Ex-Obama adviser says there’s lots of ‘irrational exuberance’ from democrats over Harris

Let's talk first. We have a lot to discuss, but let's talk first about this debate. I had Anthony Scaramucci on last hour. He made the case he thinks Trump will ultimately debate, but that he's kind of using this to get back into the news cycle to try to wrestle away some attention from Kamala Harris. What do you think about him backing out of this debate, trying to propose this new one? Well, look, he's been signaling this for a few days. You know, when Rachel Scott from ABC questioned him sharply at the National Association of Black Journalists, he went on a rant about ABC and fake news and so on. I think that was a a prelude to what we just saw today. But listen, his whole message has been built for a year, two years now, around strength. He's strong. He's he's the guy, you know, who can handle these problems and so on. And now he's got a younger and more agile opponent when it comes to debating. And he doesn't want to debate. And I don't know that it's a great look for him. I do think at the end of the day, he may feel he has to debate. He also may feel like I'm ahead right now. Do I want to take that risk? But in any case, it's not a very strong look. He wants sort of an adaptive debate on his home turf, which he considers Fox News to be in front of a crowd, which is his sustenance. And it makes it feel like he needs like an adaptive debate because he thinks his opponent is too strong. And sources told CNN that Harris, for her part, is still planning to show up for that ABC debate for that timeslot, even if he doesn't. And take that time to talk to the American people. What do you think of that step and how they might use that? Well, the fact is that ABC has some say in this, and I imagine if she does show up, that it would take the form of an interview and in some ways, you know, that that I don't know if it's more preferable or less preferable, but you have to prepare for those as well. And we'll see how ABC handles it. But it's interesting to me what more than anything, Jessica, what it reflects is just how the world has shifted in 13 days. You know that where Trump is running away from debates and trying to change the terms of the debates and the polls have shifted in a way that shows him to be in the lead, but not in the lead the way he was after that last debate with Joe Biden. So I think there's a you know, there's a adjusting viable sense of concern in his camp that this thing could get away from him. It may be the race to lose, but it's a race that could be lost, which is something they didn't feel when they left that convention in Milwaukee. Well, and she has this background as a prosecutor, and she's really trying to to create this contrast between someone who is a convicted felon standing on the stage with her and and her prosecuting felons. Well, the other thing is the two of them on a debate stage, the whole scenario shifts. You got a guy who's 78 years old who frankly isn't all that coherent all the time himself, who suddenly looks like the past and not the future. And so it's not that it's this is not the scenario the Trump campaign wanted. They thought they had this race under control. It is much more. It is much more of a contest now. Yeah, And look, she has a lot of momentum. But if you do look at the polling, this is still a really tight race. This is going to be a hard fight for for either side, a tough based on the numbers we're seeing right now. Look, I mean, I mean, any anyone you know, there's a lot of irrational exuberance on the side of on the Democratic side of the aisle right now because there was despair for some period of time about what the November was going to look like. Now people feel like there's a chance. But it is absolutely Trump's race to lose right now. He is ahead and he is ahead. Most of the battleground states. They're close. They could be won by either candidate. But there is a lot to be determined in the next, you know, 90 whatever, days, 96 or whatever it is left. So, yeah, I think it's a wide open race. But Trump has the advantage right now. And nobody should nobody should be nobody should be. Everybody should be sober about that on the Democratic side. And to that end, we saw the Harris campaign bringing on really some of the biggest names in Democratic politics that we've seen over the last several presidential cycles, people that you know quite well. David Plouffe, of course, who managed Obama's 2008 campaign, Democratic operatives like Stephanie Cutter, Mitch Stewart, David Binder, you've you've been in the trenches with these folks. You've seen them run campaigns. Is this a situation where it's for Democrats, all hands on deck, trying to kind of get everyone that they can? First of all, let me say David Plouffe was my partner. He was the manager or now is the chief strategist to the Obama campaign, I think the greatest campaign operative and manager of our lifetime, or at least in my lifetime. In my lifetime, just because a lot longer than your life. So I am I'm an everyone on that. Stephanie Cutter is brilliant. Mitch Stewart, one of the best field operatives I've ever seen. David Binder not just a great pollster, but the best qualitative researcher in the Democratic Party, all great strategic thinkers. This is a great addition. And yeah, I mean, Democrats should view this as the Olympic team, right? You want to get your best played. You may be on different sides within intraparty stuff at times. This is a time for all Democrats to be on you know, on the same team. And I think what this is on the part of the of the Harris campaign is a recognition of that. We want to get our best players on the field and mix them in with the players we already have. And, you know, the question will be, how do you make that cohere, how the roles play out? And there's not a lot of time to figure that out. So they need to do that. It really does feel like a snap election in a lot of ways. And I'm also curious, because you lived through this, you know, 2008, even 2012, those are getting obviously further and further away. What is different for for your friends and colleagues who've now gone into the Harris campaign about a campaign in 2024? Obviously, this is unique in a million ways. But but just where we are in the political world and the state of affairs in this country versus where we were even in 2012 or 28. You know, that's such a great question because technology churns at such a rapid rate. The social media churns at a much faster rate. There are many different outlets, many more outlets than we saw in 2012, certainly than 20. Now, one of the things about David Plouffe as a campaign manager was his his view was that we should study industry and study the state of the art and see what the state of the art technology was. So we had 57 data analytics people in 2012. We had, you know, virtually none. In 2008, because that's big data was, you know, emerging as a huge tool. And so, you know, the thing about every single person who they added here, and I'm sure people who are already on board, these people are up to date, they know what the modern media environment looks like. They know what the technology offers the campaign. And it's so important to have that. So they've you know, they've added significant firepower with these four, and they had some already. And we know that Vice President Harris, I believe, as we speak, is getting these final rundowns from this vetting process, the final that's on her final list for who she might select to be her running mate. Obviously, this is a very big decision. Some Americans. You know, it really can speak to Americans to give them more information about who she is, how she wants to govern, who by who she chooses. What are you kind of I'm sure everyone wants to talk about veepstakes. I'm sure they ask you a lot. But what are you telling people when they say, David, what should she be doing? Who should she be picking? Yeah, well, listen, I think this works on a lot of different levels. I mean, one is the one you very appropriately suggests, which is this is the first presidential decision you make. And so people will take a lot from it, especially for Kamala Harris, who's stepping up to the lead role in this drama. You know, the first thing you want to make sure is the person is qualified and can plausibly be president if if the need arises. Nine presidents have risen to the presidency. And so you always have to be aware of that. The second is you want someone who is not going to embarrass you. And I would suggest that this is a problem for Trump, because you kind of there is question on both fronts relative to his VP pitcher. So this is an opportunity to create a comparison with J.D. Vance, who is relatively scant in experience and hasn't done a heck of a lot in public. He's only been in the Senate for 18 months. That's the only office he's ever held. He's never really run anything. So here you have an assortment of governors. You have a senator in Mark Kelly, who was an astronaut, who was a fighter pilot, who is a, you know, strong on the border guy from a battleground state and who is an expert on national security. And you have an array of governors. But ultimately, this may come down to a math problem, Jessica, the state that she has to win, I believe in most people do, to win the presidency in the state of Pennsylvania. So that's put a lot of focus on Josh SHAPIRO, the governor, the very popular governor of Pennsylvania, and the question of whether he on the ticket might provide a little bit extra in what promises to be a marginal race. And that's why there's a lot of focus of attention on him right now. But every single person on this list would pass the tests that I suggested in the first place, that there's sort of table stakes test of of qualifications and of unlikely to embarrass you. So she's got a good array of candidates to choose from. And there are a lot of opinions in the Democratic Party about the way she should go.