Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

NYT: Trump Admin Admits Canceling Grants To Non-Trump States; Trump Meets Advisers As He Weighs "Massive Attack" On Iran; DNC Panel Picks South Carolina To Hold First 2028 Primary. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired July 24, 2026 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[16:00:18]

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's great to have you with us on this Friday.

As we come on the air, a stunning admission from the Trump administration. Officials from the Department of Energy now acknowledge they cut billions in federal grants explicitly because those grants, that money, was supposed to go to states that didn't vote for President Trump in 2024. When it announced the cuts in October, the Trump administration said that it had, quote, "determined that these projects didn't adequately advance the nation's energy needs, weren't economically viable, and wouldn't provide a positive return on investment of taxpayer dollars."

Now we know that was not true. In recent court documents, first reported by "The New York Times" this afternoon, the Trump administration acknowledged that decisions around the grants were made, quote, "based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient state, i.e., whether the recipient's location and/or place of performance was in a blue state or a non-blue state," end quote.

The White House and the Energy Department did not respond to "The New York Times's" request for comment, but listen to how the energy secretary, Chris Wright, explained these cuts when he spoke to CNN the day after they were announced.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST, "THE SOURCE": All of the contracts that we're told that are being canceled that were listed by the budget director are states that Kamala Harris won. So, are you punishing only blue states?

CHRIS WRIGHT, ENERGY SECRETARY: Not at all. This is a partial list of an ongoing process. More project announcements will come.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right, let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel is here.

The co-host of "The Interview" podcast from "The New York Times", CNN contributor, Lulu Garcia Navarro; Republican pollster, CNN political analyst Kristen Soltis Anderson; former Biden White House communications director Kate Bedingfield; and former Trump White House communications director Alyssa Farrah Griffin, both CNN political commentators.

We're also joined by professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, Michele Goodwin.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you very much for being here.

This is a remarkable state of affairs. that the federal government would do something like this. Lulu, I was kind of watching you as we were walking through this. What does it say -- I mean, there have been so many times, especially during the second Trump administration, when we look at the way things have historically been, and we look at the way the Trump administration, particularly President Trump, is doing them now, and we note that a norm has been broken.

This is certainly another thing on that list, but a really remarkable and stunning one, even though it may seem like the contents are kind of dry, but the implications are enormous.

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: The implications are enormous. First of all, they lied. So that's the first thing. And the difference is they lied to a journalist, but they can't lie in court, and so there it is in black and white.

The second part of this is Think about what this means. What has happened here is the Trump administration has taken away money to politically punish its enemies, and that means money that is taxpayer money from the American people. It is deciding that because a state voted one way or the other, they are not getting those funds which they are legally entitled to have.

This is unprecedented in modern American history to do this in such a calculated fashion, and I think it should be sobering to everyone.

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I have to imagine this is going to get challenged in the courts, and it is at this point, because my understanding is these are congressionally appropriated funds, and it is incumbent on members of Congress to advocate for every grant that comes into their district, that comes back to their state.

And the fact that this is happening is honestly quite predictable. I'm -- I suspect I have no idea if Chris Wright even knew this was happening, but this has been a priority of OMB Director Russ Vought for some time, which is to claw back funds from blue states to increase funds on projects that the administration backs to red states. A lot of this was laid out in Project 2025.

So in that regard, it's not a surprise, but to see it in plain language in English is a bit jarring.

KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: And it's actually something that President Biden called out specifically during his time in office and said that he was intentionally, in part, putting some of these clean energy projects in red states and in red districts to make it harder for a future Republican president, now Donald Trump, to execute on exactly this kind of thing.

So, it's -- yeah, it's not a secret. It's something that Trump has been very clear he has continuously used his power as President of the United States in a manner that is divisive and a break historically from what presidents used to do, which is view themselves as presidents for all Americans, regardless of who they voted for.

[16:05:00]

And Donald Trump's break from that is a massive historical shift and one that has lasting consequences.

But I just -- I just want to reiterate again, yes, see it coming, seen it in lots of different ways in the way that this administration has behaved, just in their language, talking about people who vote a different way in incredibly derogatory and insulting language. But again, the fact that this is now laid out in black and white, the reason that this is now breaking news is because there was, first of all, a very clear lie.

And second of all, they have acknowledged something that they were trying to hide. They really were trying to hide it. They were trying to pretend it was something else, and now we know what it was.

HUNT: Michele Goodwin, can I --

MICHELE GOODWIN, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: I'd like to --

HUNT: Yeah, can you weigh in, please? Go ahead.

GOODWIN: Yes. Well, because we shouldn't see this in isolation, either. What's ringing in my ears are Justice Alito scoffing and laughing during the Supreme Court hearing involving the immunity decision, during oral arguments where the issue came up about whether this would be a retribution that would be at the forefront of Donald Trump. There was the scoffing about that that Justice Alito did and what we've seen in the Trump administration through this and otherwise with regard to federal grants has been retribution has been to punish critics, punish enemies, and in this way punish voters in each of these blue states where there are the taking away of these funds.

There are also Republicans who pay taxes in those states who will not receive and not receive the benefits of this kind of the -- what was earmarked for. And as Lulu was saying, this is -- it's. outlandish in terms of what this means, in terms of a breach of rule of law, in terms of norms, in terms of ethics of this office.

And I think one thing that actually marks the second administration, and one could see the signs of it in the first Trump administration, really is a kind of roguishness when it comes to matters of the rule of law. And in that regard, we even see from the Supreme Court the conservative justices leaning in and expressing that when it's come to whether we're talking about tariffs and how this president has behaved or where we've talked about other issues involving finance in this administration.

HUNT: Kristen Soltis Anderson, it's a good point that Michele makes about the fact that Republicans live in these states, right? And they are impacting vote said about this at the time. This was back in October. He said nearly $8 billion, they call it the green new scam, Green New Deal funding, to fuel the left's climate agenda is being canceled. And then he lists out the states.

Now, notably, there are a couple swing states that could be on here that don't seem to be on here, that but maybe that's just a coincidence. What is your view of, I mean, how Americans are going to look at this?

KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think Americans already are very cynical about the way Washington works, which is part of how Donald Trump got elected, but is also part of how, in some ways, I think he kind of gets away with things that, you know, make people feel outraged, where sort of average voters are like, yeah, politicians are corrupt and they give projects to their friends.

It is true that for a long time, politicians who develop significant seniority and influence in Washington have taken federal dollars and sent it back to their own districts and their own states in the form of pork barrel projects and so forth. And so, in sort of -- it's essentially baked into the way that people think that these decisions are already being made, which is unfortunate because we know that that's not necessarily the case, that a lot of voter cynicism is not always necessarily justified. There are good public servants out there trying to do good things, and that in many cases, building America's energy infrastructure in states red and blue is going to be important for our country's future.

But I think that's politically how -- I actually am not sure that something like this is going to become like a blockbuster for voters because so many of them are like, oh, of course, politicians always just send money to their friends.

GRIFFIN: I tend to agree. I don't think this breaks through with Republican voters. I find it stunning, but I worked in the federal government. I'm not the average lay Republican voter. I think for most people, it does feel like, well, this is what Washington does, and Trump may even be rewarding Republicans over Democrats.

But what I think people need to consider is green energy also, probably not the sexiest topic among Republicans, but consider if it was something else. Think if it's disaster relief funds that they're withholding from blue states. We all have loved ones in blue states, even if we might vote Republican, like, that's where I think it might have more of an impact, and people are like, wait, wait, wait, my government's supposed to be responsive to all of us. But this I don't know that I think it breaks --

(CROSSTALK)

[16:10:00] GARCIA-NAVARRO: But this is about jobs. This is also about -- this money -- this money had to do with investing in things that were going to create jobs. And so even if you -- absolutely don't care what happens to anyone in a blue state, do not care about the economy of the country? Are we now, what, seceding different places because of where they voted from? I mean, this is actually counterproductive even from the president's own personal viewpoint.

BEDINGFIELD: Well, it's also true -- it's also true that there's a difference between, you know, as you know, Kristen, there's a difference between a member of Congress or a senator bringing money back to his or her state, which is really actually what they're elected to do. So, you know, there's a difference between that and making a blatantly political decision about money, infrastructure, jobs.

And the way I think that I -- while I certainly agree with both of your points, that people think that Washington is broken and, corrupt. But where I do think this hurts Trump is it underscores a big political problem he has, which is that people don't think that he's focused on doing what's right for them. They think he's focused on doing what's right for him. And this is another very blatant example of that. Michele, I think you're right.

HUNT: I'll also note, Michele Goodwin, I mean, having covered Congress, one of the big drivers of partisanship in Congress is, as we've seen these delegations through redistricting, through other things become more and more homogenous for one party or the other, you lose what used to be the kind of alliances that could be built across party lines, because a senator from the Republican Party and a senator from the Democratic Party might represent the same state and might be interested in sending money back to that state, putting them on the same political page in a way that we now don't see as often.

GOODWIN: Right, and if we could think about California as just one example, clearly, it's been part of the ire of this administration, but Republicans, Democrats, Green Party, doesn't matter in the state of California when your house burns down, your house burns down. When there are the wildfires that come through, which are an example of the kind of climate crisis that we're in in the United States, whether you're Republican in that state, Democrat in that state doesn't matter, and the fire doesn't know which way that you voted, and all of those people in that state would be concerned about making sure that they are not disinvested from the ability to be able to move forward in the healthiest way for their state.

And what we've learned from what was reported today is that there has been a gamesmanship, if you will, in terms of who gets and who doesn't get, and that is absolutely ridiculous, and it's really a kind of shameful for this administration honestly.

HUNT: We're just hearing this just in from Patty Murray and Marcy Kaptur, of course, both Democrats on Capitol Hill. They say that the secretary, Chris Wright, swore up and down for months that these project terminations had absolutely nothing to do with politics, and now his lawyers are declaring that, in fact, politics was the only consideration. Weaponizing the federal government, they say, is un- American and its hardworking families are already struggling with sky- high costs, who are suffering the consequences of this corrupt abuse of power, to your point, Lulu?

GARCIA NAVARRO: Yeah, I mean, to my point, I think we've become so inured in this administration to lying, to political machinations of this nature, that when something like this happens, there is a sort of -- you know, there's a belief that we should all shrug or that people shrug.

I've got to tell you, there's a reason why Donald Trump's poll numbers are where they are, and part of the reason is that, at the end of the day, people do understand that I pay my taxes, it goes to the federal government, and then it goes out into the, you know, into the -- into the country writ large.

And I don't think anyone would say it's a good idea if you punish a red hat or a blue hat. I don't know any Democrats that would say that, and I don't know any -- my entire family is Republican and I don't know any Republicans who would necessarily think that that would be a good thing. This is an extreme position that has been taken.

GRIFFIN: By the way, we have seen the court step in with DOGE cuts that were congressionally appropriated and then ended up being slashed in some cases programs were reinstituted some of those funds went back into place. I suspect that that's something that you could see in this -- in this scenario because this is clearly a function of Congress that the White House is stepping in on.

And listen, Congress has to know and claim its power for it to have it, but this is very much a function of the Congress.

HUNT: Yeah. Absolutely.

All right. Michelle Goodwin, thank you so much for coming on with your perspective. Always very much appreciate it.

Coming up next here in THE ARENA, fast-moving developments on Iran, including what the president just said about his exit strategy and why the Pentagon has still not corrected what it says is an online glitch related to the number of American casualties in the war.

[16:15:04]

Plus, Democrats making 2028 moves today, including which state will go first in the next presidential primary.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: All right, back now with more breaking news. A source telling CNN that President Trump has met with top advisors and cabinet officials today to discuss a potential escalation in Iran. This just one day after telling "Axios" he was weighing a, quote, "massive attack".

Moments ago, the president said U.S. officials were actively talking with Iran. Though added, it was possible that the military could continue its bombing campaign.

[16:20:01]

CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes joins us live now.

So, Kristen, there's quite a bit going on here. Can you help us sort through what we're learning, what we know, which threads of these to pull on?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, what's happened in just the last hour really goes to show you where this White House has been, which is mixed messaging. President Trump at one point was asked very specifically, what is the exit strategy here? He said it could be diplomatic and it could be military.

Now, as you noted, they did just have this meeting with these top advisors, with these cabinet officials about escalation, but President Trump and the Oval Office seemed to indicate that no decision had been made.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: You made a decision about the major strikes that you're referring to?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No.

REPORTER: Okay. Should we expect to see major strikes?

TRUMP: Look, we're talking to them right now. I think they're getting more and more serious as the days go by, for maybe the obvious reason. But we are talking to them right now.

Look, there are two ways. I consider that the smarter way, but the other is probably the easier way, doing what we're doing. And we can take that to a much higher level if we want to. You know, we're prepared to do that, as you know. We're locked and loaded.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: And I've talked to a number of White House officials who say that the appetite to really get aggressive militarily in Iran is not high, but there's also a growing contingency of people who don't understand or don't know how there's impasse between Iran and the United States is going to actually break. And one thing to keep in mind is that President Trump is certainly keeping his options open. We've seen the way that the military is posturing the movement of various fighter jets and medics across the world, essentially, to the Middle East, to Germany, it seems to indicate that they want to have that door open for a potential larger military escalation.

But again, even just listening to President Trump there, you can hear him saying the easier route is diplomacy, talking about how they're still having these negotiations. He believes Iran is getting more serious. So, it's unclear that he's actually going to pull the trigger when it comes to some kind of heavier military operation. HUNT: All right, Kristen Holmes for us at the White House -- Kristen, thanks very much for that. report.

And with us now is the former NATO supreme allied commander, also, of course, CNN senior military contributor, the retired Admiral James Stavridis.

Admiral, very grateful to have you. Thank you so much for being here.

I'd like to start by just asking you to weigh in on what we heard from the president there and this possibility of a massive escalation. What's your view of where the president's head is right now and where you think it should be?

ADMIRAL JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), CNN SENIOR MILITARY CONTRIBUTOR: He's immensely frustrated with the Iranians. His advice that he's receiving, I think, is let's continue working on this option of adding more military pressure, effectively, Kasie, escalating in order to de- escalate, to get the Iranians to come to the table.

I think the problem with that advice, which is generally reasonably sound, but the problem is, so far, the Iranians have seemed quite capable of playing through some pretty heavy hits. So bottom line, I think the president has a very serious set of options on his desk from the military to really ramp this thing up. But it's kind of unclear whether that's going to be a success.

Let me conclude with kind of a couple other thoughts. To the degree we could internationalize this and get our allies involved, not in dropping bombs on Tehran, for example, but in helping us clear the strait, there's current reporting that those conversations are in progress. And then secondly, the president is probably considering what can the CIA do here, what can we do covertly, how can we use cyber.

I think a lot of options are on that stack, and I think the president has a weekend of tough decisions ahead.

HUNT: Admiral, what is your evaluation of whether any bombing campaign can materially change the situation. Does really changing the current status quo require ground troops or human personnel in some capacity?

STAVRIDIS: Generally speaking, if you look at the conflict in the 21st century, it's difficult to find examples where purely air power have changed the regime.

You could make the case somewhat that that occurred in Libya against Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. That was part of my command tour at NATO. But there we had a Libyan rebellion on the ground.

In Serbia, in late 20th century, Slobodan Milosevic was driven out of office largely by NATO air campaigns.

[16:25:06]

But generally speaking, unfortunately, you need to get boots on the ground to really make fundamental changes. And I think that's the hardest decision the President is going to have to wrestle with.

We also just heard from the president this afternoon about the thoughts he has for an exit strategy from this conflict. I want to play that, and we'll talk through kind of what you hear in his answer on the other side. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: What is the exit strategy?

TRUMP: Well, I think there's a lot of them. There's a military exit where we just keep going just the way we are, and we can even make it a heavier dose, and it's knocking out everything they have. Or there's a smarter strategy that you make a deal.

And they want to make a deal. I just don't think they're ready yet. But they do want to make a deal.

Sometimes they don't want to say they want to make a deal. They want to be the tough guys. But they do want to make a deal. There's two ways. I mean, it's you can just keep doing exactly what we're doing and take them apart piece by piece. We could do it in a more rapid fashion, which we might do. Or we can negotiate with them, which we're also doing right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: He says we could do it in a more rapid fashion, which we might do. What did -- what options do you think he's laying out right there?

STAVRIDIS: Going big. Sending B-1 bombers in, putting up all those new tanker aircraft that Kirsten mentioned coming out of Europe gives you the ability to recycle your strikes. I think also going to the Israelis and putting them into the mix and also talking to the Arab nations. Increasingly, I'm seeing reporting that the Saudis, the Emiratis, lately I've seen the Bahrainis, the Kuwaitis have potentially participated.

So, I think what you're hearing is somebody considering going very, very big in order to push things along.

By the way, on a human level, the president just looks tired to me. He looks like he's a man under significant stress. And frankly, I don't envy him the decisions ahead.

HUNT: Right. A little bit of a warning in your words there, very interesting.

Obviously, one of the things that weighs on most presidents is, of course, when there are American casualties, especially in conflicts that they perhaps themselves have ordered. And of course, we saw the president attending the dignified transfer of Americans this week.

But now, the Pentagon website that tracks these casualties, it now says that only 14 Americans have died in the war with Iran. Obviously, the four who were transferred home made that number 18. The Defense Department, it's calling it a data disruption, but there seems to be some questions about why this might have happened.

Why do you think this still hasn't been corrected?

STAVRIDIS: Occam's razor says that it's an old proverb that so often the simplest explanation is the correct one, meaning I think it is a glitch, a mistake.

Having said that, it is a very significant one, especially to those families. And we've all seen the faces of those four. And just to make a point, two of them women, one a Latina, one black male, one white male, poof. It's a very poignant portrait of American military. They deserve better than to see their names dropped because of a glitch.

That ought to be investigated. That's a significant misstep. It ought to be instantly corrected, and it ought to elicit a deep apology from the leadership in the Pentagon.

HUNT: Important words, and of course, we're thinking of the families of those for fallen Americans that we saw transferred home this week.

Admiral James Stavridis, thank you very much for being here. Really appreciate it.

All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, South Carolina, Nevada, New Hampshire all wanted to go first in the Democrats' 2028 presidential nominating contest. Now we know which state is going to get that honor.

Plus, breaking news in a major midterm race. The Michigan governor, Gretchen Whitmer, makes her pick in the bitter Democratic primary for the state's open Senate seat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GRETCHEN WHITMER (D), MICHIGAN: As governor, I've had one strategy -- get things done. That strategy informs everything that I do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:34:07]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Bottom line, are you thinking of running for president in 2028? I'm totally focused on 2026. The future -- who knows exactly what the future will hold, but I know how to make myself useful right now, and that's getting out around the country, including, especially in more conservative areas, pounding the ground, making the case for candidates I believe in, causes I believe in, and I'll keep doing that through November.

(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: We've heard that before from pretty much anyone who is probably, maybe, definitely considering running for president, especially someone like the former transportation secretary, Pete Buttigieg, who has actually run before and may be open to doing it again.

Buttigieg is, of course, also one of two people leading a poll of likely Democratic voters in New Hampshire. That is a state that, as of today, no longer holds the coveted first-in-the-nation primary status, at least on the Democratic side.

[16:35:02]

That honor will now belong to South Carolina, which will kick off the party's 2028 contests after a vote today by the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Panel.

Now, I will say in terms of the calendar, Kate Bedingfield, my guess is New Hampshire is going to have something to say about this.

BEDINGFIELD: But by law, in fact.

HUNT: By law. Yes, they have to they have to go first. But that said, there's a lot to learn from the way this calendar is going to shake out. South Carolina, of course, really chose the Democratic nominee and they picked Joe Biden. And as much as I appreciate all these folks saying, well, I'm solely -- I think it's fair for them to say, I haven't made-up my mind yet about whether I'm running, whether they're solely focused --

BEDINGFIELD: Yes, this might be a bit of a stretch. Have they made up their mind? Totally, totally fair. Solely focused, not so much.

So, I think this calendar that's emerging today is, broadly speaking, a good thing for the Democratic Party. I mean, the point of the nominating process is to ultimately put forward a candidate who can win the general election the way this calendar seems to be shaping up. You have South Carolina, where black voters make up a significant piece of the Democratic electorate there. They are also very much the backbone of the Democratic base in a general election.

So, allowing South Carolina to have that influential spot, I think, is important in that regard. You know, I see some concern about, well, what does this mean for a potential progressive candidate? I would actually probably argue the opposite, which is that a progressive candidate who overperforms in South Carolina then has a slingshot the potential of a real slingshot effect. So, you know, if you look at Nevada, Michigan, New Mexico being added to the calendar, I think what the party is doing here is really trying to put forward a candidate who can win these key constituencies.

And then I think the only other question is what happens -- first of all, what does New Hampshire do? Because they do have a state law that says they have to go first.

So, there's a question about whether delegates won in that process would ultimately count. That's the DNC and the state party. You're going to have to figure that out. It's a big question. And then also, just what is the role of retail politicking?

When you look at a state like Michigan, for example, which is a lot about air cover and television advertising and digital advertising. You know, what does it mean for those bigger states to be higher up in a process that has traditionally really been about retail politicking?

HUNT: Yeah.

GRIFFIN: I mean, huge win for the GOAT, Jim Clyburn, South Carolina going first. It makes a lot of sense. Listen, I'm a Granite Stater by adoption. The entire Democratic delegation put out a statement opposing this, them not being the first in the nation. So that will have to get figured out.

I think this is incredibly good news for one Kamala Harris. I think that while a lot of the oxygen's been for AOC because of this New Hampshire poll, having South Carolina go first with many, many Black voters there where she still polls the highest of any of these top tier of candidates with black voters, especially with Black women, I think this could put her in a place where she wins an early primary. This is also a bit of a this is tougher for sort of the Bernie wing of the party who we're really hoping to see in Nevada go first, where they might perform better or even in New Hampshire.

But if you're thinking about the Democratic coalition that could win a Democrat -- that could win general election, South Carolina going first makes sense.

HUNT: It's interesting what you say about Kamala Harris. And, you know, I mean, you'll remember Bernie Sanders won in New Hampshire. I mean, I remember covering him there. And it's worth noting that oftentimes white, well-educated voters, which there are many in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, are incredibly some of the most progressive voters in the party.

And Lulu Garcia Navarro, I mean, there have been a series, actually, of profiles of presidential candidates in the last week or so, including one. in "New York Magazine", which is headlined, "Like it or not, Kamala Harris is the frontrunner".

And they write, quote, "She walks in as the frontrunner. It's fairly obvious. She's followed wherever she goes, said a former aide. I don't want to upset any narratives that any of the other candidates are pushing." Do you really know?

"But she comes in with 99 percent name ID, and everyone else is going to have to raise money and buy it."

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah, and that caused an enormous amount of consternation among Democrats, who are very much looking to turn the page from Kamala Harris and the Biden years because they want to sort of open up a new chapter for the party.

What was interesting about that poll is where Ossoff was polling, which is very low at two percent. But if you hear the chatter, there's a lot of chatter around him. Why? He's good-looking. He's from the South. He's a white man, which after the Kamala Harris thing, there are people who think that Democrats should not be sort of pushing anyone of color or a woman --

HUNT: A white man with an accomplished wife and two children.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah, exactly, all the things. It's like the picture- perfect sort of thing if you're having a fever dream of what you think people will want.

And so, this is part of the problem. Everyone's doing central casting here. Everyone's like, what can we cast to make this, and to make this the perfect candidate that will capture the imagination of the American people?

[16:40:04]

And as we know, I think -- you know this better than I do. Voters tend to do what voters tend to do.

HUNT: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

BEDINGFIELD: Voters are going to say.

ANDERSON: The electorate is a rich tapestry. One thing that I think is interesting about this move is that in the Democratic Party for a long time, they have actually benefited from the fact that their activist class and their base have not been the same, that you have very online Democrats who will take positions that are completely outside the American mainstream and are genuinely insane, and then they have to hit the reality of what happens when you have a diverse electorate that is more socially moderate in a place like South Carolina actually making the decisions. That's how you get Joe Biden in 2020.

However, what I have seen in my data since then is that there is becoming greater alignment between the most reliable voters in the Democratic Party and the most sort of further left positions in a way that I think any Democrat who thinks, oh, we put South Carolina first, that's going to protect us from crazy. It is not going to protect us from crazy. It's not.

BEDINGFIELD: Well, it's also, obviously, the state that goes first plays an important role, but it's not usually -- it's actually not usually decisive, the first state, right? So, in some ways, you could argue South Carolina was decisive for Biden, in part because it came after he had overperformed expectations in Nevada and was kind of on an upswing, and then, of course, Jim Clyburn's endorsement was critical.

But, you know, it's not usually the case that, for example, in the previous calendar, Iowa alone decided the nominee. So, I think you have to take all of the state's aggregate.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Republican voters, who is going to be the nominee on the Republican side? That is going to, you know -- make a massive difference to who should be the nominee perhaps on the Democratic side.

HUNT: One thing that some have said about Ossoff, I think it may have been from the "Pod Save America" crew, is that he works because progressives think he's progressive and moderates think he's moderate.

BEDINGFIELD: Which was sort of an Obama special sauce too, I think you can argue. That progressives really felt like in the 2008 campaign he was their standard bearer, particularly. when juxtaposed with Hillary Clinton, who was seen as the kind of more moderate establishment candidate.

But then you kind of look at how Obama governed, and I think a lot of people saw reasonable moderation. So, it's interesting to hear them particularly say that, just given I think that was a big piece.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: It'll be interesting when you have all those people, though, up on stage having to be asked about specific positions that they're taking, where actually people will fall.

HUNT: Yeah, well, and, you know, to that point, I mean, there's going to be-- I feel like this we're headed for 2016 on the Democratic side, like a kids' table debate, like what we when Trump was running.

Rahm Emanuel, one of those likely to be on the kind of in the moderate wing of that, he wrote this in "The Wall Street Journal", the headline, quote, the Bernie Bros could spoil Democrats' midterms. In the name of authenticity, the DSA and others are saddling the Democratic Party with nominees whose wildly unpopular positions will protect Republicans from having to pay the price of Donald Trump's corruption and economic incompetence.

I mean, this is going to be one area where Democrats are going to get asked questions that could come back to haunt them in '28.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: A hundred percent. I mean, if I was a Republican, I would be looking at some of those positions and wanting to hang it around the neck of every Democrat that is going to be running in the same way that every Democrat is going to be hanging you know, Trump's problems on governing --

ANDERSON: But I will also say, for Rahm's strategy, I think is interesting because saying that I'm going to run on a message that a lot of people in my party are crazy. It did not work for Jon Huntsman in 2012.

GRIFFIN: Oh, that is a good analogy.

ANDERSON: It's a tough strategy.

GRIFFIN: It is, but think about it. If you're Mike Lawler, you're 90 minutes north of Zohran Mamdani's New York City, his race is looking a lot tighter. This is very good for him because he is painting his opponent as a mini Mamdani, despite the fact that she in no way is.

BEDINGFIELD: I think the smart thing is for these candidates to distance themselves from the problematic positions. So defund the police, open the border. Less about saying, this wing of my party is crazy.

HUNT: Yeah, fair enough.

All right.

GRIFFIN: If you don't make Israel your entire personality, people have to pay bills.

HUNT: People do have to pay their bills.

All right, ahead here in THE ARENA, Jake Tapper is here to share part of his emotional and powerful interview with Ben Sasse as the former GOP senator battles an aggressive cancer diagnosis.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: All right, welcome back. Former Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse was diagnosed with stage four pancreatic cancer last December. Doctors giving him just months to live as the disease spread all over his body.

He recently sat down with our Jake Tapper for a lengthy and emotional interview on life and death. During that conversation, Sasse also reflected on his time as a senator and how much he missed his family when he was away working and living in Washington, D.C.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BEN SASSE (R-NE), FORMER U.S. SENATOR: I didn't have a plan for the fact that I don't want to raise my kids in Washington, D.C., um and yet I don't like the idea of being gone all weeknights and so I didn't think it through enough.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST, THE LEAD: And it's also what you spent your time doing and the Senate that was also a problem when it came to thinking about how much you missed your family, right?

SASSE: Yeah, I mean, I want to say it delicately, because I've been too harsh about the Senate sometimes and how I say it. On weeks when 40 percent of my hours would go to intel and national security stuff, I would think it was often worth it to go through some of the costs at home.

But on weeks when intel would only be 10 percent or 15 percent, then I was like, most of the rest of this stuff is theater. Like, I want to be clear, lots of good and well-meaning people in the Senate, but it's not an institution that works.

[16:50:00]

And there are lots and lots of people who want to pretend that being a senator is really cool and it's a great title and you're powerful. And that doesn't mean we're doing enough work for the American people. And then when you're missing dinner with your kids and you realize then, it's like, I would look at my kids and I felt like they had a chain around their neck with an hourglass. And I was watching the years, the months or the years or the dinners we had left as a family. And I'd look at my kids and I'd see the sand through the hourglass. Like, what the hell was I doing instead of being with you?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. And Jake Tapper joins me now.

Jake, thanks so much for being here.

TAPPER: Yeah, I just-- it's so resonant. I dropped my daughter off at college a year ago, and when I came home -- and I was in the kitchen by myself, and I wept. All I could think about was the stupid work trips I went on that were completely unappreciated by our bosses and all the time away from my daughter that I missed. And so that really hits hard, that comment.

HUNT: Well, I mean, so I had a personal health struggle as well, where I had to briefly confront some of the things that you and Ben Sasse talked about in your lengthy interview.

And what he said there really resonated with me, because I remember in my own moment, my son-- I now have a daughter, but my son was only two. And that was all I could think about, right, were the things that I wasn't going to see.

And I know you sat down with him, and you talked about something that we all face, right? We're all on the clock.

TAPPER: No one will survive.

HUNT: But that we never confront in this direct and emotional way. What was that like? What else did he say?

TAPPER: I mean, it was one of the most meaningful reporting jobs I've ever had, just because to talk to him and spend time with not just him in his home stayed in Nebraska, go to the College World Series that he brought his 15-year-old son Breck with him, sit by the river in Fremont, Nebraska with him and his wife and talking about how he's going to soon leave this Earth.

And you're right. I mean, this is -- this is the topic that we're all constantly thinking about and never talking about. I mean, we talk about like four soldiers killed over the last few weeks, but we don't talk about what that means to those families, and the loss, and the grief, and also the fact that we're all going to face it.

And so, his attitude about this is, look, we're all on the clock. He just happens to know when he's leaving. And he talks about -- look, he's a man of deep faith, deep Christian faith. And he is confident that he's going to a better place and that he will see his loved ones again.

It's a confidence that I wish I had. I wish I had that kind of faith, but I don't. But he says the hardest thing is thinking about leaving his wife behind, leaving his two daughters behind, and perhaps mostly leaving his 15-year-old son Breck behind because he's the youngest. The girls are in their 20s.

HUNT: Right, and the things that you missed. I mean, we heard him reflect there a little bit on his time in the Senate. But what else did he tell you about -- you know, he does have the privilege of having done quite a few remarkable things on this Earth as well.

I remember, in my own journey, feeling like I was very lucky that, you know, had I been just starting out my career, then there would have been all of these unopened possibilities in the future. I mean, he has accomplished and done so much. What did he find -- and I think I know the answer, but I doubt the most meaningful thing that he did was work in the Senate, although I imagine --

TAPPER: No. His motto is one cheer for politics, right? And there should be 10 or 15 things more important in the world than that. And I think it's his family and his faith. I think that's it.

That's what he's proudest of. The people he's spent his time with and the people he's -- that this remarkable drug, this trial that he's in for his pancreatic cancer, although he has like four or five different kinds of cancer now, that has given him extra months.

In December, when he was diagnosed, he only got three or four months of a prognosis. And here we are in July. He's still alive. Tumors are shrinking.

He knows it's not a cure. It's just buying him time. But it is that time with family. It is that time with friends that he is teaching us all, I hope, to cherish.

HUNT: Right.

TAPPER: And he has this box in his closet of all the hotel keys from when he was in business, before he was a university professor or president -- before he was a senator, of all the hotel keys. And he would just throw them in this box, and then one day he stumbled upon the box, and it was thousands, thousands of these hotel keys. And those were all dinners that he didn't get to spend with his family. And that's his biggest regret, he says.

HUNT: All right, Jake Tapper, remarkable reporting, remarkable interview.

[16:55:00]

TAPPER: Thank you, remarkable hand.

HUNT: Ben Sasse, remarkable.

TAPPER: And I'm really lucky that he and his family opened us into their homes. It was a lot of trust, and I hope they're happy with the final product.

HUNT: For sure. All right, you can watch the rest of Ben Sasse's very emotional interview about life and death. It's all on "THE WHOLE STORY" this Sunday. It'll be right here on CNN at 8:00 p.m. Eastern. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: All right, thanks very much to my panel. Really appreciate all of you ladies for being here.

Thanks to all of you at home for joining us as well.

Please do join us tomorrow for THE ARENA SATURDAY at noon and 4:00 p.m. Eastern. We'd love to have you spend part of our weekend with us.

But don't go anywhere. "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER" starts right now.