Summary
SpaceX launches the first all-civilian crew into the space. Governor Gavin Newsom survived the recall election by a wide margin. California recall election shows us that handling the pandemic is a winning issue for Democrats. According to the book Peril, Gen. Milley feared former President Trump was in mental decline and might start a nuclear war after the election.
Transcript
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Think about how many situations that applies to, yet precious few ever did, far too late. And that is the absolute worst.
And that`s tonight`s REIDOUT. Chris Hayes is up next, Chris?
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: That was excellent, by the way. Good evening from New York. We are going to get to ALL IN in just a moment. We`ve got a ton to talk about after the Democrats runaway victory in California last night. But as you can see, from the words of the bottom of this screen that just flashed across, we`ve got some breaking news to cover this evening before we get to that. Because in just a few minutes, the very first all-civilian spaceflight is going to take off from Launch Pad 39A at Cape Canaveral, Florida.
Now, you probably have seen whether you`re a space person or not that earlier this summer, we had billionaires Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson within I think a few weeks of each other, launching themselves into space in air quotes. They went to the very lowest part of what is considered space where they were briefly weightless for a few minutes, and then they returned, which you know, that`s cool, whatever.
This is not that though. This is actually a genuine honest-to-God actual space mission. The SpaceX rocket is going to launch four amateur astronauts, although one does include a billionaire -- don`t you worry, we`re getting another billionaire in space. They`re going to go into orbit almost 360 miles above Earth, higher than the orbit of the International Space Station. The crew is composed entirely of civilians.
There is, as I said, a billionaire who funded the trip, also a physician`s assistant from St. Jude Research Center, a data engineer and a geoscience professor who is nearly selected for the astronaut program 12 years ago, getting a very cool second chance. Those don`t usually happen.
So, what we`re going to witness basically is the closest thing that we`ve ever seen here in the U.S. at least to the kind of dream that we were sold as children, right, the futuristic dream of space travel available to normal people, non trained astronauts, people being able to just get on a rocket ship engaged in space travel for the first time.
Cal Perry joins me live from Cape Canaveral where he is standing by to watch the launch. Cal, what are we going to see here?
CAL PERRY, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Chris. So, this rockets going to take them at over 17,500 miles an hour when it will detach, returned to Earth on a drone ship, a second rocket will push them into orbit. And this crew should be orbiting the Earth 15 times a day in the next three days, truly a historic moment, Chris.
I think we`re going to get very close right now. I think they`re about to take off, so standby. We`re getting pretty close to launch time and I think we should listen into the SpaceX live stream.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Inspiration4 is go for launch.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Commander (INAUDIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: 30 seconds.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Punching SpaceX.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Be advised, 15 seconds, ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one.
CROWD: Ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Go Dragons, go Falcons, God speed Inspiration4.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Copy one alpha.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Vehicle is pitching downrange.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stage one (INAUDIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Friendships for copy one alpha vehicles pitching downrange
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: T plus 30 seconds. (INAUDIBLE). Historic mission for the Inspiration4 crew on board (INAUDIBLE) We`re into the throttle down into the throttle bucket.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) on throttle down.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Throttling down in preparation for the period of maximum dynamic pressure. (INAUDIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) supersonic.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stage one throttle up.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re through the period of maximum dynamic pressure.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Copy one bravo.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re throttled back up and one bravo, the call out from space. That`s one of the abort sequences. That is a normal call. Everything continues to be good. It looks like a smooth ride for the crew.
(APPLAUD)
[20:05:35]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) We begin to get the total (INAUDIBLE) on the second stage engine for ignition. We`re passing through three 3G acceleration where it continues to look volatile.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stage one (INAUDIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) throttling down for G limiting. 4G, so we`re holding it there for the crew. Major event coming up will be main engine cutoff followed by stage separation, looking at the second stage engine nozzle, and then ignition of the second stage.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And (INAUDIBLE)
(APPLAUD)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) and we can see in your screen on the right hand side the second stage has ignited (INAUDIBLE) engine. I`m sure the crew felt another kick in the G`s there as it ignited. Officially, the Inspiration4 crew are now on their way to space. First stage booster there on the left hand side of your screen is making its way back down to earth, the grid fins have popped out to assist with the steering. It will be making a landing attempt on our drone ship. Just read the instructions which is parked out. I`m holding position in the Atlantic Ocean. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, so we have a couple of views on screen.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Acquisition of signal, Bermuda.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As Kate mentioned, left hand side is the view from the top of our first stage looking down. That has already separated from the second stage. And it`s making its way back to Earth. The velocity of the first stage --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) SpaceX trajectory nominal.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- is being tracked on the bottom left-hand side of your screen. On the right-hand side of your screen is a view of our second stage of Merlin vacuum engine. On the opposite end of that engine is the second stage and the crew which sits on top of the second stage, everything looks to be going normal -- normally with them. And you can also track the velocity on the second stage on the bottom right-hand side of the screen. We also have awesome views of the crew inside of the capsule as well.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m pretty sure during first stages --
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HAYES: All right, so that -- all civilian crew appears to be in space, basically, it took them about two minutes and 40 seconds to get there. Cal, I think you`re still there. So, so far so good. I don`t really understand what I just saw. Can you explain what I just saw?
PERRY: I will certainly do my best. So, this is a two-stage rocket. What that means basically is the bottom bit of the rocket fires first. That gets them almost all the way through that orbit, right? So, that gives them the power at 17,500 miles an hour to get out of orbit, to get past where Branson went, to get past where Bezos went.
HAYES: Right.
PERRY: No offense there. That`s just the reality of what we`re talking about. The second stage rocket which can be fired multiple times, by the way, is what is now going to carry them to their orbit of 357 miles around the Earth. What makes SpaceX different is that they reuse these rockets.
The rocket that just carried four civilians, the new for American astronauts into space has already been used twice. It put two military satellites into space already. And I am watching it returned to Earth which is completely wild. It looks like an upside-down flashlight in the sky. And I can see it returning to what will be a drone ship out to sea.
The other thing that they reuse is the actual capsule that these four astronauts are now riding in. This capsule has been to the International Space Station. Right now, SpaceX is your only way on or off the International Space Station. They are the main contractor for NASA. That is why we are here at Cape Canaveral. Nobody does it better than they do. And they`re showing it today with again, what is an automated system, Chris.
So, in theory, the way that this is going to work is that hopefully in the near future, you and I could get on this rocket with no training and not have to press any buttons. We go 357 miles above the Earth, we rotate for three days, we go 15 times around the Earth every day. We come back down, splashdown in the Atlantic, and they control everything from California. That`s the technology that we`re watching right now.
HAYES: That`s a -- that`s a no for me, dog. But yes, I would -- you, I would -- I would root you on, Cal, to do that. I guess --
[20:10:06]
PERRY: Pass.
HAYES: So, from an engine -- I mean, there`s something intriguing theoretically, but I guess from an engineering perspective, the -- so the problem, right, to getting to something like routine civilian spaceflight exploration that SpaceX has been trying to solve is that rocket issue, right, is the cost issue. And one of them is reusing the rocket.
So, the first rocket fell away, the old model, the one that not NASA uses, as they don`t reuse them, SpaceX took a lot of trial and error to get to the point where they can reuse them. So, that thing is now coming back and is going to land on you said a drone ship. What`s that?
PERRY: So, it`s an automated ship that`s floating off the coast of Florida, somewhere in the Atlantic. It is not controlled on-site. The ship is controlled somewhere from again, California. Hawthorne, California is where SpaceX bases, their operations. But that was the game-changer. I mean, you`re absolutely right.
And in your intro, when you said, what makes this different is that at SpaceX -- what makes SpaceX different is that they can re land these rockets, saving tens of millions of dollars. And to give you an idea of how difficult that is, they first did this a decade ago, and no one`s done it since, right? They`re still the only company that does it. You may have seen, and I think we`re actually watching it now come back down. We`re getting close.
HAYES: Yes. Is that -- I think the one on the --
PERRY: You may have seen --
HAYES: Just so that I`m clear, the view I think that were on the left as we take SpaceX`s proprietary feed here, is that -- am I looking down the barrel of that booster rocket which is now no longer in view.
PERRY: Exactly. There it is. I think -- I think it may have just touched down. We`ll get confirmation on that, but I think that if the rockets went off, it may be down. We`ll get confirmation on that. We`re watching this together.
The one on the right, what you`re seeing now, that`s definitely that second booster rocket. And again, they can fire it multiple times if they need to. But again, just sort of to keep where we`re talking about. It is the reusing of these materials that makes it cheap enough to hopefully in the future open the door to more of this space "tourism."
And again, you know, SpaceX, their next goal in January, they`re trying to get four civilians on to the International Space Station. So, they`re trying to take some of the specialty out of this. They`re trying to open it up to everybody.
HAYES: I`m a little skeptical that`s going to happen. But let`s listen for a second to their -- to their control room.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Second engine cut off, and then we`ll wait for the confirmation of good orbit. At the same time, the first stage will be beginning of landing burn. And here we have the (INAUDIBLE). We just saw that it (INAUDIBLE) engine.
(APPLAUSE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right, good news there. The nominal orbit insertion, that`s amazing leap for Inspiration4 crew.
(APPLAUSE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) the doorstep of an exciting and unexplored frontier. So, if you have come before, and many are about to follow, the door is open. It`s pretty incredible.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stage one, landing is complete.
(APPLAUSE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We just heard from Jared thanking everyone for making this mission possible.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Dragon capsule and crew are in a nominal orbit. In a few minutes here, we`ll begin opening that -- excuse me, in a few minutes here, we`ll separate from the second stage, and then shortly after that, we`ll begin opening that nose cone. At the same time, we landed our first stage on the drone ship which is super exciting.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As if -- as if the second stage of action wasn`t exciting enough. So, there`s that back engine like we mentioned before. It has already shut down in an event known as second engine cut-off. And the crew are now --
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HAYES: All right, so Cal, it sounds like the first booster landed successfully, our civilian crew look happy and healthy as they are about to separate from the second booster and enter into actual space orbit. The folks at SpaceX understandably, who worked very hard on this, are very happy that their rocket has come back, there tens of millions of dollars- worth of rocket has come back. And they`re going to -- and then they`re just going to chill up there for three days in orbit?
PERRY: Yes. They`re going to run some experiments, but these are all experiments designed to see if you and I could go to space, right? To see if people who do not have either the scientific training, that mathematical education, or are not astronauts, that we could get into a capsule and that we could circle the earth.
Two of these crew members, Chris, six months ago, weren`t even trying to go to space. One basically won a lottery and was able to go, and the other person was called out of the blue and said, would you like to go to space? And that`s what SpaceX is going forward. They`re trying to show people that this can be done by ordinary citizens.
I think you and I both know, there`s a great many cost barriers that still lie in that way. And there are a number of other options. SpaceX, I think, is trying to get into this space tourism industry. But again, the big picture on SpaceX here is that they are resupplying the ISS. They are starting a satellite mesh system that will surround the planet and give internet to everybody.
So, SpaceX has a much broader goal than just space tourism. Elon Musk`s stated goal is to make humans and humanity an interplanetary species. Again, a long way to go, but that is the vision and they view this as a small step sort of along that road.
[20:15:53]
HAYES: All right, they appear to now be an orbit. The cost, at least reportedly, Jared Isaacman is the billionaire who paid for this, which again, bucket list sort of thing. And when you`ve -- you know, run out of other things spend money on. He reportedly paid $200 million, which is a lot of money. But, you know, costs start out high. And I guess they get lower over time. Although what exactly we`ll do up there remains a little obscure to me.
Cal Perry, thank you so much for monitoring that for us. That was -- I`m glad that worked out.
PERRY: Yes, I am too. Thank you, Chris. Just before I go, very quickly, one thing we should mention that does make this different also, St. Jude`s Children`s Research, kids with cancer, they want to raise $200 million. We`ll see if they get there. They`re somewhere between about$ 120 million to 200. They`re taking a bunch of stuff with them to space that they`re going to try to auction off for that purpose.
HAYES: All right, Cal, thanks a lot. I really appreciate it.
All right, up next, we will begin ALL IN with the decisive results out of California. Republicans got absolutely shellacked in the recall election. What it means for the longevity of Trumpism next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:20:00]
HAYES: All right, at this time last night, when I last was speaking to you, we were awaiting the results of the recall vote of Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom of California, and there was some real nervousness among Democrats and Democratic strategists.
Now, I think it was not entirely unjustified, right? The poll showed that Newsome was going to win the recall effort most likely, but there was this healthy dose of what we might call historically based apprehension in the air because of what happened the last time we had a first-term Democratic president in office.
I was there, I covered it, you probably remember too. In Barack Obama`s first year in office, we sought to seismic elections that hearkened as warning signs of what was to come in American politics. Both of them were sort of the precursor or part of the Tea Party movement, the rightward swing of the electorate that led to the 2010 Midterms and the redistricting and the intense backlash politics that would go on in many ways to shape the current Republican Party.
The first of those big sort of bombshell elections was in the very blue state of New Jersey, right? Barack Obama won that state in 2008 by more than 15 points, and the very next year, 10 months since the Obama administration, Republican Chris Christie prevailed over the incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine. And at the time, a lot of people understandably and probably rightly saw that as a direct blow to Obama.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: New Jersey voters also elected a Republican governor last night, Republican Chris Christie, unseated Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine. Some GOP members say the results show that voters are fed up with the Obama administration agenda. But the White House says the election was not a referendum on the president or his policies and that the tough economy made this election difficult.
HAYES: Probably some truth in both of those interpretations. But the even greater blow to Democrats came that next January. And that came with the special election for Ted Kennedy`s Senate seat following his death in August of 2009.
Now, this was Massachusetts, right? It`s a state that`s similar to California in how dominated by the Democratic Party it is and in the perception that it`s an enduring Democratic stronghold. And Ted Kennedy was basically the kind of patriarch of the Democratic Party, right? I mean, the last living zion of those brothers. And it made the republican Scott Brown`s victory over the Democrat Martha Coakley even more earth- shattering.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIAN WILLIAMS, MSNBC HOST: The development that may affect this nation`s foreign policy, health care policy, perhaps the remainder of the Obama presidency.
Chuck, it`s hard to believe it happens on the one-year anniversary of the swearing-in of President Obama.
CHUCK TODD, MSNBC HOST: It`s almost like a Hollywood plot twist. You know, the name Martha Coakley may someday be simply a footnote in history, but in Washington today, for the president, she stood for a symbol of voter anger.
HAYES: Scott Brown winning Ted Kennedy`s liberal Massachusetts Senate seat in January 2010 before the midterms in November was seen not only as a huge upset, but also again, a referendum on President Obama`s agenda. As was Chris Christie`s win the year before that.
Now, it`s 10 years later. Partisanship has become more predictive in American politics, right, especially as America has become more and more polarized. But nothing is preordained in politics and crazy things happen. Opinions change. And there`s this very well-known model of this that imagines public opinion like a thermostat, right? When the public perceives the temperatures being too hot, the government`s doing too much, spending or activism, they tell the politicians to turn it down.
Vice versa, if it seems too cold, the public is always moving in opposition to the party that`s controlling the White House. And this is a fairly reliable phenomenon. We saw this happen in Barack Obama`s first term. Part of that produced the Tea Party, those huge midterm victories. We saw it happen to Donald Trump, right, when democrats swept-back control the House in 2018.
And because this is a reliable thing -- I mean, you don`t even have the like -- people like FDR and LBJ right, there`s some evidence has happened a bit with Joe Biden. But if we follow the historical precedent here, the reason that there was this kind of air of anxiety and view last night`s recall election in California both as a referendum on the first eight months of the Biden administration, and is the first big test of the enduring effects of Trumpism without Trump on the ballot, the results are not even close.
I mean, given this phenomenon, I was just talking about thermostatic public opinion it`s called in political science, the fact that we are 18 months into a pandemic we hope would left behind by now, I personally as I was reading the tea leaves on this and covering this race, was fully prepared for a less decisive outcome.
I mean, it seemed pretty clear from the polling that Newsome would prevail in the recall, he would not be recalled, but it really wouldn`t have been surprising if he won by 10 or you know, 12 points. But it turned out to be much, much more unambiguous. It was a resounding whooping butt-kicking blowout.
[20:25:18]
The Republican Party and the recall effort were destroyed, repudiated, humiliated. As the result currently stand, voters said Governor Newsom should not be removed by a margin of more than 27 points, 63.9 to 36.1. Now, that is what 7 percent of the vote in, so as we get the rest, we think that margin may narrow bit based on who voted when.
But remember, the benchmark here is Gavin Newsom`s initial election in 2018. Again, that was a strong year for Democrats. And in that year, Newsome won with a 23-point margin. So, to go through the first two and a half years of your administration, by the way, during a once in a century pandemic and a huge recession, right, and to have lost no support, is basically the opposite of what we saw happen in 2009 with those Chris Christie and Scott Brown elections in those so-called referendums on Barack Obama.
Gavin Newsom`s recall results are referendum on Biden is very good for the President. If this election was a referendum on Trumpism and Newsom and Democrats tried to make it into one, it is very good for Democrats. And if it was a referendum on Gavin Newsom`s, you know, so-called tax and spend liberalism, well, it`s very good for tax and spend liberalism and for the governor.
Now, keep in mind, this election was about a lot of things. COVID safety and recovery are huge issues. Democrats clearly leaned into that. Former President Barack Obama, in fact, sent that message in this campaign that he recorded for the anti-recall effort.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Governor Newsom has spent the past year and a half protecting California communities. Now, Republicans are trying to recall him from office and overturn common sense COVID safety measures for health care workers and school staff. Your vote could be the difference between protecting our kids and putting them at risk, helping Californians recover or taking us backwards.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: That`s a 32nd spot in which there`s one issue that Barack Obama wants you to vote on, right, COVID restrictions. The recall election was also about former President Trump and Trumpism and the big lie. In fact, Newsom himself referenced the danger that off in the campaign trail and again last night.
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): I think about just in the last few days, and the former President put out saying this election was rigged. Democracy is not a football. You don`t throw it around. It`s more like, I don`t know, antique vase. You can drop it and it smashes into a million different pieces. And that`s what we`re capable of doing if you don`t stand up to meet the moment and push back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Somewhat tempted to recall that metaphor, but ultimately, this election is about the nature of the Republican Party right now, I think, and how it cannot reach certain portions of Americans, huge swaths. It just failing to reach them, isn`t even trying to.
My very favorite anonymous dog on Twitter, Southpaw, pointed out that the only reason that Republicans went for the recall in the first place is because it gave them a shot at a fluke outcome they otherwise had no shot at, because they are so unpopular in the state there are -- there are a rump caucus.
When both parties are serious contenders in California`s ordinary elections, the recall isn`t too attractive. They have better uses for their money and their own officeholders to protect. But for California Republicans who are mostly hopeless in elections, utterly shut out of government, it looks pretty good. So, that`s what happened here. The California GOP lacking better options tried to shoot the moon.
Now, Republicans put up a bunch of candidates in this race. And the most plausible, right, from a resume standpoint in terms of the state was the former mayor of San Diego, that guy, a guy by the name of Kevin Faulconer. And, you know, for Republicans, he`s a -- he`s a moderate. He supports a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. He describes himself as pro-choice, which all of that sounds like a potentially attractive candidate in California, which is a pretty liberal state, Democratic- dominated. How`d he do? Well, not well.
He did not even get 10 percent of the vote. He came in third among the candidates trying to replace governor Newsome with just 8.6 percent because here`s the problem. The Republicans who came out to vote in the recall, they don`t want someone like Kevin Faulconer who`s actually governed and there`s a plausible statewide candidate. No, no, no, no, that`s not what they want.
They want the right-wing radio host, Larry elder who got 46.8 percent of the vote. That`s the problem. The Republican Party base wants a right-wing radio host who opposes the minimum wage, has no government experience. They want him to run the fifth largest economy in the world. The citizens of that state, California, do not want that by any means. That`s the state of the Republican Party right now. That`s dilemma they face.
[20:30:01]
Katie Hill is a former Democratic Congresswoman from California. She`s founder of Her Time, a political action committee supporting women in politics and the author of She Will Rise: Becoming a Warrior in the Battle for True Equality. And Stuart Stevens is a veteran of five Republican presidential campaigns. He also happened to work on Chris Christie`s 2009 gubernatorial race. He`s author of It Was All A Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump. And they both join me now.
Stuart, I`m going to start with you as someone who`s running a lot of races. And one thing I think it`s important when you`re analyzing elections is there`s you know, who wins and loses, which matters a lot for the governing perspective, but if you`re trying to look at trends, you know, there are -- there are losses that are good losses. You know, if things swing eight points towards one party from the last time, but you still come up short, you can say, hey, we made some ground here.
I remember Jon Ossoff`s special election, that first big one down in Georgia. You know, he didn`t win, but clearly there was some movement. I don`t think you can find a single silver lining in this result for the Republican Party, honestly.
STUART STEVENS, ADVISER, THE LINCOLN PROJECT: Now, you know, it wasn`t that long ago where California was the beating heart of the Republican Party. It was the ideological heart. It was the Electoral College citadel. And now the party bounces between third and second place. Independence, knocked down the third place often. And more importantly, the party doesn`t have any role in any major decisions that are made about how to govern California.
And you`re absolutely right. They do crazy stuff like this. It`s really a classic race about Nihilism. There was nothing this race was about except what Newsom had done too much to protect the citizens of California. So, sort of like a referendum on death. I mean, I`m glad death lost, but what does it say about a party? There`s really no ideas there.
I mean, this is a party that once prided itself on saying, we are the party of ideas. It was absolutely no ideas at all.
HAYES: Katie, you had represented -- you won a swing district, the 25th district in California. It`s a swing district. And the -- your successor is a Republican. Joe Biden carry the district. Republican Mike Garcia also now represents that district. By the way, Mike Garcia who voted against ceding the electors, one of the first things he did in Congress, which is shocking to me. The no won your old district by nine points, which I think is really interesting. What does that say to you about the politics of this, about the politics of this moment in a district that is a swing district?
KATIE HILL, FOUNDER, HER TIME: I mean, I think what it really shows you is that the Republican Party, the way that it is, is it`s a -- it`s a lost cause in California, and it`s a lost cause in moderate areas. So when you have candidates that truly embrace this Trump ideology, this ideology of, frankly, insanity. I mean, I don`t honestly don`t know another way to put it. Then that`s not going to succeed in areas where most people are reasonable.
What I fear in what happened with Mike Garcia is he did not run as a crazy person, right? That wasn`t the way that voters were turned on him in the first place. And I think that we are really going to have to watch this as we go into the midterms. The thing that will kill Republicans as they have the best odds going into getting the House again is their own primaries.
And if their base continues to try and put forward people who are lunatics, then that`s not going to be successful. So, you know, it really is a matter of whether they`re able to gerrymander and redistrict into capturing that anyway, but if they keep putting forward people like Larry Elder, by their own base`s choosing, then it`s not going to work.
HAYES: Yes, the Elder- Faulconer story to me, Stuart, is such a story about the modern Republican Party, because again, Faulconer -- here`s a guy who`s a big city mayor. You know, if you were to draw up a, you know, a plausible resume for who -- you know, conjure a Republican that might have a shot in a statewide general election in California, you know, he sort of matches. But there`s just zero desire for that dude in the Republican base, none whatsoever. And if there`s none there, then like you can`t actually get people like that elected to important positions.
STEVENS: Yes, look, the Republican Party is not about governing. It`s not a classic political party now that has a different ideological view from the other party, and you`re going to argue out this ideology. It`s really a party that exists to elect Republicans sort of, for the sake of power for power`s sake.
I mean, I worked in this party for 30 years, center-right. If you held a gun to my head and said, what does it mean to be a conservative in America today, I`d say shoot me. I have no idea. I mean, there`s no -- there`s nothing there. So, it becomes this kind of race to the bottom. And it`s the fact -- the position now of the Republican Party is that we don`t live in a democracy, that President Biden was not legally elected, which means we live in an occupied country.
I mean, just wrap your mind around that. That didn`t happen since what 1860 and that didn`t turn out so well.
[20:35:10]
HAYES: Katie, you said -- I mean, the way -- the path forward to Republicans for -- in those districts like CA25 and others, right, is basically to kind of run Kevin Faulconer style candidates who could then go and join basically Larry Elder caucus, which is to say like, to run frontline folks in those districts who might be amenable to the district who are then going to, you know, basically vote for Kevin McCarthy for speaker and a Republican agenda that`s going to be run by the Paul Gosars of the world, frankly. And that seems to me --
HILL: The problem is that --
HAYES: Yes, that`s the message it seems to me that -- for Democrats in the Midterms.
HILL: Yes. I mean, I think the problem is going to be for Republicans that their own base is going to vote in these primaries, and you`re going to see Trump weighing in on some of these Republican primaries. And frankly, the best thing that we as Democrats can hope for is that they just outdo themselves on going to the right. Not even to the right. The right seems like there`s an actual direction in place, but there`s not, right? Like, there`s not an actual position that they`re taking except for you know, exactly what you`re saying before.
HAYES: Right.
HILL: So, I think I think what we really have to hope for, but we can`t count on, is that Republicans are going to nominate really wacky candidates in these swing districts. And then, we still have to have the organization in place and the infrastructure in place to turn out the vote with the same numbers that we saw in this recall attempts where we got Democrats out to vote, where we got people out to vote in 2018, and took over the House in the first place.
We`re going to have to see that same kind of turnout specifically in these swing districts that are really, really vulnerable because of the way that redistricting is going to play out, and especially gerrymandering in so many states.
HAYES: Yes, it`s a great point. And that that point about turnout is also really interesting. It was a very high-turnout election which again, you wouldn`t have necessarily banked on going into this if you`re looking say six weeks ago. Katie Hill, Stuart Stevens whose book It Was All A Lie out in paperback today, thank you both. That was great.
STEVENS: Thank you.
HAYES: All right, the recall effort was obviously a disaster for the Republican Party and Trumpism. We`re going to take a look at what the blowout results in California mean for the politics of COVID specifically next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:40:00]
HAYES: Pretty little secret about the effort to recall California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom is that it started before any of the punitive reasons they said they were doing it at least later, right? The recall effort got underway in February 2020 before COVID had taken hold in California. The petition reads, people in this state suffer the highest taxes in the nation, the highest homelessness rates, the lowest quality of life as a result.
Continuing, he has imposed sanctuary state status and fails to enforce immigration laws. He unilaterally overruled the will of the people regarding the death penalty. He seeks to impose additional burdens on rationing our water use, increasing taxes and restricting parental rights.
Well, that`s not really a platform for your mainstream California voter. Once it got going, however, the people pushing the recall shifted. They wanted it to then be a referendum on COVID policy, arguing the lockdowns were too strict, that kid should have been back in schools in-person, and it was Newsom`s fault they weren`t.
And of course, there were infamously the pictures of Governor Newsom back in November last year unmasked at a fancy restaurant with a lobbyist evidently ignoring his own lockdown protocols, which was exceedingly bad luck. So, Republicans across the country saw this as a winning issue. And well, I agree the issue of Coronavirus and restrictions and how to best battle it is top of mind right now. What this recall election shows us is that the state of California and its voters are actually in favor of the state`s COVID policies and Republicans are on the wrong side of it.
Perry Bacon is a Columnist for The Washington Post who wrote about this in his most recent opinion piece titled Newsom`s winning recall strategy offers a playbook for Democrats in 2022. And he joins me now. Perry, give me -- give me your thesis here on what the playbook is and how it relates to COVID.
PERRY BACON JR., COLUMNIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: The idea is basically particularly in a Democratic -- running against Trumpism essentially has worked in 2018, worked in 2020, and you know, sort of casting Larry Elder as a mini Trump seems that increased turnout. And one reason for that, you know, that`s playing in a sort of negative partisanship dynamics. But right now, that plays into COVID too.
In 2020, I think one reason maybe Trump did not do as well, as poorly as I thought he might base in the early polls, was 2020 was about lockdown, school not being open. That was not -- that was COVID, but it was -- but it was honestly advantage to Democrats. It was not clear what that was.
2021 right now is mask and vaccinations. Are you for masks, are you for vaccinations?
HAYES: Right.
BACON: And that`s a clear issue where not only in California, but in Florida, in Texas, in a lot of other states, the Democratic pro-mask, pro- vaccine position is popular right now. So, if you can run against Trumpism, particularly if Trumpism is anti-masks, anti-vaccines, it`s probably unlikely to be 2022 exactly on the terrain.
But running in an anti-Trump ism is a good approach. And if the Republicans are still avoid -- still opposed to basic COVID mitigation protocols, that`ll be helpful to Democrats.
HAYES: Yeah, that`s a really great point and something we`ve tried to say before, which is that a year ago, you really did have these brutal trade- offs, right, particularly with kids in schooling where, you know, you`re telling businesses to shutter down and you`re telling kids to be on Zooms school.
Now, the trade-offs are like, wearing a mask and getting vaccinated. And the politics of that mean -- you know, flip. And I thought this polling was interesting. This is the recall exit poll from NBC. It says, asking people at the COVID-19 policies are too strict, that`s 30 percent not strict enough is 18 percent which is interesting, and about right is 47 percent.
So, you get, you know, 65 to 30, basically, if you add up not strict -- not strict enough and about right. That`s a -- that`s a pretty big margin. And it`s about the margin of victory in the race.
[20:45:17]
BACON: You know, Biden is really leaned into the idea that schools are going to stay open. And I think as a public health matter, I might have some questions about that. As a political matter, I think it was great for Gavin Newsom that schools are open right now, because that was where the Democrats where a lot of those suburban districts, particularly Democrats were probably losing some of the white college votes that they really need.
This recall is basically the same election results as 2018. It looks like the Democratic coalition is becoming more about suburbanites in, you know, in areas outside of cities. And I think, because they were -- the issues of COVID were pretty much all about health issues, as opposed to school, that really helped here. And I think that`s where I think if -- COVID is probably not going to issue in 2022, but if it is, it looks like right now it`ll be the science party versus the anti-science party.
And I`m following the Virginia governor`s race, and there also Terry McAuliffe is kind of running as the I`m for vaccines, I`m for mask, the Republican isn`t really for those things. And I think this is with the races that are coming up this year, the Democrats are in the right place on COVID.
HAYES: Yes, that`s an interesting point, the Virginia -- that Virginia race. And part of it too is, you know, Larry Elder wasn`t anti-vaccine, right? He wasn`t going around saying, you know, it`s going to -- you know - - you know, your cousin`s friend is going to have some awful swelling and you need to think about that. You know, he was -- he was nominally sort of pro-vaccine or I think he said he was vaccinated at one point.
But what I think Democrats have realized is because that anti-vax basis so strong in the Republican Party, they can -- they can kind of back Republicans into a corner on this issue because Republicans can be full throated about it, right? They want to kind of like not even talk about it or sort of be against mandates. But, you know, the overwhelming majority of people either have taken the vaccine or support it.
BACON: Yes, that`s a great point. One of the big thing that`s going on here is like, most -- you know, most adults, 65 percent are vaccinated. That is actually very -- that`s more popular than either party is, you know, if you think about it that way.
HAYES: Right, correct.
BACON: A lot of people are vaccinated. That`s a -- that`s a big majority in America. And the second part is Elder, like you said, was no is not anti- vaccines, but he was anti-policies to address COVID. And I think you`re seeing it in a lot of -- a lot of places as well.
Like, Ron DeSantis has won an election in Florida -- he`s maybe smarter than I am, but what he`s doing in terms of trying to stop the school boards and taking away their pay for not -- for having mass mandates, I don`t think that`s a stark strategy. The polling is showing this not smart. And I think in Florida, Ron DeSantis is making a race where I`d say he`s the favorite into a race where it might be more competitive.
HAYES: That`s a really, really good point. I think you`re right about that. And that point about the difference between the politics now in 2020 is very, very sharp and insightful. Perry Bacon, thank you very much.
BACON: Thanks for having me, Chris.
HAYES: Still ahead, the drastic steps that were actually taken to stop Trump from possibly launching a nuclear attack. And why we`re only finding about it now in a book? That`s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:50:00]
HAYES: All right, let`s sit back for a moment to January of this year, sort of infamous period of time in many ways. Donald Trump has lost. He`s trying to do whatever he can to stay in power. He`s been rejected by the courts. He`s pressured his vice president refused to certify the results. Vice President rebuffed him. He`s whipped up a mob and sent them curling towards the Capitol. None of it has worked.
And then maybe he thinks, just crossing his mind, right, maybe if I was a wartime President, I could stay in power. Now at the time, there were contemporary -- contemporaneous reports he was actually looking to pick a fight with Iran. According to a new book, it seems like people around Trump are also concerned about that possibility.
General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was reportedly worried about a potential war with China, so much so that General Milley summoned the Pentagon`s warm room officials. And again, according to reporting this new book said, "Without providing a reason, Milley said he wanted to go over the procedures and process for launching nuclear weapons. Only the President could give that order, he said. Then he made clear that he, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, must be directly involved."
I mean, again, let`s consider the context here, which is something that we used to think about a lot during the Cold War and don`t think about now, but it`s still the same, which is this. As it stands right now, the President of the United States, that used to be Donald Trump, possesses the unilateral ability to initiate nuclear conflict that could kill billions of people. That`s just a plain fact.
So, imagine an increasingly erratic president, desperate to stay in office, orders a strike in Iran or China, a country with hundreds of nuclear weapons. It would all but certainly lead to total catastrophe and untold loss of life.
So, at one level, like we`re a democratic republic in which civilian control of the military is pretty important, and Donald Trump was the legitimately elected president. So, he`s the one that decides. But on the other hand, should the military follow in order to like start a war with China in January of this year? Obviously not.
So, this apparently is how close we got. The fact that we are finding out about this month later in a book is I think kind of frankly ridiculous. It`s the kind of stuff that has to come out in public and under oath.
Carol Leonnig spent years chronicling Donald Trump`s presidency for The Washington Post, most recently in the New York Times bestseller, I Alone Can Fix It, about the final months of the Trump administration, and she joins me now.
Carol, you`ve reported in around this space, and I think you and other reporters have sort of just found positional it`s similar posture by Milley in those weeks would you say. And what`s your reaction to this stories that sort of unspools?
[20:55:11]
CAROL LEONNIG, REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Chris, I`m so glad that you`re focusing on it. I think that it gives us more detail. It pulls back another layer of the onion of just how worried Milley was. Remember, the most senior military officer in the country, the guy you have to go through to get the President`s advice, not to say so, but he`s the person who has to give the president advice on going to war, legally required. This person was worried the President might do anything. And he was building a bulwark, many different elements of a bulwark to prevent Trump from doing something crazy.
Now, I think one of the most interesting things that comes out in my colleagues Bob Woodward and Bob Costas book is the idea that Milley was pretty convinced the Trump was in mental decline. That`s not a shock to me because in our book, I Alone Can Fix It, you know, we were hearing that Mark Meadows was telling people including Milley, you know, the President is in a bad way after the election, that the President was not losing it exactly, but so unhinged.
So, I think this just provides more detail about what we knew about Milley and how worried, really worried he was about what could happen to the country in Donald Trump`s hands.
HAYES: Yes, there`s some precedent here. This is the sort of -- this is a legendary episode which we only found out again afterwards in 1974 which was Schlesinger, right? And they referenced this in the -- in the book. Pulling a Schlesinger was what Milley needed to contain Trump, maintain the tightest possible control of the lines of military communication command authority.
The move is a reference to an edict by former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger to military leaders in August 1974. not to follow orders that came directly from President Nixon who is facing impeachment or the White House without first checking with Schlesinger and as joint chair -- chiefs of staff Chairman General George Brown.
This doesn`t seem quite as defiant as that. But it all is pretty constitutionally troubling and problematic, not that I necessarily would have done something differently. But this is not great waters to be in.
LEONNIG: No. I mean, if you`re the chairman, you are a political officer. Your duty is to the constitution and not to the President. You`re not a political operator. You`re not supposed to get in the way of civilian control of the Pentagon.
But again, legally, Milley`s role is I give my best military advice to the President. And honestly, any order to deploy the military has to at least be flagged to him so that he could tell the president, this is a bad idea. And indeed, what we reported in our book was that Milley had had conversations with the other chair -- the other joint chiefs, Army, Navy, Air Force, talking about how they would, as you brought up earlier in the segment, how they would block an order that they thought would endanger the country.
You know, they were worried about a lot of things. China is one that we`re talking about now. They were worried about a war with Iran. They were also worried about a kooky plot that they kept hearing from the White House about some of Trumps allies encouraging him to pull out of Afghanistan overnight, like one day, which would have been far more chaos than we`ve seen thus far, far more terrifying and far more loss of lives, but though all those things were worrisome to them.
And what the chairman and the rest of the Joint Chiefs started talking about was a little mini plot. Let`s just each of us serially resign if we get this kind of border that chills our bones, that we think is going to put the country in danger, and let`s slow the president down from doing what we think is such a perilous choice.
HAYES: Yes, that`s interesting. The slowly resigning, obviously, is perfectly constitutional and legitimate. And the point that you make there about sort of reminding everyone that he has to be -- that he legally has to advise is also I think perfectly, you know --it fits with his constitutional duties, right? This is not him going rogue even though there`s been some sort of statements to that today that the President giving his sort of seal of approval to Milley.
But at some point, all this stuff has to be like not in a book from an omniscient narrator perspective, but under oath and in the public, I think. What do you think?
LEONNIG: Oh, I mean, I`m with you. I`m a reporter. I want more detail. I mean, Philip Rucker and I, my great colleague and partner, we felt pretty shocked when we were learning these things from the reporting of a book. We were stunned that we, you know, as reporters (AUDIO GAP) learn this, you know, while we`re reporting for The Washington Post. We were shocked. I`d like to know more for sure.
HAYES: Full public accounting. Carol Leonnig, thank you so much. I appreciate it.
That is ALL IN on this Wednesday night. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris.