0:00

Want the same expert advice you get

0:02

from the pros in the store while

0:05

shopping online at DiscountTire.com? Meet Treadwell, your

0:07

personal online tire guide that matches you

0:09

with the perfect tire for your vehicle. Get your

0:12

best match in one minute or less with Treadwell.

0:14

Buy Discount Tire. Hi

0:27

there, welcome to Meet the Press Now.

0:29

I'm Ryan Nobles on a busy afternoon

0:31

as we count down to the first

0:33

presidential debate now just one day away.

0:35

And we will get to the very

0:37

latest developments tied to the Biden and

0:40

Trump campaigns in a moment. But we

0:42

do begin with breaking news out of

0:44

the Supreme Court. The court is acknowledging

0:46

that it accidentally posted online a document

0:48

in one of the most highly anticipated

0:50

cases of the term on the legality

0:52

of emergency abortions. According to the document

0:54

that was obtained and then published by

0:57

Bloomberg Law, the court appears

0:59

poised to allow emergency abortions

1:01

in Idaho despite the state's

1:03

strict abortion ban. Now, to

1:06

be clear, NBC News has not confirmed

1:08

if this is a draft decision, an

1:10

actual decision, or perhaps neither. But

1:12

the 22-page document also doesn't appear

1:14

to signal a sweeping court ruling

1:17

on this matter either. At

1:19

the heart of this case is

1:21

whether the Idaho's abortion ban trumps

1:23

federal law requiring certain hospitals to

1:26

provide patients with emergency treatments.

1:29

If this document is a draft

1:31

opinion, it suggests the court is

1:33

only providing temporary relief to the

1:36

plaintiffs while leaving fundamental legal questions

1:38

unresolved. In what's notated

1:40

as a concurring opinion in the

1:42

document obtained by Bloomberg, Justice Contagio

1:45

Brown Jackson writes, to be clear,

1:47

today's decision is not a victory

1:49

for pregnant patients in Idaho. It

1:51

is a delay. While this court

1:53

dawdles and the country waits, pregnant

1:56

people experiencing medical conditions remain in

1:58

a precarious position. as

2:00

their doctors are kept in the dark about

2:02

what the law requires. This court had a

2:04

chance to bring clarity and certainty to this

2:07

tragic situation, and we have squandered it.

2:09

In April, my colleague, Laura Jarrett, traveled

2:11

to Boise to speak with a plaintiff

2:13

in a different but similar case who

2:15

was denied an emergency abortion. Her own

2:17

doctors said that she needed. Yeah,

2:21

we were both disgusted

2:24

by the treatment of our state. We

2:30

were disgusted that just a year prior,

2:35

we would have been able to get this care

2:38

here in our state. And

2:41

we were angry that not

2:43

only did we have to go through the

2:45

trauma and grief of losing a very wanted

2:48

baby, but then we had to

2:50

have this emotional trauma of

2:55

traveling to get the procedure.

2:58

Well, there's a lot to unpack here, and for

3:00

more on all of this, I'm joined on set

3:02

by NBC News Washington correspondent, Yamiche Alcindor, and Greg

3:05

Stor, who is the Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg

3:07

Knows, who broke this story, and Elizabeth Sepper, who

3:09

was an expert in reproductive and health law and

3:11

a professor at the University of Texas Law School.

3:14

So, Greg, we obviously have to start with you.

3:16

You've been covering the court for quite some time.

3:19

Were you not sure exactly what you were reading

3:21

when you looked at the court's website this morning

3:23

to unpack how this whole thing played out? Yeah,

3:25

there's a certain, like, am

3:27

I really seeing what I think I'm

3:30

seeing quality to this? The

3:32

court does things more or less

3:34

like clockwork, and the way it's supposed to work

3:36

is the Chief Justice announces the opinions from the

3:39

bench, and that's when they appear on the website.

3:42

This one, he did not announce from the bench,

3:44

and it did appear on the website. And so

3:46

there was a question of trying to figure out,

3:48

is this actually a legitimate Supreme Court opinion? We

3:51

know that it's not a final opinion, but it

3:53

certainly looks like it is a near final opinion,

3:57

and then it was a matter of trying to figure out what they said

3:59

in it. The court is normally pretty

4:01

cryptic about the way it does its business. Were

4:03

you surprised that they confirmed so quickly that they

4:05

posted this by accident? Not surprised

4:07

because by all appearances, it really, once we

4:09

looked at it closely, it certainly

4:12

was a Supreme Court opinion, which may or

4:14

may not be final. So

4:17

the court, of course, also said, you know,

4:19

emphasize this is not a final opinion, which

4:23

leaves open at least a theoretical possibility that

4:25

some aspects of it could change. But we

4:27

certainly are learning a lot about what the

4:29

justices seem to think about these you mean and the

4:32

conservative majority court is considering abortion cases post-ops.

4:34

There's been a number of them. Of course,

4:37

they just recently ruled on the abortion pill

4:39

case. This is interesting because they

4:41

didn't seem to tackle the

4:43

initial question that

4:45

was being asked here. How does

4:47

this really impact this issue moving forward in

4:49

Idaho? Well, right now, if you're a patient

4:51

in Idaho that was worried about whether or

4:54

not you might get an emergency abortion based

4:56

on your health and the future fertility, the

4:58

Supreme Court, from our understanding, from Greg's reporting

5:00

here, is that that will continue to be

5:02

the case that you can get an emergency abortion. But

5:05

the language that you just heard from Katonji Brown

5:07

Jackson on the idea that this court is

5:09

delaying something, sort of kicking it down the

5:11

road, that is the language that you're hearing

5:13

from also reproductive rights groups who are advocating

5:15

for more abortion access in this country. I'm

5:18

thinking about the president of Planned Parenthood who

5:20

said that the Supreme Court had the opportunity

5:22

here, and I guess still has the opportunity

5:24

here, to say, Amtala trumps all sort of

5:26

total near-ban abortions, like the one we see

5:28

in Idaho, and that women should be allowed

5:30

and have to be allowed to get abortions,

5:32

not only to save their lives, but also

5:35

to save their health, which means doctors shouldn't

5:37

wait for them to be at death's door in

5:39

order to get an abortion in an emergency situation.

5:41

The court is not doing that. They are saying

5:43

that this case could continue in lower courts, and

5:45

as a result, you're seeing this sort of shift

5:47

here where this is a court that overturned Roe

5:49

v. Wade. We know how they believe and think

5:51

about abortion, but they are having these sort of

5:53

nuanced decisions where you're seeing some

5:55

abortion rights advocates say this is a good thing

5:58

temporarily, but not to kind of win the party. that

6:00

they would have wanted. All right, so let's bring in Elizabeth

6:02

on that point. And we'll keep in mind here, Elizabeth, that

6:04

we have not seen the actual copy

6:06

of the document. It was accidentally

6:08

posted. We saw what Bloomberg reported. What

6:11

would be the significance of this, though,

6:13

if the decision ultimately does allow emergency

6:16

abortions to continue? All

6:19

this really does is send the

6:21

litigation back to the

6:23

Court of Appeals and possibly to the

6:26

trial court in Idaho. The

6:28

Supreme Court here reached out to grab

6:31

the case prematurely before the Court of

6:33

Appeals had the opportunity to hear the

6:35

case and issue a judgment. And

6:37

now they've decided that that was a mistake.

6:41

But as a result, women in Idaho

6:43

have been airlifted in crisis situations out

6:46

of state, a direct result for the

6:48

past five months of the Supreme Court's

6:50

decision to reach out and to lift

6:52

the stay that the trial court there

6:54

had ordered. It's also important to note

6:56

that there's a parallel case

6:59

involving a cert petition currently pending

7:01

at the court out of Texas

7:04

where M.Tala does not apply

7:06

to protect pregnant people at the moment

7:08

due to a decision of the Fifth

7:10

Circuit Court of Appeals. So this is

7:12

very much a pressing issue, and really

7:14

the court has simply kicked the can

7:17

down the road, perhaps

7:19

just past the election. And maybe

7:21

Zero went on that a little bit more for our

7:23

viewers that are not familiar with M.Tala, which is a

7:26

federal law which governs emergency care.

7:28

Walk us through what the law

7:30

says and how this

7:32

really impacts the question of whether or not abortion

7:34

care is covered. M.Tala

7:37

is the Emergency Medical Treatment and

7:39

Labor Act. It's a federal law

7:41

that requires emergency care of all

7:43

kinds in a narrow range of

7:45

circumstances where someone has an emergency

7:48

medical condition that puts

7:50

their health in serious jeopardy, threatens

7:52

their organ functioning and the like. And

7:56

in some narrow slice of

7:58

crisis situations, pregnant people will

8:00

find that their health is in

8:02

serious jeopardy in ways that can

8:04

only be resolved through an abortion.

8:07

And in those scenarios, Mtala has

8:09

been understood by ER physicians around

8:11

the country to

8:13

require them to offer abortion care

8:15

to their patients and that the

8:17

pregnant person gets to decide. But

8:19

now that we have abortion bans

8:21

in place, doctors are stuck between

8:23

criminal bans on abortion that have

8:26

even narrower exceptions and the

8:28

demands of Mtala that they provide some

8:30

stabilizing abortion care in these

8:32

crisis situations. And I want to

8:35

play a bit of the arguments

8:37

that went back and forth in this

8:39

case. We have the audio recording of

8:41

the oral arguments when it happened

8:43

earlier this year. Take a listen.

8:46

This particular patient, they

8:49

tried, had to deliver her baby. The

8:52

baby died. She had a

8:54

hysterectomy. And she

8:56

can no longer have children. All

8:58

right. You're telling me the doctor there couldn't

9:01

have done the abortion earlier? Again,

9:03

it goes back to whether a doctor

9:05

can in good faith, medical judgment. That's

9:08

a lot for the doctor to risk. It

9:11

is very case by case. The example of problem

9:13

is that. Well, I'm kind of shocked, actually,

9:15

because I thought your own expert had said

9:17

below that these kinds of cases were covered.

9:19

And you're now saying they're not? No,

9:21

I'm not saying that. That's just my point, Your Honor, is

9:23

that. Well, you're hedging. I mean, Justice Sotomayor

9:25

is asking you, would this be covered or

9:27

not? And it was my understanding that the

9:29

legislature's witnesses said that these would be covered.

9:32

Yeah. And those doctors said, if they

9:34

were exercising their medical judgment, they could

9:36

in good faith determine that life-saving care

9:38

was necessary. And that's my point. Is

9:40

this a subjective standard? But some

9:42

doctors couldn't. Some

9:44

doctors might reach a contrary conclusion,

9:47

I think, as Justice Sotomayor is

9:49

asking you. So if

9:51

they reached the conclusion that the legislature's

9:53

doctors did, would they

9:55

be prosecuted under Idaho law? No,

9:59

no. If they reach

10:01

the conclusion that Dr. Reynolds,

10:03

Dr. White did that these were life-saving...

10:05

What if the prosecutor thought differently? What if the

10:07

prosecutor thought, well, I don't think any good faith

10:09

doctor could draw that conclusion I'm going to put

10:11

on my expert? And that,

10:14

Your Honor, is the nature of prosecutorial

10:17

discretion. We're throwing

10:19

that as the conservative justice, Coney Barrett,

10:21

who's pressing Idaho's attorney on that. Elizabeth,

10:24

does this... basically the same

10:27

exact scenario play out, even though this decision

10:29

may be in favor of the Biden administration?

10:33

So the same scenario could play

10:35

out in lots of states around

10:38

the country, certainly in Texas where

10:40

the Fifth Circuit has to determine

10:42

M.Tala does not preempt contrary state

10:44

law. And so we

10:46

will see that here. Now, given

10:49

that litigation is ongoing in Idaho, what

10:51

will probably happen is that at least

10:53

for now, we'll go back to

10:55

the status quo before the Supreme Court

10:57

intervened and women in Idaho will have

11:00

access to M.Tala required care, at least

11:03

for the moment. All right, Greg, let's

11:05

go back now to what this tells us about

11:07

the Supreme Court. I mean, should we expect that

11:09

this decision comes tomorrow? Is there any way for

11:11

us to determine that or is it still up

11:13

in the air? There's really no way

11:15

of knowing. We know we're going to get more opinions

11:17

tomorrow. We'll get some more Friday. We'll get some more

11:19

next week. It could come on any of those days.

11:22

As I suggested, a decent

11:24

chance of what happened was that one or more

11:26

justices said, I want to think about something, revise

11:28

something, and it may just depend on how long

11:30

that takes. And who knows what

11:32

the effect of this inadvertent posting

11:35

of it will be. Maybe the justices

11:37

will say, oh, I don't want to

11:39

change anything now because it will be

11:41

clear what happened. But there has been

11:43

a lot of criticism that this court

11:45

is dragging its feet, getting these major

11:47

decisions out the door. I mean, I

11:49

guess the skeptic here might say you're

11:51

sitting on these and waiting to

11:53

put them out. Is there any way we can draw

11:55

that conclusion or is that taking it too far? Well,

11:57

I think one thing we're seeing when these opinions do

12:00

come out. So like take the gun decision that

12:02

came out last week. It was

12:04

not only eight to one, but you had seven

12:07

separate opinions. Every justice wanted to put his

12:09

or her own spin on things. And that's

12:11

really what we're seeing from this court right

12:13

now is that all these justices have a

12:15

lot to say. And in most

12:17

cases, they don't agree with everybody else. Yeah.

12:19

And then of course, you mean two years

12:22

ago, the Dobbs decision leaked completely different situation.

12:24

This was an accidental posting that

12:26

was political actually going and getting it from

12:28

a source. But there are questions about the

12:30

credibility of the court on a number of different

12:32

aspects to something like this. Continue

12:35

to raise those questions. I mean, I think

12:37

it's I think we probably we could all answer that question

12:39

at this table, which is there are big questions about

12:41

how the Supreme Court is functioning. You

12:43

already have an electorate where they are

12:46

where you see the American people disagreeing vehemently on

12:48

some of the decisions that the Supreme Court is

12:50

making. Think about Roe v. Wade. The majority of

12:53

Americans want to see some sort of access to

12:55

abortion and you had that decision leak anger, the

12:57

whole anger, at least 50 percent or about more

12:59

of the country. And then you then had

13:01

the actual opinion come out. In this case, it seems like

13:03

it just looks sloppy. It just seems like what is going

13:06

on at the Supreme Court that we're getting now a second

13:08

decision coming out before the actual official

13:10

decision is coming out. So I

13:12

mean, think about two years ago, we were all sitting

13:14

around tables saying this never happens at the Supreme Court.

13:16

We never know what the Supreme Court is doing. Now

13:18

we're like, well, this is the second time. So maybe

13:21

there will be a third. Who knows? I think the

13:23

credibility issue here with the Supreme Court, I should say,

13:25

with a number of other big factors of

13:27

our country, right? Science, journalism, politicians, everyone's credibility

13:29

here is being questioned. But the Supreme

13:31

Court certainly is not having a good

13:33

day today. Yeah, the faith in our

13:35

institutions certainly shaken across the board. You

13:37

mean, it's an excellent way to put

13:39

it. Terrific conversation, everyone. I appreciate it. Greg,

13:43

Elizabeth, and everyone, I appreciate you all for being here.

13:45

But stick around, Yamiche, because we are

13:47

going to have you back here in the

13:50

next block because we've got a lot more

13:52

reporting to share. Coming up, it's the Countdown

13:54

to Debate Night. We'll get the view from

13:56

battleground voters in Georgia on what they're watching

13:58

for with President Biden and former President President

14:00

Trump set to go toe to toe for the

14:02

first time in this election just over 48 hours

14:04

from now. You're watching the press now. Hi,

14:14

I'm Lindsey Graham, the host of

14:16

Wondery's podcast, American History Tellers, which

14:18

dives into the events and people

14:20

who shaped our country with 70

14:23

remarkable seasons of in-depth storytelling. History

14:25

buffs and novices alike will appreciate

14:27

the unrivaled storytelling of well-known events

14:29

like the Civil War and the

14:32

Great Chicago Fire. But this podcast

14:34

also offers entire seasons covering less

14:36

known historical touchstones, like the season

14:38

titled Bleeding Kansas, about radical abolitionist

14:40

John Brown's crusade of terror against

14:43

pro-slavery forces that brought us to

14:45

the brink of civil war, or our

14:47

latest season where we shine a light

14:49

on first ladies of the United States

14:51

who've contributed to American history in their

14:53

own unique way. Follow American History Tellers

14:55

wherever you get your podcasts. And after

14:57

listening to American History Tellers, go deeper

14:59

and get more to the story with

15:01

Wondery's other top history podcasts, including American

15:04

Scandal, Legacy, and even The Royals. Here's

15:07

a question. Have you ever been

15:10

prescribed a medication? Most likely,

15:12

yes. Well, what about this question?

15:14

Did you understand how it worked? The

15:17

way your medication works in your body shouldn't

15:20

be a mystery. Learn

15:22

how Vivgart, F.Gart Tiggamad

15:24

Alpha F-Cab works by

15:27

visiting vivgart.com/MOA. That's

15:31

vyvgart.com/M-O-A.

15:35

Brought to you by Argenix. Welcome

15:41

back. With just one day to go until

15:43

the first presidential debate, the candidates, their supporters,

15:46

and the voters are all bracing for a

15:48

contentious, bitter, and potentially historic fight. Right

15:50

now, President Biden is at Camp David,

15:53

engaged in mock debates. Former

15:55

President Trump is at his Mar-a-Lago home

15:57

in what his team is calling a

15:59

more informal. preparation process. The audience for

16:01

tomorrow night is shaping up to be

16:03

huge according to a new AP poll.

16:05

Nearly 40% of

16:07

Americans say they plan on watching Biden and

16:10

Trump face off alive at least

16:12

in part 40% say they plan on

16:14

watching clips from the night and 41%

16:17

say they'll tune into news or social

16:19

media for commentary about the debates and

16:21

the candidates performances. The Biden

16:24

campaign is looking to quell concerns about

16:26

the president's age and fitness for office

16:28

hoping the audience will see an unhinged

16:30

Trump and an in command and

16:33

nimble president for his part former

16:35

president Trump continues to attack Biden

16:37

repeatedly claiming without evidence that he'll

16:40

be using performance enhancing drugs. The

16:43

Biden campaign forcefully responding. President

16:46

Biden defeated Donald Trump twice and

16:49

in previous debates, this is what he does

16:51

because he doesn't have anything else to run on

16:54

he doesn't have a plan he doesn't have

16:56

a record for fighting for the American people he

16:58

doesn't know why he's running except for to

17:00

seek political retribution on his enemies and so he

17:02

has to resort to these types of tactics.

17:05

But a big question facing the

17:07

Biden campaign will baiting Trump backfire

17:10

NBC chief political analyst Chuck Todd

17:12

borns a contentious night could turn

17:14

off viewers and voters of potentially

17:16

for both sides if each

17:19

candidate chooses to try to beat his opponent

17:21

try to get him to expose his worst

17:23

version of himself. The debate

17:25

could devolve into an affair that turns

17:27

off a lot of voters and even

17:29

perhaps makes them a bit Robert F.

17:31

Kennedy junior curious. Ahead

17:34

of tomorrow's debate we've got new insight

17:36

from a group of independent voters

17:38

in battleground Georgia where tomorrow's debate

17:40

will take place it's part of

17:42

the NBC news deciders focus group

17:44

series produced in collaboration with engages

17:46

Syracuse University in Sago these voters

17:48

all of whom voted for Biden

17:50

or Trump in 2020 now say

17:52

they're likely to vote

17:55

for a 3rd party here's what they'll

17:57

be watching for tomorrow night. By

18:00

a show of fingers, who plans to watch

18:02

the debate Thursday night between Trump and Biden? Four

18:05

of you do. David does not. Well,

18:08

maybe. What do you expect to learn from

18:10

watching? The competency level of

18:12

Joe Biden. This

18:14

can sound awful, but it might be slightly entertaining.

18:18

I want to see how they do. I'm

18:21

honestly going to watch it just

18:23

to see two grown kids go

18:25

head to head and insult each other, because

18:28

that's what they've always done. That's what Trump did

18:30

last year, that he was insulting people left and

18:32

right. I have better things to do. I'm not

18:34

going to sit here and watch two old,

18:38

see now delusional men go back and

18:40

forth with one another, throwing jabs at

18:42

each other parties. I can care less

18:44

about Biden and Trump has to say.

18:46

Whether Trump's going to be over the

18:48

top or Biden's going to have a

18:52

brain meltdown, I'm

18:55

not really interested in watching

18:57

that. Would any of you say there's a

18:59

modest chance that this debate might

19:02

change your mind about whom you'll vote for? No.

19:07

No. Have no. Join

19:12

me on set once again NBC News

19:15

Washington correspondent Yamiche Alcindor and NBC chief

19:17

political analyst Chuck Todd. It's interesting,

19:20

I was at a wedding over the weekend in

19:22

my hometown of Buffalo, New York, and I was

19:25

shocked at the number of double haters I encountered.

19:27

That seems to be a growing

19:29

segment of the population here. From

19:32

this focus group that we looked at, these

19:34

double haters, what's driving their dislike of both

19:36

the candidates? And what is it about someone

19:38

like RFK Jr. that is drawing them in?

19:40

Well, I think when you talk to your family

19:42

in Buffalo, when I talk to people in Florida, my

19:44

family, I think the story of

19:47

this election will likely be these double haters and

19:49

a nation that really just is not looking

19:51

forward to a rematch between these two men

19:53

who already had their chance in the presidency.

19:55

So what we heard from these people, from

19:57

these voters in Georgia, these independent voters are

19:59

the... They really are tired of both of these

20:01

candidates. They don't want to see them. They think that

20:03

all of their issues and flaws make

20:06

them just not the right person for this moment. I

20:08

mean, we heard over and over again that people were

20:10

doing research and as a result found their way

20:12

to RFK Jr. These aren't people that just sort

20:14

of pick the name out of a hat. These

20:17

voters in particular said, I actually know his policies,

20:19

I've watched talks about him, and he

20:21

is someone that I want to vote for instead of Trump

20:23

or Biden. So take a listen to a little bit more of

20:25

what they said about Trump and Biden. Let's

20:28

go back to President Biden. What, if

20:30

anything, do you dislike about him? He

20:33

lost my trust with the Hunter

20:35

Biden situation. I don't like the

20:38

student loan forgiveness. That feels like

20:40

he's just trying to buy votes. Let's go

20:42

back to former President Trump. What, if anything,

20:44

do you dislike about him? I think he's

20:46

very selfish and egotistical. I

20:49

would have to say that I lost a lot

20:52

of respect for him over

20:56

the January

20:58

6th scenario. And

21:00

coming from Georgia and the way that he bullied

21:07

people in our state for

21:09

the outcome of the election. What's

21:12

attractive to you about RFK Jr.? Something

21:16

different. He just seems like he stands

21:18

for change. Seeing

21:21

what Trump can do, we've

21:23

seen what Biden can do. The

21:25

idea of something new. Is

21:28

it more of a vote for Kennedy

21:31

because you like him? Or

21:34

if it's more of a protest vote against

21:36

both Biden and Trump? Right. In

21:39

my case, I would say it's proactive. Some

21:41

things concern me, but in a lot of ways, I

21:45

support what he claims to stand for.

21:50

It's a combination of both. I

21:52

feel like if there were other better candidates

21:55

out there, then I probably wouldn't give

21:57

him. as

22:00

much as attention as

22:02

he's getting right now. So

22:05

there you have it. We spent the night with these

22:07

people who are just really, really not looking forward to

22:09

this rematch. And I think in particular, it reminded me

22:11

of the fact that over the last two elections, people

22:13

felt like they were already feeling like they were picking

22:15

the lesser of two evils when it comes to this

22:17

group. And that's their language, meaning that maybe some of

22:19

these people voted for Hillary Clinton because they just didn't

22:21

like Donald Trump, but they didn't really like Hillary Clinton.

22:23

And then in 2020, they went for Biden or

22:26

they went for Trump because they didn't like the other person and

22:28

now they're fed up. They're like,

22:30

I'm not doing this again. I want to pick the person that

22:32

I'm actually excited about. So even if he doesn't have a chance

22:35

to win, RFK Jr. is the person I'm going for.

22:37

Wow. Well, Chuck, it's interesting to

22:39

see how this is going to play out on the

22:41

debate stage tomorrow night. And you've kind of warned the

22:43

candidates in this column we read from earlier that coming

22:46

out aggressively may not be the tactic

22:48

that will resonate with voters. Why do you think- Well,

22:50

look, I think because they're

22:52

already predisposed not to like them. So

22:55

if you're suddenly unlikable, in

22:57

order to do, right, the Biden folks

22:59

would love to see unhinged Trump. Trump's

23:02

folks would love to see sort of lost

23:05

Biden. I don't know how you want to describe it,

23:07

but it looks like he's not in the moment. But

23:10

in order to get that moment to happen, you've got

23:13

to sort of poke or prod or

23:15

bait them and

23:17

it could backfire. And I actually

23:19

think that when you have,

23:21

if you actually step back a minute here, anytime I've

23:24

seen a lot of what I would call first debates

23:27

end up being, oh, that was less contentious than

23:30

I expected. The first debates, usually everybody's pretty

23:32

aware that you're making a first impression. And

23:34

while these guys have already made first, second,

23:36

third and fourth impressions, they're negative.

23:39

They both have very high negatives. So

23:42

the conventional political advice to both of

23:44

them is, hey, you're going in with

23:46

high negatives. You need to

23:48

debunk the stereotype against you.

23:51

Then, you know, hey, take advantage if there's

23:54

a moment, but I

23:56

have a feeling that they're both going to

23:58

be, and shoot the Biden. that

36:00

would be a no to moving back to Washington. Whereas,

36:02

you know, I did get to spend 10 years as a

36:04

member of Congress and certainly enjoyed that time I spent

36:06

here. And then finally, obviously there's a lot

36:08

of intrigue around who the former president's gonna pick

36:10

as his running mate. The Veep Stakes

36:13

is hot and heavy right now. Is there a

36:15

particular candidate that you think would help or hurt

36:17

the former president? And how do you think Democrats

36:19

should run against, I mean, these are the three

36:21

front runners that we're showing now, Governor Burgum, who

36:23

I'm sure you know as a governor, and JD

36:26

Vance and Marco Rubio. How do you think Democrats

36:28

should approach the Veep Stakes? Well, certainly Donald Trump

36:30

has not confided in me, who's planning

36:32

to choose. But I think the big

36:34

focus is always on the number one, right? Certainly

36:37

it's about the presidential candidate, whoever he

36:39

picks is going to have to conform

36:41

their agenda to his agenda. And

36:44

I think there's plenty of ways to blow holes in that,

36:46

whether it's the economist projections that

36:48

show how his agenda with tariffs would

36:51

increase inflation and cause for American consumers.

36:53

No matter what the history of these different

36:55

candidates in supporting different policies

36:57

are, they're going to get on

37:00

board if they're selected to be his vice president.

37:02

All right, well, there's going to be a lot

37:04

to talk about over the next couple of months.

37:06

Governor, I'm disappointed you don't want to move back

37:08

to Washington anytime soon, but maybe we'll see you

37:10

back here in the near future. Thank you so

37:12

much for being here. We appreciate it. A pleasure.

37:14

All right. And after the break, the fallout from

37:16

last night's bruising loss for House Progressive Jamal Bowman,

37:18

what the results mean for Congress, the Democratic Party,

37:20

and the politics of the Middle East. That's next.

37:22

You're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome

37:26

back. If

37:34

it is Wednesday, voters voted yesterday,

37:36

and we do have some election

37:38

results to dive into. In Colorado,

37:40

the MAGA-aligned Republican Congresswoman, Lauren Boebert,

37:42

won her primary after switching districts,

37:44

winning the nomination in Colorado's fourth

37:47

district, which was represented by Congressman

37:49

Ken Buck, who resigned earlier this

37:51

year. And in New York,

37:53

progressive Congressman and a member of the

37:55

so-called squad, Jamal Bowman, was defeated by

37:58

a more centrist challenger in Georgia. Want

51:50

the same expert advice you get from

51:52

the pros in the store while shopping

51:55

online at DiscountTire.com? Meet Treadwell, your personal

51:57

online tire guide that matches you with

51:59

the perfect tire for your vehicle. Get your best

52:01

match in one minute or less with Treadwell. Buy

52:04

Discount Tire.