3:07
Today on the Playbook podcast: Republicans have a huge cash advantage heading into the midterm elections, but behind those impressive numbers lies a potentially bigger problem. Much of this money comes from a few megadonors, including Elon Musk, and Donald Trump remains the party's most powerful fundraising magnet. So what will happen to the Republican Party's financial machine when Trump is out of the White House? This is the main topic of the day. In the "Talk of the Town" column, Senator Ruben Gallego makes a last-ditch attempt to win the support of Latino voters in the York Governor Katie Gokul speaks with Jay Mart and discusses AOC's political future
, carefully avoiding answering questions about where she would be most effective. Plus, Adam Wren conducts our signature 200-second interview with Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha. He's trying to help two Democrats turn Texas "blue." Good morning, Playbookers. I'm Dasha Burns. Today is Tuesday, October 27th. To understand the main topic of the day, we invited Politico reporter Jessica Piper. Hello, Jessica. Thank you for inviting me. Jessica, one week. We have one week left. How are you feeling? One more week. It has been a long and arduous journey, but this is the end, and then it will only be the beginning of the 2028 cycle. So I'm
already getting ready for it. Well, exactly. So much is at stake now, and so many lessons have been learned from these midterm elections that the parties will take with them into 2028 and beyond. And I want to talk about this " further" because you wrote about the Republican Party's donor base. Listen, it seems like everywhere you look, everyone is talking about the costs of these midterm elections, because we're seeing astronomical numbers. Over the past two weeks, election campaigns have spent over a billion dollars. Well, let's start with that. This is crazy, Jessica.
Well, look, every midterm election cycle has been the most expensive in history for quite some time, even adjusted for inflation. And this year, it seems, will be no exception. This goes to show that both sides consider these elections very important. And both sides consider them very competitive. Therefore, they believe that if they have more money for advertising, mailings, and contact with voters, they will be able to win. It's always hard to say in the end whether the money mattered. Because both sides spend so much of it. But certainly people who work in politics believe that these costs are very important. So they will continue to do so. And there are a lot of people making big money in this midterm election cycle. It's funny, because it
seems to me that this time there was a kind of, you know, mantra, especially among Democrats: take money out of politics. And yet we see these record spending. But, you know, look, obviously the Republicans have the money advantage, and that's what's given them hope throughout this cycle. But your materials indicate that there is a certain nuance here. Tell us more about this What we saw throughout the cycle was that Republicans had a huge cash advantage, especially in super PACs, and to a lesser, but still significant, extent in party committees. So, the Republican National Committee, the Republican National Committee Republican National Committee in the Senate. And their advantage in these groups was largely due to large donors.
Think about super PACs, those people who can write a check for maybe a million dollars, or, in the case of Elon Musk, a check for $76 million in two weeks, and even more over the entire cycle. And even for party committees, you know, people who can donate tens of thousands of dollars, maybe a few hundred thousand dollars. And this provided a significant monetary advantage for the Republicans. But we also saw that Democrats candidate fundraising for almost the entire cycle. And this is a different situation, because there are very strict contribution limits for candidates. A candidate can receive up to $7,000 over the entire 2- year cycle, half of that for the primaries, half for the general election. Therefore, to raise a lot of
money, candidates need to have a much larger donor base than super PACs or party committees. And my latest reports show how small the Republican donor base has become especially when it comes to candidates, and that the Democratic donor base continues to grow slightly from cycle to cycle. So, this discrepancy explains many of the Republicans' problems with fundraising for candidates and raises many questions about how Republicans can change this situation in the future. Yeah, I mean, it's a little confusing because it seems a little contradictory when you think about this moment where Republicans are spending significantly more than Democrats. And you think: " No, the problem with money is not with the Republicans, it's
with the Democrats." But you start to dig a little deeper and realize, "Wait a minute, this might not be so reliable, depending on where things go and what this small group of donors decides to do." So was this a deliberate strategy on the part of the Republicans? Is this just a coincidence? Is this a personality problem? The people you spoke to behind the scenes, who did they point to as the reason they were in this position with this small but very influential donor base? Well, many of those I spoke to don't blame any one particular candidate, but say that Republican candidates in general are not investing in expanding their donor base.
Mhm. Are you saying this is a problem for the candidates? Yes. Republicans used to say that they don't have as good technology as Democrats, right? The Democrats had ActBlue, that was a huge advantage. Now, the Republicans I've talked to say, "No, we actually have WinRed, and it's become very good. The technology is there. The ability to distribute funds to different candidates is there. The ability to create different pages to attract different types of donors-all of that is there." But candidates are not using these technologies effectively enough and are not making the initial investment, effort to expand their lists and attract new donors.
Instead, according to the people I spoke to, candidates simply send a bunch of emails and texts to the same people without making any effort to expand that list. And when you bombard the same group of people over and over again, many of them get tired . Many people say, "I don't want to be on these lists. I don't want to give money. I don't want to get so many messages and emails all the time." And so this list is actually getting smaller, whereas for a successful fundraising program you would want it to get bigger and bigger. Of course. So what does this mean for people like, say, Vice President J.D. Vance and others who might be considering a That is, Trump will still be in the White House, but I can't imagine him being so involved and invested in a future
presidential campaign that isn't his own. And even looking further ahead, to 2030-2032, when Trump is truly gone, what does this mean for people thinking about the future of Well, many strategists argue that Republican candidates, and that certainly includes, say, Vice President Vance, Marco Rubio, or anyone thinking about the 2028 or 2032 presidential race, should invest in digital fundraising. They need to be innovative in how they communicate with donors, engaging them through social media and all these channels to try to bring new people into the ecosystem, and once engaged, especially online, make them repeat donors. Republicans I spoke to note that Trump, for various reasons, has proven to be very adept at this and has created a very good program. So, this
shows that it's entirely possible for a Republican candidate to engage with online donors in this way, but no one else has done it, so for candidates planning to advance in the party, this is the route to take. This is a time-tested principle that remains relevant today. OK. Thank you, Jessica. Thank you for inviting me. And now it's time for "Talk of the Town," where we discuss other stories shaking up Washington this morning, joined by Hello, Eli. Thank you for joining. Hello, thank you for inviting me. So, Eli. You have an exclusive -a great interview with Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego, who is really trying to rally Latino voters in the midterms. We talked a lot and reported in the Playbook how important
this demographic of voters will be given the events of 2024. Democrats are trying to win them over to their side. Republicans are trying to hold them back. He's a really interesting political figure because he came into politics on a progressive platform, but we've watched him shift to a more centrist position, and I'm curious what you learned from him about his theory on moderate Latino voters. Well, I think all of this is kind of a culmination of his speeches and campaign trips, and a continuation of the rhetoric he's been pushing for the last two years regarding Latino voters. He was really focused on becoming, as I wrote yesterday in
Playbook, one of the loudest voices when it comes to the with this disenfranchised working-class Latino voters who have begun to feel abandoned by the party, even if they voted for it or identified with it in previous years or even generations. So he's been sounding the alarm within the party for quite some time, and a lot of his theory is based on this aggressive economic populism that's completely focused on affordability, fighting corruption, and addressing the financial problems of Latino voters, which is something the party is really struggling with after the 2024 defeats within this coalition. Well, that's what Trump did in 2024. He approached them directly about this issue, and it worked.
Certainly, and part of what he told me during our conversation was that Latino voters felt abandoned by the Democrats in 2024. Now they feel abandoned by Donald Trump. I mean, look, we've seen that the Trump coalition of 2024 is not necessarily the Trump- Republican coalition of 2026. Democrats are clearly trying to take advantage of this. Look at Texas, where the Republican was based entirely on voters who came to the 2024 presidential election but who won't necessarily be the same, and that could have a huge impact. We see this happening in the Senate race, but we also see
it in the gubernatorial race, where Gina Hinojosa, a Democrat, a Latina, is running for these voters, and she told me that she doesn't consider herself a progressive, but rather an economic populist. This campaign wasn't really about economic opportunity for Texans. This campaign is a return to basics. We do not participate in culture wars. We're talking about how we're going to work for Texans, how we're going to make life easier for working families. So , in that sense, I think the way forward for Democrats is to focus on economic issues and not give in to provocations in the culture wars, because in Texas in 2026, that's all Greg Abbott has.
Gallego is trying to do. Um, how did Gallego fare in the Texas gubernatorial race? And do you see from your reporting on the ground this economic populism, this shift in democratic progressive rhetoric? Do you see this as a potentially winning strategy for Latino voters? Well, in terms of Texas, I mean, Gina Inohosa's gubernatorial campaign has become a kind of proxy for all the potential 2028 Democratic candidates. There was some controversy there about how much money was going to her campaign and how much was n't. Gallego was very clear in his support for Inojosa from the beginning. His team was very emphatic about this during yesterday's exclusive, that he supported her every step of the way. He signed a letter urging the Democratic Governors Association to send
her more funds. Led by likely 2028 candidate Andy Beshear. Led by the likely candidate of 2028. But the sentiment in Texas, I mean, Texas continues to be one of the most interesting places to watch in this cycle. Less than two weeks ago, I was in the Rio Grande Valley, where I heard from voters about widespread dissatisfaction with the state of the economy and the state of immigration policy. And both Democrats and Republicans are trying to figure out how to communicate this to a coalition that is increasingly disoriented, as some strategists in both parties describe it. OK. Ellie, while you're with me, I want to hear your thoughts on the excerpt from the interview with RJ Mart. He met with New York Governor Katie Gokul for his latest episode of "On the Road."
Listen to this. So what do you think her future holds? AOC? I mean, of course she could run for Senate or for president. can do whatever he wants, but I'll just say that we Well, where would she be most effective, do you think? Um, she'll go wherever she wants. But you know politics well. You worked as an employee, you served in local politics, in state politics. Tell me where you think she could be most effective, knowing her talents and weaknesses. Yes. You won't get an answer to this question from me. You are very smart, you are good, but I am not going to say you know your stuff.
I know my stuff, I've been in this business for a long time and have worked at every level of government. That's why I'm asking you. But I believe it gives a voice to people who feel like no one has heard them. I asked her to travel the state, engage young people, gather crowds, and that's exactly what she's doing here and across the country. Uh, that's real talent. Listen, um, AOC and Katie Gokul have not historically been like-minded. They didn't always agree, but they found common ground on data centers. And look, Gokul didn't go on to say what AOC's political future should be, whether she thinks it's the Senate or the
2028 presidential race, but it seems like she thinks AOC is a very skilled politician who can rally young people, which is very important for the Democratic Party Yes, and what's fascinating about people like AOC is their example of economic populism, as well as their ability to build and rally coalitions. She has spoken many times, especially in recent years, about voters demonstrating a kind of transitional electoral choice between her and someone like Donald Trump. We're seeing early voting results in key states, including Texas, that young voters, especially young Latinos, are really starting to get active. So someone like her, her manner of communicating during the campaign, even in the coming days, and the way she brings
these people together, is certainly worth noting. Yes, Ali, regarding your point about the " transitional" voter: first, we literally saw this in the presidential election with Bernie Sanders, who is, of course, the same " pioneer" in whose footsteps AOC is following, in her own way. But even President Trump said he liked AOC. Hmm, it's.well, you could say that "a friend sees his friend from afar." Like someone else who is very skilled at using the internet, who knows how to genuinely communicate with voters, who knows how to attract people, who is essentially a true artist at heart and understands his audience. Trump certainly understands his own. Hmm, that's a pretty fascinating comparison, like two screens in one, if you look
at them both. also interesting to see how the old guard of the Democratic Party interacts with figures like AOC, especially now that people are emerging in the party who are more to the left of it- like Abdul El- Sayed, Andy Nixon in Florida, and some of the DSA candidates who are likely to join the Democrats in Congress next year. Hokul accepts AOC while others still try to keep their distance. But these dynamics, I think, will be extremely interesting, Eli, once we have a new Congress with people both to the right and to the left of AOC in the Democratic Party Of course, yes. And that will be worth keeping an eye on, especially as we start to think about the broader progressive goal after the midterms and whether they can become the 2028-level players that
many progressive strategists tell me they want to be. We'll see how much lasting coalition power AOC has compared to a candidate like Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan, if he can win, and whether it will cause conflicts even within the progressive wing itself. Ellie Bianco, thank you for joining the podcast. Yes, thank you for inviting me. You can listen to the full episode of "On the Road with Jonathan Martin" today on YouTube or on any platform where you listen to podcasts. Before we say goodbye, we offer a 200- second interview with Democratic political strategist Chuck Rocha, who has worked with both James Talarico and Gina Hinojosa; Amren presents us with this interview, here it is I start my timer. So, are you ready, Chuck?
Let's do this. Okay, let's start, attention, let's go. Chuck, it's great to have you join the Playbook podcast. 200- second interview, let's get straight to the point. Let's talk about Texas, your home state. If James Talarico wins on election night, and you advised him, what would be the reasons for his victory? Because he started talking to voters early, continuously, and demonstrated cultural competence about Texas by visiting rural areas with farmers, driving into the valley. One of the most underrated things is that James has probably spent more money on Hispanic advertising than any other candidate in the history of Texas politics. And if he loses,
what will be the reasons for his defeat? I think it will happen because of the influx of money from Elon Musk at the end, which had a bigger impact than we realize now, but such a large amount spent at the same time is bound to have an effect. I just don't think this effect is big enough to stop us from moving towards the finish line. Will Jasmine Crockett take some of the blame for not helping to rally enough black voters in the end? No, we love Jasmine. everything about Jasmine. One thing that will be talked about little in this race is that James Tyler Rico has hired more black consultants, spent more money on black media, and has more black operatives in major cities working for him
than anyone else. My prediction: He will do better among African-American voters than Colin Allred. Besides his Senate race, what other key race in Texas is catching your eye at the finish line? It's easy to say "Bobby Palito," my boy Bobby, but I think Bobby will win pretty easily. I'm following the 35th district again. To be clear: we are working in all five South Texas redistricting districts, and I think we will win in all five. But keep an eye on Sheriff Johnny Garcia in the newly created 35th District, which surrounds San Antonio. He is running a great campaign against Monica De La Cruz's brother. And when you talk about these redistricting districts what do you think the net impact
of this "arms race " in redistricting, especially in Texas, will be on election night? A net positive for Democrats or a net negative? This will be positive. They thought they would redraw five new seats, but they might end up winning two of them and losing three. Mainly because of this huge shift among Latino voters. Latino voters are now becoming the new "soccer moms" of American politics. They are wavering between elections, but now they are running out of patience and confidently blaming the Republicans.
And outside of Texas, which race do you think is the most important? Bobby, I mean the Valadeo race in the Central Valley. I think Randy Viakis can defeat the only remaining representative who voted for impeachment and who wins and exceeds expectations every time. I think Randy Viakis' race in California is one to watch, and my hat's off to the Democratic leadership this year-Jeffries and Aguilar. They have really made significant strides in investing in Latino communities in Texas, in California's 22nd district, and in other regions of the country to bring those voters back. There is a reason for this.
This is great. Well, Chuck, thank you very much for joining us. Thank you for inviting me. Well done, Adam Wren, you put in the time like a true podcaster. I am very proud. Okay, friends, that's all for today. As always, you can find more news and analysis in today's Playbook at politico.com/playbook. And while you're there, find us, subscribe, and rate us wherever you listen to podcasts so you don't miss an episode. We will be back tomorrow. Have a nice day.
