[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. As you've been hearing in the news, the Democrats are on the verge of finalizing the Build Back Better or Human Infrastructure Bill. Most of the coverage is focusing on what's getting cut out of the bill. We'll talk about that too because that's part of these end-game negotiations. Let's not forget to talk about what's in it and how transformative it could be, because remember President Biden's goal, the biggest leap since the 1960s in how government helps to fight the decline of the middle class and income inequality.

In a video to constituents over the weekend, the Leader of the House progressive caucus, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal of Washington State, reminded everyone what they're fighting for that was in the bill proposed by the President himself before Senator Manchin and Senator Sinema started chopping it down.

Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal: We have to do everything possible to deliver paid leave, childcare, pre-K, community college, climate action, healthcare, affordable housing, home care, and a roadmap to citizenship for immigrants. The President knows that progressives are fighting for these priorities.

Brian Lehrer: According to NBC News over the weekend, things likely to be in the final package include universal pre-K, that's huge by itself. Four weeks of paid family leave, welcome America to the world of other modern industrialized countries. Elder care provisions, dental care vouchers, increases to grants for making college affordable for more people. An extension of the child tax credit, which sponsors say is already cutting child poverty in half in the first months of its trial run, and funding to fight climate change. Would that add up to a new deal? Great society? Would that add up to a great society? Would it be new deal big? Would it be a great society big? That conversation is just beginning.

Of course we have to see the final package, but let's remember to talk about what's in the bill, not just what's coming out of it. With me now, John Nichols, national affairs correspondent for The Nation, he's all also a contributing writer for the progressive and coming from that point of view. Some of his recent articles in The Nation include one called "Biden should be selling his plan, not compromising away its promise." "Bernie Sanders shows Democrats how to deal with Joe Manchin." John, thanks for coming on. Welcome back to WNYC.

John Nichols: Brian, it's great to be with you.

Brian Lehrer: First you get to say if you agree with the premise of my intro or not. If those things being reported still in the bill are still in the bill, will it be a historically progressive set of reforms? Will it be new deal big, great society big?

John Nichols: Yes, it's pretty close to that. If indeed what you are talking about remains in, and that's really the battle here. Now I think it's important to understand at a baseline. If they do the physical infrastructure bill and some substantial portion of the human infrastructure bill, for lack of a better way of referring to it, yes, this is going to be one of the biggest investments in this country, both physical and human, that we have seen since Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society. I think that's really the more relevant comparison to the new deal. The new deal was so sweeping and coming at so many levels that I'm not sure this quite compares. In fact, I'd say it definitely doesn't.

If you want to do a comparison to the great society which, remember, gave us Medicare, Medicaid, the war on poverty and significant progress legislatively on civil rights and a host of other issues. I think that's a fair comparison.

Brian Lehrer: Let's talk about some of the specifics. There seems to be an interesting last-minute public tug of war between Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Joe Manchin over the Medicare expansion proposals in the bill. This involves adding vision care, dental care, and hearing aids to Medicare, the health insurance program for people over 65. Manchin is reportedly negotiating those things out over price concerns. Senator Kyrsten Sinema too. Bernie Sanders says it's still in there. Do you know what's going on there? Substantively or politically?

John Nichols: Yes, I can tell you politically for sure, but let's start with substantively. There is little question that the vast majority of Democrats in the house and the Senate, as well as President Biden, would like to keep it in. That doesn't mean that only Manchin and Sinema want to take it out. There's a portion of, I guess, what you would call centrist, some would call corporate, Democrats in the house and the Senate who think it's just too expensive. They are pushing against it both on a cost complaint, and also, frankly, because there's a lot of lobbying circling all around this. There is a likelihood, unfortunately, I think, that it's going to get cut back. The question is how much and what might be lost. One of the things we're hearing is a suggestion that dental is especially expensive.

When you talk about the negotiations right now, you have this prospect that you might get vision and hearing but not dental, or you might get some other combination. Also, there's talk right now, and I think this is very alive and very much a part of the debate, of giving a voucher to seniors, maybe an $800 voucher that they could use to buy some sort of insurance, additional insurance, that would get them vision, dental, hearing, something like that. That's where the play is right now politically. Now the political fight is frankly a much deeper one. That's between, frankly, two different visions of what the Democratic party is about. One vision is, basically it tickers around the edges, maybe fixes and improves programs a little bit, but doesn't go big and go bold.

The other vision is that it is time for the Democratic party when it has governing power, this is obviously the Sanders vision, to really implement a set of major changes that people are going to feel, that they're going to know occurred. From a political standpoint, what Sanders argues, and I think that Biden understands this, is that if you do deliver vision, dental and hearing care under Medicare, if you expand many of these other programs, the people are going to feel that very quickly and have a sense of what it means to have Democrats in power.

Brian Lehrer: That's really interesting. You've seen that Biden's approval rating percentages are down in the 40s. They can always bounce back from that range as we've seen in with Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, for example, but it looks from the reporting on the polls like he's losing enthusiasm among the Democratic base. Some people in the Democratic base, because he isn't going far enough or fighting hard enough for these things that as it appears to them. He's also losing the support of many suburban independents who thought that Trump was too rightwing, but now think Biden is going too hard left.

You're obviously coming from a progressive position at The Nation, but many Democrats are concerned that they will lose those recent gains in the suburbs in next year's midterm elections and Republicans will actually take control of Congress because these independents see Biden and their local Democratic Congresspeople as spending too much. That could happen even as base turnout declines because not enough progress. I'm curious how you see the politics of keeping Congress in relation to this bill.

John Nichols: You summed it up very well. Look, it's hard. Midterm elections are referred to as cursed for the party in power. The pattern throughout history is very, very strong. One of the interesting dynamics to put into this pattern is the question of whether people have a sense that you are delivering. If there is that sense, your chances in the midterms improve. Right now the Democrats are very, very vulnerable. There's no question. You can find a pundit or a pollster that'll tell you going one route will destroy you and then another pollster just across the street will tell you going that route's the only thing that'll save you. You're getting a lot of conflicting information, conflicting ideas that come in here.

What I can tell you is history is somewhat instructive on this. When Democrats are in power and they don't deliver in a big way, they tend to suffer some of their worst setbacks. There was a sense with Bill Clinton, whether people agree with this or not, simple reality, there was a sense with Bill Clinton that in his first two years in power he tended to veer much more toward Wall Street, much more toward a corporate position. He didn't deliver in the ways that an awful lot of people wanted him to. You saw this real collapse related to trade issues. In 1994, disastrous result for the Democrats.

Similarly when Barack Obama came in. While he did a lot on healthcare, and you heard a lot about the affordable care act, there was deep frustration as regards the economy where you're coming off the great recession, and a real sense that the Democrats in power had not done enough to address the economic pain of that moment. Again in 2010, you see a huge drop off in Democratic vote in a situation where a tremendous setback. I would err and obviously, you're pointing out my political sentiments and that's fair to do. I would err on the side at saying that if the Democrats don't deliver in a big way, if they don't show that they can govern, their chance of a drop off, one that would be very, very damaging to them, is more severe.

So while I do think chasing after the suburban voters matters, and it's a part of the calculus, I think what you have to put into this mix is this core question, are suburban voters really disinclined to vision, hearing and dental for medicare? Are they really disinclined to paid family and medical leave? Are they really disinclined to extension of caregiving for seniors and people with disabilities? My sense is that the answer on that is that they're not disinclined. That if the Democrats deliver in a big way, if they actually come down with something and it can be felt in relatively short order, that these will be appealing programs and they will have appeal both in urban areas and suburban areas and rural areas.

The final factor I'll put into this mix is while we're talking a lot about what Biden is doing, and what the Democrats are doing now, we do have to keep in the mix the reality of Donald Trump. He is such a hovering presence in our politics that even in a midterm election he may still be a factor as regards how suburban voters and swing voters cast their ballots.

Brian Lehrer: In other words, don't let the Republicans take control of Congress because they might make Donald Trump Speaker of the House.

John Nichols: That's been suggested, yes.

Brian Lehrer: It's been rumored because you don't actually have to be a member of Congress to be Speaker of the House. We did a segment on that recently, with these rumors that the Republicans might in fact install Donald Trump as Speaker of the House and it has not been discouraging that speculation if they were to take the majority.

John Nichols: Yes, you're exactly right. I think your point is well taken there. Obviously, that's something you hear Democrats talking about as much as Republicans. There's one other factor too. Donald Trump, and again I don't want to divert us into a long discussion on Trump, but the simple reality is there's every indication he's running for President again. He's showing up in Iowa, he's making endorsements. He's very, very active and so that becomes a factor. Then we circle back to our question about what Democrats ought to do, how they should handle this circumstance.

I think if you recognize the Trump factor remains, then the question is, what are Democrats hold up as their alternative to that? Are they merely a managerial party, that when they're in there, Twitter's not as explosive or something like that, or are they party that actually delivers a lot, that makes a real impression? I think that notion of delivering is very, very important for mobilizing the Democratic base.

Brian Lehrer: Listener, we invite your calls, if you consider yourself a Democrat, an Independent or Republican, or anything else. If the build back better compromise, the human infrastructure compromise, whatever you want to call it, comes out as being reported, will that make you more likely or less likely to vote for a Democrat for Congress in your swing district if you live in a swing district, or anywhere else next year? How's it leaving you feeling about President Biden? For this call, and by the way, listeners, listen up, we're happy to announce that for the first time since the pandemic began, we can return to our usual call in number, which is 212-433-WNYC. 212-433-9692.

Now, because of pandemic-related technical challenges that we won't bore you with, we had to go to a different phone bank since March of last year but a welcome sign of normality folks, our usual calling number is back. It's 212-433-WNYC. 212-433-9692 for how you're feeling about this apparent human infrastructure plus climate compromise regarding President Biden and your local member of Congress. 212-433-9692 with John Nichols, national affairs correspondent for The Nation. John, there was this meeting yesterday, as I'm sure you know, a negotiating session that included President Biden plus Manchin and other people.

On CNN STATE OF THE UNION yesterday, how Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Jake Tapper that Manchin, who of course is from the coal-producing state of West Virginia, will get his way on at least one big climate thing, eliminating the clean energy performance program, known by its initial CEPP. She also said a deal is just about done. Listen.

Nancy Pelosi: I think we're pretty much there now.

Jake Tapper: You think you have a deal now?

Nancy Pelosi: Well, we're almost certain. It's just the language of it, but it will not offend, shall we say, the concern that Senator Manchin had about the CEPP. Nonetheless, the point is to reach a goal and the President's goals of reaching the emissions, the pollution, and all the rest.

Brian Lehrer: Speaker Pelosi with Jake Tapper on CNN. John Nichols, The Nation's national-affairs correspondent with us. John, are you familiar enough with the CEPP, clean energy performance program, to say why Pelosi would have singled that out on TV as a concession to Joe Manchin?

John Nichols: Well, I'm familiar enough to tell you it's what Joe Manchin doesn't want. That's simply, the reality is that he's been very, very clear on his discomfort on that. The bottom line is that there's a lot of initiatives related to climate in this proposal. This one, what the CEPP does is that it uses a lot of pressure on existing power plants to stop using fossil fuels, or I should say stop using coal, and to move to cleaner energy. Obviously that's something that Manchin doesn't particularly like for a variety of reasons. He is referred to as the senator from the fossil fuel industry, even more so than many Republicans.

He's put a lot of pressure on the administration in that regard. I've got to tell you, this is really where these negotiations, I think, get very, very dangerous politically. Remember, we were talking about both the practical realities of this and political realities. I've got a piece going up in The Nation, I think it'd be today or tomorrow, about I really did a deep dive into the polling data on kind of what generated young people, people 18 to 29 and particularly even 18 to 24, to come vote in 2018 and 2020. Climate is a huge part of that. I can't begin to emphasize how I think a lot of Democratic leadership folks who are in their 70s, in their 80s, don't fully recognize the extent to which climate is a motivating issue.

That's why you're hearing Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden say, "We're going to take this element of the plan out, but we're going to try and do something else." The truth of the matter is, if you take this element out, you really undermine and slow down the ability of the United States to meet basic climate goals. That is going to be pointed out, it already has been pointed out by a lot of environmentalists. This is a dangerous territory that these negotiations are getting into. If you give Joe Manchin what he wants, you may get a plan, as Nancy Pelosi says, but you may get a plan that faces a lot of criticism and perhaps, again I'm cautious about saying this, perhaps even some resistance in the house from some of your more progressive members.

Brian Lehrer Is there an argument for doing climate separately? That there's a messaging challenge that has complicated the whole thing for Biden and the Democrats. Without climate, it's a social safety net bill, it's a social supports bill, they could sell it as the universal pre-K and keep grandma out of a nursing home with more funding for home health aides bill and it's more straightforward. Child care and elder care, and some of the other health things. With climate in it, it starts to seem like the kitchen sink.

John Nichols: I understand that theory and when you say it that way, it sounds very logical. Here's the complexity of it. We don't have the congressional circumstance that Franklin Roosevelt had during the new deal, or that Lyndon Johnson had in the initial stages of the Great Society. What you've got is incredibly narrowly divided House and Senate. The notion that you're going to bring climate or a number of other issues in a separate measure, that you're somehow going to address it down the line in some other way is, frankly, unrealistic. That's why so much pressure has come on to this bill Bryan, and this is the way to understand it.

In fact you have literally people even now lobbying to put things into the bill, particularly as regards to immigration rights and some other concerns, because there is a feeling that this big bill, done through reconciliation so you don't need 60 votes, is basically the train that will leave the station. If you don't have your major issues on it, there is a real challenge of getting additional progress. That's where the pressure comes. Also, I would push back a little bit as regards climate. Climate affects so much of humanity at this point. It's not one that you necessarily separate off and say, "Well, that's a different thing, or that somehow fits into the business pages of the paper rather than the front pages."

The reality is that that climate is on the front pages because of the physical and human impact it's having right now. I think it hasn't been well explained. I would agree with that, but my sense is that, still, I would say the climate component has a place in this proposal.

Brian Lehrer: I think most climate proponents are pretty popular. There have been enough immediate in real time, as you say, not just speculative about decades down the road, impacts of climate change on people's lives in different parts of the country now that I think these things are probably pretty popular. Is there a way around, politically, this veto power? It really is veto power that Joe Manchin Senator from the coal industry has just because they need 50 Democrats, all 50 Democrats in the Senate. He is doing as what he sees as protecting his constituents' interests in a coal producing company. How do you get around Joe Manchin? Maybe there's no way.

John Nichols: Yes. Then remember it isn't just Joe Manchin. You've also got Kirsten Sinema who has some different stance on some of the energy issues. It's the challenge of negotiating when you've only got 50 members. You could make one person happy and then you make somebody else unhappy when you have such a narrow margin. How do you get around it? Well, I think this is where the Democrats and particularly the Biden administration, made a big mistake. When you've got something this big, this monumental, you move big and fast. I think that the mistake was not in spending every bit of energy on communicating about what was in, what is in, or what has been in the plan and why it is necessary.

I think that taking August off and taking a lot of September off and talking about a lot of other stuff, frankly, focusing on a lot of the energy, understandably, on Afghanistan and all sorts of other things, the thread was lost. I don't think most Americans know what is in this plan and know what it could do. I think the Democrats, they undermine their ability to build up the energy and the appeal to the plan that might make of Joe Manchin feel like, "This is popular enough even in my own state," or, "This has enough traction even in my own state that while I'm certainly still going to try and protect elements of the coal industry, I'm going to do so in a softer way, or with a little bit more flexibility."

I'll note that I wrote a big piece the other day on some of the reaction in West Virginia. It's important to point out that one of the biggest papers in West Virginia, the Charleston Gazette Mail I believe, they had an editorial just a week or so ago in which they were calling Manchin out for clinging to the past and not really doing the things that were necessary to bring West Virginia's economy into the 21st century. There's debate even in Virginia, or West Virginia. I, as President or as democratic strategist, if it was my deal, would've spent a lot more time building on that energy and trying to move Manchin that way rather than flying him up to Delaware at the last minute to have breakfast negotiate away with whatever's left.

Brian Lehrer: We'll continue our late breakfast with John Nichols from The Nation and we'll start folding in your calls. John in Newark, Karen in Manhattan, David in Irvington on Hudson we see you. Brian Lehrer on WNYC we continue in a minute.

[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. If you're just joining us, if you missed the news over the weekend, didn't watch the Sunday morning talk shows, things like that, you may not know that the Democrats are now saying they are really, really close to a deal on the physical infrastructure bill and the human infrastructure bill. It's going to come way down and price the human infrastructure one from Biden's 3.5 trillion over 10 years, paid for largely by tax cuts on wealthy individuals. Tax hikes, I should say, on wealthy individuals and corporations. It's going to come way down to, it looks like under 2 trillion with those tax hikes going away at the behest of Senator Kirsten Sinema from Arizona.

There's a whole list of things that look like they're in, things that look like they're out. We're talking about it with John Nichols, National Affairs Correspondent for The Nation. John in Newark, you're on WNYC. Hi John.

John: Good morning Brian. Thanks for taking my call. For many years, Republicans, they have passed laws regardless how popular or unpopular they were. Yet Democrats seems to be playing a complete different game. Republicans, they wanted Judge Coney Barrett, she was nominated and she got confirmed. Obama nominated Merrick Garland and he was stonewalled. Nothing happened with him. Why are Democrats playing a complete different game? If they want something, why can't they just mesh together and just push it just like their Republicans do? It bothers me that every time something comes up, Democrats like this don't play by the same rules.

Brian Lehrer: John the Democrats would say, this is part of what we've just been talking about, I'm curious your reaction to it, that being the big 10 party that the Democrats are, they have different members of Congress from different states with different interests and they barely have a majority so they have to make all these compromises to get the yes at all in this session of Congress. Does that seem wrong to you? You think they could be going about it in a different way?

John Nichols: Look, the margins are close. That's something we can't.

Brian Lehrer: Wait, I'm asking the caller. I just want to get the--

John Nichols: Sorry.

Brian Lehrer: Sorry. I was talking to that John. I know you're both John.

John Nichols: Two Johns. [laughs]

Brian Lehrer: John in Newark, have anything else to add on that?

John: No Brian. I understand that part, that they have to play with their constituents, but it just bothers me that we cannot get our stuff together and just do it just like they do.

Brian Lehrer: John thank you. Please call us again. Now, I think Karen in Manhattan is going to build on that thought. Karen, you're on WNYC. Hi there.

Karen: Hi. I think this is me?

Brian Lehrer: Yes.

Karen: I was actually going to build on what Mr. Nichols just was saying about timing and strategy. Really just talking about the way that the Democrats don't seem to know how to communicate clearly. I'm 66. Everything becomes very complicated. I think they spend a lot of time on the blow by blow, the complexities of issues. Especially during the pandemic, I don't think people are paying that much attention to that stuff, except the news junkies and people in DC. I think if they, for example, had explained that the money in this budget is going to be spent over 10 years, I think people hear these figures and they freak out and there's all of this discussion of inflation and blah, blah, blah.

You hear the Republican talking points repeated back all the time and I think you don't hear any Democratic talking points besides, "We're going to help you. We want this. This is good. You'll like it." It's very frustrating because I think if we do get this stuff passed and people get money in their pockets, they're going to be happy, but they don't seem to even-- It's like we shoot ourselves in the foot every time. Anyway. [laughs]

Brian Lehrer: Thank you. Thank you very much. I've been saying here, the listeners are probably sick of hearing me say something to this effect, John Nichols, that they shouldn't call it the build back better plan. What does that even mean? They shouldn't keep referring to it as the reconciliation bill. What does that mean? They shouldn't refer, and even the Democrats, to Karen's point, call it the 3.5 trillion spending bill sometimes. The media is really egregious when they keep calling it that because the point isn't to spend money, the point is to do these things. Why don't they call it the send American children to preschool and keep grandma out of a nursing home bill, but they don't do it?

John Nichols: That's exactly right. In fact, I have written quite a bit about this and I think that gets the heart of the matter. Brian, you're a pretty smart guy, almost as smart as your listeners.

Brian Lehrer: Almost.

John Nichols: I will ask you this question. What was the original price tag on social security back in the '30s?

Brian Lehrer: I do not know. I certainly don't know in 1930s dollars, but you tell me.

John Nichols: Well, I don't know.

Brian Lehrer: They called it social security. They didn't call it the X billion dollars bill.

John Nichols: The same with Medicare and Medicaid, it's in the sixties. The key to this thing is that and this is partially a democratic priority problem, partially, because Republicans, I think, are much better at messaging to the emotional sides. It's also partially a media problem. Media loves, and I'm a part of it, media loves a simple price tag and a simple fight. "These guys like this, these guys want to go less. These guys want to go more." It's hard to get around that, but that is the job of a president and of a political party. Whether you approve of them or not, whether you like them or not, Joe Biden has the most powerful bully pulpit in at least America, maybe the world. It just, in my opinion, has not been sufficiently utilized to talk about what's in this plan.

The polling data is mind-boggling. I just looked at data out of West Virginia, Joe Manchin state, where you literally go down, what's in the plan, including the clean energy stuff, it's got a 68% support level. This is a data for progress poll. 25% oppose. That's not how it's being presented to people. It's being presented as 3.5 trillion and it's going to wreck the economy and all this other arguments. It's not working, it's it hasn't worked at the level that it could have, in my opinion, if you had described it in the way that you just did a moment ago.

Brian Lehrer: David in Irvington on Hudson, and I know David that nobody who lives in Irvington actually calls it that, but because there's an Irvington in New Jersey too, in Essex County, I use the full name to distinguish. David in Irvington on Hudson you're on WNYC. Hi.

David: That's definitely a problem. I often call where I lived East Irvington. I hope there's none of that in New Jersey because I live up the hill. What I'm proposing is that the main problem here seems to me to be that the Republicans are, they're going over the cliff generally. My own solution is that I changed parties. I joined the Republican party, and so far I'm just like the foolish entity all by myself, telling people I joined the Republican party. Everybody laughs at me. I would like to propose right now, I'm about to spend $15. I'm going to buy a domain name, set it up and it would say democraticrepublicanclub.com. If this makes sense to the two of you, I would spend the money and put an email address on.

If anybody else wants to start off in a very small way, this is a solution of one kind. The real problem here is the Democrats are not democratic enough. Even if they were, they're dealing with a very difficult adversary in this case, and they shouldn't be entirely an adversary. We're all eventually supposed to be on the same page. That's my idea and that's what I think I'm going to do. I've been talking about it, Democratic Republican Club, because that's what's available, .com. I'll set that up and anybody wants to visit it, I'll probably have it going in about 20 minutes.

Brian Lehrer: I'm not sure I quite get it yet. Are you looking to pick off other registered Republicans who are alienated from how radical the party has become? What's your goal?

David: That would be the best option. The most likely immediate option is to find other people who were registered as Democrats who find that their input has very little meaning because it's so difficult to make progress. That's what this whole discussion is about. There were all these great ideas and in the end they can't get implemented because something is really gone amiss with the party that I'm now a member of. It takes some time in New York State, they don't make it easy, but if you put in for it immediately I think you would probably in the primaries next year, then you'd be able to vote in the Republican party, which I realize is not a great option. Maybe 20 years ago I tried joining the Republican party and I said, "This doesn't work."

Brian Lehrer: Voting in the primary.

David: It's not just that, at this point it's more of a gesture. You get a few people together in a small town like Irvington, New York, maybe something can start eventually happening.

Brian Lehrer: David, thank you very much. Well, Westchester is no longer a swing county. There was a time that it was, but over in New Jersey, not the other Irvington either. That's definitely solidly Democratic. One early test of this Biden build back better reconciliation, call it whatever you want to call it, bill, as it presumably gets through in the next few days, may come in the two governor's races taking place right now in Virginia and New Jersey. Here's Governor Murphy on MSNBC this morning, getting ready to receive Biden who will speak in the garden state today.

Governor Murphy: President Biden is coming in today. Not for politics by the way, but for two very specific agenda items that are important to the country and important to New Jersey. One is expanding pre-K. We're leading the nation in doing that, and the other is infrastructure. In this case, the first step in building, at long last, the big project that we'll add rail tunnels under the Hudson River. Those are two examples of many that still resonate deeply with Americans, not just Democrats. I'm confident that it'll continue to be the case.

Brian Lehrer: Governor Phil Murphy on Morning Joe, on MSNBC, John Nichols, national affairs correspondent for The Nation with us, we're almost at a time. You have an article about Murphy as perhaps the most progressive governor in America, and yet in Jersey, which hasn't elected a Republican statewide since I think 2009, that race may be getting closer than Democrats thought it would be according to the recent reporting. Do you think Biden's presence today helps or hurts?

John Nichols: Well, first off I find it intriguing that the governor says that the president isn't coming for reasons of politics. I would suspect there's a little bit of a reason of politics here. Look, at this point the midterms are looking to be close in Virginia and in New Jersey, but most of the evidence is that Murphy is doing better. At least seems to be, have a little bit more of a lead. Maybe even significantly greater lead than what you're seeing in Virginia. You ask yourself, "Well, why is that?" I think you heard that in what Murphy just said there.

He talked about how New Jersey is leading the way in pre-K and in some of these programs, about why the infrastructure program is really, really good for something that people in New Jersey want. My argument in the piece I wrote is first that Murphy has been a pretty effective progressive governor, but also he's really good at communicating about this stuff. Obviously if he gets beat I'm wrong, and that wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, but my suspicion is that Murphy will do okay. One of the reasons for that is that I think he provides a model for how Democrats at the national level ought to be approaching things, which is doing progressive stuff, but also talking about it and explaining it and linking it into people's lives.

Brian Lehrer: John Nichols, national affairs correspondent for The Nation. We'll see what happens as this continues to emerge and hopefully a deal gets reached and we all see what's in it. Then everybody can judge it for themselves in the next few days. John, thanks a lot.

John Nichols: It's been an honor to be with you, and great calls as always.

 

Copyright © 2021 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.