Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

CNN Poll: Dems Hold 10-Point Lead Over GOP on Congressional Ballot; Midterm Ad Spending Eclipses $11B; Trump Rallies in North Carolina as GOP Pulls Ad Money. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired October 21, 2026 - 06:00   ET

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

[06:00:08]

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN ANCHOR/LEGAL ANALYST: Just in this morning, a new CNN poll shows Democrats with a ten-point advantage ahead of the midterms. But can the party pick up congressional seats on Republican turf?

Plus, new predictions in the fight for the U.S. Senate. One race shifts toward a Republican who found fame as an NFL sideline reporter. What does that do to the midterm map?

And the uproar in Ohio over an attack ad featuring a Senate candidate's long-estranged mother. Does it cross the line?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMY ACTON (D), OHIO SENATE CANDIDATE: I was removed from her at the age of 12 -- my brother was 9 -- for child abuse and neglect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: Morning, everyone. I'm Elliot Williams, filling in again for Audie Cornish.

We begin here. New polling just into CNN shows Democrats entering the final stretch of the midterm campaign with a double-digit advantage over Republicans in the congressional ballot.

The poll shows registered voters nationwide choosing Democrats over Republicans on a generic ballot by ten points, 49 to 39. That lead grows even wider when you look at independent voters, who are breaking toward Democrats by 15 points.

But Democrats are going to have to overcome their own unpopularity to convince voters. The poll finds nearly half of voters have an unfavorable view of the party as they try to retake Congress.

Joining me now in the group chat: Sabrina Rodriguez, politics reporter for "The Wall Street Journal" and, more importantly, the pride of Hialeah, Florida; Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project; and Antjuan Seawright, Democratic strategist. Welcome to you all. So much to talk about. So, Antjuan, I want to start with you. So, you know, obviously there's

a lot of good news for Democrats in this polling, but your party still remains pretty unfavorable right now.

There was mid-decade redistricting at the House level, helping a bunch of Republicans. And a lot of these competitive races are in really friendly territory, really friendly for Republicans.

ANTJUAN SEAWRIGHT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: It was --

WILLIAMS: Yes, Republicans.

SEAWRIGHT: It was scheduled to help Republicans, but that has backfired tremendously up and down the ballot. And I think that's why you see the people responding the way you have.

Look, I believe fundamentally, there's no education in the second kick of the mule. We've been here before, in which people thought Democrats were going to have this handsome night. And things change, because Republican voters went home. Independent voters broke differently, and the politically unhoused did not find a home.

But here's what I do believe. The House is going to go through a major renovation project, remodeling project. The House of Jeffries will be in order. I think the hard part for Democrats is going to be how we govern in a split-government Washington.

WILLIAMS: Yes, let me a quick one. And if we could just pull up the graphic that was up a second ago of the map. And I want --Terry, I want you to respond to it.

You know, it's interesting. It's -- Democrats need seven of ten of these states to win the United States Senate. Now, for the -- just for conversation, let's take North Carolina and Georgia out. Those are seeming to be pretty big wins for Democrats right now.

But Democrats really need to win the table here -- to run the table here in order to advance. How bad is this map for Democrats?

TERRY SCHILLING, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PRINCIPLES PROJECT: It's -- it's actually not a terrible map for Democrats. In fact, in a lot of ways, the fundamentals have been going the way of the Democrats.

If you look at 2022, they have a lot of the same fundamentals that we saw there.

But the big difference that I'm seeing is, you know, the difference between an election where it's going to be a typical pushback year versus a wave year, is voters aren't really buying into the Democrats' vision.

You saw earlier that there's a 35 percent approval rating of the Democrats. That means voters are just upset at -- at the lack of progress that the Republicans have failed to make. And I'm with them on a lot of this stuff. But ultimately, I think, you know, look, Michigan, jump ball; Iowa,

jump ball. These are -- these are races that Republicans, if we didn't have the Iran war, if we didn't have $6 a gallon gas, we would not be dealing with playing defense there.

SEAWRIGHT: Terry -- Terry -- Terry -- Terry, the difference here is candidate quality. And politics is a game of matchups like sports. And when you look at where we're being competitive, it's not just Democrat versus Republican. It's the local intensity of the race. The race is being about local issues. And it's the fact that we have better candidates on the ballot.

And one thing you said in the polling is that people essentially hate Democrats as much. But the Democratic Party will not be on the ballot. It's the person representing the brand. And that's -- that's what people are going to vote for.

[06:05:02]

SCHILLING: And that's how you know that the Democratic brand is a total failure, is we're talking local politics, talking personalities --

SEAWRIGHT: All politics is local.

SCHILLING: No, it -- that's not true. That's just a cliche.

SEAWRIGHT: Terry!

SCHILLING: This is a national election. This is a nationalized election. That's what's happening.

SEAWRIGHT: Terry -- Terry, no way you say all politics are not local.

SCHILLING: No, I'm not saying all politics is local. I'm saying it's a mix. It's too much of a cliche. We can't -- we have to talk deeper. We have to get, actually, into these issues.

And saying all politics is local is just lazy. Politics is nationalized, especially American politics today.

WILLIAMS: Well, OK, politics is nationalized, particularly around one singular figure, President Trump.

And Sabrina, I want to bring you into this. The president always seems -- the president's party always seems to struggle in the midterms. The reality here is that even President Trump has acknowledged, as he did yesterday in the Oval Office. Let's listen to him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I just feel there's a great -- I don't know. The president always loses, for whatever reason, the midterms, whoever it is, Republican or Democrat; great president, lousy president. For some reason, I guess they've won two out of 25. I don't -- I don't know. Oz, is there a reason you can think of medically? Why do people vote?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: So, his approval rating has hit a new low. It's by a point. That's seven points lower than his approval rating in 2018. Look at these numbers here: 67 percent disapprove, 32 percent approve.

And I guess my question for you is how much of an albatross, in effect, around the necks of every Republican running in the country are those numbers for the president?

SABRINA RODRIGUEZ, POLITICS REPORTER, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": I mean, this is the biggest issue for Republicans running across the country right now, is how do you navigate the president's approval ratings?

You see that there's a balancing act that Republican candidates have to play right now. They can't distance themselves completely from the president, because they risk alienating the president's base, which he still has one that is energized and loves him. Versus how do you turn out enough people to win in a district when you have people disillusioned with him?

I just got back from South Texas, where, to Antjuan's point, there's a big question right now if redistricting is going to ultimately have backfired for Republicans there, who really thought that they could make in -- that they could kind of build on the inroads they made with Hispanic voters in 2024.

Now, one of the districts, they did, Texas 34, Texas 28, they were Democrat-held districts. They made those more Republican. But in the process, they actually made the middle district more competitive.

Now, this is a district that was a plus-18 competitive district for Trump. It stayed plus-18 for Trump. It is not that they redistricted that one to be more Republican.

However, that district in the process got redrawn. And now the Republican has had to introduce herself to a majority of the district that was redrawn at the same time that the Democrat is introducing himself and happens to be a famous Tejano singer with all these credentials in the district.

So, it's going to be interesting to see what actually comes of it. We see the similar dynamic in Florida, where there's a lot of debate about if, you know, the redrawn maps won't end up actually favoring Republicans as much as expected.

WILLIAMS: So, we're all in agreement. There's a lot of open questions here between now and November.

SEAWRIGHT: One disagreement, though.

WILLIAMS: You two are clearly not in agreement, but OK, GO.

SCHILLING: We're talking about candidate quality. I mean, we've got Troy Jackson in Maine. You've got James Talarico, who any other Democrat, if they weren't just so crazy about the trans issue, would be walking away with Texas.

You got El-Sayed, who's actually made Michigan competitive. These are solid opportunities for the Democrats, but the candidate quality is so terrible.

SEAWRIGHT: You know what's? You know --

SCHILLING: You've got a guy that married his cousin over the oysterman.

SEAWRIGHT: You know what's hilarious about you talking about candidate quality? Donald Trump is campaigning in South Carolina, my home state today. He's going to Kansas. He's going to deep-red, traditional double-digit-winning Republican territory, and two weeks from the election. That ought to tell you about the environment.

WILLIAMS: You know what? How y'all are going to have -- and I just said, "y'all." I'm from New Jersey. I said, "y'all."

SEAWRIGHT: See what you did?

WILLIAMS: But -- but those of you among us will have ample opportunity to talk about South Carolina, because we're talking about it in the next segment.

Coming up on CNN THIS MORNING, the race just shifted in South Carolina for a Trump pick. Senate candidate deep in the heart of the South. New predictions from the Cook Political Report.

Plus, the billionaires pouring cash into midterm races. Can ordinary people compete with that kind of money and power?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:14:00]

WILLIAMS: Eleven billion dollars. That is the expected total in political ad spending we should see by election day throughout this midterm campaign. An election quickly turning into a battle between billionaires.

Elon Musk contributed at least $276 million, much of that in the Senate race for Ken Paxton.

We've now learned that billionaire Michael Bloomberg is opening his wallet to the tune of about $80 million. And Donald Trump's super PAC, MAGA Inc., is being boosted by mega-donors making multimillion-dollar donations.

The PAC reportedly had $400 million on hand at the end of August. The president is vowing to empty that war chest, posting that he, quote, "has spent or will be spending $400 million by election day."

The group chat is back. Terry, let me start with you. There's a lot of money flying around here, and particularly in a time when prices are an issue. Spend -- you know, people's finances are an issue.

But average voters typically can't spend this kind of money. You know, where does this leave regular people, in terms of how they see the system?

[06:15:19]

SCHILLING: Yes. Well, I just got to point out, you know, billionaires didn't just discover politics. They've been hosting fundraisers in the Hamptons for all these guys for quite some time, especially this election cycle.

But my -- this is where I actually kind of excited, because where -- where the average voter goes, is they team up with other voters of their size, and they form a coalition.

At APP, I don't plug myself or work here, but we have big family, right?

WILLIAMS: Yes.

SCHILLING: And we have 17,000 people all across the country who give small amounts. And we pool that money together, and we target specific races on specific issues. And we've had great progress.

We're up to 27 states now, protecting kids from that whole trans agenda. And it's been very effective. And that's a $4.5 billion industry we took on.

WILLIAMS: So, Antjuan, but so respond to that. I mean, do you think it's --

SEAWRIGHT: This is what Democrats have been centered on ending Citizen United to get big money out of politics.

We will get -- always be out billionaires as Democrats by Republicans, because they have more resources. And yes, there's an old adage I subscribe to: no political romance without finance. So, money does matter.

However, there's one thing that can beat money, and that's momentum. In the 2024 cycle, people were more angry than they were informed.

In this cycle, people are informed and angry. So, it does not matter how much money is put into the race. People are going to vote against the people who are in charge.

SCHILLING: Can I just say on the -- on the populist pushback? I think you could actually get a really decent coalition of Republicans and conservatives to join you against Citizens United, but you'd have to limit the ability of the teachers' unions to be able to invest in the elections.

You know, the teachers' unions are taxpayer-funded.

SEAWRIGHT: Terry -- Terry -- SCHILLING: They get $200 million a year. They invest in campaigns and elections.

SEAWRIGHT: You can't use this opportunity.

SCHILLING: No, the teachers' unions. It's a big industry.

SEAWRIGHT: You can't use this opportunity to take a whack at the teachers' union when we're talking about fundamentally speaking to the needs of the American.

SCHILLING: Hold on, hold on. I'm saying there's commonality here.

WILLIAMS: Well, I think what you're getting at is the idea of some entity, outside entity, putting its thumb on the scale. And in fact, whether that's teachers' unions, whether that's labor, whether that's big tech or whatever else.

But billionaires are also that kind of thing. potentially. You know, there's the potential for billionaires to be seen as putting -- literally trying to influence elections.

To what extent, Sabrina, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts as to how that might backfire against the candidates who are taking that money.

RODRIGUEZ: I mean, this is part of the --

WILLIAMS: And you know what? Actually, before you go, let's just say, you know, there's a Pew Research survey, you know, asked that very point. And young adults have mixed feelings about even the idea of being very wealthy.

Sorry to cut you off there, but I just wanted to add that little bit of context. So go ahead.

RODRIGUEZ: Yes, I mean, I think that it's part of the closing message for some of these Democratic candidates and has been a central focal point of their campaign.

You look in Texas, for example, and James Talarico, so much of his campaign, because he needs to court moderate, disaffected voters and sort of moderate Republican voters in this race. A central part of it has been him not casting it as him against Trump or him against Republicans, but it's him against billionaires.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

RODRIGUEZ: His entire tagline of his campaign has been, it's not left versus right. It's top versus bottom.

And just seeing him, for example, this weekend where he's in sort of that final stretch of campaigning, he used the numbers that show how much Elon Musk is putting into this race.

I mean, we saw that Elon Musk has put, just in Texas alone, over $150 million of his own money. And he's using that in that final closing message.

SEAWRIGHT: Elliott, billionaires have a reason to support Republicans. In the Big, Ugly Bill, largest wealth transfer in American history. There's reports that came out, I think it was "USA Today," that talked about how the top 1 percent in this country benefited from the Trump tax scam that's been caught up in these bills.

So, they have a reason to keep these people in power. But people who are pissed off are the people who are downstream, who do not get the same benefits.

Elon Musk, the -- the biggest welfare queen himself, has benefited from a Donald Trump presidency with his government contracts. Most of them have. That's the reality you cannot argue.

SCHILLING: I can absolutely argue that billionaires are funding the Democratic Party. You guys have way more billionaires than we do, and that's OK. There's nothing wrong with it.

SEAWRIGHT: Name them, because I want to meet them.

SCHILLING: You've got George Soros, No. 1.

SEAWRIGHT: You said they outnumber Trump's. I want to meet them.

SCHILLING: But I get -- you get into trouble when you point out George Soros. But you guys have the money. You have Wall Street. You have the Hamptons. You have private equity. Right?

And that's why there's a Democratic pushback called the DSA, because there's a whole base of your party that's upset that the Democratic Party has sold out to private equity.

WILLIAMS: But I would say -- but I would say that base also hates billionaires. And I just think, and this is what Sabrina and I were talking about a second ago, there is a growing sentiment in the United States, starting with Gen Z, that is just skeptical of big wealth. And I just wonder how this is affecting the very debate you two are having.

SEAWRIGHT: And DSA has nothing to do with billionaires, except that they want to hold them accountable and want them to pay their fair share.

SCHILLING: You're missing my point.

SEAWRIGHT: You're missing.

SCHILLING: My point is that the DSA exists, because the Democratic establishment has sold out to private equity.

SEAWRIGHT: That's not true. The DSA exists, because the government has not worked --

SCHILLING: No. No.

SEAWRIGHT: -- for people downstream, and they're pissed off and they're saying we need to do something different.

SCHILLING: No, Chuck Schumer -- it's because Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi sold the entire party out to private equity so that they could get their insider stock trading deals.

[06:20:04]

SEAWRIGHT: You don't even believe that. That's the good news.

SCHILLING: Absolutely believe that.

WILLIAMS: Well, how about this? Do you all want to keep, let's not say arguing, but having a spirited conversation about spending and campaign ads? I think you do.

SCHILLING: Oh, I love it.

WILLIAMS: Because we're going to do that after the break.

Later on in CNN THIS MORNING --

SEAWRIGHT: That's really good.

WILLIAMS: -- a $4 million campaign ad in Ohio brings a candidate's painful family history to light. But could this commercial backfire?

Also, President Trump puts his clout on the line in North Carolina. Why his own party is less willing to invest in that race.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WILLIAMS: He's trailing in the polls. His own party is pushing back millions in ads -- pulling back millions in ad spending.

[06:25:02]

President Trump still went to North Carolina last night to rally for Senate candidate Michael Whatley.

The Senate Leadership Fund spent more than $30 million on ads in the state. They originally planned to spend over 70 million before pausing and redirecting resources to other Senate races.

But the president has a personal stake in this race. He's the one who encouraged Whatley to run in the first place.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: But if you want a man who defends the law-abiding people of North Carolina, you have to vote for Michael Whatley. He's so solid. You've got to vote for him.

Michael Whatley did a fantastic job, and I'm here to tell you that I appreciate that. And he's from North Carolina. And as I said, I demanded -- come on up, Michael. I wanted him to be the guy. And I was right. I called it right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAMS: So, the million-dollar question, or I guess it's the $70 million question, is what's more valuable in this race? President Trump's time or money?

And Sabrina, I want to ask you the latest polling here shows Roy Cooper leading Michael Whatley by 13 points. That's a bunch. Republicans pulling back on ad spending in the state.

What do you think? Is the president, you know, showing up really likely to change the dynamics in this race?

RODRIGUEZ: Not necessarily. I think some of this is already baked.

You know, of course, to energize Republican voters, the president's base, it certainly doesn't hurt for him to be going to North Carolina; for him to show he cares about this race; for him to show that he is boosting his candidate, to be boosting Whatley.

But I think as we, like, have the conversation around the Senate races now and in the last few weeks, North Carolina is not one of the ones that we're talking about necessarily as the most competitive right now. That's the reality.

It certainly has shifted towards Roy Cooper. That has been sort of the dynamic that has built up throughout this race. It's going to be very hard for the president to move that now.

And that's part of why you see that money that's been pulled away.

And the reality is that people can argue, oh, that doesn't necessarily mean that Republicans aren't focused on it. But as we all follow these last races, you see where the money is pouring into and where the money is pouring out of or being pulled out of.

So, I think that's part of the reality now is, yes, the president wants to -- to drum up his base, but you need money in these finals.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

SEAWRIGHT: You know what's so interesting about these rallies? One, Trump does not use them to talk about his policies. He used them to talk about himself and weird things like last night in North Carolina, he was talking about the physique and the buttocks of the candidate in Ohio, the senator in Ohio. It's very weird and awkward.

I think he's using these opportunities to visit these places. One, to check a box, but two, to try to rally his base across the board. Because he knows it's going to get coverage.

When you spend most of your time in a rally in North Carolina talking about the -- the appearance of -- the weird appearance of a Senate candidate in Ohio that tells you he's not serious about what he's doing, where he's at. SCHILLING: Look --

WILLIAMS: What say you about men's buttocks?

SEAWRIGHT: Trump talking.

SCHILLING: About no, no, no, I need to see the clip. I would love to see.

SEAWRIGHT: Talking about his butt.

SCHILLING: I think he would have had a great career in stand-up comedy, as well.

But what I will say is that, obviously, we talked about this earlier, the fundamentals of these midterms are really tough.

Michael Whatley is a great guy, very powerful, very influential in the party. Helped, you know, do some really good changes for the family.

What President Trump is doing is he's being loyal here. He's coming here to support a friend. It's a tough election.

But we do need Trump in Kansas. We need him in Texas. We need him in Michigan. Wisconsin.

SEAWRIGHT: Republican places. Interesting.

SCHILLING: No, no, no, no. Yes, we are playing defense. I've been very real. And that's all because no one has figured out how to revive the American family through the economy.

We need to start addressing the economy for young people and working families. And Democrats are going to really struggle with that. I'm telling you that right now.

WILLIAMS: To that point that Antjuan started making about the president going to Republican places, he is crisscrossing the United States through the midterms. He says he's going to come back to North Carolina. This is the point y'all were making.

I said it again, darn it, "y'all." You're in my head. But now, let's listen to the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I'm studying his body. I've never studied the body of a man before. It's not my thing. Nothing wrong with it, of course. Nothing. I always precede it by saying nothing wrong. But it's never been my thing, to be honest with you.

But I looked at his ass. And then I looked at his legs. And I said, his ass is like -- it's like a pile of muscle.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SEAWRIGHT: Terry.

SCHILLING: I love him. I will never not love him. We are going to look back at this time and laugh our tails off. And he's just so damn funny.

WILLIAMS: Sabrina.

RODRIGUEZ: I am not going to comment on this clip. But --

WILLIAMS: As well, you should not.

RODRIGUEZ: One thing that I will note here, too, is, you know, the reality is Trump won North Carolina three times.

But I think one factor to take into account here is that North Carolina has been historically a battleground state. And Whatley is in a unique position where, given his relationship to Trump, he has truly not distanced himself from the president. That is somewhere he has chosen to really stay in line with President Trump throughout his campaign.

So, I think when you look at the approval ratings and the same headwinds that we've been talking about this entire show, that is where I think one of the dynamics is at play. Like, this is a battleground state, and Trump is a problem.

[06:30:00]