Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Dems recommend South Carolina Vote First In 2028 Presidential Primary; Manchin Seeks To Elect Independents In 2026 Midterms. Maine Democrats Expected To Tap Troy Jackson To Replace Platner; Book Fuels Growing Revolt Against Screens In Schools. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired July 25, 2026 - 09:00   ET

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

You see that even in that space, we yet fight.

We wanted people to look at these works and understand that this child was like any Black child living right now. And also the idea of Radical Joy being this almost superpower that we have as Black people to overcome.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight's closing event for the exhibition is called Radical Joy. For information, visit tillinstitute.org.

Thanks for joining me today. I'll see you back here next Saturday. Smerconish is next.

[09:00:46]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: They picked the wrong Carolina. I'm Michael Smerconish in the Philly burbs.

The Democrats just made an important choice in deciding their 2028 nominee not by choosing a candidate, but a calendar. This week, a panel of top party officials met to recommend the order of primaries for the next presidential election, and they chose once again to put South Carolina first. They also voted for Nevada, Michigan and New Hampshire to hold early primaries, with two more states to be added. The full DNC will consider the panel's proposed slate at its August meeting.

But did the party get it right? I'm not a Democrat, but as an academic exercise or just for shits and giggles, I want to tackle that question. I'd say that to begin a process that selects the strongest candidate, Democrats should have weighed four factors. First, the opening primary should be in a battleground state. Second, it should be in an open primary state.

Third, the electorate ought to be diverse. And fourth, it should be geographically compact, small enough that candidates can still work it in the way that they once were able to manage New Hampshire, county by county, handshake by handshake, not by buying television ads across a sprawling map.

And here, the numbers are clarifying. North Carolina is the 28th largest state by territory, while states like Nevada and Arizona, which both lobbied hard to go first, are sixth and seventh largest by territory in the entire country, vast expanses that you campaign only by buying ads, not by going to diners.

South Carolina, for its part, is actually compact. It checks that box of mine. It's the 40th largest state by territory, so its problem was never size. Its problem is it's not a battleground.

So looking at the seven swing states from 2024, here are my rankings. North Carolina, number one battleground, open to Independents. Diverse, compact. It checks every one of my boxes. Georgia, open and even more diverse, but somewhat bigger and less compact.

Michigan, open battleground, but large and middling on diversity. Wisconsin, open and somewhat compact, but among the least diverse. Nevada, most diverse but vast and has a closed primary that shuts out Independents. Arizona, diverse, vast and closed. Pennsylvania would have loved to lobby for Pennsylvania.

It's the biggest November prize, but it's got a closed primary, at least for now. So I would have chosen North Carolina.

Meanwhile, the Democrats haven't carried South Carolina in a presidential race since 1976. Jimmy Carter, so it can't test who wins in November. North Carolina would have handed a decisive role to the Black electorate, something South Carolina champions want, but inside a state that Democrats can actually win with a primary open to independence and a map compact enough to campaign directly, even if it's 11 million people in several media markets make it no cheap place to run. Battleground, open, diverse, compact, one state checks all my boxes, North Carolina.

I want to know what you think. Today's poll question at smerconish.com, go to the website and tell me, should Democrats hold their first 2028 primary in a general election battleground state?

Joining me now is Jaime Harrison, former chair of the Democratic National Committee, a man who yesterday was in the room where it happened, and a South Carolina native.

Jaime, nice to see you. What's wrong with my argument?

JAIME HARRISON, FORMER CHAIR, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Oh, there are a few things that's wrong with the argument. First and foremost, though, I am -- I'm very, very pleased with the map that the DNC came up with, because this is a map that looks like the Democratic Party. Kicking it off in South Carolina, going to Nevada, including New Hampshire, to the mix, adding New Mexico and Virginia and also having Michigan. That is a diverse map that has some battleground states. It also has some red states.

It also has some blue states. And that's what we need. It's a mixture because in the end of the day, what you're trying to do is that the candidate is trying to build a coalition. It is a coalition of bringing the party together to say, this is the person that is going to represent all of us, all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the territories. And so I'm very, very pleased with this map.

[09:05:08]

When you look at South Carolina in the past, South Carolina has been the best predictor of who the eventual nominee is than any other of the -- of the early states. We've gotten it right every single time. And when you talk about going to North Carolina, their -- one of the big challenges for North Carolina is it isn't as compact.

I don't know if you've ever driven from western North Carolina to eastern North Carolina, that ain't -- that ain't compact, my friend. I can get to any place in South Carolina in two and a half hours. You can't do that in North Carolina.

SMERCONISH: Jaime, what about my -- what about my argument that let's get right to a battleground? Let's figure out who actually could win a state that you're going to be competitive with Republicans, because that's not going to be South Carolina?

HARRISON: Well, this is the thing, Michael, and I know a lot of people talk about battleground, but the focus is always on the battleground. What's that Wayne Gretzky quote, which is you're not going to -- you're not skiing to where the puck is, but where the puck is going. And one of the things that's really, really important is to see if we can have candidates that can really galvanize the base of the Democratic Party. In South Carolina, 50 to 60 percent of the electorate in the primary is going to be African American. You won't have that in North Carolina.

It's a very different thing. In South Carolina, you have to -- you are almost forced to make sure that you are talking to the issues that are important to the base and the heart of the Democratic Party. And that's really, really, really key and really important. And that's why it's important --

SMERCONISH: OK. I --

HARRISON: -- to have these smaller states that represent that.

Now, the biggest challenge that you have, Michael, for North Carolina is the legislature also is controlled by Republicans. How the hell are you going to get the Republicans, the North Carolina GOP, to say, oh, yes, it's a great idea? Let's make sure in this battleground state that we have Democrats campaigning here for the entirety of the year, and we won't do that on our side? That is political malpractice and would never happen.

SMERCONISH: OK. One other observation and comment from you that we have time for. If I'm Kamala Harris --

HARRISON: Yes.

SMERCONISH: -- if I'm the former vice president, I like it. If I'm secretary or Mayor Pete, I don't like it. And I want to know from Jaime Harrison, can you sell Democratic socialism in South Carolina? Condense and answer all of that.

HARRISON: Well, this is the thing, if you want to be the nominee for the Democratic Party, you are going to have to be able to talk to Black voters. You're going to have to be able to galvanize them and energize them, or otherwise you're not going to win in that November. And so if I'm Mayor Pete or anybody, and Mayor Pete actually called me to congratulate us on getting South Carolina, I want to make sure that I can camp out in the state, learn all that I need to know about it, the difference between mustard based barbecue and vinegar based barbecue, and become an aficionado so that you can go in into -- the reason why Bernie didn't win is not because Bernie was progressive. Bernie didn't win in South Carolina because he didn't spend the time in South Carolina in order to develop relationships with the folks here. You can't fly by interstate by --

SMERCONISH: I'm not -- OK. I don't know. You --

HARRISON: You got to go --

SMERCONISH: You're in there. You're there, you're close. I just don't -- I don't think you can sell that brand of the Democratic Party in your state. But again, I respect the fact that you're the man, you've lived there your whole life.

Jaime, that was fun. We should settle that over a beer next time. And I appreciate you being here.

HARRISON: I would love it.

SMERCONISH: What are your thoughts at home?

HARRISON: OK.

SMERCONISH: Thank you. Hit me up on social media. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program. What do we have?

From the world of Facebook? Doesn't matter because if history holds true, the establishment will pick the nominee. This must have come from Tad Devine. Did it? Right, because we had that whole conversation here like two or three weeks ago about how Bernie got the shaft in 2016.

So, look, I heard what he said and he makes some really good points about my pick. I just would love to see right off the bat we find out who's the strongest in a battleground state, which assumes that it's, you know, the same seven that it was in the last cycle and maybe it won't be. It makes for a good poll question.

Go to smerconish.com, I laid it out. I'll do it right now. Here it is. Should Democrats hold their first 2028 primary in a general election battleground? I'm not asking in particular about the Carolinas.

Just -- would you like to see one of the seven? Up ahead, Joe Manchin is returning to the political arena, but he's not running for office or starting a third party. I speak to he and his daughter, Heather, about their plan to potentially shift the balance of power in Congress. You'll want to hear that.

And speaking of congressional power, Maine Democrats are preparing to replace Graham Platner. But can Troy Jackson withstand the opposition research and massive ad spend spending that's about to hit him hard? Sign up for my newsletter at smerconish.com when you're voting on that poll question.

[09:10:04]

Speaking of Democratic socialism, check out what Eric Allie sketched for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: When Joe Manchin served in the United States Senate, the former Democrat, he often held the balance of power. Jump back to late 2021 in a Senate split 50-50, he forced President Biden's Build Back Better Plan back to the drawing board helped shape the legislation that became the Inflation Reduction Act. His refusal to eliminate the filibuster block major Democratic voting rights legislation, often to the frustration of his then fellow Democrats. Manchin's voice and vote could alter the direction of Washington at any given moment.

And now, a year and a half after he left the Senate, Manchin is launching a new effort with his daughter, Heather. It's built around a simple idea. If one Manchin could wield that much influence, imagine two or three independents in a closely divided Congress.

[09:15:07]

So on Thursday, they brought a group of independent congressional candidates together in West Virginia, the first step for their new Independent Leadership Council. To be clear, they're not starting a new political party. They want to recruit and support candidates who will run as independents, vote with Democrats or with Republicans when they agree, and break with either party when they don't. They see an opening because a record 45 percent of American adults now identify as political independents, not as R, not as D. Yet there are no pure Independents serving in the Congress.

The immediate test comes in this year's midterms, where independent candidates still have to overcome the fundraising, the ballot access, the party infrastructure that favor Democrats and Republicans.

Joe and Heather Manchin join me to explain their plan to turn a few independent voices into real power in Washington.

Heather, the Independent Leadership Council, is it a party? Is it a movement? What is it?

HEATHER MANCHIN, CHAIR, INDEPENDENT LEADERSHIP COUNCIL: It's a movement, not a party. We decided that third party, we have a lot of parties, as you know, in the United States, only two major duopolies that control everything. And we finally realized that if we were going to -- instead of going through, we were going to have to go around to perhaps make this moment happen.

SMERCONISH: So what's the objective for 2026?

H. MANCHIN: To get a handful of independents elected. We've got five, six running in the House, and there's two, three senators running as independents across the country. And our hope is that we get -- we do what's never been done before and get a couple over the finish line, two, three. And then on top of that, if we can get them in and they'll govern independently when they get there, that with the margins being what they are, that between the House and the Senate, one or two could make a significant difference in setting a tone and having some leverage to pull some sanity back into leadership and government.

SMERCONISH: I think she just told me we want to try and elect a couple of Joe Manchins. Is that what you heard?

JOE MANCHIN, (I) FORMER WEST VIRGINIA SENATOR: Well, let's just say that we might give her a little bit of a template to follow. The bottom line is I've always been independent. I never looked at the party identification would change me or that I owed any loyalty to the party. My oath to the Constitution, to protecting the family, I take an oath of office. And also the people I work for.

And the people I work for are West Virginians. I didn't work for the president. And I said, but I've been respectful. And I said, Mr. President, I'm sorry, I can't support that. And they said, well, you know, you have to.

I said, no, I don't. I really don't have to do that because I can't go home and explain it. It's not good for my state or my country. I'm not going to do it.

SMERCONISH: A lot of folks wanted you to run as a no labels candidate in 2020. First of all, do you regret not taking that shot?

J. MANCHIN: Well, no. What I regret is that we didn't weren't able to get on 50 ballots. If I'd had been able to compete on 50 ballots, I'd have been more than happy to be on that stage with Donald Trump and whoever else that name, Kamala Harris or maybe Joe Biden or whoever, and just say, come on, that doesn't make sense. Back home, we don't live like that.

SMERCONISH: OK, but this is a different approach because instead of now sort of shooting for the moon in one shot, like, hey, let's try and elect an independent president. Now I think you're saying, and I mean this when I say it with affinity for you. If you just had two or three Joe Manchins, that would be the concentration of power and the extremists would have to come to those individuals to get things done. Yes?

H. MANCHIN: A hundred percent. A hundred percent. And I unfortunately determined after the 2024 election, we got behind some moderate Democrats, some moderate Republicans and had hope that they could get there and perhaps not just toe the party line. Unfortunately, I think we continue to see bad systems defeat good people.

SMERCONISH: And there are a lot of institutional barriers, not the least of which. And you know, we're on the same page, full disclosure. I'm trying to change it. In Pennsylvania, closed primaries.

H. MANCHIN: Right.

J. MANCHIN: We're disenfranchised.

SMERCONISH: Yes.

J. MANCHIN: Why can I not -- I mean, this is a representative form of democracy. That's our experiment that we're under 250 years. It's of the people, by the people, and for the people, the Constitution. There's nothing about the party at all, Michael. Not one word about political parties in the Constitution or any type of the writings that you hear people talking about.

How are we going to form this great new country? How's this experiment going to work? They didn't write the Constitution in one setting. You know, there was many iterations of it, but they never ever talked about a political party.

The only time I heard political party and the Founding Fathers was when George Washington was leaving as president in his farewell speech. Beware of the political parties for they can usurp the power from the people, it'll be the engines. And he's right. Look at -- it's all about the party.

[09:20:00]

SMERCONISH: You know, I feel like I buried the lead. I should have started with this. Forty-five percent of the country, according to Gallup, regard themselves as independent versus 27 percent who say D or R. Correct me if I'm wrong on this one, 106 Congressional districts and 16 states independents outnumber either of the other affiliations. And now the kicker.

And how many pure independents in the House or the Senate today?

H. MANCHIN: Zero.

SMERCONISH: Zero. None.

H. MANCHIN: No.

J. MANCHIN: I would say that my friend Angus King is the closest to being as pure independent.

SMERCONISH: I respect him, but he caucuses with the Democrats.

H. MANCHIN: He did.

SMERCONISH: OK. And Bernie, you know, he's only an eye when it's not an election cycle in which he's running for president.

J. MANCHIN: Well, Bernie, Bernie's been true to everybody. I mean, Bernie's not holding anything. He's a socialist.

SMERCONISH: Right.

J. MANCHIN: OK? And he would have run as a socialist, but he couldn't get on the ticket unless he was a socialist Democrat. So the Democrat ticket allowed him the platform. And that's the problem.

You know, where did the party get all the power to decide who the public vote for? I can't vote in the primary, but yet I got to take whoever they give me and maybe I only get two. That's not right.

SMERCONISH: OK. So bottom line is you're here in beautiful West Virginia. There are a lot of folks here. What's the deal? What exactly do you hope to come out of this?

H. MANCHIN: We were hopeful to build a room.

SMERCONISH: Right.

H. MANCHIN: A room with some lived experience in it. Lived leadership --

SMERCONISH: Right.

H. MANCHIN: -- like this guy. We wanted the idea to do something that's never been done before. To your point, no one's been elected outside of the two party system and governed independently when they got there. We invited candidates from around the country to introduce themselves.

SMERCONISH: Independent candidates.

H. MANCHIN: Independent candidates.

SMERCONISH: And how many do you hope come out of this meeting?

H. MANCHIN: We have about eight here. There's a couple that couldn't make it. So let's say we know of 10, 12 that are truly looking to govern independently. And I hope that, that a handful have a real opportunity, a viable path. And I think we'll know that over the next four, six, eight weeks.

And like I said, then we hope to get two or three in there, a couple in Congress.

SMERCONISH: And what will you do for them? Fundraise for them, organize for them? What are you prepared to do?

J. MANCHIN: They might look at pressure. I'm going to show them that's a caveat. They're both going to come after you. They both want. Because the numbers are going to be so close.

Let's say it's 51-49 in the Senate. Let's say it's 20 -- 220-216 -- 215 -216 in the House, three, four each way can make a difference. Well, you get two or three totally independent people who get elected and not caucusing with either one. They're going to be so sought after.

SMERCONISH: If you're successful in electing a few independents, real independents to the House and or Senate in 2026, then what's the plan for 2028?

J. MANCHIN: Oh my, then you go 28 for '28.

SMERCONISH: Well, no, wait a minute, now are you looking at the top job or are you still focused on the House and the city?

H. MANCHIN: Well, that'll morph itself in if you get the right candidate. The main thing is 28 for '28 (ph) would be, can we get 28 like-minded independents --

SMERCONISH: That's (inaudible).

H. MANCHIN: That's (inaudible).

J. MANCHIN: -- 28 for '28.

SMERCONISH: And that will be whole ball game.

J. MANCHIN: The whole ball game is unbelievable then. But here's the thing.

H. MANCHIN: Katie (ph) --

J. MANCHIN: Can you imagine people just saying, listen, this is about how we were founded. This is about --

SMERCONISH: Yes.

J. MANCHIN: -- our DNA.

SMERCONISH: Yes.

J. MANCHIN: Why are you living in this beautiful country?

SMERCONISH: I know people want it. I know from the data --

J. MANCHIN: You know they do.

SMERCONISH: -- I know anecdotally. I mean, it's it -- I feel it in my bones.

I want to ask this question though, because I don't want to lose this thread. So I get where you're coming from and what you're trying to do for 2028. Joe Manchin, Senator Manchin, how do you see the Republican Party post Trump come 2028? Is it -- is it still a MAGA party and is the Democratic Party a Democratic socialist party?

J. MANCHIN: I don't see that happening on either side.

SMERCONISH: You don't?

J. MANCHIN: I don't. SMERCONISH: Well, what becomes of each?

J. MANCHIN: Well, the bottom line is that the Democrats, there's a good Democrats and good Republicans. OK. And I -- and people say, why are you an independent? I said I like both sides. But when I'm identified as a D or an R, it almost eliminates me from being accepted to talk to the other side.

I don't want that connotation. And you're going to find out the independence is where this country is going to be going, whether independent minded Democrats or independent minded Republicans.

SMERCONISH: And you don't think the Democratic socialists are going to take over the Democratic Party?

J. MANCHIN: They're winning in really, really, really deep blue states. Here's the thing.

SMERCONISH: You couldn't sell it here.

J. MANCHIN: No. Not in West Virginia. No.

SMERCONISH: OK. I mean you got elected as a Democrat here when other Democrats were losing by 40 points. So obviously you know the secret, you know the secret sauce.

J. MANCHIN: They never looked at me as Joe the Democrat, they looked at me as Joe Manchin.

SMERCONISH: Well, good luck. I want to give heft to the 45 percent and let them have a voice. And I think that --

J. MANCHIN: I feel so sorry for my fellow senators, Republicans and Democrats, who are held in bondage right now. I really feel sorry for them. They're good people. I know -- I know them all. They're all my friends.

You know, set yourself free, become an independent. Say, listen, I like both sides. Now let's talk.

SMERCONISH: Thank you both.

All right. Let's see what you're saying via social media thus far. Follow me on X, follow me on YouTube, Facebook, et cetera, et cetera.

[09:25:02]

Trying to win as an independent remains a very difficult. That's true. But if the council succeeds in electing even a few independent members of Congress, they could become influential in a closely divided House or Senate.

Wayne, I totally agree with that point. Look, Joe Manchin. Joe Manchin is a smart and truly independent thinker and I thought he added great value to the United States Senate. Imagine if you had a few in that mold, men and women not affiliated, not aligned, not with loyalty to either of the extremes, but instead just truly willing to look issue by issue, regardless of who proposed it, and vote their conscience.

The concentration of power in the House or the Senate would be vested in those folks. And the strategy is, I think, a smart strategy of instead of shooting for the moon and like doing it a presidential level. Although that'd be wonderful. I wish I'm the one who got all that criticism because I thought no labels was on to something in that cycle, 2020, I guess it was.

This is more realistic. Get a -- get a beachhead, get a ben -- you know, a benchmark established of these individuals. A couple of them. That's all it would take. We'll see.

I want to remind you, go to my website at smerconish.com vote on today's poll questions. Should it be a battleground state? Should the first state for the Democratic primary be one of those seven battleground states? Go cast your ballot. We'll give you the result as it stands at the end of this hour.

Still to come, your social media reaction and Maine Democrats. Maine Democrats are choosing their newest contender to replace Graham Platner and take on Susan Collins for her critical Maine Senate seat. Does Troy Jackson have a shot? We'll go live to Bangor, Maine in a moment.

And then schools have spent more billions putting screens in students' hands. But what if the technology meant to help them learn is actually getting in the way? The neuroscientist behind a growing classroom revolt will join me.

Sign up for the newsletter at smerconish.com not only for the poll question, but also the editorial cartoons. Steve Breen drew this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:31:35]

SMERCONISH: It's been a messy month for Maine Democrats. And now, with 101 days to go before the midterm elections, the state Democratic Party expected to officially make Troy Jackson its nominee for Senate, replacing Graham Platner in the race to unseat Susan Collins.

CNN's Jeff Zeleny is live in Portland, Maine. Jeff, great to see you. Troy Jackson, has he been vetted? I read that "Washington Post" story recently that suggests he may have an anger management issue.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Michael, that is one of the central questions here. And just as you can see behind me, the nominating process is about to begin here in Bangor. So, we are going to see this democracy in action. But that is the question. who is Troy Jackson? Has he been vetted?

Now, many Mainers know him well. He, of course, has been in the state Senate for a long time. He is anything but a typical outsider like Graham Platner was. But they did share a lot of the same politics. But there is no question the race to define him is absolutely on. Republicans are poised to launch an advertising blitz next week trying to define him, and he will say he has evolved over the issues, initially being much more conservative to now being much more progressive. So, we will see how that holds up. But the central question, 100 days is such a short period of time for both sides, but certainly a candidate who has never been tested like this.

SMERCONISH: I get that he was, you know, the president of the Senate. And so, he was a significant player in the establishment for a while. He's also a logger. And, you know, from a distance, I see a lot of stylistic comparisons with Platner.

Jeff, they want a fighter. I mean, that's what they most want in Maine and in other states, somebody who's going to go at it with President Trump.

ZELENY: And that is a question. They do want that, but they also want someone who is going to make this about Susan Collins. And this race has not been about Senator Collins for several weeks, several months even. It's been about the Democratic primary process. So, that is what many Democrats I've been talking here say this race needs to become a referendum on her.

So, we will hear from him here in a couple of hours. And there's just been a motion to nominate him. So, this is happening in real time. But there is -- there's no doubt that once he becomes the nominee, he has a choice to make, obviously introduce himself and fight for his issues, but also, again, making this a referendum on Susan Collins.

She has won time after time after time after time, talking to people who are very close to her say she acknowledges this is a tough environment. She's never run in an environment like this, but she has always won. We will see if that is true 101 days from now, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Jeff Zeleny, thank you for your reporting. We'll follow this all day long. We appreciate it.

Hey, can we do something in lieu of social media for the remainder of this block real quick? I want to say something about the issue of the day that otherwise is not going to make it into the program.

So, here in Philly, and all around the country, this is the big story. LeBron James -- look, it's a Philly king. Everybody is psyched about LeBron coming to Philly except me. I'm the one person not enthused about this.

And don't misunderstand. I'll still be rooting for the Philadelphia 76ers. I always do. I just think to cap off the wonderful career that he's had he should have gone to Cleveland.

[09:35:03]

I know he's been there before. I remember the whole trajectory. But I just thought that was the Hollywood ending. He doesn't need the dough. You know like ride out into the sunset in your old hometown instead of coming here. And it's also reminiscent -- I don't know if you'll get the reference, but it's reminiscent for me of a great Seinfeld routine where Jerry talks about how, at a certain point, all we're doing is rooting for laundry, that there are just so many moving pieces to this puzzle and it all becomes a --

I mean, like, give me Jamie Moyer, you know, a guy who pitched for the Phillies after he grew up in the Philly burbs and pitched for Souderton and then came through the system and brought it all home, you know, in his old hometown.

Kobe Bryant, rest his soul. If Kobe had decided I've only got like one year left in me, where am I going to ride it out? If he hadn't -- if he didn't come to Philly, then I would have been bummed. So, that's the -- that's the ending I would most have enjoyed, but I wish them all good things and I hope the Sixers do well. But I just -- I'm not on the train the way everybody else is today.

Don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Should Democrats hold their first 2028 primary? I can just imagine now getting heckled when I go to Sixers games next season. What was I saying? Oh, yes. Should Democrats hold their first 2028 primary in a general election battleground state? One of the seven.

Still to come, my reaction to how the president handled the press last night, something I want to get off my chest on that. And my next guest self-published a book challenging technology in the classroom. And then his Senate testimony went viral, and the book became a best seller. What Jared Cooney Horvath says -- why he says it's time for screens down and pencils up.

Sign up for my newsletter at Smerconish.com when you vote on the poll question. You'll get the work of our editorial cartoonists, including Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:41:11]

SMERCONISH: Screens down, pencils up. Have you heard those words? They're actually on yard signs in my neighborhood.

Schools have spent years trying to get smartphones out of the classroom. And now a growing movement wants them to rethink the screens they put there in the first place.

At the center of that movement is the book, "The Digital Delusion." NBC News reporting that parents are passing out copies at school board meetings as some districts experiment with tech free school days. It's author, Jared Cooney Horvath, first self-published the book, then video of him testifying before a Senate committee went viral, and the book became a bestseller.

Horvath is a former teacher turned cognitive neuroscientist. His argument is provocative. The problem with education, technology isn't simply how schools use it. It may conflict with how children actually learn.

Some critics say that conclusion just goes a bit too far, confusing correlation with causation and ignoring research showing that some technology can help. So have schools confused access to information with actual learning and expanded edition of the digital delusion, coming out on August 18th.

The author, Jared Cooney Horvath, joins me now. Nice to see you, Jared. Jean Twenge, Jean Twenge, loved her book "iGen." She sounded the alarm about iPhones. And now here you are making a similar case about technology in school. Give me the CliffsNotes version.

JARED COONEY HORVATH, AUTHOR, "THE DIGITAL DELUSION": Yes. We started seeing test drops internationally around the world around 2010, 2012. And that was across all countries. And when you start to correlate those drops with when those countries went more and more heavily digital, the drops kept getting worse.

So by all means, the testing score was suggesting that something was starting to happen with the latest generation. And when we tried to track that back to figure out what the big changes were, it just kept aligning with, are the testing parameters going online? Are the kids' textbooks going digital? Our kids getting one to one laptops?

The more tech infiltrated school, the more scores started to go down. So that kind of opened this whole chapter of me looking into what is tech, what is learning, how does it all fit together?

SMERCONISH: OK, but you're not a luddite, right? You're not saying get rid of all of it. What are you saying?

HORVATH: No, it's -- I could make an argument that maybe the youngest kids, say primary year students, they really have no need for it. But by all means, as we get older, we're going to have to learn about technology. It's going to be hard to learn to code without a computer. So, the argument is very much structure, structure, structure and function. Rather than just having every kid with a laptop. So, the default becomes using a screen.

We reinstitute a computer lab or computer cart where now teachers make the explicit choice technology is useful now, and they can heavily control it, rather than just letting kids go haywire on it.

SMERCONISH: OK. It's also though, correct me if I'm wrong, an old school kind of philosophy. There's something to be gained from learning from a lecture, from a teacher, from a human that no computer can supplant. True?

HORVATH: Yes, a hundred percent. There are reams of evidence showing that one of the biggest learning mechanisms human beings have is the ability to resonate with another human being. We call the official term affective empathy.

So in a very real sense, we've evolved 150,000 years to learn from each other, and we have built in mechanisms to make that better. So if you just want to say, what makes a teacher important, it's very rarely what they know. It is very much who they are.

And if you extend that, things like handwriting, if you can write with a pen and paper versus typing, learning, understanding, comprehension, go up. If you read a hard copy book versus scrolling a text, learning comprehension retention goes up. So, we're very much an analog creature. The more we go back to that in humanistic endeavors, the more learning will go up.

[09:45:04]

SMERCONISH: For low income households, exposure to technology might only come in the schools, right? And for that reason, it's important that it be maintained at a certain level.

HORVATH: And I would say too, it's -- a lot of the data is coming back that, believe it or not, in low income households who have access. Now, there are tons of homes that don't have access, in which case you already see an equity issue. If a lot of learning and homework is going online and a kid can't access online at home, we're going to get a bit of an issue.

But if we just focus on people who have access, it's the lower SES homes where they are using computers significantly more, hours more per day than kids in other households. And most of that use isn't learning based.

So. the problem starts to become we get this widening gap in performance when it comes to learning, because you have some kids who are just training themselves so much to see these tools, not as learning tools, but as entertainment fun tools. Then you have another group of kids who are very controlled, who their parents say, the only time you use a screen is to learn, they might do a little bit better on it.

So for all the equity arguments, believe it or not, the gap between the highest and the lowest SES and achievers is widening. It's not narrowing. Tech is making it worse.

SMERCONISH: The book is titled "The Digital Delusion." Good luck on the rerelease, which comes in mid-August. Thank you, Jared. I appreciate it.

To everybody at home, let's check in on your social media comments. Again, follow me on X. You can find me on YouTube, Facebook, et cetera, et cetera.

Technology is not the demise of education. It's the wasting of time on subjects that do not prepare students for the future, like teaching DEI rather than math or music. Worse, teachers not allowed to discipline problems that disrupt classrooms. Tech is the future, not the problem.

Their shreds of truth in what you're saying. I'm not buying into all of it. I don't see it as a political -- I'm not sure why you throw DEI into the mix. Here's my takeaway. My takeaway is this. Academically speaking, my life was changed by an educator, a professor that I had as an undergraduate at Lehigh, David Curtis Amidon Jr., his name, no longer with us, but was so influential.

And I think to myself, if it were all tech focused, how my life wouldn't have been different, how it would have been different because I would not have sat for so many of his lectures, which were electrifying and informative. Balance, like everything else in life. OK? It's somewhere in between. It's not the far left and it's not the far right. It's like somewhere we've got to strike a balance.

Do we need technology in classrooms? We do. Do we need to be as tech dependent as we are, or have we become? No, we don't. And the pandemic changed all of this, right? Because that was the opening for hardware and software makers to establish a foothold. And, you know, follow the money.

Coming up, I can't wait to offer this thought. I hope -- I hope Wolf Blitzer is watching. My take on the White House Correspondents' dinner and the president's surprising reaction to the "Wall Street Journal" reporters winning an award for the Epstein coverage he sued them over.

You've still got time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Should Democrats hold their first 2028 primary in a general election battleground? Get right to it. One of the seven. Subscribe to the newsletter when you're there to get exclusive editorial cartoons like this from Steve Breen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:52:36]

SMERCONISH: I thought there was only one funny moment at last night's White House Correspondents' Association dinner. And I'm not talking funny, ha, ha. The jokes mostly fell flat. The mood felt stilted all night.

I mean, funny as in odd, peculiar, out of the ordinary. Here's how it happened. The Wall Street journal won the Katharine Graham Award for courage and accountability, for exposing the long relationship between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein.

The reporting that surfaced Trump's bawdy note for Epstein's 50th birthday. And as Wolf Blitzer put it in presenting the award, helped force the release of the Epstein files. It's the same reporting that prompted the president's $20 billion defamation suit.

So when the award was announced, I braced for a presidential scowl or worse. Instead, the president smiled. He laughed. He threw up his hands. Then he rose and he shook the hands of the very reporters he's been suing.

Odd, sure. But also something we rarely see publicly from him. Call it what it was. Humor, self-deprecation. A man able, for one unscripted beat to laugh at himself in a room full of people, just celebrated for making his life harder.

I don't say that to excuse his lawsuit or to relitigate a word of the reporting. I note it only to encourage more of the same. For a few unscripted seconds, we saw civility, almost warmth between combatants. Shame we don't see more of it.

Time now to see how you responded thus far to the poll question at Smerconish.com. Should they be voting first in a battleground state? A tick under 20,080. OK, 82 percent say yes. So that would be more North Carolina than South Carolina.

Checking in on your social media comments during the course of the program. What do we have?

Hey, Michael, if you want to vote in a primary then join a damn party. If you want to be an independent, then be independent of any party.

To which I say, among other things, to TJG, if I can't vote in that primary, then stop charging me for it. Why should my tax dollars pay for it? Make the parties pay for it. Let them stage it themselves.

If I, as a taxpayer, am paying for it, I have an expectation that I get a say, especially in a country where 45 percent of us are independents. And in a nation where so much of the decision making is being made in primaries.

[09:55:05]

I mean, consider this, 435 members of the House of Representatives and probably 35 or so, only 35 of those seats are up for grabs. Everything else predetermined. When? In a primary. Nope, that's my answer.

More social media reaction. What do we have? That's the one that really gets me. So --

You're a Philly guy. I'm disappointed in you. It's the best chance at a championship -- yes, but at what cost? I mean, just win, baby, says Jon Pin --

No. No, I'm the one person who, you know, went to Wawa and bought the Inquirer today. And I looked down at the cover. I'm like, it just doesn't feel right to me.

And I have the utmost of respect for King James. It's just that -- it's not the ending it should be. He's had a spectacular career. He's a Cleveland guy. He's from Ohio. He shouldn't ride out his career just to bring a ring to Philly. He should go back there.

In fact, I like a system where you play for the team where you were born and raised. Think about that.

If you missed any of -- and don't heckle me if I go to the Sixers because I'm still for the Sixers. OK? Anywhere you get your podcasts, you can find us. Thank you for watching and we'll see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)