Morning Joe - Report: Trump considering striking Iran before midterms

Episode Date: October 8, 2026

October 8, 2026 – 6am:Report: Trump considering striking Iran before midtermsTrump rallies for Paxton in third Texas trip in a monthTrump tries to walk back 'take out' Los Angeles, San Diego comments at another Texas rallyWSJ: Kimberly Guilfoyle pushed donor to wire $100,000 to her Amex accountRattner: 'striking similarities' between now and 2006 midterms, when GOP lost both House, SenateNY AG begins probe into alleged sexual assault at CornellMS NOW: ‘Cornell launches independent review of its response to gang rape allegations’ by Fallon GallagherExamining failed social conditions behind Cornell case To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

He said all of a sudden he's a vegan. You know, my wife told me, sir, do me favor. You have to do me just a little bit of a favor. It's not vegan. It's vegan. I don't know about that stuff. I'm not into it. And he said, it's vegan. Please pronounce that word properly.

I called it vegan, vegan. I thought it's, how the hell would I know? I like steak. She says hello to everybody. Melania says hello. Oh, good morning. President Trump last night in Texas with a rare Melania Sur story. We'll have more from that rally in San Antonio.

The president's third trip to the state in the month, he had some things to say that mirrored what he said a few days ago. Not cool about California cities. It comes as Republicans have spent a half a billion dollars on competitive House and Senate races across the country. Polling is showing so far, though, all that money does not seem to be making a difference yet. Meanwhile, a top Republican is admitting that all the redistricting the party did ahead of the midterms isn't

working out as well as they thought it would be. Good morning. And welcome to morning, Joe. It is Thursday, October 8th. With us, we have the co-host of our 8am hour staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire. Co-host of The Rest Is Politics Podcast, the BBC's Caddy Kay. You're like on world tour. We're lucky to have you in the studio today.

We're in Gramacy Theater tonight. Come on. In New York. We've been up in Toronto, Boston, another night in New York, and then we're heading down. Explains the autograph seekers out front on the way. The rest of the politics is literally... I wish they had been a merchandise thing. Look at...

You and the mooch of all people are making waves. Look at these crowds that you're getting. I dressed in red and white for the land of the resistance. Oh, my God. It was great. The Canadians were so nice. They are so unified behind Mark Carney. Wow. That's impressive. Yeah. Well, thank you for doing that for keeping this conversation going around the world. Also with us this morning contributing writer to the Atlantic. Eugene Robinson is with us and staff writer at the Atlantic. Mark Levevich is here. So we're going to start with Jonathan Lamar's new reporting. You and your colleague at the Atlantic, Nancy Yusuf, have exclusive reporting on the White.

House asking the Pentagon to develop strike options against Iranian targets that could be exercised ahead of November's midterm elections. Tell us what you found, what it portends, and what analysts believe this could potentially say about some of his strategies politically. So President Trump, for a while now, has been considering and has even hinted at publicly striking Iran again after the midterms. This is obviously a war that has not gone well for the president. It is deeply unpopular in a bit of a stalemate now. More oil has gotten through the straight-informers in recent weeks, but Iran has also stepped up the tax on tankers there, so there's more uncertainty. Gas prices remain really high. President Trump remains really frustrated. So what White House has done in recent

days, we report, has asked the Pentagon also to drop the possibility of striking Iran before the midterms, which would be a real surprise. And it is a divisive topic within his administration, within the Republican Party. Most strategists think that they want to don't do anything before the midterm because the war is so unpopular. Attacking Iran again would put it on the front page, return to the headlines. It would be deeply unpopular and hurt Republican chances in November, Mika. But there is some in the administration who believe that a strike now, even sort of a limited, almost like, for show strike would allow President Trump to look tough. Also, perhaps, allow him some ability to claim a victory, even like a false one, just to try to change the narrative

akin to the midterms. Now, we should be clear, no decision has been made. And there are some in the administration who believe, look, the Trump is getting his options, but won't follow through on this. And they don't think he'll strike before the midterms. He may not even strike after the midterms, but that does seem more likely. But the fact that they're even talking about this, Mika, shows how desperate their political situation is, where they know they cannot shake the war, the burden of this war on the White House and the party, and they're trying in any way to change the narrative. I don't see how a strike now, a limited strike, though, Jonathan would change the narrative very much,

because we've had this kind of this weird situation of a stop and start war, pretty much nonstop for the last three or four months, where there have been strikes, and then they stop, and then they they have been strikes, and they stop. And that in and of itself wouldn't change the gas prices between now and November, right? One strike. In fact, one strike is more likely to send the gas prices. short-term shooting up again. So how do they think this plays out? There's many in the administration who agree with that train of thought that those who are advocating the strike believe it could work

this way. First of all, it would depend where they hit. And if they do escalate and let's say hit around Karg Island, that would be a significant escalation, you know, in terms of, we haven't hit, you know, since months of that sort of degree. They also, they do look at the economic situation in Iran. And they're not wrong here, where they say that Iran's economy is really under strain right now. And there does seem to be increasing pressure within Tehran to take some sort of deal. So the thought is a strike now might be a bit of a push to sort of emboldened, they believe, the more moderates to push the hardliners into a deal. Like, hey, let's start taking, or at least start taking negotiations more seriously.

So even if Trump can point to that and say, look, Iran's coming back to the table. Maybe that's a step in the right direction. But none of these are good options. And that is what underlines this entire situation. Is that Trump has put himself in a mess of his own making. there is no easy way out and strikes whether they before the midterms or after the midterms aren't guaranteed

to bring Iran back to the table. The economic pressure does seem to be working but it's a very, very slow process and probably this won't be anything they decide here won't happen soon enough to save Republicans' chances an election day, which is only a month away. So let's take your exclusive reporting on this

and bring it with us into the next story. As we said, President Trump is back at the White House this morning after making his second visit to Texas in a week and his third trip to the state in a month. He held a rally last night in San Antonio for Republican U.S. Senate nominee Ken Paxton, who is trailing in several polls to the Democratic nominee James Tullerico. The president praised Paxton as perhaps the greatest attorney general in the United States, but spent most of his time criticizing Talarico.

The president did not address recently leaked recordings of Paxton talking about the impact the war with Iran is having on fuel prices, as well as complaints that his campaign was being run by operatives in Washington. The rally was interrupted at least a dozen times by demonstrators with some being led away by police. The president spoke about those disruptions and also referenced the comments that he made earlier. this week, about Iran, about Iran, possibly bombing to specific American cities. You know, many of these protesters are paid. You know that, right? Because you come in, and you know, they'll have like this perfect shirt on made by the best printer money can buy. And they all have, I love where they all have the same exact signs, all beautiful pink and purple and blue and all different colors. And they're perfect made by the same printer,

very expensive signs. They don't make these. signs. They don't make these signs. These are paid protesters. They're paid by enemies of our nation. But you want to see trauma? You want to see problems? And I said it the other day. Let them hit a missile into San Diego or Los Angeles on the way. Let them hit. You want to see a horror show? You want to see problems? Let them hit San Diego. Let them hit Los Angeles and you want to see some bad things happen. You want to see a country that would be in free fall. We're not going to let that happen. We protect our cities.

We protect our country. We're not letting that happen. So Eugene Robinson, I saw that last line, but at the same time, some historians and some who study the threat to democracy might look at that language. And then also tie it together with the depravity that we have seen over the past years, January 6th, pardoning January 6th rioters, then them going to commit crimes again. Pardon's all around for corruption. Don't even start me on ice and the depravity there. And the what some call concentration camps,

these detention centers, and people getting shot in the street and families being ripped apart and people being sent to countries that they don't even know anything about and didn't come from. So you look at the depravity that we have become used,

to, and you hear something like that, some analysts, some historians who study the threats to democracy might see this as a very dangerous provocation weeks before an election. Well, look, it is shocking to hear a president of the United States say, you know, quote, let them hit San Diego, let them hit Los Angeles, whatever he's trying to say, that is a dangerous and shocking way to say it. And what I'm waiting for are the apologies from all the Trump apologists who said, when he said this the first time, oh, he's taken out of context. That's not what he meant.

That's not really what he said. And these convoluted explanations of how the president didn't actually say, let them get San Diego or in Los Angeles, and then he says it again. No, that's what he meant to say. It is absolutely. You touched on an interesting thing, though, Mika, which is that we almost become inured to this sort of thing. Every single day, Donald Trump says multiple things that would have been shocking, would have been weeks long. stories if said by any previous president in the history of the United States.

But they come out, you know, 10, 15, 20 a day and people become somewhat numb to them. This one seems to have it. Can I have a question from the class? It's not just say. If you look at, you know, the two major events that I've mentioned, January 6th, there's, we do a long list, what's happening with ICE, this rogue force that's being pumped with money and now has shock, I guess, they're gloves to torture people. I mean, I'm not talking about just crazy things he's saying. He's following through. He has done

things that are beyond the norm, and that is the biggest understatement you will hear ever on Morning Joe. Because some of them are being questioned in court. and especially as it pertains to how people are being treated by ICE, unlawful, on American. Absolutely. Unlawful, un-American. And yes, he not only says things that are beyond the pale, but he does things that are clearly illegal and unconstitutional and un-American in the most fundamental ways. These ice shock gloves are, again, absolutely. stunning. You cannot imagine a government of the United States resorting to that sort of

cruelty and certainly bordering on torture, if not torturous, in this sort of way. But, hey, ICE feels it has the right just to shoot people. It certainly feels it has the right to detain and whole U.S. citizens who I think look like potential immigrants. It's, look, here's where we are. We've got to get ourselves out of this somehow. But this is a departure from 250 years of American tradition. Yeah, that's exactly right. And Meeke the Underscore report, Timothy Snyder,

is one of the historians who's really warned about this. He wrote on tyranny, on freedom. carrying out freedom, including how President Trump sort of adores the various dictators around the world. Yesterday he was very excited to call that or Putin, which had a happy birthday. He said so in the Oval office yesterday. So Mark Leavich, certainly, yes, one of our favorites of the genre is when President Trump says something outrageous. Everyone around him rushes to say, no, no, no, you're wrong, fake news, you take it out of context, you're twisting it, and then Trump says it again, which is what happened yesterday. But my question to you is, how is this helping Republicans?

Yes, he's trying to justify, this is why we have to stop Iran because we can't let them have a weapon that could terrorize a West Coast city, okay. But this war has not gone well. As we've been talking about this morning, the U.S. is at least considering ramping it back up, at least for potentially political purposes. Yet this is something that poll after poll after poll show that Americans do not want. And frankly, a lot of Republicans don't want voters who went for Trump in 2024 want no part of his party this time around because of decisions he's made just like this. Yeah, I mean, obviously it's not helping, right? I mean, I think with this is all part of is that Donald Trump is very much living within a very, very, you know, singular bubble,

just the, his own sort of news feed, his own brain and so forth. I mean, on one hand, I mean, the larger context of the San Diego Los Angeles comments are this happened a few days ago, as you mentioned. It obviously triggered a lot of people, rightfully, and he kind of got off on that, and he just wanted to repeat it. I will say in fairness, the context of what he was saying just now. You know, there is a charitable view here, which is that he was talking, he was using San Diego in Los Angeles to cities in a very, very blue state, sort of his most favorite foil, which is California, as an example here.

But you could also read that as him saying, let them try, let them try to hit the United States of America, as if to say, we will retaliate, there will be hell to pay, and so forth. So maybe he was saying that, you know, obviously irresponsibly, loose talk. I mean, that's his MO. But he was saying it in a way that sort of was sort of underscoring a kind of chest thumping, you know, how dare you kind of thing. As for Paxton and the Texas thing, this is only happening because Donald Trump endorsed Ken Paxton. It's pretty likely that John Cornyn, a far more electable, probably much better candidate,

would be the nominee right now if Donald Trump hadn't sort of gone against the advice with a lot of people and endorsed Paxton, who he feels personally loyal to. And this is obviously not going very well, and it's costing Republicans and the assorted PACs around it, hundreds of millions of dollars. I mean, they are just devoting so much time, of the president's time, so many resources to Texas, to somehow try to save Ken Paxton doesn't seem to be working.

So this is all because of Trump. We have a lot more to get to. Still ahead on Morning Joe, former President Barack Obama is ramping up his support for Democrats ahead of the midterms. We have an exclusive first look at his latest endorsement in one key Senate race. Plus, 16 years after winning an Oscar for the Social Network, screenwriter Aaron Sorkin is back with his follow-up film, The Social Reckoning. He'll join us here on set later this morning.

And as we go to break, a quick look at the Travelers forecast this morning from Acqueweather's Bernie Reno. Bernie, how's it looking? Mecca, Hurricane East Aeus will be turning toward the United States and strengthening today and tomorrow before making landfall around 11 o'clock Friday night, eastern time near Pensacola, Florida. Damaging storm surge and wind right along the coast, and then rain and severe weather spreads from south to north across the southeast this weekend. Now, it's the calm before the storm today and even tomorrow, beautiful day across the northeast, sunshine in Boston, New York City. nice state in Chicago, dry weather across Texas of much of the southeast. Watch for the thunderstorms, though, Tampa, Orlando, and Miami in your Ackyweather Travel Forecast, that's where we have the delays. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, download the Acuether app today.

22 past the hour. Time now for a look at the morning paper, starting with USA Today. Convicted Killer Krista Pike is conscious, talking, and making an unprecedented recovery following last week's botched execution attempt in Tennessee. The 50-year-old inmates survived two doses of a lethal injection and was rushed to a hospital. It's not clear how the state will proceed with her death sentence. One thought, maybe you get one chance at this, and now you don't kill her. That's crazy. They haven't ruled out trying to.

That's crazy. It's grotesque. It's grotesque. From the Miami Herald, federal agents seized more than $2.8 million worth of fuel headed to Cuba. The Department of Homeland Security says the shipments of biodiesel were in violation of U.S. export laws. And the Philadelphia Inquirer features reporting on how Ukraine is clawing back territory in the Donbass region. It comes despite furious assaults by the Kremlin. As the article notes, Russian gains across Ukraine.

have slowed this year from their already glacial pace. All right, coming up, we're going to dig into allegations that Ambassador Kimberly Guilfoyle pushed a Trump donor to pay her credit card debt before becoming a U.S. ambassador. That new reporting is straight ahead on Morning Joe. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that U.S. ambassador to Greece and also Donald Trump Jr.'s former fiancé, Kimberly Gilfoyle pushed a Trump donor to send her $100,000 to pay her Amex bill last year.

Who has a $100,000 balance on their Amex bill? According to the journal, Gilfoyle was preparing for her congressional hearing to become an ambassador when she made the request. The journal reviewed hundreds of messages, emails, and letters. In one text, she wrote, quote, honey, please, I need you to get this. done for me today, you could just send it here, adding a prayer hands emoji and a PDF with bill payment instructions from American Express. That donor didn't ultimately make the payment telling Gilfoyle it would cost him his marriage, but as the journal notes, the messages raise new questions about the activities of one of America's most high-profile ambassadors.

And Jonathan Lemire, I think there may be some issues here as you are trying to prepare to become an ambassador because there's a lot of questions that are raised. You're given many different background checks. You're put through ambassador school. And then you have to have a hearing. I think this may appear to show some sort of conflict. Perhaps so. Yeah, this is extraordinary reporting by the journal. I mean, Kimberly Your fellow already in the news last week or so.

because there are questions about a relationship she had with a lobbyist and she was parading around Europe and trying to get a sweet heart deals there. She's raised a lot of eyebrows, Mark Leibovic, for what she's done in Athens. We should note this story breaks as Secretary of St. Mark of Rubio is in Athens delivering a speech. So well-timed there, Lebo. But one wonder, in a normal administration, I know we could do this about so many things. In a normal administration, this would be the end of Kimberly Goughfile. She would be summoned back to Washington today and probably,

dismissed in a week's time. So far, anyway, this White House has greeted the news with a bit of a shrug. Yeah, and they probably are right to because, you know, in this, any other administration, I mean, there should be like a spinoff show, like in any other administration and just sort of go with the week biggest howler like this. But this is quite something. I mean, Kimberly Gilfoyle has become this kind of recurring character in this bizarre kind of perverse sitcom we have going here. You know, you could say that this does look and appears to be improper. I mean, I think a couple of things as I'm reading this. One, I mean, the reporting is extraordinary. I love the story. You know, big hat tip to the journal for breaking this stuff. The other thing is, I mean,

this is so careless. I mean, putting all this in writing, I mean, yes, there was a signal thread here, but someone here is absolutely out to get her. And, you know, she obviously gave a great deal of ammunition for them to work with. But I don't know. What happens here? I mean, does she get prosecuted. Does the president continue to, you know, just sort of hold out these pardon danglings? But, you know, she's no longer married to or engaged to Don Jr. A lot of questions here, but she is this recurring character and I guess in some ways entertaining, but it's bizarre too. I mean, chances of prosecution close to zero. This is the administration where, do you remember back in 2019 when they held that G7 meeting down at the golf club at Dural and

Trump's golf club at Miami? Absolute Outroar. They're doing the same thing in, November and it's not even a shrug. They had to cancel it. They had to post. Because there was so much press. That's a great example of how things have shifted for the first term to second. But here we go. Here's Rubio. There we go. Up in Athens on the same day. And here's what he's saying. Athens gave us democracy. Plato and Aristotle gave us Western philosophy our ideas of law and virtue. And we gave them a return. Kimberly Gereffle. Oh my God. Somebody thinks I could say. But we're going to move on. Former President. Barack Obama is showing up for Democrats with the midterms less than a month away.

He is set to campaign alongside U.S. Senate candidate Abdul al-S. Ayyad in Detroit later this month. The former president also recorded this spot for Troy Jackson, who is challenging incumbent Republican Susan Collins. Here is an exclusive first look. Hello, Maine. Barack Obama here. Troy Jackson is running to be your next senator. and I'm proud to be on board. In this economy, we need a fighter like Troy. A fifth generation logger. Troy worked 80 hours a week and still struggled to get by.

So as Maine Senate president, he fought to raise wages, lower the cost of prescription drugs, and provide free lunch to every student in the state. After Roe was overturned, Troy helped protect the right to an abortion in Maine. And now we need Troy to deliver for us, in the Senate. So do not sit this one out. Get out there and vote for Troy Jackson. You can vote early from October 5th to the 29th or vote in person on November 3rd. There you go. Over the summer,

the former president also officially endorsed, two-time Paralympian Josh Turrick in his Iowa Senate bid as the two played some basketball together. This is the role that Obama has really carved out for itself, is the closure. And I think the ads and then campaign appearances, I'm sure more will be added to a schedule here in these last month of the race. So since Labor Day, Republicans have poured roughly $500 million into competitive House and Senate races leading up to the midterms. But it appears that spending has not significantly moved the needle in Republicans' favor. Recent polls show Democrats leading or remaining competitive in key races in states like Alaska, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and definitely Texas.

And as the Washington Post notes, quote, in a cycle with so many advantages for Democrats, an unpopular president, an unpopular war, inflation, the usual pattern of midterm swings, money was supposed to be the GOP's ace. But some top Republican super PACs didn't start spending until Labor Day, just over a month ago, should they have faced higher prices for airtime. Like in Texas, where last week in the Dallas media market, James Talarico's campaign, paid $950,000 for the average viewer to see its ads 10 times, according to a Democratic media buyer. By comparison, Ken Paxton's allies spent $4.6 million for the average viewer to see their ads 13 times.

And there's also this. House Republican leaders are now publicly conceding that their mid-decade redistricting push has fallen short of expectations. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer telling Axios, he believes Republicans won't win all 13 seats they had hoped to gain from the new maps, saying he'd be surprised if the GOP sweeps all five newly drawn seats in Texas and shocked if they win all four in Florida. Redistricting still appears to give Republicans an edge just smaller than they once thought. The Cook Political Report now projects the party will net around four seats from the effort alone, down from the double-digit gains the GOP leaders had once hoped to get from the newly drawn maps. And Mika, certainly the mid-cycle we're discerting a subject of much controversy. Republicans did it.

Democrats tried to match in a few places. But there were risks. You spread it too thin. You might give up some seats. And certainly it does not appear, at least at this moment, a month out, the GOP is going to get the advantage they hoped. Well, the circumstances leading up to November's elections appear to share some striking similarities to the 2006 midterms, that's when Republicans lost control of both the House and the Senate. Voters then faced what voters are facing now.

A war, rising costs, and a deeply unpopular president. Joining us now with charts, former Treasury official and Morning Joe economic analyst, Steve Ratner. Steve, okay, so your first chart focuses on gas prices. Talk about how it's playing into the midterms this year compared to 20 years ago, President Trump says it's a small price to pay. Yes, Mika. Well, obviously, there are a lot of similarities to 2006, and I'm going to show you a few of the things that are relevant to this election

where it's been so hard the polls are inaccurate to really predict. Now, just remember that in 2006, the Democrats won 31 House seats and six Senate seats, and, as you said, flipped both chambers. So that's the backdrop to all this. So just to start with gas prices, for example, Bush actually had a tough run, and these are all adjusted for inflation. A tough run on gas prices. He had a war.

He had Hurricane Katrina, which also added to gas prices. And so for most of his second term, up to this point, gas prices were higher than they have been for Trump. So as high as we feel that gas prices have been, they were worse under Trump. But of course, when the Iranian war started, our gas prices shot up. And as we sit here today, voters are looking at $4.35 a gallon. But inflation adjusted, they were looking at 369 a gallon under Bush. So, in fact, they're facing a worse gas price situation than they were in 2006.

We can go to the next chart. And if you look at wages, a similar pattern, you can see that Trump actually was performing better on wages for the first year and a half of this term. Bush actually was underwater, so to speak. Wages were not keeping up with inflation. Of course, we know that even when wages are going up, the people at the bottom, are being left behind and it's much worse for them. So these are just averages. But then you can see, again, what happened here. When gas prices start and other prices moderated under Bush, his real wages, people actually, their purchasing power actually went up 2.2%. Under Trump, they actually came

down and a flatline. So again, voters are looking at no real wage increases under Trump. They were looking at about 2.5, 2.2% under Bush. And life is becoming completely unaffordable for a growing number of people every day. Steve, your last chart looks at President Trump's popularity. Is that where we're going? No, we're going to go to the economy. Oh, we're going to do the economy for a second. All right, so let's outline the current state of the economy compared to 2006.

Right. So I showed you long charts for a couple of the indicators. Let's just look at a summary of a few of the other important indicators that voters are facing. inflation under Bush was actually down to 1.4%. Today it's running a 3.4%. So that's what voters are facing. Unemployment quite similar, 4.4 versus 4.2.

But on job creation, Bush 2.2 million, and Trump, only a half a million new jobs under his tenure. Economic growth, roughly similar. But mortgage rates, 6.4% under Bush. 7.3, I think it's actually up to 7.5, even since we did. this chart under Trump. So again, on balance, voters are looking at a much tougher economic picture under Trump than they were under Bush, again at a time when Bush got schlacked, as he famously said. Yeah, so let's now turn to presidential popularity, Steve. What does your next chart tell us

about Trump's popularity compared to where President George Zilley Bush was in 2006? Well, again, here are the striking similarities that we've seen. So Bush started out actually above 50%. Trump has not gotten about 50% in this term, but then it started this steady decline because of the war, Katrina and all the rest of it, and Trump has had his own steady decline, inflation, plus, of course, we have to throw corruption into the mix here as well. But by the time you get to election day, they're actually almost exactly identical. Bush at 38%, Trump at 37%, but Bush having come down just at the very end. So very similar on popularity. I can go to the next chart. But this is what's also really interesting.

Consumers have been unbelievably pessimistic, some of the worst consumer sentiment ratings that we have ever seen. Bush again started up here, up in the 90s, and then he sort of actually stayed there and was at 92 on Election Day. Trump started at 70, and he's come down to 48. So when you ask consumers, how do they feel about life? How do they feel about the economy? How do they feel about their purchasing power? you have an enormous disparity between Bush and Trump. So, Steve, it was actually President Obama who said that his team, her party was shalacked.

But 2010. But George Lerbush, he had colorful language as well to describe what happened to the Republican 2006, particularly behind closed doors. But we should note that all of this, this picture of all these charts you're putting together, points to an easier path for Democrats. But your final chart highlights a tougher map for the party when compared to that in 2006. explain that for us, please. A tougher map and one other statistic, which I found quite interesting.

So obviously they both had a war. That's one of the reasons why looking at 2006 can be instructive. Support for the war under Bush was 34%, even though that was a much bigger, tougher war. Under Trump, it's only 29%. People really, as we all well know, hate this war. You talked before about the redistricting and how that was going to work. So Bush was looking at a median House district, the House district right in the middle, at R plus two. That is a longstanding Republican advantage they have for various demographic reasons.

The redistricting, which, as you said, added a net probably of four seats, brings it to R plus three. So this is a small advantage for the Republicans. This is the one that surprised me, and you all may have good thoughts on it. When you look at the generic ballot, it's Democrats plus seven. We've all been celebrating Democrats plus seven under Trump. It was actually D plus 11 under Bush. So make them of that what you will. As I said before, we flipped 31 House seats and six Senate seats in 2006.

Most predictions are somewhere between 20 to 35 house seats this time around. And two to four, we need four for Democratic control of the Senate this time. So that's how the numbers line up. And as I said, I thought it was interesting, so many similarities between now and 2006, most of which don't work in Trump's favor. In our crack research staff notes that George W. Bush described the 2006 midterm losses as a thumping. Ah, well, that's a good one. And Republicans are fearful that could happen.

Steve Ratner, thank you so much. Gene Robinson, looking at the support for the war in all of Steve's numbers that he brought to the table. But how then does yet another strike on Iran help? Well, it doesn't. I mean, I think it doesn't. I think people have made up their minds about this war, and they don't like it. If they like it less than they like the Iraq war,

then that's a real problem. So clearly from Steve's numbers, you look at the landscape. And the landscape is very, really, the political landscape is very favorable for Democrats. this year, one of the key things, though, is because of redistricting, we're going to, the Democrats really are going to have to get their voters out to the polls. And the get-out-the-vote efforts are going to be really important. I think that's, for example, the reason that

President Obama is going to campaign with El-Sayyed in Michigan. because the Republican efforts there are to kind of depress the black vote and say that El Cyanid is not really on your side. He cares more about Gaza than he cares about Detroit. And Obama is coming in to try to counteract that, which I actually think is a smart use by the Democratic Party of the former president. And, you know, redistricting can backfire. There's a district in Tennessee that's been held by a Democrat for Eons, Steve Cohen in Memphis, for years and years and years. They redistricted that into an R-plus-21 district.

It's Tennessee District 9. yesterday I spoke with Justin Pearson, who's the Democratic candidate in that district, and he still has an uphill climb. But polls are showing him down by only four points in an R plus 21 district, which is extraordinary. And it just gives you a sense that conditions very favorable for Democrats, got to get the voters to the polls. Although I thought, Mark, it was interesting what Steve was pointing out, that on the generic ballot, actually conditions have been more favorable for Democrats back in 2006, and they are today. They were plus 11 back in 2006, and now they're plus 7. Does that get to still some of the stickiness of the support for Donald Trump himself? Well, people are annoyed about the prices. They're telling pollsters they're annoyed about the prices. They blame Donald Trump for prices. It's his policies they're blaming. And yet there is, some residual affection, allegiance for the president. Could that be what's behind the fact that Democrats are less far ahead than they were in 2006? Yeah, possibly.

I mean, I was stuck by that number too. I mean, I think the bigger issue potentially, and maybe one Democrats don't really want to talk about it, is that the Democrats are not popular at all. I mean, I think a lot of Democrats at this point make the mistake of seeing these numbers that are incredibly bullish for them and thinking that they have solved all of their problems and have dug themselves completely out of the hole that they found themselves in 2024, which they have not. I mean, Democrats, I mean, have all kinds of problems. I think they're obviously helped by the environment now, and they're helped very much by having some really good

candidates in some really strategically significant places and certainly Senate races that I think could really, you know, give them a great shot there. But no, I mean, that, I think that the seven the seven generic ballot spread should, I mean, as we saw in 2006, be a lot higher. And I think that that is sort of a larger caution that Democrats, you know, either should be or will be, you know, taking heat of at this point. All right. The Atlantic's Mark Leibovic. Thank you very much for coming on the show this morning. We appreciate it. And still ahead on morning, Joe. We'll have the latest from Cornell University. As the school begins, an individual. review into the handling of a disturbing allegation of sexual assault. Morning Joe is coming right back.

New York Attorney General Letitia James has launched a criminal investigation into an extremely disturbing rape allegation at Cornell University at a frat house there in October of 2024. The investigation is separate from an independent review the school announced this week that is being led by former deputy the Attorney General, Sally Yates. The victim, identified only as Jane Doe in the lawsuit she filed last month, accused seven men of sexual battery and assault, and alleges the university failed to do enough to protect her. MS Now Legal Affairs reporter Fallon Gallagher has been tracking the story

and joins us now with the very latest. Fallon, where do we stand right now with this case? Yeah, Mika, this case is really striking a nerve, I think that's because so many women in America either identify as Jane Doe or they know a Jane Doe, and people really want accountability here. And so now we're in a new phase. There are two parallel investigations that are happening. There's the first one, which is the one run by the New York Attorney General that you mentioned.

That is actually she's taken over from the district attorney because Governor Kathy Hochel found that the DA actually, she didn't have faith in him anymore. Because you'll remember, this all happened two years ago. the district attorney didn't bring any charges at the time. He said that based on the evidence that he had in front of him, he couldn't have brought charges, and that is a whole other element here. But now New York Attorney General Letitia James is running this investigation. I spoke to her office earlier this week, and I know that as of Tuesday night, she has spoken with the DA about where his investigation stood and information that he had. And we know that she has also spoken to Jane Doe's attorney. At this point, it is our understanding that she has not spoken to Jane Doe's attorney.

directly, but she is investigating whether or not a crime actually occurred with this sexual encounter on Cornell's campus two years ago. Now, at the same time, there's a parallel investigation that's being run by Sally Gates, who was the former deputy attorney attorney general during Obama's administration. Now, her investigation is not criminal in nature. It's more of a review of Cornell itself and how they handled the investigation, how they handled the Title IX investigation, how they interacted with law enforcement, how they've approached sexual harassment and sexual assault training on campus, that investigation will likely yield some sort of a report

with recommendations, not criminal charges, which is what we could see from New York Attorney General, Leticia James, as investigation. All right, MS now Legal Affairs Reporter, Fallon Gallagher, thank you very much for the latest. We want to continue this conversation and bring in senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and senior political columnist for the Washington Examiner,

Tim Carney. He's the author of the book, family unfriendly, how our culture made raising kids much harder than it needs to be. And Tim, we wanted to bring you on to talk about not exactly the legality of this case, one side versus the other, but what happened as a whole of all the different players in this, and I'll start with how many kids were on this. I get it was a Snapchat group chat that was going. that was going out,

were there a lot of people who were brought in to what was happening? Yeah, I mean, there were dozens of guys who received the message. I mean, there were multiple messages, but one particularly basically saying, come here to have sex with this woman in much more crude terms.

My first thought when I read that, that was one of the points that made me, I have three sons, and I was thinking if any of my sons was in college and received that message, I would pull them out of college. Not if they went to that room and participated, but if they didn't intervene and stop it.

And this is where we need to step back. Ryan, are you resting on? The legal investigations are going to go on. Cornell's going to come up with its own rules. But every parent has to think. Are you raising? Remember during Me Too, people would say sort of, so flippantly, oh, teach your sons not to rape.

And that's not what you raise your sons to do. You raise your sons to be men of virtue. And what are the virtues required here? Well, one self-restraint, one courage. Every one of those guys should have said, whoa, stop this. And said, no, guys, this is not how we behave. And fraternities used to be places that tried to, you know, raise men to be, to have more virtue. But this is a job primarily of the parents, but also how we raise kids K through 12.

And sometimes when I think this happened in an Ivy League school, I'm thinking, were the parents just thinking about achievement, about let's get to Ivy League, let's get to a good career. And some of them might have set aside, wait a second, I need to teach my son to be a man of virtue, a man who won't just not do the bad thing, but will interfere, we'll intervene and try to be the hero in that situation. Yeah. I mean, Katty, just for so many, so many reasons, I say, how can this happen? And it's not just the alleged assault itself.

There clearly is a problem with the college culture and not just at coroner. with drugs and alcohol and debauchery to an extreme degree hazing. And not just men, women, too. But when you look at this group Snapchat and you see these people witnessing, you know, the word was free, you know what. And not one person thought, I got to go check on her. What's going on over there? Is something bad happening?

I mean, it was very clear something bad. was happening. And these are these are not kids. I guess we see them as kids, but they're adults. These are people who raised these kids? And the answer is we did. Our society did. Our culture did.

I mean, there are so many kids here at Cornell who just let that go by. And is it that they leave home where they've had this closeted environment and then suddenly they have access to all sorts of freedoms and they can't handle those kind of freedoms,

and they end up acting in these abhorrent ways. And Tim, one of the things I thought was interesting listening to what you were saying and reading about this case is, and I don't know how much you've looked at this, do you think this is a different phenomenon from how it was, say, 20, 30 years ago? So have patterns of behavior changed amongst young men? Or has it always been like that?

It's just that we are now living in. in an environment where there is less tolerance for it when it is exposed. I think a lot of things have changed, including what you're saying, tolerance when it's exposed. But another thing is I think we've lost some of the language, when we can only talk about this in terms of consent. And some of the people who are defending these young men say, oh, well, here's these tech saying she consented to it. All of that misses the point.

To put it bluntly, ketamine-fueled, drunken orgies are bad. You shouldn't do them. And you're treating another person as an object when you're doing that. The text message suggests that, but everything that went on there, that was gross. That was immoral. You don't have to be a Bible thumper to say you don't treat other people as objects in this way. And that's where I think it's harder for us to regain that language of virtue. And frankly, a sexual morality that involves anything above and beyond consent, we lack the language for that.

Well, apparently we lack the language for a lot of things because it seems, Shouldn't kids receive some sort of moral education? And, you know, my belief is that it doesn't necessarily have to be in organized religion. There are other ways you could do that. But if you have any sort of moral education and any sort of courage, you would know this is wrong. Like, what's the deal? What has happened? I do think that we've become a more materialistic, more achievement-obsessed society.

And so when we're raising our kids, a lot of times we just think, okay, we need to make sure they get good grades. We need to make sure this. And if you're living as sort of a normal family, you know, you're teaching your kids some ideas of morality. But if you're not saying, well, my goal for you is something better than just career success. And also colleges, I mean, this goes way back. Colleges used to have a role called in local parenthesis, where they would enforce some standards of behavior again, besides just don't break the law. Yeah. Yeah.

All right, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and senior political calmness for the Washington Examiner, author Tim Carney. Thank you very much for being on the show this morning. So a previously unreleased study by the U.S. Army confirms that electric shock gloves that were recently purchased, by ICE work by inflicting intense pain and fear. Additionally, ICE leaders were aware of those findings before signing a $16.7 million contract to purchase 6,000 pairs of the gloves in August. That's according to records obtained by the Watchdog Group American Oversight and shared with the Associated Press. The 2024 study took place at a military prison in Kansas and found participants touched by the gloves experienced, quote, fatigue, soreness and excessive apprehensiveness to being shocked again. ICE calls the gloves, quote, distraction and de-escalation devices that are safer than other non-lethal weapons to subdue people subject to arrest and deportation, as well as protesters.

who create civil disturbances. ICE argues that the gloves will help ensure quick compliance, thus helping keep agents safer and prevent the potential use of lethal force. Critics warn the gloves give ICE another weapon to intimidate and brutalize people and just saying, I don't think it's the ICE agents who are worried about being safe. It's people that they're bashing car windows to grab them and drag them out, pin them down the ground, bend their legs back, injure them often, killing them. So I don't know. What, they can't operate their guns, so they have to get a shock glove because they're so stupid with their guns.

But they don't know the difference between a gun and a phone and whether or not to walk in front of them. of a car while it's moving. I don't know. Again, so many questions raised about the inadequate training that so many of these new agents have received. They're, and now compensating with devices like this. It's just the beginning of so many things that are so wrong with this situation and in many cases, completely unlawful.

Meanwhile, President Trump continues to face low approval ratings ahead of the midterms, including among Latino voters who played a. key role with his 2024 White House win. A Reuters Ipsos poll released this week found just 24% of Hispanic Americans approve of Trump's performance in the White House. That's the lowest share in either of his two presidential terms. And in NBC News, Telemundo poll also released this week found Trump's approval rating sits at 27% among Latino voters. According to the poll, two-thirds say his administration's deportation policies have gone too far, and three quarters disapprove of how he has handled the economy and cost of living.

All right, still ahead. We'll dig into new investigative report by the Washington Post that reveals ICE trimmed training for deputized officers. But first, Oscar-winning screenwriter Aaron Sorkin will be our guest. We'll talk about his new film, The Social Reckoning, and much more. We'll be right back.