Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Tesla Investors Fear Musk's Politics May Damage Brand & Sales; How A Law From The 1950s May Play A Role In Khalil's Case. Governor Newsom Hosts MAGA Voices On Podcast. Aired 9-10a

Aired March 15, 2025 - 09:00   ET

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

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: Tune in for an all new episode of "Have I Got News For You." It's at 9:00 p.m. right here on CNN.

Thank you for joining me today. I'll see you back here next Saturday at 8:00 a.m. Eastern. "Smerconish" is up next.

[09:00:32]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Would you buy a used car from this man? I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.

Every few years we make a decision. We look at the choices, we watch the ads, we compare the records, we listen to the opinions of friends and family, and still sometimes we ultimately decide based on emotion. And we tend to stick with our own. Republicans go one way, Democrats go another. Republic rarely does an option appeal to both.

Presidential candidates, no, I'm thinking about cars and trucks. You can often tell a person's political affiliation by what they drive. And according to stereotype and market research, no manufacturer has been more identified with Democrats than Tesla, Ram, GMC, Ford, all favored by Republicans. Same for Lincoln, Jeep and Chevrolet. But Mercedes, BMW, Subaru and Mazda, Honda, Audi, Nissan more favored by Democrats.

Nothing is 100 percent, of course. But in 2022, Nielsen Scarborough released market research showing that Tesla is the manufacturer most favored by Democratic leaning voters. And by the way, Tesla owners, they tend to be reliable voters. Plus, last year, Business Insider released the results of its analysis showing the 10 most Republican and 10 most Democratic vehicles. The most Republican vehicle in America according to this research, they said, the Jeep Wrangler.

The most Democratic, this research said the Toyota Prius. Eight of the 10 reddest vehicles made in America, eight of the 10 bluest, foreign made. Interestingly, the most purple carmaker in America, despite slightly outperforming among Republicans, is also Jeep, even though it's owned by Stellantis, a multinational company headquartered in the Netherlands. But are these patterns about to be upended?

Yesterday was one of the best days in months for the stock market, and yet that still wasn't enough to keep Wall Street from a fourth straight losing week. And among the stocks most impacted since Donald Trump's election last November, Tesla. Tesla has hemorrhaged 800 billion in market cap since December, leading President Trump on Tuesday to stage a sales event for Elon Musk and Tesla on the South Lawn of the White House. Trump said that he bought a Model S for use by his staff and a Cybertruck for his granddaughter Kai. No doubt he made those purchases to help his first friend, who not only has seen his net worth decline, but also has seen Tesla takedown protests across the country, some marred by vandalism and violence.

Twice in a week, shots were fired at a Tesla dealership near Portland. Meanwhile, some on the right who've historically been dismissive of climate change are rallying around the brand that many progressives once preferred for not burning fossil fuels. Consider this, Sean Hannity took to X this week to announce his recent purchase of a Tesla. But whether Trump can help reverse Tesla's slide depends on more than just satisfying hesitant buyers with range anxiety, he needs to convince Republicans accustomed to hearing him lambaste President Biden's EV initiatives to suddenly embrace electric cars. And that's not going to be easy.

According to a survey by American EV Jobs Alliance, 65 percent of Musk supporters do not believe climate change is real and that electric vehicles can help. That same survey also found that 44 percent of Republicans said they would probably never buy an electric vehicle.

Ford faced a similar situation in 2022 when trying to convince traditional truck buyers, many Republican, to embrace the F150 Lightning. And then it was a different president. President Joe Biden taking a test drive and encouraging consumers to invest in a pickup that could go zero to 60 in about four seconds. Initially, sales of the electric F150 spike, but more recently they've been in decline.

And unfortunately for Tesla, Musk is now more popular with people who drive pickup trucks and gasoline vehicles than he is with people who drive electric cars. I'm a Tesla owner, two of them actually. Not because I'm progressive, hardly, but because I appreciate the technology and I'd rather not contribute to global warming. And I like that it's made in America. In fact, among all automakers, Tesla is arguably the most American, at least for vehicles sold in the U.S.

[09:05:02]

A Cars.com study ranked my car, Tesla's Model Y as the most American made vehicle for the third year in a row, with the Model X and Model S also making the top 10. While Tesla does manufacture some cars in China and Germany for global markets, every Tesla sold in the U.S. is built in California or Texas. That ought to appeal to Republicans, at least the Texas part. Compare that to Ford, GM or Stellantis, which produce many of their vehicles, including some of their bestselling trucks outside the U.S. So while some buyers see a Ram 1500 or a Chevy Silverado as the ultimate American ride, their vehicle may have been assembled in Mexico with parts from all over the world.

My Tesla's rolled off the assembly line in Fremont, California. When I discussed all of this, this week on my Sirius XM radio program, I got a telephone call from a guy named Jerry (ph). (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JERRY: I'm a California liberal. I'm a Tesla owner for almost 10 years now. It's the most American made car you can possibly buy. The person in charge of Tesla is Elon. He is absolutely crazy.

They should not allow him to talk to people, but he builds a great car. What are the alternatives? Volvo is owned by Chinese, Japanese and German cars have a bad political history. You don't buy a Tesla, you're really hurting people who assemble cars in California where I live. If I remember correctly, Henry Ford had a picture of Adolf Hitler on his desk till about 1940.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: I think he reversed that last part. We fact checked the caller's claim about Henry Ford and discovered Adolf Hitler admired Ford's anti-Semitic views and kept a photo of the automaker behind his desk.

I don't make my consumer decisions based on politics, I make them based on quality. If politics factored into my buying habits, I'd no longer be listening to the music of Roger Waters based on what happened in that interview we did. Nor would I have rooted for Karla Sophia Gascon, star of "Emilia Perez," to win an Oscar. Despite her controversial social media posts, I think she deserved it.

And when it comes to Musk and Trump, I have another agenda in hoping they broaden Tesla's appeal. Chargers, there still aren't enough. You remember when were promised that the infrastructure bill was going to change all that? Nearly 5 billion was appropriated for EV charging stations back in 2022, but as of July of 2024 only 8 states have opened their first stations with just 61 ports in total. So, maybe Musk and Trump's newfound marketing will boost charging availability, which be good for all of us and for the planet.

How ironic and progressive that it would then be Trump who is reducing carbon emissions. But whether it's Trump or Musk or Biden, I don't care who gets us there. Just plug me in and let's roll.

It all brings me to today's poll question at smerconish.com, love it, simple, effective, will Trump and Musk cause Republicans to embrace EVs?

My next guest is sounding the alarm about the future of Tesla and why investors fear Elon Musk's venture into politics may be damaging the company's brand. Joining me now is Dan Ives, a tech analyst on Wall Street, the global head of technology research for Wedbush Securities. His message to Tesla shareholders was recently featured in a Fortune magazine headlined, "In a striking change of tone, Tesla mega bull Dan Ives warns Elon Musk that his patience is wearing thin."

Dan, thank you for being here. Explain that headline and your current thinking.

DAN IVES, GLOBAL HEAD OF TECHNOLOGY, RESEARCH, WEDBUSH SECURITIES: Yes, look, I mean, we've been one of the biggest supporters of Musk and Tesla and still are, but you know, sometimes you hit a line where the clock strikes midnight. And I think what we've seen now is investor frustration is built because the last thing, and you talked about it, you don't want Tesla to become a political symbol one way or another. And Musk has to be CEO of Tesla and he's really the balancing act's been, you know, I think a disaster relative to brand and other issues. The long term is so bright. That's the issue.

I think it's the best disruptive technology in the planet. They need to get through this period. And that's why my -- it's a moment of truth for Musk and Tesla.

SMERCONISH: How much of the slide of Tesla is attributable to these political factors that I've been describing? How much is due to other market forces?

IVES: I'd say probably in terms of the actual stock sell off, I'd probably say about 50 percent to 60 percent. The selloff is related to Musk brand worries deteriorate. What that means, you know, and we've seen softer sales come out of Europe and some in the U.S. Now, the irony is we actually think only about, probably less than 10 percent of the actual sales decline is related to brand issues. So I think what you're really seeing is investors are extrapolating and they're nervous because Musk is Tesla.

[09:10:09]

Tesla is Musk. And when you look at DOGE and what we've seen on the Trump administration, well, being first, buddy, whatever you want, the bromance, that's been a great thing longer term relative to autonomous and for Musk. But near term, it's tip the scales and the stock speaks to that.

SMERCONISH: So it would take so much though to injure Musk personally, financially. I'm looking at my napkin, here's what I come up with. He's obviously the wealthiest person in the world. As of March of 2025, Forbes estimates his net worth to be 330 billion. Even if 99 percent of his wealth comes from Tesla, which is very unlikely, and it 100 percent disappeared tomorrow, he'd still be worth 3.3 billion and would still make a list, that Forbes list of, you know, the most wealthy individuals on the planet.

True?

IVES: True. But I think the one thing I'd say is for Musk, more than even money, it's about Tesla customers. I mean, he -- that's hearts and lungs of what he's built. That's his baby. And I think what you're seeing is here in terms of like the frustration the brand, right now, it's contained, but in other words, can you win the battle and lose the war?

In other words, the goal is OK, like on DOGE, it's now taken on a life of its own. There could be a balancing act. What Tesla investors and even more customers saying is come back home, be Tesla's CEO, balance it better. You could still do DOGE, but the thing is, on the brand perspective, you talk about, in my opinion, one of the biggest global brands in the world. Last year you talk about Model Y, best-selling car in the world, but you cannot right now sort of plant that flag and just say, I don't care.

You got to read the room just like you did during Twitter and other situations.

SMERCONISH: OK, but here's my question, and this is where I'm going with today's poll question as well. It's the whole, you know, Michael Jordan, Republicans buy sneakers too. You saw the data that I shared. Is Musk, with Trump's support, going to be able to convince Republicans for whom, you know, Trump and others have denigrated the idea of climate change for so long? And the data says that Musk is more popular today with pickup truck owners and people who buy, you know, gasoline fired engines.

Are they going to somehow be able to get Republicans into the tent and buying EVs, which by the way I think would be great for all of us and the planet?

IVES: Look, I think you could get some and it definitely starts some sort of movement. We saw that in terms of, you know, Trump and what -- in the White House.

I think the bigger worry is, OK, is there an opposite effect? In other words, the brand issues relative to -- you talk about whether it's Democrats relative to societies (ph) Musk, Trump, DOGE and other political, you know, issues. I think that's the issue right now for shareholders. Can you play both sides of the shore of the aisle? You will start to see that a little on the Republican side.

But the issue right now is in the reason moment of truth. For Musk, it's reading the room and it's more balanced because brand is key for what I view as one of the best brands in the world.

SMERCONISH: OK, and I agree with you. But give me the 30 second answer on this. So if Democrats, I know I'm simplifying, I'm grossly simplifying, but roll with me here, if Democrats are abandoning the brand, does it make sense for Musk full on with Trump's blessing to try and go after the MAGA base to make up for it and then some?

IVES: I think that's a -- that ultimate ever psych uphill battle with no oxygen. I think right now you know where your core base is, there could be a balance. But for Musk, I mean you're talking about something where this is going to be the probably the biggest disruptive technology brand in the world if you don't abandon your core base.

SMERCONISH: I really appreciate your insight. Thank you Dan Ives. And love the sport --

IVES: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: -- code by the way. Yes.

IVES: Thank you. Thanks.

SMERCONISH: I wonder if they make that in a 44.

What are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media.

IVES: I'll look it. I'll (inaudible) after.

SMERCONISH: Thank you. Get me one.

I will share some throughout the course of the program. You can find me on all the usual social media platforms. What do we have, gang? Asking a red state Republican to switch to an EV is like asking them to switch from drinking a Bud to a Cosmopolitan. Well, whoa, whoa, wait a minute.

But this is so classic. Leave that up for just a second. Put that back up, Katherine (sp?) -- Zane (sp?). Asking a red state Republican to switch to an EV is like asking them to switch from drinking a Bud, they don't drink about anymore ever since kid. I mean this is like the nuttiness of mixing your politics and your consumer habits.

They don't drink Bud anymore because Kid Rock shot up the cans after the whole Dylan Mulvaney ridiculousness, right? If you like Budweiser, drink Budweiser. If you like Tesla, drive a Tesla. And then go cast your ballot confined into the ballot box. That's the way I'm doing it.

[09:15:08]

I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com, answer today's poll question. Will Trump and Musk cause Republicans to embrace EVs?

Up ahead, a Palestinian activist arrested, a university campus divided, and a rarely used immigration law invoked by the Trump administration. At the center of the controversy, we assess just how it's being used and the precedent it could set. Make sure you're signing up for my newsletter when you're voting on the poll question at smerconish.com you will see the work of the likes of Jack Ohman, who drew this for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: Mahmoud Khalil is currently in an ICE detention facility in Louisiana following his arrest by immigration authorities last weekend attempting to deport him. So who is he and why is this happening and what's potentially at stake here?

[09:20:05]

Khalil is a prominent Palestinian activist and recent Columbia University graduate who helped organize last year's campus protests against Israel's actions in Gaza, some of which turned violent and ended up sending a security guard to the hospital. The Trump administration is accusing Khalil of leading activities aligned with Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, asserting that his presence threatens national security and undermines America's foreign policy objective of combating anti-Semitism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio justified the arrest by citing a rarely used provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which states that any non- citizen whose presence or actions could have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences is deportable.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: This is not about free speech. This is about people that don't have a right to be in the United States to begin with. No one has a right to a student visa. No one has a right to a green card, by the way. You pay all this money to these high priced schools that are supposed to be of great esteem and you can't even go to class.

You're afraid to go to class because these lunatics are running around with covers on their face screaming terrifying things. If you told us that's what you intended to do when you came to America, we would have never let you in. And if you do it once you get in, we're going to revoke it and kick you out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Khalil is a lawful permanent resident or green card holder. That means under U.S. law, green card holders like Khalil must not embrace terrorism. Specifically, 8 USC 1182 states an alien is inadmissible if he or she endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or is associated with a group that does so. According to the Wall Street editorial board, quote, "Mr. Khalil seems to have violated that obligation. He belongs to Columbia University apartheid divest and was a lead negotiator during last spring's anti-Israel encampment on the campus.

Those protests glorified Hamas. The group was also a key player in the school's encampment, which was a Zionist free zone, a designation that excluded Jews from a large part of campus."

Khalil's attorney, Baher Azmy, categorically rejects the government's allegations, emphasizing his client's activism was entirely peaceful. Speaking with Christiane Amanpour, the lawyer said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BAHER AZMY, ATTORNEY FOR MAHMOUD KHALIL: He has no connections to Hamas. The most they suggest is he was part of protests in which other people issued flyers vaguely supportive of Hamas. And if anyone has ever been in a protest, there are thousands of people who say thousands of things.

So really fundamentally what the President of the United States and the Secretary of State are saying, and this should be chilling for everyone, that simply dissenting from the foreign policy aims of the United States government could get you arrested at night, detained, and ultimately deported.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Azmy also argued that the government's legal justification is both vague and unconstitutional, effectively circumventing Khalil's First Amendment rights.

Let's break it all down with Greg Lukianoff. He's the President and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expressions and co- author of "Fire's Guide to Free Speech on Campus."

Greg, thanks for being here. Are there two standards, one for American citizens and another for everybody else, including this guy?

GREG LUKIANOFF, PRES. & CEO, FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND EXPRESSIONS (FIRE): You know, the law is a little ambiguous, but one thing that is clear, and this comes from a 1945 Supreme Court case, is that freedom of speech and of the press is accorded to aliens residing in this country. Now, I'm not saying it's perfectly clear what the parameters are of that, but people who are arguing that this has nothing to do with the First Amendment are simply wrong. The Supreme Court has spoken on this.

SMERCONISH: So that portion of the U.S. code that I cited, 8 USC 1182, is pretty straightforward in saying that if you embrace terror, then it could lead to your walking papers, which seems at odds with the First Amendment and raises lots of questions in terms of what exactly did he do? Your thoughts?

LUKIANOFF: Yes, exactly. Yes. No. One thing that we found interesting is that there are all sorts of -- you know, what's been going on at Columbia and Barnard, there are plenty of laws broken over at Barnard, and there was assault in some cases. There was actually anti-Semitic harassment.

Which makes it all the weirder that the government is primarily relying on flyers that, as your previous -- as one of the clips showed that other students were handing out that seem sympathetic to Hamas. They seem to be really focusing on viewpoint and speech. And if they're focusing on viewpoint of speech, it is unavoidably a First Amendment issue that should concern all Americans.

SMERCONISH: Your organization exists to defend speech and constantly you're in the throes of these campus debates. So I've got the Potter Stewart question for you. Define it. Like where is the line in a case like this?

LUKIANOFF: You know, basically, the sine qua non of censorship is viewpoint discrimination is going after someone specifically for an unpopular or despised viewpoint. And if you point to behavior, if you point to patterns of behavior, if you point to material support for terrorism, which is actually, for example, you know, as this law has been used in the past, things like direct financial or operational support to a terror organization, then by all means, that's criminal. You know, do something about that.

[09:25:25]

But if you're talking about a disfavored viewpoint, everyone should be concerned. And the vagueness and breadth of would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States, which is the language that they're using, I mean, think about it. Think about all the Chinese nationals who are currently here who the Chinese government absolutely would be willing to say, you have to kick that person out of this country because he's creating a problem with us right now. So I think that people should be really careful what they wish for in these cases, because I found that it's almost inevitable that they will be abused.

SMERCONISH: OK, if I'm in the heart of the Columbia campus and I have either a sign or a bullhorn, and my message is U.S. and Israel, Israel and U.S. out of Gaza, any problem?

LUKIANOFF: If you're a U.S. citizen, absolutely not. And that's one of the things that is so concerning here is, you know, we have people come here on student visas and this guy's now a green card holder. And the idea that you can have a protest on a college campus where everybody else is fully within their First Amendment rights, but the one person who's here on a student visa engaging in the same protest can be arrested at night and deported for that, is that really who we are?

SMERCONISH: OK, hypothetical number two. Same fact pattern, but now the sign or the bullhorn, thank you, Hamas. Problem?

LUKIANOFF: That would be utterly -- completely protected for the First Amendment, no matter how repugnant a lot of us might find that. And again, it produces the same problem, that you're kicking someone out for speech that would be protected for every other American. And again, that unavoidably presents First Amendment issues. How it's actually going to pan out in the courts is a question. But the idea that there's no First Amendment nexus here is simply wrong.

SMERCONISH: So I'm glad to have this dialogue with you because I think you're doing what I hoped, which is to awaken people that there's much more at stake here than the treatment of this one individual whose politics we might all oppose.

LUKIANOFF: Absolutely.

SMERCONISH: And the other point I wanted to make is not only the expansive nature of the portion of the code that I cited, but I never recognized until now the authority that's granted to a secretary of State in a case like this.

LUKIANOFF: Yes.

SMERCONISH: Will you speak to what Marco Rubio can or can't do?

LUKIANOFF: Well, that's the question we don't really know. This is a novel use of this regulation. Like I said, you actually had on CNN, you quoted from the former head of ICE that essentially this is something that had used in the past for people who are providing direct financial or operational support for terror organizations. In that case, by all means. But when you're actually expanding it to something that might just be something that some Americans consider a repugnant opinion, think about how many world -- you know, how many dictators across the world would love to be able to use that to get people who are in the United States on student visas or on green cards kicked out and sent back to their country.

SMERCONISH: Can we put up on the screen while Greg is still here, the social media reaction? I might need to lean on him to answer it. Here it comes.

LUKIANOFF: Yes.

SMERCONISH: I'll read it out loud. Occupying buildings against Jewish people not a free speech issue. Is it that straightforward, Greg Lukianoff?

LUKIANOFF: When it comes to, if -- that's what they were saying was the reason why he was being kicked out was based on criminal behavior, on harassment, any of these things, then by all means make this case about that. And that's the thing -- that's been kind of maddening about. This is -- everybody's bringing up all the illegal things that actually happen at Columbia and Barnard. And I've been front of the line criticizing students for that, too, including for harassment, including for shutting down an awful lot of speech. But that's not the argument the government is making.

SMERCONISH: Greg, thank you, as always. Appreciate it.

LUKIANOFF: Thank you so much, Michael. Thank you.

SMERCONISH: I want to remind everybody, go to my website at smerconish.com. Answer today's poll question, will Trump and Musk cause Republicans to embrace EVs? Would that be a great thing for everybody, right? Less carbon emission.

Still to come, your social media reaction to my commentary. And Governor Gavin Newsom's new podcast is making waves by featuring prominent MAGA voices from Steve Bannon to Michael Savage. Is he bridging the dividend or is he risking his political future?

Make sure when you vote on the poll question, you sign up for my free and worthy daily newsletter. We've got editorial content which includes some sketches from Rob Rogers. Check that out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:34:20]

SMERCONISH: You can find me in all the usual places relative to social media. Here's some reaction that came in during the course of the program so far.

Republicans don't have a problem with EVs. I think they do. Just like COVID vaccines and electric stoves. We just don't want to be told what to buy. We embrace choice.

Well, Brian, you're given a choice and you haven't been buying.

Democrats like to make mandates and eliminate choice.

No, this has nothing to do with it. This is total free market right now what we're talking about. And the data suggests -- the data suggests that Elon Musk is more popular with gas fired engines than he is with electric vehicle owners. And I'm raising the question of whether that's going to change. And a large part of the reason why Republicans have not seen the appeal of EVs thus far is that they feel no obligation to do something relative to the climate.

[09:35:09]

Why? Because they've been schooled to believe that climate change is a hoax. And therein lies the conundrum. And the interesting issue that I'm talking about where, you know, Trump on the South Lawn with Musk this week and making the pitch about EVs causes quite a sea change of perspective. You know, the idea that Hannity is now touting them, that's a great thing.

But these are the same people who have told us that it's all a hoax. Apparently, they don't have, you know, windows to look outside and what has been going on and all the change during the course of our lives. So, no, you have plenty of choice. I'm just raising the question of whether you're going to exercise it now.

What's next? Give me another one.

Of course, Smerconish is going to run an ad for Tesla instead of an unbiased view.

If my view were biased, I wouldn't be showing your social media reaction right now. Actually, I want to respond to that this way. So, I read "The New York Times" this morning. Oh, he read "The New York Times," lefty.

So, I read "The New York Times" today, and I saw a story that I was drawn to that I'd never -- about an author I had never heard of. Sophie Lark is her name, has a novel coming out. The headline says a publisher pulls a novel after reader criticism -- yes, there it is. Thank you, Catherine.

And I was -- I was drawn to this story because I know what it's like to be the subject of unfounded criticism, you know, about a book. It happened to me, too. So why is -- this is a romance novel. Why is this author withdrawing her romance novel? Because there have been complaints based on the early release of some parts of the book, including this.

A character in the book who notes, I was inspired by Elon Musk. I use his five-step design process. In other words -- oh, wow. We're actually promoting the book now. In other words, because a character in a novel said something nice about Elon Musk, the publisher feels obligated, and there was blowback, to withdraw the book.

This is why Donald Trump just won the election. This and countless other stories just like it.

Still to come, Gavin Newsom is courting controversy hosting Steve Bannon, Michael Savage, Charlie Kirk on his new podcast. Is that a smart move or a political mistake? That debate is next. Please don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Will Trump and Musk cause Republicans to embrace EVs?

While you're there, please sign up for my newsletter. It's free and it's worthy. Scott Stantis drew this for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:42:11]

SMERCONISH: California governor Gavin Newsom's new podcast "This Is Gavin Newsom" generating headlines, raising some eyebrows as well. That's because he's hosting conservative figures like Charlie Kirk, Michael Savage, Steve Bannon. The governor says that he wants to engage in meaningful, long form conversations across political lines.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE BANNON, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST: I think that's a lesson that we learned after President Trump. And, look, you know, we disagree on this, but President Trump won the 2020 election. And we were kind of shattered as a movement when he left Washington, D.C., and we had to go back to basics to say, you know, it can't be somebody else do something.

You know, we had to do something. And that's where we went back to really a pure populist movement to go at the grassroots, the precinct strategy, and kind of rebuild ourselves from there.

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOME (D-CA): Well, and I appreciate the notion of agency that we're not. bystanders in the world. It's decisions, not conditions, that determine our fate and future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Critics argue that in moments like this with Bannon, that Newsom may be risking alienating Democratic supporters by giving a platform to his guests or saying things like this about one of the leading voices in the right.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL SAVAGE, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But, Gavin, you know, you should have Tucker on. He's very smart.

NEWSOM: I don't -- I agree, I think -- no, I'm fascinated by Tucker.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: So, is this cross aisle outreach a smart strategy that could pave his way to higher office, or has he taken bipartisanship a step too far? Joining me now, a Democratic influencer who has advised numerous Democratic campaigns on strategy and communication, that includes conversations with Governor Newsom, during which his new podcast was discussed, Joanne Carducci, or as many of you know, her JojoFromJerz on Twitter, and Blue Sky and Substack. Jo, thank you for being here. Gavin Newsom presents this as a bit of a listening tour and investigation. Do you think that's the motivation?

JOANNE CARDUCCI, HOST, "ARE YOU FINGS KIDDING ME?" Well, first of all, thank you very much for having me on. I will say that his motivation is to bridge -- is to bridge the gap. But I think that what he should be doing is listening to his constituents and, you know, people within his own party and the people who are truly in the middle.

I think that the current president has listened to voices like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon long enough.

SMERCONISH: So, I'm all about having the conversation. I think in this case, it's all about launching a podcast. I mean, it occurs to me that former first lady Michelle Obama launched a podcast this week with her brother, and you and I are not talking about that. Well, maybe now we will. But Newsom has achieved his purpose that everybody knows he has got a podcast, right?

CARDUCCI: Well, that's very much true. But I don't know -- you know, I think, I don't know to what end that serves. I mean, I think the American people right now, for the most part, are looking to feel seen. They're looking for their elected officials to sort of echo the sentiments that they're having themselves, that they're experiencing themselves.

[09:45:04]

And I wouldn't necessarily say that a podcast is the most effective way to meet people where they are right now.

SMERCONISH: Do you think, Jo, that he risks alienating his base at the same time that he's trying to appear more centrist?

CARDUCCI: I do worry about that. I mean, if I were to counsel him right now, I would suggest that instead of amplifying and legitimizing agitators like Steve Bannon, that he could do a little bit more conversation -- little more conversations with, you know, people like me, let's just say, for instance. People who lean a little bit more progressive or to the left.

I think he does run into a potential, you know, pitfall there where we do look at him and say, why is he amplifying and legitimizing those voices instead of having conversations with us?

SMERCONISH: I'm going to put on the screen part of Governor Newsom's explanation by way of "The New York Times." He said, I think it's critically important for us to understand how the MAGA-right organized itself during the last election and what they are thinking about in the weeks, months and years ahead.

He's like fashioning himself like a Jane Goodall on some kind of an exploration here. Like Dr. Livingston, I presume. And it sounds like, given his quote, fascination with Tucker Carlson, that Tucker might be next. Do you buy into that as being why he's doing it? He just wants to learn the way the other side is built, get under the hood, sort of, so to speak?

CARDUCCI: I will say this. I don't think we need to do much more examination of that. I think there's been plenty of autopsy in the wake of the 2024 election as to what they were doing. I think what we need to be focusing on is what we are doing instead.

Again, I don't think amplifying voices like Tucker Carlson, if that is what he's planning on doing, would really serve those needs. But I would say that I understand the strategy, but the podcast as a tactic is not necessarily the most effective way to do that. I don't think that if you want to understand your enemy, you invite them into your living room for an eminence coffee cake. I think you can survey what they're doing from a little bit further afield.

SMERCONISH: So, one final question. What if -- what if he mixed it up in a civil way, but mixed it up a little bit more with Bannon? For example, you heard and saw the clip where Bannon says, you know, we won the 2020 election. And at least at that moment, Newsom does not push back. Maybe he did at a different part of the interview.

But if you saw it more as -- I don't want to use the word confrontational because I like civility. But you know what I'm saying. If you saw more fight in Newsom, would you feel differently about this?

CARDUCCI: I will say this about Governor Newsom. He is one of the most effective communicators we have, and in particular, in pushing back against really dangerous disinformation that we've seen amplified by the right-wing ecosystem. And I think that that is critically important and he should have done that in that instance with Steve Bannon.

I think the entire premise is civility. But I think what you run into the danger of is seeming as though you are brothers in arms. And I think that if you're going to have a conversation with Steve Bannon, who's essentially like stapling Jell-O, you need to be prepared to push back every single time forcefully when he pushes disinformation -- blatant lies like those.

SMERCONISH: JojoFromJerz, thank you so much for being here.

CARDUCCI: Thank you so much for having me.

SMERCONISH: Checking in on more social media reaction. What do we have? From the world of X.

Big swaths of California burned to the ground because of Newsom's incompetence and Democrats have a problem with his choice of podcast -- get a clue, people.

Hey, Retired Florida Trucker Frank, Gavin Newsom, whether you like him or not is, you know, among the leading candidates in 2028 on the Democratic side of the aisle. And the fact that he's doing outreach with people who are diametrically at the other end of the political spectrum, is really of great conversation, I think. And interesting just to explore his motivation. So, premise rejected, I think, is what I'm trying to say.

You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Will Trump and Musk cause Republicans to embrace EVs?

When you're there, subscribe to my newsletter because it's fabulous and it's free. You'll get exclusive editorial cartoons. Love this from Steve Breen. I've been there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:35]

SMERCONISH: All right. There's the poll result so far. I hate round numbers. Will Trump and Musk cause Republicans to embrace EVs? Thirty- two thousand and forty-seven have voted. So far, 75 percent say no. I hope you're wrong.

Wouldn't it be great for the planet? Wouldn't it be great for the environment if more Republicans were open to the idea in contrast to the current polling data to buy electric vehicles? I think that it would.

Social media reaction. What has come in during the course of the program more than we can handle?

What makes you think they haven't embraced them? I don't think the elites on the left are driving the trucks.

All the polling data that I just showed you during the course of the program. The polling data suggests otherwise that Republicans, as a lot, are far more reluctant to buy electric vehicle than are Democrats. And I documented that with all the different brands that I rattled off at the outset of the program.

More social media reaction. What has come in?

I'm glad he's getting out of the bubble. Next, he must invite the Democrats, who were not pure enough. If your tent gets smaller and smaller, you will not --

Who are we talking about, I'm glad he's getting out of the bubble? Are we talking about Trump getting out of the bubble? Are we talking about Musk getting out of the bubble?

Let's go to the next one. Next, next, next. Come on guys. Quicker.

Free speech means advocating speech that you find abhorrent. America is advanced citizenship. We must be better.

Right. I mean, I abhor Hamas.

[09:55:02] I blame Hamas for what transpired in the events of 10/7. I need to know more about the guy at Columbia. You know, what exactly -- was it just speech, or was there some level of coordination -- I guess, would be the word that I would -- I would be using relative to Hamas.

Because if it's speech only as much as we might abhor Hamas, we got to be taking a look at this case a little bit differently than our instinct might be. One more. I think I've got time. What do we have?

The fact that Columbia revoked earned degrees of pro-Palestinian students who took over Hamilton Hall lays bare those close alignment of --

Our institutions, I think, have been too permissive of some of the protests that we saw last year. Maybe they've reined in too much so this year. Somewhere in the middle, as usual, is where we need to be.

Hey, I want to let you know my latest project, "The Mingle Movie," has been released and you can watch it now on my YouTube page. Just go to my YouTube page, check it out. I think you'll enjoy it.

If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. See you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)