie dropped out, Nate Cohn wrote in the "New York Times," "The Christie vote alone will probably not be enough. But Haley has been steadily gaining in the polls, and historically there's a lot of precedent for surging candidates to keep gaining especially over a contests final days."

And New Hampshire, which is second up will be a wild card. Independents can vote in the GOP primary. And according to data released yesterday from Gallup, 43 percent of Americans, look at that graph. 43 percent of Americans consider themselves to be Independent. The Rs and the Ds are tied at 27. It ties a record for an Independent showing making them the largest political bloc in the country.

But then there's "Times" columnist Bret Stephens, who bluntly sums up the state of the race as follows, "Barring a political miracle or an act of God, it's overwhelmingly likely that Donald Trump will again be the Republican Party's nominee for president."

And speaking of acts of God, you can of course also throw into the mix unknowns like the dire Iowa weather forecast for Monday's caucuses, this year shaping up to be the coldest ever with temperatures as low as 15 degrees below zero worse with the wind chill. This is likely to affect turnout, where in some rural areas as few as 10 people can make a big difference.

But what does the historical data tell us? My next guest says that it points to Trump's nomination being pretty much a done deal. As of December 15, Trump led the aggregate national polls with 61 percent. DeSantis and Haley essentially tied for second at 12 percent and 11 percent. Writing for the 538 website G. Elliott Morris, head of data analytics at ABC News, and my next guest, compare this with the polls in every presidential election dating back to 1980.

Morris assembled a massive master list of where every non incumbent candidate, Republican, Democrat, Independent, stood in mid-December before the election year, and then how they ultimately fared. At that point in the race, every non incumbent with at least 40 percent support in national polls has gone on to win their party's nomination. And Trump, as I said, is at 61 percent. In fact, if you look at Trump's advantage at this stage compared to the other non-incumbents seeking the nomination, his polling is within his party higher than any of them. G. W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, George Herbert Walker Bush, per Morris's analysis as of mid-December, this gave Trump a more than nine in 10 chance of being the nominee.

What are the historical chances for somebody in DeSantis or Haley's current position to catch him? Since 1980, there have been three non- incumbent candidates who liked them were polling below 15 percent in December and did go on to win their party's nomination. Michael Dukakis did it in '88, John McCain in 2008, Bill Clinton in 1992. But those races were wide open. In those December polls, no other candidate was above 25 percent, whereas Trump's current support is more than double that, which means there are fewer undecided voters to sway. And even if a challenger does surprisingly well in Iowa, there's a historical limit to how big of a bump they then receive.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com. Answer today's poll question, is the Republican nomination already over?

Joining me now is G. Elliot Morris. He's the editorial director of data analytics at ABC News. He was a senior data journalist and U.S. correspondent for The Economist. And he's the author of "Strength in Numbers, How Polls Work and Why We Need Them."

Elliott, we'll get to the data in a moment, but the intangible all of a sudden, the weather going to be cold, to me that says whoever has the most passionate base is going to come out and provide victory for their candidate. Your thought.

G. ELLIOTT MORRIS, EDITORIAL DIRECTOR OF DATA ANALYTICS, ABC NEWS/ 538: Yes, look, it's going to It'll be minus 20, minus 30 wind chill in Iowa. I do expect that that will have some impact on the race. We can expect, in other words, some level of polling error, I would suspect.

[09:05:11]

Just because you've already brought up the historical data, Michael, I'll just -- I'll just state there's usually a five percentage point difference between how a candidate is polling and the actual share of the vote that they get. So there's some precedent for surprise. You add on top of that, this nasty weather, I expect, as you say, that candidate -- that the candidate with more enthusiastic voters will beat their polls by even more. But look, Donald Trump is up by our latest math at 538, 51 percentage points to Nikki Haley's 17. So it's not that she can really bridge that gap, unless something truly catastrophic is happening with the polling, or that this weather has a much more measurable impact than I think we think it will.

Look, 10, 20 points off, totally within the realm of possibility, 40 is --

SMERCONISH: Well, if the polling -- if the polling data is accurate, I mean, I said the other night in watching the CNN debate between DeSantis and Haley, they had trained their guns exclusively on each other. If one totally decimated the other, it still doesn't give them enough unless Trump's numbers take a tumble. Here's my question for you, how many non-incumbents running for president have been in Trump's position at this stage?

MORRIS: Zero. Donald Trump is unique in his position in the Republican primary right now, historically. He's at 61 percent, again, in the national polls, according to the 538, average today. No non-incumbent presidential candidate has ever done that well in the polls and gone on to lose the election. The closest candidate at this point is Hillary Clinton. And in 2008, who's at about 39, high 30s in the polls, she of course goes on to live a very, very closely contested race to Brock Obama that year.

So the question I guess you can ask your yourself and your listeners, Michael, is Nikki Haley Barack Obama?

SMERCONISH: Well, if I'm Nikki Haley or I'm Ron DeSantis, I want to talk about Bill Clinton or I want to talk about John McCain. I mean, there have been individuals who have defied the odds. But as your data points out in the December going into the election year, it was a wide open race, and this hasn't been a wide open race.

MORRIS: Yes, that's right. Bill Clinton in 1992 when he goes on to become the comeback kid after New Hampshire, right, he doesn't have a Donald Trump looming over him at 50 percent, 60 percent in the national polls. He has a clear path to a surge, because the candidate field is split. Right now you have Donald Trump ahead of the two major candidates that are challenging him. And you have -- you know, this time you have Vivek Ramaswamy, I guess is somewhat of a factor taking votes away, taking delegates away more importantly from Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis in the early states.

Asa Hutchinson is also running for president, we should note, I don't expect him to get very many votes or delegates, but just while we're being careful. SMERCONISH: Elliot, something else that I took away from your data, the December numbers, the December numbers historically have been predictive of what happens in Iowa. That's observation one that I hope you'll speak to. And observation two is that even when there's an upset in Iowa, the bounce is not what people might expect it to be headed into New Hampshire, your thoughts?

MORRIS: That's right. We looked at the historical data for an article next week coming out after the Iowa caucuses, because we wanted to know how much momentum does a candidate gain if they beat their polls or if they win Iowa unexpectedly? We find that a candidate who does about one percentage points better -- I'll put it this way, every one percentage point that candidate beats their polls by they gain about a percentage point in the national polls. So if you do this math backwards, right, we think Nikki Haley needs to gain about 35 percentage points in the national polls to be tied with Donald Trump, that would suggest she needs to beat her target -- her polls in Iowa by about 35 percentage points as well. Needless to say, that is a very tall task for her.

I don't see the path forward for her with that level of a potential bounce needed to be -- to be ahead of Donald Trump. That's a very unlikely scenario. But that's sort of the benchmark he needs to hit. She needs a truly phenomenal performance in Iowa.

SMERCONISH: G. Eliot Morris, thank you so much for bringing the data. I really appreciate it.

[09:10:02]

MORRIS: Thanks, Michael.

SMERCONISH: It should go without saying, it's interesting to crunch the numbers. The numbers are telling a very consistent and compelling story but the only numbers that matter are the numbers Monday night. So, if you're an Iowa go vote, vote in New Hampshire, vote everywhere when it's your turn.

Remember, I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com where today's poll question, it had to be this, right? Is the Republican nomination already over? Hit me up on social media throughout the course of the program? I'll share some responses in real time.

What do we have Katherine (ph) from the world of X? No, it starts Monday with some inclement weather. The Republicans will turn out in large numbers to demonstrate they are not snowflake. Watch Vivek's poll buster results.

OK, Michael, sounds like you've got a dog in that fight. I do not have a dog in that fight. What is the weather tell me? The weather tells me it's all about passion. Right?

It's all about passion, because in the end, it's going to come with some degree of personal cost to actually leave the house, show up, hang out for a while and caucus with your neighbors, Trump's base is passionate. I mean, he give them props for the passion they've exhibited on his behalf. What does it say also about a ground organization? I don't know that Haley has the ground organization that she needs. But again, these questions will all be answered on Monday night. You can watch CNN and see it unfold.

Up ahead, this week, the war on the border heat it up between Texas and the Department of Justice following an order from Governor Greg Abbott to Texas military block federal Border Patrol agents from accessing two and a half miles of the southern border. Meanwhile, the students of a New York City High School forced to study remotely so that their high school building could be used to house migrants. The only thing certain about the border is that it's going to be a big 2024 election issue.

Be sure to sign up for my smerconish.com free daily newsletter. You'll find exclusive content from political cartoonists like two time Pulitzer Prize winner Steve Breen. Does that not sum up Chris Christie's week?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:16:03]

SMERCONISH: This week, the conflict at the southern border became a war between Texas and the DOJ. In December, there were more than 300,000 migrant encounters on the U.S. southern border or roughly the population of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This week, the Texas military department enlisted the National Guard to block the U.S. Border Patrol from accessing two and a half miles of the U.S. Mexico border on the Rio Grande. The state had seized control of the area and put up fencing and razor wire under an emergency declaration signed by Texas Governor Greg Abbott.

By way of explanation, Abbott who has shipped 10s of 1000s of migrants to Democratically run cities posted on X, "We are making clear the Texas will be a tough place to cross." In response to the DOJ petition the U.S. Supreme Court writing, "Texas's new actions demonstrate an escalation of the state's measures to block Border Patrol's ability to patrol or even to surveil the border and be in a position to respond to emergencies." And ask the court to, quote, "restore border patrol's access to the border it is charged with patrolling and the migrants it is responsible for apprehending, inspecting and processing."

Meanwhile, in New York City, the overwhelming number of asylum seekers needing to be housed led to one Brooklyn high school having to switch its students to remote learning so that their high school building could house nearly 2,000 migrants due to bad weather. On Trump's Fox News town hall Wednesday, he said this about the border.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We are going to have the largest deportation effort in the history of our country. We're bringing everybody back to where they came from. We have no choice.

(END VIDEO CLIP) SMERCONISH: Meanwhile, California just became the first state to offer health insurance to all undocumented immigrants under a new expansion of Medi-Cal spearheaded by Governor Gavin Newsom. All low income residents qualify regardless of immigration status, including an estimated 700,000 adults aged 26 to 49 living in the state illegally.

Now back to Texas. There was this written in a recent column in the Houston Chronicle, "The Texas GOP border crisis plan includes secession, surrender and stunts instead of solutions." Chris Tomlinson wrote those words and added, "Abbott is right about one thing, the entire nation must help with the migrants allowed to remain in the United States pending the resolution of their asylum claims. Eagle Pass has a population of 39,000, Del Rio with 34,000 residents cannot accommodate so many families." But he adds, "The governor diminishes his good deed by turning desperate migrants into political pawns."

Chris Tomlinson joins me now. Before joining the Chronicle, he spent 20 years with the Associated Press, reporting from more than 30 countries in Africa, the Middle East and Europe.

Chris, thank you for being here. Customs and Border Patrol intercepted. I think that's the way I should say it. Intercepted 2.4 million people along the southwest border. In fiscal year 2023, I then say, well, OK, if they stopped 2.4 million, how many got through?

CHRIS TOMLINSON, CLUMNIST, HOUSTON CHRONICLE: Well, the Border Patrol says about 600,000. But there's a very good possibility it was many more than that.

SMERCONISH: And that doesn't include asylum seekers. True?

TOMLINSON: That's true. I mean, in the Del Rio region, where we have most of the crossings in Texas, 83 percent of the migrants are crossing, establish border points and asking for asylum. You know, they're not trying to sneak into the country. They're trying to use our asylum system to stay here.

SMERCONISH: So you've witnessed, you've personally witnessed mass migration all around the globe, what's the common denominator that you've seen? And how does that apply to what's going on on the Texas Mexico border right now?

TOMLINSON: Well, when I was a foreign correspondent, I specialized in covering conflicts and humanitarian disasters. And so I've frequently went to borders of countries that were undergoing Civil War or some sort of insurgency and I witnessed 100s of 1000s of people fleeing for their lives. You can literally hear the gunfire and the artillery in the background as they're coming across the border seeking safety. And that's what the asylum laws were set up for, is if you are suffering persecution, if you're fleeing for your life, that international law and frankly, every religion has a policy of asylum.

[09:20:33]

But that's very different than what we're seeing today. From the Rio Grande at the Mediterranean, we are seeing people fleeing for economic reasons, because of climate change, because of fear of crime and wanting a better life for their families. And that's frankly, not what asylum law was set up to cover.

SMERCONISH: Are they nevertheless claiming asylum? And are they being aided in doing so by those who are providing them passage?

TOMLINSON: Oh, I mean, they don't even have to wait for the people providing them passage. You can go to the internet right now and look up the questions that Border Patrol is going to ask you when you show up at the border. It had -- the internet provides answers, the kinds of answers that will force that border patrol agent to grant you temporary parole until your asylum case can be heard by a court.

Certainly the people who were transporting the migrants, they're also assisting in this process. But it's a very different thing from fleeing for your life. So, there's a good number of migrants who are probably arriving here, well-rehearsed without probably a legitimate asylum claim.

SMERCONISH: As part of your introduction, I summarized the DOJ and state of Texas standoff. What's that all about? You're much closer to it and paying close attention.

TOMLINSON: Well, you know, Governor Greg Abbott has long been a states' rights advocate. You know, when he was attorney general, he used to come to -- he used to say, I come to work every day just to sue the federal government over their laws and their overreach. It's another one of his stunts to seize 2.5 miles of border. You know, clearly, Border Patrol has the authority and the legal requirement to patrol that section.

So he's creating a confrontation. He's doing it on a weekend. He's doing it ahead of the Iowa caucus to draw attention to himself and the GOP. You know, if I were a officer in the Texas National Guard right now, I'd have some serious questions about the legality of that order.

SMERCONISH: Chris, I deal with social media during the course of the program. Let's see what's come in and I'll call on you maybe for some assistance in responding. Let me read it aloud. From the world of Twitter now, X, Biden created this disaster in his first day when he took away Trump's border policies. This will cost him the election.

I'm so glad KW framed that question, because I wanted to ask you, is it perception or reality that there was a difference between Biden and Trump, Trump and Biden? I know there was Title 42. I know it went away because it was tied to the pandemic. But is it a perception or reality issue when you look at the policies of these two presidents?

TOMLINSON: Well, you know, the border policy has been subjected to an immense amount of litigation. And so we've had judges giving -- federal judges giving orders in different directions. You know, we have to remember that Barack Obama deported more migrants than Donald Trump in his first four years in office. So the Trump policy was not that great.

Up until Title 42, the pandemic era policy was rescinded by court order. Biden deported 500,000 migrants. So, it's not as clean cut as KW would have us believe. But I do think he's right. If this crisis is allowed to perpetuate, it will hurt President Biden's reelection opportunities, and I think that's what the GOP wants.

SMERCONISH: Chris Tomlinson, thank you so much for being here. Appreciate your expertise.

TOMLINSON: Thank you, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Up ahead, this week in retaliation for weeks of attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea by Iranian back rebels, the U.S. and allies launched two days of military assault. Will this make the region safer or lead to more escalation? And how about this, monitoring on public police communications used to be somewhat of an obscure hobby, but with the advent of the internet technology has made it easier to listen not only local but nationally. So, where's the line between the right to listen in and invasion of privacy.

[09:25:07]

Plus, don't forget, please vote on today's poll question @smerconish.com. Is the Republican nomination already over?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: Overdoses, suicidal people, domestic violence, what does the public have a right to hear? Where's the line between public information and an invasion of privacy when it comes to police scanners. For decades, police departments have communicated through public radio to dispatch their officers attracting a relatively small number of listeners. Technology has made it much easier.

In 2012 with the launch of Broadcastify, the largest platform for streaming live audio, the company currently offers more than ,7600 live audio feeds in different cities across the country for police for fire EMS, aircraft, marine and amateur radio communications.

[09:30:00]

Broadcastify makes their feeds easy to access through its Web site and smartphone apps, reaching 50,000 to 60,000 listeners on a typical weekday evening. Ultimately, the platform offers the public transparency to what's going on in their own backyards, but is there a cost?

Major cities including Denver, San Francisco, San Diego, Baltimore, Chicago, New York, and Sioux Falls, are now encrypting their emergency public radio channels due to concerns of oversharing details about private civilians with a much wider audience, publicizing names and addresses and phone numbers it worries some in public safety.

Encrypting radio channels from the public would mean that only authorized emergency professionals could access this information about an urgent matter in real time. We found several examples. For example, this, an elderly man in Wisconsin who was in distress.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE) for a 70-year-old male that fell in the kitchen, unable to get up.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Of course, one could argue that police scanners help the public identify individuals that might be a danger to themselves or to others.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A violent, possibly mental elderly black male subject, arriving with a -- walking with a stick or cane. He's going to be in front of the store wearing all black clothing.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: But at what point does a radio channel that's meant to uphold public safety infringe on the private details of someone's, say, mental health?

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) says she feels like committing suicide -- she's having suicidal thoughts, she's extremely violent. This is due to her husband cheating on her.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Apart from the privacy considerations, might the widespread broadcasting of personal details cause hesitance in someone who needs help before dialing 911. Joining me now is the founder of Broadcastify, Lindsay Blanton. He's also the founder and CEO of Radio Reference.

Lindsay, thank you for being here. This used to be a niche hobby. On my street lived the fire chief, Chief Hall, Chief Carl Hall, a wonderful guy. Like, they were the only ones that I remember as having a scanner. But now lots of folks have access, including through your Web site. What changed?

LINDSAY BLANTON, FOUNDER, BROADCASTIFY: Well, obviously the internet and streaming changed the hobby that, you know, we grew up with almost 50 years ago, listening in to our local public safety agencies to bring it online, just like all streaming services. So, that's really what has changed in the hobby for those that listen to police scanners today.

SMERCONISH: Can we make it clear there's already some level of information that is not accessible, not shared, a SWAT team -- and, by the way, Ernesto Londono wrote a great piece in the "New York Times" about this. But explain what's off limits as things stand now.

BLANTON: Yes, most agencies encrypt highly sensitive information, such as SWAT team operations and surveillance operations. Or they'll use alternate means of communication like cellphones or other methods to communicate these highly sensitive operations. But for the general routine dispatch operations, most public safety agencies leave that in the clear for the public to monitor because there is a benefit to the overall general public, understanding the day-to-day operations of their public safety agencies.

SMERCONISH: And I'm one who believes that, you know, as they say, sunshine is a great disinfectant. I like the public being able to provide some oversight role relative to public servants. But will you speak to some of the privacy concerns and considerations that I laid out in introducing this segment?

BLANTON: Yes, sure. It's definitely a concern. Most agencies, though, do not broadcast names and addresses and specific personal information over unencrypted airwaves. They'll typically take that to channels that Broadcastify does not allow, so it would be a lot more difficult for the general public to be able to hear that information. So, the privacy concerns are there, certainly.

SMERCONISH: Yes. What level of concern do you have about this trend toward encryption? Do you think that it has gone too far? I rattled off some of the larger areas that are already headed in this direction.

BLANTON: You know, public safety agencies have had encryption technology available to them for, you know, well over 40 years. There's been a trend to do that.

Broadcastify has also seen a trend of some of the largest cities in the countries who have gone to encryption actually make their live audio available to the general public through Broadcastify. Cities like Chicago and Baltimore, who just recently encrypted their day-to- day communications, they provide a delayed live audio feed to Broadcastify because they see the benefit of the community hearing the day-to-day operations of their agencies.

[09:35:04]

SMERCONISH: When I read the story about this subject and started to think about it, I guess, the greatest concern that I had is that it might cause hesitancy on the part of somebody who needs help, because maybe it's an embarrassing predicament or maybe they worry that it will be perceived as embarrassing. Maybe it's mental health, maybe it's domestic. I don't know what it is. But you don't want somebody not to dial 911 who is in distress. Your thoughts?

BLANTON: You know, it's no different than the media publicizing an event or, you know, covering a story about somebody. We're providing a service to the general public to keep them aware, keep them up to date on what's going on in their local communities.

You know, at times during major events, hundreds of thousands of people will tune in and want to know what's going on. So, there's a public good to the general public knowing what their local public safety agencies are doing on a day-to-day basis. And those agencies, they know that the general public is listening and they're cognizant of that.

SMERCONISH: Lindsay Blanton, thank you so much for being here. Appreciate it.

BLANTON: Thank you, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Still to come, this week in retaliation for repeated attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea, President Biden ordered a coalition bombardment of the Houthis, an Iran-backed sect in Yemen. Are we one step closer to all-out war in the Middle East?

Please don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Is the Republican nomination already over? While you're there voting, sign up for the free daily newsletter. Jack Ohman, among the award-winning cartoonists, there's his take on the story with Lloyd Austin this week, Secretary Austin.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:41:10]

SMERCONISH: Will the war in the Middle East escalate following this week's military strikes by U.S.-led forces on Houthi controlled areas of Yemen? Thursday and then again on Friday coalition forces struck targets across more than two dozen locations of the Houthi sect backed by Iran, killing five and wounding six. President Biden said that he ordered the strikes -- quote -- "in direct response to unprecedented Houthi attacks against international maritime vessels in the Red Sea."

Yemen sits at the opening to the Red Sea, a crucial shipping corridor, and Yemen is where the Houthis have been fighting a civil war against a coalition backed by Saudi Arabia. For weeks, the Houthis have been launching drones and missiles at commercial vessels in the Red Sea claiming that it's in solidarity with the Palestinian people.

The aim is inflicting economic pain on Israel's allies to increase pressure on Israel to cease its military offensive in Gaza, post October 7th. The coalition strikes were condemned by several leaders across the Middle East.

The president has now called the Houthis a terrorist group, but said yesterday that it's irrelevant whether they'll be formally designated as such. Biden had de-listed the Houthis as a terrorist group in February of 2021. He says that he will not hesitate to direct further measures as necessary -- quote -- "to protect our people and the free flow of international commerce."

Joining me now is retired Air Force Lieutenant General David Deptula. He was the Air Force's first chief of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. He's currently the dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. OK. General, I've got the Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid question. Who are these guys?

LT. GEN. DAVID DEPTULA, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.): Well, Michael, the Houthis are an Iranian-backed Shia political and military organization and they've been fighting a civil war in Yemen since 2014 against a coalition that has been backed by Saudi Arabia. They currently control much of northern Yemen and the capital, Sanaa.

In 2021, as you mentioned, President Biden announced the end of U.S. support for the Saudi offensive in Yemen and revoked the terrorist designation. In 2023, significant event, Saudi and Iran restored relations, and that raised the hope for perhaps a permanent settlement of the Yemeni civil war. But quite frankly, the Houthis see themselves as part of the axis of resistance against Israel and the U.S., along with Hamas and Hezbollah. So, in a nutshell, that's who they are.

SMERCONISH: Would they act without the approval of Iran? Can we look at them and say whatever it is they're doing is with the permission of the Iranian government?

DEPTULA: That's an interesting question, and really no one knows the exact answer, except the Iranians and the leaders of the Houthis. However, all of the significant weaponry that the Houthis are provided comes from Iran. So, you can be sure that there is collaboration between the two.

As a matter of fact, tactical level intelligence to the Houthis on the location of shipping in the Red Sea comes from an Iranian ship that's located in the region. So, there is collaboration, but the Iranians are also interested in not getting directly involved in the conflict so, you know, it's an interesting question, and clearly there's collaboration. We just don't know to what degree.

SMERCONISH: I think what we all want to know is whether this is the start of something much larger, or a one-off.

[09:45:02]

DEPTULA: Michael, again, interesting question. However, what I would tell you is that the current coalition is committed to containing the Houthi aggression. As a matter of fact, your audience might not be aware, but there actually was a U.N. Security Council resolution passed this past Wednesday that demanded that the Houthis immediately cease their attacks and implicitly condemned their weapon supplier, Iran.

It was approved by a vote of 11-0, with four abstentions, Russia, China, Algeria and Mozambique. But the fact of the matter is the coalition -- and, I believe, the community of free nations are committed to ceasing these attacks against international shipping in the Red Sea region, and it can be limited to that particular area.

SMERCONISH: Final question, General Deptula, a radio caller of mine yesterday on SiriusXM asked, what is the U.S. national security interest? What should I have said to that person?

DEPTULA: Well, the first U.S. national security interest is defense against direct attacks against U.S. personnel and forces in the region. And, second, it is to support our commitment to freedom of navigation and freedom of the commons in order to allow commerce to prosper, not just around the world, but particularly the United States. Because the implications of the restrictions in shipping is having a significant impact already and, in fact, could undermine, you know, the trend in inflation going down, to reversing it to going up.

So, you know, those are secondary issues, the economic ones. The most important ones are to protect American citizens and forces in the region.

SMERCONISH: Let me read a social media reaction aloud. I may need to lean on you for support.

J.D. says, it's about time. Targeted strikes focused on eliminating the Houthis' ability to attack shipping lanes is a no-brainer.

Is it a no-brainer?

DEPTULA: I certainly believe so. I would also suggest to you that with respect to the Houthis, we may find out that deterrence will not be possible by coercion alone, but this coalition that has been formed may need to completely destroy the Houthis' means of power and projection. That's within our capacity to be able to do so.

You know, the Houthis are a rebel group inside Yemen. If we cannot eliminate their ability to project power, we've got some serious thinking to do in terms of increasing our capabilities. But the other point that I would add, and I appreciate the opportunity, this should be a wake-up call that the United States defense strategy needs to be based on having the capability and capacity to fight more than one regional contingency at a time.

Today, we've got less than half the combat air forces that we had over 30 years ago when fighting the first Gulf War, and the threats facing the United States and our allies are much greater today. So, we need to prepare accordingly.

SMERCONISH: It's a lot to -- it's a lot to process, the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, the triple H threat. Thank you, General. Appreciate your expertise.

DEPTULA: Have a great day.

SMERCONISH: Still to come, your best and worst social media comments. And don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Is the Republican nomination already over?

If you subscribe to the newsletter when you're there, you'll get exclusive editorial cartoons from the legends. How about this from Rob Rogers this week?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:38]

SMERCONISH: All right. There's the result so far of today's poll question. Wow. Twenty-six thousand and change. Is the Republican nomination already over, 52-48. Fifty-two percent agreeing with my guest in saying, yes, the voting hasn't begun, but it's pretty much a done deal.

Here's some of the social media reaction that has come in during the course of the program. What do we have, Catherine?

The 43 percent self-labeling as independent means the electorate is even more sick of politics as usual as it was in 2016 when Trump was nominated and later elected, as a clear rejection of both dominant political parties, their practices, and leadership.

Thomas, let me say this. You know who's elated to see 43 which is a record high for independents as Gallup has been doing this tying with a previous high? I got to believe the people at No Labels are thrilled to see this. Joe Lieberman -- yes, there it is. Forty-three percent self -- I'm one of them -- 43 percent self-identify as independent as compared to 27 percent who say, no, I'm an R or I'm a D.

I mean, if you take No Labels at face value and Joe Lieberman was a radio guest of mine this week, you know, they're saying they're going to -- they're going to make a decision in March. And what do they want to know? If the American people are looking for something else. Well by the metrics, the American people are looking for something else.

What else came in during the course of the program today? We have this.

Michael, you are auditioning to be Trump's VP. You talk him up so much.

R.I., I didn't talk up Trump at all.

[09:55:01]

I analyzed the data. Everybody has an opinion as to what's about to unfold Monday in Iowa and the 23rd in New Hampshire. And the reality is none of us know.

So, let's just review. I began the program today by giving you disparate opinions as to whether it's over. And then there was an analysis, a data-driven analysis, that I thought was worthwhile so we brought the guest on to crunch the numbers.

You might not like the result of what the numbers say, but the numbers suggest that it would be unprecedented. It would be historic if Trump were to lose the nomination given his standing as of December in the polling that showed him at 61 percent nationally as a choice of Republicans.

We've never -- in all of those who have run for office for the presidency, 1980 forward, '80 through the present, Republicans, dependent -- Democrats, pardon me, independents, no one has ever been at that level. No one has ever been at that level. So, if he were to lose it, that would truly be historic.

Does that mean I'm cheering for that outcome? It does not. It just means I'm giving you the information. Do with it as you see fit. See you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)