Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

"How Does It Feel?"; Government Shutdown shows No Sign On Ending Soon; First Ballot Box Test Of Trump's Second Term. Is A.I. Coming For Your Jobs?; The New Politics Of Artificial Intelligence; A.I. Increasing Energy Costs, Joblessness And Inequality. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired November 01, 2025 - 09:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: How does it feel? I'm Michael Smerconish in the Philly burbs. Bob Dylan asked that question in Like a Rolling Stone. And after a month of government shutdown, with the Senate adjourning on Thursday, not meeting again until Monday, millions of Americans are now finding out because until now, the shutdown has been largely invisible to most of us. A news story, a negotiation, a standoff. But now it's gotten very real.

Item number one, SNAP benefits, food assistance expired today for roughly 42 million Americans. One in eight of us. That's no longer a statistic. That's your next-door neighbor.

On Friday, a judge ordered that the Trump administration will have to tap billions in emergency funds to keep SNAP going. Another federal judge ruled its plan to stop payments was unlawful. The president is still weighing his legal options, and it's unclear how much, if any, aid we will actually go out.

Item number two, the open enrollment period for health insurance is now underway, and many Americans are waking up to sharply higher premiums. The nonpartisan KFF says Affordable Care Act insurers are raising premiums on average 26 percent for next year, in large part because pandemic era subsidies are being phased out. Families who already budget down to the dollar, now getting squeezed from both directions, both from food and health care.

Item number three, federal workers, including the military, have now missed a paycheck. Yesterday was supposed to be a payday. Instead, they got a rock in their Halloween bag. Service members saw the word deferred, which is a polite way of saying work now, get paid later. And we tell TSA officers and air traffic controllers that they're essential. But it's hard to feel essential when your paycheck doesn't arrive.

On Friday, two planes collided on the tarmac at New York's LaGuardia as the airport was dealing with bad weather and staffing shortages. We're coming up on Thanksgiving, the busiest travel week of the year. And remember the record setting 35-day long 2018, 2019 shutdown ended when a small number of air traffic controllers stayed home. Item number four, there's another calendar now at work. Next week's

elections. Virginia, New Jersey. Key race in New York City. If Democrats perform well, which the polling suggests, they may feel that they've shown some resolve and step back from their refusal to open the government. Or they may feel emboldened and pushed forward. Which means that the results of a school board race in New Jersey could help determine whether a military family can buy groceries in Georgia.

Item number five, Democrats have another reason to dig in their heels. The latest Washington Post poll suggests they're winning the publicity war. 47 percent of the public hold President Trump and Republicans mainly responsible for the shutdown. 30 percent blame the Democrats.

All of these factors may be a reason why the President has waded into the issue with a lengthy Truth Social post upon returning home to the United States from his trip. As he put it, The Democrats are crazed lunatics that have lost all sense of wisdom

and reality. It's now time for Republicans to play their "TRUMP CARD" and go for what's called the nuclear option. Get rid of the filibuster and get rid of it now."

The Senate filibuster, there's nothing comparable to it in the House. It requires a three-fifths vote, 60 senators, to limit debate on an issue. In effect, it allows a minority of senators to prevent a measure from coming up for a vote. It's not mentioned in the Constitution, but rather is a procedural rule which the Senate has adopted. And based on how you look at it's a chance for the minority party to have their say, or a way for the minority to stymie the will of the majority. There have been attempts to end the filibuster entirely.

It is a procedural rule. It can be changed by a mere majority vote. Thus, the so-called nuclear option, where a simple majority can change the chamber's rules, was invoked by Democrats in 2013 to allow them to vote for federal judges. And then in 2017, in response, the Republicans went all the way and used the nuclear option to allow a vote on Supreme Court nominees.

President Trump, aware of all this history and now wants to use the nuclear option for regular Senate bills. Indeed, he called for the end of the filibuster in his first term, but Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wouldn't have it. And now the President has written about the Democrats hoping to use the nuclear option when Joe Biden was President, quote, "Just a short while ago, the Democrats, while in power, fought for three years to do this, but were unable to pull it off because of Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kirsten Sinema of Arizona."

Senator Manchin is going to join me in just a moment. I'll ask him to respond to that.

[09:05:02]

At present, Majority Leader John Thune supports the filibuster. As Thune put it earlier this year, "The filibuster serves a crucial purpose. The filibuster acts as a check on imprudent or ill-considered legislation. It forces discussion and compromise."

If there was any doubt. Just yesterday, Thune confirmed through a spokesperson that his position is unchanged. So whether Trump's demands are a serious possibility, mere bluster, or a negotiating tactic, that remains to be seen. But in the meantime, here's the truth that matters more than any filibuster rules.

Shutdowns do not end when politicians learn new facts. Shutdowns end when the public's pain becomes the politician's problem. And we're hitting that moment, not next month, not in a few weeks, but now. What should happen? The solution? Profoundly simple. Reopen the government, restart SNAP food benefits, pay the troops and the federal workforce, keep the airports operating and the country moving, and then debate the policy, question the future of the ACA subsidies, and do it separately, debated in daylight on the merits where disagreements belong.

The Washington Post editorial board put it plainly, "Pass a clean funding bill, reopen the government and then fight about policy." Because otherwise, if Washington does not act, then on Wednesday, this becomes the longest shutdown in American history, a record that should embarrass both parties. But they seem to have lost their way with no direction home.

Joe Manchin served as a Democratic senator in the red state of West Virginia before becoming an independent. As mentioned earlier, he saved the Senate filibuster. He's got a bestselling book out right now. It's called Dead Center in Defense of Common Sense.

Senator, welcome back. I mentioned that President Trump name-checked you upon his return to the United States. What's your response to the President?

JOE MANCHIN: (I) FORMER WEST VIRGINIA SENATOR: Well, I'm proud of what we did. I'm very thankful that John Thune, my friend and a lot of my Republican friends have understood how grateful that they that we all are for saving this democracy of ours. And you only do that by having a minority participation that is truly the function of the filibuster, to allow the minority to participate. When you do that, you have a good piece of legislation that has legs to it and it lasts. It's hard to get rid of something when you do something in a bipartisan way.

So this is what we're really dealing with right now. And you know, Michael, we look at what's going on around the world. The President's been able with his art-making experience and his expertise in the deal of making deals and goes around the country stopping wars.

He's able to return hostages back from, I mean, when you talk about a radical terrorist group, Hamas, he's able to work and get the hostages back, which is a miracle. And I'm very thankful for that. I'm very pleased. Surely to God, he can sit down with the Democrats and Republicans and say, "Listen, we've got to get back to times before we had the pandemic."

Everything you've talked about, Michael, started after 2021. The American Rescue plan allowed the extension, or basically the subsidies to be expanded. Republicans want that to come back. A lot of Americans believe it makes common sense. We don't have a pandemic now, so can't we go back to pre-pandemic? The problem we have is the rising, unbelievable, unchecked rising cost of health care. No one's doing a thing about it, and we're just talking about it and kicking the can down the road. You really got to get down and seriously negotiate how we're going to deliver health care to Americans.

Also, the SNAP benefits, a lot of this all came about, these expansions through the pandemic in very difficult, uncertain times. We now have a thriving economy. Things are much better. And some people believe we should try to ratchet and go back. No one's talking about the debt of the nation. We're exceeding $37 trillion, which is unsustainable, and that is going to hurt all of us eventually.

So I understand where they're coming from, and I agree with what you just said. Open it up, sit down, and basically identify these problems that we're dealing with. And if you're willing to do anything in the policy, if not, you're going to continue, have continuing resolutions because nothing's going to be solved. Let's get the work of the people done. The United States of America and all of us. Yes.

SMERCONISH: Which of the pressure points that I referenced, the Affordable Care Act subsidies, the situation now with SNAP food stamp benefits. There are so many different pressure points being brought to bear. The airports, which I've always thought was most vulnerable. What do you think is going to cause the logjam to finally be broken?

MANCHIN: I think the SNAP benefit, truly, you know, the people have to have nutrition, they have to have food, and the SNAP benefit will affect. They're going to get the most effect. What you have to look at the people that had SNAP benefits before the expansion, before pandemic, before 2020 or 2021, when all this was expanded, they're still going to have it. Make sure they're able, the neediest and the hardest hit, and mostly the children that is going to tear on all of everyone's heartstrings. Okay? That'll be what will do it.

[09:10:21]

And next of all, you know, you have essential workers. We have people asking them to sacrifice and do their job, and really, their credit is being destroyed. They're having a hard time making their payments, living their life, but they're willing to sacrifice for the country, that's all. Now, they knew about the military. You saw that they're doing everything they can to keep that afloat. There's no reason to shut down the government anytime. Not another country does what we do. Organizations are big companies; don't do it.

When they have disagreements, they sit down, negotiate, and they continue --

SMERCONISH: I think about a state, I think about a state like your native West Virginia, right where the SNAP benefit issue is going to hit hard. I also think about those, those rising ACA Obamacare premiums. And I guess the political question I want to ask you, isn't this disproportionately going to hit a red state like yours, and will that pressure then be brought to bear on your former Senate colleagues?

MANCHIN: I would think so, because I can tell you West Virginia will be severely damaged, especially with our rural hospital and rural health care. They're hurting very badly in these areas of rural America where you don't have the numbers to basically get the ratios that you're wanting to show that it's more economically feasible to do this when you have a million people versus 100,000 people. And in terrain is a little bit more difficult to provide these services.

So yes, rural America is going to be hit very hard. And those are mostly red states now, mostly Republican senators and Republican congresspeople. They're going to have to answer to this, but they're going to have to find a pathway forward. You can't just cut people off overnight. You can work towards an attrition to where you can be self- sustaining.

And no one wants to talk about that because that's going to put guardrails. You got to put guardrails on how you're able to get health care and how you can access it.

SMERCONISH: Pardon me. I want to read something off the screen. This is former Congressman Chris Shays playing devil's advocate on the filibuster. Put that up on the screen.

He said, "Under the Senate Filibuster, only one senator, regardless of party, has to object. And that legislation is usually removed from the calendar for debate. The use of the filibuster can only prevent, not pass legislation. The end result, important legislation does not get addressed and harmful legislation already on the books cannot get repealed." Will you reply to that?

MANCHIN: Well, I can reply to that. He's never been in the Senate. The Senate, I mean, in the House, all you have to have is 218. If you have 218 Republicans, Democrats, you could care less about the other side. The minority has no input, almost no input whatsoever.

So when George Washington says, we're going to have two Houses, a House and a Senate, the House is going like a hot cup of tea. We're going to give it to the Senate to cool it off. The thing that can be done is there can be some rule changes to the point to where the filibuster works in a more transparent way.

If you want more than one Senator preventing from just one Senator Roe going rogue and shutting everything down, then make sure that Senator has some other colleagues, Senators that feel the same as they do to bring an issue to the front.

And then if you -- the talking, you should be required to go down on the Senate floor and give your debate, give your reasons for why you're asking for this filibuster, why you're slowing or slopping or shutting things down. Let the people see what your reasons are. No one's -- no one's required to do that. So you can do it from the comfort of your office or you can do it anonymously. No one knows you even did it. That can all be fitted.

SMERCONISH: We're missing your voice. We're missing your voice. I wish you were still there, because then at least I know there'd be one person banging heads together and resolving it. By the way, It just makes us look Third Worldish. You get the final word, and then I've got a run.

MANCHIN: It does. Michael, even the third worlds don't shut down. Even they don't shut down, they continue to run. And all we're saying is, these are good people. These are my friends. I know how bright and intelligent they are.

What they have to have is now the spine and backbone to do what's right for America, not for the political party, not the Democratic Republican Party. And I appreciate right now, and I'm very thankful that my Republican friends are holding the line, protecting it. We can do that. But get back to working. Open it up and let's fix the problems.

[09::]

SMERCONISH: Senator Manchin, thank you for being here. His book is called Dead Certain, "Dead Center". Pardon me, and it's fabulous. What are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media, and I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program. This comes from the world of X.

"I'm tired of Dems saying it's a Republican shutdown because they control Congress and the White House. The Republicans voted to fund the government in the House and the Senate." Yes, I get it. I look RIP Patent, interesting handle. I look at that polling data, and I think that many Americans don't understand. They think, okay, Trump controls the White House, Republicans control the House and the Senate. So I'm going to hold them accountable. But I think your point is a valid point, that it's a clean CR that's been presented.

I happen to think that there's merit in what the Democrats are arguing. I made that case here last week and the week before as well. But in my view, this is not the way to do it. Open the government back up, as the Washington Post says on their editorial page, and then let's have the conversation about the ACA because Republicans won't be able to run from the rising premiums. They're going to have to deal with it.

Up ahead, governor's races, a socialist frontrunner in New York City, a tattooed Senate candidate in Maine, and a California ballot measure that could reshape Congress. Tuesday's elections may sound local, but their impact won't be. Key races across the country put President Trump's second term to the test.

And speaking of test, we look at the impact of AI on the jobs and politics, and how one party is already harnessing the narrative in their favor. I want to know what you think. Go to my website@smerconish.com and answer today's poll question. Is the innovation and potential growth from AI development worth the risk of job displacement? Please sign up for the newsletter. While you're there voting, you'll get the work of illustrators like Steve Breed.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [09:21:01]

SMERCONISH: Tuesday's Election Day, marking one of the first major tests of President Trump's second term on the ballots. Gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, a mayoral showdown in New York City that could put a Democratic socialist in Gracie Mansion, a tattooed Senate candidate turning heads in Maine, and Proposition 50 in California, a high-stakes ballot measure that could rewrite the state's congressional map.

Joining me now to talk about all of this and beyond, David Wasserman, the senior editor and elections analyst for the Cook Political Report, with Amy Walter. He's recognized as one of the nation's top election forecasters.

Okay, David, let's fast forward to Tuesday night, 11pm Eastern time. Potentially, you've got Spanberger in Virginia, you've got Cheryl in New Jersey, and a split screen with Zohran Mamdani in New York City. If because there are a lot of intangibles, if that's the picture at 11:00 o'clock Eastern Time on CNN Tuesday night, then where is the future of the Democratic Party?

DAVID WASSERMAN, SENIOR EDITOR AND ELECTIONS ANALYST, THE COOK POLITICAL REPORT: Michaell, it's a preview likely of the 2028 Democratic primary choice because I do think you will have one prominent progressive that makes it to the finals against a more pragmatic candidate. And the polls right now, obviously, they show the familiar names, Gavin Newsom, Pete Buttigieg, J.B. Pritzker atop the field. But we the one thing we do know about 2028, it's going to be very crowded. And that means that candidates that have a passionate and devoted following of 20 to 25 percent of the primary electorate could do very well, just as Trump managed to commandeer a rudderless Republican Party in 2015 and 2016.

So I do think this split screen isn't necessarily going to be indicative, for example, of, you know, Zohran Mamdani becoming the future voice of the Democratic Party. He's had very weak opponents in Andrew Cuomo and Eric Adams. But could AOC rise to the forefront of the field if she runs? I think she should not be underestimated.

And could a pragmatist like Josh Shapiro, or maybe even Alissa Slotkin, who is making noise, who served with Spanberger and Sheryl, could she run?

SMERCONISH: David the front page print edition Times today talking about New Jersey and saying one of the things that we're going to learn Tuesday from New Jersey is the strength of the Hispanic vote on the Republican side of the aisle. A lot of inroads were made in the Garden State in the presidential cycle. What are you looking for in New Jersey?

WASSERMAN: So Mikey Sherrill remains the favorite to win this race, but it has been closer than Virginia because Democrats are defending the governor's office after eight years and New Jersey voters are perennially interested in change given high property taxes. But now skyrocketing utility rates and rates or electricity rates are up 11 percent in the past year. That really impacts pocketbook voters. And Hispanic voters are pocketbook voters.

I'll be watching Passaic County in North Jersey where Joe Biden won by 17 points in 2020, but it voted for Donald Trump by 3 points in 2024. The question is, does that snap back to Sheryl and Democrats or does it remain in the Republican column? And because even if Sheryl wins in that scenario where Republicans are able to preserve their own roads with Hispanic voters, that's a long-term warning sign for Democrats everywhere.

SMERCONISH: Seems like the winner of the Prop 50 ballot initiative in California is Gavin Newsom. The funding really never showed up on the Republican side of the aisle. You would know better. I assume that they thought that it wasn't winnable, and California seems very likely to go the way of Texas with a mid-decade redistricting. What does that mean for Newsom if that's the way that it turns out?

WASSERMAN: Well, it would be a victory for Newsom and for Democrats' bid to win control of the House. But I don't buy that. There's a cohort of Democratic voters around the country who are saying to themselves, Well, if only Gavin Newsom passes a gerrymander in California, then I'll get excited about his presidential campaign in 2028. We're likely to be moving on to very different issues other than procedure by the time we get to that primary. But it will help Democrats offset Texas.

[09:25:21]

The problem for Democrats is that there are far more other states where Republicans have gerrymandering upside down than there are blue states. You're hearing late talk of Virginia and New York, and Illinois considering pushes to offset what Republicans are doing in North Carolina, Missouri, Florida. But I think at the end of the day, Republicans are going to probably squeeze five or six more seats out of the redistricting process. Not enough to guarantee that they'll hold the House majority, but enough to give them a fighting chance in 2026.

SMERCONISH: There are always interesting plot lines that emerge. I'm paying attention to Maine, Graham Platner, the tattoo. What did he know and when did he know it? What else are you look -- look all across the country and tell me what most interests David Wasserman about this election?

WASSERMAN: That main Senate race is going to be fascinating. It's a must-win for Democrats if they want to get close to the majority. And they really face a fork of the road between Graham Platner, who has excited progressives but has had to explain the meaning of the tattoos on his chest, or Janet Mills, who is a proven statewide commodity, has served as governor, but she would be the oldest freshman senator in history.

So this really does summarize the generational and ideological choice that Democrats face. And Susan Collins is hoping to exploit the divisions on the other side to win another term in the Senate. It's going to be a very close call on both fronts.

SMERCONISH: And Jay Jones, running for Attorney General in Virginia, seems to have weathered the outrage, appropriate outrage, I would say, over threatening speech exhibited before this candidacy. Quick thought on that.

WASSERMAN: This could be similar to, let's say, North Carolina 2024, when you had the Republican nominee for governor, Mark Robinson. And the theory on Democrats side was that scandal would taint what was happening at the top of the ticket.

Now I don't know if Jay Jones is going to prevail. There are polls that show it very close. After this texting scandal. One thing I do know, it's not going to tank the top of the Democratic ticket in the state. I think Abigail Spanberger is going to win comfortably.

SMERCONISH: All right. Love when you're here, David. Thank you very much. David Wasserman from the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter. More of your social media reaction. You can follow me on X and perhaps I'll be reading your comment here on the program.

"A Mamdani win will certainly give New York what it deserves. Tough love for Dems to learn a costly lesson of going extreme left." Kelly Ann, stay tuned to the program because Jim VandeHei from Axios is going to join me in a couple of minutes time. I read a very provocative piece that he and Mike Allen wrote talking about how the future of the Democratic Party might be to hitch its wagon to a combination of embracing socialism, not even Democratic socialism, and combating artificial intelligence.

And I can understand how being, you know, in opposition to some of the trends relative to AI job loss among them makes sense. I can't see, and I've read the data. I can't see how embracing Democratic socialism works beyond a hardcore of Democratic strategists and traditionalists, and hardcore supporters. So we're going to have that conversation.

Still to come, your social media reaction by Commentary. Plus from Bernie Sanders to AOC to Zohran Mamdani, As I just said in New York, Democratic socialists are using AI as a call to arms. Warning the tech greed is about to crush the American worker.

Could artificial intelligence become the next great political dividing line? I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com. Answer today's poll question. "Is the innovation and potential growth from AI development worth the risk of job displacement?"

While you're there, sign up for the free newsletter. You'll get the work of Scott Stantis, who illustrated this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:33:51]

SMERCONISH: Hey, please follow me on X or YouTube and perhaps I'll be reading your comment in real time during the course of the program. Rakesh says, this has become a pretty sad moment in America. Sorry to say, but the Democratic Party has chosen leverage over their own people.

I agree that it's a pretty sad moment in America, and I agree that both sides are leveraging for their own political advantage. You've heard what I've said before. I think the government ought to be reopened. I think that Democrats ought to argue all these important issues, but not at the expense of all of their constituencies.

But, here comes the but, I think disproportionately, and I base this on an interview I did on radio yesterday with a representative of Kaiser health, I think disproportionately these ACA subsidy issues are going to impact red states. So, whether -- it's almost like Thomas Frank's book, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Do you remember when he wrote that book about individuals in the heartland voting against their own economic interests? Why? Largely based on wedge cultural issues. You know, they're focused on transphobia and not their paycheck or their health insurance.

[09:35:00]

Is that going to change and catch up with Republicans? That remains to be seen. Here comes another social media reaction. What do we have? From the world of X.

Smoked Manhattan, OK. Oh, smoked Manhattan. Now, I get it. Maybe instead of the endless handwringing over New York City, people should think hard about why Mamdani is so popular.

I think that's a great point. I think that's a great point. And I also think that it speaks to younger voters in particular, right? Because if younger voters in New York City, and I get it, a lot of the support for Mamdani is from a particular, you know, educated, progressive sector. But it's -- it's still a bad sign for Democrats nationally if this is the direction New York City is going unless you think you can sell socialism, Democratic socialism.

I'm about to have that conversation with Jim VandeHei. Because coming up, rising energy bills, fewer jobs for young workers, and record profits for tech giants, all tied to the A.I. boom, technology is widening the gap between the haves and the have nots. Could this all be helping Democratic socialists find new supporters?

This is today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Is the innovation and potential growth, I mean, the opportunity potentially to cure cancer that we're getting from A.I. development worth the risk of all the job displacement? Six hundred at Amazon, 600,000 being replaced by robots.

That's the poll question. Go vote right now. Is it worth the upside? Don't forget to sign up for the newsletter while you're there for which Rob Rogers sketched this for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:40:50] SMERCONISH: Is A.I. coming for your job? A string of headlines this month suggest the answer is not only yes, but soon. "The New York Times" reported that Amazon is on the cusp of replacing more than half a million warehouse jobs with robots, and plans to automate 75 percent of its operations. The same outlet followed up days later with news that Amazon will cut 14,000 corporate jobs as it plows more than 120 billion into data centers and A.I. development.

Then there's "The Wall Street Journal" reporting that UPS had cut 48,000 positions in management and operations, and that tens of thousands of white-collar jobs are disappearing as companies turn to artificial intelligence to do work once done by humans.

Meanwhile, "Axios'" warning that one of the most important real-world debates in America right now is whether A.I. will cause a short-term job apocalypse among white collar workers, even as the stock market hits record highs. In other words, as the markets boom, the human workforce is quietly being rewritten. Some A.I. pioneers are saying the quiet part out loud that by the end of the decade, 99 percent of jobs could be automated away.

And if you think that kind of automation sounds sci-fi nightmarish, Democrats are already trying to turn it into a campaign slogan. "Axios" reports that the left's new energy isn't just about tax the rich, it's about taming the robots. From Bernie Sanders to AOC to Zohran Mamdani in New York City, socialists using A.I. as a call to arms, warning that tech greed is about to crush the American worker. The co-author of that piece, Jim VandeHei, CEO and co-founder of "Axios," joins me now.

So, Jim, you say there are two trends ripe for Democrats, the evolving popularity of socialists and also the concerns over artificial intelligence. I want to break the two of them down and put up a graph on the screen that shows the relative popularity among Ds, Rs, and Is of socialism. When asked whether, as a gut check, you approve of socialism, 66 percent of Ds say they do. Thirty-eight percent of Rs -- pardon me, of independents say they do. And only 14 percent of independents. Is that a prescription that can be sold by Democrats all across the country, or only in New York City?

JIM VANDEHEI, CEO AND CO-FOUNDER OF AXIOS: I mean, you look at that poll and it says that's where the energy inside the Democratic Party is. I agree with you. I don't think based on what I've seen in American politics and what I've seen in the performance of kind of socialistic countries in Europe, I don't think it's necessarily a winning formula. But among Democrats, especially among young, energetic Democrats, they're much more enamored with socialism than capitalism.

And you have to look at where the energy is. You have to look at where the people that are turning out are going. It's those events for Bernie Sanders, for AOC, for Mamdani. Like they're turning out crowds that more conventional candidates can't.

That doesn't mean that you end up with one of them as your nominee. But almost every Democrat I talk to worries profoundly that that will be the outcome. Then you take the fact that that's where the energy is, and you marry it with the unfolding data that we're seeing because of artificial intelligence where people's energy prices in some cities are starting to go up, when you're seeing it getting harder and harder for people to get a job, especially those young people who are quite enamored with socialism and you see inequality growing.

Those two trends, if you marry them together, make a very powerful political campaign, especially if you think about the people outside of big cities, the working class, the base that, by the way, brought Donald J. Trump into power. Those are the people that are going to get hit the hardest. Those are the people that are ultimately persuadable as we've seen in the last five to 10 years. And that's why those two trends are quite important.

SMERCONISH: I'm going to put on the screen the three points that you make relative to A.I., because I want to amplify this part of the conversation. You say energy prices in many areas are expected to rise as consumers compete with big data centers for finite energy capacity. Job growth is expected to slow, especially for recent college-age grads, mostly because of A.I. And A.I. companies and investors are expected to keep getting richer, expanding the inequality gap.

[09:45:03]

Have Republicans surrendered this turf? To me, it's not -- it's such an evolving area that it's not so clear that there's a Republican versus Democratic perspective on artificial intelligence. Am I missing something?

VANDEHEI: There is undoubtedly a position at least among the Trump administration and congressional Republicans, that they are all in on A.I. They're doing nothing to regulate these companies, nothing to regulate the technologies. They want to win the A.I. war against China. And so, they're going to allow the A.I. companies to do whatever they want, whenever they want, so that they can win that race. And there's certainly an intellectual argument to be made for that.

The reason I appreciate your show, Michael, and I appreciate your focusing on this, is that I just think a lot of the American people are not paying attention to what's happening at a very high velocity with artificial intelligence, and how it's going to affect their life.

Yes, long term, it could be wonderful. It could cure cancer. It could create jobs we can't think of today. But in the short term, there is a lot of evidence that it's going to affect your job.

So, if you don't change the way you do your job, if you don't change, maybe the classes you're taking in school you might not have a job. And that's what a lot of these A.I. companies know. That's what they tell us. That's why we write about it all the time.

I talk to CEOs every week, a lot of them. I've yet to find a single CEO who has not told me that they're going to hire way fewer people in the future than they are today, and that they're going to operate with fewer humans in the future than they operate with today. That is a red screaming light. And that is something that Congress, CEOs, all of us should be paying attention to.

We get sucked into these stupid debates about silly things that you forget before sundown, when in fact you have a massive technological revolution unfolding in real time that is going to have an appreciable effect on your life. So, I think all of us in the media, in positions of power, in politics, have an obligation to the American people to prepare them for this, to explain what's happening.

SMERCONISH: Quick final thought. The academic who got a lot of attention this week because he said that 99 percent unemployment comes in five years, he backed off on that slightly in terms of the timetable on my radio show this week. I had a poll question on my Web site where I asked people, do you think A.I. is coming for YOUR job, all caps?

Seventy percent said, no, not my job. I read that result to the academic and he said, I find that hilarious, meaning hilarious that people are so out of touch for how it comes for all of us. Final 30- second response from Jim VandeHei.

VANDEHEI: You are making a criminally bad decision for your life and for your work if you are not studying how A.I. is going to affect your job, and right now spending 10 to 15 percent of your day figuring out how do you use this new technology as a force multiplier for whatever it is that you want to do in the workforce.

You close your eyes, you will not have a job. There's no doubt you have all these companies spending way too much money to make this technology way too good. It doesn't have to be that scary, but you have no -- you don't have the choice of closing your eyes.

Every employer should be telling every employee, do everything you can to figure out how to use this technology just like you use the internet, just like you use the printing press to be better at the job you do. Those that do I think will be fine. Those that don't, you're screwed.

SMERCONISH: Thank you, Jim VandeHei. Social media reaction from some of you watching the program right now. Follow me on X and YouTube.

Of course, A.I. is worth the job displacement. Of course, it is. Did anyone ask if the tractor was worth displacing the mule rancher, the car worth displacing the buggy maker, the telegraph replacing --

I get the point, OK, but if it comes for 99 percent of us, then it's not going to justify the outcome. Look, I had to answer the question that I just referenced with Jim which is, could A.I. do what I am doing? And the answer is mostly yes.

A.I. can certainly write a commentary like I delivered at the outset of the program. My voice can be replicated on A.I. through the newer -- the new, what is it Sora (ph) application? I even saw my likeness and it looked pretty damn near me.

The only thing that A.I. can't do, as I think about it, is A.I. cannot eat a Twix during a commercial break like I did earlier in the program, which caused me to lose my voice in the A block. So, I've got that going for me, which is nice.

You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com which asks, is the innovation and potential growth from A.I. development worth the risk of job displacement? Go vote right now. Subscribe to the newsletter while you're there, you get the exclusive work of editorial cartoonists like Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:57]

SMERCONISH: OK, there's the voting so far in today's poll question. Just under 30,000 have voted. Is the innovation and potential growth from A.I. development worth the risk of job displacement? Fifty-five percent say, no, it is not.

By the way, Roman Yampolskiy was the academic that I was referencing earlier, who was on my radio program, because he's the one who said, 99 percent unemployment within five years. And then when I had him on the program he's, well, maybe it's not five years, but it's damn near soon. So, 55 percent say the -- it's not worth the risk.

Social media reaction. Follow me on X and subscribe to my YouTube channel like this individual did.

The more people who lose jobs from A.I. the more support socialism will have.

Well, Steve, the interesting thing that I said to the academic who forecasts 99 percent unemployment, pretty damn scary, I said, well, you point out that we're all going to have a lot more free time on our hands. Who's paying? And his answer was that those that are benefiting from A.I., that half dozen of companies that's driving the market rate right now with valuation, they're going to have to pony up.

[09:55:05]

I wonder if anybody has told them yet. More social media reaction. What else do we have?

The A.I. paradox. It makes us more stupid. Therefore, we rely on it more. The problem is it lies, hallucinates, gets psychosis, and is self-preservative. It's replacing our brains as well as our jobs.

There was a piece that caught my eye online this week from A.J. Jacobs -- A.J. Jacobs, right, at "The New York Times," a writer, a nonfiction writer and -- look it up. He attempts to go 48 hours without artificial intelligence. And he walks you through his day from the moment that his iPhone alarm goes off and he realizes, wait a minute, I can't use the iPhone, obviously, not social media.

But he comes up with so many instances where A.I. is already driving our lives that would not naturally have occurred to me. It's -- it's here and it's now, I guess, is the point that I would make. Find that piece.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)