Morning Joe - Morning Joe 11/12/24

Episode Date: November 12, 2024

Democrat Ruben Gallego defeats Kari Lake to become Arizona's first Latino senator

the veterans out there that suffer from PTSD for the single moms working two jobs and raising their three kids. For the dads who have to miss bedtime because they want to work that extra shift. And for the kids sleeping on the floor dreaming about a better better America in a better better future. This victory is for you. Thank you, Arizona. Democratic Congressman Ruben Gallego earlier this morning after he was declared the winner of Arizona's Senate race. We will explain how he managed to prevail in a state Donald Trump easily flipped in the presidential race. Also ahead, Donald Trump is filling more key positions for his upcoming administration. We'll bring you the latest nominations and how they could impact the balance of power

for the next Congress. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Tuesday, November 12th. Along with Joe, Willie and me, we have the host of Way Too Early, White House beer chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, U.S. special correspondent for BBC News, Cady Kay, and co-founder and CEO of Axios, Jim Van De Heide. How do we get to look at them? Look at them.

This is like, Gary, Ruth, and the third really good dude that played for the 27 Yankees. And we have David Ignatius coming up. David Ignatius is coming up and let's get into this Arizona race because it's a pretty remarkable thing about Arizona right now. And also reveals that this election,, it's multi-layered. Let's just say that. Yeah. NBC News can now project Democratic Congressman Ruben Gallego will defeat his Republican challenger

Kerry Lake in the Arizona Senate race. Gallego will take the seat of retiring independent Senator Kyrsten Sinema, who caucuses with the Democrats preventing another GOP gain, he will become the first Latino to represent Arizona in the U.S. Senate. At this hour with one race still to be called, Republicans control the Senate, 52 seats to 47. It's worth noting Senate, 52 seats to 47. It's worth noting that the Senate Democratic candidates prevailed in four key battlegrounds. To your point, Joe, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, and now Arizona, all states that Trump won. Speaking to reporters after his victory speech, Gallego explained the reason he was able to win in a tough cycle for the Democrats. reporters after his victory speech, Gallego explained the reason he was able to win

in a tough cycle for the Democrats. You have to earn every vote. And this was a swing state. And we had 300,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats. I needed to earn the support of all Arizonans. And so I went out and I talked to everybody. And I also didn't agree with them all the, and I also didn't agree with them all the

time. They didn't agree with me all the time, but we had respectful conversations, and at the end of the day, we walked away. Sometimes with support, and sometimes we didn't. But I had to make sure that people knew that I was out there talking to them and fighting for them, because hopefully, at least then, we can build some trust. That's the only thing I would say. This morning, the New York Times notes,

after going decades without electing a Democrat to the Senate, Arizona's voters have now done so in four successive elections, underscoring the state's shift from reliable conservative stronghold to competitive battleground. Voters backed Ms. Sinema in 2018, picked Senator Mark Kelly in a special election in 2020,

and then elected him again in 2022. There's so many things to talk about here, Jim Van De Heide. Let's first of all start out by saying that every poll is going to have Democrats up by 47%, and they're gonna end up by winning by 47 votes. Remember Martha McSally, who's supposedly down in double digits and just barely lost her race a couple of years ago? DeMar Kelly, we have the same thing here where Kerry Lake was down 8, 10, 12 points.

It ended up being a really tight race. But overall, a couple of things. I mean, if you're Donald Trump, this makes the size of your margin in those states even more impressive because he outran Democrats in all of these swing states. That's the first thing. The second thing, though, of course, and Jim, you and I have been around a very long time and we've seen this. First two, three, four days, five days after an election, you have the media's hair on fire saying this was the greatest landslide or more to the point, this is the greatest

defeat the Republicans have ever had, or this is the greatest defeat the Democrats have ever had. You start looking at this as writing it down. Republican Senate candidates lost in Arizona, they lost in Wisconsin, they lost in Nevada, they lost in Michigan. There were no Senate races in Georgia for them to lose. And in North Carolina, no Senate races for them to lose. But there was a governor's race, and the Democrats won there. So the Democrats won in every major swing state race they could win by in the year that Donald Trump just ran the board

in all of these swing states in a way that wasn't even close. So I'm curious, what do you take also of, again, there's just so much here, it's fascinating. What do you also make of how progressive Gallego was? Very progressive member of the House, winning in a state like Arizona, who again, like we quoted the Times, now elected four Democrats in a row. Yeah, I think, listen, Donald Trump has claimed, I think he called it an

unprecedented mandate. You can claim a mandate whether you win by one vote or you win by a hundred million I think for Democrats looking at the results obviously Trump performed fabulously in almost every single state in district Vice President Harris way underperformed like that was really the story of the election But then what you're talking about here is it goes back to we live in a 50-50 Country we have since 2000 and we basically have a change election every single period. And what you're seeing in Michigan, what you see in Wisconsin, what you see in Arizona is that 50 50

dynamic. And you see politicians who are able to divorce themselves from Biden and Harris because they're not necessarily seen as quote unquote, the federal government. They're trying to focus on topics that people in Arizona care about, people in Wisconsin care about. So when Democrats are doing their autopsy, I don't know, maybe I would look at the candidates who are winning, figure out what are they talking about, what are they not talking about, and that's probably the roadmap for them to get back into power in the off-year elections. And it's a brilliant insight. Look, Willie, at what these swing state Democrats were talking about, what they were not talking about, and how they won. But, you know, this has always,

it's always come down to the power of the presidential candidate, right? It's like, you know, when Ronald Reagan got elected, and I know I've said this a lot, but it bears repeating given this news. Reagan was there and Republicans were like, hey, we've got a new coalition. No, Ronald Reagan had the coalition. It was not transferable. Then Bill Clinton won for eight years. And

then Barack Obama gets elected and we're like, oh, the Obama majority, it's for the Democrats, the rise of the ascendant. No, that was Barack Obama's majority. That was Barack Obama's mandate. And here we have the same thing with Donald Trump, who uniquely goes in and wins working class voters and wins the type of voters that Democrats always won. And people are going, oh, you know, they go, this is the new Trump coalition, and it's going to rule for a thousand. No, it is specific to Donald Trump. It is not transferable. A lot of people thought Hillary Clinton could be Bill Clinton.

She couldn't be Bill Clinton because that was a unique set of political skills. So you take Reagan, you take Obama, you take Clinton, and now you take Donald Trump, they have a unique set of skills and it's not transferable. And the fact that Republicans are, let's put it, we'll put it in a positive sense, the fact that Democrats won in Arizona with a very progressive candidate, one in Wisconsin, one in Nevada, one in Michigan. And the Senate races won in North Carolina in the gubernatorial race against, of course, a whack job. But they won all of these swing states.

And I guess in these major races, they're undefeated in swing states because there weren't Senate races in Georgia or North Carolina and Dave McCormick. Of course, Dave McCormick is the one exception to the rule. Dave McCormick, though, as we've said on this show, time and time again, is a really strong candidate and he would have won two years ago if Donald Trump would have endorsed him then.

So anyway, I know I'm going on a lot, but this is really sort of looking back and sort of the second look at what happened last week. And this was not a Republican landslide. This was a Trump sweep. It was a Trump sweep. And when we say it was an overwhelming victory, we're talking about his sweep of the swing states, which was overwhelming and decisive, of course. And this is in no way diminishing what the next four years could look like under Donald Trump.

It is his Washington for at least the next two years. We're seeing his appointments roll out. We'll get into some of that as well, what that means for immigrants, what it means for women, and you can go down the list. But to your point, I mean, we've all heard the panic. I heard it a lot yesterday. I was marching in the Veterans Day Parade and on the subway to and from people coming up and worried and panicked and wanted to talk about it.

I get all that and some of it is well-founded. What I have been saying, though, is exactly what you and Jim are saying, though. Donald Trump, well, he's winning right now by about three million votes. That's the same margin Hillary Clinton beat him in 16 by in the popular vote. And if you look inside these swing states and everyone says, what happened to the polling? They all finish effectively except for Arizona as margin of error races. I'll go through them. Wisconsin, Donald Trump won by less than one point.

Michigan, he won by a point and a half. Nevada, by two points. Pennsylvania, by a half. Nevada, by two points. Pennsylvania, by two points. Georgia, by two points. North Carolina, by three points. And then Arizona, five and a half points. So why do I say that? Because it was overwhelming in the sense that he won these states. But if you actually look at who voted and the vote total, this was, in fact, as we've been saying for months and months and months, an incredibly close race. Not by the electoral vote count. He won that widely and he won all those swing states impressively. But if you need the reason to take a deep breath is that this was

a close race and the fight is still on if you're a Democrat. Yeah, no doubt about it. You look at Arizona, that's fascinating. There's like a seven, it's like a seven point swing between Donald Trump's five point victory and Ruben Gallego right now, two point victory. So you're right. So much of it has to do with the candidate. He's the first Hispanic senator in the state of Arizona. He's a veteran. Hispanic men voted for him in much higher numbers than they voted for Kamala Harris. So a lot of different things going.

But you know, Katty Kay, if you're Donald Trump this morning and you're seeing this news, this just seems to strengthen your hand with Republicans in the organizing caucus going, listen, you guys can't win these and women, you can't win these swing states. Thank you. You lost in Michigan. You lost in Wisconsin. You lost in North Carolina. Gouverneur's toriel race. You lost in Arizona. You lost in Nevada. I want all those states. It seems to me, as he organizes Republicans, and he starts saying, this is who you should pick

as your majority leader, and this is what you should do in the House, it seems to me it only strengthens Donald Trump's hand. Yeah, and Carrie Lake really ran as a kind of mini me. Trump was very close to the former president and president-elect, appeared with him whenever she could, denied the results of the 2020 election, denied the results of her 2022 run for the governorship of Arizona, did all of the classic Trump things, prevaricated on kind of the issue of abortion, was super pro a federal ban, then ran back from that.

And she still couldn't make it, because she isn't—she's a—I've spent time with her. She's a skilled political operative, but she's not Donald Trump. And I think that is the message to the Republican Party from Trump, is, this is my party, and you need to do things my way. Now, what his way is, we're still going to have to find out, because it will depend on some more of these appointments being actually confirmed. But he has taken over the party, and it doesn't mean—I think you're right.

As the Democratic Party now goes into its kind of autopsy of 2024, it has to think it has to fight the battle of 2028, not the last battle. So it has to think, where is the party going to be in 2028? And what are the bigger picture trends? Take Donald Trump out of the picture for 2028. What are the trends that we've seen from 2016, 2020 and 2024? Which are the groups the Democratic Party has been losing and why and work on that rather than think, okay, we've got to fight this candidate again because he's not going to be there in 2028 and whoever replaces him may well not be as strong as he is.

Yeah, another take away here is that election denialism is non-transferable. Voters did not hold against Donald Trump, that he never conceded 2020, that he never acknowledged that he lost. But the big lie candidates who ran in the 2022 midterms, that includes Mastroianno in Pennsylvania, that includes Kerry Lake then they all lost and now we have Kerry Lake losing again. So some voters simply don't want to tolerate that it seems unless it comes from Trump some Republicans but you're

right these things that there are some silver linings here for Democrats. They're able to win in these battleground states Nevada to as well as Arizona Michigan Wisconsin. Those are candidates who tailored their messages to their individual states, defying some of the larger national trends. Pennsylvania hasn't been called yet. It does look like it's going Republican, and that's important too because that would give them 53 seats in the Senate, which allows

Trump and the Republicans to lose Susan Collins occasionally, lose Lisa Murkowski occasionally, and still be able to get things done. Those are the only two Republicans, at least for now, to lose Susan Collins occasionally, lose Lisa Murkowski occasionally, and still be able to get things done. Those are the only two Republicans, at least for now, we think will defy the White House. And that's gonna be really important here as we get into a little later, as his appointments are starting to roll out.

And later on, we also have this week, Republicans picking a Senate Majority Leader. But there are some building blocks here for Democrats as that party autopsy well underway here just a week since the election. Yeah, and Jim Van de Hei, Democrats can look at Arizona and I think take solace from the fact that they've now won four Senate races there in a row after not winning any in a long time. But let's talk about the one swing state that Republicans won in these Senate races. And that is Pennsylvania.

Man, put the big siren on top of Pennsylvania because it seems, if you look at party registration over the last couple of years, to be going the way that Iowa first went, then Ohio, and now that seems to be moving eastward toward Pennsylvania that is getting more and more Republican by the day. We'll see if that trend keeps going, but if the trend keeps going like it did over the last year or two, Pennsylvania may in four years look like Florida does now, which is once a swing state now about as deep red, as crimson red as you can get.

Maybe. It's still pretty much it is a swing state. It was a very close result. Dave McCormick was a really good candidate and not a first time candidate, had a lot of money, had a lot working his advantage and even the outcome for Trump, big win, but they had to pour a lot of time. It's where Elon Musk camped out, where he put a lot of his own money and time into the race and they were able to squeak it out.

And I mean, that's what Democrats have to figure out. The map is changing. The country is changing. I think what Kedeke was saying about you have to look at what are the tectonic shifts that probably are going to persist. It looks like the country moved to the right on energy. It looks like it moved to the right on immigration. Does the party move with it,

or does it continue to sort of double down on its roots? And those questions will be figured out in the time to come. But you look at that map and you just look at, again, going back to what Trump did, and I don't think you can give him enough credit for doing what none of us thought possible in kind of defying logic in state after state and district after district. And I think any appraisal has to be clear-eyed about like, what the hell just happened?

Why are big cities that were so blue going towards Trump? There's a reason there and you can figure it out. And then you take, if you want solace, you find solace in knowing you probably have a pretty good chance of winning back the House in two years if you look at what's been happening in a 50-50 country over the last 24 years. But that only happens if you really come together as a party, have a coherent theology, and you're able to articulate it in a way that resonates with people who are very persuadable. That's the lesson of Arizona. That's the lesson of Pennsylvania. People are persuadable. They're still uneasy. When there's angst, they want change. I think it's why we have a lot of Pennsylvania. People are persuadable. They're still uneasy.

When there's angst, they want change. I think it's why we have a lot of change. I think change elections correlating with social media, which makes people anxious, there's probably a reason there. Okay. So just to note that Pennsylvania Senate race has not been officially called by NBC, but obviously the numbers looking really good for Dave McCormick there.

Let's take a look now at some of the other stories making headlines this morning. China is rolling out its latest fighter jet in an effort to match the most advanced aircraft used by the U.S. military. As the Washington Post reports, Beijing is investing heavily in the latest tech and forging ever closer bonds with partners like Russia. Chinese manufacturers have churned out huge numbers of ships, warplanes, missiles, and drones and they can make them faster.

A crew member was injured when gunfire hit a Spirit Airlines flight to Haiti yesterday. The company says the plane was diverted to the Dominican Republic. Separately, a jet blue aircraft turned up evidence that it too had been struck by a round. The State Department advises against travel to the Caribbean nation amid a wave of violence and instability. And Bitcoin topped $87,000 yesterday for a new record high. The cryptocurrency surged over 28% in the last week alone.

Bitcoin stood at just over $5,000 at the start of the pandemic. Investors are feeling bullish after the election of Donald Trump, who has pledged to make the U.S. the crypto capital of the planet. And still ahead on Morning Joe. This is what I'm going to have to figure out, because it looked like I even read the New York Times special section on Sunday a couple of years ago when it was trying to explain why crypto was so relevant. I was like, I don't get it.

It was like I want to read it again. I was Tom Hanks and I don't get it, I don't get it. I was like, I want to read it again. I was Tom Hanks and I don't get it. I don't get it. But it looks like I need to get it. We'll see. Coming up on Morning Joe, billionaire Elon Musk was one of Donald Trump's most visible surrogates on the campaign trail. We'll talk about what kind of role and influence the space X founder might have in Trump's new administration. Plus, one of our next guests says, President Biden should prioritize the civilian population of Gaza in the final weeks of his term.

The Washington Post's David Ignatius joins us with more on that. You're watching Morning Joe. We're back in 90 seconds. Beautiful live picture of the White House, 622 in the morning. Donald Trump is expected this week to nominate Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida as Secretary of State. That's according to three sources familiar with the selection process. The sources also did say, though, Trump still could change his mind on who will fill the role

of the country's top diplomat. Trump yesterday also selecting former Congressman Lee Zeldin of New York to oversee the Environmental Protection Agency. Zeldin's nomination widely criticized by environmental groups because of his lack of experience in that area. The post requires Senate confirmation, but Republicans will have the majority in the upper chamber when the new Congress is sworn in. And Donald Trump has asked Republican Congressman Mike Waltz of Florida to be his national security

advisor. Waltz is a Green Beret who served in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and Africa, known for hawkish views on China. As a member of the House's China task force, he said the U.S. is underprepared if there's a conflict in the House's China Task Force, he said the U.S. is underprepared if there's a conflict in the region. Waltz also criticized USAID to Ukraine, arguing Russian President Vladimir Putin should be brought to the negotiating table for a, quote, diplomatic resolution to end the war there. Waltz's role as national security advisor does not require Senate confirmation.

So a lot in there, Joe, but if we can go back to the beginning just for a minute, which is Senate Rubio. Again, the Trump team has not made that announcement official, but many media outlets, including ours, reporting that he will be the choice. We do know Donald Trump doesn't love a leak before he makes an announcement, so we can wait. But if it is Marco Rubio, John and I were just talking,

we're hearing from people even inside the Biden administration. I wouldn't call it celebration, but perhaps relief that it's at least a guy who's in the Senate who has experience in this area. Well, who's in the Senate, who ran the Intel committee, who knows the issues, regardless of all the political stuff, regardless of the very mixed background he and Donald Trump have had together. If you're going to talk, and I'm sure David Ignatius will confirm this very soon, but

he's a hawk. He's a real hawk on China. He's a hawk on Venezuela. He's a hawk on Cuba. And he was a hawk on Russia throughout his Senate career. Now he's saying, of course, what the incoming national security advisor is saying, Jonathan Lemire, and that is that they need to sit down. Ukraine needs to sit down with Russia, and they need to figure out a way to bring this

war to an end. And before people say that's too radical, of course, I've mentioned time and time again that the top Pentagon person told me, the top general at the Pentagon told me in February of last year, this is not going to, you know, these lines are not going to move. And at some point, we're going to have to figure out how to negotiate an end to this war, even though we can't say it publicly right now. And that is what Marco Rubio and what Congressman Walz are saying right now is, let's figure out.

I think the biggest difference is if it's a Biden administration that's negotiating that deal, then it says, OK, Ukraine's going to have to give up land in return. It will get protection from the United States and membership into NATO eventually. I don't know that you're going to get that from the Trump administration, but that's the big question mark over all of this. Yeah, but first to your first point, I mean, there's been a widely held belief behind closed doors in Washington, Pentagon and foreign policy think tanks that 2025, the year 2025 is when some sort of negotiations will have to begin and perhaps even conclude in the Russia-Ukraine war. At some point, the fighting will slow down, if not altogether cease. There'll be some sort of table where the

two sides will meet. Senator Rubio did vote against, he was one of the 15 Republican senators who voted against the last wave of US aid to Ukraine, though he was supportive more in the past. Certainly, the incoming National Security Advisor also skeptical of the US continuing to fund the war effort. Donald Trump himself is that. But to Willie's point earlier, I heard from a number of people

within the Biden administration, other foreign policy leaders, who also all sort of said with almost in one voice, quote, it could have been worse in terms of the Rubio pick that he is a senator. He does have some national security credentials. He has been a believer in NATO. Now, of course, he's going to serve at the pleasure of the president. He's going to carry out Trump's agenda, but he's at least something of a reassuring figure. Also, it's just who doesn't get that job? The Rick Grinnells, the Cash Patels of the world, who the real firebrands of the right, of MAGO world, who there was real concern might be put in the foggy bottom post. Now, they may get a big job elsewhere.

Obviously, the FBI, CIA, attorney general, those posts all still empty. We did see Stephen Miller, hardliner, immigration hardliner, going back to the White House and deputy chief of staff in a role with huge powers. But at least for this, Joe and Mika, at least for this, there's a sense that the Rubio pick is a signal that there might be at least some grownups in the room. Well, let's bring it right now to talk about that. Columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post, David Ignatius. And David, sorting through these picks, I would say that the biggest concern for a lot of people, not only in Washington, but around the world who love America and are our allies of America,

they're hoping that there aren't gadflies that are put in these positions, people that like going on podcasts and saying the most outrageous things. There are obviously some people that have been put in positions that are going to cause concerns. But you look at Chief of Staff, Suzy Wiles, she worked in the Reagan administration, she's worked for Republicans for years now, was considered, is running a very professional campaign. Mike Walz, Green Beret, and then Marco Rubio, somebody, as you know, that has vast experience in foreign policy and in the intel community. So I'm curious your take on the picks thus far

and specifically on the incoming national security advisor and the possible incoming secretary of state. So Joe, my sense is similar to yours and Johnson. I think the general reaction, these people are in the group of experienced bipartisan national security figures, each in Congress was known for working across the aisle. If I were to sum up the sort of winners and losers overseas from these picks, I think it's bad news for Ukraine. These are people who say it's time to end the war, it's time for the United States to

stop spending as much money. It's probably good news for Russia because Trump's desire to do a deal with Russia on Ukraine is one of the strongest themes he expressed through the campaign. Both these people can help him do that because they have credibility overseas. It's bad news for China. These are two strong China hawks. If there's one theme that comes through each of their foreign policy statements over the last couple of years, it's antipathy to China, warning about China's military rearmament. So, and then I think finally, we'll have to wait and see what this means for Europeans.

The question I've had is whether Trump, this time around, is gonna wanna be more successful as a president working with allies. You know, he just really botched a lot of our key relationships. Is he gonna work harder with the Europeans to be a leader of NATO as opposed to a destructor and destroyer of NATO?

I think NATO is ready to follow a path toward negotiations on Ukraine. There's a general sense that the time has come in this war, this terrible bloody war, to seek some compromise. That was coming, whether Harris won or Biden won, in my view. So I think it's generally, you know, more responsible, respectable, if you can say that, teen than you might have thought. On domestic policy, Trump's going to do what he said he would on border issues in particular. You look at Tom Homan, you know that's so.

You look at the fact that Stephen Miller Homan, you know that's so. You look at the fact that Stephen Miller's back, you know that's so. But in foreign policy, this is, I don't wanna say establishment, because they're not that, but they're a little more in the mainstream of foreign policy advisors that I would have thought. Yeah, and to David's point about domestic advisors, Willie, Donald Trump ran on mass

deportation over and over and over again. So no one should be shocked by who he's selecting on some of these domestic posts where he's going to do exactly what he said he was going to do. Yeah, Tom Homan, he's bringing back in, he had him remember in that first administration, he has been very clear, has Mr. Homan, who will be under the title of border czar, about the plans to go in and take criminals who are here illegally, remove them from where they are in the United States and send them back to their country of origin. Very explicit about what he's going to do and effectively close the border as well.

Katty, it is some of these choices, I think some of Washington has been heartened by a few of the names that have been floated out here with those openings. Still some concern about some of the openings that are left out there. But we do know this even about establishment figures in Washington, they bend to the will of Donald Trump in the Republican Party.

And they believe with the win he got a week ago today, that he's in charge. He has a sweeping mandate, and they're there to execute his vision. So even an establishment Republican is gonna do what Donald Trump tells him or her to do. Yeah, whatever Elon Musk might be thinking at the moment down in Mar-a-Lago, it is Donald Trump who won the election,

and he is the one that's gonna be calling the shots. And you're right, Marco Rubio Waltz, well-known people in the foreign policy circles and seen, as David said, as more orthodox as foreign policy choices. I'm surprised by the degree of planning that seems to be going already with Ukraine. Some people I have spoken to have been close to former President Trump, saying, look, we're right down to issues like the nuclear facilities that are currently in areas that Russia might hold—the president-elect Trump believes they should be in Ukrainian territory. What are the kind of security guarantees that the West might be able to give Ukraine in

exchange for giving up effectively about 20 percent of its land? Maybe it's not NATO, and who knows what NATO is going to look like. Maybe it's something from the European Union. So those kinds of discussions clearly taking place and at quite a developed stage. The other question for me will be what—and you mentioned allies, Jo, and allies in Europe have not been treated particularly well by Donald Trump in the past. But the Biden administration has put a lot of effort into shoring up America's allies in Asia.

It was a counterpoint to China. Now, does that effort continue? Do we see the same kind of outreach to South Korea and Japan and the Philippines that the Biden administration has had? Or would the blanket tariffs apply to all allies, in which case that might make those kind of allyships more hard when you're trying to really have a bull walk against China, which is what this foreign policy team looks like. Well, it's very interesting, Jonathan O'Meara, though I don't think you'll have the Biden

team talk about how what they've been doing will fit with what the new Trump team is going to do or vice versa. But you look at what happened during the Biden administration, not only on the, we are talking about the strengthening of NATO, but the strengthening of our alliance around China under Biden has been actually pretty spectacular starting with Australia and going North. You of course had South Korea and Japan coming to a deal.

Japan talking about spending more money in defense. Look what we've done in the Philippines. Look what we've done in Guam. Look what we've done, again, all around China, the China Sea. That's something that obviously has strengthened America's positioning around China. All these presidents in the century talked about the Asia pivot. Joe Biden did that now with hawks coming in, China hawks coming in for Donald Trump. That could be a pretty effective one-two punch and again, limiting China's expansion. Yeah, eclipsed in the headlines by the war in Ukraine and the situation in the Middle

East. Certainly, President Biden and his team have strengthened the U.S. position there in China with our allies in Asia. And I think that though they won't give them any credit, I think some on the Trump team will try to build off of that. And as we look at this transition, a couple of other things are striking. First of all, it's very different than eight years ago. There's no parade of characters, no auditions walking through Trump Tower then or Mar-a-Lago now, at least not yet.

Trump is acting with real speed. He's getting these names out there much quicker than he did last time around. He's also prioritizing people he knows. These are either veterans of the first administration or it's two states in particular. They're from New York or they're from Florida. These, of course, his two home states and that's where he's turning to fill out his roster at least for now. And Jim Van De Hei, one name who's hovering above all of it of course is Elon Musk who's

been spotted at Mar-a-Lago basically since election day. He's been seen golfing with Trump and hanging out there at dinner. It's not clear whether or not he'll get any sort of formal title or not. You know, but what is the sense as to your hearing as to what role he could play? And will they be able to coexist? If there's one truism we know about Donald Trump, he likes to be the only star in the sky. Elon Musk, well, he's someone who is used to that role as well.

How do we see this in the months ahead? I think it's one of the most interesting and important stories that's been unfolding over the last month is this fusion between Musk and Donald Trump. Mike Allen and I write about it in today's Behind the Curtain column. If Musk has been at Mar-a-Lago almost from election day through now, he's intimately involved in picking the cabinet. He's one of the few people sitting in this makeshift situation room that they built in Mar-a-Lago where Trump's looking at TV screens to look at the different portfolios of candidates

for these jobs. He sits in on calls with world leaders. He's going to create some group that sits outside of government that advises on how to try to save a trillion or two trillion dollars, he claims, I think that'll be harder than said, but that's going to be part of his portfolio. We've not seen an alliance like this, when you can combine politics with information. Like, I really believe politics flows downstream from information, and now you have more than half of the country getting its information from non-traditional sources and Elon Musk sits at the center of that.

So you take government and you take information and you have a very, very, very powerful alliance. I think it's the most important story. It probably sits with what David Ignatius talked about, this idea, this new right, and at the same time putting together a team that is hell-bent on confronting China and for good reason, right? Like China is the one nation that has the manpower and has the money to be an existential threat to the United States. It's the only country that can probably convene an axis of evil that could actually threaten

the U.S. And so those early signs point to the importance, I think, of China and Musk in the early days. Axios co-founder and CEO Jim Van De Hei, thanks so much. We're going to be getting to a David Ignatius column in one minute. I want to talk to him also about China. You know, I talk about the numbers and how strong America's economy is all the time. I will say, though, our only competition right now is China. And even though we've gone far past them over the past four years,

we talk about Russia, they've got a $1.4 trillion, maybe $1.7 trillion GDP yearly. China has 17 trillion. So of course the US has 26, 27, the EU has 26, 27, put that together. We overpower China, but they are, as Jim said, the one country that poses a real threat to the United States for relationships with our allies breakdown. Coming up, Kentucky Governor Andy

Beshear is optimistic Democrats can win again. We'll take a look at what he's saying the party needs to do in order to regain the confidence of voters. Morning Joe will be right back. Sorry. All right, 44 past the hour. Time now for the must-read opinion pages in a guest essay this morning for The New York Times entitled, I'm the Governor of Kentucky. Here's how Democrats can win again. And if Beshear writes in part, the focus of the Democratic Party must return to creating better jobs, more affordable and accessible healthcare, safer roads and bridges, the focus of the Democratic Party must return to creating better jobs,

more affordable and accessible health care, safer roads and bridges, the best education for our children, and communities where people aren't just safer, but also feel safer. We do this through policy and by taking direct action that gets results. The Democratic Party must show the American people that it cares about creating a better life for each and every American and re-earn the public's trust about its focus and its direction.

None of this means we abandon important values and principles. Earning trust and showing people you care about them also requires that we talk to people like normal human beings. So while others are talking about political strategy and messaging, the way forward is really about focus and about action. And perhaps the best part, these core issues and concerns are not partisan and addressing

them helps Democrats and Republicans alike. That's a path forward for both the Democratic Party and for this country that we love. Yeah. I mean, and the question I would have is what in this Democratic presidential campaign of what Andy Beshear wrote there was not included? I mean... Well, I mean, I think... presidential campaign of what Andy Beshear wrote there was not included. I mean... Well, I mean, I think...

Kamala Harris had a plan for housing, had a plan for the economy. Yeah. I'm not defending it at this point because Donald Trump won. But what is Andy Beshear saying that Democrats are not doing?

Well, I think... Let's just say it. Talk like normal people, act like normal people. I think Washington Democrats. What about what Andy Beshear wrote that Joe Biden didn't do? Well, Joe Biden had a hard time communicating with people. I mean, the thing is, David Ignatius, as you know, in politics, it's so important.

If you can get out, put your hand on somebody's shoulder and say, you know, talk to me. What are you going through? How can I help you? I mean, I've seen it firsthand. I mean, best advice I ever got was go up to people, do just that. Say, tell me about your life. How can I help you? What do you need?

What is the government not doing? Or how are they getting in your way as a small business person? And the guy said, then shut up. They will talk to you for 10 minutes. You write down notes and you turn around and walk away and they'll go, that's one of the smartest young men I've ever met in my life. It's like, you know, you, I never forgot that obviously. You told me that 30 years ago. But it's that connection. And I will say, if you're Kamala Harris and you parachute it down and you've got like 100 days for a sprint to connect, man, that ain't enough time.

It's just not. You know, the best person I ever saw at what you're describing was Bill Clinton. He had a way of just connecting with people, he was visceral. He'd work a rope line and people would feel it, my gosh, this is my best friend. Kamala Harris didn't have long enough. I felt that she got to be a better candidate

week by week through the campaign, that she was more comfortable, more grace week by week through the campaign, that she was more comfortable, more graceful, she spoke better. But it wasn't enough time. And frankly, there wasn't enough message to impart. You can't just glad hand people and look like a good candidate on stage. It takes something more direct. But it'll be fascinating, I think having Bashir come

out out of the box with a very clear statement that says basically I want to be in the conversation going forward. That's a good sign for Democrats. Hiding, blaming themselves, wondering what they did wrong. That can go on only so long. Right and you know Willie, we've talked about who won those swing states. You had in Wisconsin, a Senator Tammy Baldwin, who had been there before, people knew her. And even when things got rocky and people were throwing stuff left and right at her,

they're like, wait a second, I know Tammy Baldwin, she won. Carried her through, Alyssa Slotkin, voters knew her. She was a Congresswoman from Michigan. Voters knew her. Ruben Gallego. I mean, I've said this a billion times. Ruben Gallego is more progressive than Arizona. He shouldn't win if you look at it on paper.

But Willie, I've said it time and time again, and I found this. I was more conservative than a lot of people in my district, but a lot of people in my district came up to me after I got elected in like four landslide victories, and they said, I don't agree with you on everything. I think you're way too conservative on a lot of issues, but I know you, and I know you're going to fight for us, and I know that I can trust you that what you said, you know, how you're going to vote is how you're going to vote and I

can do it. That's the sort of thing that, you know, all of these candidates, the one that we're talking about, they had that connection with voters in those swing states. Kamala Harris had, again, maybe 100 days. And if she had been campaigning since January or February, I guarantee you some of those issues that really got to her, again, and we're talking about that one trans ad, $30 million worth, she would have had a year. She would have had nine months. At some point, go, wait, hold on, that was your policy. And I know she said that in debate, but you got to say it more than once, are these other

issues where they went after her, she would have campaigned in New Hampshire, she would have seen firsthand just the impact of inflation on working class Americans. And that's, you know, you develop throughout a campaign. You can't do that in 100 days. Yeah, and who knows? That may not even have helped her either. This may have been Donald Trump's year in 2024, but it certainly would have given her perhaps a better shot.

And to Mika's point, Joe Biden, let's not forget, when he won in 2020, he won that primary among Democrats and won the election because he was seen as the more centrist of Democrats because he was seen as not totally giving in to some of those progressive values. He says, we're not going to tear down statues of George Washington. We're not going to defund the police.

That was Joe Biden saying those things. Now, he was attached to a lot of that successfully by Donald Trump and others. And yes, many prominent members of the party have said those things. And that certainly hurt Kamala Harris down the stretch, including herself in 2019, some of the party have said those things and that certainly hurt Kamala Harris down the stretch including herself in 2019, some of the things she said. But to Governor Bashir's point, I think that it does look what he's talking about right there, it does look a little bit more like Joe Biden running in 2020 when he won. So keeping some of that and trying to expand I guess is their goal here. David Ignatius, let's turn a bit to your new piece in the Washington Post titled, If Israel doesn't help Gaza's civilians, Biden has to stop supplying weapons.

In the piece, David writes this, The reality is that right now there is no clear Israeli-American or UN plan for supporting the social needs of a desperate population. For the Biden team, getting Israeli cooperation has been like pulling teeth, as one official put it. In the first days of the war, Antony Blinken spent hours pleading with Netanyahu to begin aiding civilians. A trickle of aid started to flow. But in January, Israeli protesters blocked relief shipments through the Karim Shalom crossing, and police did nothing. At Blinken's request, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant

intervened, and the trucks began moving again. But last week Netanyahu fired Gallant, who had been the administration's most reliable Israeli contact. Biden has demanded Israeli action and set a timetable for Netanyahu to deliver. Words don't matter anymore. It's a last test for the outgoing president. If Israel doesn't take immediate measures to protect civilians in Gaza, the United States is legally bound to stop supplying weapons for a war that should have ended months ago. David, do you think there's a chance that that happens in these final months of

the Biden administration? Well, I certainly hope so, Willie. As I said in the piece, this is a last chance for Biden to do something significant in his Middle East legacy. He put an awful lot of time in the Middle East. He struggled and struggled to get the ceasefire and hostage release deal in Gaza. Didn't happen. It's probably not going to happen. But there are things he can require the Israelis to do on the humanitarian front. And when I say require, there is a piece of legislation that says the United States cannot

sell weapons to countries that don't observe our standards, international standards on human rights issues, humanitarian issues. That's the issue that's come to the fore after a letter that Secretary Blinken, Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense of the United Austin sent a month ago to Israel saying unless you make improvement on these 15 steps to make life better for Palestinian civilians in Gaza, we are going to consider under our legal obligations withholding military aid. So that's coming to a head this week, and I wanted to alert readers to that fact. But more broadly, this is a terrible tragedy.

The level of human suffering in Gaza, when you look at the pictures, when you talk to people, it's just extraordinary. And I know... I just want to say one last thing. I know from my conversations with senior officials in the Biden administration, how painful, how wrenching this has been to see this suffering, to want to do something about it

and to have been unsuccessful. Here's a time for a last push. And my sense is it's something that the Biden team would be proud of if they can make progress. It's something they just have to do. The conditions have been savage in Gaza for so long now. Of course, you talk to many people in Gaza and you've had news reports and they do blame Hamas as well because Hamas basically held the entire region hostage, along with the hostages that are underground. But that doesn't alleviate any of the suffering that has gone on in Gaza. It's gone on far, far too long. And here's hoping the Biden administration steps in as

forcefully as they can in the closing months and help in any way they can. And, Katty, I just want to do a postscript here, sort of a looking back on this issue of Israel, because what we've heard all along is, oh, Biden and Harris were too weak on Israel, and the Jews are all going to vote for Donald Trump. And I'm like, oh my God, we hear this every four years. We hear it every, Donald Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem, and Joe Biden still got 70% of the Jewish vote in 2020.

This year, after all of the talk we've heard time and time again, colleagues and other people telling me, oh, Jews aren't going to vote for Harris. They can't stand Harris. I just looked this up really quickly. The Times of Israel quoted the national election pool, which is the largest exit polling firm. 79% of Jews voted for Harris. NBC News put that number, the exit poll, 78% of Jews voted for Harris.

Donald Trump feared best in the Fox News AP exit polls. 66% of Jews voted for Harris. But it's probably by the time they get everything together, it's going to get up where it always is, which we've said on this show before. It's usually 70, 71, 72, 73% of Jews vote for the Democratic candidate year in and year out. The only exception to that, Ronald Reagan in 1980 got 40 percent of the Jewish vote.

Yeah, Jewish women in particular, I think, were the second biggest voting bloc for Kamala Harris. So the Democrats can still rely on the support of Jewish voters, this time around, because America is still seen as the friend of Israel. And Joe Biden flew there right after the attacks of October last year, and he embraced Netanyahu. And whilst there's been friction there, it's certainly the case that Joe Biden has stood by the Israeli government more so than so than clearly Arab American voters in Michigan would have liked.

They were the surprising voting bloc for Donald Trump. When you look at the Dearborn area, the number of Arab Americans who didn't just stay home or vote for Jill Stein, although 18 percent of them voted for Jill Stein, they actually voted for Donald Trump. This is the president who said he was going to have a Muslim registry. He didn't do it. But when he came in in 2016, that's what he said he wanted to do. He wanted to ban people coming from predominantly Muslim countries.

But they were so fed up of the treatment of people in Gaza that they were prepared to vote for Donald Trump as a protest vote.