Preet Bharara:

From Cafe and the Vox Media Podcast Network, welcome to Stay Tuned. I’m Preet Bharara.

Jonathan Swan:

There’s going to be a lot of people who are saying, “Rest in peace, Donald Trump. This is the end of Donald Trump.” It’s completely misguided, in my opinion. I don’t think we’ve seen any evidence to support such declarative statements.

Preet Bharara:

That’s Jonathan Swan. He’s a national political correspondent at Axios, covering both the White House and Congress. Swan made a name for himself during the Trump years as one of the most plugged in reporters in Washington, and he continues to cover the former president closely, including his legal troubles, his planned campaign, and his emerging battle with Florida Governor, Ron DeSantis. I spoke with Swan on the afternoon of November 9th, less than 24 hours after the polls closed on election day. We discussed the early lessons of the midterms and what they mean for Trump, Biden, and the country.

 

That’s coming up. Stay tuned.

 

Jonathan Swan, welcome back to the show.

Jonathan Swan:

Good to be here. Thanks for having me.

Preet Bharara:

So I want to point out to people because the story is unfolding as we speak, we are recording on Wednesday, November 9th at about 1:30 PM, Eastern Time. The House has not been called. The Senate has not been called. People think the House is leaning one way. There was all this talk about a red wave. Jonathan, as we speak in this moment, without everything being fully understood and certified, what happened to the red wave?

Jonathan Swan:

It didn’t materialize, and it wasn’t just a red wave, you had people like Ted Cruz declaring it was a red tsunami. It certainly wasn’t. The tsunami got downgraded last night about 11:00 PM, people saying, “Oh, it’s not a tsunami, maybe it’s a, I don’t know, a 20 foot wave. Oh, maybe it’s…” And at this point, it looks like a trickle into a puddle.

Preet Bharara:

A ripple. I think it’s a ripple.

Jonathan Swan:

A ripple might be the way to describe it. As you said, it’s still waiting on a lot of California results, which is reminiscent of 2018. It looks like Republicans will take back the House, but with a narrow majority, and the Senate is really very up for grabs. We’re looking at a very tight race in Nevada, Arizona as well. Democrats are feeling quite good about beating Blake Masters in the Arizona Senate, and Georgia looks like it’s going to head to a runoff. So, yeah, it’s a tight night.

Preet Bharara:

Did something change or did the pollsters and pundits just get it wrong?

Jonathan Swan:

They got it wrong. We should pause for a second and say that some were worse than others. I got a text this morning from a senior Republican official and Trump advisor, and they said, “If I ever hear the name Robert Cahaly again, I’m going to puke.”

Preet Bharara:

Who’s that?

Jonathan Swan:

He is the guy who runs the esteemed Trafalgar poll, which basically was just completely inane. It had Republicans winning by these obscene margins. That’s his thing. He always has Republicans winning. Of course, this garbage gets fed to Trump himself. So Trump loves Cahaly’s numbers and polling because it’s happy talk, and so part of the story is there is a loop of very bad information that got piped into, not just Trump himself, but I think a lot of senior Republicans were drinking the Kool-Aid, and I’ll tell you, got to let them off the hook. Democrats were very gloomy. I’m not just talking about rank and file members of Congress, but I’m talking about the people who are actually receiving the data, doing the polling, analyzing this stuff.

So I would say that while Democrats are feeling really good today, or better than they expected to be feeling, it wasn’t because of any great prescience on their behalf.

Preet Bharara:

Aren’t Democrats by and large, and no mail please, gloomy about these things and a negative outlook on how their politicians are going to do?

Jonathan Swan:

They do have that reputation. It’s really funny, Preet. I was talking to one of my sources about this, and they were talking about the asymmetry between the two parties, which it doesn’t just exist in the obvious ways that we talk about, like Republicans are willing to do things in certain circumstances that Democrats wouldn’t entertain, but just of this attitude, you just talked about Democrats generally being more gloomy. There’s also a sort of, I don’t know what the right word is. Look at the fundraising emails. Look at the comparison. Republican fundraising emails are like, “Give me your money, you traitor. Stand with Mr. Trump, or we will put you on Don Jr’s list and we’ll line you up, and Trump will never even look at you again. He hates you. Give us your money,” blah, blah.” Democrats are like, “I really hate to ask, but I’m humbly requesting that if you could please put in, pitch in, da, da, da, da, da.

Preet Bharara:

Some of them are like disaster. We’re going to lose. We’re out of money.

Jonathan Swan:

Well, that’s a sort of common fundraising trick. You saw that on the Republican side too, which is the sky’s falling in. You even saw that with some of these. So there’s a bit of a difference there.

Preet Bharara:

So let’s talk about the reaction of one particular individual who has some decisions to make. There was a tweet this morning from Maggie Haberman who said the following, “Trump is indeed furious this morning, particularly about Mamet Oz, and is blaming everyone who advised him to back Oz, including his wife, describing it as not her best decision.” What in your understanding is the former president’s state of mind?

Jonathan Swan:

Maggie’s, right, he’s very unhappy about this, and as usual, looking to blame other people. He was furious with Dr. Oz, or as now Trump now calls him Mamet Oz, which is-

Preet Bharara:

That’s his name.

Jonathan Swan:

… in the same emphatic way that he says Barack Hussein Obama.

Preet Bharara:

Was he not told, did Melania not tell him that he was Muslim?

Jonathan Swan:

Trump was angry with Oz. Basically, he started to have bias remorse almost immediately after he endorsed him, because Oz almost lost even with Trump’s endorsement, and Trump had to go in and sort of drop a nuclear bomb on Dave McCormick, who was seen as a much more electable candidate by Republicans. Then he gets to the general election, and Oz starts distancing himself from Trump, and Trump was watching this with a sort of hawk eye, he was getting increasingly annoyed by it, and Oz would do things like refuse to endorse Trump for 2024, et cetera, et cetera. So Trump was already agitated by this, and he’s always looking for someone to blame. The two people who pushed Oz really hard and were probably most responsible for getting Trump to endorse him were Sean Hannity on Fox News and Melania, Trump’s wife. So that would explain what Maggie tweeted there.

Preet Bharara:

Well, he never takes personal responsibility.

Jonathan Swan:

Correct.

Preet Bharara:

He was seen recently saying, “Well, if they win, I deserve all the credit. If they lose, I deserve no blame.” This is just of a piece with that, right?

Jonathan Swan:

Right, and what he’s also trying to do is, in his sort of post-results spin is claim that the people who lost, they lost because they backed away from his claims that the election was stolen. So in Trump’s telling, the reason Republicans lost the New Hampshire Senate seat is because this wonderful gentleman who was so strong on election denial in the primary kind of woosed out in the general, and that’s why, which is obviously an absurd reading of the situation.

Preet Bharara:

Do you think Trump or the people around Trump have a concern that this election will be viewed by senior Republicans as a repudiation of Trump, or does he never think that way?

Jonathan Swan:

They 100%. I mean, it’s not do I think that. I mean, that is what is happening. They know that, and the people around him, his core political team are smart. I mean, people like Susie Wiles, Chris LaCivita, Tony Fabrizio, Brian Jack, I mean, these are smart, seasoned political operatives. So again, I’m not saying that any of them have told me this, but these are smart people who know what’s going on and talk to and all basically have very broad and deep connections in the Republican party. So they all know what’s going on. Whether Trump himself sort is going to change any of his plans, like announcing because of this, I don’t know. There are certainly people around him who want him to delay his announcement, as he says, scheduled to make his “big announcement” on November 15th. There are a number of people around him who want him to delay that until after the Georgia runoff. I don’t know whether he does that or not.

Preet Bharara:

So let’s talk about that.

Jonathan Swan:

Sure.

Preet Bharara:

There was some reporting the day before the election that Trump was really gearing up and was thinking about announcing for 2024, literally on the eve of the midterms. Any truth to that, to your knowledge?

Jonathan Swan:

He was. No, 100%. So that morning-

Preet Bharara:

Why? What’s the logic behind that?

Jonathan Swan:

Well, logic. So the morning of election Eve, Trump was telling people that, “I’m just going to do it tonight in Ohio, at the Ohio rally with JD Vance,” and that set off panic stations and various people, including Lindsey Graham, were desperately trying to stop Trump from doing that because they were worried that it would energize democratic voters and hurt them on election day. Ultimately, he was talked off that and ended up doing this, announcing the announcement on that speech, which was sort of, “I’m going to be making this announcement,” but stop short of doing it. No, that was absolutely real. He was worried, his primary concern was him not getting credit for a good night. Everyone was expecting Republicans to have a huge night, and Trump was concerned that he wouldn’t receive sufficient credit for it. So he wanted to get out in front of that and be able to say, “Well, they did so well because of me, my candidates, I announced.” Blah, blah, blah.

Preet Bharara:

So suppose he had gotten out ahead of it and then they had the mediocre and mixed results that they got, that would’ve been worse for Trump, right?

Jonathan Swan:

Yes.

Preet Bharara:

We might have been able to say that some people went to the polls and voted for the other guy precisely because Trump had announced. So his people saved him.

Jonathan Swan:

Yes, his people did.

Preet Bharara:

So knowing his psychology better than many people and the people around him, do you have a prediction on whether or not he changes his mind? Certainly he’s not going to change his mind about running, right? Or do you think even that’s in play?

Jonathan Swan:

I don’t know. It is so fraught trying to get into this stuff because he really changes his mind so frequently, and he can be talked out of certain things if he perceives that it’s in his self-interest and they present to him that it’s in his self-interest. The thing you can be certain of is he’s not going to do anything because it’s in the party’s interests.

Preet Bharara:

Do the people around him want him to run, or are they just of obeying his own interest?

Jonathan Swan:

Depends who. It’s not universal.

Preet Bharara:

Is there a consensus? Is there a majority who want him?

Jonathan Swan:

No, no, no. I think even, again, I don’t know this, but I don’t even think you would find a consensus in his own family.

Preet Bharara:

Or in his own head. His own head perhaps?

Jonathan Swan:

No, I think he’s pretty set on it. I don’t think there’s much doubt about that.

Preet Bharara:

Why does he want to run again? To prove himself? For vengeance? To stay out of prison? A combination of those things?

Jonathan Swan:

Well, definitely the legal side of things is reason for him to run, and I’ve talked to several of his advisors over the last few months who say that he thinks being a current political candidate is helpful in his battles with the Justice Department. He’s convinced of that. So that’s definitely a reason, but I think there’s also another reason, which is just he has a burning desire to be back at the center of things and to vindicate himself and have a comeback. He’s addicted to attention, addicted to media attention. It’s like a drug. So you need ever larger doses of it, and he got the world’s biggest dose you could possibly get as president of the United States. I think it’s a huge comedown to leave that. So I think that’s part of it, too.

Preet Bharara:

Well, he’s got Truth Social, that’s something.

Jonathan Swan:

Is it though, Preet?

Preet Bharara:

That was sarcasm. That was sarcasm. So he also never wants to look weak, and having said that he’s going to announce on November 15th, knowing him, how does he put that off? I guess he can always come up with some excuse.

Jonathan Swan:

I mean, that’s the reason why I’m still skeptical he’ll change his plans because I do think it would be a sign of weakness doing so.

Preet Bharara:

Is one reason for him to announce early based on the people you talk to, to clear the field, scare people away?

Jonathan Swan:

That was, yes. I mean, a big part of going early was Trump was going to, and he was going to put a lot of pressure on people to endorse him. I mean, people like Kevin McCarthy, they were potentially going to be in this really difficult position where you had the most powerful person in your party kind of berating you to do a public endorsement, and you saw some people preemptively endorse him, like Kari Lake who said, “He hasn’t even announced yet,” and she endorsed him.

Preet Bharara:

Running for governor in Arizona.

Jonathan Swan:

Yes. I think one of the biggest consequences of last night is he can’t clear the field now. It has emboldened his rivals.

Preet Bharara:

Okay, so let’s go through this. I know people are going to be listening thinking we don’t even know about 2022 results yet, and already you’re talking about 2024, but look, 2024 is important and 2022 affects 2024. So in your estimation, who doesn’t get out at this point?

Jonathan Swan:

Who doesn’t get out?

Preet Bharara:

In other words, who will put their hat in, even if Trump puts his hat in?

Jonathan Swan:

Oh. Look, I know the people who are thinking very, very seriously about challenging Trump.

Preet Bharara:

Who are they?

Jonathan Swan:

Ron DeSantis, Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, Glen Youngkin, Chris Christie.

Preet Bharara:

Okay. Do you agree with me that all of those are ridiculous other than DeSantis?

Jonathan Swan:

No, I don’t agree with you on that. I don’t think [inaudible 00:14:07]-

Preet Bharara:

Pence is ridiculous, isn’t it?

Jonathan Swan:

I don’t think it’s ridiculous.

Preet Bharara:

Who is Mike Pence… I mean-

Jonathan Swan:

I’m not saying he’s going to win, and by the way, I’ve spent enough time in politics to really just not write people off, because I’ve just seen enough. I think he was the sitting vice president, and I do think he’s got some following. Again, I’m not predicting that he can… I think it’s going to be a very hard road to travel for him. Even DeSantis, I think everyone’s very, very high on DeSantis, and they should be. He had a huge thumping victory.

Preet Bharara:

They should be why? Describe from your perspective, for people who weren’t following Florida so closely, what his accomplishment was in Florida.

Jonathan Swan:

Well, Florida’s just become a deep red state transformed, and what DeSantis has done is kind of remarkable. He’s won counties that you just wouldn’t have ever imagined three, four years ago would go red and has made huge inroads with Hispanics across the state. So he’s turned Florida from a toss-up state into just an absolutely thumping, thumping victory, and he’s done so by being very conservative, picking every cultural issue and turning it into policy and being sort of unapologetic about it. Yeah, no wonder he’s seen as a front runner. That being said, he still never actually faced the kind of test that Trump will pose for him. Trump is going to be completely unrestrained in his attacks on Ron DeSantis.

Preet Bharara:

I mean, he’s already started. So let’s talk about that.

Jonathan Swan:

He started in a very gentle way. It’s gone again-

Preet Bharara:

Well, let’s go through it. He refers to him as Ron DeSanctimonious, got a laugh from the crowd at his rally. What’s the strategy for Ron DeSantis in responding? That’s what I don’t get. How does he even respond?

Jonathan Swan:

Well, he’s responded in probably the best possible way, which is to say nothing.

Preet Bharara:

Win his race.

Jonathan Swan:

And then to absolutely outpace Trump in Florida on a scale you just can’t quarrel with it.

Preet Bharara:

He just has to grin and bear the insults and the slights.

Jonathan Swan:

I don’t think that’s sustainable. I think at some point, particularly for Republican primary voters who want to see toughness, at some point, particularly if Trump starts talking about his wife, things like that, I mean, Trump said something to the effect of the other day, to reporters, “I know more about him than anyone besides his wife, maybe his wife,” and so if Trump starts doing a bit more of the wife stuff, it’s probably not tenable for Ron DeSantis to stay quiet, but that’s obviously his strategy.

Preet Bharara:

It’s worked for Ted Cruz.

Jonathan Swan:

Has it though?

Preet Bharara:

Well, I don’t know. He’s still in the Senate.

Jonathan Swan:

He is still in the senate.

Preet Bharara:

Are there signs that within the Republican establishment, I don’t just mean elected officials, but also the conservative media establishment, Fox News and other places, are you detecting any kind of shift away from Trump and towards DeSantis?

Jonathan Swan:

Oh yeah.

Preet Bharara:

Describe that.

Jonathan Swan:

I mean, among Republican elites, well, the shift has already happened. The shift happened about a year and a half ago. It started to happen. Murdoch turned against Trump. You started to see very negative coverage of Donald Trump in the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal editorial side of things. That’s been going on for a long time. Fox News in the daytime hours has been turning against Trump and boosting DeSantis. You’ve seen a shift in tone in their morning Fox and Friends show with Steve Doocy becoming quite anti-Trump. So you’re seeing the shift happen. What hasn’t shifted yet, and I don’t know whether it will, is the really important piece of the Fox real estate, which is primetime. You haven’t seen Laura Ingram, Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson turn on Trump, and I think if you do see that, that will be meaningful with Republican primary voters.

Then you’ve got the sort of conservative elite. The donor community is with DeSantis. I mean, the big end donor community, they’ve had enough of Trump largely. Now, not many of them are brave enough to come out and say that yet, except for Ken Griffin, who is a big deal donor who’s done that, but you may start to see now more donors emboldened to come out and sort of say, “We need to move on from Trump,” but a lot of these guys still have scar tissue from 2016 where they threw everything. A lot of these donors spent quite a bit of money trying to beat Trump and got humiliated. So they’re quite reticent to do that. Then you’ve got these sort of conservative influencer activists who there are some of them who have already sided with DeSantis, but there’s still a lot of people who are privately against Trump and afraid of going against him publicly, because there is a disconnect between Republican elite opinion and the base.

There just is. I constantly talk to these Republicans in D.C., the sort of professional Republican consultant class. They’ve got their views and whatever, and none of them were there. I was, whatever, two months ago in the stadium arena in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, 10,000 people packed the rafters, fervent Trump fans and just completely different universe. So he still has a very, very strong base, and there’s going to be a lot of people who are saying, “Rest in peace, Donald Trump. This is the end of Donald Trump.” It’s completely misguided, in my opinion. I don’t think we’ve seen any evidence to support such declarative statements.

Preet Bharara:

You don’t see any fatigue in Trump’s base?

Jonathan Swan:

In his base, not a huge amount.

Preet Bharara:

No.

Jonathan Swan:

Not a huge amount. It’s not coming through. I mean, there has been a little bit of slippage, but the strongest fatigue is among Republican elites.

Preet Bharara:

Is there anyone that the Trump people are more worried about than DeSantis?

Jonathan Swan:

No.

Preet Bharara:

Who are they worried about second most?

Jonathan Swan:

I don’t hear him worried about anyone second most.

Preet Bharara:

So if there was no DeSantis, Trump would likely just trot to the nomination, right?

Jonathan Swan:

You just never know. Again, I’m sorry to be annoying, but I just like-

Preet Bharara:

No, it’s smart.

Jonathan Swan:

I’ve seen enough. Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

You can’t say I told you so in two years.

Jonathan Swan:

No, no, but it’s also just things change, but that’s certainly their view anyway. The only person that they see right now as a really serious threat is Ron DeSantis.

Preet Bharara:

Do you think they’re already thinking about, and then we’ll talk about other things, do you think that the Trump folks are already thinking about a running mate?

Jonathan Swan:

No, he’s not. I mean, this is another thing that I think has been misreported. Trump doesn’t think he needs a VP. It’s not like Trump sitting around saying, “Oh, who do I need who’s going to help me win with Hispanic women?”

Preet Bharara:

Is that your Trump’s voice, Jonathan? Is that your Trump voice?

Jonathan Swan:

No, no, it was actually just crappy Australian. Trump thinks he’s the greatest political candidate that’s ever existed in world history, and the idea of a vice president is sort of an inconvenience, and he doesn’t want someone who’s going to upstage him or try to upstage him. He wants someone who’s completely loyal. So I think he’s not really drawing up lists. I think it’s very premature that conversation about a running mate for Trump.

Preet Bharara:

So all this conjecture among the talking heads about Kari Lake and Nikki Haley-

Jonathan Swan:

It’s just conjecture. It’s just conjecture. He likes her. He thinks she’s great.

Preet Bharara:

Which one? He likes which one?

Jonathan Swan:

He thinks Kari Lake’s phenomenal. I understand why people think she might be his VP. She might be, but I think it’s conjecture rather than reporting.

Preet Bharara:

Is there any universe in which instead of there being this fight, or at least a forever fight between DeSantis and Trump, they team up on a ticket?

Jonathan Swan:

Nope. No way.

Preet Bharara:

Like Kennedy and Johnson, because it’s happened before.

Jonathan Swan:

I don’t see it. I really don’t see it.

Preet Bharara:

Because of Trump?

Jonathan Swan:

Yes.

Preet Bharara:

Because of Trump’s intransigence on it?

Jonathan Swan:

I don’t know that DeSantis would want that either, but I just don’t know. I don’t see a universe in which Trump picks DeSantis as his VP.

Preet Bharara:

Who’s the Democrat that the Trump folks are most concerned about? Is it Biden or someone else?

Jonathan Swan:

That’s a good question. I don’t ever hear them express concern about the Democrats, to be honest with you. I think that they look at the Democratic field and see a lot of weakness and problems. I think that they see Biden as a very, very weak incumbent president, and Harris as… Trump’s dream, I think would be to run against Kamala Harris in a general election. So I never hear them fret about a Democrat.

Preet Bharara:

Might they fret a little bit more after the mixed results from the midterms or no?

Jonathan Swan:

They might. I just haven’t got any reporting to share on that. I haven’t heard anything from them on that.

Preet Bharara:

We’ll be right back with my conversation with Jonathan Swan after this.

What are some of the other races that you think people are most surprised about in this midterm?

Jonathan Swan:

Well, I think Republicans are generally surprised by the softness of their performance. Pennsylvania was disastrous, not unexpectedly so at the gubernatorial level, but the Senate there, they underperformed expectations. New Hampshire was a complete dumpster fire. Again, not a complete shock, but the scale of it, I think, was a shock that they expected to do better in Georgia with Herschel Walker. I mean, they’re still hopeful in Nevada with Laxalt.

Preet Bharara:

Wait, they really expected to do that much better in Georgia, with a poor candidate like Herschel Walker?

Jonathan Swan:

Yes, because they thought the environment was so good that, and Kemp was running so strongly that they thought that Herschel would win.

Preet Bharara:

Well, he decisively beat Stacey Abrams.

Jonathan Swan:

Yes, he did.

Preet Bharara:

People split their vote.

Jonathan Swan:

That’s right, and they didn’t think that there would be as much of that as there ended up being.

Preet Bharara:

So that’s almost certainly going to runoff, Warnock and Walker.

Jonathan Swan:

Yeah, that’s what it looks like.

Preet Bharara:

Without Kemp on the ballot in a runoff and without the independent candidate, is there an assessment about who that favors?

Jonathan Swan:

I don’t know. That’s going to be the most expensive runoff in American history.

Preet Bharara:

Oh my gosh. Poor Warnock has to keep running again and again.

Jonathan Swan:

I mean, you just can’t even imagine how much money will get spent in that, if it’s deciding the Senate. It’s just stunning amounts of money. They were very surprised in the under-performance in Arizona.

Preet Bharara:

Talk about Arizona for a moment.

Jonathan Swan:

Although Kari Lake, the latest I’m hearing like an hour before we talked is there’s still a decent chance that Kari Lake wins at the gubernatorial level.

Preet Bharara:

The governorship, and what about the Senate race?

Jonathan Swan:

The Senate’s looking better for Democrats. They’re cautiously optimistic that Kelly’s going to hang on, but it’s close. So Nevada… Sorry, Arizona.

Preet Bharara:

Pause on Arizona for more a second. That’s the reason in which the Democrat, Katie Hobbs, refused to debate. Did that make any sense to you?

Jonathan Swan:

This is not my opinion. This is a Democrat’s opinion was that she might have been the worst candidate that they put up anywhere at that level, just completely inept at public advocacy.

Preet Bharara:

And leadership. Oh, those are not important qualities for someone running for statewide office.

Jonathan Swan:

But maybe it was the right tactical decision. It might have ended up being she did better than people expected, and perhaps if she stood next to the person who’s had 25, 26 years of daily training on local television and got completely annihilated, that might’ve harmed her. They obviously made a tactical decision that it was better to take the hits on not debating than actually be seen debating.

Preet Bharara:

It was the opposite decision, strategic decision from Pennsylvania where John Fetterman, who’s still suffering the effect of a stroke, chose to debate, and a lot of people questioned that. Do you have a view on that decision? I mean, ultimately he won, so maybe it was a good decision.

Jonathan Swan:

I mean, he benefited hugely from having the Mastriano was just such a drag on that ticket.

Preet Bharara:

The governor’s race helped Fetterman.

Jonathan Swan:

The governor’s race, and Shapiro was so strong. I mean, talk about, and he’s a potential presidential candidate. He just did so, so well. So yeah, look, I don’t know. That debate was obviously not good for Fetterman, but maybe debates don’t matter as much as we think they do.

Preet Bharara:

They may not. You mentioned Shapiro in Pennsylvania as a future star. Any other future Stars? My mind goes to-

Jonathan Swan:

Yeah, I think Whitmer’s really-

Preet Bharara:

In Michigan?

Jonathan Swan:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

For prevailing.

Jonathan Swan:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

Well, tell me about Whitmer, and then I want you to say something about-

Jonathan Swan:

No, I just think she’s a very compelling… Look, the truth about this moment right now in politics is, unfortunately, I think it’s not great for anyone, but a lot of it just comes down to television performance and social media and what you look like on screen and how you perform in the media, and she’s a very strong performer, and that goes a long way. It just does now. So for that reason alone, not to mention her opponent was actually seen as a pretty good candidate, and she convincingly won.

Preet Bharara:

The counterexample I think of, and I was talking about him earlier today, was the re-elected governor of Ohio, Mike DeWine, who is not particularly telegenic or amazing on television. He’s kind of a boring, technocratic, moderate guy, and he outperformed JD Vance.

Jonathan Swan:

In a state that’s just deep, deep red. JD Vance’s challenges were widespread. I mean, it’s kind of amazing. I suppose it happened because Trump endorsed him, but he had so many problems with Republican base voters initially because of his litany of public condemnations of Donald Trump in very kind of vivid terms. So he had to overcome that. Tim Ryan is a very good candidate as well, by the way.

Preet Bharara:

Excellent. He’s excellent.

Jonathan Swan:

That should not be underestimated. Tim Ryan, Republicans anyway, I don’t know, I haven’t talked to enough Democrats about this to know, but I’ll just tell you, senior Republicans, people running a lot of big races consider Tim Ryan to be one of the best candidates anywhere that Democrats were running. So actually, I think JD Vance did fine.

Preet Bharara:

What’s interesting about Ohio, because there’s a guy named Sherrod Brown who’s pretty liberal, who wins in that red state and a pretty good candidate also, and Tim Ryan couldn’t do what Sherrod Brown is able to do every six years.

Jonathan Swan:

Yeah, it’ll be interesting to see the next time he has to come. Sharrod Brown has such a distinct brand. I mean, he’s almost sui generis. It’s like talking about Joe Manchin in West Virginia kind of thing.

Preet Bharara:

Jon Tester in Montana.

Jonathan Swan:

Yeah. Susan Collins, there are a few politicians that have this extremely distinct brand and can overcome just basic kind of political dynamics, generic ballot dynamics. Pure partisanship.

Preet Bharara:

Any other stars on the Republican or Democratic side? The person I wanted to mention is Wes Moore, first black governor in Maryland. Anyone else strike you as a future person?

Jonathan Swan:

I think Spanberger is really winning again and is such a tough environment. I don’t know what her future holds, but people are very impressed by her. So she’s someone who’s on my radar. The names I hear most are Shapiro, Shapiro and Whitmer, for sure.

Preet Bharara:

I want to go ahead and talk about 2024 again for a minute. Do you think people have learned, the people who might choose to challenge Donald Trump, have they learned something about the most effective way to debate him, or is he just not really debatable?

Jonathan Swan:

That’s a really good question. It’s funny, when I talk to some of his prospective arrivals, you can see that they’re like… I’ve had conversations with, well, one of his arrivals anyway, where they’ve played out scenes. You could tell they’re fantasizing about debating him, and they’ve thought —

Preet Bharara:

Are you talking about Chris Christie?

Jonathan Swan:

I couldn’t possibly comment.

Preet Bharara:

That sounds like Chris Christie.

Jonathan Swan:

Well, you can say that. I’m not sharing.

Preet Bharara:

I’m going to say that. I’m going to say that.

Jonathan Swan:

So yes, some people have been thinking about that. I often hear different strategies of what would work and whatnot. Most of it’s just gut instinct. It’s not being polled or anything like that. I often hear this refrain, which is just to say, you’re a loser. You lose. The party lost the House, they lost the Senate, you lost the White House. Who else could have lost to Joe Biden? Blah, blah, blah.

Preet Bharara:

What’s Trump’s response to that?

Jonathan Swan:

I think that’s why people think that’s quite a potent line, and probably the person who’s best positioned to deliver that is Ron DeSantis at this point with his victory.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, because he’s a winner. Whether you like it or not, he is.

Jonathan Swan:

Right. The other thing I hear from some Republicans who potentially would challenge him is they do see an opening to go at him from the right, and what that looks like is to say, you were too eager to listen to Anthony Fauci. You shut the government down. You let all these criminals out of prison because you listened to woke Jared Kushner, all these drug dealers, we got a Fentanyl problem. You pardoned a drug trafficker. Oh, by the way, all these woke generals you complain about, you’re the one who promoted them. There’s that kind of a line. I don’t know whether that works or not, but that’s certainly something I hear Republicans toss around as a possible attack against Trump.

Preet Bharara:

Let me ask you another version of the question of whether people have learned how to debate Trump, and it’s whether you’ve learned, or the Press Corps has learned over the last five, six, seven years, the best way to interview a politician who may not be forthcoming and truth telling. You and I have had a couple of conversations that have been very interesting about the best way to interview somebody, being respectful, but pinning them down, and I think you’re one of the best in the business when it comes to live interviews of powerful people. How have you thought about that? How have you evolved in your thinking about how to do that?

Jonathan Swan:

I think the first decision is whether you interview them or not, and that’s actually a really important decision. What’s the purpose of the interview? What am I actually trying to accomplish by doing this interview? Once you’ve answered that question, you just have to really prepare. I mean, seriously prepare, because it’s just you’re dealing with someone who is just going to… You talk about Trump, he doesn’t really answer questions. You could ask him any question, present any evidence you want about there being, yes, no, it turns out that the Iranians were not inside the Dominion machines and blah, blah, blah, and he will just assert, “No, have you seen the video of the Italian satellites?” Well, no, that’s not true.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, and you can’t argue.

Jonathan Swan:

It’s like, well, you’re whacking down and he puts up another one. “Oh, what about the suitcases under the table?” At some point you think to yourself, what’s the point? I mean, what’s the point of this? What purpose am I serving by conducting this? So I think the first thing is to think through, well, is there something that he hasn’t been pressed on, hasn’t been held accountable on that’s actually worthwhile trying to do that, or am I just giving a platform to someone to steamroll through and say what he’s going to say and whatever? Those are not easy decisions.

Preet Bharara:

Is there someone on the scene at this moment, Trump or otherwise, who you would not interview for that reason?

Jonathan Swan:

No. No, probably not. I mean, I’d love to interview Kari Lake. I think there’s a way to do that. I mean, she’s probably the best example. I’ve seen people shy away from interviewing her because she declares all sorts of things that are false about the 2020 election, and she’s extremely good at it. I mean, if you do local television every day for 20 plus years, you’re going to get good at it, and she’s also naturally good at it. So I think there’s an intimidation factor there, but I do think there’s a way to interview her with facts, [inaudible 00:34:41] kind of thinking through lines of questioning, et cetera. So there’s no one I could think of that I wouldn’t interview. I mean, there is probably to the extent that… I mean, I remember looking back at old Mike Wallace interviews when he had this show called Night Beat, which was before he started 60 Minutes.

It was this really amazing, awesome interview show. It was kind of pioneered television interviewing in the way that we understand it now. Sort of nasty questions, adversarial, but really sharp and smart, and it was this set, it was under really bright, unforgiving lights and you could close up, you’d see the faces sweat. He interviewed a grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan on that show, and they’re there with that pointy hat on and whatever. So would I interview someone like that who’s just going to spew absolute bile and whatever? Probably not. I don’t know that there’s much of a public interest reason to do that. So you do make decisions like that, but in terms of powerful people and people who are running for office and who are in office, I don’t rule anyone out. I wouldn’t have any, I refuse to interview this person because they [inaudible 00:35:49] whatever.

Preet Bharara:

So once you decide, once you make the decision to interview someone, in your case, it’s most people, do you have a particular strategy that you employ?

Jonathan Swan:

Yeah. I think through what’s the point of this interview? What’s the purpose of this interview? If I can’t answer that question, I won’t request the interview. Once I’ve answered that question, there’s usually some line of questioning that I think of as the heart of the interview. What’s the thing that, if I could do nothing else, if I could just ask one line of questioning, what would that be? With Mitch McConnell, who I interviewed earlier this year, the heart of that interview, and it ended up being, I think, pretty exceptional interview immodestly, was me teasing out with him the contradiction or the tension between him giving this very impassioned speech on the Senate floor, saying that Trump was practically immorally responsible for the attack on the capital on January 6th, and then two weeks later going on Fox News and saying that he would absolutely support Donald Trump if he’s the Republican nominee in 2024.

I thought through that line of questioning very deeply, and McConnell said, “I don’t think it’s any great surprise that the leader of the Republican Party would support a Republican.” I said, “I think it’s astonishing after saying that,” and what I’d never seen before from anyone interviewing Mitch McConnell, and I watched all the tape, everyone ask, when they interview McConnell, they ask the same, it’s all about legislative strategy. What’s going to happen with Build Back better? I mean, who gives a crap. He’s not going to support Build Back Better? Why don’t you think a bit bigger than that and think about some of these questions that maybe they’ve got a moral dimension to them? Maybe there’s something that ordinary people, if they would sit in front of him, you’re the representative of normal people out there, and you think to yourself, well, if they were sitting in this chair, what would they want to ask if they were here?

It’s a really great responsibility actually, when you’re lucky enough to get that access to a powerful person and you’re sitting there and you’ve got this precious time with them. So every line of questioning matters. Every line of questioning burns up five minutes, 10 minutes, and then before you know it, the interview’s over and you probably, if you’ve done a decent job of it, you may never get another chance to interview them ever again. I mean, I think I’m a very fair interviewer. I don’t do cheap shots, I don’t do stuff that’s gimmicky, and I think I do it in a way that’s respectful, very respectful, as you should be. You shouldn’t be disrespectful to people who you’re interviewing no matter who they are, but the fact is, when you do a tough interview with someone, it’s harder to book interviews in the future. So that’s a problem that I’ve-

Preet Bharara:

Well, you use a technique that I’ve commented on before and that we use in trial, and I think you’d be a great trial lawyer, and that is just the simple approach of asking a question, and when you don’t get an answer, you just ask the same question again, and when you don’t get an answer, you ask the same question again. It’s very effective, and it makes people squirm because their evasiveness is put on display. So I think that’s a good thing that you do.

Jonathan Swan:

You use silence. Silence is such an underused tool in television interviewing. It’s an incredibly effective tool because most people, not all people, most people become incredibly uncomfortable in silence and feel the need to fill the space, and that’s sometimes when you get your most interesting material is when you shut your mouth and you just let it breathe for a moment. Good job.

Preet Bharara:

I was employing your technique.

Jonathan Swan:

That’s good.

Preet Bharara:

In real time, were you getting nervous, Jonathan?

Jonathan Swan:

I actually was. Yeah, I was getting nervous.

Preet Bharara:

Were you fretting a little bit?

Jonathan Swan:

Yeah. I was like, What do I say now?” That was kind of —

Preet Bharara:

I’m going to use that a lot more often. I’m going to just be silent. No, but in the modern day, because we’re not in person, you just say, “I think you hit mute by accident.” It’s hard to tell the difference between strategic use of silence and the accidental pushing of mute. Is there a favorite interview that you’ve done and/or least favorite interview you’ve done?

Jonathan Swan:

I mean, I’d be lying if I didn’t say that the famous Trump interview in 2020, it was my favorite interview because it just reached so many people, had such an impact. I think they figured out that a hundred million people ended up watching all or part of that interview in terms of sharing and different clips and things like that. It had global reach. It was an incredible interview, but other interviews that I’ve really felt that I’ve done as well… Basically, most interviews I walk away with disappointed with myself that I look back and I watch the tape and I think I missed this opportunity. My dad’s a very good interviewer back in Australia, and he probably in some ways, I’ve got his voice in my head a little bit as well, in terms of being critical of myself.

Interviews where I’ve walked away thinking I did a really good job, Donald Trump, Jared Kushner in 2019, Imran Khan in Pakistan last year that actually caused street protests. People were protesting at what he said about women, basically blaming them for being sexually assaulted, for wearing provocative clothing. That was a very well executed interview. Mitch McConnell, the Chinese ambassador I did in 2019, I think, or 2020, that was a really strong interview. So those are probably some of my favorites, but my least favorite interview is just when they’re programmed and talking points like Tom Perez. I mean, good Lord. I was just like, “Say something real, man.”

Jonathan Swan:

Yeah, it’s like good, oh my God. The people who are just so programmed, you just cannot get them to say anything that’s not pre-scripted talking points. You just think, this is pointless for everyone involved. So there’s been a few of them, but I don’t want to start listing them because I don’t want to offend people.

Preet Bharara:

You can tell me after we hit the stop button. We’ve got to let you go, but how do you think this has gone? I don’t think this is my best, but it’s not my worst.

Jonathan Swan:

I think he could have been tougher on me, honestly.

Preet Bharara:

This is in the nature of sort of a postmortem of the election.

Jonathan Swan:

Yeah.

Preet Bharara:

We’ll have you back and I can be a lot tougher.

Jonathan Swan:

Yeah, we can do something more adversarial.

Preet Bharara:

Would you like that?

Jonathan Swan:

No, honestly, I would hate it.

Preet Bharara:

Why?

Jonathan Swan:

I probably wouldn’t go on. No, I’d be scared.

Preet Bharara:

Would you agree to be interviewed by someone who’s like you?

Jonathan Swan:

I wouldn’t want to be interviewed in general. I don’t do many of these things, these podcasts.

Preet Bharara:

You like to be the one asking the questions.

Jonathan Swan:

Yeah. I don’t think it’s good for me to be sort talking about myself. It’s just not a good thing. I’m not scared of being interviewed, but I just think inherently when you’re sitting down talking for long periods of time and you’re a reporter, it’s bad and dangerous, and I’ve probably said something stupid in this conversation that I’ll regret.

Preet Bharara:

No, I don’t think so. I think you did a fine job.

Jonathan Swan:

All right. Thanks, man.

Preet Bharara:

Jonathan Swan, keep it up. We’ll talk soon.

Jonathan Swan:

Thanks, man. Appreciate it.

Preet Bharara:

Well, that’s it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guest, Jonathan Swan.

If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news, politics, and justice. Tweet them to me at Preet Bharara with the hashtag Ask Preet, or you can call and leave me a message at 669-247-7338. That’s 669-24-PREET, or you can send an email to letters@cafe.com. Stay Tuned is presented by Cafe and the Vox Media Podcast Network. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The technical director is David Tatasciore. The senior producers are Adam Waller and Matthew Billy. The Cafe team is David Kurlander, Sam Ozer-Staton, Noa Azulai, Nat Wiener, Jake Kaplan, Sean Walsh, Namita Shah, and Claudia Hernandez. Our music is by Andrew Dost. I’m your host Preet Bharara. Stay tuned.