Morning Joe - Morning Joe 9/4/24

Episode Date: September 4, 2024

Poll: Close race across six battleground states

The first debate between Vice President Harris and former President Trump is just one week away. Apparently in her debate prep, Harris is focusing on ways to rattle Trump. Yep, she wants to rattle Trump right now. She's deciding whether to wear a jacket that says IRS or FBI. Good morning. Welcome to Morning Joe. It's Wednesday, September 4th, along with Joe, Willie, and me. Is it September already? What? It is. It is September. It's school time. It's Wednesday, September 4th. Along with Joe, Willie and me. Is it September already?

What? It is. It's September. It's school time. It's fall's coming. It's summer's over. Nothing to weep about. Just an election straight ahead. Along with Joe, Willie and me, we have the host of Way Too Early, White House Bureau Chief at Politico, John Lamere. Chief White House Correspondent for The New York Times, Peter Baker. And New York Times opinion columnist David French joins us this morning.

Good to have you all with us. Great to have everybody with us. And Willie, I will tell you, Jonathan Lemire, Mike Barnicle and I will certainly tell you that summer is likely over. And as Barnicle would say, shutters, time to put the shutters on the windows. The season's over you know red sox uh desperately i mean the royals who keep losing uh and the twins uh they they all want the red sox desperately to get into the playoffs uh unfortunately the the red sox will will not go along with it and they keep losing as well i think even you guys would say this has been a pleasant surprise in Boston for most of the season.

I think you would project it a last-place finish. You always do, you guys, too. Yeah, every – But kind of tailing off a little at the end, you caught us at the top of the show there coming out of Jimmy's bit, lamenting, though, the Yankees' bullpen. That's what John and I were addressing. That's our top story this morning.

Clay Holmes at 11th, blown save in Texas last night. Not good with the playoffs looming, John. Oh, I don't mind. No, I mean, I think it's clear that the Yankees, who have had a terrific season, but have a glaring weakness, and there are few things that undermine a team's postseason chances than an unreliable closer. And the Yankees cannot have any faith in Clay Holmes right now. He blew his 11th save of the year last night, giving up this walk-off grand slam. Walk-off grand slam to the Texas Rangers rookie, Wyatt Langford. It is a real Achilles heel for this team. They have now slipped behind the Orioles by a half game in the AL East.

But at least they'll be playing in October. They'll be playing in October. We will not beat Joe. I didn't mean for John to enjoy this. I'm just reveling in Joe. Listen, you know, the way you're supposed to do this, and I guess Jonathan's not used to the southern foremouthing. Let me tell you something.

The Yankees right now, they're getting themselves ready. Okay? They're resting. They're setting it up right before they go into the kick. They're going to win the World Series. I bet they're going to beat the Dodgers in five games. That's what you're supposed to do, Jonathan. All right, let me try that again.

Lower expectations. Self-deprecate. But I will say, going back to the Red Sox, because I know with all these new polls out that are showing a dramatic shift in the race, people want to hear us keep hearing about Major League Baseball. No, I actually have the news here. You know, Willie, the Royals have lost seven in a row. Seven in a row.

If the Red Sox had gone 500 over the last seven games, it would be like within a game, game and a half of the playoffs. We're four and a half back now, but again, they just don't want to win it. I will say, with 30 games left, four and a half games is not insurmountable. Anything can happen. There you go, Jonathan. Did you see how good that is? How easy it is to be gracious?

So, Jonathan, what do you think about the Yankees, Jensen? You have five seconds. Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Yankees, between now and November 1st, the Yankees likely running the table. They're setting themselves up. They're getting some other arms in the mix. They're just too good. They're just too good.

You say that, and you know, Willie, I'm going to be right there next to you cheering with you every step of the way. Right. What? Jonathan, can you do that? I know. I mean, that's a little much. That's a little much. Let's get to the news. We do have a new poll out this morning showing a close race for the White House across six battleground states. The NSSRS poll finds Vice President Kamala Harris with an advantage over former President Donald Trump among likely voters in Wisconsin, 50 to 44 percent, as well as in Michigan, where she's up 48 to 43 percent. Harris is also up by one in both Georgia and Nevada, while the two are deadlocked in Pennsylvania with 47 percent each. Trump, meanwhile, is up in Arizona, 49 to 44 percent. Interesting. We should note that all these races fall within the polls margin. I mean,

how big are these margins of errors? I mean, there'll be one race where Harris will get by 47 points and we say, well, it's within the margin of error. Well, I guess it's five. Is it five? I don't know, but she's up six points in Wisconsin. Four point nine. So I think six is outside. I don't know. Anyway. So, Willie, you know, these polls, again, all over the place. There's some polls that show we're ahead in Arizona, behind in Michigan. But the bottom line is, again, as I always said when I was in politics, as I've said since I've got out of politics. It's not about the exact number. It's about trend lines. And if you look at trend lines, things are looking very good right now in early September with a long way to go. But things are looking very good over the past three weeks for Kamala Harris. Yeah. I mean, whoever the candidate was at the top of the

Democratic ticket, it was still going to be a close race. But I think what Democrats are doing is comparing this to the parallel universe in which Joe Biden be a close race. But I think what Democrats are doing is comparing this to the parallel universe in which Joe Biden stayed in the race and he was trailing. And those trend lines you're talking about were headed in the wrong direction. Kamala Harris has stepped in over the last month and reversed that. So, yes, she's outside of the margin of error in Wisconsin in this poll. She's right there in Michigan as well. Pennsylvania closer than they'd like it to be. But we've always known these states were going to be that close. What she's done is flip some of them, at least momentum wise, and in some of these actual numbers in her direction.

There's also something we're looking at closely here is where she sits on the issues. There's a USA Today Suffolk University poll in which Kamala Harris leads Donald Trump among likely voters 48 to 43. But when it comes to the economy, a top concern for voters, 51 percent favor Trump versus 45 for Harris. But in June, Trump had a 14 point advantage over President Biden. So, again, some growth there for her on immigration. Trump leads Harris by just three points now, 50 to 47. That's within the margin of error. That's down from Trump's 13 point lead over Joe Biden on the question of national security. Trump up 51 percent, 46 over Harris, down from a 10 point advantage Trump held over Biden.

You see the trend here on the issue of health care. Harris has a double digit lead, 54 to 40 percent over Trump. That's up from a 10 point advantage Joe Biden held in June. So there, John, again, trend lines, not just in the polling overall, but on specific issues that Democrats felt like they had to pull back and at least get closer to Donald Trump. No doubt that those margins have really shrunk. That is very encouraging for Democrats. The Harris team circulating numbers similar. The internals look like this as well. They're still down, but they've closed the gaps and they think there is room to grow. And back to the battleground states. I mean, those Michigan and Wisconsin numbers are so positive for Harris and show real trends. But there are two states in particular that jump out there. And this election might come down to those two states, Georgia, Pennsylvania. And they're basically one point or tie. And because Michigan and Wisconsin, not enough for Harris.

She needs to get one of those two. And it is in her campaign. And Democrats have privately been noting for a while that her numbers in Pennsylvania lag behind where they are in Wisconsin and Michigan and those three blue wall states. And that's why she's she's going to be camping out there this coming week, campaigning in the Pittsburgh area ahead of that first debate. President Biden was just there on her behalf. He'll keep going there. Pennsylvania, a huge, huge state for her. And if she can't win there, then she needs to offset that with Georgia, where she's had real enthusiasm. But natural disadvantages there for a Democrat. It is very, very, very close. You know, it's it's a fascinating Peter Baker. We it's very easy to look at the cynicism that's displayed by politicians and become cynical yourself. And on the issue of immigration, where Donald Trump kills the toughest border security bill in the last 30 years and say,

don't don't vote for it, blame it on me. You know, we don't want to give this issue to the Democrats. It's very easy to sit back and become cynical yourself. I'm talking about myself, not you as a reporter, but to go, my gosh, you know what? They're going to get away with this. This cynicism that how could you know, are people going to really be this dumb? You look at these polls. The answer is no, they're not. I mean, you look at three point margin on immigration when the first three years, as you know very well and reported on it, immigration has been a sore subject at the White House. The southern border at times has been chaotic. You look at the numbers of illegal immigrants that have come over in the first three years. This was a huge issue to Joe Biden. And then they tried to push that bill through. And it was Donald Trump and Republicans that killed the conservative border security bill.

And now you look at Kamala Harris has done exactly what politicians should do. Turn weaknesses into strengths. She has run straight at this issue. And you see a three point margin. I'm curious, are you surprised it's only three points or do you see all the things Harris has done up to this point making that make more sense? Yeah, look, this is really fascinating because you're right. I mean, if you watch Trump's rallies and I was looking through a bunch of them yesterday for for something I'm

working on, it is striking how much immigration is the core of his message this year, aside from the 2020 election. Everything comes back around to the border, to immigration. It is as if he was running a one-issue campaign at times. And if that issue isn't working for him, he's really going to have a hard time in the fall. And it's really fascinating. The three biggest vulnerabilities for the Biden-Harris administration domestically, I think, have been immigration, inflation and crime, all three of which at some point in their administration were pretty high, all three of which now are low. Right. So inflation is back

to a much more normal state. Immigration is as the illegal crossings are much reduced since President Biden took executive action after Congress failed to pass that bipartisan bill you talked about. And crime is at the lowest, I think, in many years, according to the latest statistic. Now, of course, prices haven't come down, but the increases are not happening the way they were. And yet that makes it harder for, I think, Trump to get traction on these issues if they're not as salient as they once were. And I think you're seeing that kind of flailing. Now, on the polls, one last thing I would mention. At Labor Day at this point in 2016, Hillary Clinton had a roughly 3.7 percent lead. Of course, she went on to lose. Joe Biden had about a seven point lead at this point in 2020, ended up winning by about four points. And of

course, Kamala Harris today has about 3.3% lead according to the average of by 538. So a little less than Hillary Clinton did eight years ago and significantly less than Joe Biden did. So, yes, she has changed the momentum. Absolutely. And those trend lines Willie and Joe are talking about are absolutely right. But it's worth remembering how close this is and how much these numbers are, you know, fluid and hard to predict. Yeah, I mean, this is such a close race. It's in effect tied, as Peter said, and it's really going to be turnout, turnout, turnout. Donald Trump yesterday lamenting that he got 77 million votes, more votes than he got the first time. But still, and he admitted it for the first time, I guess, lost by a whisker.

And that's because Democrats did a better job of getting out voters. So whoever gets more of their side out, it sounds obvious, but it's true. They win. It is it is, as always, it's a battle for getting out the vote. David French, I want to go to another issue, obviously an issue that matters a great deal to you, but an issue that has been turned upside down since Dobbs. And I've got to say, you know, I've said several times over the past couple of years that I really haven't seen an issue shift as dramatically as I've seen abortion shift in a very long time. It reminds me of Prop 13 in California in 1978 that really signified something big happening in 80 with the Reagan revolution starting in earnest. But you now have women under 45 saying the most important issue is not the economy anymore. It's abortion. You have Donald Trump flip flopping now saying he's going to be a champion of women's reproductive rights.

You have him saying that he will vote against the six week bill in Florida, the six week ban in Florida. He, of course, keeps shifting. He keeps going back and forth. You have the Texas race, according to the University of Houston poll in the Senate, getting very close in part because of abortion. Ted Cruz leading Colin Allred by two points and suddenly abortion not mentioned so much by Republicans anymore. Talk about the shifting landscape and what challenges it poses, especially for Donald Trump, who, again, we've talked about evangelicals falling in line and their bargain, their cynical bargain, their bargain that I mocked from the very beginning, like supporting a pro-choice candidate who transparently shifted to be pro-life to get their vote. you know, and then they gave him a license to do

whatever he wanted to do. Now we're seeing once again that that cynical deal evangelicals made with Donald Trump seems to be going up in smoke. Yeah, it really is. And I'll tell you what happened is, you know, there are a lot of pro-life folks who justified supporting Trump because they said, yes, the strength and the tenacity to pursue pro-life goals more so than establishment Republicans or more normal Republicans, that he would be stronger actually on this issue. And now Republicans have ended up with the most watered down pro-life plank. It's not even really a pro-life plank. It's more functionally pro-choice than any time in decades, in decades. And then Trump himself flip-flopping all over the place, first saying the Florida six-week ban is too strict, indicating he might vote for this

pro-choice amendment, then flopping back at that after a lot of online outrage. It's an absolute mess. And I would say if you talk to a smart, reasonable pro-life activist, they would not have foreseen the would have not have foreseen the total public backlash that has been ongoing since Dobbs, that that has taken an awful lot of people by surprise. The pro-life movement hasn't fully reacted to that. And Donald Trump is the worst possible standard bearer. You know, David, and how ironic is it that we conservatives, you and I, we are conservatives. Trump Republicans are not conservatives. I said it. You don't have to say it. But we conservatives warned for years and railed for years against against pushing things on Americans by judicial fiat. And instead of going out and winning on this issue, winning through the hearts

and minds of Americans, winning democratically in elections and in grassroots, the Republicans said, Donald Trump Republicans said, we're just going to win at the Supreme Court. The hell with what everybody else thinks. We're just going to win at the Supreme Court. And and and we'll take that as a victory and run with it. And what happened? Well, exactly what we conservatives said would happen. The same thing that happened when liberal judges passed things that were out of line with what mainstream voters, what middle class Americans wanted. Well, look, I'm going to say I supported Dobbs. I thought Roe was wrongly decided. I thought Dobbs was rightly decided. But what you began to see happen was there was so because you had abandoned anybody who

could go to the big American middle and make that pro-life case, make that case in a way that people could hear it and understand it because you went away from somebody like that towards a Donald Trump. What happened is the pro-life movement was not ready for the post-Roe world. The post-Roe world was going to be democracy. The post-Roe world was going to be people voting. And in embracing Donald Trump, in many ways, what happened is you repelled the people who might otherwise vote for you.

And so now there hasn't even been a pro-life referendum that's won or a pro-life vote that's been won in a referendum, even in red states since Dobbs, and the movement is reeling right now. Yeah, it really is. I mean, you look before Dobbs, there were polls, most polls showed, Mika, that the plurality of Americans supported. Well, what? Mississippi's law was that was challenged that led to Dobbs, which was a 16 week window for for abortions, which, by the way, is what most European countries had at that time, which like France, Germany, others, about 16 week a ban. But now that's changed dramatically. So much has changed dramatically post-Obs and it's really impacting elections in a dramatic way in places like Kansas, Kentucky, conservative states.

Well, Trump can flip-flop all he wants on abortion, but the resounding truth is what he did with the overturning of Roe and his taking the credit for that because he can. And that resounding truth is playing out across America. So I'm not sure his flip-flops just show him more to be the Wizard of Oz, more to be someone who lies to get. I mean, it started out as a Democrat people. I think as this story plays out for women across America and the men who love them, this is going to be the issue that takes him down. Well, I mean, he's not so crazy about this flip flopping on abortion and saying he's going to be a champion of reproductive rights and saying that he's against nobody can the Florida ban. He's not going to be a champion of reproductive rights and saying that he's against the Florida ban,

he's not going to win over people who are pro-choice. And all he's going to do is depress the pro-life vote, the evangelical vote. So it's a lose-lose for him. The youngest son of the late Senator John McCain is endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for president. Jimmy McCain says the incident last week involving Donald Trump's campaign staff at Arlington National Cemetery convinced him to switch affiliation from an independent to a Democrat and support Harris this fall. McCain, who recently returned from deployment at a military base in Jordan, said Trump's campaign violated a sacred place by taking photos and video in an area where they are normally prohibited. Arlington Cemetery is sacred to all people who have all people are members of the military. All people have served in the uniform. It's a sacred area.

There's three generations of McCainains that are buried there. It's a violation because these rules are set in place. The people who are buried there don't have an opinion. The point of Arlington Cemetery is to go and show respect for the men and women who have given their lives to this country. When you make it political, you take away the respect of the people who are there. Peter Baker, that's Jimmy McCain, John McCain's son. We had Jeffrey Goldberg on yesterday talking about his new book, which kind of points to that McCain moment in July of 2015 as the canary in the coal mine, as a red flag that he criticized the heroism and the service of John McCain. Most people thought that's it, especially

inside a Republican primary. You don't do that, you're done. And he went on, of course, to become the nominee and then the president of the United States. So this is a little bit of a not surprising moment, perhaps, given the way that Donald Trump has talked about John McCain and his family, but notable nonetheless,

because Jimmy McCain, who served, also talks about the offense that he saw as a military family in not just what Donald Trump did at Arlington last week or his team did at Arlington last week, but over the last decade or so. Yeah, there's a disconnect between former President Trump and the culture of military service. Right. He told John Kelly, his second chief of staff, when they visited John Kelly's son's grave, that he didn't understand what was in it for soldiers who went into combat. He said to Kelly, according to Kelly anyway, that those who went to war were suckers and losers. Of course, he's denied that. But President Trump did not go to war. He had bone spurs that were

diagnosed in his feet from by a podiatrist who apparently was doing a favor for his father to get out of service in Vietnam. And so I think for a lot of military people, there's something, you know, about former President Trump that doesn't understand the values and the virtues that military people feel. Remember, he told General Kelly at one point while he was president, he says, you know, his effing generals, I don't understand. Why aren't you like the German generals? And Kelly says, what are you talking about? And he says, the German generals in World War Two, you mean

Hitler's generals? Yes, they were very loyal, former President Trump said at that time. Well, Kelly had to remind actually they tried to kill Hitler several times. So, you know, his idea of the military is that they are political and answer to him, that they are to be loyal servants of him. That is, of course, what Mark Milley, the Joint Chiefs chairman, he appointed himself, resisted in those final months of the administration. In fact, he wrote a secret resignation letter. He was so upset at the way he saw Trump politicizing the military that he was going to step down, put the letter in a drawer and decided to stay. He says, I'm going to fight, he says, in order to keep Trump from abusing the power of the military for political purposes in those last

days in office. You know, of course, Mike Flynn shows up in the White House with a plan that essentially would declare martial law over the country in order to reinstate or to keep President Trump in power. So his relationship with the military is a fascinating and important one. And I think there is, you know, obviously he's popular with a lot of people in the military. If you do these rallies, you'll see a lot of veterans there. He absolutely does speak to them in a lot of ways. But a lot of people who have the feeling of the culture of the place, people like Jimmy McCain and John McCain before he passed and John Kelly really resent Trump's attitude toward the military. And Jimmy McCain, you really see a little bit of John McCain's legacy living on. If you look at his political life, he often made decisions that

were hard and that went against the grain, but they were the right thing, the patriotic thing to do. Country first. There you go. And Jimmy McCain. Peter Baker, thank you very much. Time now for a look at some of the stories making headlines this morning. House Republicans have subpoenaed Secretary of State Anthony Blinken to testify about the

deadly U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Congressman Mike McCaul, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, says Blinken must appear on September 19th or face contempt charges. The State Department calls the subpoena disappointing, noting the secretary has already given congressional testimony on the matter 14 times. This is a political ploy, Nothing but a political ploy. You look at what they're doing in September, what they're doing on the night of the day of the debate. Again, you look at the timing and they're rolling out a political campaign on Capitol Hill

when you have Blinken doing his best to help release hostages. That's one day. That's priorities. After Trump's sentencing. Donald Trump has been ordered by a federal judge to stop playing the song, Hold On, I'm Coming to the campaign trail. It comes as the family of one of the song's co-writers, Isaac Hayes, pursues a lawsuit against the former president over its use.

The judge, however, denied a request to force the campaign to take down any existing videos that include the song. And thousands of teachers and school staffers across the country could lose their jobs as COVID-19 funds drive up. Districts are now scrambling to balance their budgets and place unfunded staffers into different roles. Schools serving low income students will be hit the hardest because initially they received more federal relief. We'll follow that. And still ahead on Morning Joe, Donald Trump admits he lost the 2020 election. We'll play that new sound for you. Plus, a judge denies the former president's second request to move his hush money case to federal court. We'll have the latest on

Trump's legal troubles. You're watching Morning Joe. We're back in 90 seconds. I became president. Then the second time I got millions more votes than I got the first time. I was told if I got 63 million, which is what I got the first time, you would win. You can't not win. And I got millions of more votes than that. And lost by a whisker. Lost by a whisker. Donald Trump yesterday admitting he did, in fact, lose the 2020 race to President Joe Biden. You know, John, he's said for whatever it's been, four years now,

again and again, how could I lose when I got 11 million more votes than I got in 2020? The way you lose is the other person you're running against gets many more votes than you got. So he got 63 million in 2016. He did get 74 million votes in 2020. The problem was Joe Biden got 81 million votes, which is how this works. Yeah, I can't argue with the math there, Willie. Yeah, I mean, the former President Trump, he's now he's a couple of times sort of slipped up and acknowledged that he lost. We should remember, of course, that he after November 2020, after that election day, he was told repeatedly by fellow Republicans, by members of his own Kellyanne Conway and other aides, Trump acknowledged them. How could I have lost to Joe Biden? He knows he lost. And let's remember, though, he pushed the big lie for four years that fueled the January 6th insurrection. It has fueled dozens of criminal charges against him. And of course, we know hundreds of people have been convicted of rioting there at the Capitol.

So this is probably a slip of the tongue yesterday. I doubt we'll get a graceful concession speech today from Donald Trump to Joe Biden acknowledging, you know what, I did actually lose in 2020. I'm sure he'll go back to pushing the lie again. And ending on a serious note here, he's already seemingly laying the groundwork this time around as well. Not suggesting that he will lose, but saying that if he does lose, well, it had to have been rigged. It had to have been stolen from me. Something's wrong with it, which could again fuel doubts in a supporter's mind and many officials fear violence again. Hopefully the difference now is the country is prepared for that. We couldn't have really

imagined a president not conceding the election and leading a group of his supporters to the Capitol in an attempted insurrection. Yeah. And the other difference this time around, of course, would be he's not in power. Right. Last time in 2020, he had the levers of government at his disposal. This time around, he does not. And as you said, the court said again and again and again in 2020 that he lost the election and his own aides, as we saw out in the open during the January 6th committee hearings. His attorney general, Bill Barr, and others told him his claims that the election were stolen

were BS, to put it mildly. Meanwhile, a federal judge has denied former President Donald Trump's second attempt to move his New York hush money case to federal court. Trump argued the state judge presiding over the criminal case, Juan Mershon, is biased against him and that the United States Supreme Court's immunity ruling in July offers a valid federal defense for the hush money case. A U.S. district judge rejected both of those arguments yesterday. In response, Trump's attorneys filed a notice of appeal late last night. Judge Mershon has scheduled Trump's sentencing for September 18th. The former president found guilty, of course, on 34 felony counts earlier this year of falsifying business records to conceal payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Joining us now, former U.S. attorney and MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance. She's co-host of the Sisters in Law

podcast. Joyce, good morning. Always good to see you. So were you surprised by anything you heard yesterday in this rejection by the judge of the appeal from Trump's team? No, and that's a great way to ask the question, Willie. Nothing here is surprising. Trump had already tried this removal stunt back in July of last year, and the court told him no. Trump took an appeal then, but he abandoned that appeal. And the reason is pretty clear. The judge, Judge Hellerstein, held a hearing, looked at the evidence, looked at the facts and concluded that the case the Manhattan DA had brought was about purely private conduct. It was a hush money payment from Donald Trump to a porn star about an affair, nothing to do with the business of the presidency. Well, now Donald

Trump is trying it again. He's facing criminal sentencing in Manhattan on his 34 counts of conviction in two weeks. He's desperate to stop that. But the judge said, look, we've already taken a look at this. There's nothing new here. I won't even give you permission to file these removal papers. And that's the key here. The first time you try to remove a case,

you can do that automatically. But the second time you need permission from the court. So the fight here isn't actually about the merits of removal. It's about whether or not the judge was correct to say you don't get to do it a second time. The judge supported that decision very precisely, saying that there's nothing new. This is untimely and you can't do it again, Mr. Trump. So, Joyce, as you said, that sentencing two weeks from today, September 18th, obviously in the middle of the stretch run here of the presidential campaign. But there has been some speculation that that date could slide, that the Trump's team has asked for delays. The Manhattan D.A.'s office has suggested openness to it as the judge sorts out whether or not this immunity decision by the Supreme Court really

applies here. How do you read this going forward? Do you think two weeks from today that sentencing actually occurs? It depends on how the appellate courts handle this. And if they take the approach Judge Hellerstein took and simply reject Trump's efforts to reinsert this old argument back into the case, then we could be on track for the 18th. But there's the possibility that this goes up to the Supreme Court and that there's some delay there. I wouldn't expect them, by the way, to reverse Judge Hellerstein's decision. They'll review it for an abuse of discretion. And he's clearly well within his discretion to deny Trump this permission. But it could take some time. And we know that with

Donald Trump, delay is always a win. Sounds like even the appellate process could take some time if I'm hearing you right. Could that at least delay the sentencing? When are these appellate decisions going to be coming down that would impact whether or not he can delay his sentencing? And do you know by any chance who is paying for his legal fees for all of this? Well, I think that's the big question, right? Whether or not it's Donald Trump's supporters who are paying through their donations, as has often been the case. When it comes to the appellate courts, Mika, they get to set their own timelines. And so we could see very prompt action. But we've often seen the Supreme Court recently in cases involving Donald Trump take a gracious plenty of time before they issue their decisions.

And that's frankly how the court system works. It's something that's been frustrating for many of us watching these cases. They can slow this matter down only to ultimately reject Donald Trump's effort to delay the sentencing after he has succeeded in delaying the sentencing. Hopefully they'll act promptly here. Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, thank you. As always, we appreciate your coming on this morning. And David French, your latest piece for The New York Times is entitled The Loneliness Epidemic Has a Cure. And in it, you write in part this. What is the most important single thing that you can do to heal our national divides and to improve the social and economic mobility of your struggling neighbors. I'd submit that it's not voting for the right candidate, though you

certainly should do that, nor is it engaging in activism to raise visibility for a worthy cause, though I endorse that as well. Instead, it's something that is at once much simpler, but also much more difficult. Make a new friend. Millions of Americans are lonely. They feel sad, mad, and stuck. They're alienated from their communities and angry at their predicament, and they don't feel that they have many options to improve their lives. But friendship can help fix each of those problems. With fellowship comes joy. With connection comes opportunity. There are few higher and better callings

than to forge a bond with a person and provide a place where they belong. And David, it's beautiful, the piece. I'll let you end with a final thought on that. I also think make a friend or reach out and help someone who needs help. Yeah, thank you, Mika. It was inspired by the American Social Capital Survey from the American Enterprise Institute. And it found that Americans who had a high school diploma or less had far fewer friends than Americans who had a college degree or more. And this is causing

all kinds of problems. They have less social support. They have less sense of a belonging. And that lack of belonging and that lack of social support means less economic mobility, more sadness. And so, in a very real way, a lot of our problems in politics are related to the fact that people don't have those personal connections in their lives. And I think that each of us has a responsibility to reach out to our neighbors in a way that's going to make them feel as if they belong here in this country and their community and their neighborhoods. And that could go a long way towards curing a lot of the angst and anxiety that we feel in this nation. And when you reach out, it's not by text, OK? We're talking about like really reaching out, OK, like knocking on the door. All right, David, thank you. Coming up, one race for U.S. Senate in Florida could determine the balance of power in Congress.

The Democratic nominee, former Congresswoman Debbie McCarcell Powell, will be our guest. But first, bestselling biographer Max Boot joins us with his new look at the life and legend of former President Ronald Reagan. Morning Joe will be right back. My optimism comes not just from my strong faith in God, but from my strong and enduring faith in man. In my 80 years, I prefer to call that the 41st anniversary of my 39th birthday, I've seen what men can do for each other and do to each other. I've seen war and peace, feast and famine, depression and prosperity, sickness and health. I've seen the depths of suffering and the peaks of triumph. And I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and that there is purpose and worth to each and every life.

Those former President Ronald Reagan, nearly three years after leaving office, at the dedication of his presidential library. Reagan's life from humble beginnings in Illinois through his two terms in the White House is subject of a new comprehensive biography titled Reagan, His Life and Legend. And the New York Times bestselling author of the book, Max Boot, joins us now. He's also a columnist for The Washington Post and senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations. Max, I'll turn it over to the table in a bit. But first, I want to ask you a couple of questions. And I was struck last night. I saw someone who grew up a conservative, loving Ronald Reagan, who now

basically bows at the feet of Orban, supports the appeasement of Vladimir Putin in Ukraine, and still claims a mantle of Ronald Reagan. Explain those contradictions. Well, it's hard to explain, Joe, except to say that the Republican Party has been drifting ever further to the right ever since roughly 1964, when Barry Goldwater was the nominee. And what you saw was that Ronald Reagan was obviously further to the right than Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. And now, of course, we're in a situation where Donald Trump and people who support Trump are very far to the right of

Ronald Reagan and such that every generation of Republicans who has come before is then denounced by the by the next generation as being sellouts or rhinos or people who aren't really Republicans. But in fact, the party has gone so far to the right today that I think that the previous generation and folks like Ronald Reagan, who at one time was a Republican icon, would not recognize what the party has become. You know, David French, I'll give you the next question. I've got to say, though, it's fascinating that just like people who call themselves evangelicals don't use it, David French, as a description of their faith. Can you show me David French, please? OK, they don't use the term evangelical as a description of their faith. They use it as a

cultural marker. We see the same thing with Reagan. People that have no idea what Ronald Reagan stands for are against 90 percent of Ronald Reagan stood for, whether you talk about free trade, whether you talk about immigration, whether you talk about standing up to Russian aggression. I could go I could go down the list whether you talk about being conservative, ideologically and moderate temperamentally, working with Democrats, working with Tip O'Neill types. I mean, there's such there's such a radical difference that, again, just like, you know, Tim Keller saying I don't call myself an evangelical because it's now a political phrase. I feel the same thing about people who claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan. Yeah, it's amazing. You know, the number of Republicans

I run into who actually will believe and say that Trump is an heir to Reagan is amazing to me. There is this really remarkable con job that is taking place, I think, within the Republican Party, where very many Republicans actually still believe that the current Republican Party is part of that Reagan legacy when it is a direct repudiation of that legacy. And this gap, this gap between what Trumpism is and what Ronald Reagan and who Ronald Reagan was and what he believed is immense. But it's surprising to me constantly that ordinary everyday Republicans often don't recognize that. And I think one question I'd have for Max would be, is he seeing any element of that Reagan legacy still remnant, still remaining in a way that could be ignited again? Well, there are certainly aspects of the Reagan legacy that are still around, but I think we also

need to be fair and objective. And this is, you know, this book that I wrote is not meant to be, it's neither a hagiography nor a hit job. It's really trying to tell the story of Reagan in a fair and balanced way. And I think when we do that, we also have to see that it wasn't all positive. It wasn't all sweetness and light. Reagan also had failures and weaknesses. And while there's much more, many more differences than resemblances between Reagan and today's Republican Party, there are also some disturbing trend lines that have continued over the decades, including the fact that Reagan did engage in white backlash politics. He did use fake facts. There were aspects, you know, he ignored a pandemic just as Donald Trump did. There are

aspects of Reagan's legacy where you can see, oh, this is how the Republican Party got from there to here. Even though I think the differences are much greater than the similarities, I think you also have to understand that there are also some disturbing continuities. And so I think we have to wrestle with the real Reagan, not just with the legend or the myths that have grown up around him. We've seen Max over the last several years, and we played on this show, Ronald Reagan's farewell speech in January of 1989, where he stopped and very deliberately took a moment to talk about immigration and how important it is to the country and the beauty as he saw it and people coming

to this country and becoming Americans. Boy, what a contrast, obviously, to Donald Trump, who began his political career talking about murderers and rapists flowing over the border and chance of build that wall, all that. When did that divide happen in the Republican Party? In other words, how did we get from that speech and Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump in 2015 and 16? Well, that is really that is definitely one of the biggest differences between Reagan and Trump and the fact that Reagan did have, I would argue, a somewhat troubling record

on civil rights because he was opposed to civil rights legislation. But he was very positive on immigration. He was very pro-immigration throughout his career. In fact, you know, in the 1980 campaign, he was talking about getting rid of the borders between the U.S. and Mexico. This was the genesis of NAFTA. You know, in 1986, he signed an immigration bill that legalized millions of undocumented immigrants, what Republicans today would call a quote unquote amnesty bill. And as you mentioned in his farewell address, he gave a very moving tribute to the way that Americans have built. America was built by immigrants. So that's a huge difference. But I think there was always an element of the Republican Party that

was very uncomfortable with that. There was always that more nativist element in the Republican Party. And I think it became more pronounced over time. You saw it in the early 2000s when John McCain and other Republicans were trying to get a balanced immigration bill. And remember, a little bit more than a decade ago, Marco Rubio and others were in favor of a balanced immigration bill that included legalizing undocumented immigrants as well as increasing border security. And that was blown up by opposition from the hard right. And basically now it's the hard right, the far right, the populist nativist right that has taken over the Republican Party. So, Max, certainly that was Reagan's political influence. But talk to us about how his life really represents a changing America in the 20th century, in the time that he lived.

It's a fascinating trajectory because, you know, he was born in 1911 in small town, Illinois. And I like to say that he was kind of born on the real Main Street, USA, which became a ride in Disneyland. But when he was growing up, that was the reality in small towns like Tampico and Dixon. And, you know, rural America, very traditional America. You know, his parents only had a grade school education. They were very impoverished. His father was a shoe salesman. They lost one. He lost one job after another. They moved from town to town. But, you know, the center of his life was football and going to church. And then, of course, you know, he graduated from college in 1932 and graduated into the Great Depression. And I don't think anybody could have possibly imagined how America would change by the time he was president in the 1980s with, you know,

nuclear missiles capable of destroying the world in 30 minutes with computers, all these other tremendous inventions. And it's really a tribute to Reagan that he was he came from this very different America. And yet he was able to look at the future with hope and optimism and to help guide America into a different era in the 1980s. I want to ask you, Max, just as now a biographer of Ronald Reagan, about how for other biographers, he seemed to be impenetrable, finding the real Reagan beneath the Hollywood veneer. wrote some of the greatest biographies on TR, just completely collapsed under the strain of being Reagan's official biographer. And then, of course, Rick Perlstein, who I think wrote two of the best books I've ever read about the conservative movement in America before the storm about Barry Goldwater's rise and then Nixon land. But again, the same thing appeared to happen to him when he he approached Reagan. And again, it was it seems

that Reagan was always confounding to his biographers, even those who worked for him for 30 years and sometimes even his own children found him impenetrable. Why is that? And did you have a problem as his biographer finding the, quote, real Reagan? I think you're certainly onto something, Joe, because Reagan was always sort of hiding in plain sight. He always seemed very amiable, very personable, very friendly. And yet there was always this kind of icy reserve, this distance that he always had from other people. Even Nancy Reagan said that there was always a part of him that was walled off even from her. And I think that really is rooted in his childhood, where, as we were just discussing

a second ago, he would move from town to town. And so he didn't really make a lot of friends. He always was kind of removed from other kids because he knew he was not going to be around for very long. And he also, you know, had a painful upbringing, hearing arguments between his parents, a lot of strife in the home. And so he became somebody who kind of did not really make friends very well and also somebody who shied away from from personality conflicts. He didn't who never wanted to get too close to anybody. And so he always, you know, he kind of used his jokes and his stories, the way that he interacted with people as kind of a shield against people, because fundamentally, and this is one of the paradoxes of Ronald Reagan, who was the great communicator and somebody that everybody thought that they knew

he was, in fact, you know, very, very reserved. And Stu Spencer, his longtime political consultant and one of the best people I interviewed for this book, said to me, you know, Reagan would have made a pretty good hermit because he didn't really need anybody. He was happy at the end of the day, just sitting in front of the TV, watching, you know, Bonanza or Gunsmoke or reading his magazines or books. You know, he wasn't somebody who wanted to go out and he was not a glad hander. He was actually somewhat shy and reserved. But then he when he was on a stage, when he was speaking to the nation, he turned into somebody else. You're so reserved. I remember reading Mike Deaver, who was, of course, with him for so long,

saying that he worked for Reagan for decades and never once did he forget that he was nothing more than a staffer. Right. I mean, just because there was, again, sort of that icy reserve, just it was just who Ronald Reagan was, that it was, again, impenetrable for most people. Yeah, you know, Joe, the funny thing. So I was going to say the funny thing is, you know, people say that he had no friends, but I actually discovered that he did have a couple of friends when he was president. And those were his ranch hands, Dennis LeBlanc and Barney Barnett, these former California state police officers who used to protect him. And those were actually, I discovered the people he was closest to. It wasn't the Alfred Bloomingdale's and all the other tycoons that he hobnobbed with. That was Nancy's crowd. What Ronald Reagan actually liked to do was to go out and chop wood and and ride horses and just, you know,

be one of the guys with these two blue collar friends that he had on the ranch. And those were the people he was actually close to. The new book entitled Reagan, His Life and Legend goes on sale next Tuesday, September 10th. New York Times bestselling author Max Boot. Thank you very much for sharing that with us this morning. We appreciate it. Congratulations. And New York Times opinion columnist David French. Thank you as well for your piece.

Any final thoughts? Yeah, great piece. Any final thoughts? No, I'm just gobsmacked into looking back at that Reagan legacy and the gap between then and now. And I think it's always worth remembering what could have been, perhaps can be again, or what once was, perhaps can be again.