The Dispatch Podcast - MAGA No More? | Interview: Jonathan Martin

Episode Date: September 9, 2024

Jonathan Martin, Politico’s politics bureau chief and senior political columnist, joins Jamie to explain why the GOP needs to lose big in order to hasten a post-Trump Republican Party. The Agenda: —Martin’s POLITICO piece on a Post-Trump party —Unapologetic book plug —Is Steve Hayes a RINO? —If Trump loses 2024, will he run again? —J.D. Vance as a VP candidate —Was Joe Biden’s ousting planned months ago? The Dispatch Podcast is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch’s offerings—including members-only newsletters, bonus podcast episodes, and weekly livestreams—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

During the Volvo Fall Experience event, discover exceptional offers and thoughtful design that leaves plenty of room for autumn adventures. And see for yourself how Volvo's legendary safety brings peace of mind to every crisp morning commute. This September, leased a 2026 XC90 plug-in hybrid from $599 bi-weekly at 3.99% during the Volvo Fall Experience event.

Conditions apply, visit your local Volvo retailer or go to explorevolvo.com. Welcome to the Dispatch podcast. I'm Jamie Weinstein. My guest today is Jonathan Martin. He is the Politics Bureau Chief and Senior Political Columnist for Politico and the author of This Will Not Pass. Trump, Biden, and the Battle for America's Future. He is one of America's most sourced political journalists. So we discussed everything about Trump world, what is going on behind the scenes in the vice president's campaign. What happened with Joe Biden and his decision to step down. I think you're really going to enjoy this episode. I certainly learned a lot from it

and what to look for as we go towards 2024 presidential election just two months away. Let's get right to it. Without further ado, I give you Mr. Jonathan Martin. Jonathan Martin. Welcome to the Dispatch, podcast. Thanks for having me, Jamie. Well, let's start with your column this week, which has political media a buzz. The title of it was, if Republicans want to win, they need Trump to lose. For the listeners who may not be familiar with the gist of the column, what exactly did the column say? The best key scenario for the Republican Party's health is that Trump loses and loses decisively. It'll hasten the party going to rehab and starting to kick the Trump.

have it. Now, look, here's the challenge. A lot of the party doesn't want to go to rehab, all right? They like it. They, you know, if you want to change your metaphors, like the dogs like the Alpo, they don't want to eat anything else, all right? They want, they want more Alpo, more Calip out, man. And so they don't want to give it up. But if he loses decisively, it makes it harder to do the same BS he did four years ago, stop the steal and all that. It is a sobery moment, you know, for the non-magnant crowd. They're going to have lost two presidentials in a row. They'll have not won a popular vote but one time since 1992.

And, you know, they'll probably lose the House, too, if the presidency goes down. And importantly, it sets the party up for a good midterm in 26. Well, you know, that six-year itch we always hear about when the same party can rolls the White House for six years. They face a tough midterm usually. And then potentially gives them the opportunity, and we can discuss this, to find a hybrid candidate 28 that can play both ends of the piano. They can appeal to the maggie crowd and the kind of pre-Trump crowd. Yes, a lot of a lot of possibilities, contingencies there. But it's just undeniable, at least with a non-magic crowd, that I think that's the best outcome to get the party back to a place where it can be

a viable national party. These insiders who speak to you, are they doing anything substantive to make what they're saying would be good for the party reality? No, of course not. They're just hiding behind anonymity and hoping the bad band goes back

to the bed here at some point. It's the same problem that they've had for nine years. The leaders of the party can't stand Trump. They find him embarrassing. They are mad at their own voters, but like most of them, don't dare say it, or if they do, they retire or they lose a primary. And so, no, it's the same problem as ever. And that's why I get the

skepticism. You know, Terry Sullivan, who ran Rubio's campaign in 2016, it's like, we don't have a top of the ticket problem. We have a voter problem. Nobody wants to say that in elected office, but that's the real challenge, right? The voters like Trump, a lot of them do at least two-thirds of them do. And so, you know, that's the issue. And the leaders don't want to transgress their voters. It reminds me a little bit of all the articles we've seen over the last years of, you know, anonymous senators, GOP senators saying Trump shouldn't do this and then begging for his tweet. My question is always, why are they so scared? Why is losing an election the worst thing in the world to them? I mean, why are they so scared? Why be in office if you're not, if you're afraid of your shadow? Well, that's a whole different psychological question. But I mean, most of them want to stay in power because they like being in power. They want to win their re-elections.

Like, that's the most animity forced for most politicians. But that has been the recurring theme. Look, the Republican Party had a great chance in January of 2021 to purge themselves of Mr. Trump. And, you know, that was the best opportunity. And Mitch McConnell did not try to round up the votes to convict him of that second impeachment. The assumption in that model was this guy is damaged goods and he'll go away, but he's not because a lot of the voters still like him. And so that was their best shot and they

blew it. Well, that's, you bring up that. That's an interesting question for you then. You know, you're right. You know, the thought was, oh, if we just call him the former guy instead of calling him Trump when he leaves, he's going to go and it fade away. Does Mitch McConnell regret not doing what he could have done then? And, and you know. Wouldn't you want to I put him on truth here, I'm going to ask him. Exactly. You're in that world. You know the people around him.

Do people around him say that he regrets it? I can't read his mind, but knowing his contempt for Donald Trump, I think at some point he will concede that that was a missed opportunity. I don't know if we'll do that while he's still in office, but it's hard to think that he wouldn't recognize the mistake he made. Look, he thought Trump. was done. I was in the Capitol on January 6th. And late that night, in fact, it was already January 7th by the time this happened, he came down from his office to leave. And I saw him and I talked to him that night.

And this is in the book that Alex Burings and I wrote, which your listeners can still buy. This will not pass on Amazon.com. And McConnell, McConnell looked at me and he said that he felt He felt, what was the word he used, almost exhilarated? How did you feel exhilarated? He said, because this guy put a gun to his head and he pulled the trigger, this guy being Trump. And McConnell was to events, that was it. It was Liberation Day. And he said, if he tries to play in the primaries in 22, we'll kick his ass.

And that's not what happened. Trump didn't go away. And Trump got his way in the primaries in 2022. and rallied to a bunch of shitty candidates, and they lost the primary that was winnable, and then Trump got the nomination in 2024 and could blow a presidential campaign that is eminently winnable.

So it was a critical mistake. And now Mitch McConnell, of course, is endorsing him. It brings me to, I guess the next question is, I always have to check my priors here because what these insiders say is what I hope for to. I think that sounds like a potential. But what makes them so sure, just like they were sure Trump was going to fade away, what makes them so sure that the party

will be less Trumpy if Trump loses instead of- I don't think that there's any sort of delusion that's going to be less Trumpy. I mean, I think the hope is just that Trump himself is not going to be the nominee at age 82 in 2028. But this actually, I put this in my piece, Jamie, because this is actually a robust debate behind the seats, which is, what's the better way to get Trump to the 19th poll? and out of our lives? Is it that he loses decisively now, and we can start rebuilding? Or actually, is the better scenario that he wins, because we know for sure that he that has to leave office in 28,

and that that's like a date certain when Trump will be out of our lives. Like, I know that that argument sounds crazy to some of your listeners, but like that's a real conversation happening in the Republican Party. How best to end the Trump era. A big loss now. or a win, so we know he leaves in 2028. But I don't think there's any thought along, even the biggest rhino out there, even like Steve Hayes, for example. Steve, you listen to that? That, like, the party is going to go back to being like a Bushy McCain, like,

party in 2020. Nobody thinks that, right? My sense, like, the person that will succeed at 28, if the Republicans are when the presidency, see, is he or she who could forge a coalition between the old party and the new party, and, you know, I either come from one of those two wings or at least be able to fake it in one of those two wings, right? You write in the piece, the Republican who forges a hybrid coalition, a modern-day conservative

fusionism, hearkening back to Buckley's fusionism, between the pre-Trump party and his enthusiasts will be rewarded. No, it can't be anti-Trump, but it must be post-Trump. Does that include, I mean, do you imagine, you know, bulwark readers and listeners coming back and joining this Republican Party? Is that possible? Is there a candidate that can unite disparate factions of the MAGA and? You know, it's a really good question.

So many of them are Democrats now, right? Some of them aren't coming back. And this is what happens over the course of, like, American political history is that, you know, the Democrats who became so-called neo-conservatives, speaking of them. or you know, Bill Crystal's father, for example, a lot of that crowd, you know, they were not going to become, they were not going to become Democrats again, like that was a realignment and they left the party. You know, you've seen us other times, like, you know, in American history as well, when when the more liberal Republicans, you know, in places like New England,

you couldn't stomach a person like Reagan, for example, too far to the right, like they weren't coming back, right? So I think selling them are going for good. I do think others who are more traditional Republicans who just find Trump personally reprehensible will come back. And I do think that there will be robust arguments on national security, on economic policy. You know, in some ways, Jamie, Trump, because of his persona and because his conduct so swallows up everything. Trump is delaying an amazing story, amazing debate. Trump is putting on hold this coming reckoning of what the party stands for. Is it going to be a much more of a Wall Street Journal party, you know, free markets, free people, or is it going to be a more restrictionist protectionist

party too? Like, that's a really interesting debate. I just feel like that's on hold as long as Everything's about Donald Trump talking about like blowjob jokes, right? I mean, who do you, but speaking to the candidates, so I'm thinking this to my mind as we talk. You know, I don't, obviously, Vance speaks to one wing. I think Haley speaks to a wing that Mago, a lot of Mago will get behind. Is Rubio the guy who's playing for both of that? You know, you're not the first person who's mentioned his name to me. Could Rubio find a third act, right? It's a really interesting question because he is the kind of hybrid figure. He's trying to become a hybrid figure right now. Does he have the chops to pull that off in 28? You know,

that's a really interesting test. He obviously comes from the more pre-Trump world, the more, you know, bushy and world, but obviously it's kind of reinvented himself. Could he appeal to both wings is going to be a fascinating test. You know what's interesting. If Trump does lose, I think we'll say the first shots of this war fired when it comes to the Trump tax cuts in the reauthorization, because that's going to be the big-ticket issue in 20. 2025. If you have a Republican Senate and the President Harris, they're not getting a lot done. They'll fund the government. But what they got to do something on is not let those tax cuts expire because you're going to across the board taxing. What does that compromise look like,

Jamie? And we know damn well that a Senator J.D. Vance is going to be front and center in that debate in a 5149 or 5248 Senate. He will be a key vote because what he will say is, I'm not going to give you corporate America a dime of tax relief or anything on capital gains for you, investor, until I get my child tax credit plused up to X number of dollar. And she will leverage that, and I think you use that in the first sort of battle of this fight for the party is going to be in the future. I mean, you know, speaking of Trump, because in this fight, if Trump loses, Trump is still alive, right? So what does his exile look like? No, no, it's a great question, right? because as long as Trump is still in the picture, it's not like, yeah, you know, I think I'll go ahead

and call it a career and, you know, play some golf, but kind of stay out of public affairs, be like Gerald Ford and Palm Springs, you know, like give a couple of speeches, but, you know, otherwise play, play 18 with a Bob Hope every day. Like, that's not happening, right? We hope, play the golf step. It's Donald Trump. But there's no chance that Donald Trump, but disappear from the sea. And the question is, like, what form does that take?

It's a really good question. He's going to be 80 years old in 2026. And Trump is kind of ageless, but like at some point, if even Trump could have started aging and what does that look like? You know, here's part of the issue. Let's say he loses narrowly this time around, like he did in 20, at least in the electoral college. Does he keep open the idea of running again in 2028 for a couple of years?

And does that torture the party, right? Because all these same figures we're talking about, these governors and senators who just desperately want to move on, are they going to still have to fake it in 25 and 26 and say, look, President Trump had some great ideas and policies. And, you know, we have to wait to see what he decides. Can you imagine, right? What did he? I mean, do you think there's a chance he could run? I mean, you say a placeholder, he could run theoretically. Biden ran.

He was going to be 82. So why couldn't Trump, right? Look, I think it would depend upon his fitness, quite literally. I think it would depend upon, you know, like how the party takes a defeat this fall, but he ain't going away. He ain't going away. That's true. Who do you think is the, I mean, assuming he doesn't run again in 28 if he loses, obviously J.D. Vance is up there because he's the VP.

But who's fighting to be the Trump candidate, the Trump, the number one Trump? I mean, is Trump going to anoint J.D. Vance? Or could Tucker Carlson be the Trump candidate in 2020? Well, let me see where it's fun, because the three people who were most instrumental in J.D. Vance being picked, Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump Jr., and J.D. Vance himself, I think would all be interested in playing a central role in that very question of who is the Trump heir. would one of them emerge? Are Tucker and Don going to stick with JD as they are apparent? Are they going to want it from themselves? I mean, it's a really interesting question. Is there somebody else beyond those three that we're not thinking about that would lay clean to that? It's, you know, it's not totally clear. It's not totally clear. Here's the question I've always asked people, because people have widely different takes, political observers on this question. Can someone replace Trump? Is Trump a brand of personality, or is it issues that are motivating the voters to support him? Without Trump, could you go back to a pre-Trump Republican Party?

It's a good question. Nobody's going to replace the Trump persona. But obviously, the kind of populist ass kick in kind of affect. They'll try the mirror. It's not going to be the same. nobody's going to have the kind of like Catskills routine, you know, on stage for an hour and a half up there talking about sharks and freaking laser beats, right? But somebody will try. I mean, you know, again, I come back to this. Like, there's a really interesting policy

debate that Trump's put on hold and, you know, how much interest is there actually in that kind of agenda, which I guess gets to your question, Jan. He was like, how much interest is there in Trumpism among the actual vote? versus Trump, you know? And I think, like, that's not totally clear yet, right? Yeah. I'll say this. I mean, not one sitting Republican member of the House or Senate lost a primary who voted for Ukraine. Now, if Trump had weaponized that issue and paid enough attention and had enough energy or curiosity to, like, pursue that, could he have ousted some incumbents over that? Like, maybe. But it does get to the point of, like, do you get in trouble for crossing

Trump or Trump is on them and I think like right now it's Trump you know TD Bank knows that running a small business is a journey from startup to growing and managing your business that's why they have a dedicated small business advice hub on their website to provide tips and insights on business banking to entrepreneurs no matter the stage of business you're in visit td.com slash small business advice to find out more or to match with a TD small business banking Account Manager. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace.

Squarespace is the platform that helps you create a polished professional home online. Whether you're building a site for your business, your writing, or a new project, Squarespace brings everything together in one place. With Squarespace's cutting-edge design tools, you can launch a website that looks sharp from day one. Use one of their award-winning templates or try the new Blueprint AI, which tailors a site for you based on your goals and style. It's quick, intuitive, and requires zero coding experience. You can also tap into built-in analytics and see who's engaging with your site and email campaigns to stay connected with subscribers or clients. And Squarespace goes beyond design. You can offer services, book appointments, and receive payments directly through your site.

It's a single hub for managing your work and reaching your audience without having to piece together a bunch of different tools. All seamlessly integrated. Go to Squarespace.com slash dispatch for a free trial. And when you're ready to launch, use offer code dispatch to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. Speaking of J.D. Vance, I wonder if any of your sources are telling you anything about Trump's mood about the pick. Is he still happy with the pick? Does he think Don Jr. and Tucker, you know, bamboozled him into a bad pick? You know, what is his, what is it, what is he saying to Marlago guests? He doesn't like the bad coverage of J.D. Vant. He doesn't like the drip, drip. of like JD V and said this three years ago on a podcast, speaking podcast. And by the way, don't run for office jam because they're going to find something about you that you said at some point on a podcast, man.

But it does show the perils of nominating somebody who basically, until like a half an hour ago was a guy popping off on TV and podcast, right? I mean, it's really incredible. But no, I think probably he likes the idea that Vance is like an ass kick carey's, you know, giving no quarter to Democrats and the Democrats. media, and it's pretty confident and, like, polished on TV. Like, that's the judge that Trump use it. Like, are you good on TV and in public appearance? And the answer is yes. If talking to your sources, you know, and just as you're an observer yourself, a long-time observer

of politics, where do you think the race stands right now? Does any candidate have a clear advantage? It's incredibly competitive because the country is as divided as we know it is. what we don't know is, do the polls still underrate Trump, like they did in 16 or 20? We don't have any answer to that. So if you're going by the data as it is right now, then it's basically a toss-up with maybe a slight heroics advantage. But we don't know, right? Like the Trump polling advantage or disadvantage, I should say, was like a really significant 20, and he narrowly lost the race by 40,000 plus votes across three states.

So, like, that's hard for me to reckon with is, are the polls still undercounting Trump's support because, like, a third of the country simply is checked out from major institutions and, like, we'll take a pollster's call. Like, that's a really sobering thing to consider. I'll say this, though, that Harris does put Democrats in contention in a way that Biden wasn't going to be able to. Biden was stuck with having to pull an inside straight by carrying the same three Midwestern states, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, she at least gives Democrats the possibility of finding an insurance policy in the Sun Belt, because she can compete in Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina.

Not saying she's going to win all four or even win three of the four, but she can play there. So she at least gives them some breather rule. So if she can't put Pennsylvania over the top, well, maybe she can compensate for that by holding Nevada. You've done reporting on Joe Biden's exit from the race. Do you, folks, do you, do you get a sense whether he still thinks he should be running, that he, you know, he's mad, that he, that he thinks he could won that this race? I think he'll think him a long time to get over his frustration, especially with Speaker Pelosi. You know, there's a reason why he hasn't called her back. That is a really fresh wound for him. I think he feels.

Look, buy it to the old school, tactile politician relationships and loyalties, everything to him. That's his world. And Pelosi was his Catholic sister, as he called her. And I think he feels betrayed. I think he was also a savvy enough politician to know that, like, Harris has for at least like a month, done a pretty good job on this high wire, and she's now got a shot to win. But of course, I think he's frustrating and bitter about it. and we'll take him a while to get over it.

I don't think we fully grasp with what just took place. It's just an incredible story that one of our two political parties finally came to terms with the weakness of their own nominee because that nominee called for a June debate and went out and had such a catastrophic performance that he got pushed off the ticket over the summer by his own leaders. It's really remarkable turn of events. And it does show, by the way.

And I'm plagiarizing one of my own pieces that I wrote. Just how Democrats, Jamie, have become a much more cold-blooded, top-down, ruthless, you know, organized hierarchical party. They're what the Republicans were always supposed to be, right? They're the James A. Baker, the third party, right? Or as I wrote, the Al-Davis Party, just win, baby. I mean, they are so unified and consumed by Trump that, like, that's the order of the day. Sorry, Joe Biden, you had a good run for a half century, but you're going to lose. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I mean, it's remarkable what they did. It shows the difference in the two parties. And look at Kamala Harris the last month. Saluting, brings in a handful of advisors from Obama world, runs precisely how prescribed. Oh, you were for single-payer insurance in 2019 and de facto open borders? Sorry, you're now running toward the political center. Don't worry about that stuff. Here's how you got to run.

And I'm like, nobody says boo with the party. She came out for less of a capital gains tax increase than Biden. You think anybody in the progressive caucus is like saying that's a total sellout to like corporate America? Hell no. They want to win, right? It's just incredible how discipline they've become. and how Trump focuses the mind. What I wonder about, Jamie, is like the day after Trump, right?

What do Democrats do the day after Trump? Because he is now the best force for organization. They have, right? Like, he unifies the Bushes and the Cheney's in the same coalition with AOC and Bernie Sanders. Think about that. It's a good point. And I do want to get to Kamala Harris, who you just mentioned. But you mentioned the June debate that Biden called for it. You know, there is a theory that that a lot of people around here we go, wanted this debate to test him to see if he could do it. And it was so early in order, I mean, is there any truth to? Here we go. Here we go.

I love this one, man. I get this question so many times. But when I talk to conservatives or speak to groups that include conservative folks, this is the favorite chestnut now. The Democrats' plot was they knew Biden was so infirm that they were going to push them off the deep end and expose them. for all the world to see, and therefore, like, the E.C. Pelosi would lead a three-week-long campaign to get them off the ticket, and Biden would, like, play the play reluctant for a while, but eventually give in just in time for Kamala Harris to win the nomination by acclamation. I love it. Here's what I say. Like, no, politics isn't that organized. I mean, people aren't

that organized. Like, look at your own life, America. Like, nobody has that level of sophistication or organization. Mediocrity is the rule of the day. It's always veed. It's never House of Cards. Sorry, people. They're not that sophisticated, okay? The reason why the White House had that June debate is because he was losing in every survey for months to Trump, and Trump was not front and center. And the Democrats knew they had to do two things. They had to show voters that Biden still had it. He still had a fastball, which obviously didn't work out so well. But they also wanted to get Trump by the lapels back, center stage and showed America that Trump was Trump. Do you want this guy back in your living room for four years, American voter?

And I think they were so desperate because that debate in New York, debate, that trial, Janie in New York in the spring had got such little traction, right? Here's Donald Trump, on trial in New York City for paying all the porn star. And the American voter couldn't give too shit. It got no, it was not O.J. It wasn't, I mean, it wasn't even like the Kito-Kaelin trial. It was a nothing trial, right? And, you know, Christy Nome's dead dog got more like zeitgeist buzz than Donald Trump's trial.

And so if you're the Biden White House, it's like, oh, my God, how do we change this thing up? And they did that by calling for a June debate. Trump takes the bait, of course, because it's Trump. But now the conspiracy war. You know, I think why it has some resonance, because there's still like some cognitive dissonance here, isn't there? that you have Joe Biden stepping down from the race, but not the presidency. You have, you know, reporting after Joe Biden steps down about, oh, yeah, people noticed this, you know, last year when he visited Congress and hasn't come, you know, since he, to meet with Congress since then.

People still are unsure of, you know, okay, how bad is whatever we saw in the debate? How capable is Joe Biden of running the country? and if he has to step down from running for president, how can he be present? So I guess my question to you is, what is his actual state of abilities right now? Those are all their question. I just think like the idea that this was some like seven point bank shot that was going to eventually force him out of the race and that was conceived as such, just like gives these folks like way too much credit and shows that people always want to believe that like politicians are like much more sophisticated actors

than the reality, which is like they're barely put their socks on every day. But as to Biden's condition, he's like a lot of people who are almost 82. He has like good days and not so good days. And that's precisely the problem. Like, you can't run somebody for re-election who has good days and bad days. And it's why Democrats obviously finally had to do what they did. But like, this was always the issue, is that like the Fox News character of him is like drooling was totally unfair and not accurate. But the Democratic denialism of the fact that he had lost the step was also preposterous.

It's somewhere in between, like everything is, right? He's not what he was, but obviously he's still capable of doing the job and, like, you know, knows the issues and can execute. But what he was not capable of doing was running the country in waging, like, a real campaign. And I wrote this last year that he wouldn't confront the age issue, and it was his biggest challenge, and he wouldn't confront it, and that, like, there was an obvious escape hatch after October the 7th last fall, that Biden could have said, look, I need to be a father, I need to be a husband, I need to be a president, and I can't do all those things, also be a candidate, right? There was an easy way out. So many times he had escape hatches,

is Brexit ramps, whatever better for you want to use. But he could have said something like that. And now I'm going to be the best president possible, best father possible for the remand many of my term. And he could have done that and avoided the summer in a humiliation that he suffered. And he didn't do it. And instead, he got forced off. Speaking of the vice president, what is her, does she have an ideological core?

It's a question that we've asked the last couple weeks of guests. Does she have an ideological core? You mentioned how she's obviously shifted without. really great explanation of those shifts, or is she a consummate politician that she'll go with the zeitgeist of the moment, whatever it takes to win? Yes. Yes. But what happens when she's in office?

So when she's president, you know, what actually is her, her new news for your listeners who make a living as lobbyist and or consultants in Washington or state capitals or both? It's going to be a full employment economy next year. no matter who wins, Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, right? Because neither of these people is anchored at any real ideological project, right? Like, we know that about Trump. Like, you know, let's look at the abortion issue. Like, Trump is for whatever gets him to win the election. And he's not committed to anything. Like, he doesn't, he isn't thought about this stuff. He's not interested in this stuff. Kamala Harris was like a fairly conventional California liberal, but

mostly thought about law and order, justice issues, because that's the world that she came from. She hadn't given deep thought to foreign policy or economic policy, really, until she ran for the Senate and 16. But even then, it's a Senate race in California. You're trying to win effectively in a one-party state. So like, you know, you get to where the left wants you to be is that you're not going to anger them and you'll win the nomination. That's tantamount to election. And then she comes to the Senate, Jamie, and she's there for like a half an hour, right? Because she's sworn in January of 17. She launched her campaign for president at February of 19, and basically two years in the Senate. You have a cup of coffee in the

setup, and she's still not a developed, a long, you know, sort of sophisticated worldview. So, yeah, we don't know how she's going to govern. She's going to be up for grabs. The combat next year, under Trump or Harris, in the agencies, in the West Wing, and on the Hill is going to be ferocious, right? Every week, there's going to be so much money, so many people trying to win the day, no matter if it's Trump or Harris. I mean, it is going to be remarkable to watch. You know, I think in some ways be as interesting at the campaign itself. Well, I mean, I read your Willie Brown column where you spoke to the one man that, you know, a lot of reporters. want to speak to about the vice president. And, you know, he talking about himself as a politician

was kind of transactional saying that, you know, Donald Trump came to him because he was told that's where L.A., you know, developers go to get things done. This is a great story. I have to take 30 seconds on it. Willie L. Brown, one of our greatest living Americans, the pride of Mediola, Texas, now 90 years young, still living in San Francisco, and still have a man to see. Twice in the last year, I've had lunch with Willie Brown. Both days that morning, he had breakfast with a sitting member of Congress. It was Maxine Waters, one of his protegees. One day, the other day was Hakeem Jeffries, the man who would be Speaker of the House.

So he's still in the man in California and beyond extraordinary. So Willie Brown gets a call from Donald Trump out of the blue because Steve Wynn, of all people, the Las Vegas casino magnate, a friend of Trump's and friend of Willie Browns, tells Trump, If you want to do any business in California, the guy you have to talk to who won't rip you off is Willie Brown. Now, Willie Brown is not a lobbyist at the time. Willie Brown is the Speaker of the State House when he stole the man to see about doing business in California. And so Trump says my buddy Steve Wynn told me to call you because I don't want to do a Trump hotel in downtown L.A. Anyways, that was a sidebar.

It just shows like how small this world is. And it's also like good grist for the Uniparty conspiracy folks. like nothing's on the level. But John, what's relevant for the listeners who may not know, Willie Brown dated Kamala Harris for a moment in time. Yeah, absolutely. It was a political mentor of hers and was critical to her rise because he introduced her to a lot of the swells in Pacific Heights.

Yeah, no question about it. But when you say she's true, I mean, is that what Willie Brown's kind of view? You know, she didn't go to Willie Brown and say, I have, I care so much about this issue and that issue. I want to get into politics because of this. She, you know, she just wanted to be in politics because power? I think she has a center-left worldview as somebody who grew up in California and college towns.

Not without definition. I don't think it's purely a play for power. Here for some credit. But no, it's not like a fully defined perspective, right? It's not Clintonism. It's not Reaganism. She's still up for grabs on a lot of economic. and foreign policy.

There's no question about it. But this is where the right, I think, kind of gets it wrong because they think like California liberals and the Gene Kirk, Patrick, you know, San Francisco liberals, it's more complicated. It's more like a Silicon Valley vibe now. They're okay with capitalism out there, all right? Capitalism is okay in California these days. I mean, she's not a real lefty.

She's somebody who's more up for grabs, left of center broadly, but I think on the detail is still up for grabs on a lot of policies. And by the way, don't take my word for it. Like the first time she breaks from Biden, Jamie, says, becoming the nominee is on capital gains. What a reveal about it. A fair point. Let me close. Let me get you out of here on these last two questions.

If Biden make stock options great again. Well, Mark Cuban's on TV campaigning for her. So I think he's won him over. If Biden's columnist, the columnist that he said, he read every day are Tom Friedman and David Ignatius, kind of these old school figures. Who are the columnist in the, in the Kamala Harris White House that she'll read on a regular basis that might give us insight to who she is? Oh, she and her husband are avid consumers of political news, and they read widely,

and they read the good stuff and the bad stuff alike. I speak from personal experience, having covered her, her, uh, primary, her ill-fid primary in 2019 when I was at the Times. And, yeah, both of them consume a lot of coverage of politics. And they're both pretty engaging people. And it's interesting, though, right? Because neither kind of were Washington figures. Doug Emoff wasn't even a political figure.

And Kamala Harris, obviously, was in the Senate. but like I said earlier, wasn't really around, right? And so I think like the last four years for both of them have been kind of a baptism by fire in Washington. And like they're still finding their way. She was really a throwback to an earlier model, Jamie of VPs. Think about this. The last three VPs we had were Cheney, Biden, and Pence, who were kind of the elders, at least when Washington applies, the elders in a relationship tutoring the younger, more inexperienced president. Well, all of a sudden, we're back to an earlier model, and it's Bush quail all over again, right? And so I think, like, she's still finding her footings when it comes to things like, you know,

foreign affairs and her worldview, but also like Washington and the press and that kind of thing, too. But this is really a blank slate in a way that we haven't had for a really long time. And finally, you know, we're 60 days away. you've been following campaigns for a very long time. What should our listeners be watching for in these final six days? What are you looking for that you think might change the race one? Don't watch what they say. Watch where they go.

They vote with their feet. Where are Trump and Kamala Harris going? Where are they spending their money? Watch their money. Watch their travels. Because if they stop going, if Kamala Harris decides Pennsylvania is never going to happen, she's just camping out in Georgia and North Carolina for the back half of October, We're, that's a pretty telling, telling thing, right?

If Trump, if Trump, you know, decides that Arizona and Nevada are gone and never really goes west of the Mississippi, except for Wisconsin, that's a tell. You know, so I think I don't want to watch those two things. What's their money? What's their travel. Jonathan Martin, thank you for joining the Dispatch podcast. Thanks for having me, Jamie. And Steve Hayes, I'm sorry, I called your Rhino, brother. Thank you.