Brooks and Atkins Stohr on the debate shaking up the race for the White House

New York Times columnist David Brooks and Boston Globe columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr join Amna Nawaz to discuss the week in politics, including how Thursday night’s debate is shaking up the race for the White House, if panic among Democrats after President Biden’s performance is warranted, if Trump’s lies matter to voters and the latest Supreme Court rulings.

Read the Full Transcript

Amna Nawaz: For more on how last night’s debate is shaking up the race for the White House, we turn to the analysis of Brooks and Atkins Stohr. That’s New York Times columnist David Brooks and Boston Globe columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Jonathan Capehart is away.

Great to have you here. Good to see you both. Let’s jump right into the debate analysis.

And, David, you saw Laura’s reporting earlier about some of the panic, as she phrased it, among Democrats right now. Based on what you saw, is that panic warranted?

David Brooks: Yes, I think so.

I went back today and looked at the 2020 presidential debates with Biden, and he looks like a very different person. And so this defeat by Biden was not like Obama’s defeat with Mitt Romney in 2012, where he had a bad day.

This is about fundamental with-it-ness ability. And so it certainly did raise the possibility that this guy can’t just beat Joe Biden. To win an election, you have to have a strategy. And Biden has gone through several what I thought were plausible strategies. Big plausible strategy number one, use fiscal stimulus to really turbocharge the election.

You get these working-class voters coming to your side. It didn’t work. Second, really create a positive economy, so everybody’s prospering. Inflation. And the third strategy was the State of the Union address really worked for Joe Biden. So let’s move up the debate, and he will prove that he’s vibrant and young enough to beat this guy. And that’s the third failed strategy.

So I don’t know if it’s time for me or anybody to call for him to step down, but I want to see a strategy.

Amna Nawaz: Kim, we saw him almost a different person in North Carolina today, even last night, after the debate. He has a new line. He’s saying: I don’t debate like I used to. I don’t walk like I used to, but I do know how to tell the truth.

Is that kind of messaging now, is that enough to calm the concerns that are clearly spreading in Democrats right now?

Kimberly Atkins Stohr, The Boston Globe: Well, I think it’s too soon to know whether it calms the concerns.

Listen, I understand the concerns. I was watching the debate like everyone else. There were moments that were difficult to watch, gut-wrenching to watch too. But it was still one day. He was not that same person later on that day in Atlanta, and he wasn’t, as you said, that same person in North Carolina.

But he also has an entire term of presidency to run on.In addition, even if he did not say — yes, he missed a lot of key points. I think it was a terrible performance by any measure. I wanted — I expected him to come out and make a clear layup on issues like abortion when Donald Trump was standing there lying about it, one of his many lies of that night, and he couldn’t even manage that.

But I think that Democrats are very, very good at fretting. That’s what’s happening right now. I think it would be good to take a breath, sit back, look to see how it’s landed, and if it’s moved voters at all, before making big, sweeping calls for something that would be very difficult to do, which is to change horses on the last lap of the race.

Amna Nawaz: David, as Kim noted there, Mr. Trump once again repeated a number of lies we have heard before on things like immigration and abortion and on January 6,all issues that really do resonate with voters. They went largely unchecked in the debate.

So if you were watching that debate as a cautious Republican or a curious independent, how do you feel about Trump today?

David Brooks: Yes, lies don’t change votes. I mean, this is Marine Le Pen. You go up and down. What changes votes is not facts. It’s beliefs. And you can get your facts wrong as long as you tell the story people believe, and they will vote for you.

And so we care about the facts. That’s our business. So we really care about it. But it just turns out to be a political reality, if you tell the narrative they believe in, they will ignore the facts you tell. And the narrative Trump believes in has a lot of resonance in this country. The first is inflation is really hurting us. The second is the system is broken and we need some guy who’s just going to bulldoze the thing down.

And that’s a simple story, but it has a lot of resonance with voters right now. And Joe Biden, unfortunately, epitomizes, because of the career he’s had — and I think it’s been one of the great careers in American politics. And I personally think he’s been a very successful president, but he’s an insider.

And it’s just tough to be an insider right now. I don’t — in the — Western Europe, all around the world, it’s just tough to be an insider.

Amna Nawaz: I mean, Kim, he’s had this record to run on, as you pointed out, as we have heard from his surrogates, as Governor Walz was telling me as well. But there is the forward-looking voter right now, right, thinking about the next four years.

For folks who were dissatisfied, discontented with the candidates watching last night. What do you think they took away from watching that exchange?

Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Yes, I think that lies matter more than you may believe that they do in this case, especially given what he’s lying about.

We have seen the former president lie about or not even agree to accept the results of the election, and lie again about fraud that was committed in the last one. We know that Americans care about democracy. They saw January 6, and they know that isn’t true.

We know that Americans care about access to abortion. And we saw Donald Trump lie and say, oh, everything’s fine. It was returned to the states. Everyone loved it.

Of course, that is not the case. There are people being airlifted out of states where abortion is banned. Maternity mortality is going through the roof. It is a health care crisis, and his lying doesn’t make that any different. So all those facts remain.

We also know that despite that lies — despite those lies and despite the threat that Donald Trump poses, even if he got up there and drooled in front of the American people, the Republican Party would not be calling on him to step down. He is the threat that is presented, and Democrats need to make that case and stop worrying about Joe Biden for one minute and focus on what the real job is, which is defeating Donald Trump.

Amna Nawaz: Is that contrast clear, the contrast that we know the Biden campaign wants to try to make? Did you see that on the stage last night?

Kimberly Atkins Stohr: No, he did not make — Joe Biden did not make that contrast.

Like I said, I wanted him to come up and speak clearly about abortion, speak clearly about democracy, point out the fact that he won’t accept the results of the election. I really wished that was the first campaign — the first debate question that was asked of Donald Trump, instead of the last, when a lot of people may have tuned out, because it was so difficult to ask.

He did not make that. But just one day is not an entire campaign season, and there’s plenty of time for him and his surrogates to make that distinction.

David Brooks: Yes. I would say it’s not just one day. I mean, we came in here and The Economist and Nate Silver, a pollster expert, said Donald Trump has a two-thirds chance of winning.

To me, the crucial questions that Biden was trailing on before the debate were, who’s a better manager? And Trump was ahead by double digits. Who do you trust in a crisis? Donald Trump was ahead by double digits. So that’s like — those are bad numbers for any incumbent.

And even — obviously, abortion is a great issue for Democrats. A lot of the things that Joe Biden has done in the economy have been great for workers, but competence, the economy, and who do you trust in a crisis, that’s a real problem for Joe Biden, and that wasn’t just one day.

Amna Nawaz: You think — both of you think he should debate again? Should there be another debate in September?

Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Well, look, why not? I mean, I don’t think that debates matter as much as we feel like they do right now, but I don’t think — why not?

Amna Nawaz: Yes. Why not?

David?

(Laughter)

David Brooks: I don’t think they matter all that much, except for in the case your candidate doesn’t look up for the job. And then debates kind of do matter maybe.

Amna Nawaz: Why not? Why not is the overwhelming thing.

I do want to ask you about the Supreme Court this week as well, a big week, and a lot of big decisions, more to come. Just today, David, they overturned the centuries- — or decades-old, rather, precedent, the Chevron decision, which basically weakens federal regulators. How do you look at that? And what does it say about this court?

David Brooks: Yes. I will let you do the legal stuff. I will try to do just public policy.

So, but the way I look at it is, Congress passes a law.

Amna Nawaz: Yes.

David Brooks: And they’re vague. They don’t have explicit direction to what to do. Congress loves to punt power to somebody else, so they don’t get blamed.

So who should be in charge of interpreting the laws? And, traditionally, it’s been the agencies, the FTC, whatever it is, the EPA. And the court seems to be grabbing some of that power and saying, no, it should be the courts a little more than the agencies.

Now, I have problems with the agencies because they do get kind of partisan. But there’s a thing in the White House called OIRA, which regulates the regulators. And when you have got a strong person there making sure the regulations make sense, the advantage the agencies have is those people actually are experts.

And judges may be plenty smart, but they’re covering the waterfront. They’re not experts on some greenhouse gas. And so I kind of like it when the agencies do it, as long as there’s strong oversight.

Amna Nawaz: Kim, the only one with legal expertise at the table, we should say, please weigh in.

Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Yes, I think it’s a bigger power grab by the courts than even that.

This is a groundbreaking change in precedent here. You are giving courts and judges, not just the SCOTUS, but all up and down the federal judiciary, a tremendous amount of power. Remember the mifepristone case? That began with one judge who was picked purposely to try to toss out FDA approval of a drug. That is not what judges do. That is not what the principles of separation of power hold.

And the Supreme Court today, just because they wanted to, overturned the precedent, which is also important. We need to trust in our precedents. We need to be able to rely on them. And less and less, the Supreme Court is allowing people to do it. This was a big, big case.

Amna Nawaz: There’s also, Kim, another big case ahead. We know that Monday will be the last day of their term, and there’s the case involving former President Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss, that we’re expecting that decision on Monday.

How are you looking at that?

Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Yes, with a caveat that nobody knows what’s going to happen, I am expecting this court to find some level of immunity for a president, not absolute immunity, like Donald Trump is asking for.

The fact that it’s taken this long, I expect that there are going to be a lot of strong dissents that are going to be issued that the justices might still be working on. And you will see that, and then the case will be remanded down.

I think the top line of this, we don’t know how it will play out in his trial, but I think it makes it all but impossible that a trial happens before the election.

Amna Nawaz: David, what about you?

David Brooks: Yes, in the oral arguments, I noticed they were trying to parse the distinction between the president’s official duties and his private duties and what would deserve immunity.

I just find that ironic, because Donald Trump tried to erase that distinction and tried to make the whole office part of his private fiefdom. And so I don’t see how he can claim immunity when he treated the whole office as his little playground. And so it’s a bit of divine justice, if they don’t grant him all the immunity he wants.

Amna Nawaz: And, of course, other big cases ahead as well. Weigh in for us and tell us what we should watch for next week.

Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Yes, there are also big cases that involve the regulation of social media. There are two states that tried to claim that Facebook and other platforms are discriminating against conservative voices and they tried to regulate it from their statehouses.

You have the government saying, no, that’s not how this works. So the Supreme Court still has yet to weigh in on that, which will have big, big repercussions for the First Amendment and speech.

Amna Nawaz: Big repercussions, big cases to follow. We will have to have you back and talk about it some more.

Kimberly Atkins Stohr, David Brooks, always great to see you both. Thank you so much for being here.

Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Thank you.

David Brooks: Thank you.