Can Trump Be Stopped in Iowa?

I'm Tommy Vitor.

The president of UPenn resigns after disastrous testimony on campus anti-Semitism.

A woman flees Texas after the state's abortion ban puts her life in jeopardy.

And later, United Auto Workers President Sean Fain sits down with Tommy to discuss his union's

historic wins and what comes next.

But first, Donald Trump has somehow expanded his lead in the Iowa caucuses, which are now

just five weeks away.

The latest Des Moines Register poll has him at 51%, up from 43% in October.

Ron DeSantis is next at 19%, up slightly from 16% in October.

Nikki Haley's support is unchanged at 16%.

Vivek Ramaswamy's at 5%, Chris Christie at 4%.

And I learned from this poll that Asa Hutchinson is still in the race and polling at 1%.

Maybe one respondent.

Who knows?

So, this is the largest recorded lead, this close to a competitive Republican caucus ever.

Poll also shows 70% of Trump supporters say their minds are made up.

You guys see anything in this poll that the DeSantis or Haley campaigns might find even

mildly hopeful?

I tried.

I can say no, but before we even get to that, the domination...

So, Trump leads every age group.

He leads with Republicans and Independents.

He leads with people with a college degree and people without.

He leads across every income bracket.

He leads with Evangelicals.

He leads with rural people, suburban people, city people.

He leads every group.

Even the group where he does the worst.

He's doing the worst, but he's still leading among Independents.

She's doing better.

Yeah.

But even Independents.

Brutal.

Sounds like Republicans want Donald Trump.

He moved plus eight from October.

He's the highest percentage of people who say he's their first choice, second choice,

or actively considering him, so he's the biggest sort of universe of support.

If you wanted to find one thing in this poll, you could say, okay, if you look at everyone

that would make DeSantis first choice or second choice or would consider him, he's doing better

there than Haley.

But then you realize, actually, that's a place where he's gone down since the last poll.

At least he has lost people, even in that big, wide group, to Trump since October.

made up their mind.

Is electability numbers against Biden improved?

I mean, it's just a disaster.

I mean, I think what it shows is the people who dropped out, even though they didn't have

much support, that support largely went to Donald Trump.

Maybe a little bit went to Ron DeSantis.

I think Nikki Haley has probably maxed out on the anti-Trump vote, at least in Iowa.

New Hampshire, there's probably a bigger anti-Trump vote among Republicans, but it goes to show

how she doesn't have a ton of room to grow.

And Dan's made this point, but if not Trump, then DeSantis is still the only candidate

who can at least have some support from people who really, really like Trump.

I think the number that says it all is, you mentioned the electability, the way they asked

the question, 73% of Republican caucus goers said they think Trump can win an election

against Biden despite his legal challenges.

73%.

So there goes the electability argument.

And honestly, even if the other candidates tried to prove those voters wrong, I mean,

it's not easy to do so when poll after poll after poll now shows Donald Trump leading

Joe Biden, both in the general election, that was the Wall Street Journal poll that just

came out over the weekend, in states, there were CNN polls of Michigan where Trump's leading

by 10 on Joe Biden, Georgia, where he's leading by five.

So we're not going to have another debate over whether the polls are to be believed

this far up from the election, but if you're a Republican caucus goer and you really like

Trump and you had been concerned at one point about electability, why would you be concerned

about electability at this point?

Yeah.

just the kind of abysmal performance of people like DeSantis, but there is a structural problem

that they're dealing with.

So one thing that was interesting is there is a different, even though sort of DeSantis

and Haley, they're both kind of stuck where they're stuck, you know, everyone, the Haley

boomlet seems to have not done too much booming, but there's a difference in their polling

among DeSantis supporters.

People think Trump can win.

They say 59% think he can win, a minority thinks that he, that that is impossible.

For Haley, it's the opposite.

So Haley has consolidated the anti-Trump vote and DeSantis is doing well with people that

still like Trump, but are open to an alternative.

But what's interesting is how both of those paths have not worked, right?

Like there's not enough of an anti-Trump vote to rally around Haley to give her anything

that she can do.

And kind of trying to get people who like Trump to switch is basically impossible because

if you like Trump, he's right there.

All you really need to know about this is the quote that NBC had in their write-up from

one Republican caucus goer who said, they can promise me a million dollars, I tell them

to keep it.

And I would still vote for Trump.

I like that person.

And Bergen was like, I tried it.

Here's one thing you could try.

Actually run against the person winning, step one.

Step two, there may be is an expectations management challenge now for Trump.

incumbent.

Incumbents usually win the Iowa caucuses by like 60, 70, right?

They have a much higher total than 50% of the vote.

Maybe you could spin that.

Maybe I don't know, maybe if you gain on him in this last month, I'm trying here, I'm flailing

here.

Much like them.

It's about how you are perceived to have done by an arbitrary jury of your non peers called

the press corps and the pundit class.

So like I do think at this point I'm looking beyond Iowa as I'm sure Nikki Haley and Ron

DeSantis are like, I don't know how you make up this much ground in five weeks.

I have not seen that happen certainly in our lifetime from anyone this close to the caucus.

But if DeSantis stays in and Haley stays in after Iowa and they go to New Hampshire, I

do think there's a bigger independent vote there.

There's a bigger college educated vote there that we know for sure.

And there's most likely a bigger anti-Trump vote there.

And so then if all these voters wake up and say, oh, Trump's running away with it, then

no, who knows?

Maybe you get more in the mix in New Hampshire, but I'm doubtful.

Vivek.

Yeah.

Well, there's a lot of tough things for team Vivek these days.

DeSantis seems to be sticking with his strategy of a half-heartedly criticizing Trump on Twitter.

Latest salvo came after Donald Trump told this bizarre and I'm sure a hundred percent

true story at the New York Young Republican Club Gala Saturday night.

I saw the clips from this, I'm like, what?

Trump's dressed up in a tux.

He's in New York for a gala.

What the hell?

That's, that is the sign of someone who is not worried about any competition in the Republican

primary.

Let's listen to a clip.

Men have gone down on my left and on my right.

I stood on hills where soldiers were killed, but I believe the bravest thing I've ever

seen was the night you went onto that stage with Hillary Clinton after what happened.

And then that woman asked you the first question about it.

And I said, locker room talk.

What are you talking about?

Yeah.

Yeah.

It's an awesome category.

I just need to tell you that.

Strapping.

Big.

me.

and then says in his Twitter post, quote, debating isn't brave.

It's the bare minimum any candidate should do.

Hiding from debates, on the other hand, is an example of cowardice.

Meanwhile, here's what Trump said about DeSantis on Saturday night.

You know what I love?

You know, it looks like a bobblehead doll.

He does some anti-woke stuff.

He does cancel culture.

He's crazy.

That's his.

Put it right up next to Chappelle.

Why not?

limit for a spin here on Twitter.

I'm going to write this long statement that no one's going to care about.

I'm going to call Trump a coward.

But instead of saying it in front of a camera or in front of a crowd or at a debate, I'm

just going to tweet it.

They don't know who they're dealing with.

And DeSantis is like, it's home.

It's to whom they're dealing.

voter fraud.

Did you see what she said?

Yeah, she screwed up.

She fucked that up.

She's like, hey, everybody come to Iowa and vote.

I was like, I don't think that's right.

Yeah, she said people, you don't have to be, you don't have to be a resident of Iowa to

participate is the problem there in the caucuses.

So people can descend from all these other states.

And what she said she meant is that people can come to the state and volunteer and knock

on doors, which of course they can.

But you think Donald Trump's going to take it that way or anyone else?

Yeah, we know.

From the Clinton playbook over there.

Mark Penn.

Love it.

Look, look, the Iowa polls said what they said.

Then all of a sudden.

Like, again, Trump is literally attacking Ron DeSantis's wife in the most personal terms

possible.

And the only sort of little lane that DeSantis thinks he can carve out and safely criticize

Trump about his participation in the debate.

It's so pathetic.

so you got to call him weak.

It doesn't work to just be like, I'm going to tweet quietly that he's weak.

It doesn't matter.

That'll do.

That'll unlock the.

And it just doesn't.

It just doesn't work.

And I do think like going back to the poll, like the fact that more Republican caucus

goers in Iowa believe Trump is electable today than a few months ago is such an indictment

of the way these campaigns have tried to fight against Trump because that's the whole ball

game for people.

It's like he's beating Joe Biden, so it's like, why?

They also suck.

the felonies, right?

Like that.

The fact that those felonies have not changed this calculus at all, it's like it's staggering.

And so all of these, oh, he's too weak to debate me.

Like the, the, how dare you, Mr. Trump?

It doesn't work with the country.

It's sure as fuck not going to work with Republicans who have become basically full blown fucking

animals.

Like, how dare you, Mr. Trump, it's our troops that are brave.

Like when does that work?

It didn't work with fucking, he did the gold star thing at the, at the convention in 2016.

It's not going to work with Republicans in Iowa.

in Iowa that, uh, if it's Trump, Trump's going to inspire higher democratic turnout and Trump's

going to bring out all the Democrats if he, if he's the nominee and DeSantis won't bring

out as many Democrats to vote against, to vote against him.

What are you doing?

Like when we were first, I remember when, when like we were first thinking about like,

oh, who's going to challenge DeSantis is like, oh, is Ron DeSantis a bigger threat than Donald

Trump in general?

And at this point, like watching the way DeSantis kind of fucking...

He's doing the worst.

in Atlanta.

weeks of the caucuses, a real authentic actual pee tape, but not from Donald Trump.

During a Twitter spaces live stream with Elon Musk accused rapist Andrew Tate and the newly

reinstated Alex Jones, Vivek Ramaswamy forgot to turn off his mic.

While taking a leak.

Uh, you know, humans in America, humans in Africa, Asia, and everywhere else.

Go ahead, Elon.

Um, sorry about that.

So, um, well, I hope you feel better.

Sorry about that, guys.

I think I'll take the pee.

What a world.

Happy, happy holidays, everybody.

Uh, I do like that he just called it out.

I mean, I, I accidentally tuned into this Twitter spaces yesterday.

Uh, it was like Mike Flynn was on truly the worst people.

It was, it was the Trump cabinet for the second term.

I tuned in and they were complaining about, uh, the possible creation of an unelected world

government in Davos and the world economic forum.

It was exactly what you would expect.

So I turned it off.

you see or hear that at the gala on Saturday night with the Trump was at the Republican

gala, he did say that Newsome, uh, won the debate.

Oh, nice.

Which is what you predicted for that.

It's a big week in Congress.

Uh, this is their last scheduled week of 2023.

Uh, and there's still nowhere close to an agreement on a bill that's supposed to include

$60 billion for Ukraine, $14 billion for Israel, a few hundred million dollars in humanitarian

assistance for the Palestinians and some combination of funding and policy to address the migrant

crisis at the Southern border.

Republicans are still saying they will not vote for Ukraine aid without new border policy.

And even though Democrats and Biden have said they're open to some new limits on asylum,

some of the latest Republican demands include ankle bracelets for children detained at the

border and banning people from even applying for asylum, closing down the entire border.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky is making a special trip to DC to plead with

Congress for support.

Though Senator Langsford, the lead Republican negotiator just told CNN that, uh, nothing

Zelensky says will change Republican minds and that they probably won't be able to get a deal

by the end of the week.

for good, but it does seem like it's not, uh, it's not going to happen in 2023 because

they don't have time.

I mean, so Murphy said something like if I were cynical, I would say they're using the

border to make sure we can't pass Ukraine aid.

Hmm.

Uh, but I'm not cynical, which I think was, uh, sounds pretty cynical.

Sounded like a way of saying without saying that he's, uh, pretty worried about the whole

thing.

change their mind before Zelensky got on a plane to come?

I know you're, I know it's, I know it's on television for you, but it's an actual war

on Chris Murphy, who's the lead democratic negotiator was on meet the press and he basically

like outlined what a compromise on the border could look like.

He said, we're not going to support anything that shuts down the border completely to people

who legitimately are coming here to have their lives rescued.

But we are willing to talk about tightening some of the rules so that you don't have 10,000

people arriving today.

But like, I don't know, I don't know what the Republican incentives are to, uh, political

incentives are to go along with a compromise like that.

I mean, it, it seems like they've all just gotten to a place politically where they feel

like being, uh, in support of Ukraine funding is bad politics for them with the base because

Trump has demagogued it because it's become this right wing, uh, cause to oppose supporting

Ukraine.

And it just means that over time that the Ukrainian military is going to slowly run

out of weapons.

I mean, literally like they're, they're gonna, their air defense system is pretty good right

now, but over the couple of months they will run out of interceptor missiles.

The things will slowly break down.

They'll stop being able to defend from these drone attacks.

I mean, people will die because they're not able to intercept these things.

And so, I mean, it's not going to be like a precipitous, you know, one day they just

won't be able to fight anymore, but they're going to have to change their strategy.

They'll probably have to leave territory.

Uh, you'll have Putin feeling like he's ascendant and he'll be looking to our election

and thinking, boy, if I can press now and wait till Donald Trump's around, uh, then

they'll have nobody in my way.

I mean, this is a very bad setup.

Well, they're, they're certainly threatening that or talking about it.

And look, the minority of Republicans, mostly in the Senate who are for Ukraine aid still

know that Republican voters are in favor of much, much tougher immigration and border

policies.

And so even though, even the ones who are for Ukraine aid, I don't know what the political

incentive for them is to compromise on the border when they know they've got the issue

and that their base wants tougher policies.

Especially because even if they could get, even if they get a compromise, which by the

way we say is still possible, right?

Like deals have come out of more intransigent situations than this, that even if they get

a deal that has incredibly restrictive changes to border policy, there'll be enough Republicans

calling it a capitulation and a failure to kind of mitigate any political game they could

have.

Right.

Because as you said, like Republicans in Congress are more in favor of Ukraine aid than Republican

voters.

So there are Republicans who want to vote for aid and are looking for a political way

to do so.

Border security is a way for them to get there, but not if doing it, then all of a sudden

all these house Republicans who say, if it's not our bill, it's basically, it's basically

a kind of amnesty or whatever they're going to say, all of a sudden they're doing something

to help their politics and their own members are going to make it seem as though they've

capitulated to Democrats.

Like even theoretically, if you get some kind of a deal with Republicans in the Senate who

were, again, theoretically a slightly more moderate on a border stuff and might want

to compromise that kind of deal, it seems very difficult for that deal to get through

the house.

Then I think the question is like, did they try to split Israel aid off at some point

and do that?

I don't know.

Like, I think the idea, again, that the Democrats in the Senate should all vote for aid to Israel

with no conditions is lunacy at this point.

I think they probably will, but I absolutely think it's outrageous.

I talked to Senator Welch last week from Vermont and he was talking about all the conditions

he wants to see.

I mean, there's definitely growing concern about the number of airstrikes by the IDF

and the need to condition aid.

over the last couple of weeks, Netanyahu has changed strategy at all to do more to limit

civilian casualties or settler violence at all.

So that's just terrible.

All right.

So one thing Congress did get done is forcing the resignation of University of Pennsylvania

President Liz McGill, who along with the presidents of Harvard and MIT was called to testify last

week about antisemitism on campus.

When Elise Stefanik asked whether, quote, calling for the genocide of Jews would violate

their school's code of conduct.

McGill only went as far as to say, quote, if the speech turns into conduct, it can be

harassment.

The other two presidents gave similar answers.

The clip went viral.

It was widely condemned by politicians in both parties.

And even though they all tried to apologize, McGill ultimately resigned on Saturday.

So we haven't talked about this yet.

Just been brewing in the background.

What do you guys think about this whole controversy?

Okay.

So I think, first of all, I feel like Stefanik set two traps and they stepped into both.

They kind of dove headfirst into both of them.

All right.

Trap number one is conservatives have created a caricature of what's going on on college

campuses.

And the character basically says, if you express any kind of conservative viewpoint, it's considered

bigotry.

It's considered hate speech.

You'll be yelled at.

You'll be barked off campus.

And then they pull out examples of protest or a conservative judge gets yelled at.

And then they say, see, if you express anything other than liberal orthodoxy, you're not safe

on campus.

But you can say any kind of anti-Semitic thing you want.

And that's okay, because this is about espousing what they call like sort of extremist views

on gender and race and all the rest.

So that's like trap number one, that character.

The second trap is equating any form of legitimate criticism of Israel or a belief or anti-Zionism

at all and trying to equate that completely with anti-Semitism.

Right.

That's what a lot of Republicans in the House have done.

They just passed this resolution.

And it says right there in the middle, anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.

To basically paint anything, anyone who is not supportive of Israel as being anti-Semitic,

that is a part of this project.

And basically, this hearing was a way to get these college presidents to fall into both

of those traps.

And in the way, by the way, they'd sat there for hours answering questions.

And by the time they got to this moment, they kind of fell in that trap.

Why?

Because it's sort of like Ghostbusters.

When someone asks if you're a god, you say yes.

If someone tries to bait you into doing anything to defend a call for genocide, you have to

not take that bait.

I mean, they've just seemed so like rigid and lawyered up and tied to their talking

points that they somehow were incapable of answering the most obvious question in the

world, which is, is genocide that?

Right.

That shouldn't stump you if you're a college president.

But you're right.

Like Stefanik was playing a game in bad faith, which was trying to say, she was trying to

get these presidents to accept the premise that the word intifada is calling for a genocide.

That is just not true.