Episode Info
- Season11
- Episode6
Hosted by Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove
Guest
Katty Kay
Katty Kay is the BBC's US Special Correspondent recently returned from a tour of battleground states where rising tensions around the 2022 midterm elections were documented.
Episode Summary
As the United States prepares to hold national elections for the first time since the January 6th Capitol riots, tensions are running extremely high. The Department of Homeland Security has warned that misinformation and conspiracy theories continue to fan the flames of domestic extremism. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband was recently beaten with a hammer by an intruder, who told police he was on a “suicide mission” and had plans to attack other politicians. One Decision sits down with the BBC's US Special Correspondent Katty Kay, recently returned from a tour of battleground states - where some people told her that if elections didn’t go their way, they would pick up their arms. America’s democracy and stability could hang in the balance next week.
Listen & Subscribe
- Watch on YouTube
- Listen on Apple Podcasts
- Listen on Spotify
Transcript
INTRODUCTION
Mcfarlane: You're listening to One Decision, the podcast that looks at the biggest choices being made today and how they will affect us all. I'm your host, Julia McFarlane. Next week, citizens in the United States will vote in the midterm elections, polls that are held halfway through a general election term and are usually seen as a referendum on the current administration in Washington DC. President Joe Biden faces an uphill battle with opinion polls showing that races will be tight. All 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 35 out of a 100 Senate seats will be contested. Key states currently believed to be a toss-up include Georgia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Arizona, where the longtime BBC broadcaster, Katty Kay, has been hitting the road, meeting voters from both sides of the aisle. Among the biggest concerns that she heard was the fear of political violence and the threat that the integrity of the electoral process could be damaged. The midterms will be the first time Americans have gone to the polls since the January 6 Capitol riots in 2021. Tensions are already high following the break-in and attack on the husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Meanwhile, law enforcement officials have warned about conspiracy theories and claims of electoral fraud, which could fuel violence and domestic extremism. Katty Kay joins me and my cohost, Sir Richard Dearlove, to go through what is at stake. These could be the most important midterm elections the US has seen for many years. I know it seems like we always say that every time they roll around, but there has been a fair amount of upheaval in the States. We're in a post January 6 world, those riots outside and inside the Capitol on the day the 2020 election results were certified. We've seen the rollback of abortion rights. There's been allegations of voter suppression, gerrymandering, and districts being redrawn, new rules which make it harder for certain demographics to vote. So, there is a lot at stake this November when Americans go to the polls. Now, we know there's a lot of important issues for voters this election. There's the state of the economy and inflation, immigration, women's rights, and in some instances, those issues are being put directly on the ballot, such as Michigan putting to their voters if they want to change their state constitution's position on abortion. So, first of all, I just wanted to ask you, what are you particularly looking out for in these elections? You'll be at the BBC Election Centre anchoring on results night. So, what for you is going to be the most significant movement to track?
INTERVIEW
Kay: Look, I think you framed it, and thank you, Richard and Julia, for having me on the programme. I've been a long term fan of the show. I do think these elections, and you're right to point out, we say this every time, this American election is one that really matters. But because this is the first national election in the United States since the attack on Congress of January 6, it does feel consequential. It does feel that we are watching to see, and that's what I'll be watching for when I'm anchoring the coverage on November 8, we are watching to see whether America can carry out an election that is free of violence. I mean, sounds hyperbolic, but because of what happened on January 6, I don't think it's an unfair question. And it feels, as I was travelling around the country, it feels as if democracy here is not necessarily in peril, but certainly straining. And I had both Republicans and Democrats with equal conviction, I must say, but from very different points of view, say to me that they felt America's democracy was not healthy and that these midterms are a test of that democracy. So I think that's the big picture. And it's why there is so much international attention on races around the country. And also a tonne of money, by the way. I learnt today that $6,500,000,000 have been spent on TV ads in this election campaign. That is one tenth of the amount that America has spent so far supporting the Ukrainians. So just to put that in some kind of perspective, both sides clearly think this is a very consequential election and they are both raising and spending a ton of money in it. There is already record early voting taking place. And because of the ways that the different states count, early votes versus on the day votes versus mail in ballots, we may end up with the kind of situation we had in 2020, where it's not entirely clear in some of the tight key races who has won. And that of course opens the door to more questions and instability and conspiracy theories. So I think it's that kind of that backdrop of a heightened sense of the democratic process writ large, but also the functioning of a democratic process on the day in terms of the vote. That's that's what I'm most interested in watching.
Dearlove: When I watched the violence, you know, attack on the Congress, my immediate reaction was the policing was completely incompetent, and the protection of the state institutions was incompetent. And if you go to France, they have something called the gendarmerie mobile who are really trained street fighters and a part of the political process. Is it possible that, you know, because it hasn't happened in America before, but it happens all the time in France, that we're actually exaggerating the significance of that riot because it wasn't uncontrolled and very serious riot. But as I said, we don't talk about the death of democracy in France, which, you know, remains a very lively and democratic country.
Kay: Yeah, and actually there's another comparison with France, Richard, which is that you have a lot of Republican candidates who have said to me, well, look, why can't we just have on the day voting like they do in France and where they know the results that evening and there is no debate about it and no room for debate about it, the election is held on one day, people vote, and then you get the result that evening, which is part of the problem of what's happening in America. That's why I raised this thing of it taking a while to get the result. I mean, I guess the counter to that is that in most French elections, you are voting for one person, whereas a ballot, I don't know if you've ever seen an American ballot, it can go on for pages. So trying to tally all of that in one day might be trickier. I don't think we are exaggerating what January 6 represented. And yes, there is a policing issue. And yes, there are questions around who had the authority to call in the National Guard. And we've recently seen video actually of senior members of Congress on both the Republican and the Democratic side, trying to get the National Guard called in, trying to get the Virginia State Guard called in, the Maryland State Guard called in, trying to get more support. They had ramped up the Capitol Police ahead of the attack, but that wasn't enough. I mean, the fact that there was not sufficient policing, I don't think negates the intent and violence of the people who were attacking Congress. And we saw them smashing the windows and we hadn't seen that before. I mean, maybe it's the fact that we hadn't seen it before. It doesn't happen in America very often. We haven't had street violence in this country on a large scale since the civil rights movement. There was no street violence around the invasion of Iraq in the way there were huge protests all over Europe. There was not street violence after 2008 and the financial crash in the way that there was in Europe. So Americans have not been used to that kind of that level of violent protest. And that in and of itself makes it an exceptional, noteworthy event.
Mcfarlane: You had some really fascinating conversations in this documentary that you filmed recently. You visited some really, really key states where there are some important elections taking place, and you talked to two voters in Arizona, Karen and Steve, and I was really, really struck by the conversation you had, and they were, I think it's fair to say, very fervent Donald Trump supporters. And you asked them about the 2020 elections, the spectre that continues to sort of hang over American democracy. And they said that all hell will break if the Republicans don't win the midterms. They said that if they don't win, if the election gets stolen again, the whole system is just going to erode, and then the whole nation is in trouble. It could lead to civil war. It could lead to town against town, state against the state. And then Karen said, if it happens, I will take up arms. Absolutely. If I have to do it to save our country, we will. This could really turn out nasty. I did hear you recently on the BBC, where you said that you don't think civil war is likely in the US. Talk to us a bit more about some of those things that these voters said to you, and what your assessment is of the possibility of violence breaking out, and how far things could go. What is the danger here?
Kay: So, there was a recent opinion poll in about August that suggested that democracy and threats to democracy were the second most important issue for American voters. And I think that Democrats often think that they are the only ones who are concerned about democracy, that they look at the events of January 6 or Donald Trump saying that the election was stolen. And they think they are the only ones who believe that there is some real threat. But actually, as I found when I interviewed people like Karen and Steve, there are a lot of Republicans, and Trump supporters, who also believe that there is a threat to democracy taking place. And they are, as those, that couple said, say that they are prepared to take up arms to defend democracy. There are an awful lot of weapons in America. We know that over 300,000,000 guns are circulating in society. So that kind of comment has to be taken against the backdrop of a very well armed population. And one of the things that surprised me, and I spent a month travelling through Arizona, Wyoming, Georgia, Pennsylvania and the Washington area, one of the things that surprised me was how often I heard people talk about violence in the context of politics and in the context of elections. And having covered US elections now since the late 1990s, it's not something I have heard before. I haven't heard people say that they would take up arms and fight. I still find it, despite some of those comments, and that was one couple, and I interviewed dozens of people, but I didn't interview the whole American population. I still find it hard to imagine a civil war in the sense of the first American civil war. Maybe it is a lack of imagination on my part, but I do think in 2020, the system was tested by a president who refused to concede, who launched legal challenges saying that he had charging fraud, a president who refused to turn up to the inauguration of his successor. The system was tested, but it held. And I do believe that the courts are strong, the media is strong, Congress did its job even on the night of January 6. I think those systems of government will hold, even if this election proves to be messy and even if the 2024 election proves to be messy.
Mcfarlane: Well, you say that the system held, however, I read that a large majority of election deniers are expected to win races in the midterm elections. There are a number of Secretary of States, and you interviewed one of those candidates, who was called Mark Finchem, who was at the January 6 riots, even if he didn't actually go inside the Capitol. And if he wins, he will be in charge of certifying election results. And he basically indicated that he didn't believe that Democrats could ever fairly legitimately win elections in America. And you also had this very powerful interview with a nonpartisan election official at a county election office. And she was this incredible woman called Deirdre. She believed very strongly in the importance of democracy. And she talked to you about the threats that she had received, letters that threatened her safety and the safety of her staff. She described how her husband got up with her at 3AM on the day of the last vote, and he never left her side during voting because he was so worried about her safety. Do you think and this isn't entirely a tongue in cheek question. Do you think that there will come a time when independent international election observers should monitor US elections taking place? I mean, sounds like a ludicrous question to us, but if what is being predicted with regard to these election deniers winning their races? Do you think there is a reason to worry about the future safety of American democracy? You say that the system was tested in 2020 and it held, but that system is being eroded by people who want to undermine it, is it not?
Kay: I agree with all of that. I think the question is whether there's a civil war coming, and that's the leap I find it, at the moment, a little difficult to imagine. I do think you're right that the system has been tested and it will be tested again. And it will be tested even more so when you have people put into positions of power who have the ability to control the way that elections are held and then even more importantly, control the way votes are counted in certain critical states like Nevada and Arizona, you mentioned Mark Finchem. Once those people are put into positions where they, the Secretary of State positions, where they can influence the polling and the counting of the polls, then you will get quite quickly into a situation where it's not only Republicans, which is what you have at the moment, saying that elections can't be trusted. You'll have Democrats saying elections can't be trusted. So no one will trust the outcome unless they win. And I do think that it's extraordinary to me that you have not just the national press, you have the international press following I did it for a day, somebody like Mark Finchem. I mean, Secretary of State used to be a position, it was like county dog walker, nobody paid any attention to a Secretary of State race. They really didn't. And now you have a tonne of money pouring into these races because Republicans have realised the importance of controlling the mechanics of holding the vote and counting the vote. And that in a race that is tight, Arizona, Joe Biden won Arizona by only 10,000 votes, it doesn't take very many votes to swing it back to the Republicans. You don't have to have a massive sea change in the way that people vote. You just have to change enough votes or change the way that enough votes are counted or restrict, as in Georgia, enough people from voting by changing the way that people can vote for you to change the outcome of a critical state. And that's if Arizona goes Republican because let's say of the way that the votes are held and counted, that's 11 Electoral College votes. That's pretty handy for the next presidential race. So I think you will see the impact of 2020 in 2024. And it will be because of these key positions around the country that could be held by people who deny that the last election was won by Joe Biden. This is also another problem with the democratic system at the moment. You've had a lot of election workers, non partisan election workers, leaving their jobs because they're worried about security. And so the quality of the people who are monitoring the vote and the way it's counted is potentially in decline because a lot of people don't want to do it because it's not seen as a safe job at the moment. That's another weakness, suggests another weakness in American democracy. It's interesting talking to, and the other person I interviewed was the woman who's running to be governor of Arizona, Kari Lake, who would have the job of certifying the vote in 2024. The candidates who are running who say that there was fraud in the last election and Joe Biden is not the legitimate president, there is absolutely nothing that you can say to make them change their minds. You can raise the fact that more than 60 suits were brought by Trump allies and were dismissed in the courts, including by Trump appointed judges. And then there will be something else. But what about the dead people who voted? Or what about the ballot boxes that were stuffed with fraudulent votes? There is a level of kind of layers to these conspiracy theories that you're never going to persuade somebody like Mark Finchem to say, well, actually, maybe it was a free and fair election.
Dearlove: Yeah. I guess I've got a question which really is based on my own experience of the States, which is quite extensive. I still spend a lot of time there. I think one of the features of American life at the local level is the strength of civic engagement and the strength of civic responsibility in every community across the States. They're much more engaged. They're much more active than we tend to be in Europe. And my own feeling, and this is my question, is don't you think that sort of civic engagement, whatever political complexion it has, outweighs the sort of extremist threat to resort to violence.
Kay: It's of course famously the thing that de Tocqueville admired most about American society was this level of civic engagement. And it's certainly there. I mean, you see it in the high turnout numbers, right? The fact that we are already at breaking records in terms of the number of people who have voted in American elections is a good healthy sign of democracy. Turnout is rising and people are very involved in their communities, in their local churches, in local politics, in local school boards, people spend a lot of time in local charity work. It is something that I have always admired about Americans and I love this country's optimism and sense that things are possible. I weigh that, Richard, against the startling fact that one third of the American electorate believes that the last election is stolen. So, yes, you have high engagement and high turnout, but you don't have a commonality of purpose and cause or respect for the other side. I mean, if you track the polling on Democrats who believe that Republicans are a threat to society and Republicans who believe the same thing about Democrats, it is rising with almost every poll that is taken. And so you have engagement, but alongside that engagement, you have increasing disrespect, disdain, hatred and fear of the other side. And that is tearing away, I think, at the sense of civic commonality that America has long been so famous for. And I guess that's, and throw in the kind of relatively new phenomenon of social media in politics. And it's like sort of fuel on a flame in that respect. And I guess that is what I find hard to see our way out of. What's going to break that cycle of more and more people believing that somebody of a different political persuasion is not just somebody who has a different point of view, but is actually a threat to the country. That cycle has to be broken somehow.
Dearlove: Yeah, that's a disturbing judgement.
UKRAINE AND THE REPUBLICANS
Mcfarlane: I think a lot of people overseas are going to be watching what happens in the midterms very closely, and whether the Republicans, I believe it's still quite tight a race that the Republicans may take the lower house, the House of Representatives, and maybe even the Senate as well. And whether they are able to do that could even potentially determine the outcome of the war in Ukraine. I believe the US has allocated more than $60,000,000,000 on economic and military aid to Ukraine since the invasion in late February. Now, Kevin McCarthy, who could be House Speaker if the Republicans win the house, he said that they might oppose more aid to Ukraine if they win the house majority. And he told Punchbowl News, I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they're not going to write a blank check to Ukraine. They just won't do it. Now what's interesting is that the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, he, I believe, pushed back against this. And he insisted that if Republicans win the Senate, they win the upper house, they would continue their support to Ukraine. He also made the issue slightly about Iran and its role, as well as shoring up defenses in Asia to deter Chinese aggression. So I wanted to ask you, what do you know of the position with regard to Ukraine in the Republican party? And whose point of view is more important? The house leader or the senate leader? And what is the party's broad position when it comes to Russia? And I have this image that keeps coming back to my mind, which is of a few years ago at a Trump rally, where activists were wearing shirts that said, I'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat. And I think it was Senator Chris Murphy, who's a Democrat, he said that the MAGA, the make America great again, wing of the party that is of course associated with Donald Trump, says and thinks a lot of nice things about Putin.
Kay: So there's a lot to unpack there. Broadly speaking, there has been actually surprising consensus on the two biggest foreign policy issues that face Russia, Ukraine and China. But we have started to see some splits emerge in both parties. And we can talk about the Democrats' position on Ukraine in a second, but let's talk about the Republicans. At the beginning of the war, only 9% of Republicans polled thought that America was giving too much aid to Ukraine. Now about one third of Republicans polled think that. And amidst rising inflation and fears about cost of living here, there are more Republican voices saying, hold on a second, why are we giving so much money to Ukraine? And that reflects to some extent public opinion amongst elected officials. So when Kevin McCarthy said that he didn't think Congress would write a blank check if Republicans take over the House of Representatives, he was reflecting a softening of public opinion amongst Republican voters. It wasn't just Mitch McConnell who jumped in, you had Mike Pence also chided Republicans who would have, as he put it, America disengage from world affairs, which was a kind of pretty much direct response to Kevin McCarthy. So there is clearly a split in the Republican Party. The White House is hoping that in the end, Kevin McCarthy, should Republicans win the House, will believe that they don't want to be the party that allowed Russia to win by cutting off the flow of weapons to Ukraine. So they are thinking that this is a bit of a bluff by McCarthy. And in the end, the Republicans, if they win the House, will still be there supporting the White House on this. And there are senior Republicans in the House, who have warned other of their colleagues that Putin is banking on American war fatigue. So there are clearly splits within the party. There will be Republicans elected in this round, in this cycle, in this midterms, who are more aligned with the Trump position. And the Trump position, as you suggested, Julia, or the position of some MAGA supporters is that, I think it's probably too strong to say that being Putin is better than being a Democrat, but they are less keen on opposing Vladimir Putin. So I think you could see a shift in the Republican Party after the midterms to becoming more pro Trump, more in line with the Trump America First policy and more in line with Trump's softer approach to Vladimir Putin, which could mean that December, before Republicans take over the House, could become the last opportunity of the White House to put in place a big arms package for Ukraine. It will put a lot of focus, I think, on that, what's called that lame duck session in early December to get a big arms deal for Ukraine again. And that puts Vladimir Zelenskyy in a position of having to ask Americans for things he may not be ready to ask them for yet. It may put pressure on the Ukrainian government to say, Okay, this is what we need, knowing that it could be their last chance to get it. So these splits in the Republican Party, which by and large has supported the White House's efforts until now, could grow stronger over the next two years. It could also be the case that as we approach 2024, the Republicans in the House just don't want to give the White House anything. They don't want to give Joe Biden anything and they don't want to agree to anything Joe Biden proposes, even aid for Ukraine. So there are going to be splits in something that actually up until now has had a remarkable amount of consensus.
Dearlove: Yeah. I was just going to say, I mean, hasn't there always been in US foreign policy this disconnect between, let's say, populist isolationism, which has always had a massive thread through US policy. But both parties, Democrats and Republicans, have essentially I wouldn't say ignored it, but they've accommodated it but then acted differently over time and particularly the Republicans. I mean I would find it extraordinary if the Republicans even if Trump was a predominant influence walked away from, let's say, support for Ukraine in what I think many many Americans would, you know, regard as a just war, in terms of the Ukrainian response to the Russian invasion. And I was really taken aback when I saw these suggestions amongst Republicans that they might actually be going in a different direction. So I find this a very, very confusing area in terms of how American public opinion is reflecting the issue.
Kay: Yeah. I mean, it is very interesting. It doesn't feel like it's your friend Condoleezza Rice's Republican Party anymore, does it, in this respect? Absolutely not. Yeah. I mean, I'm sure in several ways, but in this way in particular. I mean, I suppose it is hard to imagine. And in the end, I think the White House is probably right to bank that Kevin McCarthy will carry on supporting weapons packages for Ukraine, although they might be smaller packages than they have been up until now. But it is worth remembering that back in May, was it 57 Republican members of the House and 11 Republican members of the Senate voted against what was the biggest single US aid package of $40,000,000,000. So there were already voices. And now if you have more of the Trump wing of the Republican Party ascendant in the House, which is where I think you're going to see more of those voices, and Trump wanting them to pledge allegiance or them wanting to prove their allegiance to Donald Trump, it wouldn't take much more than Trump to say, why are we sending all that money to Ukraine? For them to think twice about voting in favor of a package.
CHINA POLICY
Mcfarlane: Interesting, interesting. Well, I do wanna ask you about China, and I read recently that according to the Pew Research Center, a large majority of Americans, 89%, consider China to be a competitor or an enemy, rather than a partner. Now, I thought that security concerns over China were a bipartisan issue, they may be, but I was reading about Kevin McCarthy potentially starting a select committee on China, which would follow on from a Republican led congressional task force, which investigated China, and he formed that back in 2020. And that was apparently designed to be a bipartisan task force, but the Democrats ultimately opted not to join. And so I was puzzled as to why they didn't join in that task force. And I don't know if you know the reason specifically of that, but talk to us generally about the differences on either side of the aisle, and if the Democrats are seen to be less strong against China, do you think that is something that may be picked up by many voters? Maybe it contributes to a sense that they are less strong on areas concerning American defense and security. If that is the kind of fertile ground, which is claimed by Republicans to be a Republican selling point.
Kay: You might think so. I mean, the truth is that actually, as I've travelled around the country, China has not really featured in this election. In the way that it has done in, say, 2016 election, I heard a lot about China. People knew an awful lot about what China was doing in terms of IP, in terms of trade practises, in ways that were hurting American workers. I really didn't hear it raised this time around. And I think that reflects that there is broad agreement in the two parties. There's some tweaking in terms of how to implement a policy, but it's not a real source of disagreement. That figure you have of 89% of Americans seeing China as a competitor or as an enemy is something that both Republicans and Democrats are very aware of. And Joe Biden by and large has continued Donald Trump's policies when it comes to China. There are areas where there might be some difference if Republicans take over the House and take over the Senate. I mean, possibly you could argue that Joe Biden has actually been more effective at mobilising allies than Donald Trump was. And that could potentially be worse for Beijing. So if Democrats held onto the House and the Senate, that might be a little harder for Beijing. I think Joe Biden has tried to compartmentalise American foreign policy when it came to China a bit in terms of, for example, that COVID investigation and climate change. That might be something that Republicans don't do. I mean, one of the investigations that could be launched under Republican leadership in the House of Representatives may well be one into the origins of the COVID pandemic. I think the reason the Biden administration didn't sign on to that investigation because they have this view that maybe we try to work with the Chinese on preventing a future pandemic, on an issue like climate change. And so signing on to an investigation wouldn't help with something like that, whilst we stay tough with them on things like tariffs and intellectual property protection. So I don't think there will be a massive difference when it comes to China policy. There is a broad consensus in America at the moment that being tough on China is what the American policy should be, but also what American politics demand.
Dearlove: It's not in the forefront of the mind of the American voter, but it is a potent issue in the medium to longer term. And I mean, I suppose I would say that, you know, one of Trump's achievements, people are sort of slightly balked when I mentioned any achievement by Trump, but I mean, he did shift the dub on China in terms of global foreign policy towards China. I think that's right, Richard. It's had a significant impact, for example, in the UK here, where the government, you know, over time, of much the relief of some of us who've been preaching this for a long time have completely changed its tune. But I suppose the question is, is anyone in the States thinking about actually how we're going to live with China? This isn't the Cold War really, because our economies are intertwined. I mean, they're intertwined in a way that our economies were not intertwined with Russia during the Cold War. And it's all very well, as it were, recast relations with China. And, okay, China may be moving into a period of economic isolation, but doing business with China is still going to be important. I mean, is there any evidence that any Democrats or Americans are thinking along those lines?
Kay: Look, it's very interesting, you talk to the American private sector and American companies and they are concerned about exactly what you're saying, that the language of politics is very cold warlike. I mean, people are even talking about, you know, a Chinese bloc, an American bloc and a non aligned bloc, which is exactly the language of the Cold War. But for American corporations who still need to do business in China, that kind of language is alarming and they would actually like far more communication. I think one of the worrying things at the moment in the relationship between the US and China is how little communication is going on, both at a public sector level and at a private sector level, but particularly at a governmental level. The streams of communication are not open and they need to be open. And it would be interesting to see whether Republicans find a way to open them more. And I think that's what the Biden administration actually has tried to do with this thing of compartmentalising. I just don't think it's been terribly effective. I think everything that we've probably seen in the Chinese Party Congress over the last week or so has shown that that actually is not a strategy that has worked particularly well, and there isn't much appetite in China for cooperation on certain issues and not on others.
WILL TRUMP RUN IN 2024?
Mcfarlane: We're almost out of time. So I just wanted to ask one last question to you, Katty. One of the people you spoke to in your documentary was the US host, Joe Scarborough, where he told you that he believes that Donald Trump fears losing more than he wants victory. And this was in regards to that question, whether he is going to run for president in 2024. And I heard you recently on the BBC that you no longer agree with what Joe said. You think Trump has gone too far. He is now too involved in the election process not to run. Do you still believe that to be the case? And do you think the prospect of Trump returning to the White House in 2024 is something that America's allies should be concerned about?
Kay: Am I allowed to say I don't know? I really don't know whether he's going to run or not. I change my view on this almost daily, let alone monthly, let alone weekly, depending on what Trump is saying. Trump himself has dropped very heavy hints, including recently in the last few days, that he is planning to run and that the White House needs him back again. So he says publicly at these big rallies that he's holding, that he wants to run again effectively. He's almost said it as bluntly as that. I agree with Joe Scarborough that Trump hates losing. And I'm not sure that he can win. He has the support of about 30% of the country, and you need more than that. Now, it could be that after these midterm elections, he sees a huge outpouring of support for Republican candidates who he's endorsed, Trump like candidates, and that encourages him to think he has the support of the country. It's also possible that he has helped get into position key figures around the country who may be able to help his re election chances. And he does the maths and he looks at Nevada and he looks at Arizona and he looks at Georgia and he thinks, oh, actually, you know what? Those states could now swing my way, in which case I could win the election. So I don't think it's impossible that he kind of comes out of the 2022 midterms, which is we started this conversation by talking about why these elections are important and why there is so much focus on them. Another reason there is so much focus on them is because I think they will help determine whether Donald Trump runs again. Now, whether he runs and can win is a different question, but him running again would certainly upend American politics and would, if nothing else, produce a huge amount of interest and excitement or dismay, depending on how you look at it around the world.
Mcfarlane: Your old colleague, John Sopel, said this week that he thinks the camp at Mar-a-Lago may have looked at the failed second coming of Boris Johnson and will have been quite despondent at that.
Dearlove: Well, I was just going to add that, you Rich is nodding. Yeah. You can have significant political support, but conclude on the other hand that you just haven't got the support to win. And I think that's, I don't like drawing comparisons between Boris and Trump, but in this particular instance there may be a lesson in the way that Boris reached that conclusion. And bear in mind that, you know, a very significant group of politicians did stand up and say that they would support him if he came back. So it's quite a striking sort of contemporary example.
Kay: Yeah. I mean, alternatively, you could look south to Brazil and say, well, Bolsonaro did better in the first round than anyone expected, and maybe Trump would too.
Dearlove: Yeah. Well, we don't know. I think it's a very honest answer, Katty.
Mcfarlane: You're speculating. We'll have to wait and see, we'll have to wait and see. We've gone over time, we better leave it there. But Katty, thank you so much for your time. Thank you so much for joining us. It's been a fascinating conversation and look forward to your coverage of election night when it rolls around. Well, you, both of you. Thank you. Katty, outstanding commentary.
Dearlove: Well done. Thank you.
Kay: It's an interesting time.
Mcfarlane: That's it for this week's episode of One Decision. You can stay up to date on all our latest interviews and analysis by subscribing to us wherever you get your podcasts. From me and the team, thanks for listening. See you next time.
