Brooks and Capehart on Biden’s record fundraiser and the importance of campaign spending

Read the Full Transcript

• William Brangham:

  A campaign fund-raiser nets Biden millions, and a stock market debut could potentially net Trump billions.

  On that and the other political stories shaping the week, we turn to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart. That is New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.

  Gentlemen, so nice to see you.

• Jonathan Capehart:

  You too, William.

• William Brangham:

  Thanks for being here.

  Let's talk about this money race that is going on. Biden had last night this event in New York City at Radio City Music Hall, apparently, the most lucrative fund-raising event in American political history, $25 million, I believe it was, former presidents out there celebrating him.

  Does this money matter, especially when you're running against the master of free media, Donald Trump? Does it really matter?

• David Brooks:

  No, not at all. Those people wasted $25 million.

  (Laughter)

• David Brooks:

  Money matters in politics if you have no name recognition, you want to get known, if you want to have an organization.

  But once you hit a certain threshold, even in a well-funded Senate race, it doesn't matter. You're just making the rubble bounce. When people are seeing 13, 14 commercials a night, then they're just not noticing. And it's doubly true this time, because both Donald Trump and Joe Biden have been president before.

  Hillary Clinton spent twice as much in 2016 than Donald Trump did. And he's still beat her. And so I just — I think if you think that people who own TV stations don't have enough revenue and you want to put more money into their pockets, then give to a presidential campaign.

• William Brangham:

  Or give to PBS.

• David Brooks:

  PBS. Give to — yes.

  (Laughter)

• William Brangham:

  Do you think it matters?

• Jonathan Capehart:

  Yes, it absolutely matters.

  I mean, David, you're focused on television and campaign ads, but that money is being used to open campaign offices around the country, key districts. It's about hiring staff, state directors, local directors. It's putting, as the campaign would say, boots on the ground to get out the vote.

  And that is where the money is most needed and most important, especially in a presidential election that is going to be determined by which side gets its people out to vote. And if you are the Biden campaign, you definitely like the position that you're in, having a 2-1 cash-on-hand and fund-raising advantage over Donald Trump.

• William Brangham:

  Yes, it certainly seems like that's something you want as opposed to being at the other end of that ratio.

• David Brooks:

  There are — political scientists have studied this incredibly.

  And if you reduce a campaign's spending by 50 percent, the amount of reduction in the actual vote that campaign gets is minuscule. So, there's just this long-running debate between most political scientists, on one hand say money is vastly overrated, most political candidates, who are insecure and think, if I can get some money, I will win. But I tend to side with the political scientists. But then I'm a nerd.

• William Brangham:

  Right.

  (Laughter)

• William Brangham:

  I want to ask about this, the Trump TRUTH Social rocketing on the stock market.

  What do you make of this, that a company that's — the economic fundamentals don't seem that strong, and yet it debuts on the stock market like it is the next greatest thing? How do you view that?

• David Brooks:

  Yes, its market valuation is 2,000 times revenues. And a lot of companies have market valuations, like Reddit or Meta, like 10 times revenues.

  But this is out of control. And so, in my view, it's either people who are — and you're seeing who's investing,. It's not hedge fund people. It's individual investors. So I think you have got two groups here. You have got one people who just like Trump and they want to give him money. And, two, there are some people who think that he will win the White House and then TRUTH Social will be a big — it will actually start making money.

  But in any case, it looks like just a sideway — a side wraparound to give Donald Trump and his campaign a lot of money, which it seems to be doing.

• William Brangham:

  Right.

  I mean, there are campaign finance restrictions because we don't like the idea of someone just handing a wheelbarrow full of cash to a potential next president. And there are reports here that there's one billionaire investor who's put a lot of money into TikTok who's now put a lot of money into Donald Trump's new company.

  Those ethical questions don't go away, though.

• Jonathan Capehart:

  They don't, but, when you're Donald Trump, do you care? No.

  You can tell him all — show him all the rules, say you're pushing that norm, you're violating that rule. And, to him, what does he care? He will push the envelope, he will do what he wants to do, and then he will sit back and watch the process play itself out. And while the process plays itself out, he continues to live his life as it was before.

  So, your next question?

  (Laughter)

• William Brangham:

  OK, my next question.

  I want to talk about what happened with Ronna McDaniel at NBC. For those who are not following this, she was hired by NBC to be an on-air contributor. She's the former chairperson of the Republican National Committee. And there was a revolt amongst many NBC anchors, who said, we can't have someone who actively tried to undo the last election be on our payroll and be on our airwaves.

  How do you — what do you — what do you make of how that played out?

• David Brooks:

  I was glad they had the instinct to get more Trump-supporting people on the air. I think that's something we all need to work on.

  But here was someone clearly over the line. Like, to be on our air and our newspapers, you got to have some intellectual credibility. You have to have some primary commitment to the truth and the truth above partisanship. And she was someone who clearly fails that test. I'm so old-fashioned that our founder here, Jim Lehrer, didn't vote. Like, he just thought, journalists, we don't do that.

  I don't go as far as Jim did. But I do think there's a difference between being a politico, which is, I admire them, and what we do. They — we talk of — we're supposed to be — represent the truth first and foremost and criticize the parties. And their job is to criticize them as to be partisan.

  Now, there are people who have gone from being a politico to being a journalist. George Stephanopoulos comes to mind and lots of people.

• William Brangham:

  Sure.

• David Brooks:

  But you got to have — you got to realize it's a different job with a different set of priorities, a different set of ethics.

  And to get somebody right off the RNC on the air as an analyst strikes me as just a gigantic mistake.

• William Brangham:

  I mean, you are an employee of NBC and MSNBC and an anchor on one of — the wonderful show on that network.

  How did you respond to this?

• Jonathan Capehart:

  Well, let's be clear that the Ronna McDaniel hiring was an NBC News hire. I'm at MSNBC. I'm not at NBC News.

  And when the announcement was made, e-mail came into the inbox. I sent an e-mail — from my team. I wrote in response, I want to be clear, she will never be on our show, for the exact reasons David talked about.

  It is — I have no — this is not a partisan issue. This was a democracy issue. Every week, Saturday and Sunday, there's at least one block on my show where we talk about either the threats to democracy, how democracy is at risk, the role Trump is playing at putting our democracy at risk,.

  To have someone come on my show, where my — first and foremost, no matter who's watching, my duty is to present the facts. The privilege I have is to be able to say, as an opinion writer and as a prospective host on MSNBC, is I get to say what I think about those facts that I have reported.

  It would do the show no good and it would do my viewers no favors and would be a disservice to put someone on like Ronna McDaniel.

  And I have to say that our president, Rashida Jones, made it very clear before — after it was announced, but before there was a story in The Wall Street Journal, made it very clear, we — you guys have editorial independence. You do not have…

• William Brangham:

  You choose if she comes on or not.

• Jonathan Capehart:

  Exactly.

  And that — she didn't have to tell me that. I knew that. That's what the leadership is like there. So I agree exactly with what David said. Ronna McDaniel had no business being a paid contributor at NBC.

• William Brangham:

  Yes, but, David, this gets to a point that journalists — a very difficult issue for a lot of journalists, which is, how do you represent this slice of the country, the MAGA slice of America, that believe fervently in the things that they believe, but yet it's very difficult to have a conversation with people if you can't even agree on simple facts, like who was legitimately elected?

• David Brooks:

  Yes.

  This is a problem decades in the making. So when I started as a police reporter in Chicago, there were tons of working-class guys there, and I guess, in my case, they tended to be guys, but they had no college degree. It became over the course of the decades that if you wanted to work in journalism, you had to have a college degree.

  And suddenly we're just slicing off the majority of the country, basically. And so those people felt their voice wasn't heard. And then so there's this populist revolt, and then now you have got a lot of people who are supportive of Donald Trump, but who violate our standards. They don't want to live up to the standards of just basic modesty or just honesty. We're just going to respect the truth.

  I do think there are a lot of people out there who would fit both bills, who are good journalists and support Donald Trump. There's a fine magazine called "Compact" magazine that's more populist. There's a place called the Claremont Institute in California that's more populist. I think they're out there.

  We just have to work harder, I think. I still think we have to work harder to find those people and give them — so their voices are heard.

• William Brangham:

  Jonathan, would you have had Ronna McDaniel on as a guest or someone like that as a guest?

  I mean, I know some of the issue was, she's being paid by my organization and she is sort of one of us. But, like, you're open to us as journalists talking to people who challenged the election, et cetera.

• Jonathan Capehart:

  Of course. Well, one, I'm not going to have someone on my air who's going to try to tell me that two plus two equals five. Like, I — that is the bare minimum.

  There's no evidence at all that the 2020 election was stolen from anyone.

• William Brangham:

  Right.

• Jonathan Capehart:

  And so if you don't meet that bar, there's no need for me to have you on my show. I'm not interested in having an argument.

  I'm interested in discussing the issues. I had former Governor — Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson my show twice. And I asked him on the air — he was running for president the first time. And I asked him the basic questions. Where are you on the 2020 election? Where are you on this? Where are you on that?

  And it was my first time asking him those questions, because I figured, if you're going to come on my show, you know where I'm coming from. I asked him those questions. He cleared those bars. And then we talked about policy, which, in the end, is what we're supposed to be talking about.

• William Brangham:

  Right. And you can disagree on policy…

• Jonathan Capehart:

  Of course.

• William Brangham:

  … and that's part of the process.

• Jonathan Capehart:

  Right.

• William Brangham:

  Just in the last minute or so we have left, Joe Lieberman's passing today has brought out all sorts of thoughts and feelings about whether moderates can live in this world and whether they have a future.

  I know you knew him well. Can you tell us a little bit about your time with him?

• David Brooks:

  Yes, my main memory, when I learned that he died, there's a tradition in Judaism where the husband is supposed to sing a song called "A Woman of Valor" to his wife at the Shabbat meal, the Friday night meal.

  And most of us don't do it because we don't like to hear ourselves sing.

  (Laughter)

• David Brooks:

  But Joe Lieberman would sing it to — I was over at his House a few times — would sing it to his wife, Hadassah. It was so sweet, it was so beautiful, just praising her at the end of each week. And he was just a sweet guy.

• William Brangham:

  Do you have any memories you want to share?

• Jonathan Capehart:

  Well, I mean, I didn't know the senator well, but I — as a journalist here in Washington, he would come in for ed board meetings, and just an all-around decent person, a person who was in the job for all the right reasons, trying to do the right thing, what was best for the party from his perspective, but also what was best for the country.

  And when Al Gore, Vice President Gore, chose him to be his vice presidential running mate in 2000, that was a huge moment. That was a huge moment certainly for him, but it was a huge moment for the country, because Senator Lieberman was the first Jewish American nominee of any party.

  And so, to me, that will be the senator's legacy.

• William Brangham:

  Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, so nice to see you. Thanks for being here.

• Jonathan Capehart:

  Thanks, William.