Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Security On High Alert After New Orleans Terrorist Attack; FBI: New Orleans Attacker "100 Percent Inspired By ISIS"; Carville: "I Was Wrong About The 2024 Election". Wall Street Journal: What Happens When A Whole Generation Never Grows Up? Aired 9-10a

Aired January 04, 2025 - 09:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:31]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Tragedies. They demand transparency, not a troop. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.

I've often wanted to make a point about post catastrophe pressers only then change my mind due to concerns about decorum. But not today. I'm talking about what often follows a school shooting, an air disaster or instance of terrorism. Too often they become opportunities for grandstanding politicians when all the public wants is the latest information and to know whether we're safe. Twice this week we needed that knowledge.

First, after a 42-year-old suspect drove through a crowded street in the iconic French Quarter of New Orleans on New Year's Day, killing 14 and injuring dozens. And again hours later, after a Tesla Cybertruck exploded outside the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas, the briefings that followed became a study in contrasts. New Orleans was notable for politicians sharp elbows. Las Vegas for a sober, straightforward delivery of the latest information.

New Year's Day in New Orleans, there were two briefings actually. In the first, the mayor of New Orleans, LaToya Cantrell, referred to the event as terrorism.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR LATOYA CANTRELL, (D) NEW ORLEANS: First of all, we do know that the city of New Orleans was impacted by a terrorist attack.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Then the New Orleans superintendent of police said the FBI would be taking over the investigation, whereupon we heard from the agent in charge, only she didn't call it terrorism.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALIKA DUNCAN, FBI AGENT IN CHARGE: My name is Alika Duncan. I'm the Assistant Special Agent in Charge for FBI New Orleans. As Chief Kirkpatrick said, we'll be taking over the investigative lead for this event. This is not a terrorist event.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: I don't know why she said that. I don't know why Agent Duncan said it was not a terrorist event. Perhaps more accurate would have been to say at this stage, we don't know. Perhaps her word choice explains, doesn't justify, but explains what occurred at the second briefing that day. Wednesday afternoon, a gaggle of politicians and law enforcement representatives assembled.

You had a number of sheriffs, the police chief, state attorney general, plus the governor, a U.S. senator, a member of Congress and a representative of the Sugar Bowl, which by the way was prudently postponed for a day. Sadly, because of the amount of tragedy and gun violence in our society, we've become accustomed to seeing these types of events in which politicians gather round a podium, some sporting outerwear that displays their names and or the insignia of their office, even if we already know who they are. This time, there were nine different speakers at this press conference. The FBI special agent in charge said the truck attack was an act of terror. And there was gratitude, expressed, appropriately so, for the cops who valiantly took down the terrorist.

But there was also lots of praise for one another and their respective agencies. Essentially, these folks were congratulating one another for doing what they've been hired and elected to do. Things took a worse turn when Louisiana Senator John Kennedy was invited to speak. His contempt for federal investigators, I thought, was palpable and I believe invited conspiracy thinking.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): Did talk to the Secretary of Homeland Security a little while ago, and I told him that with all the respect I could muster, I need to tell the American people the truth and the people of New Orleans the truth and the people of America the truth. I will promise you this, I will -- when it is appropriate and this investigation is complete, you will find out what happened and who was responsible, or I will raise fresh hell. And I will chase those in the federal government who are responsible for telling us what happened like they stole Christmas.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Look, his shtick has always been soundbite driven, a rather weak imitation of Dan Ratherisms. You remember the election night when Dan Rather told us the race was hotter than a Times Square Rolex? Well, 15 minutes later, Kennedy reinserted himself into the mix, this time elbowing out the FBI agent so that he could make a partisan quip about the media and repeat his distrust of the federal government.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENNEDY: Can I say something? Right. Tell me who you're with.

[09:05:00]

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: WDSU.

KENNEDY: WDSU. OK. And CBS.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: NBC's over here on the right.

KENNEDY: Oh, that's unusual position.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Sad that that drew laughter the day of this tragedy. And you saw the senator muscle his way back into the podium where he then said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENNEDY: Once the FBI has a chance to investigate all this along, working with state police, working with Homeland Security, working with the city of New Orleans, they're going to tell you what happened, I can promise you that, or I'm going to raise fresh hell. But right now, they're in the process of trying to catch the other bad guys, and I want to give them the benefit of the doubt for a while.

SMERCONISH: Maybe he was thinking of the FBI agent's word choice earlier in the day, her refusal to use the word terrorism. But I doubt that anybody was worrying that the feds wouldn't be forthcoming until Kennedy raised that specter. Again, all praise to the cops who took fire and took down the bad guy in New Orleans. But as for the aftermath, it was too many people with not enough to say to justify their presence.

Now compare Las Vegas, because there on New Year's Day, a Tesla Cybertruck exploded outside the Trump International Hotel. The 37- year-old male suspect died by suicide and was an active member in the military. So far, investigators have found no direct connection between the Vegas blast and the terrorist attack in New Orleans. They apparently both use the same app to rent their vehicles and each served in the army, including stints at Fort Bragg.

On Thursday, I watched Metropolitan Police Sheriff Kevin McMahill lead a Las Vegas briefing. And what a difference in comparison to New Orleans. The sole speakers were Sheriff McMahill, the FBI special agent in charge of Las Vegas, and the Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the ATF. In other words, no politicians, no personalized garb, no sharp elbows, no self-congratulations, no partisan jokes about the media, just cops and prosecutors dispassionately telling the public what it needed to know based on the best available information.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERIFF KEVIN MCMAHILL, LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT: Every tip and lead that comes in, every piece of evidence that comes in, we don't discount it. We work it through it. You know, it's an interesting thing during these kinds of investigations that if these turned out to be simply similarities, very strange similarities to have. And so, we're not prepared to rule in or rule out anything at this point.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: The only thing for sure is that there will be more tragedy and more press conferences. So let's hope these two responses will be studied. One for what not to do, the other to be emulated.

The goal is not to score political points, nor plant the seeds of conspiracy, nor posture for the cameras. We don't need performative outrage, we need leaders with information who can rise above the noise and offer facts and reassurance. And anything less will only deepen mistrust in our institutions when faith in them is already precariously low.

Federal agencies are now warning law enforcement officers to be on the lookout for potential copycat attacks after Shamsud-Din Jabbar, a U.S. army veteran and recipient of multiple military awards, rammed a pickup truck through a crowded street. Jabbar was killed after exchanging gunfire with police.

New exclusive video obtained by CNN shows the suspect loading his pickup truck with an ISIS flag just after midnight. The FBI says that he was, quote, 100 percent inspired by ISIS. Police also found improvised explosive devices inside his truck with a rare organic compound not previously seen in the United States before. The suspect appeared to have posted listings for guns and ammunition on a firearms website with the caption, quote, "great for sending home invaders to hell."

Joining me now is Bruce Hoffman, senior fellow for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security at the Council on Foreign Relations. He's a professor at Georgetown University. He's been studying terrorism and insurgency for nearly five decades. Hoffman was appointed by Congress and served as the lead author for the final report of the FBI's post 9/11 response to terrorism and radicalization. His book, it's called "Inside Terrorism."

Professor, good to have you here. Does it matter whether the New Orleans attacker was directed by ISIS or just drew inspiration from ISIS?

BRUCE HOFFMAN, COUNTERTERRORISM & HOMELAND SECURITY, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: It does in the sense that if he was directed by ISIS, this could, as the FBI initially suspected, be part of a broader conspiracy. If there is any silver lining in this terrible tragedy is that this person seems to have been entirely self radicalized, self- motivated, was suffering from a range of highly personal, idiosyncratic setbacks, and that appears to have set him on this path of attacking on New Year's Eve in New Orleans.

[09:10:02]

SMERCONISH: I thought that ISIS was in our rearview mirror. HOFFMAN: I think everybody hoped that they were in our rearview mirror. But the fact of the matter is, over the past year alone, ISIS has either carried out or been derailed from six significant attacks or plots. Now, these include incidents such as occurred in Iran last January, in Moscow at a concert venue last March. But also, don't forget, it was an ISIS threat that resulted in the cancellation of the Taylor Swift concert in Vienna last August. And in October in the United States, an individual associated with ISIS was arrested by the FBI who was planning an attack in Oklahoma City on Election Day.

So we see that really 2024 was the year of ISIS resurrection in essence.

SMERCONISH: Are individuals who are drawn to ISIS motivated by ideology? Are they motivated by some warped sense of the Islamic faith? Or has it become a catch all for those with grievance, even personal grievance?

HOFFMAN: You know that's exactly right, is that there may be a raft of personal idiosyncratic considerations, but as soon as you give it a political context, as soon as you wave an ISIS flag or claim an attack in the name of ISIS, all of a sudden it gets outsized publicity and attention. And that certainly is a motivation as well.

SMERCONISH: Law enforcement now seeing the Las Vegas incident as a tragic case of suicide. Seemingly no direct connection between the two. Perhaps coincidence that they use the same app to rent their vehicles, had served in the military, including stints at Fort Bragg. Your thoughts?

HOFFMAN: I think the two incidents probably are not connected, at least directly. But indirectly, I think they're very troubling in the sense that you probably had the Las Vegas bomber accelerate or move forward his plot because of the incident in New Orleans. In other words, he too wanted to elbow himself into the limelight. And clearly by saying that he's carrying out this attack not only because of the personal physical trauma he suffered as a soldier during the global war on terrorism, but also because he said America is on the wrong track. I mean, that also puts it in a political context, and that is the indirect connection, is that we have two incidents on New Year's Day expressing some discontent politically, but certainly born of deep personal trauma or setbacks.

SMERCONISH: Professor Hoffman, wipe the slate clean. Big picture it for me. What worries you most?

HOFFMAN: Well, terrorism never occurs in a vacuum. It always reflects the tensions in society and indeed the polarization in politics. Well, right now we've got both of those in spades. And this is what worries me, is there's enough conflict still in the Middle East and upheaval and chaos. And that, of course, is terrorism, stock and trade.

They seek to take advantage of that chaos, of that upheaval to elbow themselves into the limelight and to attract attention to themselves and their causes. So that's a main threat. Second one, as the FBI has repeatedly articulated, is that this might well inspire copycat attacks. And that, of course, is a significant and present danger.

SMERCONISH: And a related concern is the difficulty, I imagine, in policing the online content that ISIS puts out, especially in the United States, where there's more respect for civil liberties among law enforcement than you would find is the case overseas.

HOFFMAN: Yes, this is, I think, exactly an important point to raise is that ISIS hasn't slowed down in its dissemination of propaganda, in its efforts to recruit and radicalize individuals, which means we have to constantly be vigilant against this threat and not see it as something that's in our rearview mirror.

SMERCONISH: Professor Hoffman, thanks so much for your expertise. We appreciate you.

HOFFMAN: You're very welcome.

SMERCONISH: What are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media. You can find me on all the usual platforms. We incorporate a number of your responses into the program in real time.

Tragic, possibly preventable, likely more to it than they are sharing. Also likely it is in some way connected to the Vegas explosion. I don't think so. Again, the government never shares what they know and often shares fabrications.

Turner, your name on the tweet from X. You sound -- you remind me of Senator Kennedy in that regard. And I guess it's one thing for you who are not in the United States Senate to offer those views. But as you can tell, I was troubled by the way in which he invited conspiracy at a time where I think there was no basis to do so in the immediate aftermath of the attack on Bourbon Street.

Am I willing to give him some slack and those other public officials, because it was all so raw and it was their hometown and 14 people died? I am. But when I saw the way Sheriff McMahill comported himself in Vegas the following day, I said, that's the model. No politicians, unless they have value to add. Leave the jerseys at home with your name embroidered on them and instead give us law enforcement, those who are out there assembling the evidence and those who are going to have to prosecute the case.

[09:15:19]

Coming up, what's going on with 30 somethings? Why aren't they getting married, owning homes, having kids? Is it the economy shifting priorities or social expectations?

And speaking of the economy, the Ragin Cajun James Carville is here. What he says he got wrong about the 2024 election.

I want to know what you think. James has inspired today's poll question at smerconish.com. Do you agree with James Carville that Kamala Harris lost for one simple reason, the economy or the economy, stupid? Don't forget to sign up for my newsletter at smerconish.com while you're voting. Steve Breen drew this for us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: There are many out there who were sure that Kamala Harris would win the election. Some Democrats are still engaging in a blame game over who's responsible for the campaign failure. Legendary Democratic strategist James Carville had this to say on my program just a couple of weeks before Election Day.

[09:20:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Look, I think she's going to campaign hard in Pennsylvania. You know, I don't like to predict elections, but like I said, I think this thing is going to break. And I feel more comfortable that it will break Harris's ways or not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Now Carville says it's time we shift our focus to the why of it all. In his new piece for the "New York Times" entitled "I Was Wrong About the 2024 Election. Here's Why, Carville writes, "I keep coming back to the same thing. We lost for one very simple reason. It was, it is, it always will be, the economy, stupid. We have to begin 2025 with that truth as our political north star and not get distracted by anything else."

I want to know what you think. James has inspired today's poll question at smerconish.com. Do you agree with the Ragin Cajun that Kamala Harris lost for one simple reason, the economy?

Joining me now is James Carville. He was the man behind Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign victory. He's the focus of the new CNN film "Carville, Winning Is Everything Stupid," which right now is streaming on Max.

James, you're killing me. I'm day four into a dry January and I'm looking at your backdrop. I mean, come on.

CARVILLE: Well, you know, it's Saturday morning, you got to bring a little levity in somebody's life. We've had, you know, from my vantage point, terrible election, a gut wrenchingly horrible event in New Orleans. So to the extent that I can add a little levity to Saturday morning, I'm happy to do it. It was very intentional.

SMERCONISH: Why we love you. Why we love you. All right, make the case. I don't need to lead the Ragin Cajun. Go ahead, take the floor and tell me why it was the economy, stupid.

CARVILLE: Well, because we interact with the economy, people do, multiple times a day and even other issues. Let's take an issue that's really worked for us, abortion issue, that is an economic issue to many people. I mean, I was thinking, you know, if you work at the Walmart in Ponchatoula, you're probably 600 miles away from any abortion access. Assume you could afford to get there. You already have two kids and you're having a child in the state that leads the United States and children born into poverty and we have a law that says you don't have any other option but to have that child.

Well, that's an economic issue also. And there's so many other things that you can frame as economic issues. But every day, you go to the grocery store, you go to the drugstore, you go to the gas station, you go online. You have 40 economic interactions every day, and you just can't remove that from people's lives. You just can't do it.

And we've tried, and I've tried workarounds, and I've said, well, maybe I have more money and better surrogates and more storefront field organizations can make up for it. And I was wrong.

SMERCONISH: A number of the commenters to your piece and I discussed it on my radio program. Well, it's a great conversation starter. But a lot of them said they were bummed out in agreeing with you. Here's a comment. I'll put it on the screen.

I'll read it aloud. This is from the "New York Times." "Character, honesty, decency, intelligence, democracy. None of these seem to matter in our country when electing a president. I think that pretty much says it all." You would say what to that person?

CARVILLE: I'd say, first of all, I totally agree with that person. It's very depressing. But if you're doing political strategy, you know, if you have an airplane crash, you got to go back and find out what went wrong. You don't say, well, let's just forget about it and move on. No, it was the flap set in the right setting.

Or, you know, was there something that the pilot didn't pay attention to? I don't know, but it is sort of depressing. But, you know, Michael, there's the simple basic rule of politics is voters want an election about them, they don't want an election about you or your opponent. And for too much, we lost that. I lost it myself.

We made it about Trump, and we didn't make it about voters. And that's never a good idea. And how could I, at 80 years old, been doing this for 50 years, lapse into that level of stupidity? You know, I got to ask myself. And -- but I think we did, and, you know, let's learn from this.

It's a disaster. I agree it's depressing, but to have an event like this and not learn from it, I think is the biggest mistake we can make.

SMERCONISH: Looking forward to 2025 and thereafter, James Carville says, stop talking about Trump and stop talking about extremism. That's going to be a very bitter pill for so many Democrats and Trump opponents to resolve, because they're so prone to doing exactly that.

CARVILLE: So the Carville rule is this, to choose to talk about one thing is to choose to not talk about another thing. And the idea, we'll just talk about two things. No, no, no, no. So what I'm saying, a Democrat should pick three issues that unite the Democratic Party, that have over 2/3 approval among the American people and something the Republican Party can't do. Let's try codifying Roe v. Wade.

[09:25:08] That has 2/3 support. It's all across the Democratic Party. They can't do it. Let's talk about raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. That unifies the Democratic Party that has over 2/3 support.

Do that. Let's talk about taxes over 400,000. Don't let those tax cuts expire. Take that money and put it into a first time homebuyers relief fund or rental relief fund. They can't do that.

We can't. So, always right now we're an opposition party do popular things that we like and they can't do and focus on those things.

SMERCONISH: Did Biden and Harris by extension, and ultimately Harris, did they fail to sell exactly what James Carville is preaching? Here's another comment from the "Times." I'll read it aloud. "Biden's signature accomplishments, investing infrastructure, the clean energy economy, domestic manufacture of microchip processing components are, all caps, squarely benefiting middle class Americans."

Did they have the cards and just not know how to play them, James?

CARVILLE: Well, I think by election time. And remember, you had -- Biden was in the race until July 21st and the whole thing became about Biden being in the race about not. He did many wonderful things as president. Salesmanship is not his strongest point. I think he would say that himself.

I mean it's pretty obvious it's not. But it became about that. And Harris, I hate to be too critical because she gets the nominations at any time. She's got to put everything together. She got a convention, a vice presidential pick, a debate and all of the rigmarole you have to go through in a campaign. And we still came, you know, pretty close.

But yes, in selling is not. You don't sell. You don't pick a period that we're going to sell. OK, all right, now it's selling season and then it's going to last for three weeks and it's not going to be. No, selling season is even when you're sleeping, you sell and you sleep.

And for some reason certain Democrats, some Democrats, not all, don't like the idea of selling. We should be moral. We should feel better and superior about ourselves. And my answer, there's nothing more superior than winning an election. That is the highest calling there is in American politics, to win.

And if you lose, you got nothing. And you're sitting around here trying to think of three things we can be for that they can't. We have no power. We can watch them self implode, which is kind of fun and I enjoy it. But that's going to advance us only so much.

But you know, it sounds really stupid in elementary but you have to remind, you have to wake up every morning and says the point here is to win. That's what we're trying to do. We're not trying to make people feel good.

SMERCONISH: Your final --

CARVILLE: We're not trying --

SMERCONISH: Your final line in the essay, thus it was, thus it is, thus it forever shall be. Is your advice to politicians at all level or just at the presidential level? Is this the mantra for somebody running for Congress or township supervisor or the U.S. Senate?

CARVILLE: Yes. You know, Michael, you know, foreign policy, that kind of gray magazine that you buy in the airport so people think that you're smart, you never read it, that they asked me to review a memo that Cicero's brother wrote to in Rome and I read it and I said, well, we've started nothing new. It was the same. It was the same thing that we would be talking about today. And we're always looking for the next new thing in politics and it never is.

Now what I am going to educate myself on is how people receive information. I don't think Democrats fully appreciate that. I think they are much better at what we would call alternative media. But I'm not sure alternative media is not the main place that people get the information at. I mean we need a massive media consumption survey because I can do the "New York Times," I can come on Smerconish and people will see it.

I'll get people text me, they'll e-mail me, but mostly I'm talking to people who agree with my main thrust in life. They might disagree vehemently with some of my tactics to get there, but I want to know where these people are getting this goofy information from. And there's so much misinformation and you just can't correct at all. I mean all of the stuff I see about the New Orleans shooting is people are flapping their jaws. They don't know the first thing about what went on down there, what it's like.

Now, that's OK, but people are getting other information like crazy. That doesn't make -- it just doesn't comport with the truth.

SMERCONISH: Yes.

CARVILLE: And the truth doesn't always win.

SMERCONISH: So much, fragmentation.

Hey, quickly, while James is still here, put the response on the screen. I'd rather lean on him to reply to it. What do we have? From the world of YouTube, I think. Only reason. No way.

That is stupid. She did nothing as border czar. That was as big of an issue as the economy.

Give me the 30-second response, James.

CARVILLE: Disorder will hurt you. So, people thought we had disorder at the border. People thought it was disorder in pricing and inflation. People thought incorrectly, I would argue. That that was crime.

And so, it was disordered -- inflation is a signal of disorder. And the southern border, they framed it as an economic issue. That these people are coming to take your jobs. They're actually doing no such thing. But that got frightened as -- when they talked about it, they talked about it as an economic issue, that they were driving wages down. And of course, they're going to find out just how important immigration is to this country.

SMERCONISH: In 27 days, I'm coming down there and we're going to tap what's behind you. Thank you, James. I appreciate it as always.

CARVILLE: All right. Call me before you come. I know people down here can probably get you a good table.

SMERCONISH: Thank you for that. I want to remind everybody go to my Web site at Smerconish.com. James Carville has inspired today's poll question. Do you agree with him, Kamala Harris lost for one simple reason, the economy?

Still to come, your social media reaction to my commentary and what's going on with the millennials. Nine percent of those 30 to 40 still live with their parents. Many are staying single and childless. What's behind that trend?

Be sure to sign up for my free and worthy daily newsletter, when you go to Smerconish.com to cast a ballot, you'll get the work of great illustrators like Scott Stantis.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:35:29]

SMERCONISH: You can find me on all the usual social media platforms. Sound off during the course of the program. I like to run through some live. I don't see them in advance.

Michael, the Feds wouldn't be forthcoming. Are you kidding? We need senators like Kennedy to keep the government honest.

Totally disagree. Happy to entertain your perspective, but totally disagree because I thought that the way that he physically inserted himself into that press conference so as to threaten the federal government that he would, you know, reign a new form of hell or some such thing, I thought that did more to ignite conspiracy thinking where there was no room for any.

And by the way, I fully acknowledge that the FBI agent in charge in the earlier presser was wrong in the way in which she handled it by saying that it was not an act of terror. The proper response would have been to say, this is very fluid, we don't know yet what we're dealing with, and well keep you advised when we know more facts.

But no, I just disagree in terms of the way in which he comported himself. And as I said at the outset of the program, it's not just Kennedy. I've long wanted to make this point, and many times I've drafted a commentary addressing politicians more than law enforcement about how to handle the post-catastrophe presser.

And then I've talked myself out of it on the grounds that it lacks decorum and probably will be poorly received from a taste perspective. But this week, because I had the juxtaposition of New Orleans and Las Vegas, I thought, no, now I'm going to do it because the people in Vegas did it the way it should be done.

Forget the politicians. Give me the investigators. Give me the prosecutors. Limit your commentary to the facts. And for God's sakes, don't make it a partisan issue.

More reaction from some of your comments during the course of today's program so far. What do we have?

Absolutely no. This is on the question of whether you agree with James Carville. Harris didn't lose because of the economy. She didn't lose because she was a female or a person of color, as Dems like to say. The reason she lost was because she was a terrible candidate and could not answer questions coherently.

Jerry, my answer is to say all of these things played a role. I mean, my short explanation as to why the election turned out the way that it did is because of immigration. I agree with James Carville, the economy. He's right to say immigration is also an economic issue. So, I'll concede that the economy is number one.

But also, condescension. That's the way that I think of it. In other words, the browbeating that took place of people being told by institutions, including the media, you can't possibly vote for this guy. The more people were told what they shouldn't be doing, the more they sort of bristled and decided, maybe I will do that.

One more, I think I have time. Let's see what it is.

No. Kamala became synonymous with woke, which was parodied as caring about everyone and everything except me. By comparison, Trump's pronouns are me and mine.

I think that too played a role, and I don't underestimate the significance. I think it was effective the way in which trans participation in youth athletics and athletics generally was a -- was a wedge issue. But in the end, I think Carville is right that paramount among all these things was the economy. Make sure you're voting at Smerconish.com.

Still to come, the "Wall Street Journal" had an interesting piece this week asking what happens when a whole generation never grows up? Thirty somethings, they're not owning homes. They're not getting married. They're not having kids the way their parents had. We'll talk about that next.

Don't forget to vote on today's poll question. Do you agree with James Carville, Kamala Harris lost for one simple reason, the economy? Sign up for the newsletter while you're there. Steve Breen sketched this for us. That's funny, right?

And here's another editorial cartoon drawn exclusively for our Web site and newsletter, this one by Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:43:06]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN, SINGER (singing): Hid in the clouded wrath of the crowd when they said, sit down, I stood up. Ooh, ooh, growin' up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: The Boss singing about growing up. But what about millennials moving out, owning a home, building a family? These used to be the markers for adulthood, but many of the 30 and 40 somethings of today say the standards of previous generations no longer feel attainable.

According to the Institute for Family Studies, a third of today's young people will never marry. Adults under 50 who say they are unlikely to ever have children has climbed by 10 percent in the last six years.

A "Wall Street Journal" essay by Rachel Wolfe raises the question, "What Happens When a Whole Generation Never Grows Up?" Wolfe writes that, "Amid steep declines in home ownership, marriage and birth rates, economists have long been warning that young people are struggling to meet the milestones of adulthood. Although some 30- somethings are consciously choosing a less traditional path, many say these goals are simply out of reach."

Joining me now is Richard Reeves. He's president of the American Institute for Boys and Men and author of "Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do About It."

Richard, nice to see you again. I cited some data. Is there one data point, top of your mind, that you think kind of sums up the issue that we're here to discuss?

RICHARD REEVES, AUTHOR, "OF BOYS AND MEN": Yes. For me, it's the fact that men in their 30s and 40s now, who don't have a college degree, half of them don't have children in their home. And so, this move towards having men in homes that don't have children in them, and particularly for working class men, is like a very, very big change.

And for me, Rachel's essay and the data you've cited, it speaks to a change, an important change, which is the fact that these milestones aren't just being reached later.

[09:45:01]

But for many people, they're not being reached at all. That we've gone from later, which in some ways can be a good thing. To never, which is very rarely a good thing. Taking a bit more time to get educated, take your time to form a family, maybe get yourself financially settled. That's arguably a good thing, but that's not what's happening now. What's happening now is that these milestones for many people are just not being reached at all. SMERCONISH: OK. You anticipated my next question, which is, is this necessarily bad news? Might some of these individuals be happier in making a conscious choice?

REEVES: Yes, that's the -- that's the million-dollar question. If you were to look at this data and say, look, this is people that have got lots of choice. They've intentionally said, look, I don't want to get married. I don't want to have kids. Maybe I don't want to do what my parents did.

Then you just say, sure enough, like the old people can roll their eyes and say, oh, young people today. But that's just them doing it differently. But that's not what the data suggests. The data suggests that actually, men in particular still want to have children. They still want to get married. They still want to form families. It's just that for some reason they're not able to.

And I think that's a mixture of it speaks a bit to your -- the segment you just had with James Carville. It's a mixture, as always, of economics and culture. This is partly just, you know, young men in particular feeling like they're not -- they're not doing as well economically as they -- as they need to.

But it's also, I think, this has to be said that there's a growing gap in many ways between young men and young women. We see that in politics. We see that in culture.

And one thing, I think, we know for sure now is the -- a battle of the sexes is not great for the dating market. And you're seeing some of that playing out. Now, a third of men under 30 are not dating. Twenty- four percent of men still living at -- living at home in their 20s, as you just pointed out.

And so, we're seeing something that -- honestly, Michael, I didn't used to worry about this delay. I'm now worried about it because I do think we're moving from this is just happening later to it's just not happening.

SMERCONISH: I know that it's of concern to you, and it's a subject that I've discussed often here with Scott Galloway, whose work I also have great respect for. OK. Assuming it's problematic -- and by the way, it impacts women as well, because by extension, there's a domino effect here as between the sexes. What might change it?

REEVES: We've got to improve the economic prospects for young men. That is, if you're going to do one thing. So, we need to have more investments in education system that works for men. So, I know you've talked a lot about on this show about vocational training, apprenticeships, the fact that male wages have flatlined over the last 20 years. This is not -- as you've said, it's not just an issue for men, it's an issue for our society.

And the second thing is that we just need to lower the temperature around some of these cultural issues, some of these political issues that, I think, have really driven a wedge between many young men and young women. And so, we've got to find a way back towards each other. This chasm that we now see opening up between millennial men and millennial women, I think, that's an underlying factor that is driving a lot of the trends you've just described here is that -- the thing is about men and women is that typically they're going to form families together.

And so, if both sides aren't doing well, that's a problem. We have to rise together. And right now, it looks like it's the economic and social prospects of young men that are the big issue facing us.

SMERCONISH: A quick final thought that I'd like you to respond to. Maybe it was inevitable that generations wouldn't be able to continue to outperform their parents when we've reached a stage where everybody has a smartphone, or so it seems, and everybody has a flat screen.

REEVES: Yes. So, that's always a problem that like as you grow as an economy, it's like, how much better off are you than your parents are? What's -- what's good enough? What's enough to kind of form a family?

There's no question, as Rachel's essay in the "Wall Street Journal" points out, that to some extent, this is just about our expectations of what's necessary to form a family are running kind of way ahead of where they need to be. But I think there's something going on here that is a bit deeper than I'd perhaps thought earlier, which is that we haven't created a culture in which it's easy enough for men and women to kind of form these families, to buy a home, to start out in life.

And so, for a long time, I've just been looking at this and thinking, look, maybe this generation is just hitting pause. It will be fine. As this data is coming in, I'm worried that we haven't hit pause. For many of them, it's a stop.

And back to your earlier question, Michael. This is not what most of them say they want. Like most men and even women want to have kids. They want to get married. They want to -- they maybe want to have a family later than their parents, maybe differently. They still want to do it.

And right now, there's something about our culture and our economy that's just making that harder than it needs to be. And God knows it's hard enough anyway without making it harder.

SMERCONISH: Your book is called "Of Boys and Men." Richard Reeves, thank you so much for your expertise.

REEVES: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: Quick social media reaction. From the world of X. You can find me on all the usual social media platforms.

Let's call them the COVID generation, work from homies, line daters, or just plain lazy. What about the parents? Where are they? It starts at home.

I don't know, Goody4U. The implication is that parents could just crack a whip and say, you know, get to work and all these things are going to turn around. I think it's much deeper than that.

[09:50:01]

And that the trend lines precede COVID and the pandemic. Scott Galloway said something to me that always resonates, which is that it's not so much that the pandemic changed things as much as it acted as an accelerant. And I think this is one of those instances.

You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Do you agree with James Carville that Kamala Harris lost for one simple reason, the economy?

When you go to vote, subscribe to the newsletter while you're there. You're going to get exclusive editorial cartoons. Here are two more. First, from Rob Rogers. And second, from Jack Ohman. Come on.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: Hey, gang, I'm sorry. I know that a number of you had difficulty voting today. There's a bug. Thank God, 27,155 were able to vote. We'll figure it out for everybody else before next Saturday.

Do you agree with James Carville that Kamala Harris lost for one simple reason? I'm shocked by this. Two thirds are saying no to the Ragin' Cajun. I think he's right when he says, it's the economy, stupid.

[09:55:02]

Here's some of the social media reaction that has come in during the course of today's program. Maybe it's time we stop defining being a grownup as being saddled with a spouse, kids, and a mortgage. It's possible that they found a different way to live and that's totally fine.

I hope that's -- I hope that's the case, Smoked Manhattan. But I fear that it's not. I said to Richard Reeves, is this necessarily bad news? And his response was to say to me that, no, I mean, these are guys -- because it's a male oriented issue that we're discussing who largely do want to have the same measures of success as their parents were judged.

But I will tell you that, Amelia, Amelia, I hope you don't mind that I'm outing you, whispered in my ear, one of our producers, that young women and young men today perhaps seek different aspirations and goals, that young women are happier in an unmarried situation.

Is that the way you said it to me? I think that it is. Did I embarrass you? I apologize if I did.

OK. More social media reaction. What do we have?

Good opener today. Kennedy's grandstanding at the New Orleans press conference was reprehensible and showed indeed everything that is wrong with current American discourse on problems long term and emergent. It was a partisan grandstanding -- did nothing but plant fear.

Yes. I mean, look, I had to single him out. He's not alone in that regard. And you know what I'd like to think? I'd like to think -- well, I'd like to think there'd be no more catastrophe and gun violence that would necessitate a presser.

But I'd like to think that the opening commentary today, to the extent it gets distributed, is going to cause politicians to reevaluate how they comport themselves the next time it happens. See you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)