[Music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. The biggest political spectacle in Washington so far today was George Santos's 8:00 AM speech reaffirming that he will not resign despite all the fraud he's been charged with criminally, much made up about his biography that he's admitted to and the related findings of the House Ethics Committee. Enough said about the Republican congressman from Queens and Long Island that a new book about him is called The Fabulist.

The House will vote today or tomorrow, as I understand it, on whether to expel Santos from office and force a special election in his district that maybe dozens of Democrats and Republicans might enter. That's high stakes with a slim Republican majority in the House. At last report Speaker Mike Johnson has not decided how he'll vote on Santos saying he has "real reservations about expulsion."

Of course, Santos isn't the only or the biggest Republican fabulist the country has to worry about. That distinction, I think, would still go to Donald Trump who still claims he won the 2020 election by a lot, and is still successfully pranking most of Republican America to go along with him on that on a ride toward a possible end to American democracy as we know it. Much higher stakes than say, Santos' claim that he was a volleyball star at Baruch College, which he did not attend.

Recent reports have Trump's former UN ambassador and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley rising in the polls with the first Republican caucuses only six weeks away now in Iowa, but she is still nowhere close to the fabulist who's already been found guilty by a Manhattan judge of fabricating the worth of his real estate properties, not just his diploma status like the outer borough congressman down the road.

That's where we'll start today with Sarah Longwell, publisher of the conservative, but anti-Trump news organization The Bulwark, a political strategist who was CEO of the communications firm Longwell Partners, and previously founder of the group Republican Voters Against Trump, among other things. Sarah, thanks for coming on today. Welcome back to WNYC.

Sarah Longwell: Thanks so much for having me.

Brian Lehrer: Can we start on George Santos? Do you have a headcount, by any chance, on whether they will successfully vote to expel him?

Sarah Longwell: I don't have a head count, but I do think that they will expel him. Especially his colleagues from New York really have their knives out for him. He is a massive distraction for these Republicans. He's embarrassing them. Just like Kevin McCarthy really went after someone like Madison Cawthorn, who was also a big distraction for the Republicans and an embarrassment, I do think they want him gone.

Part of what's funny about this story, though, is that even if they do expel him, until he's convicted of a crime he can maintain his floor privileges, which means he may just hang around there and be a thorn in their side. If you've been following some of his comments since these allegations came to light, he has been throwing really hard at some of his colleagues accusing them of insider trading, of having affairs, claiming the media won't look at it because they're all too obsessed with George Santos. The Republican Congress has been such a circus, but he has been quite the ringleader. I think that people can't wait for him to be gone, but whether or not they really get rid of him is yet to be seen.

Mike Johnson, the new Speaker, has been interesting just because I think while everybody else is indicating they want him gone, he, in his new role, doesn't want to be seen as somebody expelling any member of Congress, while they have such a slim majority, and because they're going to have to hold a special election, they don't want to lose that seat. It is dicey for him in his new role.

Brian Lehrer: Let me come back to Mike Johnson in a minute. I'm going to ask you whether he may even have a point in having reservations about expelling somebody before they're convicted even in a pro-democracy context, besides the interests of the Republican Party. Did you just say that even if Santos is expelled from Congress, he would still have floor privileges, meaning he can hang around there and make speeches and stuff?

Sarah Longwell: He can't make speeches, I don't believe, but our Bulwark congressional reporter Joe Perticone had just reported this. I saw it just before I came on, and thought it was really funny. I suspect, actually, what it means is just you can be on the floor, which is something that former members of Congress are afforded. Really, it's only taken away from you if you were convicted in a court of law, which has not happened to him yet.

Brian Lehrer: On the New York Republican colleagues being the leaders in the drive to expel him, people like Anthony D'Esposito from another swing district on Long Island, Mike Lawler from the swing district just north of the city, is this because their seats are in danger? These are real swing districts next year, and they want to look like they're tough on a miscreant Republican because it would help them win reelection.

Sarah Longwell: I think that's part of it. I also just think it's close to home for them. Obviously, the folks in New York are reporting on this endlessly. It's embarrassing for them. Also, when you're in these swing districts, these tend to be members who are more moderate. Especially in New York, they overperformed expectations. Back in 2022, they made up the majority for Congress, and so yes, they don't want the distraction and the embarrassment of George Santos. I will say, this is a point of personal order, but I used to do a lot of work with the Log Cabin Republicans. I was actually their first female board chair, and they're the LGBT--

Brian Lehrer: That's the group of gay Republicans, right? Log Cabin Republicans?

Sarah Longwell: That's right. The LGBT Republican group. Exactly. For a long time, we have wanted there to be more openly gay Republicans who got elected. George Santos was one of the first openly gay Republicans to be elected, and the fact that he has been such a colossal embarrassment and fraud-- look, this has been the story of the Republican Party. They should be expelling or showing disfavor to members who are deeply humiliating for them. It's interesting now. George Santos is just one of many. Lauren Boebert has also been a colossal embarrassment, Marjorie Taylor Greene. Generally, the voters in those districts though, like these candidates and support them. It's more like George Santos because he's in, I think, a swingier district, that makes it a tougher call for Republicans, but also is one of the reasons they want him out because they want a better Republican there.

Brian Lehrer: Was there even a question, by the way, about whether George Santos is gay? Am I remembering this correctly? Did he claim to be married to a man and then nobody could find a marriage certificate or the man?

Sarah Longwell: I haven't followed every twist and turn of the George Santos thing, but I do think there was a weird-- I think maybe he was married to a woman actually. I can't remember.

Brian Lehrer: He was previously married to a woman, yes.

Sarah Longwell: It's just all wild.

Brian Lehrer: He may have even lied about being gay as he was running against a gay Democrat, Robert Zimmerman, in that election, and had maybe thought this was going to be that badge of honor that you just cited it as. First openly gay-elected Republican. I don't know for sure.

Sarah Longwell: I think of all the things he's lied about, I actually think the being gay one is probably true. Just from my own ability to look at this, I think that one's probably true.

Brian Lehrer: People's sexuality is their own business anyway.

Sarah Longwell: Yes, that's true.

Brian Lehrer: Let me come back to Mike Johnson. I guess unless they wear it for political purposes, but we'll leave that there anyway. Speaker Mike Johnson's real reservations, as he put it, about expulsion because of a precedent that might be set by that, does he have a point? Do we want the House majority to get comfortable, whichever party has the House majority, with deciding which of their members to kick out? I looked it up, and there have only been five expulsions from the House in US history, three back in the Civil War era for being disloyal to the Union when they were members of the Confederacy, and two in the last 50 years who were both convicted of crimes. Santos has only been charged. Any ambivalence by you on this for Johnson's reason of setting a bad precedent?

Sarah Longwell: I tend to be on the side of not busting precedents. It's part of the conservatism that I still maintain. Although I would just say, in this moment, I'm not sure-- what's weird is, yes, it feels strange to break precedent for George Santos when, as I said before, there are a number of people who deserve expulsion. The reason that people don't like the idea of expelling someone is because they were duly elected by the citizens of their district and they want to be loathed to overturn that. That being said, I think, I'm not certain that I I don't think it's used too infrequently as opposed to not frequently enough. I think the amount of corruption that we have seen, the amount of bad behavior, it would be nice actually if there were a few more mechanisms. They do have them. Expulsion is a big move. Actually, there's a number of things they could do for some of these folks.

They did this for Marjorie Taylor Greene in the beginning, stripped her of her committees. She got them back as she became a big ally of Kevin McCarthy's. I think that there have to be more standards. We are suffering in this country from a lack of standards that our public officials need to meet. I think that Congress and the political parties-- I think political parties should do more to hold their own accountable. That's a good question. I guess I'd have to think about it more and maybe I'd change my mind. I shouldn't worked it out here on live radio but the thought is I have no problem with them expelling him.

Brian Lehrer: Right. I guess as I think about it spontaneously in this conversation, maybe the bigger threat would be if it set a precedent for expelling members of the other party, the minority party which might be a temptation for Democrats in the future to expel Republicans for political gain within their own party or Republicans to expel Democrats. Maybe instead of a motion to censure Rashida to leave for something she said, a Republican majority might try to kick her out. It might succeed. I'm only taking that as a hypothetical example, but maybe that's where the bigger threat is.

Sarah Longwell: I think that makes sense. Where you do want to be able to protect your colleagues from politically motivated expulsions. That's just not what's happening here exactly. I think that his own colleagues, the members of his state delegation, those are the people who have their knives out for him. I shouldn't even say knives out as though it's-- they are, I think, appropriately trying to take action against somebody who while having not yet been convicted of a crime, there is no doubt about the number of lies he told. The number of provable lies.

I think maybe this is why it makes some difference in this case is I think it is fair to say that he was elected by his constituents on a pile of lies that have now been proved to be lies. It's unlike other people who got-- People knew exactly who Rashida Tlaib was when they elected her. That is not the case with George Santos.

Brian Lehrer: By the way, I just looked it up as we were chatting and I think we can confirm that George Santos is actually gay. An ABC News story from earlier this year says multiple men have described to ABC News past relationships with the New York Congressman, some allegedly occurring when they were still teenagers, that they said turned toxic due to a flood of lies that Santos told to try to manipulate and trap them. Even though it's not a pleasant story for Santos, the premise there is he had relationships with men just for what it's worth. If they do expel him-- and listeners, by the way, do you think they should expel George Santos?

Do you think that this would set a dangerous precedent for cases that are not as clear but politically expedient, or do you think they should? This vote may come today. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, call or text for Sarah Longwell, political strategist and publisher of The Bulwark. If they do expel him, Sarah, here we go with a massively crowded and massively expensive set of primaries and then a general special election in Northeast Queens and part of Nassau County. Do you think it will matter in 2024 if that seat flips to Democratic, and I don't mean for the 2024 congressional elections, but to actual things that Congress does in 2024?

The Republicans would only have what? A three-vote majority in that scenario.

Sarah Longwell: Yes, I think that going into 2024, the rightest spot right now for Democrats is the fact that it looks like they could retake the house. I think that those seats in New York-- I think what part of what happened in 2022, 2022 was a weird story of Democrats obviously focusing really hard on a lot of these election-denying candidates in Congress and in governor's races and winning. They seem to have missed what was happening in New York. I think that in general, they think there's a real opportunity to win those swing districts back especially considering how chaotic it has been.

Even for, like you mentioned before, people like Mike Lawler, he's done his best to be an outspoken critic of the chaos but voters in that district may say, "We elected these Republicans as a corrective on some of the things we were trying to correct among Democrats but no more." I think that New York is one of those places that is very likely to be a big part of the story in 2024 for winning back Congress for Democrats.

Brian Lehrer: What signal do you think it would send to the American people if enough Republicans do vote to expel Santos for his lies while they refused to expel Trump from office after his impeachment following January 6th, an insurrection based on Trump whipping them into a frenzy over his fabulous lies?

Sarah Longwell: Well, I think it's just going to say something that we've come to understand very well which is that there's one set of rules for most other people, and there's a different set of rules for Donald Trump. Donald Trump has the ability-- you say it's a lie, I know it's a lie, but when you listen to Republicans, and I hold focus groups just about every week with voters across the political spectrum but I focus on Republicans and Trump voters, and the vast majority of them believe that there was something wrong with the 2020 election, and a majority of them don't believe that Trump lost the 2020 election.

Actually, it's one of the big problems that Republicans have had to confront as they try to run against Donald Trump in a presidential primary, is that for them to make the case that Donald Trump is politically weak, that he will lose or to say that he lost last time and he's a political loser, is to butt up against a lie that voters believe. You are challenging their reality when you say that because they don't believe that Donald Trump lost the last election. They don't think that he's a liar. In fact, one of the strangest things that voters say in the focus groups all the time is they say, "Look, I know Donald Trump lies but he also tells the truth."

What they mean is that they know sometimes he's being a fabulous, they know he's embellishing or exaggerating, but they believe he's talking to them like a real person and not like a politician. They believe that he's being straight with them and that the rest of it is him being funny or over the top. They don't see the lies as pernicious or eroding to democracy or some of the ways that we might talk about it. They just see that as part of his nature as a showman and therefore find it utterly forgivable

Brian Lehrer: Listener texts, "It would be good to remind listeners when Santos would be done with this term if he isn't removed." Well, that would be next year. He would have to stand for election and he would be done with the term at the end of next year. Someone else texts, "If Santos is not expelled, will he be entitled to lifetime health insurance?" I guess former members of Congress are entitled to lifetime health insurance. Is that accurate?

Sarah Longwell: It is, but I have no idea what the specific rules are around maintaining one's health insurance after expulsion.

Brian Lehrer: Let's see, someone else writes, "Yes, they should vote to expel him and yes, it is a dangerous precedent. As with the Trump impeachments, the Republicans have pushed us to a very grim set of choices, do the right thing out of principle, but go further down the chaos rabbit hole, see Biden impeachment inquiry." That's another text.

Sarah Longwell: That's a good text. That's smart.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. Carl in Staten Island is calling in. Hi, Carl, you're on WNYC.

Carl: Hi. I don't want him to be expelled and my reason-- well, first of all, I do find it a bad precedent but I don't want him to be expelled because I would like to see him, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Jim Jordan, Lauren Bobert to be the face of the Republican Party.

Brian Lehrer: Carl, thank you very much. There, Sarah, I guess is the democratic strategist's reason for not expelling George Santos. Do you think that some Democrats in the House might vote not to expel for exactly that reason, so he'll be one of the faces of the party in next year's election?

Sarah Longwell: I don't think so. I think that the political opportunity and upside is too much. I think that they will join them in the vote to expel. I guess it's possible. They think they can pick up that seat. This point though about letting people see, I felt this way a little bit about Jim Jordan where electing him as Speaker would have real consequences, extraordinarily negative consequences. For that reason, I didn't want them to do it, but there was something to the idea of, "Hey, Jim Jordan does represent the median Republican voter now, and people should reckon with what the Republican Party is today and he's a perfectly adequate representative of where the party is. Why not let people see it?"

Kevin McCarthy papered over it with the sheen of moderation, a more MAGA establishment hybrid whereas Jim Jordan was the undiluted [unintelligible 00:20:57] of the party. Let them see that. Let them see Marjorie Taylor Greene. Let them see Lauren Boebert. This is what the party is today. I think that's a fair thing. On the other hand, I just-- There's precedent both ways. There's also the precedent of allowing-- They're right that it's similar to Trump. You've either got to decide that the precedent is, "Well, we don't investigate legally former presidents," or the precedent is, "Boy, we're letting somebody off as a former president when there's all this evidence of criminality." In both ways, you are setting a precedent. When one, the precedent is to ignore the behavior or to allow it to stand. Not ignore it, but allow it to stand.

I think it is not an unfair thing to say that the American people should have their say on these things. George Santos should stand for reelection. I think that's a fair position. I just also think it's a fair position to say this person is a now-known unequivocal liar. He lied through his election. He stole money. He should be expelled by-- His colleagues decide that. Donald Trump can be trialed in a court of law for a bunch of things where he appears to have broken the law. If he's convicted of a jury of his peers, then he'll be found guilty.

Brian Lehrer: I guess then, based on your answer, we can expect pretty much all the Democrats in Congress, in the House to vote for expulsion. Then, it will depend on how many Republicans do, because it's-- What is it? Two-thirds or three-quarters are needed, not just the majority?

Sarah Longwell: I think it's two-thirds. I'm not a parliamentarian expert on what happens in Congress.

Brian Lehrer: I could look that up, but it's not just 50%. If it was 50% plus 1%, they would almost automatically have it because the Democrats almost have 50% of the seats, but they have to get a good number of Republicans on board.

Sarah Longwell: Yes, but the important thing here again, though, is this is not a partisan vote. I think if the majority of Republicans were going to try to save Santos, the Democrats would too. I don't think the Democrats-- They're going to let the Republicans take the lead on this. This is essentially a Republican vote.

Brian Lehrer: Here's David from Santos' district in Great Neck. You're on WNYC. Hi, David.

David: Good morning, Brian. I do hope that Santos is expelled because he deserves it. The listeners should remember that he still has to appear in federal court in Islip, although it's next year. He's got a ton of counts against him. The other thing is that if he is expelled, and I think he will be, Governor Hochul has to call a special election, which would probably be in the dead of winter like in February. That would be a low-turnout election. Also, listeners should realize Nassau County is trending Republican. Even though Suozzi had held the seat before and he succeeded Israel and he succeeded Ackerman and Maersk were all Democrats. That state could stay Republican. We just have to be skeptical, but this guy has to go. It's an outrage.

Brian Lehrer: David, thank you very much. Do you have any political analysis of that district in particular? I know your beat is national. I don't know if you would focus so much on New York's 3rd congressional district. It was redistricted after Democrat Tom Suozzi to include a little more of Southern Nassau County, which is more conservative than the North Shore, which is most of the district. Also, that part of Northeast Queens that's in the district, they just reelected a very Trumpy member of New York City Council, Vickie Paladino in that Bayside Little Neck-Douglaston area of Northeast Queens. This is a genuine swing district and we don't know what would happen. Do you have any analysis of that district?

Sarah Longwell: No, not specifically other than to say I love districts like this. We need more districts like this. I think that there is a reason they elected the first openly gay candidate and it's because it is a much more moderate district. I think we need more candidates that are in these swingier districts. The fact is, we have the opposite problem in most of Congress.

Brian Lehrer: All right.

Sarah Longwell: Which is--

Brian Lehrer: Go ahead. Do you want to finish the thought? Go ahead, Sarah.

Sarah Longwell: Only that we have the opposite problem in most of Congress, which is that they're so redistricted that there's no competition whatsoever and no opportunity for moderates.

Brian Lehrer: We're going to take a break and then continue with Sarah Longwell, publisher of The Bulwark. We're going to turn our focus to Nikki Haley as a potential meaningful challenger to Donald Trump in the Iowa caucuses and beyond. She's been rising in the polls lately. We're going to talk Nikki Haley versus Trump versus others in that Republican field when we come back.

[Music - Marden Hill: Hijack]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. We continue to talk politics with Sarah Longwell, publisher of the Conservative, but anti-Trump news organization, The Bulwark. You know Charlie Sykes from there who's been on the show many times and others. A political strategist also is Sarah Longwell, who is CEO of the communications firm Longwell Partners and previously founder of the group Republican Voters Against Trump, among other things. Nikki Haley's been getting some press lately as the rising Trump alternative. Why her do you think and not say Ron DeSantis who was originally supposed to be the heir apparent if Trump flamed out?

Sarah Longwell: Because people really don't like Ron DeSantis. Like I said earlier, I do a lot of focus groups with Republican voters. Right after the 2022 election, the level of DeSantis curiosity, the number of DeSantis-curious voters we saw in the focus groups was actually overwhelming. I really thought that he was going to give Trump a run for his money. If you remember, if you think back to that time, Trump really did look like a loser. So many of the people, his handpicked candidates in the 2022 election had gone down and there were all these election deniers.

The voters would describe him as Trump without the baggage. That seemed to be what they wanted because there was this big chunk of voters who were move-on-from-Trump. The problem was that their relationship with DeSantis at the time, it was very shallow, but their relationship with Trump was extremely deep. They'd voted for him a number of times. I think as they got to know Ron DeSantis, they began-- I heard this shift in the focus groups. As Donald Trump began to attack him, people found him weird and off-putting and wooden. It was not his time.

As a result, there's this bucket of always-Trumpers and there's a bucket of maybe-Trumpers, and then there's that bucket of move-on-from Trumpers. DeSantis in running a campaign that was so focused on trying to wrench away the always-Trumpers from Trump and running a very Trump-like aggressive campaign, he basically alienated the move-on-from-Trump coalition, which I think makes up about 30% to 35% of the party. Those people ultimately began starting to look at Nikki Haley. I think the reason is that in these debates, she has performed like a Republican that looks familiar to them. She's an old-school Republican.

She represents the party that still believes in American leadership in the world when it comes to foreign policy. This part of the party tends to be more college-educated, a little more suburban. They're a little less-- What would be the word? Concerned about the idea of a woman being the nominee. They like the idea of a woman being a nominee. Whereas I've listened to many other voters in the Republican party, they don't like the idea of a female candidate. I think what Nikki Haley's been able to do is really consolidate the move-on-from-Trump or even the anti-Trump vote. The problem is that's not enough of the party to win an election. I think that the big problem for Nikki Haley is that she does read to the other 70-ish% of the party as an establishment republican. A pre-Trump Republican.

One of the things we hear from voters just so loud and clear, they say it outright, "We're not going back," they say. The party of George W. Bush and Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney, they're not just opposed to it, they're hostile to it. They view that party as getting us into foreign entanglements as to being far too soft on immigration. They talk about it as a uni-party with the Democrats that compromises with Democrats and it's just not where the majority of the party is anymore. While I think she's been able to find herself a lane for sure and I think it is because she has performed well as a candidate, has shown and demonstrated some political talent where Ron DeSantis had none and failed to meet expectations, I don't think that lane is big enough ultimately to defeat Trump.

Brian Lehrer: Two follow-ups on that answer that you just gave. Then I want to play a couple of Nikki Haley clips from the last debate and get you to comment on them. Did you say that there's still a meaningful percentage of Republicans in your focus groups who oppose the idea of a woman president just on that basis? Just woman?

Sarah Longwell: Yes, it comes up not constantly, but it comes up not infrequently. It's often from women themselves and to much head-nodding from other people in the group.

Brian Lehrer: Because?

Sarah Longwell: Mainly, they say they don't think that world leaders will respect a woman from America, not even from America. They say a woman, which I'm always like, "I don't know Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel." There's this sense that it's a rough world out there and that we're dealing with incredibly hostile countries and that they wouldn't respect a woman.

Brian Lehrer: Women are too soft, plus playing into other people's presumed sexism from other countries. Then one of the reasons that you said that so many Republicans have moved on from the Mitt Romney-George W. Bush party because they would get the country involved in foreign entanglements. Have you had a chance yet to test a Republican focus group on how far to go to support Israel or haven't you gotten to do those yet since October 7th?

Sarah Longwell: No, I have. Here's the thing about the Republican party. I'm 43 and so I was just at the end of my college career when 911 happened. I came of age in a Republican party that was defined by George W. Bush neo-conservatism. The idea that we were going to go into Iraq and Afghanistan and the extent to which the party on this particular issue has changed cannot be overstated. One of the reasons that Trump was so attractive to people and he was able to run against Jeb Bush to great effect on this is because there is now a deep rejection of American leadership in the world foreign policy. They would call it adventurism, forever wars, but you hear it all the time from these voters.

They do not want to send troops anywhere and that includes Israel. They are supportive of Israel and initially they were supportive of Ukraine but I watched that support just fall away after the Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon wing of the party, the populists really started to work on the voters and say-- and this is what you hear from the voters all the time. They say, "Why would we give money or support to these other countries when we have so many problems here?" This is a direct line of America First, Make America Great Again thinking which is very isolationist in its worldview which is we have to do things here. We have to secure our border. Even though they're temperamentally or emotionally supportive of Israel and I even talked to a bunch of two-time Trump voters who were Jewish, and they talked about how fearful they were right now of being targeted in the United States.

They were deeply supportive of Israel but even they were very-- nobody wants to send troops now. Nobody's even suggesting we send troops but there's just a real depth of fear in the voters that we might send troops places and they don't want to do that.

Brian Lehrer: Interesting, back to Nikki Haley. We haven't played this stunningly and harshly honest moment on the show yet of Haley from the last Republican debate. Listeners, hold your ears if your sensibilities are fragile. This starts after Vivek Ramaswamy had been accused of being soft on China because he uses the China-linked social media platform TikTok and he addresses Nikki Haley.

Vivek Ramaswamy: I want to laugh at why Nikki Haley didn't answer your question which is about looking at families in the eye. In the last debate, she made fun of me for actually joining TikTok while her own daughter was actually using the app for a long time. You might want to take care of your family first-

Nikki Haley: Leave my daughter out of your voice.

Vivek Ramaswamy: -before preaching to anybody else [crosstalk] daughter. The next generation of Americans are using it. That's actually the point. You have her supporters crapping her up, that's fine. Here's the truth.

Nikki Haley: You're just scum.

Vivek Ramaswamy: The easy answer.

Brian Lehrer: Sarah, do you think Hailey had in mind calling Ramaswamy that word coming into the debate, or did she spontaneously react to having her daughter brought into it?

Sarah Longwell: I think both. I think that Nikki Haley is aware that one of the things that has really elevated her campaign is that while Vivek Ramaswamy has-- there's a segment of the Republican voters who find him very interesting and attractive as a candidate, that there are a lot more people who find him repugnant and recoil. She has become their vessel on the stage for smacking him upside the head and--

Brian Lehrer: Were they booing him or were they booing her in that loud audience?

Sarah Longwell: I think they were booing him. I think that a big part of her rise in the polls and the reason that people are taking notice of her is that she is, A, saying something people want said on the stage which is that that guy's a jerk, but also, it makes her look tough in the way that she wants to look tough. I think that she's actually at her worst when she delivers some of the canned quasi-feminist pop lines like, "My heels are a weapon." I think that lands terribly and the other thing-- look, these Republican voters today they want a performance. They want it to be exciting, Donald Trump has created this desire for them. They want to see a fighter. The number of times I have heard people directly say they want a fighter in their candidates, and this is now true across the political spectrum and I think that's what she's showing in those moments and voters react to that.

Brian Lehrer: Let me spotlight one other thing about Haley that could go beyond whether she gets a nomination and get your take. In that same recent Republican debate, she repeated that she is pro-life as she puts it on abortion, but--

Nikki Haley: When it comes to the federal law which is what's being debated here, be honest, it's going to take 60 Senate votes, a majority of the house, and a president to sign it. We haven't had 60 Senate votes in over 100 years. We might have 45 pro-life senators so no Republican president can ban abortions any more than a Democrat president can ban these state laws so let's find consensus. Let's agree on how we can ban late-term abortions. Let's make sure we encourage adoptions and good quality adoptions. Let's make sure we make contraception accessible. Let's make sure that none of these state laws put a woman in jail or give her the death penalty for getting an abortion. Let's focus on how to save as many babies as we can and support as many moms as we can and stop the judgment. We don't need to divide America over this issue anymore.

Brian Lehrer: Now, Sarah I'm not sure many people could even understand what that attempt at nuance boils down to in terms of what she would do as president on this issue that's been hurting Republicans lately. Do you understand it?

Sarah Longwell: I do. I thought it was clear. She's saying that they were not going to have the votes at the federal level, and so let's find a compromise and a way forward. I think that she is where most of the American people are. I also think this has been helping her because one of the things that is so interesting about the two-time Trump voters is how many of them are, I'm going to say pro-choice, but it's actually a little bit of an unfair binary because a lot of the times what the voters say is, "Well, I'm pro-life but I believe in a woman's right to choose."

I remember the first time I heard it, I laughed a little bit because I saw them in conflict but they're not really. So many people say that they're personally pro-life. They want a culture that is pro-life but also they do not want to get in between women and their doctors. Especially you hear this a lot from older Republican women who came up expecting this law to be there. People do not like that it was repealed. It's why when you're in Ohio or when any election really comes down to abortion, you're seeing it win with runaway numbers, because there are still a lot of pro-choice Republicans. I think that she is doing something that needed to be done a lot sooner, which is prove that she could be a very strong general election candidate. There was a period of time where I think electability really, really was on voters' minds.

I think the problem is that so much polling shows Donald Trump beating Joe Biden, that people also think Trump is perfectly electable. They also think that Joe Biden is so catastrophically weak because they listen to this Republican media ecosystem. Also the mainstream would also probably argue that Joe Biden's coming in a little weak, but on the right, people think that Joe Biden is-- They talk about him as barely sentient. As a result, they think that Trump could win. If they had their druthers, they want Trump, or they want somebody like Trump if they can get him.

They've also been sold these establishment candidates on the basis of electability for a really long time and are told that people like Donald Trump can't win. When he did win in 2016, they really felt like they didn't have to keep compromising on these establishment candidates. Again, I think that there is-- if you look at the polling, she's down-- I can't remember what the exact numbers are, but in her home state, she's losing to Trump by at least 30 percentage points. She'd have to win her own state to have a path forward. If you look at the Super Tuesday states, Trump is clearing 50%, 60% in many of them. Could she overperform in Iowa? Could she really pull off a surprise in New Hampshire? She could, but to win the nomination, she will have to beat Trump in South Carolina, her home state. That's a tough, tough order.

Brian Lehrer: That state comes early, so we should know pretty early in 2024 if there is anybody who can challenge Trump in the Republican primaries. Of course, things could change later on if he's convicted of a crime. There are lots of wild cards, but Iowa and South Carolina, and New Hampshire are obviously going to be big things. Sarah Longwell, publisher of The Bulwark and CEO of the communications firm, Longwell Partners. Good talk, Sarah. Thank you very much. Please keep coming on with this.

Sarah Longwell: Thanks for having me. Bye-bye.

[00:42:31] [END OF AUDIO]

 

Copyright © 2023 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.