Minnesota Nice

After Tuesday’s Vice-presidential debate, viewers were left feeling some nostalgia from debates past: heavy on policy, politeness, and comity. This week, Claire McCaskill is joined once again by her friend and former Senate colleague Heidi Heitkamp. They tick through the particulars from a relatively genial debate, and while it won’t likely move the needle much, it exposed the two distinct faces of JD Vance. Then, former Obama chief strategist David Axelrod stops in to shed some light on what the Harris-Walz team should be laser-focused on in the final month of the campaign. And lastly, Heidi and Claire sift through three important stories emerging that could influence November, and how to navigate the impact of the stuff you can’t control in any campaign.

Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. As a subscriber you’ll also be able to get occasional bonus content from this and other shows.

Note: This is a rough transcript. Please excuse any typos.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

Claire McCaskill: Hello, and welcome to “How to Win 2024. It’s Thursday morning, October 3rd. I’m Claire McCaskill, and I’m here with my guest co-pilot today, former North Dakota Senator and my colleague and dear friend Heidi Heitkamp. She is the co-founder and chair of the One Country Project. She’s also the director of the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago. She’s a big damn deal in case you don’t know.

Heidi Heitkamp: Yeah, right.

Claire McCaskill: She also co-hosts the “Hot Dish” podcast with her brother Joel. Hey Heidi, how are you?

Heidi Heitkamp: I’m great. How are you doing, Claire?

Claire McCaskill: I’m good. I just got back from covering the debate and we will talk about that in a little bit. But before we get into the show this week, I want to share something with everyone who is kind enough to tune into this podcast. Back in 2020, MSNBC and Wondery teamed up to create a podcast called “Kamala: Next In Line.” It was hosted by Joy Reid and looked at then Senator Kamala Harris’s personal and political background to understand the moments that shaped her.

But now that VP Harris has ascended to the top of the Democratic ticket, and we hope will sit in the Oval Office soon, we want to reshare that podcast with you. It will be available in the feed starting Wednesday, but only as a special offering for our MSNBC Premium subscribers. So go sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts so you don’t miss it. So now let’s get to today’s show. All right, if you watched or read the highlights from the debate, you might be feeling some nostalgia from debates past. It felt like a debate from before Donald Trump came down the escalator. There wasn’t a lot of name calling. In fact, there was no name calling. It really felt like this is what debates are supposed to be. Heidi and I are going to dig into how it went and how maybe the American public received it.

Heidi Heitkamp: And in just a bit, David Axelrod, a great friend of both of ours, but also the former chief strategist and senior advisor to President Obama, is going to join us to strategize about the month ahead and what Kamala Harris and her team need to be focused on.

Claire McCaskill: And before we close out, Heidi and I want to take a beat to look at the three events emerging this week that the candidates can’t control. And this is the hard stuff that happens. We’ve got the hurricane, we’ve got the dock strike, and then obviously we have a ramping up of potentially an all-out war in the Middle East. We’re going to take a look at that at the close to talk about how the campaigns might deal with that and what impact it might have. But first at the top, let’s take a moment just to recognize all the people that are still in dire situations because of the hurricane. The Red Cross is always a good place if you want to help all the victims that are still struggling, the people who lost their lives and their families, and also the rescue efforts. So we wanted to take a minute to recognize that. Now, if Heidi and I were in the room, let’s talk about this debate. What did you think, Heidi?

Heidi Heitkamp: Well, I thought it was really interesting because I think that Walz was basically conditioned to have this attack dog. Vance come out, say outrageous things about Donald Trump, defend him on the crazy stuff and just really be a tacky. And he came out and he was Mr. Nice guy. And everybody talks about Walz being nervous, but I think that completely threw him off because now what he had been training for which is trying to be responsive, respectful, but also kind of push back, that didn’t happen. And so I think it was brilliant on Vance’s part. I think Vance did himself some good. He’s kind of a Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde kind of guy, you know?

The charming guy that you saw was the hillbilly elegy guy, but the guy we’ve been seeing on the campaign trail and who actually did some events the day after and turned into that attack dog again. That makes me nervous. And so the way I talk about this debate is I say, it was an audition for Vance for 2028. And trust me, Josh Hawley, who unfortunately is the Senator of Missouri, and Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were watching that very closely because if Donald Trump does not get elected, there’s going to be a big fight in that party about who’s the next heir apparent. But I think Tim did what he needed to do. I was kind of grading it during this whole thing based on decorum, maybe more than answers. And I thought, okay, it’s even even.

And at the very end, when Vance refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the 2020 election, I think it tipped the scales to Tim.

(BEGIN VT)

Tim Walz: He is still saying he didn’t lose the election. I would just ask that, did he lose the 2020 election?

J.D. Vance: Tim, I’m focused on the future. Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 COVID situation?

Tim Walz: That is a damning non-answer.

(END VT)

Claire McCaskill: Yeah, I think it’s important to realize that J.D. Vance came out and tried to be Tim Walz. He came out and tried to be a nice guy. I say tried to be because there’s no way you make up a story about legal Haitian immigrants and stick to it and be a nice guy. So, but he did a good job of pretending that he was a nice guy and he was a very smooth debater. Tim Walz wasn’t. But that doesn’t matter. I think overall Tim was authentic. He stumbled some. I think some of his answers were not what I think all of us hoped they might be. But I think there were some moments where the lying was so effortlessly pulled off and that everyone watching knew it was a lie. The three big ones of course were the ACA.

(BEGIN VT)

J.D. Vance: When Obamacare was crushing under the weight of its own regulatory burden and health care costs, Donald Trump could have destroyed the program. Instead, he worked in a bipartisan way to ensure that Americans had access to affordable care.

(END VT)

Claire McCaskill: I mean, I got fell out of my --

Heidi Heitkamp: Did you laugh out loud? What are you saying?

Claire McCaskill: I might have fell out of my chair. I mean, we were there.

Heidi Heitkamp: Oh, my God. That’s what I said. I said, I do not remember it that way.

Claire McCaskill: I mean, over and over again, everything. I mean, he slashed the budget to even market the ACA. He tried to make it harder for people to sign up for the ACA. He did everything he could to repeal the ACA.

Heidi Heitkamp: He forced Mitch to put it on the floor, embarrassing Mitch, you know, on a reconciliation. And so they used up a whole slot to try and reverse the ACA. This is the biggest lie of all the lies, I think.

Claire McCaskill: It was a big one. And I think everybody knew it, right? And then the other thing was when he said that Trump peacefully gave up power.

(BEGIN VT)

J.D. Vance: It’s really rich for democratic leaders to say that Donald Trump is a unique threat to democracy when he peacefully gave over power on January the 20th, as we have done for 250 years in this country.

(END VT)

Claire McCaskill: That was another huh? And everybody watching it went huh? That’s like saying it’s January outside. It was such a blatant lie. And then obviously the biggest one, which is his refusal to answer who won the election.

Heidi Heitkamp: Yeah. Well, the other thing that I would add to that list is abortion. And we need a different narrative. And I was like, Tim, what you should have said is it’s not about your talking points, it’s about policy. You need a different policy and you’re not willing to acknowledge different policy.

Claire McCaskill: Yeah. I thought Tim did a good job on it because the whole thing of him trying to say we need to get people to trust us on abortion.

(BEGIN VT)

J.D. Vance: My party, we’ve got to do so much better of a job at earning the American people’s trust back on this issue where they frankly just don’t trust us.

(END VT)

Claire McCaskill: Well, that’s not going to happen. That’s not going to happen. Under any circumstances are the women of America going to trust the Republican Party on abortion? They’re just not. So it is why in every even red state, abortion initiatives have had success in terms of protecting women’s freedoms in that regard. On the immigration stuff, I thought it was interesting when they cut the mics. How did you think the moderators did and how did you think that went when they actually cut the mics?

Heidi Heitkamp: I thought they did him a favor and I might be a minority on this. I think he was cool, calm and collected. And it’s a negative for him, what he did in Springfield. And so the last thing you want to do is debate that, especially with the moderators. And so, you know, I have this thing that I do, I say, when people react so aggressively on something. They probably, honestly, Claire, feel there’s truth to what’s being said and you want to defend yourself because you know it is a fault that you have.

Claire McCaskill: Right.

Heidi Heitkamp: And so I thought he looked over aggressive. I thought that they tried several times to say, please, let’s move on. And I think he wanted to go wonky on them and they were like, you’re not doing that because these folks are there. You may not like how they got there, but they are there legitimately, right?

Claire McCaskill: Right. And I thought the school shooting stuff was weird for him.

Heidi Heitkamp: Yeah, what else could he say that he’s arming schools. And Tim Walz, I think that was a high point for him when he said, can’t we protect kids?

(BEGIN VT)

Tim Walz: No one’s trying to scaremonger and say we’re taking your guns, but I ask all of you out there, do you want your schools hardened to look like a fort? Is that what we have to go, when we know there’s countries around the world that their children aren’t practicing these types of drills? They’re being kids. We owe it to them to get a fix.

(END BT)

Heidi Heitkamp: I think that Tim missed an opportunity there to show his chops on what he knows about guns. He could have been talking about magazine sizes. He could be talking about the things that most people would say, yeah, that’s rational. But I will tell you this, Claire, guess what Tim said in this debate that made me smile? He said farmers.

Claire McCaskill: Yes, he did.

Heidi Heitkamp: Soybean and corn.

Claire McCaskill: And he talked about them in several different contexts.

Heidi Heitkamp: Yeah.

Claire McCaskill: He talked about farmers on climate.

(BEGIN VT)

Tim Walz: My farmers know climate change is real. They’ve seen 500-year droughts, 500-year floods back to back. But what they’re doing is adapting. And this has allowed them to tell me, look, I harvest corn, I harvest soybean, and I harvest wind.

(END VT)

Claire McCaskill: And he talked about the reality that farmers are facing. And I think people don’t pay attention, and I know this is your wheelhouse, that farmers are dealing with climate change as an existential threat to everything they do, because if you can’t predict with any certainty at all when you’re going to be in a flood and when you’re going to be in a drought and how long it’s going to last, it is really a problem. The other context he brought it up was in terms of trade. I don’t think many Americans understand how dependent farmers are in terms of being able to export their crops. We grow a lot and we are very good at it in America and how much Trump’s tariffs hurt the farmers.

It was good, and I know you probably were very happy about that. And it probably was important for him to do that because typically farmers aren’t mentioned in presidential debates.

Heidi Heitkamp: Yeah. And I would like to say to all my friends who maybe are sitting on the fence, I want to say, okay, we’ve now had these two debates. The only person who mentioned farming and the challenges of farming has been a Democrat. Can we just say that? I mean, you put Vance on the ballot because you thought that would speak to small town rural America. But he didn’t talk anything about small town rural America, but Tim Walz did. So I think there’s credibility there that he hasn’t gotten credit for.

Claire McCaskill: I agree. And I don’t think, frankly, Vance probably knows too much about small town rural America.

Heidi Heitkamp: He’s been gone since he was 18.

Claire McCaskill: Yeah. He was hunting for that hedge fund and that billionaire to write the check to get him into the Senate. So what do you think? Overall, do you think it moved the needle?

Heidi Heitkamp: No. No.

Claire McCaskill: I don’t think so either.

Heidi Heitkamp: I think that people will take out of it what they already believe. And for the folks who may have not decided, what they saw was a debate where two guys who were behaving themselves, actually having a conversation. And I think it made people nostalgic for the days where politics are not what they are today, where you can name call and do all the evil things. And so I think to that regard, it was hopefully an optimistic moment in American political discourse, despite the lies.

Claire McCaskill: And I will say, people need to understand, if you’re not in a swing state, you don’t really know what it feels like the heat of a presidential campaign. Now, if you’re living in Pennsylvania or Georgia or Wisconsin or Michigan or Arizona or Nevada or North Carolina, you are going to be exposed to the Tim Walz that I think we know, because you’re going to see him in various places. You’re going to see him doing interviews with local media. You’re going to see clips of him at events. You may even actually see him personally because he will be in all those states. Same thing with J.D. Vance. People’s impression in the states that are really important will really come from how they behave on the campaign trail. And Vance is not who he was at the debate and he can’t help himself on the trail. He is going to say nasty, ugly things. And all of the clips are going to keep being played in ads and on social media of all the crazy things he said about women staying in violent marriages, the childless cat ladies. So overall, I think what’s going to shape this race more than the debate will be those outtakes and what’s pushed by the campaigns on voters in those seven or eight states.

Heidi Heitkamp: Yeah. Amen. And you know, the thing about J.D. Vance is when you saw his favorables bump up from people who watched the debate, okay, that’s good, but how many people watched the debate? What they’re watching is the clips and what they’re seeing is what’s happening the day after. And they’re going to see him again playing that role of, you know, vice-liar moving forward. And so, you know, I think people saw what they’re going to see. I mean, at the end of the day, I don’t think it mattered much.

Claire McCaskill: Yeah. You do get the sense he’s actually solved problems. You don’t get that sense from J.D. Vance. No.

Heidi Heitkamp: He just wants to talk about him.

Claire McCaskill: Yeah. All right, we’re going to pause here. Up next, former Obama chief strategist and senior advisor and our pal, David Axelrod, joins us for an up-close look at what Harris needs to do this next month and talk a little bit more about the debate. Back with him in a moment.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(ADVERTISEMENT)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

Claire McCaskill: Welcome back. My co-host, Senator Heidi Heitkamp, is still with me. So, Heidi, with 33 days remaining before Election Day, sometimes it’s hard to stay focused, especially in the midst of not the fog of war, but the fog of the campaign, to keep a focus on the long game, all the travel, all the incoming. So, we thought we’d have a guest that knows something about it, right?

Heidi Heitkamp: Yep. And somebody who’s been there a few times, and that’s David Axelrod, our great friend. He is the former chief strategist and senior advisor to President Obama. He also is the founding director of the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago, something I’m well familiar with. He is the person who convinced me that I would like nothing more than to spend some time in Chicago, and he was right.

David Axelrod: Yes.

Heidi Heitkamp: But I just think he is one of the premier and really significant voices in kind of educating the public on politics, not just policy, but also how does this work? And I think he’s going to tell us what he would be doing and what they should be doing in the final days of this campaign.

Claire McCaskill: Yeah. And before we get started and get his wisdom, which I know he has plenty of it, Axe did something that took a lot of courage before almost anybody else did. And he said out loud what everybody else was thinking. And that was that maybe it wasn’t a good idea for Joe Biden to run again. And I know that just saying what I said after the debate. the kind of incoming I had, a lot of vitriol, a lot of hate, a lot of anger that I said out loud at that point in time. But Axe had said it much, much earlier. And I just think every once in a while, you’ve got to give somebody credit for trying to move our party in a position that makes it more likely that we can hold power against somebody who is potentially very, very damaging to the things we care about. So, I wanted to give him a little kudos on that before we begin. So welcome, Axe.

David Axelrod: I think this thing is going really well so far. You guys can just keep on talking about me. I like it.

Claire McCaskill: Okay. We’re making you look really effing smart, aren’t we? Okay. So let’s start. What are your takeaways from the Veep debate? I kind of think it’s a wash, right?

David Axelrod: Yeah. I don’t think it’s going to have much impact on the race, but I think there was something that’s been missed that was kind of a revelation from this debate. You know, I was watching it and I simultaneously was following a dial group while I was watching. And the thing that was noteworthy to me was that after the dial group, when people were asked to rate the candidates and so on, and then they had a discussion, people were raving about that debate. They loved that debate. This was a group of swing voters who were at this stage in the campaign sort of notoriously unplugged and pretty jaundiced about the system. And they were like, oh my God, look, those two guys, we can get into why J.D. Vance did what he did, but these two guys, they’re like civil and they’re listening to each other and so on. And what it said to me was, this is a reaction to the environment that Donald Trump has created.

I think there is a real sense among voters who probably are going to decide this election that they’re sick of the whole thing. And when I hear Kamala Harris talk about turning the page, I think there’s actually more power in that than people realize. I think Donald Trump is exhausting. Donald Trump is wearying. Hate is exhausting. Fighting is exhausting. And more than that, and you guys know this because you’re two former master legislators, you guys were both known for working across the aisle and trying to keep your eye on getting stuff done.

You can’t do that when you’re calling people morons, when you’re calling people all kinds of horrible, you know, mentally deficient and worse. So I wonder if there’s not a turn of the wheel here where part of Kamala’s message and she’s doing it but tuned up is we can’t afford to do this. We can’t do four more years like this. And I think there’s power in that. And I think the reaction to that debate was more interesting to me than the debate itself.

Heidi Heitkamp: I would have loved to have seen the dial --

David Axelrod: Yeah.

Heidi Heitkamp: -- during the moment when he said, my son witnessed a shooting and Vance turned over and said, I’m so sorry that happened to you. And they had that dad moment together.

David Axelrod: Yeah.

Heidi Heitkamp: I bet you the dial went off the chart.

David Axelrod: Yeah. Now I will say that the dials also reacted as you would expect. You know, Vance was doing very well and I think candidly, I think he did well for himself in that debate. I don’t think he necessarily moved the dial for Trump. I think he went in there to do well for himself. I mean, look, it’s very clear that the one guy was a much more polished debater than the other and that showed up. I think what’s missed because we’re all sort of professionals in this arena, there is a kind of earnestness to Walz that people did receive. And they thought he is a real guy who they can relate to and who can relate to them. That came across for him. But you know, he’s never going to be captain of the debating team.

Heidi Heitkamp: J.D. Vance improved his likability as a result of it, which was his goal. I think he was auditioning for 2028.

David Axelrod: Yeah.

Heidi Heitkamp: But interestingly enough, where Walz had high favorabilities, or at least compared to the other three, he actually dramatically increased his favorabilities as well. So it goes to what you’re saying, David --

David Axelrod: Yeah.

Heidi Heitkamp: -- that people saw two civil people.

David Axelrod: The Vance thing was interesting because it is such a split-screen deal. I mean, he went out yesterday and he was just caustic and nasty and doing all the things to Walz that he wouldn’t do on the stage, teasing him for his answers. So, you know, it was a facade. I mean, I talked to J.D. Vance seven years ago when he came to the Institute of Politics, Heidi, and he was much more like that guy that we saw on the debate stage, but he has two faces and he offered the more benign one in that debate. And if you read Axios today, his people are saying it was all part of a strategy to defang Walz.

But I agree with you. I think he also was well underwater on his favorable. You could say it was raining cats and dogs on him and he got way underwater. And so he was trying to deal with that, I’m sure. But people should look at him seriously because you look at Donald Trump, I think he looks like hell and he’s looking worse every day. He’s 78 years old. And by the way, the same things that people were saying about Joe Biden should be said about Donald Trump. There’s a very good chance that J.D. Vance could be president at some time in the next four years if Trump is elected. So people should take Vance seriously. And the fact that he has two personalities that he trots out for different occasions does raise the question, which is the real J.D. Vance?

Claire McCaskill: So if you were in the room, we just did a segment on if we were in the room. If you were in the room with the brain trust of the Harris-Walz campaign, where would you be telling them to focus all of their energy for the next 30 days?

David Axelrod: Well, first of all, if I were in the room, I’d say, go get Claire and Heidi and get them in here. But look, I think there are three states that may tell the story here. Pennsylvania for sure. I really think she needs to win Pennsylvania. Or if she wins Pennsylvania, this rarely happens, but if she wins Pennsylvania and doesn’t win Michigan, where I think, you know, the race is really very competitive and tough, she needs another strategy here. And I think Georgia offers the best possibility. I don’t know what the storm is going to do to North Carolina. There’s a lot of damage in Western North Carolina and it’s going to be hard for some people to vote. Asheville is a blue dot in the West, but those people are resourceful and have resources and probably will figure out how to vote. You know, Republican turnout may be affected there, but I really think Georgia is a better opportunity. You know, she was, I guess, in Georgia yesterday. I would spend a lot of time in Georgia, in Pennsylvania and in Michigan.

But beyond that, it’s not just whether she shows up, it’s how she’s spending her time and what she’s doing. And I’m not one who says you need to satisfy the media by doing interviews for their benefit. But I think, you know, she’s been spectacular. I mean, no one would have predicted how well she’d do and how quickly she’d get to equilibrium in this race after Biden wasn’t such a hole.

But you know, the bar is always lifted in the presidential process. I think she’s been a great first, second, and third date. Now people are deciding whether they want to marry her and they want to know more. And they want to know more deeply who she is. And I think that doesn’t happen through speeches and rallies. That happens through town hall meetings. It happens through interchanges with voters and OTRs, off the record, so-called stops or unplanned stops in cafes and bowling alleys or whatever. And yes, it does happen in interviews. I mean, I think she just has to put herself out there more. I don’t think she’s comfortable with that. She’s pretty cautious and it doesn’t come naturally to her. There are some people for whom it does come naturally. I suspect you guys were two of them, but that’s not her personality. But I think it’s a requirement of running for president of the United States.

Heidi Heitkamp: And David, if I can say this, when you’re a Democrat from a deep blue state, you don’t get that level of skill set.

David Axelrod: Absolutely right.

Heidi Heitkamp: But when you’re two Democrats from red states like Claire and I, you know what it’s like to mix it up and have fun with voters who don’t agree with you, you know, to kind of make them --

David Axelrod: Yeah.

Heidi Heitkamp: -- even if they don’t ever change their mind, make them like you.

David Axelrod: Yeah. Well, listen, I think that is absolutely right. Barack Obama was a great talent, but he spent a lot of years in downstate Illinois, you know, in very, very red places talking to people. And when we got to Iowa, he was very, very comfortable with people, you know, wherever he met them and in talking to them. I wonder, you know, I have a podcast that went up today. This is called an artful plug. I have a podcast that went up today in “Axe Files” podcast with Janet Yellen. And I talked to her because she broke two glass ceilings at the Fed and as U.S. Treasury Secretary. There was an article that morning about Kamala and this very issue. And I said, are there particular burdens on a woman in these sort of glass breaking positions? And she said, I’m very reticent about speaking. I don’t want to make a mistake. I know people are scrutinizing me differently, and I don’t want to make a mistake.

But I think your point is very true, Heidi. I think California is the worst place in the world to prepare for a national campaign, because you never really have a race. If you have a race, it’s usually with a Democrat, because of the system that they have. And someone once said, Bob Shrum, I think, said at a campaign rally in California is five people sitting around a TV set. I don’t think she had the kind of training that you guys had. And the best politicians in the country are people from states that are actually competitive. I mean, look at Bill Clinton coming from Arkansas. You know, it’s a real gift. And two of the best politicians in the country are running right now, John Tester and Sherrod Brown. And they’ve got very tough races because it’s a presidential year. But if either of them survive, it’s going to be because they’re damn good at this and they know how to talk to people where they find them.

Claire McCaskill: Yeah, I think you’re right about Kamala being worried about making a mistake. And I think people don’t realize how much she was rocked by her presidential campaign four years ago. I think she was the shooting star. She landed in Washington, D.C. as a U.S. senator, in very similar ways to the way Barack Obama landed in the U.S. Senate from Illinois. She was seen as the one to watch. And then, you know, she had that great kickoff in Oakland and it went so well. And then it just tanked. And I think it’s taken her through this process, through the convention to really begin to get a spring in her step in terms of her confidence about mistakes. And I hope you’re right, Axe. I hope she gets out there more because I think she’ll do fine. And by the way, you know, she’s running against a guy who commits every mistake you could passively make in a campaign every single freaking day.

David Axelrod: Yeah. You know, authenticity is absolutely the coin of the realm in presidential campaigns. And in 2020, she never made it to 2020. Problem for Kamala Harris is I’m not sure she knew exactly why she was running in 2020 other than the fact that she was a star and everybody told her she should. And then she took the state of the art advice of whoever was advising her that, you know, just take a left turn every chance you get and you’ll get to where you want to go. Of course, you keep taking lefts, you end up where you started, right? And she never seemed comfortable with the words she was speaking. She never seemed attached to them. She didn’t seem authentic. And I think she’s more comfortable taking the position she’s taking right now and it shows. But you know, Claire, you’re a great St. Louis Cardinals fan. I assume you’re still sticking with them despite the season they had.

Claire McCaskill: Of course.

David Axelrod: We were tied, by the way, the Cubs and the Cardinals, so I’m not going to cast judgment here.

Claire McCaskill: I was going to say, you cannot cast aspersions, Mr. Cub fan.

David Axelrod: I’m not going to and I have great admiration for your organization there. But there was a White Sox manager in the ‘60s named Eddie Stanky, and he had a team that couldn’t hit, so they ran all the time. And his great phrase was no risk baseball is second division baseball. Well, that’s true in presidential politics too. You just have to lay it out there and people need to know that they have seen who you really are. And, you know, she didn’t have the benefit or the test of a long primary campaign.

Barack Obama ran 50 primary campaigns. He grew during that process. And by the end of it, people felt they knew him. This is a 90-day process. So she’s really got to do this and I think on this authenticity thing, you know, however nutty and, you know, potentially dangerous Trump is, no one ever says, gee, I wish Donald Trump would speak his mind. You know, that’s never a question. She’s got to do more of that.

Claire McCaskill: My question to you is, do you feel if you had to nail the enthusiasm level, if everything you’re seeing, because to me right now, it is not, as you well know, and I’ve heard you talk about it before, there’s two things. There’s one, persuading the people who are disengaged and haven’t been paying attention, the small number that are out there, but more importantly who’s going to show up.

David Axelrod: Right.

Claire McCaskill: What’s your sense on who’s going to show up?

David Axelrod: Well, I think there are disengaged voters and they tend to be younger, they tend to be more focused on the economy. By the way, the people who are disengaged also tend to be more oriented toward Trump which is a problem for him. I don’t think they have a great organization, but his get out the vote strategy is, you know, making up stuff about legal immigrants from Haiti and Springfield and just basically being as provocative as can be. For her, I think there are younger voters that she has to reach. She’s not making her numbers quite yet among particularly younger African-American voters. I think there’s a bit of persuasion that has to be done with young African-American men. I’m eager to see my old boss out there and I’m sure he will be because I think he can be helpful with some of these voters in places where she needs help. So for her, I think that the enthusiasm level will be high, but there’s persuasion to be done particularly among some of the groups that have been part of the Democrat coalition before, some black voters, Hispanic voters, and younger voters. And that’s the work of the next 30 days.

Claire McCaskill: I don’t know how often you talk to Plouffe, but make sure you call him today and make sure he hears you when you say, get her out there more and she needs to be less afraid of making a mistake.

David Axelrod: You know what I’m going to do? I’m going to call and I’m going to say, I got a message from Claire McCaskill and Heidi Heitkamp. I’m just passing it along. Get her the hell out there. And let me just say, as I leave you guys, I want all the world, because I know this globally people are going to listen to this podcast. I love you guys. You guys are two of the best people that I’ve met in politics and I appreciate your friendship.

Claire McCaskill: Listen, you’re the best. And I knew you wouldn’t say no, but I think you should at least give me credit for waiting this long to ask you.

David Axelrod: I’m here to serve.

Claire McCaskill: All right, Axe. We love you.

David Axelrod: All right. Bye. Thank you.

Claire McCaskill: Take care. Travel safe.

David Axelrod: See you guys.

Heidi Heitkamp: Travel safely. Bye-bye.

Claire McCaskill: David Axelrod is the former chief strategist and senior advisor to President Barack Obama, the founding director of the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics. Axe, thanks again for your time today. Okay, after the break, Heidi and I are going to drill down on the impact of things you can’t control in an election cycle, as several emerging and very important stories this week may give a real jolt to the race. Back with more of that in a moment.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(ADVERTISEMENT)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

Claire McCaskill: Welcome back. My co-hosts, the unbelievably cool, wonderful Senator Heidi Heitkamp is still with me. Heidi, there were three events this week that sort of overshadowed the VP debate, but none are issues either candidate can steer or really even influence. What is the impact of the things you can’t control in a race that’s this close, both close in terms of who’s voting for who and close in terms of time? Will any of these issues influence the election? Let’s take a look at each one and we’ll start with what’s going on in the Middle East. What do you think?

Heidi Heitkamp: I think foreign policy is always tough and the Middle East is an issue that’s been percolating and baking into the presidential election for a lot of months, certainly since the attack a year ago in October on Israel by Hamas. And so I’m not convinced. I think if it doesn’t go to full out regional war, I think that whatever impact the Mideast conflicts are having on the campaign, they’re already having.

Claire McCaskill: Yeah, I agree. I will say this, it does give her an opportunity to appear presidential in terms of addressing these issues. And I do think it gives Harris-Walz an opportunity to talk about the importance of alliances. That if you stay with the good guys and band together tightly, it makes a difference in a dangerous world. And Walz did a little bit of that in the debate, but I do think in this closing 30 days, reminding people how close Trump is to the bad guys, that he is a closer and better relationship with the bad guys than he has with the good guys. And I think most Americans fundamentally understand that doesn’t make our nation safer. So what about the dock worker strike? What do we think about that?

Heidi Heitkamp: You know, it’s frustrating because I don’t think it’s coming at a time where it’s going to show up in the economic numbers. Had it been this summer when they did it, I think, and you saw economic consequence like a downturn in GDP, you saw a frustration of people who are small manufacturers who are waiting for supplies to come in the supply chain. You would have seen some inflation as a result of it because it would limit the amount of goods. So I think it’s coming at a time that the numbers won’t show up and the impact won’t show up. But I can tell you, this is really serious. And in terms of our economy, at a time when we think we’re going to go to a soft landing, to have this kind of disruption of the free flow of goods and the supply chain could in fact drive inflation back up.

Claire McCaskill: Yeah, and it’s complicated. I mean, I’m going to take my hat off of being a political advisor here and put on my hat of being just an American. And I think people don’t realize it’s not the salary level that these guys are really striking about. It is trying to stop the automation.

Heidi Heitkamp: Right.

Claire McCaskill: And people need to think about that. If we’re competing on a global basis, at what point in time do we say you are not allowed to automate a task --

Heidi Heitkamp: Right.

Claire McCaskill: -- that a human can do? And that’s really what this fight’s about. They’re trying to make sure they don’t replace people with machines. And that’s what’s been going on in our economy now for a decade. And it’s not the immigrants, folks. It’s the microchip.

Heidi Heitkamp: Yeah.

Claire McCaskill: That’s what’s causing the disruption in the labor force. You know, automated cars are going to be another one. At what point in time do the Teamsters say, well, you can’t do a self-driving truck. So this is really something that is a huge problem that the next president is going to have to deal with. But I think you’re right. I don’t think the strike is going to hit our economy quickly enough to make a difference in this particular election.

Heidi Heitkamp: Yeah. I just want to make two points. Number one, this is exactly what the Hollywood writer’s strike was about, using AI. Number two, I have seen pictures, in fact, “Financial Times” just did a whole series on automation in China. And you might think they have a huge workforce, they have people just riveting bolts on. That’s not true. These cars are coming off the line, totally automated, and it’s reducing costs, making us less competitive. And so this is really challenging when you look at the future of work in conjunction with AI and automation. And Claire, you’re absolutely right. This is a much bigger economic problem. And how are we going to train our workforce to be competitive in this automated world. And, you know, if we didn’t believe in automation, we would still be cutting shoe leather by hand, right?

Claire McCaskill: Right.

Heidi Heitkamp: And be stamping it out. And so we just need to be realistic about what’s coming and we need leadership. And by the way, I don’t think that leadership is Donald Trump. I mean, Donald Trump stuck in some 1950s world, as opposed to somebody who actually understands, comes from a state that basically invented the expansion of the internet and automation and innovation. And so I’m really looking forward to kind of talking about this issue post-election.

Claire McCaskill: Trump is in a little bit of a box too, because the money in his campaign is not coming primarily from low donors. It’s now coming from big guys behind the curtain. And the big guys behind the curtain want him to take the side of the employers in this strike. He can’t take the side of the employers, but watch him carefully because he won’t take the side of the workers either. All he’ll do is say, well, it wouldn’t happen if I was president.

Heidi Heitkamp: Yeah.

Claire McCaskill: He will never take a side, which is just incredibly infuriating. So what about Hurricane Helene? What do you think about that and the recovery effort? I mean, obviously we got a couple of big states, both Georgia and North Carolina, that were impacted by it. What do you think?

Heidi Heitkamp: You remember Bush when he had Hurricane Katrina and he went down there when things were not going good and said, heck of a job, Browning, meeting his FEMA director and everybody’s like, are you kidding me? You know, these hurricanes and these natural disasters can change people’s opinion of whether a politician is connected to real life problems. Natural disasters always have an effect on campaigns, whether it’s turnout, especially in these two important cases of North Carolina and Georgia, but also in empathy. You know, everybody kind of will talk about, let’s get the relief out there. But, you know, Biden’s down there, he’s going to be hugging people, he’s going to be talking to people, he’s going to be talking to Republican governors who will be standing side by side. Remember when Chris Christie famously hugged Barack Obama during Hurricane Sandy?

And so these are events, and since she is the vice president, I would really recommend that she take off her campaign hat and get down there and be the vice president and do some town halls and talk to people about what they need. We come from a state where we’ve experienced really serious natural disasters. I mean, Bill Clinton is still a hero in Grand Forks. In Red Grand Forks, they still love Bill Clinton because he showed up and, you know, he hugged people and told them that I’m going to help you and he did. But it also, Claire, it also kind of puts some teeth into the discussion that we need to address climate, that people haven’t seen storms at this level. And so why is this happening for people who want to believe who don’t automatically say it’s a hoax, I think that this is a reminder that somebody with a climate agenda might be a better future leader for this country.

Claire McCaskill: Yeah, and frankly, that’s something that’s going on in people’s brains without people campaigning on it. I’ve seen the difference. I remember doing town halls a decade ago and asking people to raise their hand if they believed climate change was a problem that needed to be addressed, and nobody would raise their hands in many parts of my state. I guarantee you that would be different now. I think people are seeing the impacts, they’re feeling the impacts of climate change. And particularly in these states, I’ve seen so many people on TV that are saying, this has never happened before. We’ve never had anything like this, especially in a mountainous area like Asheville. The ferocity of what happened in Asheville, North Carolina, was frankly historic. And people there know it. People who have lived there for generations know that.

And I do think they fundamentally understand that the Democratic Party is more serious about climate change than the Republican Party. And it’s a little bit like, you know, abortion. They fundamentally understand that the Democratic Party is going to be more protective of women’s rights and freedoms around their bodies. And I think the same thing is true with climate. So as long as they handle the recovery in a way that’s empathetic and efficient, and you don’t end up with a bunch of people on TV saying, we can’t get anything, nobody is here, but I think I have a lot of confidence. One thing you got to say about Joe Biden, and I try to emphasize this a lot. He has a tremendous cabinet. He has really good people that are running these agencies. And I do think that, I know New York is always in crosshairs, pardon the expression, of folks because of immigration, but he’s a really competent administrator and he, I think, is running a pretty good ship in terms of recovery efforts. So they got a thousand active duty soldiers down there. That’s a lot.

Heidi Heitkamp: Yeah, and there’s, you know, 33 days. Right now, we aren’t doing the long haul recovery. We’re basically trying to deal with the emergency and FEMA is really good at emergency. I mean, they learned their lesson from Hurricane Katrina. They have learned their lesson, and so I expect that they are going to be there with water bottles, generators, the things that people need to begin their recovery. But my heart breaks. And if you’ve ever been to Asheville, that is one of the most beautiful cities in America. And it just is so tragic what’s happened in that city. And I wish them just all great recovery and that they can come back even better than ever.

The other thing I should say about natural disasters is it’s a reminder that the government, I mean, people say, get the government out of my life.

Claire McCaskill: Right.

Heidi Heitkamp: And it’s kind of a reminder that frequently in disaster, you need the government in your life.

Claire McCaskill: Yeah.

Heidi Heitkamp: You need that government help. And it’s not a handout, it’s how we help each other, we the people in this great democracy.

Claire McCaskill: I’ll never forget the Joplin tornadoes. I had done one of my very first town halls in Joplin just some months before that tornado hit. And one of the first questions that was asked was somebody needs to tell me why the hell we even need the federal government. And the whole room went up in applause.

Heidi Heitkamp: Yeah.

Claire McCaskill: And then I walked around after the tornado. And that’s when I went back to Washington and I said, you know, people need to label these trucks. They need to label everything that’s going on because everywhere I looked, that was saving that community. Now the governor was there, but he was there with federal money. He wasn’t there with state money. He was there with federal money. And it was a situation where those people got paid back many times the taxes they had paid in over the previous year with the money that went into helping Joplin recover, and it was just ironic. So it is a good thing to point out.

Heidi Heitkamp: Can I just say something because I think it’s important in this conversation about the government. I did a thing in New York about debt and deficit and what we need to do and social security and demographics. And you know, I thought, I’m going to just find out what’s out there for people to see. And Steve Ballmer started this kind of little factoid thing called USAFacts. And he does a whole thing on the budget. And if people who listen to this are really curious, there’s a point in there where he shows how much money the federal government sends to the states. And I want everybody to remember this. When you have a governor in Arkansas who’s bragging about how she balances her budget, almost 50% of her budget comes from federal dollars. When you have a governor in Mississippi who’s bragging about their budget, you know, find out how much money you’re subsidizing Mississippi. And so these governors need to get off their high horse, get off their, you know, look what I do. And I just want to say, Sarah, if you don’t want that federal money, send it back and see what your state looks like.

Claire McCaskill: Yeah, Missouri’s the same way.

Heidi Heitkamp: Yeah.

Claire McCaskill: We get more than we pay in. And the governors always talk about a balanced budget and more than 50% of Missouri’s budget comes from federal tax dollars, so.

Heidi Heitkamp: So check it out. It’s total facts up, no politics in it.

Claire McCaskill: And what’s the website?

Heidi Heitkamp: It is USAFacts.

Claire McCaskill: USAFacts. Okay, Google that you guys and get informed. There you go. All right. You’re the best. I love you.

Heidi Heitkamp: You’re the best. No, you’re the best.

Claire McCaskill: Oh, no, you’re the best.

Heidi Heitkamp: No. You’re --

Claire McCaskill: Oh, shut up.

Heidi Heitkamp: I love you more.

Claire McCaskill: Oh, now it sounds like I’m talking to my grandchildren. Listen to you.  

Heidi Heitkamp: Yeah, it’s true.

Claire McCaskill: Let’s just have her every week. All right. She runs the University of Chicago Institute of Politics. In case you don’t know, that’s a big damn deal. It’s a very, very important organization that is actually helping hundreds and thousands of young people find their place in public service. It’s a terrific organization. Thanks for joining us for today’s installment, Heidi, of “How to Win 2024” and keep dishing out that hot dish on that podcast. I’ll come back and visit you there soon.

Heidi Heitkamp: Great. Thanks, Claire.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

Claire McCaskill: Remember to subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen ad free. This show is produced by Vicki Vergolina. Janmaris Perez is our associate producer. Katie Lau is our audio engineer. Our head of audio production is Bryson Barnes. Aisha Turner is the executive producer for MSNBC Audio, and Rebecca Kutler is the senior vice president for content strategy at MSNBC. Search for “How to Win 2024” wherever you get your podcasts and follow the series.