Brooks and Capehart on if Liz Cheney's support will help Harris with independent voters

New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart join Amna Nawaz to discuss the week in politics, including a major endorsement from Liz Cheney and the latest in the Trump election interference case.

Read the Full Transcript

Amna Nawaz: A major endorsement is at the center for the race for the White House this week.

On that and the latest in the Trump election interference case, we turn to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That is New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.

It’s great to see you both here.

Jonathan Capehart: Amna.

Amna Nawaz: We have missed having you here together.

Jonathan Capehart: I know.

Amna Nawaz: It’s a nice reunion.

(Laughter)

Amna Nawaz: Let’s start with the state of the race, shall we? Let’s take a look at our latest PBS News/NPR/Marist poll that shows in the national head-to-head there Harris is up by two points, within the margin of error, though, of course.

And this week there was another rollout of Republicans backing her, most notably Liz Cheney, but also a number of other women who had previously worked in the Trump White House, including Cassidy Hutchinson and Sarah Matthews.

Jonathan, in these crucial final weeks, her focus now, it seems to be on pulling in conservatives, independents, former Nikki Haley voters. There’s some consternation among progressive Democratic circles that she’s not doing enough to shore up her base. What do you make of that?

Jonathan Capehart: You’re just trying to trigger me, aren’t you, aren’t you, Amna?

(Laughter)

Jonathan Capehart: Look, and I say this to my progressive friends with love. Calm down.

The vice president has been talking to them, presenting some things that they like for months now — well, for weeks now, in a race that’s going to be decided on the margins, where it’s going to come down to a few thousand votes in a few states. She is doing what she needs to do. There are people who don’t want to vote for Donald Trump who feel like they don’t have anywhere else to go.

And when you have a Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general, Alyssa Farah, all these — Cassidy Hutchinson, hundreds of Republicans saying he should — Donald Trump should not be president again, the vice president is out there saying to those people, there is a place for you.

And when Liz Cheney — I mean, she is a conservative, hard-C conservative. So that signals to those squishy, can’t vote for Trump, and I’m not keen on her, signals to them — like, they don’t agree on much of anything, but they do agree on their reverence for the Constitution and the rule of law. And that, if it’s — if that is good enough for Liz Cheney to say she’s going to vote for Kamala Harris, then that should be good enough for them.

That’s the signal that’s being sent. And I think the vice president is right to go for those votes, to ask for those votes.

Amna Nawaz: What do you think, David? Is this convincing for those squishy voters?

David Brooks: Yes. If progressives were happy, she’d be 20 points down.

(Laughter)

David Brooks: Her main problem is people think she’s too liberal. And so anything she can do to show something to the center, win over Republicans, that makes her seem more mainstream and more acceptable to the people who are actually going to decide the election.

I have to say, this is the most mind-boggling campaign I have covered.

Amna Nawaz: Why is that?

David Brooks: Because it started out tight and it got closer.

(Laughter)

David Brooks: And so I don’t know who’s winning. Like, usually, you have a sense of who has some momentum and who doesn’t.

Now, I could tell a bunch of stories. I could tell a story where Trump wins. Like, among independents, Trump is more popular, at least has higher approvals, than Kamala Harris does. And if you have got a 60 percent negative approval among independents, that’s not a great sign if you’re trying to win over independents.

So that’s a story where I could tell where Trump wins. Then there’s the hidden Trump voter. The polls are not picking up. She’s not doing as well among Hispanic voters. So all those, you could tell that story, Trump is actually looking good.

On the other hand, his voters are low-commitment voters. And so they could easily not show up. On the other hand, and following, furthermore, his ground game, from everything I’m hearing, is pretty pathetic. And so, in a swing state, if one side — and I think the Democrats have a really good ground game in the swing states, getting people out to vote.

And he has some random consultants who his campaign has hired, or his — the PAC has hired, that just doesn’t work. People come out to vote if a friend or neighbor tells them to come out to vote. And so that could give the Democrats three-quarters-of-a-point, a point. And, in Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, Michigan, that can make a big difference.

(Crosstalk)

David Brooks: So I could tell plausible stories on both sides.

Jonathan Capehart: And I would add another potential hidden vote, and that is the hidden pro-Harris vote, people who don’t want to tell pollsters, don’t want to tell their neighbors that, you know what, I’m actually going to vote for her, and they will do it in the ballot box.

That is — personally, that is where I’m putting a lot of my hope, that there is a hidden Harris vote in that regard.

Amna Nawaz: Well, in the world of things that could make a difference at this point in the race, we have now seen the combination of Liz Cheney both stumping for Harris and the unsealing of this court filing that was brought by special counsel Jack Smith, put January 6 back front and center in the headlines, right?

And, actually, Cheney had this to say when she was stumping in Harris in Wisconsin — with Harris yesterday.

Fmr. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Donald Trump was willing to sacrifice our Capitol, to allow law enforcement officers to be beaten and brutalized in his name, and to violate the law and the Constitution in order to seize power for himself.

Amna Nawaz: So, David, when you look at that, is this going to be a persuasive argument for people who haven’t yet made up their minds?

David Brooks: I don’t think so. All honor to Liz Cheney, who is a conviction politician, a Woman of great integrity, but I just think the economy is what they should be talking about 100 percent of the time.

Amna Nawaz: Even though people tell us preserving democracy is important to them this election.

David Brooks: It is for some people, Democrats. But, remember, a lot of Republicans think democracy is under assault.

I would just say, I have been on the road. I have been missing you, but I have been on the road for the last three or four weeks.

(Laughter)

David Brooks: And the first thing I notice is, people don’t want to talk about the election. They’re just like, let’s not go there.

Amna Nawaz: Really?

David Brooks: But when they do, it’s more about their own personal lives, like, how am I doing?

And so I do think getting down to — and then they always say — they say this every four years. I want to see more meat from her. I want to see more substantive policy. And maybe they don’t really believe that, but they do want to have a sense that there’s something deliverable here that they can latch on to.

Amna Nawaz: Jonathan, what do you make of that?

Jonathan Capehart: Which part?

(Laughter)

Amna Nawaz: In terms of January 6 now being a central part of this campaign. We’re talking about it again, especially after that court filing.

Jonathan Capehart: Right.

Amna Nawaz: And there were some new details in there about especially Donald Trump’s actions leading up to and on the day itself.

Jonathan Capehart: OK, so let’s put the new Jack Smith filing into context.

It came out either a day or two after the vice presidential debate, where Governor Walz asked Senator Vance, flat out, did President Biden win the 2020 election? And he would not answer the question, which then led to lots of conversation about the 2020 election, January 6.

The Jack Smith filing comes out, and then we get to read a lot of things that we already knew, but then we got to read things that we didn’t know. And that is because of direct testimony from someone like former vice president, Mike Pence, who went under subpoena and talked to the special counsel.

And so I think, by having this back out as part of the national conversation, political discussion, I think it might have the same impact that the January 6 hearings had, which was, in the immediate aftermath, might not look like it had any kind of impact, but you look and saw what happened in the 2022 midterm elections, where the red wave was blunted, and people said that I think it was preserving democracy or threats to democracy was a big issue, number one or number two issue for what motivated them to go to the polls.

And so I think what we have learned from the Jack Smith filing might end up having that kind of impact again.

Amna Nawaz: Well, let’s pull all this together now, because you have that Jack Smith filing. You have got, as you mentioned, Senator Vance not saying that Trump lost the last election, refusing to do that.

And then you had President Biden in the Briefing Room today, when he was asked about the upcoming election and asked whether it would be fair and whether it would be peaceful, said he was confident it would be fair, but he wasn’t sure it would be peaceful.

And, David, that is quite a statement coming at this point.

David Brooks: Yes, and he’s right, of course, where none of us know if it’s going to be peaceful.

I would say I can draw some comfort from the Jack Smith report in that, one, we learned that there really was a much bigger effort. Every time we learn more about this case, we learn it’s a bigger effort than we thought. But, two, and Jack Smith said this, it was more a personal effort on Trump’s part than official effort on the part of the presidency, as president.

And he’s trying to get — he doesn’t want there to be immunity here. But he’s out there calling Steve Bannon. He’s calling some other mope. He’s just like — it’s just a random collection of maybe we should do something. And so the ineffective — it’s a genuine conspiracy to steal an election. Don’t get me wrong.

But the ineffectiveness of the conspiracy is one of the arguments is my colleague Ross Douthat has always made. He’s a proto-authoritarian, but he’s not effective enough to be an actual authoritarian. And I got a little bit of that vibe from the Jack Smith report.

Amna Nawaz: Jonathan.

Jonathan Capehart: Hey, kids, let’s put on a show. The only reason why it wasn’t effective is because it didn’t work.

But the fact that we keep seeing that this conspiracy was much bigger than we thought before tells me that it — that effort was a whole lot more sophisticated than I think we’re willing or comfortable to give credit to.

Amna Nawaz: David, do you think that in some of the arguments we’re hearing from Senator Vance and Trump, they’re laying groundwork to challenge the election results if they lose?

David Brooks: Oh, for sure. They’re filing a zillion lawsuits in state after state to try to undermine that. So they’re laying the predicate for that kind of challenge, for sure.

Amna Nawaz: All right. Well, we will be talking about this much more, I’m sure.

David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart always good to see you here and end our week with you. Thank you so much.

Jonathan Capehart: Thanks, Amna.

David Brooks: Thank you.

Amna Nawaz: And, online, you can see our own Deema Zein and Lisa Desjardins’ countdown to Election Day. Each day, they will highlight a new fact about this year’s election. You can see that on our TikTok channel.