Return to Transcripts main page
CNN This Morning
Democrats Hope for Midterm Repeat of 2006; U.S. to Announce New Iran Sanctions; Buttigieg Back with Fresh Appeal. Aired 6:30-7a ET
Aired August 24, 2026 - 06:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[06:34:04]
AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: All right, so you've got an unpopular war, high gas prices and then a lame duck president with historically low approval ratings. Democrats are hoping all of that adds up to a repeat of the year 2006. That was the year of George W. Bush's second term, where Democrats swept back into power in Congress, picking up six seats in the Senate and 31 seats in the House.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RON BROWNSTEIN, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: You know, Trump's approval rating now, well (ph) it is lower than it was in 2018. It's lower than Biden's was in '22. It's lower than Barack Obama in 2010, George W. Bush in 2006, Bill Clinton in 1994. All of those presidents were net negative in their -- in their approval. And it led to a significant -- you know, a really bad election for their party in those years that I mentioned.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: OK, group chat is back.
OK, Yasmin, you got a baby face, but apparently you know about this. What were you guys doing in 2006 that was so different?
[06:35:00]
Because I look at the candidates who flipped, and I'm going to show the folks some pictures. They may remember some of these names. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester, Montana, Sherrod Brown, Ohio, Bob Casey, Pennsylvania, Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island, Jim Webb, Virginia.
What I see is a bunch of moderates who appealed to red state voters, purple state voters, and were able to shift. What was the plan there?
YASMIN RADJY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SWING LEFT: I mean back in 2006, Democrats ran on what they called the six for six. The six issues that every Democrat all across the country in competitive races was focused on. And the only real difference now is, we can simplify it. We're just talking about affordability and how the system is broken. And every issue that Democrats are running on relates back to those two things.
CORNISH: Do you think any of these people could run again and win? I mean, I know one is trying, but it feels like the vibes are extremely different on the left.
RADJY: The vibes that are really different are that, when we had a Middle East war that was really unpopular, the Middle East war right now is costing $2 billion a day. And so, everything is just more extreme this time around.
CORNISH: Do you think any of these people could win today?
FRANCESCA CHAMBERS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, "USA TODAY": Sherrod -- to your point about Sherrod Brown --
CORNISH: Yes.
CHAMBERS: I mean, that's an interesting dynamic in the Ohio Senate race right now because that was Vice President J.D. Vance's seat. And there is an argument that if it hadn't been a presidential year when President Trump was on the ballot and when Vice President Vance were on the ballot, that potentially Sherrod Brown might not have lost that seat in the -- in the first place. I mean, you know, Ohio has gone red in recent presidential elections.
CORNISH: Because it was a wave in the other direction.
CHAMBERS: Right, it was a wave.
CORNISH: Yes.
CHAMBERS: It was a wave in the other -- the other direction in that Sherrod Brown, with his high name I.D., could, you know, have potentially survive that if it were a different year, if it were potentially this year when the wave could go the other direction.
CORNISH: Yes, it just feels like people aren't asking for resistance, right? They're asking for structural change. And that's how you get DSA people talking so loudly and winning.
It's also altered the map. So, I'm looking at Democrats having to defend all their seats, plus flip four Republican. They're looking at Iowa, Texas, Alaska, Ohio, Maine, North Carolina. I know like Maine and Michigan, people are feeling wobbly as they had to shift candidates. Are Republicans worried, like about Iowa or Texas?
TODD RICKETTS, FORMER FINANCE CHAIRMAN, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE: I'm not.
CORNISH: Really?
RICKETTS: I'm not. No, no --
CORNISH: Paxton's like, hey, folks, I could use some money, like, on TV saying this. RICKETTS: That's right. For sure there for sure. But Texas is going to
be its own thing. And Iowa, obviously, is a pretty good state for us historically.
But, you know, going back to like just midterms in general, midterms are always tough. Every seat's competitive. You know, you got -- you're bringing up 2006. But if you go to 2014, we flipped seven Senate seats to the Republican side in 2014, although it was kind of the same idea. These, you know, incumbent parties always have a tough time in midterm elections.
CORNISH: I guess I'm wondering, are there particular issues that fire up an electorate more than others? And I do feel like war for this country is one of them.
RICKETTS: Yes, for sure.
CORNISH: You know, just historically going back. And this is a historically, even compared to Vietnam, unpopular war.
RICKETTS: Yes.
CORNISH: And they are able to tie it directly to their economy and their pocketbooks --
RICKETTS: Right.
CORNISH: In a way that like somehow the Iraq War, I don't remember my parents being like, oh, the Iraq War is really affecting my pocketbook. Whereas, now my mom keeps making jokes about the Strait of Hormuz. Like if the toilet paper's out, she's like, oh, Strait of Hormuz.
RICKETTS: Yes.
CORNISH: And it just feels like people are looking at it differently.
CHAMBERS: Well, it all goes back to the cost of living. That's what we were discussing before in an earlier bloc, right? The economy --
CORNISH: Yes, whether your wages are keeping up.
CHAMBERS: Right.
CORNISH: Yes.
CHAMBERS: And arguably you can say, well, the inflation, cost of living, that's all tied to the Iran War, but I don't know that that's necessarily all these candidates are going out and campaigning directly on it. They're campaigning on the economy, the cost of living, what, you know, potentially these Democrats (INAUDIBLE).
CORNISH: Republicans too?
CHAMBERS: But --
CORNISH: Are you -- if you're a Republican, can you go out and campaign on this economy?
RICKETTS: I think you can.
CHAMBERS: Well --
RICKETTS: The economy is growing. Is --
CORNISH: For 401k's.
RICKETTS: Now that prices -- the price --
RADJY: People are struggling (ph).
RICKETTS: But you're right, gas prices are high, so that's going to be a tough one to talk about.
CHAMBERS: Well --
RADJY: But in Alaska, where one of the most competitive Senate races, and a real moderate candidate. And this is a state where only 11 percent of the population is Democratic. And it is a toss-up right now with Mary Peltola running at the top of the ticket. In parts of Alaska, gas costs $20 a gallon. So, I don't -- I mean I think the economy doing well is maybe something for people's stock portfolios, but people are struggling.
CORNISH: Yes.
RADJY: And I want to look at the overall Senate --
CORNISH: Although that's a lot of people, just to be clear, right?
RADJY: Who are struggling.
CORNISH: There's a lot of older people who are holding on to the wealth in this country, but they have it, in part, through their 401k's and their homes. Those people are the people that I feel like Bessent is talking about when he's like, things are great.
RICKETTS: Yes.
CORNISH: What do you say to everyone else who doesn't have stocks?
RICKETTS: No, I agree, the gas prices, it's a huge issue. It's a huge issue to have gasoline up right now.
I would just kind of come back to this idea, like, Iran is like a -- this well-entrenched regime that's been around for 47 years. And if you -- I just think that like, you know, the president got into this. He has to sort it out. It's just going to take a little while to sort out. I mean, if you -- but if you look at the hundreds of thousands of terrorist attacks that have taken place over the last 50 years or 47 years, and the tens of thousands of people who have been killed, Iran has been part of all of those issues. So --
CORNISH: Well, then we're going to figure out what sort it out means --
RICKETTS: Yes.
[06:40:02]
CORNISH: Because the next segment, look at us --
RICKETTS: Yes.
CORNISH: Today's supposed to be economic d-day for Iran. The president is promising tough sanctions. He says the toughest ever. But if six months of war didn't work, what makes the White House think that this will.
Plus.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE BUTTIGIEG, FORMER TRANSPIRATION SECRETARY: Really, really good to be back in South Carolina. Thanks for the warm welcome.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: Mayor Pete is back to a state that was not on his side in the last presidential bid. Now he's looking to change that.
Group chat, we'll talk about it, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[06:45:00]
CORNISH: So, today, we're going to be talking about the maximum economic pressure the U.S. is expected to reveal a new sanctions against Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, TREASURY SECRETARY: We are going to all of our allies, and this is going to be the greatest coordinated economic isolation in the history of the world, and we are going to them and saying, you are either with us or against us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: The U.S. has had sanctions in place against Iran for decades. A congressional report describes the current sanctions as, quote, "arguably the most extensive and comprehensive set of sanctions that the U.S. maintains on any country." It's going to block Iranian government assets. It's going to ban nearly all U.S. trade. And it's going to ban foreign assistance and arms sales.
We're going to find out what else is going to be different this time around. This is CNN's Leila Gharagozlou.
Thank you so much for being here. Can you talk about first what we're hearing from Iran, because I
understand there is a statement out?
LEILA GHARAGOZLOU, CNN PRODUCER: Yes. So, Iran's new security chief, Mohsen Rezaei, gave quite a lengthy interview to Iranian state media just yesterday where he discussed Iran's positioning on further sanctions and further economic pressure.
Now, just before we get to that sound, I want to point out that he is a hardline politician. He was recently appointed by Mojtaba Khamenei, so he is taking quite a maximalist approach to this.
Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOHSEN REZAEI, SECRETARY OF IRAN'S SUPREME NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL (through translator): If President Trump decides to take further action, our response, our retaliation will be seismic.
Any country that takes part in imposing economic restrictions on us will be regarded as an enemy. Of course, we will first negotiate with them. We will hold talks and tell them to step aside and distance themselves from the United States. But if they do not act, we will strike. We will target that country's interests.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GHARAGOZLOU: So, it's unclear what the U.S. is going to do, but that is Tehran's position, at least from the security chief. Although there is a debate within Iran's political system over the strategy of this war, especially when it comes to the economy. We did hear from the speaker of parliament just last week who said that security cannot continue in this way when the economy isn't functioning. So, they are acknowledging that economic pain and pressure.
But whether this new sanctions regime can actually differ their behavior is unclear. I mean, we don't even know what the U.S. could sanction. As you said, there's been decades of sanctions on Iran already and their entire economy already is sanctioned to the gills. So, what is left is unknown. So, how much more pressure could the U.S. really put on them.
Now, to Mohsen Rezaei's point, the U.S. could potentially target trading partners like Russia and China when it comes to sanctions. And in that case, you know, Iran could turn around and implement some sort of pain on those countries.
Audie.
CORNISH: OK, Leila, thanks so much.
I want to bring in someone else. David Sanger, CNN political and national security analyst.
So, David, you just heard all that, and I want to play one more thing for you. This is the Senate majority whip, John Barrasso, on "Fox News Sunday," and he was essentially trying to make the case for why this could be different.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): It does seem to me that the suffering that's going on in Iran right now, the maximum sanctions being applied, are the things that are going to make Iran finally say, you're right, we were wrong, no nuclear weapon, Strait's open, let's get back to probably trying to get some sort of a life to the future.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: Is that the path we're on?
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, we're about to go find out, aren't we, Audie, because this is really a great experiment. As you pointed out, and Leila did, we've had sanctions on Iran since the 1979 revolution. We've had more intense sanctions since the nuclear program became an issue 15, 20 years ago. And we've certainly had major sanctions on since President Trump's first term. And President Biden didn't lift any of those.
So, the real question right now is, is there anything left? And the second question is, can you do this in the reverse of the way sanctions usually happen? And the usual escalation, Audie, with a country is, you start with diplomacy, you roll in economic sanctions and increase them to give yourself some leverage in that diplomacy, and you have the ultimate threat that if it all fails you may go to war.
Well, here we've gone to war already. It didn't work. It didn't get the result that the president wanted. And so now he is talking about an economic d-day. Sort of invoking a war-like scenario. But the fact of the matter is, the war part has already been attempted.
CORNISH: Yes.
SANGER: Now, it could be different. I mean the rial, the Iranian currency, has now fallen to two million to the dollar. That's pretty bad.
[06:50:03]
CORNISH: One other thing I notice is Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, he was writing an op-ed on Sunday, about Iran's enablers. And he used this phrase, "Iran's enablers purchase and transport its petroleum. These countries calculate appeasement of the regime to be the safer course. But they would do well to consider the consequences of sustaining it."
This just looks weird because he doesn't say what countries they are.
SANGER: Yes.
CORNISH: And I feel like China and Russia are on that list. SANGER: Right.
CORNISH: Like, what is going on there? What is the administration even trying to do with an op-ed like this, when it doesn't really seem like they've put China on notice, so to speak?
SANGER: Well, the op-ed, which was in "The Financial Times," is worth reading. He didn't mention China. And in 2025, China bought about 80 percent of Iran's oil exports. So, that gives you a sense of how much the success or failure of this is going to ride on decisions made not in Washington but in Beijing.
And the president's got a few constraints up here. Xi Jinping, the president of China, arrives in Washington a month from today.
CORNISH: Yes.
SANGER: The president really wants that to be a successful visit. It's hard for me to imagine him imposing secondary sanctions on a big swath of the Chinese economy ahead of that visit.
CORNISH: All right, David Sanger, it looks like this is one we've got to follow up on. See how this all works out. Talk to you soon.
SANGER: Talk to you.
CORNISH: All right, I want to turn to this. South Carolina. Pete Buttigieg was there over the weekend. Of course, this was the state that more or less ended his campaign for president in 2020. And now, perhaps, is it the one to soft launch his 2028 run?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE BUTTIGIEG, FORMER TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: You see this culmination of their generational project to dismantle black representation in the United States Congress, across the south, culminating in the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act. It's why you see an unprecedented flood of corporate and dark money to manipulate election outcomes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: OK. During his visit, he actually held a roundtable with students at a historically black college. He talked about reparations, about the efforts to disenfranchise black voters that -- who he failed to appeal to about six years ago. So, were asking what's different this time?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pete's thinking here is the absolute center right centrist Democrat thinking, the establishment Democrat thinking. This is the -- this was the issue with Kamala Harris' election.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: I wish I heard more of that.
The group chat is back.
It's funny, nowadays, in this year, establishment is some sort of slur. When you hear it from young people on the left, they're just sort of like, establishment. So, what does this mean for someone like Buttigieg, who very much is somebody who I think of as that kind of Obama era-ish? I know it's Biden, but like that kind of more Democrat than progressive thinking. Look at your face. What is this? What is this? What is this eyebrow up mean?
RADJY: What is the eyebrow?
CORNISH: I know you can't comment on this, but --
RADJY: Yes, we don't do -- Swing Left, we don't get involved in Democratic primaries. But what I'll say is, you know, the winds are blowing in our direction in the midterms and 2028, the winds are going to be who knows which direction they're going to be blowing in. If we want to rebuild trust in the Democratic brand, the candidates from the top of the ticket to the bottom of the ticket need to spend as much time as they can listening to voters. And listening is how we rebuild that trust. So --
CORNISH: Well, I do think it's interesting. South Carolina, when we look at 2020, they had 54 delegates. Biden, 48 percent. We know that it kind of revived Biden's fortunes in a lot of ways.
I'm interested in this because you're talking to a more southern, more black and older electorate in terms of its turnout, and they vote differently from the youngs. And are Democrats ready for that? I mean, they pushed South Carolina to the front for a reason.
CHAMBERS: So, right. So, the dynamics of this Democratic presidential primary will be very, very different in 2028 than what you've seen in the past because traditionally it had been, remember, Iowa and then New Hampshire, then followed by a South Carolina, right? Now that's different. South Carolina, which had been responsible, as you were saying, for the winnowing here of President Joe Biden, you know, you're talking about how it's where Pete Buttigieg lost. It's also where Joe Biden coalesced support, right?
CORNISH: Yes.
CHAMBERS: OK, so --
CORNISH: And Bernie Sanders, I should say, only 20 percent.
CHAMBERS: Right.
CORNISH: Like for his wing of the party, Bernie does not impress (ph).
CHAMBERS: He -- Bernie Sanders at 20 percent. But now with South Carolina voting first, because, as you were saying, Democrats changed up the order, they wanted to elevate black voters and black voices earlier in the cycle, you're going to have a -- CORNISH: Or moderate voters and rural voters, right? Like --
CHAMBERS: Well, there were a lot of arguments. But specifically at the -- that the rules and bylaws committee meetings, which I sat through, there was an argument about wanting to elevate black voters, black voices earlier.
[06:55:08]
Also, Nevada will vote second, the way that the schedule is currently, which is an effort to also elevate Latino voices in the cycle. It matters with South Carolina first because roughly 25 percent of the state's population are black voters, and so candidates will have to be able to appeal to them and also win significant support from black voters in a Democratic primary.
CORNISH: Yes. And as I said, it's not just Buttigieg. Someone like Bernie Sanders learned that the hard way, right, when he ran.
I want to play for you Pete Buttigieg, because this is the kind of clip everyone will play and ask if he's running semi ironically. And here's my turn.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE BUTTIGIEG, FORMER TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: Well, hypothetically speaking, I think that it will be very important for our next president, and anyone wanting to be in that discussion, to be able to explain how to change the system itself while getting good policies out of the system.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: What I find interesting about him is he has been everywhere. Like, you get him on random podcast. You get him on Fox. You get him -- like, he has gone everywhere to rebuild his relationship with the electorate.
RICKETTS: Right.
CORNISH: Do you think it's working?
RICKETTS: Well, I don't know about rebuilding his relationship with the electorate, but I think there's about 100 percent chance he's going to run for president.
RICKETTS: Well, and because he's not been in office, right? He was transportation secretary and --
RICKETTS: Well, that's what I would say is, like, you know, there's 100 percent chance he's running and there's a zero percent chance he will be the nominee. But if you look at him, he was a nobody mayor from a relatively small city that ran for president and turned that into a little celebrity and parlayed that into being the secretary of transportation. So, what is the downside for Pete Buttigieg to run for president?
Like, he can only land in some sort of administration role. I don't think he's going to be the nominee, but there's no downside for him to run.
CORNISH: I do think it's interesting that he's pushing this issue and talking to black voters to the forefront. I feel like in all the conversation about the DSA and billionaire taxes on the left, this dialog about like, hey, redistricting representation, hey, what happens to these voters has gone to the wayside while people say, oh, don't deal with being woke and special interest groups.
RADJY: Can I just poke -- I want to itch at something or scratch at something that's been itching me, which is, I think this moderate progressive binary is a totally false binary.
CORNISH: Why?
RADJY: And I think that because, when we go out and talk to voters, voters are idiosyncratic and they -- what they want is, whether it's in 2028, whether it's at the top of the ticket for the center of the House, they want people who are going to fight the system because they feel like the system is broken. We have examples --
CORNISH: Yes, system is the key word there. Yes.
RADJY: Right, but we have examples of that. We have examples of that in Jon Ossoff, who I would hardly call a progressive. We have examples of that in Mary Peltola, who is, you know, one of the most centrist candidates running. We have examples of that in Abdul El-Sayed, who is a progressive. We have examples of that across ideological spectrum, and I really don't think -- I think a lot of the sort of punditry around the progressive versus centrist binary is completely disconnected from what we hear day to day from voters who might be, you know, to the center on one issue, like border security, that might be to the far left on something like health care and want Medicare for all. So, I think -- and that's all in the same voter.
CORNISH: Yes.
RADJY: And I think that's what we're going to be seeing a lot of, both in these midterms, in what the outcomes will be, we've got progressives and centrists at the top of the ticket. We're also going to see that in 2028 of I think we're going to upend this binary on its head.
CHAMBERS: But it also depends on what office you're running for in what year. Pete Buttigieg doesn't currently hold an elected office and could potentially be running for president in 2028, where South Carolina will hold the first primary. You're going to have maybe potentially different focus of your attention. But also, he's been going to places like Michigan, all these, --
CORNISH: Giving money and -- yes.
CHAMBERS: Expected 2028, you know, candidates are going to, going to these other states where they --
CORNISH: Yes.
CHAMBERS: Potentially have different messages depending on who they are (ph).
CORNISH: And the other take is, it's not Iowa or New Hampshire. So, already we're feeling the shift.
Tell me what's in your group chat.
CHAMBERS: OK, what is in my group chat is another state we are focused on in 2026, Maine.
CORNISH: Oh.
CHAMBERS: Oh, in 2026, Maine, where Susan Collins is on the ballot.
CORNISH: Yes.
CHAMBERS: And Vice President J.D. Vance is headed to Maine today to campaign. But she said in an interview over the weekend that she won't be at the event because she's got something that's already scheduled today.
CORNISH: Sure. Schedule it.
CHAMBERS: Previously, she wasn't at Vance's event when he came in May because she had to be a vote for the Senate. Well, the Senate's out of session right now.
CORNISH: Yes, is that code for go away?
RICKETTS: I don't know.
CORNISH: OK, what's in your group chat?
RICKETTS: My group chat is just my gym bros. We just -- I just go to the gym, lift weights. I pick up heavy stuff --
CORNISH: Gym bros. What's in there? What do you bench?
RICKETTS: I don't know. But, yes, that's I'm about 245. I'd say like it's, you know, a little bit over 245.
CORNISH: Oh, look at this.
RICKETTS: But that's usually my first question is like, what's your bench bro? Do you even lift?
CORNISH: Yes. Yes, mine, negative zero lift.
RICKETTS: So, it's like, our talk is about, like, can you give creatine to babies in their formula.
CORNISH: Next group chat. RADJY: I get texts every day from people saying, is this race
something that's going to lead to a Democratic majority?
[07:00:01]
Should I invest --
CORNISH: Wait, wait, those are your actual texts?
RADJY: Yes. And should I --
CORNISH: I feel bad for you.
RADJY: I have $10, should I give it to this race or that race? And what I am responding is saying, I'm, you know, at Swing Left we share an updated map. We're about to expand our map because Democrats are going to win in more places.
CORNISH: You text all that.
RADJY: We've got Mississippi. We've got Kansas. We've got Nebraska.
CORNISH: No, are people -- are people like, I know you're Swing Left. Seriously though, should I put this?
RADJY: Yes. And what we're saying is, the map is expanding. If you've got $5, go to swingleft.org and --
CORNISH: OK.
RADJY: Your brother, I think it's going to be a tough fight for the U.S. Senate.
CORNISH: Headlines are next. Thank you for being with us.
