Jeffrey Goldberg: Evan.

Evan Smith, Managing Director for Events, The Atlantic: Jeff.

Jeffrey Goldberg: On behalf of the 49 other states, could you explain Texas to us?

Evan Smith: I cannot.

I can't -- Jeffrey Goldberg: Well, all right, then we're going to pivot to the earned income tax credit.

Evan Smith: I can tell you that it is the middle of October.

We're sitting here in an election year talking about whether Texas elections are competitive, and that is not something that we're used to in the state of Texas.

It has been more than 30 years since elections in Texas have been competitive.

The last time a Democrat was elected statewide in Texas, the number one song in America was by Boyz II Men.

That's how long ago it was.

November 1994, that was the year that George Bush beat Ann Richards.

Other Democrats on the ballot won, and since then, no Democrats have been elected.

We are looking at the possibility of a Democratic United States senator from Texas, and possibly other Democratic statewide officials, and no one really can believe that we're here three weeks out.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

I mean, there's good reason not to believe it.

But let me give you a couple of names to go against this feeling of novelty.

Beto O'Rourke, Colin Allred.

Evan Smith: Right.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Talarico is obviously raising tons of money.

Evan Smith: Right, the most money.

Jeffrey Goldberg: And getting a lot of excitement around his name.

Evan Smith: Right.

Jeffrey Goldberg: I mean, and it's all the more surprising because he scans, at least to me as an outsider, as someone sort of socio-culturally closer to like the Brooklyn liberal model rather than some kind of -- Evan Smith: But it tells you something about this election that James Talarico is running ahead of a generic Democrat, and Ken Paxton is running behind a generic Republican, right?

That's one of the reasons that this race is so close, candidate quality.

Jeffrey Goldberg: And the only reason, and the only reason I bring up those two names is that there is a lot of excitement around them, and for whatever set of reasons.

And maybe it's structural.

Maybe there's just simply more Republicans than Democrats in a dispositive way.

For some reason, Democrats can't get over that hump.

This is not like Kansas, which never -- I mean, now it's competitive, but never had -- you know, never had this -- that run of close calls for the Democrats, if you will.

Evan Smith: Right.

Jeffrey Goldberg: So, I'm not asking you to predict what's going to happen, but I'm asking you to predict what's going to happen.

Evan Smith: What's going to happen.

Okay.

Well, let me first of all push back on you.

Colin Allred was never really competitive against Ted Cruz in that Senate race.

Beto O'Rourke is a better analogy.

It was a Trump midterm in 2018.

It's a Trump midterm now, but there are a couple of things that are different this time versus last time.

The first is that the political environment has migrated down to the level of Texas voters in a way that it had not in 2018.

Turnout in 2018 in Texas was unusually high for a midterm, but people in Texas, both Democrats and Republicans, both urban voters and rural voters, are pissed off this year in a way that they were not in 2018.

That is a motivating factor in this election.

The second thing is that the issue set this time is working against Republicans in a way it did not in 2018.

The economy, data centers, Flock cameras, vouchers, these are all issues that are cutting against Republicans in poll after poll.

The candidate quality thing I mentioned is a big deal, but I would also say that the dynamics of the electorate are very important.

Latinos who voted Republican in the last election have swung all the way back, according to every single poll.

The Republican Party, I'm told by people in both parties, is collapsing in the Rio Grande Valley, a number of the seats they redistricted.

Jeffrey Goldberg: And that, to remind our national audience, that is a very, very heavily Hispanic region.

Evan Smith: Majority Hispanic counties that are along the border and in South Texas where they redistricted.

Jeffrey Goldberg: And a lot of families that have border police or -- I mean, they lean -- it can lean conservative.

It can lean -- Evan Smith: And we're probably susceptible to the idea that we're going to deport criminal migrants, but they're not happy about deporting your gardener from the Home Depot checkout line, right?

The fact is that the, the swing back of Latinos to the Democratic Party is going to cost Republicans a number of those seats that they redrew famously, right?

Jeffrey Goldberg: Can I just bring in Ashley for one second on this, because I don't understand the internal White House deliberations on these, just on a pure political, on a pure level of politics, these deliberations?

I would imagine that, you know, on one side you have Stephen Miller who says, deport as many people as you can and Hispanic support or non-support be damned.

And you have a lot of other people who are more politically sensitive to midterms, among other things, who are like, well, maybe we should ease up a little bit because we did actually do surprisingly well with Hispanics.

What's the dynamic there?

Ashley Parker, Staff Writer, The Atlantic: Well, I mean, there is a misconception that the Hispanic vote is monolithic and turns on immigration, and that's not the case.

A lot of Hispanic voters who came here illegally or whose families came here illegally want other people to do the same, right?

So, a lot of that appeal was economic votes.

That's the first thing, which is also not going well now.

But the second thing is that, yes, Stephen Miller is incredibly hard line on immigration.

As discussed, it's one of those few core political values that Donald Trump also shares with him.

But there is this irony where Republicans do benefit and Democrats to their peril, on being tough on border security.

That is sort of a norm in the United States.

But it gets to what Evan was saying, the sort of rounding up people who are just waiting in a Home Depot parking lot to try to go to work and work hard, or someone's babysitter.

And, of course, what we've seen in the States, not just in Texas, from ICE, the murders.

There was a real backlash in the country.

Vivian Salama, Staff Writer, The Atlantic: It ends up diminishing what a lot of people see genuinely as a national security issue, and it turns it into a culture wars issue that right now when people can't afford to -- their gas, they can't afford groceries.

That becomes very quickly diminished.

Jeffrey Goldberg: What you're saying is that for a lot of people in the Trump universe, including maybe Trump himself, it is more of a culture war issue.

You wouldn't be targeting the people you're targeting if you were simply trying to enforce existing law on the border.

Vivian Salama: I think they do genuinely view it as a national security issue, but they have implemented it as part of their culture wars.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

I mean, Mark, what's interesting here is that both parties have stumbled on immigration for opposite reasons.

The Democrats, the Biden administration, did not take border security seriously, much less what's going on inside the country, and the Trump administration has moved way past the border, way north of the border, let's say, to just sort of randomly -- or not randomly, but very deliberately go into northern cities and start looking for illegal immigrants who are living responsible, quiet lives.

Mark Leibovich, Staff Writer, The Atlantic: Yes.

No, I mean, the irony of this is that Donald Trump did get elected largely on this.

I mean, this was a huge issue for him, and he also did a really -- I mean, people perceived him as doing a really good job securing the border.

I mean, if he had just quit after however long it took to feel like the border had been secured and not gone ahead with the next iteration of the ICE raids and the Home Depot, you know, just like the seizing and so forth, this would've been a great sort of thing for him to boast over, but he sort of let it run out of control.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Evan Smith: Can I say something about the culture war just on this, and to come back to the Talarico race?

Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes, please.

Evan Smith: Hundreds of millions of dollars have come into this state from out of state to put ads on during football games, and everybody in Texas watches football, that have been about trans kids.

If you look at the voters' preferences on issues this cycle, issues related to trans Americans are at the very bottom.

This is an election about the economy.

I think what's -- we're going to know this on November the 3rd, but I think what we will say is the Republicans lit hundreds of millions of dollars on fire running culture war ads in an election cycle that was still about the economy, stupid.

Jeffrey Goldberg: It's about diesel prices, not -- Evan Smith: It's about the economy.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes.

Evan Smith: It's about the economy.

Ashley Parker: And also just to take it a step further, the reason that the Kamala Harris, she's for they, them, not you ad was so effective during the campaign was actually in talking to both Democrat and Republican operatives, it was less about the actual trans issue, and it was, again, in a moment of economic peril.

What it was signaling was she's not focused on what you care about.

She's not focused on prices and on your daily life.

Like that's why it was so devastating.

But now it's the exact opposite.

Things Donald Trump is doing, like talking nonstop about the ballroom, right, he's asked a question about Iran, and he holds up a huge poster board of the, the gilded ballroom, that sent the exact same signal to voters.

You're going to three supermarkets in order to use all your coupons and afford your groceries, and this is what he cares about.

Jeffrey Goldberg: If I were running for office right now, I would turn the ballroom into a data center and then point all the Flock cameras at it.

Ashley Parker: Yes.

Jeffrey Goldberg: That's why I'd be a very successful politician.

No.

You know, it's interesting you mentioned the money that's coming into this state, which I guess is good for the people who live in this state, but -- or at least the T.V.

buyers in the state.

Evan Smith: Right.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Our friend Leigh Ann Caldwell reports that the -- $500 million in combined spending so far, and the estimate is that the $368 million more than Republicans are planning on spending in this race.

That's a lot of -- Evan Smith: Well, it's an enormous amount of money.

Jeffrey Goldberg: That's a lot of money.

Evan Smith: And, again, it's possible that all this money never would have saved Ken Paxton.

We're going to know the outcome of this race soon enough, but one scenario here is that money could have been better used to save Jon Husted in Ohio, to save Dan Sullivan in Alaska to save any number of other candidates.

The Kansas race, which is suddenly competitive, that money might be more helpful in Kansas ultimately than in Texas.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes.

Mark, I want to ask you about the Democrats on this.

They - - Democrats have a pretty bad record of picking candidates.

Remember Graham Platner?

It seems like a million years ago, but -- Mark Leibovich: You know, people loved Graham Platner -- Jeffrey Goldberg: People loved Graham Platner.

Mark Leibovich: Until they didn't.

Jeffrey Goldberg: No.

But the Republicans have done -- let's be honest.

They've done quite a job on themselves here in Texas in terms of picking a floridly unconventional candidate.

Mark Leibovich: I would say they're Floridly unconventional, to be kind.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes.

Mark Leibovich: Yes, I would say.

Jeffrey Goldberg: That is -- I was just looking for vocabulary words to use on this show.

Mark Leibovich: It was a great turn of phrase.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Oh, thank you very much.

Mark Leibovich: Yes.

Jeffrey Goldberg: But -- so talk about that and talk about the particular Trump dynamic that led to the Republicans picking possibly the worst candidate they could find to run against, obviously, this, this young and exciting liberal Democrat.

Mark Leibovich: Yes.

I mean, look, I mean, Donald Trump got directly involved in the Texas race.

He did not endorse John Cornyn, as many were hoping he would, and who would've been a much stronger candidate, and we might not even be talking -- Jeffrey Goldberg: Cornyn would have won.

Mark Leibovich: Probably.

Evan Smith: Cornyn would have absolutely been the favorite in this race.

Mark Leibovich: He would have been the favorite, there's no question.

I mean, there are other incumbents like Jon Husted in Ohio and Dan Sullivan in Alaska who are in big, big dog fights.

But I think Cornyn was definitely seen as a stronger general election candidate.

I would give Democrats, and Chuck Schumer in particular, some credit for recruitment.

I think, you know, especially after they kind of got rescued from Platner by events, they have a pretty good crop of Senate candidates, Roy Cooper in North Carolina, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Mary Peltola in Alaska, Talarico here, and a bunch of others.

So, I mean, they are set up pretty well.

Jeffrey Goldberg: People who seem connected to their states in some organic way.

Evan Smith: Yes.

Mark Leibovich: and they're good candidates.

I mean, they've performed well.

They've overperformed in primaries and so forth with some exceptions.

But I do think also the overriding benefit they have is that Trump has just given them so much to work with.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Vivian Salama: Let's remember how we got here.

I mean, President Trump -- Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes, how did we get here?

Vivian Salama: -- prioritized loyalty during the primaries over these qualifications.

And so, so many of the people that he sort of sided with were loyal, but not necessarily people who could go on to win a general election.

They did well in the primaries, but here we are now.

You know, Republicans are facing major potential losses because of this.

Jeffrey Goldberg: But, Vivian, let's also remember how we got here.

Donald Trump launched a war against Iran.

Now, we've been in a -- Vivian Salama: Oh, there's that too.

Jeffrey Goldberg: We've been in a cold war with Iran since 1979, obviously, but he chose the time and the date to upgrade that war, but then he didn't do the thing that you're supposed to do when you start a war, which is win.

And so my question, particularly in this state, is the fuel prices that the diesel prices that are a byproduct of not winning, how big of a deal is that in a state where -- I just -- I mean, I know the state a little bit, and everything is really far away.

Evan Smith: Well, it's massive.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes.

Evan Smith: Look, I fill up my car this week and I pay $4 and something a gallon.

The people who are long haul truckers going from one end of this very large state to another, who are bringing us food, fiber, and other things that are material to our lives, are paying north of $6 a gallon for diesel, which is the most it's ever been in the history of this country.

Jeffrey Goldberg: And that will take somebody who's MAGA-oriented and make them un-MAGA-oriented.

Evan Smith: Quickly.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes.

Evan Smith: Quick.

Look I do think that this is important, but let me tell you what the most important thing that we haven't talked about yet that's going to decide this race is.

What will John Cornyn's voters do?

That is the one unanswered question that we have right now.

900,000 people voted for John Cornyn in the first round against Ken Paxton.

500,000 voted for John Cornyn in the runoff that he lost to Ken Paxton.

The difference between Beto O'Rourke and Ted Cruz in 2018 was 216,000 votes.

Are the Cornyn people going to put two clothespins on their nose in case one falls off and vote for Talarico?

Are they going to put merely one clothespin on their nose and vote for Paxton, or are they going to skip that race?

Will there be a significant undervote?

That math is the ballgame, I'm telling you, on November 3rd.

Jeffrey Goldberg: I'm just picturing how to put two clothespin on one nose.

Evan Smith: Well, I think you could get them on there.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Is that like some weird local custom that I'm not -- I don't know.

Evan Smith: Possibly.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Well, you know, you raise a really interesting, big question about Texas Republicanism.

I mean, the only living ex-Republican president this country has is a Texan, tried and true.

The foremost Republican strategist the past 30 years, Karl Rove, is here.

Evan Smith: Just lives over there.

Jeffrey Goldberg: And lives over there.

And we're going to bring him out right now.

And both are outcasts.

Both are outcasts in -- not only in their party, but in their home party.

And so the question for you, you've studied this more intensely than anyone, how did this change happen?

And is there room for them and their brand of Republicanism, and maybe John Cornyn's brand of Republicanism, in Texas' future?

Evan Smith: To come back?

Jeffrey Goldberg: To come back?

Evan Smmith: Yes.

Well, let me say, I've lived long enough to see everything.

Suddenly, George Bush is a liberal.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes.

Evan Smith: Right?

There was a time in Austin, Texas, when George W. Bush, Karl Rove, these were the most conservative people you ever did meet.

And now, George W. Bush could not get through a Republican primary in Texas.

Bush is a four-letter word in Texas.

Anybody associated with that administration, with that brand of politics, is an outcast in the Republican Party.

I can't believe it.

Jeffrey Goldberg: But how deep is that in the state?

Evan Smith: Well, I think it's deep in the sense that a lot of people who were once that guy don't even run for office anymore because they know they're going to get killed in the primary.

Right now, it is the other end, the Trump end of the party that is dominant in politics in Texas.

Now, we're going to see whether this election is a rebuke of that end of the Republican Party, but the Bush crowd, for the moment, is on the sidelines, is on the sidelines.

And there are really good politicians.

I'm going to cite one, the mayor of Fort Worth, Texas, Mattie Parker, who is one of the most, in my experience, interesting politicians in this country.

She is a 50 percent plus one Republican.

She is not an ideologue.

She is not an activist Republican.

She's getting stuff done in her city.

The perception is she'd be a great governor, she'd be a great United States senator from this state except for the fact that she couldn't get through a primary because she is much more aligned with that Bush wing of the party than the Trump wing.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Well, the primary system is obviously a subject for a whole other show.

You know, one of the questions just popped to mind as you were talking about Cornyn voters is I want to know who Cornyn himself is going to vote for.

Evan Smith: Right.

Jeffrey Goldberg: I mean, it doesn't -- I mean, you know, you -- look, you wrote a book literally called "Thank You for Your Servitude".

It was about people who -- Mark Leibovich: It was anthropological, actually.

Jeffrey Goldberg: It was an anthropological treatise.

Mark Leibovich: Yes.

Jeffrey Goldberg: I just find it -- I find the questions that you were raising in that among the most interesting.

People who -- maybe you would phrase it this way, people who knew better and who didn't agree with the turn that the Republican Party was taking turned anyway.

Cornyn tried to be loyal.

Wasn't loyal enough, I guess.

Evan Smith: Voted with the president like 98 percent of the time.

Jeffrey Goldberg: But the question, it's not about -- it's not about just Cornyn, but the question for you is, is there a kind of -- especially let's assume just, for argument's sake, that Congress goes Democratic and Trump is 80-plus years old in the last two years of a term.

Is there going to be a wholesale abandonment by people like Cornyn, who maybe were holding their nose the whole time?

You know, when does this level of complicity in things that they don't agree with, when does it come to an end?

Mark Leibovich: You know, we've thought in the past, certainly after January 6th, that that would -- that the fever's over.

I mean, people are -- you know, people were speaking publicly about, you know -- Jeffrey Goldberg: Oh, January 7th, it was over, yes.

Mark Leibovich: Yes, no, Lindsey Graham, I mean, the whole crew.

But, look, it did snap back.

I mean, Donald Trump is term limited.

I mean, I think, look, in the category of they who knew better and who allowed it to happen anyway, John Cornyn, for as nostalgic as certain people might be about him right now, was absolutely among them.

He -- and if he were endorsed by Donald Trump and got the Republican nomination, he would be talking very differently right now.

So, the idea that there are all these outspoken Republicans now who are finally sort of developing a backbone, I mean, the vast majority of them are people who are either out of office or have just lost primaries, like Thom Tillis and so forth.

So, I mean, that's worth talking about.

Ashley Parker: And also just -- I mean, January 6th I think is such a good striking example because there was a sense of this is over.

And I just think it's worth reminding people not only did it snap back, but after January 6th, it began to snap back after three weeks, right?

This wasn't a slow burn.

Within three weeks, Kevin McCarthy flew down to Mar-a-Lago, appeared with Donald Trump, a photo was tweeted out, and Trump was back.

And so I think what we will see, if there is an abandonment, at the end of the day, we have seen -- and this is not unique to the Republican Party.

This is most politicians in general.

But the Republican Party is incredibly self-interested and self-motivated, as politicians are, both parties, of getting re-elected.

And so if there is any distancing, it will be because Trump, for whatever reason, no longer has that vise-like grip over his base.

But if it turns out in a Democratic-controlled Congress, as a lame duck president, that he can still attack you and get voters to turn on you, you're not going to see these profiles in courage.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Vivian, I wanted to ask you something.

We've talked about this a little bit, and Mark mentioned the name, Lindsey Graham.

And when we were talking about Ukraine, you've made some interesting points about -- I mean, a very specific point about Graham, but a larger point about the difference between the second term and the first term.

The first term, there were people around Donald Trump who were building and maintaining guardrails.

One by one, they've all disappeared.

Talk about that that issue, I think.

It's very fascinating.

Vivian Salama: So, we've talked a lot about how this -- this term, the president really has surrounded himself with yes men and women, people who will take orders, agree.

I mentioned Pete Hegseth earlier.

That is what he has chosen as, you know, the path for his second administration, in part because he felt like too many people undermined his presidency the first time around, and he did not want that.

So, this time around, you know, especially with Ukraine policy, for example, or even the Iran war, one of the things that we saw throughout was that, for the most part, the president's whims were being carried out, but then he was being reined in, definitely in the first year.

And there really is only one reason for it, and it is Senator Lindsey Graham.

When he passed away in July, I kind of rounded up all the old interviews I've done with him on either Iran or Ukraine and tried to piece together just how influential he was on the president's thinking and his approach.

Hugely influential in the president's decision to go to war with Israel against Iran, to attack Iran in conjunction with Israel, and also hugely influential in keeping the money and the aid flowing to Ukraine because he is an old school hawk when it comes to national security, and he still believes that Moscow, Vladimir Putin should not be trusted and need to be subdued.

And so that was -- you know, he's-- the president still kind of -- even though he -- you could see it playing out in public that he was begrudgingly helping Ukraine out, he was still doing it, and it was partly because Lindsey Graham was so adamant and influential on his thinking.

Jeffrey Goldberg: So, you literally think that, as Trump is sitting there stewing about Zelenskyy's ingratitude or having just general warm thoughts about Vladimir Putin sitting there in the White House, that at some -- the thing that was missing, the dog that didn't bark was Lindsey Graham calling him up and saying, well, of course you're not going to cut Starlink off to the Ukrainians, and then being influential on Trump's thinking -- Vivian Salama: And a couple of four-letter words and all of it.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes.

Vivian Salama: I mean, Lindsey Graham would have lost his mind on what we've seen just in the last week with regard to getting a -- striking a diesel deal with Russia that will basically kind of fill their coffers again and allow them to strike.