Marc Short and Adrienne Elrod debate Trump’s economic claims, including $1.99/gallon gas, $12B farmer aid, and $40B Intel gains, while clashing on tariffs—Short calls them ineffective, harming consumers, and constitutionally risky (Article 1, Section 8), Rod counters with Biden’s job growth and global inflation context. Trump’s Venezuela strikes spark concerns over escalation, with Short defending border security but demanding transparency, Rod warning of broader conflict risks. On Ukraine, Trump’s election rhetoric and Putin comparison alarm Rod, who fears alliance damage, while Short rejects moral equivalence but criticizes Europe’s economic policies. Both agree no successor matches Trump’s influence, yet Democrats push affordability fixes amid Obamacare subsidy expiration risks (26–30% premium hikes), Republicans resist policy shifts like higher wages. The episode ends with nostalgia for 2000’s bipartisan unity, contrasting today’s polarized scramble—even as a rare House anti-scam bill shows fleeting cooperation. [Automatically generated summary]
Welcome to Ceasefire, where we seek to bridge the divide in American politics.
I'm Dasha Burns, Politico White House Bureau Chief.
And this week, I sat down with President Donald Trump at the White House for a wide-ranging interview for my podcast, The Conversation.
Joining me now to dissect the key moments from my 45-minute conversation with President Trump are two political pros from both sides of the aisle.
Republican strategist Mark Short, top aide to President Trump in the first administration, as well as former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, and Democratic strategist Adrienne L. Rod, who began her career in the Clinton administration and has been a top aide to four presidential campaigns.
Most recently, former senior advisor to Vice President Harris's presidential campaign.
Welcome to you both.
Now, I know you've both done the surrogate game.
Today, you're doing the strategist game for me.
You're going to peel back the curtain on how your parties are navigating this moment, especially in the context of some of what we just heard from President Trump in my interview.
The White House has been making a renewed push on domestic issues, especially the economy.
So, I want you to take a listen to my conversation with the president about affordability.
But I do want to talk about the economy, sir, here at home.
And I wonder what grade you would give A plus.
unidentified
A plus, Well, it's interesting because I talked to a supporter of yours.
Her name is Melanie from Westmoreland County, PA, and she loves you.
She gave you, overall, an A grade.
But here's what she said about the economy: she said, quote, groceries, utility, insurance, and the basic cost of running small business keep rising faster than wages.
He's been very successful in lowering energy prices, but I think that the trade agenda has been an unmitigated disaster.
And I think that what you see is that if you were to tell people that your energy prices would be 25% less, and yet you'd still be suffering from high-cost inflation, I think that's a big challenge.
It illustrates how bad the trade agenda is.
And so I think that they have their hands full in trying to explain this to the American people unless they change direction on this trade agenda.
Number one, let's also keep in mind that President Biden mitigated a major recession from happening because he inherited COVID.
I mean, that was something he inherited a COVID economy.
So the first thing he did when he came into office was pass the American Rescue Plan and make sure that we didn't go into a recession.
And yes, we were dealing with inflation, but so were other GDP countries around the world.
And it was just the reality of the situation.
Now, I will say this.
I think something I was on President Biden's campaign, I think something that we probably should not have done or we could have done a better job of doing is going out there to the American people and saying, no, actually, the economy is really, really good.
You may not be feeling it, but it's good.
We've got record GDP growth.
We've got record unemployment.
You know, I can name all the stats.
We created 15 million jobs under President Biden, 1.5 million of those manufacturing jobs.
But if the American people aren't feeling that strong economy, you start to lose credibility with them.
And that's exactly what is happening with President Trump right now.
He said he largely won the election, Dasha, because he went out there and said, I'm going to lower prices for you.
I'm going to make sure that you can afford food, that you can afford to heat your home, that you can afford the everyday bills that middle-class families are facing.
And instead, costs largely have gone up.
Maybe gas prices have gone down a little bit, but prices have largely gone up.
So at the end of the day, the phrase that James Carvel famously coined, it's the economy's stupid.
It's the reason why you're seeing Democrats massively overperforming in some of these special elections.
It's the reason why you saw Mikey Sherrill and Abigail Spamberger outperform, significantly outperform Republicans in their governor's races.
And it's the reason why Democrats are going into the midterms next year with some wind at their backs because we are winning the affordability discussion.
And I think until Trump does something to try to lower costs, American families are going to side with Democrats.
I think it's going to be a really steep climb, Dash.
The reality is that Americans like divided government.
They don't want one party in control.
Each time there's been one party in control, there's been a backlash.
And so just like in the 2018 midterms, when Republicans had control of everything, Democrats had a big year.
In 2022, when Democrats were controlled of everything, Republicans had a big year.
So I think you're going to see likely a Democrat year in the midterms.
I think the question is how do you mitigate that?
And the reality is that so many of our House districts are drawn today to gerrymander for each side that there's fewer really districts that are really controversial.
So I do think there'll be a swing, but the question is, you know, I remember being able to date myself, a Hill staffer in 2010, when after the Obamacare passage, there were 63 seats the Republicans picked up.
I think it's hard to think you're going to have that kind of a swing or even 40 in the 2018 midterms.
But I still think that the margins, as tight as they are, of potentially one or two seats by that point, that you got to favor the Democrats in the midterm.
Well, look, I think you, in particular, I think Hakeem Jeffries has done a really good job so far of capitalizing this.
And to an extent, you know, Chuck Schumer, although his caucus has wavered a little bit more than the House is.
But, you know, you have to draw the contrast, right?
You have to show what you're fighting for.
And this goes for both Republicans, and Mark's exactly right.
I mean, when one party is in full control, the other party tends to, even if they just sat there on their laurels and did nothing, they would tend to benefit from that because Americans do like divided government.
But in terms of capitalizing, I think several things.
Number one, Democrats have done a good job of holding Republicans' feet to the fire on affordability, obviously on health care subsidies, which will, by the way, expire on January 1st.
That's a big gerrymander, which obviously folds into the affordability argument.
But I think Democrats also have to put forward a forward-looking agenda that talks about what they're actually standing for.
And I think one of the challenges that Democrats have right now, and this is for the first time in a long time, is there's not an error parent who's going to be the Democratic nominee in 2020.
But I think that that is the challenge for Democrats is really laying out to the American people what they stand for.
And I know that this is not the topic of today's show, but I do hope that we will have a robust primary in 27 for the Democratic nomination going to 2028, because I think Americans seeing a chorus of really a strong bench of Democrats going out there and articulating their vision will be very helpful.
Okay, so we didn't hear him say anything there about pushing for an extension to these subsidies.
So it seems, I mean, you heard me talk about it there.
It does seem like with the way he's discussing it right now, people might expect those premiums to go up while the Republicans try to figure out another plan.
Obamacare, otherwise known as the Affordable Care Act, turns out not to be very affordable.
The reality is that 15 years later, the prices continue to go up, even though Democrats promised the American people they would go down.
And when Democrats passed Obamacare, they went to insurance companies and promised them to get their support that they would include subsidies up to 400% of the poverty level.
Then, during the Biden years, they added onto that additional subsidy support above 400%.
So people making hundreds of thousands of dollars still get subsidies to pay for health insurance.
It is a broken system.
The challenge for Republicans is we don't have an alternative that we're offering right now.
And I think that there's probably support among a lot of Republicans who are fearful in light of the fact that there is an affordability crisis out there to say we're concerned that our constituents won't have these subsidies.
And so I think they will end up moving forward in some way of passing.
And I think it's been well known that the president's polls are put out a lot of polls showing this is a challenge.
And so I think you hear the president say, well, let's instead give it to insurance companies, let's give it to individuals.
That doesn't solve the problem.
You're just still taking subsidies and redirecting it.
I get the insurance companies are not popular, but that's not solving the underlying problem of actually offering free market reforms in our health care system.
Again, I feel like if Republicans are just following the Democrat game of providing more and more subsidies, you're not actually fixing this health care crisis.
I think Obamacare has been a disaster.
And that's what you're paying for today, is there are promises that it would lower insurance.
There are promises with lower health care costs.
And it's not.
Health care costs are out of control because you've socialized medicine in America.
Well, look, I think Mark just hit the nail on the head by making it clear that when January hits and those subsidies go up, I think that's when you're going to see both sides start to kind of figure out, especially Republicans who are in control, by the way, of the House and Senate and have all the power to make these decisions, come to the table and say, okay, we've got to do something about this.
But here's my little bit of pushback to some of the things Mark said.
Yes, do I think Obamacare, the ACA Affordable Care Act, needs some reforms?
Absolutely.
I think 99.9% of Democrats would agree with that too.
But it is popular with a lot of Americans who could not either get health care before Obamacare was passed, whether they had a pre-existing condition, whether health care access was just way beyond their means in terms of being able to afford it.
But reforms do need to be made.
I do think if Republicans really were earnestly wanting to make reforms, they would have tried that a long time before we got very close to the government shutting down.
So the bottom line is this: we're going to go into January.
Millions of Americans are going to see their health care premiums spike by 26 to 30 percent, some even higher.
That is when I think you're going to see both sides come to the table.
The pressure will be on, by the way, Democrats as well.
It's not just going to be Republicans, even though, again, Republicans have control of the House into the White House, because the American people are going to say, we want to see Congress, we want to see our government do something about this.
So this week, the president also announced a massive $12 billion aid package for farmers impacted by the trade war with China that he says will be funded by tariff revenue.
Mark, for people at home that are just kind of confounded by this whole thing, can you explain imposing tariffs, then using that funding to help out farmers suffering from the tariffs?
Let's keep in mind that Americans pay the tariffs.
The tariffs are collected by Customs and Border Patrol at the border when the product arrives.
And the American importer pays that tax.
So the notion that foreigners are going to be paying the tariffs is a misnumber.
It's not true.
Americans pay the vast majority of the tariffs.
So what you're doing is you're basically assessing a tax on farmers to import fertilizer and products they use, and then you're paying them back on the back end with those same tax dollars as a bailout for a policy that's not working.
So the $12 billion bailout they want the farmers to pay for with the trade agenda is basically the same money they paid to import products into the United States.
So it's hard to think of a administration, much less a Republican administration, that has ever had more central planners in their economic department than this one.
But again, in the first administration, the tariffs, there was some on steel and aluminum, but predominantly they were targeted toward China and helped get the world aligned and to isolate China.
The second administration has opposed tariffs on Japan and Korea, who are some of our best trading partners, who would basically, if we had strong relations with them, would put more pressure on China.
Right now, you're sending many of our former trading partners into the hands of China because they can get better trade deals right now with China.
So the first administration did have some tariffs.
You're right, Dasha, but it was very targeted.
What this is doing is across the board.
And again, you wouldn't need a bailout for farmers.
America has great agricultural exporting, but you've basically cut that off.
And so now you're having to bail out farmers for the very policies that you've imposed upon them.
You know, Adrian, I've talked to Democrats and Republicans in Congress that feel that Congress should have more authority over the president's authority on tariffs, that they should curb his tariff power somehow.
How would you advise Democrats to tackle this issue, either in policy or messaging?
Well, first of all, I would literally have them watch what Mark just said because he explained why this tariff policy is so ineffective and why it is ultimately driving at the cost for consumers, which means it's going back under the umbrella of affordability.
But I think something that Mark said that I think members of Congress, a Democrat should continue to make, and I think governors, mayor, anybody who's representing a constituency who is impacted by this is the fact that we are going after some of our top, not just trading allies, but our top allies that we have formed alliances with since America became America.
And we are attacking them and we are imposing these arcane tariff trade policies on them.
What are they doing?
They're not kowtowing to Trump.
They're actually going to China and saying, let's make a deal.
So it's actually going to have a net, and it is having a net negative benefit on the American or deficit on the American consumer.
It's insensible.
It's like he came in, just started making up things or saying things that enacting trade policies or tariff policies that didn't have a lot of substance or thought behind them.
And it's now coming home to roost for a lot of American consumers because it's not lowering costs of anything.
I think Republicans traditionally have been more protrade.
I mean, traditionally, it's been more the Democrats that have been consumed by the labor unions and had a protectionist trade policy, but it's upside down right now.
And so, yeah, Republicans do that, but unfortunately, Dasha, they're not willing to say it publicly.
They don't want to go against this administration.
I mean, Article 1, Section 8 is perfectly clear in the Constitution that this responsibility belongs to the legislative branch.
It belongs to the legislative branch.
There's really no confusion if you were to read that.
And so I suspect the president will lose on this, particularly because he's using an arcane law from the 1970s that doesn't even mention tariffs in IEPA legislation.
And so I suspect he will, but the challenge is that there's so many other levers the president has that he will use.
So it's not going to really deter his trade agenda.
He'll use Section 232, Section 122, Section 301 to continue to advance a tariff agenda.
But absolutely, there are plenty of Republicans in Congress who want to reclaim that authority, but they're unwilling to because they don't want to get on the wrong side of the president politically.
I do want to turn to another story that's been in the headlines for really the last several weeks, which is Venezuela, particularly those boat strikes.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth says he was not in the room during a second U.S. strike on a boat in the Caribbean, but he does say that the right decision was made.
The president weighed in on the controversy during our interview and gave me an assessment of what the video shows.
I do want to talk about the boat strikes.
The Defense Secretary, should he testify, Pete Hegseth, under oath before Congress about that controversial second strike on the alleged drug boat October on the USA?
Yeah, I think something I also heard, Dosh, that he just said to you is we'll go to their shores too, which I think he said we're going to hit him on land very soon.
We're going to hit him on land very soon.
I mean, that should be an alarm, set off alarm bells to a lot of the American people.
I mean, does that mean we're going to war with Venus?
Yeah, but look, I think a lot of Americans, of course, they want to keep bad drugs out of our country, illegal drugs out of our country.
But let's also keep in mind that 90% of fentanyl comes from the southern border, not from Venezuela.
And I think you made that point earlier.
And secondly, I think there are a lot of people, especially people who have served our military, who are looking at that and saying, this is not how you used in the U.S. military to indiscriminately take down a boat that may or may not have drugs on it.
It does not settle well with a lot of the American people.
I think Democrats have done a really good job in Congress of really drawing that distinction of, number one, calling for the release of the video.
I think the American people should be able to see that video and make this decision for themselves whether or not this seemed like a lawful thing to do.
And number two, a lot of people understand a war crime when they see it.
So I think if they want to be transparent, which Trump seems to say that he is, wants to be, then release the video.
So, you know, everyone can make this decision for themselves.
I think we have to be careful and not assess that there's a potential war crime here.
And I don't think it's really doubt that there are drugs on the boat.
So I think the question, though, is like, if you have non-combatants who are then, you know, hanging on to the boat, is it the military's responsibility to eliminate them?
Or instead, what our military has often done is to save those who are, you know, at that point that they've been disarmed, is to protect them.
And I think that's the question that we need to address.
At the end of the exchange, you just heard there, he said that he would consider doing something similar with the countries I mentioned that actually are more responsible for trafficking drugs into the United States, countries like Mexico and Colombia.
Do you think that's realistic?
Do you think that was sort of rhetoric to warn those countries?
They have to play ball if they don't read agreements, potential agreements.
It's not easy with Russia because Russia has the upper hand.
And they always did.
They're much bigger.
They're much stronger in that sense.
I give Ukraine a lot of, I give the people of Ukraine and the military of Ukraine tremendous credit for the bravery and for the fighting and all of that.
But at some point, size will win generally.
And this is a massive size.
We take a look at the numbers.
I mean, the numbers are just crazy.
This is not a war that should have happened.
This is a war that would have never happened if I were president.
It's so sad.
Millions of people are dead, many, many soldiers.
You know, last month they lost 27,000 soldiers and some people from missiles being launched into Kiev and Kiev and other places.
But what a sad thing for humanity.
You know, this doesn't affect us.
Our country is no longer paying any money.
It was just Biden, gave him $350 billion so stupidly.
And, you know, if he wouldn't have given it, maybe something else would have happened.
But Putin had no respect for Biden, and he had no respect for Zelensky.
He didn't like Zelensky.
They really hate each other.
And part of the problem is they hate each other really a lot, you know?
And it's very hard for them to try and make a deal.
It's harder than most.
I settled eight wars, and I would have said this is the ninth.
This would have been the easiest one I would have said, or one of the easier ones.
I mean, I settled one that was going on for 36 years.
I settled Pakistan and India.
I settled so many wars.
I'm very proud of it.
And I do it pretty routinely, pretty easily.
It's not hard for me to do.
It's what I do.
I make deals.
This one is tough.
One of the reasons is the level of hatred between Putin and Zelensky is tremendous.
Adrian, you told me when we were chatting earlier that you were pretty struck by this part of the interview and just how far the president went in his rhetoric on Ukraine.
Yeah, I was surprised at how much he leaned into Russia.
I mean, he's always sort of, you know, we have certainly seen over the course of time that he tends to embrace dictators more so than presidents of democratic countries and nations.
But I was really surprised to see how much he sort of leaned into, you know, maybe Russia's winning right now.
Tasha, I just think we have to take a step back here and look at this from the 30,000-foot perspective, which is I remember a time about 14 months ago when the president of the United States, who by the way, his name was Joe Biden, always sided with the democracy over the dictator, the democratic, the democracy leader over a dictator.
We are literally seeing the president of the free world right now.
Kind of maybe one day he's pro-Ukraine, maybe the next day he's pro-Russia.
It is incredibly dangerous.
It is incredibly irresponsible.
It should terrify every single American who believes in democracy, who believes that that is what we stand for as a country.
And that is one of the reasons why we are so proud of being Americans, because we live in a free country.
We live under a democracy.
So maybe this is Mark and Tell us because he worked in the administration.
Maybe this is part of Trump's negotiating tactic with Zelensky slash Putin.
I think it's just disturbing to see sort of a moral equivalence between Zelensky and Putin.
Vladimir Putin's a brutal dictator who has come across the line in aggression and stolen children from Ukraine and sold them.
He's authorized the raping of women in the country.
This is not a moral equivalence.
There's one aggressor here.
And the reality is that I think in the first administration, actually the president was very proud of the fact that he would talk about President Obama sending blankets to Ukraine and he sent javelin missiles.
He was proud of having defended Ukraine in the first administration.
You know, for a lot of people, the assumption was when Russia invaded Ukraine, the war would be over in three weeks.
And here we are more than three years later.
And they've never really been allowed to defend themselves.
Even though the Biden administration did send them weapons, there were strings attached to it.
I don't know why we are not allowing just providing the resources to Ukraine to defend themselves.
Nobody's talking about sending American troops there.
I think that's often used as a red herring as to what interventionists want.
Nobody's recommending that.
It's just a matter of why not give them the resources to defend themselves.
Because if we allow Putin to get away with this, it's a matter of time before he goes somewhere else.
And it's not, we should remember that, you know, since he's been dictator in Russia, he took Georgia during the Bush administration.
He took Crimea during the Obama administration.
He's now taking a large part of Ukraine.
He's not going to stop.
And if you reward him with this, it's going to keep going.
Yeah, it was firstly a very strong like, no, as in my son is not right.
And then he kind of meandered around.
I mean, again, I cannot begin to even understand where his head is at when it comes to the Ukraine-Russian situation.
I do think that he thought he would have this settled very quickly.
And I think he's mad.
Some days he's angrier at Putin.
Some days he's angrier at Zelensky that this has not been able to be settled under his watch.
As Mark said, though, this is something that a majority of Americans, it does not matter your political affiliation, a majority of Americans stand with Ukraine.
And the fact that he has even sent his chief negotiator into Russia that they were rumored to use a blueprint that Russia put together to sort of come to an agreement on this, it's incredibly disturbing.
And the American people, it may not be an issue that drives the midterms, but it's certainly something that continues to add another demerit in Trump's court.
Well, it is a pretty major driving issue in Europe, though.
I mean, the widespread consensus among Europeans is that they want to see Ukraine supported in this.
They want Ukraine to win the war.
Just before my interview with the president, the administration released this national security strategy document that was a pretty radical departure from how all of the predecessors have viewed the American and European relationship.
I want to talk to you about the president and his language that he used about Europe, criticizing America's long-held allies.
Take a look.
You can imagine some leaders in Europe are a little freaked out by what your posture is and your view.
This was such a striking part of the interview for me because I think we've watched the amount of time that the president has spent on foreign policy, the leaders that he's rolled out the red carpet for at the White House, he's been chummy with Kier Starmer, with Mark Ruzza, with a lot of the folks from those European countries that he was just criticizing there.
So to me, it's just interesting to see this dichotomy between the much friendlier relationships that he has this time around than he did in the first term.
At the same time, this is such a stark departure from what U.S.-EU relations have looked like.
Look, Dosh, I actually agree with the President on much of this.
I think that much of Europe has gone socialists in their economies.
I think their migration policies are creating enormous challenges for them demographically.
And so I think the president's right on that.
Having said that, I think it's a non-secular to then say, I really think Europe is heading in the wrong direction, so therefore I'm going to side with Putin in overtaking Ukraine.
Like that, there are different issues.
I think you can have, I actually, I'm sure I'm not going to find agreement with Adrian on this, but I can agree with what the president says about Europe.
But again, I don't think that means you necessarily embrace Putin's invasion of Ukraine a lot.
I think a lot of leaders in Europe would prefer not to have Donald Trump's endorsement.
Look, I think this all goes back to something that, not to harken back to the 2024 and, by the way, the 2016 campaigns, both of which I was on for the Democrats, where we said he embraces dictators over the leaders of countries that live under democracies.
He loves dictators.
He sees them as strong men.
He sees them as strong, not weak.
He thinks people that lead democracies and European countries in particular tend to be weak.
That's just how he is.
And I think you saw that play out.
It's very dangerous.
It certainly does not, you know, put us in a good place with our allies.
And it kind of goes back to the trade and tariff policy that Mark was talking about earlier.
About a lot of these European countries, instead of trying to sit here and negotiate and get kind of kicked around by President Trump, they're going to China and saying, let's make a deal with you.
I think forever, whether it's a Democrat or a Republican becomes the next president of the United States, it's going to have a lot of work to do to repair our relationships with our allies.
And, you know, obviously I'm jumping way far ahead, but if I was advising either a Democratic incoming president or a person, he's like, listen up, guys, listen up, listen up to everyone who's going to run, I would start doing the repair work ASAP.
And that means during the transition period, we have so much work to do.
I also think that there are plenty of leaders around the world who are looking at President Trump and saying, he's only going to be there for another three years.
We've just got to get through this period.
And we know that the United States will go back to, or we hope the United States will go back to a time where our allies are respected by the sitting president of the United States.
I am fascinated by the question of what happens after Trump.
What happens to Democrats?
What happens to Republicans?
The president is obviously term limited.
There's been a lot of speculation already about who will be the next GOP frontrunner and about how the MAGA movement survives after Trump is out of office.
Let's take a listen to a final portion of our interview.
The future of the Republican Party.
Look, I watched you on all of your campaigns pull together, especially in this last one, an unprecedented coalition to win the presidency.
You brought in so many new voters to the Republican Party.
You chipped away at some of the core bases of the Democratic Party.
Is there anyone else in the GOP that can energize the coalition the way you did?
I don't think there's going to be somebody succeeding the mantle of MAGA world the way that Donald Trump has.
I think there'll be a robust effort inside the Republican Party about where our future belongs.
And you're right.
He brought in new voters to our party, in many cases, blue-collar voters across the Midwest.
But all the times that I traveled on the campaign in 2016 and 2020 and probably attended 100 rallies altogether, I never heard those voters plead to say, you know what?
I really hope America has more state-owned enterprises.
I really hope that we raise the minimum wage.
I really hope that we have more involvement in our economy.
I think there are a lot of Republicans who have misinterpreted what that vote was.
I think it was a lot more cultural.
But there was a backlash to the bomb of the years that people wanted something different.
And Trump had promised to go to Washington and rip it up.
And I think there are a lot of Republicans instead saying, Trump won that blue-collar vote because he embraced labor union economics, and that's where we need to go.
And I think that that's a big mistake for our party if we're just trying to become Democrat white.
And I think that there's going to be a much bigger, robust philosophical argument inside our party about what direction we go when we move past President Trump.
I think there's a big philosophical argument and debate for Democrats, too, right?
I mean, Adrian, the Democrats have spent so long figuring out how to respond to Trump trying to resist Trump, basing messages off of what Trump is doing.
Well, I mean, look, I think you look, first of all, I think you look back to, I was on the Hillary's campaign in 2016.
It was a very close election.
It's not really worth, I think, unpacking that.
She lost by 70,000.
We're not going there.
But I do think, I mean, under eight years of Obama, I think people were looking for a change.
And I think that obviously Trump benefited from that.
But look, he was certainly able to grow this MAGA coalition into what it is today.
Now, the big question is, number one, to Mark's point, who can do that for the Republican Party?
Trump is one of a kind.
There's no question about that.
Number two, how do Democrats seize on that?
I think we were given a roadmap just a few weeks ago in the 2025 off-year elections, we call them, the November 19th.
New Jersey's governor's race and Virginia governor's race and some of the principal venous court Supreme Court race and some of the other down ballot races.
Democrats overperform because they really focus on the economy and they focus on affordability.
And we brought back some of those voters, at least those races that were on the ballot, which certainly does not portend to be a guarantee for the midterms, but a lot of the voters that we have been losing over time, including younger men and Latino voters, started to come back into our coalition.
So time will tell if we're able to keep that consistent.
And I think that drawing the contrast on affordability in the economy is step number one.
But look, I think, you know, 2020, a lot of swing voters, you know, you know that, Sasha, there's a very small sliver of the electorate.
They wanted kind of, you know, seasoned and boring as someone who's just going to come back there and like run the country who had been in the White House before.
And that obviously Joe Biden benefited from that.
2028, I think voters want a fighter.
Democratic voters, swing voters want a fighter.
They want someone who is going to restore civility to our government, but they also want someone who's going to fight.
And I think that's where you're going to see a very robust primary play out among Democrats to see who is the person who's going to be the street fighter, but is also going to be able to bring some of those working class voters that we're starting to get back into the fold into the fold more consistently.
So I didn't want to jump into your time machine to 2016, but I do want you both to jump into my time machine.
I want to turn to this week's C-SPAN flashback where we dig deep into the video archives to show you a moment in political history.
This week marks 25 years since the United States Supreme Court ruled that George W. Bush won the 25 electoral votes for Florida, making him the official winner of the 2000 overtime presidential election against Al Gore.
Here's a portion of then Vice President Al Gore's concession speech, followed by then President-elect George W. Bush.
unidentified
Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken.
Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it.
I accept the finality of this outcome, which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College.
And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.
I personally will be at his disposal, and I call on all Americans.
I particularly urge all who stood with us to unite behind our next president.
This is America.
Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done.
And while there will be time enough to debate our continuing differences, now is the time to recognize that that which unites us is greater than that which divides us.
Our country has been through a long and trying period, with the outcome of the presidential election not finalized for longer than any of us could ever imagine.
We have discussed our differences.
Now it is time to find common ground and build consensus to make America a beacon of opportunity in the 21st century.
I'm optimistic this can happen.
Our future demands it, and our history proves it.
I have faith that with God's help, we as a nation will move forward together as one nation, indivisible.
Well, look, I probably disagree with Al Gore on this every issue, but I'll always admire his willingness to put country first, to accept the results, the Electoral College, and to accept the results of the court decisions and the benefit of the country in bringing us back together after a divisive election.
That was when you did see two people who put their country first.
As Mark said, I also want to give a shout out to Mark's former boss, Vice President Pence, who made it very clear that he would show up at President Biden's swearing in in 2021.
It was a big unifying moment for the country.
And I think, again, we just need to get back to stability.
We'll close this week's program with our Ceasefire Moment of the Week, highlighting what's possible when politicians come together as Americans, not just partisans.
A bipartisan effort to crack down on foreign scammers targeting Americans moves forward in the House.
The bill would create an interagency task force that would aim to shut down overseas scamming syndicates.
Here's Indiana Republican Congressman Jefferson Shreve, who sponsored the bill, and Delaware Democratic Congresswoman Sarah McBride, a co-sponsor, talking about why they think the legislation is so important.
unidentified
The FBI reports that Americans lost, as the chairman just noted, roughly $17 billion to scams in 2024, with Indiana being the second most targeted state per capita.
This means real-world impacts for everyday Americans, my constituents, and my colleagues.
Families lose their homes, retirees see their savings vanish overnight, and countless innocent victims are left with little to nothing.
My Dismantling Foreign Sim Scam Syndicates Act establishes an interagency task force chaired by our Secretary of State to dismantle and shut down the transnational criminal syndicates, perpetuating mass online scam operations.
I'm glad to see that Democrats and Republicans can come together to find solutions to problems like this one that all of our constituents share.
This bill will improve coordination with our allies around the world, identify and hold these nefarious actors accountable, and establish a framework to assist Americans in recovering their stolen assets.
We must ensure that Delawareans and all Americans are not scammed out of their hard-earned living.
As a member of the bipartisan Stop Scams Caucus, I believe this bill will improve the lives of my constituents and all Americans.
The Dismantle Foreign Scam Syndicates Act passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee and is now advancing to the House floor for a full vote.
There is a bipartisan push in the Senate for similar legislation.
That's all the time we have for this episode.
Join us next time as I sit down with Pennsylvania Democratic Senator John Fetterman and Alabama Republican Senator Katie Britt.
Ceasefire is also available as a podcast.
Find us in all of the usual places.
I'm Dasha Burns.
And remember, whether or not you agree, keep talking and keep listening.
unidentified
Friday on C-SPAN Ceasefire, at a time when finding common ground matters most in Washington, Pennsylvania Democratic Senator John Fetterman and Alabama Republican Senator Katie Britt come together for a bipartisan dialogue on the top issues facing the country.
Watch Ceasefire Friday at 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, only on C-SPAN.
C-SPAN, Democracy Unfiltered.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including Charter Communications.
Charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers.
And we're just getting started.
Building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most.
Charter Communications supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
At his news conference, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries talked about the need to partner with Republicans to extend the Affordable Care Act's tax credits.