Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Trump Intensified Anti-Immigration Message; Obama's Sharp Message to Black Men Sparks Backlash; Pro-Harris Parody Ad Sparks GOP Backlash; Elon Musk Eyes Major Move to Boost Trump. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired October 11, 2024 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
MARC LOTTER, FORMER TRUMP 2020 DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: So, hats off to the Coast Guard and they rescued a captain who was literally clinging to a cooler in the Gulf of Mexico, 30 miles off of Longboat Key. He went out to fix his boat, got trapped, boat sank. He literally held on to a cooler.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: The boat sank.
LOTTER: The boat sank. He held on to a cooler overnight. And the only thing my hot take is, thank goodness Rose from Titanic wasn't with him or he may not have been having that --
PHILLIP: He would have gotten kicked right off that cooler.
(LAUGHTER)
All right, everyone, thank you very much. Happy Friday to you. Thank you for watching "NewsNight: State of the Race." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, tonight, Donald Trump goes all in on immigration, distorting the truth in Aurora, Colorado with a new deportation message that he thinks is going to help him win.
Plus, new reporting on just how much Elon Musk is spending to help Donald Trump, and the one eye-raising move he is now considering in Pennsylvania.
And it's the parody ad for Kamala Harris that has officially gone viral, with Republicans now trying to turn it against her. Well, the man behind the video is breaking his silence and joining me tonight on "Laura Coates Live."
So, when it comes to Donald Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric, well, we all remember this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: They're eating the dogs, the people that came in. They're eating the cats.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That baseless rumor was about Springfield, Ohio. It was also false. But that night, remember, there was also this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They are taking over the towns. They're taking over buildings.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That was about Aurora, Colorado. And Donald Trump claims it has been overrun by Venezuelan gangs which, by the way, city officials say is massively overstated.
So, when Trump went to Aurora today to hold a rally, the city was hoping it would be an opportunity to set the record straight. You know, clear the air. Aurora's Republican mayor even told me he wanted to show Trump what his city was really about.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR MIKE COFFMAN, AURORA, COLORADO: To have the narrative that the entire city is overrun by Venezuelan gangs or the entire state is just -- it's simply not true. I want the president to come here. I want to show the president this city and show him that we're not, in fact, some gang-infested city, that we're a safe city.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Look, it didn't go how the mayor wanted. Trump was flanked on stage by posters reading, "Occupied America," with images of undocumented immigrants accused of crimes. And then -- and then he said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I will rescue Aurora and every town that has been invaded and conquered. These towns have been conquered. Explain that to your governor. He doesn't have a clue. They've been conquered. We will not be conquered. We will not be conquered. I will liberate Colorado.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Invaded, conquered, liberate. I mean, these are the sounds in the language of war. And, in fact, Trump even compared Aurora to a warzone. So, how do we even get to this point? Well, it all started after this video circulated across social media, and it showed armed men in a local apartment complex. So, the building's owner claimed it was Venezuelan gangs taking over. But the city says gang influence is isolated and chalks this up to poor housing conditions. Aurora officials say that there is actually no mass takeover.
Look, Trump is all in on immigration. He's trying to tie Kamala Harris to it. And while it's a real, legitimate concern for many Americans, Trump has also shown that he's willing to exaggerate, to lie, to demonize, to make his point.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You're going to have hundreds of millions of people coming in here, and you're not going to have them. And they're going to take your house. That woman has a beautiful house over there. I saw it, actually. Enjoy it because you won't have it long. They will take over your house.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: It's a strategy that worked for Trump in 2016. The question now is, will that same strategy work for him now?
Well, joining us now, CNN political commentator and former Obama administration official, Van Jones, Republican consultant and founder of 1776 Project PAC, Ryan Girdusky, and the host of "Can We Please Talk?" podcast, Mike Leon. Glad to have all three of you here this evening.
I'll begin with you, Ryan. Aurora's Republican mayor, I mean, he has set the record straight. He has said Aurora is -- quote -- "not a city overrun by Venezuelan gangs. The reality is that the concerns about Venezuelan gang activity have been grossly exaggerated." Now, these are his words. So, why does Trump continue to exaggerate when the person who runs the city says otherwise?
[23:05:02]
RYAN GIRDUSKY, FOUNDER, 1776 PROJECT PAC: Well, there were at least 10 Venezuelan gang members who were arrested in Aurora, Colorado. The Denver Gazette reported that officials in the city, including the police department, knew that gangs from Venezuela were operating within apartment complexes, demanding rent, demanding fees from tenants, taking money, having guns, and didn't say anything about it for quite some time. It is not like it didn't happen, it did happen.
And the truth of the matter is over the course of time, since 2016, a majority of Americans support mass deportation, a majority of Americans want to reduce legal immigration. What Trump is saying, the fiery language he's using, is in an agreement with most people on the issue of immigration. That's why he's trashing immigration far more than Kamala Harris.
COATES: Van, you're shaking your head no. Why?
VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, because Trump is lying. And look, I live in Los Angeles. I've started my family in Oakland. You know, I'm not a part of the pro-crime lobby. You know. I'm very concerned of when young men are get pulled into bad situations or organizations get exploited. But you have to deal with it with truth, and you have to deal with precision.
And when you say a whole town has been conquered and a whole town has been invaded when, in fact, you have a couple of hot spots, which you have in lots of places, that the local authorities are dealing with effectively, that's not good, because what you're doing, you start to demonize a whole set of people and marginalize a set of people and create alarm.
So, I don't like people pimping pain. I don't like people pimping fear. And that's what Donald Trump is doing. And so, yes, you're correct, some people are concerned about immigration, but they're concerned about actual facts. If those are legitimate concerns, you don't need an apocalyptic narrative fueled by lies that fly in the face of facts.
COATES: Well, Mike, let me bring you in here because it's almost a chicken and the egg game in some respects, right? There are concerns that people have about immigration, about border policies, about crime in America. But then there is the exaggeration to the demonization that Vance is speaking about that makes people feel exponentially differently than they would otherwise had based on what's happening. So, which comes first? Is it Trump who is making these statements and, therefore, fueling people's anxiety or is it that there are people who are fueling his rhetoric? What do you think?
MIKE LEON, PODCAST HOST: Yeah, and, you know, I'm down here in Miami, the gateway to Latin America.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
LEON: So, let me call a little bit of the balls and strikes here. Let me use another sports analogy, right? In the NFL, there are two penalties. There's running into the kicker and there's roughing the kicker. Both look like the same, but they're different penalty calls, right? One is more egregious.
And I think, to Ryan's point, right, he's talking about the more egregious part of what Trump's rhetoric is doing right now because there are underlying issues. Just look at what's happening in Springfield. There are more migrants that are coming into the area, the police department there and how they handle it, there's a language barrier with dealing with Haitian immigrants. So, there are issues, fundamental issues that are administrative.
But the administrative part, to Van's part, is not sexy. It's not sexy to talk about the crisis at the border and to talk about the administrative issues with the backlog of asylum cases and all of that hiring more agents to help, right? None of that is sexy, Laura.
So, what Trump is doing is trying to, what Van said, he's trying to over amplify it. But the data doesn't show that because violent crime in Aurora is down 14%. Assaults are down 4% year over year. Men lie, women lie, numbers don't.
So, I'm the ultimate balls and strikes umpire here, as you know, Laura. There is an issue, but it's so much more sexier to make it this trumped-up version, no pun intended, which is what Donald Trump is doing when you could actually talk about the core issues that are fundamental because the people that are working on the ground are saying it's an issue. COATES: Well, I love the analogy. I remember the roughing and the running into a kicker, a really good one, although baseball fans everywhere now are like, you couldn't give me a baseball analogy, Mike Leon? What are you doing right now? Okay? What you're doing? You couldn't do that? It's a good night --
LEON: Sorry, sorry.
COATES: -- baseball. Okay? Thank you very much. Whatever.
LEON: Yankee --
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: Let me bring you into this, Ryan. There is a new interview in "The New York Times" with CNN contributor Lulu Garcia-Navarro. She talks to Senator J.D. Vance about the outcome of the 2020 election. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, JOURNALIST FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, PODCAST HOST: Do you believe he lost the 2020 election?
SEN. J.D. VANCE (R-OH), U.S. VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think that Donald Trump and I have both raised a number of issues with the 2020 election, but we're focused on the future.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Senator, yes or no? Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?
VANCE: Let me ask you a question. Is it okay that big technology companies censored the Hunter Biden laptop story?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: That was like five chances. We played several. Five chances to say whether Trump lost in 2020. He deflected answering the questions with questions. You used to work for Senator J.D. Vance. Why not just say an answer to the question that sounds like what rhymes with either Bess or Doe?
[23:10:05]
(LAUGHTER)
GIRDUSKY: I -- I didn't -- I worked for him in the past, in the Senate race. I don't work for him currently, in this vice president race.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
GIRDUSKY: I just want to be clear. The whole idea of the 2020 election being this linchpin for Democratic voters as these number one issue that is motivating them is certainly true for people in the media, it's certainly true for a lot of reporters, and it's certainly true for a lot of Democratic donors. But the average American really has put this behind them and it has become a thing where you want to either get J.D. as if they run and attack the president, what the media is really trying to do, and he's not going to do that.
So, it's just -- it's kind of a non-thing, especially getting a chance to speak to the future vice president possibly about really concerning issues rather than talking about the outcome of an election that is over and Joe Biden is currently sitting president although I'm not sure if he even knows that yet.
COATES: Hmm. Well, Van, first of all, is it a non-issue? I'll ignore the last comment for a second, get to the meat of the matter. Is it a non-issue for you?
JONES: It's an issue for Donald Trump, who continues to raise it. I mean, if it's such a non-issue, then why does he talk about it in every speech? The prob -- the reason that's an issue for people who you might want to write off as media people is because this is a part of a pattern that we've seen repeat in history in other countries.
When you have a major leader that tries to undermine faith and democratic institutions like the courts, like elections, like the media, that tends -- those dominoes tend to fall in a certain direction, toward more authoritarian rule. And so, that's why people are concerned.
Now, it's the easiest thing in the world to say, yes, he won the election, and he's going to lose -- yes, Biden won the election and Kamala Harris is going to lose the next one. That's what any normal politician would say. When you have a politician like a J.D. Vance or like a Donald Trump who will not behave on the campaign trail like a normal politician, it raises fears that they will not behave in office like a normal elected official, and that's where the concern comes from.
COATES: Hey Mike, it seems as though there's a fear, maybe if you're Senator J.D. Vance, of alienating a group of people that, you know, to Ryan's point, believes it's a non-issue or the other hand maybe taking off the person -- you know, you're biting the hand that is feeding you with a running mate position. Is that the motivation as to why he won't just say or is it, as Ryan indicates, look, it's just some trap he refuses to fall for?
LEON: Yeah, I mean, again, I think it's a little bit of column A and column B, right? Like what Van was talking about there, you need to answer of whether or not you would continue the peaceful transfer of power if you would continue these institutions that we rely on in place.
But when you look at voter issues, to Ryan's point, democracy tends to rank a little bit lower, I can't believe it does, but it tends to rank lower in the 2020 election. Now, back to Van's overall point, right? If it's a non-starter, why does he keep bringing it up?
Laura, you and I have talked about this before. The way we are framing questions when we asked the former president why he won't accept the results of a 2024 election, he's participating in the process. Of course, he's going to accept the results. I know what happened on January 6th. But you don't participate in something that you feel like you've been wronged in three different times. In 2016, he feels like he won by more. In 2020, he feels like he didn't lose. You don't participate in something three straight times.
And I think for J.D. Vance, the reason he's pivoting is typical republican strategy message, right? Answer through the question and get what you want to get out about it. And so, I think for J.D. Vance, he's doing the right thing by pivoting and reframing the question, but I think it is imperative of us to kind of move away from it and ask, reframe the question in a different direction about trusting the institutions and putting this fear and doubt into the public.
COATES: Ryan, what's your thought?
GIRDUSKY: This is just ridiculous because -- I'm sorry. Stacey Abrams never accepted the results of her 2018 election. Hillary Clinton said Russia stole the 2016 election. Democrats deny the 2000 elections. Democrats deny the 2004 elections.
Every election Democrats don't win, they kick and stamp their feet, they sit there and they say it's stolen, they say we need to pack the Supreme Court, make Puerto Rico and D.C. a state, make sure that other voters are disenfranchised, give citizenship to illegal aliens, making sure Americans' votes count for less. They don't -- listen, if you care -- I care about democracy. I care about -- I care about democracy.
JONES: You don't care much.
GIRDUSKY: Yeah, I do clearly --
LEON: But Ryan --
JONES: Oh, nothing --
LEON: Ryan, they don't -- they don't march -- they don't march in D.C., Ryan. Like that's the difference, right? Like you're pointing to -- I agree with you, Hillary Clinton said that, Stacey Abrams said that. You know what they didn't do?
[23:14:59]
They didn't organize a rally, they didn't tweet about it, Peter Navarro didn't tweet about it, they didn't have all of these other subsidiary people organize an event. Look, this is rocket science. It happened. The revolution was televised. We all saw it that day, what happened. Like I agree with you that the American people want to move on from that, but if you can't acknowledge that it happened, how can we move on from something? If you can't --
GIRDUSKY: I agree with you.
LEON: How are we supposed to have a conversation? GIRDUSKY: I completely -- I completely agree with you. January 6 is horrible and it was disgusting. Nonetheless and yet still, if you (INAUDIBLE) of institution and democracy, Democrats have been disenfranchising it for 20 years since the Bush election.
JONES: That's a complete lie.
GIRDUSKY: They just have. They said Ohio was stolen in '04. This goes on for so long.
COATES: Hold on. Let me -- hold on. Don't -- wait. Don't talk over each other. Van, finish your point. Go ahead.
JONES: You're just letting him ramble on with these talking points that he could pull out of a Cracker Jack box. Listen, if you're serious about democracy, you cannot try to normalize what Donald Trump did. Listen, yes, you have spoiled brats and sore losers after every little league game. That's not what we're talking about.
Yes, there have been Democrats who were unhappy with the Supreme Court giving 2002W. What we've always had, though, is something called a concession speech. That's the key. The key in our country is that when all of the processes are done, when the Supreme Court has made its final decision, when the final votes have been tallied and they've been affirmed, when the Congress has acted, at some point, there's something called the concession speech.
And the fact that we never got a concession speech from Donald Trump, and may not this time, is what puts the whole republic at risk. And you cannot normalize the refusal to give a concession speech, which Hillary Clinton did do, grumpy perhaps, unhappy perhaps, but she gave the concession speech. She did not organize a riot. Everybody that you just mentioned gave a concession speech.
Donald Trump has never conceded. He continues to whip up the American people. He continues to try to undermine our democracy, and he organized an insurrection. That cannot be normalized. And all the talking points that the right wing throws out there about this person complained about this election, Stacey Abrams said something that was, you know, unwelcome or ungenerous, that does not excuse what Donald Trump has done to our country.
COATES: I want to clear one thing because I know the audience is just seeing that we had three people, addition to myself on the screen. Ryan is no longer on. Did Ryan drop from the conversation or he inadvertently dropped from the conversation? Do we have -- technical issue. Okay. I just want to make sure everyone knows he technically -- not intentional. We did not drop him from the conversation, okay, everyone?
(LAUGHTER)
So, don't get me on this.
LEON: Don't put that out there.
COATES: I'm just saying, don't even start with me, okay?
JONES: You'll be back tomorrow.
COATES: But I will tell you this. It is very difficult for the American electorate as a whole to ignore the fact that question about the peaceful condition of power is still out there. Why? Because there's not the same running mate next to Donald Trump any longer. Right? His name is not Mike Pence.
LEON: That's right.
COATES: It's now J.D. Vance. That sparked some questions. Ryan, thank you. Van and Mike, stand by, okay?
Up next, Barack Obama facing backlash for his message to Black men as the Harris campaign announces a new move to try and win them over. Plus, if you live in battleground Pennsylvania, you might want to listen for a knock on your door from him. Elon Musk might be there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, the Harris campaign media blitz rolls into the Motor City on Tuesday. Vice President Harris will take part in a radio town hall in Detroit with the host of "The Breakfast Club," Charlamagne tha God. Charlamagne has garnered a following through his hot takes on politics and, of course, bold questions to politicians like this exchange with Harris back in 2021.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLAMAGNE THA GOD, RADIO HOST: Who's the real president of this country? Is it Joe Manchin or Joe Biden, Madam Vice President?
KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Come on, Charlamagne.
CHARLAMAGNE THA GOD: I really --
HARRIS: Come on, it's Joe Biden.
CHARLAMAGNE THA GOD: I can't tell sometimes.
HARRIS: No, no, no. It's Joe Biden. And don't start talking like a Republican about asking whether or not he's president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: There's a clear calculus behind the town hall, it seems, outreach specifically to Black men. Polls indicate slightly more Black men are supporting Trump this year than they were in 2020. So, the Harris campaign is ramping up engagement with high-profile events and surrogates like, well, former President Obama. He actually scolded Black men who aren't voting for her.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You're thinking about sitting out or even supporting somebody, who has a history of denigrating you, because you think that's a sign of strength, because that's what being a man is, putting women down? That's not acceptable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Van Jones and Mike Leon are back with me along with Michael Eric Dyson, distinguished university professor of African American & Diaspora Studies at Vanderbilt University.
Michael, let me begin with you here, because President Obama's comments to Black men have drawn some significant backlash. You have a senior political analyst and Bloomberg opinion columnist, Nia-Malika Henderson, writing this, and I quote -- "Black men don't need to be torn down. They don't need to be condescended to. They don't need to be scolded. What they need is a president who sees them, hears them, and makes their lives better -- just like every other American" -- unquote.
So, my question to you, my friend, is, is this the message itself and the actual speaker the most effective surrogate to appeal to black men of today?
[23:25:00]
MICHAEL ERIC DYSON, PROFESSOR OF AFRICAN AMERICAN & DIASPORA STUDIES, VANDEBILT UNIVERSITY: Well, thank you for having me on with these tremendous gentlemen. Look, obviously, context determines content. And the delivery of a specific message geared toward Black men, if done in -- quote -- "black circles," in black space, in black places, where the dependency upon closed doors allow the expression of ideas that might feel untoward in a broader audience and might feel condescending, as they were here. That's number one.
Number two, it may not be that Obama is the exactly precise person who could deliver that message because during his presidency, he was well- known for scolding Black people on a number of occasions in public before white audiences and wider audiences that may not have interpreted the chastisement of Black people that goes on routinely, by the way, within certain spiritual and religious circles, within fraternal and sorority circles that would not play well in a broader society.
Number three, I think both things are absolutely right. On the one hand, it is true. Nia-Malika Henderson is absolutely right. Wendell Pierce is absolutely right. Nina Turner (ph) is absolutely right. Condescension is not what is needed. Let's have an empathetic approach to Black men. Let's understand what their particular situations and circumstances are and what their concerns are, and treat them as equally as significant as other broader constituencies.
On the other hand, within those black circles, I think it's quite appropriate to press Black men about the function of patriarchy, the way in which misogyny has operated broadly in a culture, whether in hip-hop or religious circles, where women are still not routinely allowed to man or woman the pulpits of these churches.
So, it's a both-and, not either-or, but the context makes a difference. And since Obama has been known to lash out at African- American circles or people in these circles, he may not be the ideal person to deliver that message.
COATES: Let me ask you, Mike Leon, because -- and you mentioned this, Michael Eric Dyson, acclaimed actor Wendell Pierce is a Harris surrogate. He actually blasted Obama's message. He called it awful and said that Democrats must stop scapegoating Black men. What do you make of the statement by Obama? Does it scapegoat and will it backfire?
LEON: You know, funny enough, I actually did a piece on this recently on my show with AP policy reporter Matt Brown, who went to Atlanta and did some focus groups with Black men that are champion for Kamala Harris. Look, I'm the Latino on the panel, even though I'm a quarter Afro-Cuban, so I'm going to throw myself in the mix there. Far from me to police the African-American community, right?
But Roger Steele, the popular Black golf influencer, has a video out there where he's playing a Trump course, and he says, it's a really nice course. Makes you want to think about it. Right? And he's like, no, absolutely not. But the Democratic Party does need to start talking to us. And he's like, you're right, you're right.
And I've always thought about that video because that's always the refrain I hear, not only in the Latino community, but in the black community as well, right? Like Democrats take advantage of us. They take advantage of the vote, right?
And so, I think to Nina's point and to Professor Dyson's point, good to see you again, brother, one of the things that I think that is imperative of Kamala Harris to talk about is the struggles of people like me.
For example, Laura. I grew up in the Bronx, right? I grew up in a community where education is at the bottom of the state of New York. You know, foods are high, trans fats in that community, right? The cost of living in that community is very cheap because you don't make that much money. And I had to move 45 minutes north to Westchester County to actually be around a 90% white community that has now delis and not those foods and high trans fats, and has a community and environment that I could grow up in and go to high school because I couldn't make it out of the Bronx if I had stayed there. That was my parents' fear.
How do you talk to those inner cities and those communities? And I know she has been going to Detroit and making stops in Pittsburgh and other suburbs -- I mean, excuse me, other urban cities. And that's what I think at the core of Nina's issue, is go into those communities and talk about how you're actually going to affect change because the statistical data is there to show that these people don't see a way out and there's very few of us that are on TV, let's say for example, to be able to showcase that way out or whatever career path they want to take.
COATES: Well, Van, on that point, obviously, we have to say, and we know, not even saying, this is not a monolith, right? The idea of painting in broad strokes is on one hand a challenge. On the one hand, there is the appeal to a specific demographic, but also trying to appeal to the more general concerns of the members of the electorate. What do you think of Obama's message, and how did you interpret it?
JONES: Well, first of all, you know, I love Barack Obama. And we need Barack Obama. We have very few people like him on earth.
[23:30:01]
A household name on six continents. Beloved by people of every kind. When he steps onto the field, the stakes are very high. Black men are hurting. We don't feel appreciated. We don't feel that those of us who are looking forward to bringing our daughters to vote for a sister are even being talked about. We don't feel that the 80 to 85% of us were going to vote for Kamala Harris are being given our flowers.
Black men are going to outvote every group in America for Kamala Harris. We're going to outvote all the white women. We're going to be 50-50 for Donald Trump. Nobody's mad at white women. We're going to outvote all the Latinos, male, female, and otherwise. Nobody is mad at them. We're going to outvote all the Asians, male, female, and otherwise. Nobody is mad at them.
But everybody is mad at us when the only people who are going to outvote us are the sisters, and they outvote everybody anyway. So, we are number two, voting for Kamala Harris, and yet being put in the doghouse again. And so, it hurts. And when the most beloved brother in the world steps on the stage, we want him to speak for us. We want him to love us. We want him to brag on us, celebrate us, show the world that we're doing good. We're making good decisions. A lot of us are making good decisions every day and we don't get the credit and we don't get the respect.
And so, I appreciate Nia-Malika stepping forward and saying, hey, that didn't land well for some brothers. He now has the opportunity to -- he said what he had to say. He got off his chest. I'm sure he has been frustrated. But what will move the needle is when Barack Obama, our most beloved brother, says, I see you, I see what you're going through, I see all the good that you're doing in your families, in your churches, in your mosques, in your synagogues, I see what you're doing with these babies, and I want you to be able to do even more.
And Kamala Harris is the way. When he starts speaking to our hearts and our souls and reminding people that all of us are trying to be Barack Obama, that's who we're trying to be. We're trying to get there. We're trying to be the best at whatever we're doing, like he has been the best. That's his best and highest use.
COATES: Hmm.
JONES: But do not throw Barack Obama under the bus. I don't think Nia- Malika was doing that at all. But do not pile on and throw him under the bus because we don't have another one. He is the most beloved brother on earth. And his first step, I think, is not his last step. And I hope that he will now embrace us and love us and lift us up because that's what we need from Barack Obama. That's what we always have needed from Barack Obama.
COATES: Michael Eric Dyson, I see you nodding. I have to ask you what you make of that.
DYSON: Well, absolutely right. That's an eloquent articulation of Van, of understanding both the empathetic approach to African-American men, to Black men who struggle and suffer violently and invisibly at the hands of so many opportunists in this culture.
On the other hand, I think Van is right in terms of Barack Obama. It's not that we should throw him under the bus because people can contend he threw us under the bus, right? So, there's always an imbalance. Barack Obama has the rhetorical freedom to exercise his own legitimate viewpoint in with however much discretion he lacks or brings to the table. But when there's a response to him, there's a knee-jerk reaction about we must protect that one man. One man's journey can never exhaust or overcome the collective of Black people.
COATES: Hmm.
DYSON: And as precious as Barack Obama is, as Martin Luther King Jr. is, as Ida B. Wells-Barnett is, no individual is greater than the collective. It is black like we, not black like me. In that context, if Barack Obama were to take it another step and speak to white voters and say, you know, you who are voting for Donald Trump understand the implicit white supremacy, you try to excuse yourself as an exception that you can take his economic policies and do away with his bigotry at the same time when you know they are together.
If Barack Obama ever had the courage, the ability to articulate to the American public with gentleness and yet stiffness and firmness that what they're doing is problematic, then Black people could take the behind weapon that he might give. But you whip in one person and not the other, it is an imbalance and he has to be held to account.
Kamala Harris understands that going to my beloved hometown of Detroit, the city of soul, the Motown City, is (INAUDIBLE).
COATES: Gentlemen, thank you so much to all of you. Really thoughtful conversation.
It started as a pro-Kamala Harris parody video meant to boost her support with men. Then, it caught the attention of conservatives. Now, they're calling it the cringiest political ad ever. The video's creator joins me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COATES: So, tonight, the internet seems confused about a viral parody video created in support of Kamala Harris. It is called "Man Enough." Here is a piece of it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: I'm a man.
UNKNOWN: I'm a man.
UNKNOWN: I'm a man, man.
UNKNOWN: And I'm man enough.
UNKNOWN: I'm man enough to enjoy a barrel proof Bourbon.
UNKNOWN: Meat.
UNKNOWN: Man enough to cook my steak rare.
UNKNOWN: Man enough to deadlift 500 and braid it out of my daughter's hair.
[23:40:00]
UNKNOWN: Do you think I'm afraid to rebuilt the carburetor? I eat carburetors for breakfast.
UNKNOWN: I ain't afraid of bears.
UNKNOWN: That's what bear hugs are for.
UNKNOWN: I'll tell you another thing I sure I'm not afraid of. Women.
UNKNOWN: I'm not afraid of women.
UNKNOWN: They want to control their bodies? I say go for it.
UNKNOWN: They want to use IVF to start a family? I'm not afraid of families.
UNKNOWN: They want to be childless cat ladies?
UNKNOWN: Have all the cats you want.
UNKNOWN: Woman wants to be president?
UNKNOWN: Well, I hope she has the guts to look me right in the eye and accept my full-throated endorsement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Man, that video, it goes on to reveal it's not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. But the video, it went viral anyway, with right-leaning accounts mocking it as if it were an official Harris campaign ad. More than four million views on X alone with comments like this: The cringiest political ad ever. Can't tell if it's satire or not. I don't think it is. Who wrote this script? Had they met literally a single male human? I have to assume that this ad was written by someone on the Harris-Walz team who has never met a man before.
Well, joining me now is the man who created this video, director and writer, Jacob Reed. Jacob, first things first, clear it up to the audience, did the Harris campaign --
JACOB REED, VIDEO CREATOR: Yeah.
COATES: -- have anything to do with this ad?
REED: Not to my knowledge. So, if they did, it was -- no --
(CROSSTALK)
-- a bunch of friends made this. I mean, unless it was incepted in my brain at some point, we made this, myself and a bunch of friends, who care about the election and wanted to get involved for a couple hundred bucks. And I think what I'm learning is when you get a lot of industry professionals together, you make something that looks really professional because that's what we do all day. And I thought the message was clearly satire and, you know, parody, but it has been kind of -- it has been interesting for me to watch both the left and then the right reacts to it.
COATES: I mean, who knew this would be a Rorschach test and everyone wondering what they're seeing here. But what was your intention in creating this parody and the substance of the message?
REED: Yeah, great question. So, I mean, I think about masculinity a lot because I'm a dad now raising kids. I think in this country, it's something we don't talk about a lot. And so, I had this idea watching the back-to-back conventions where at the democratic convention, there are men who are looking at the women who they work with or who they're in relationships with, with admiration and respect.
At the Republican National Convention, you have, you know, everything's about size, crowd size, this size, that size. You're playing macho man. Literally Hulk Hogan is ripping his shirt off. I mean, it was such a cartoon of masculinity that it really -- the juxtaposition was hilarious to me. Wow, you guys got that picture fast, holy moly.
(LAUGHTER)
So, I -- you know, I come from comedy and comedy comes from juxtaposition. And so, to me, I was just riffing with my friends thinking, wouldn't it be funny if you took these ideas of like, so macho, you got to tell everyone how macho you are all the time, masculinity.
And what I feel is a more real version of what it means to be a man where, you know, yeah, you cry at a rom-com, you braid your daughter's hair, you go pick up tampons from the store if someone needs tampon, like, who cares? And so, to me, putting those together, but treating it like as if it's a real, you know, rugged man political ad, would be funny. And I still think it was funny.
COATES: I mean, it was great satire. I tell you right now, I mean, anyway, I don't know how this was confused for an official campaign ad, but stranger things have happened. And you actually said that it originally had a positive reception, but then things turned south when your account started sharing it and mocking it. What was your reaction when you saw things turn negative?
REED: You know, it was just kind of be fuddling, right? Because I made this to speak to other men and to people in general who are already supporting Harris-Walz. There's a month to the election. I don't think I'm switching anyone's vote. But the name of the game, I'm not a political operative, but it seems like the goal is getting people out there, getting people engaged.
And so, the CTA for the -- you know, call to action at the end of the video actually says, man up, get involved, vote. Vote is the third most important thing there because we assume that people watching this video are already voting for Harris-Walz.
I had 200 followers on TikTok when I posted this. I'm not like an influencer or, you know, I'm rarely in front of the camera. And within about 24 hours, we got half a million views, tons of comments and engagement. And it was, you know, it was people saying, hey, like, this is my son, this is -- this is my husband, these are the men in my life. It was people duetting it.
It was honestly, I was ready to like, I was ready for the negative comments, and we didn't get a single negative comment until we got to about 600,000 views. And then it was over. And then I thought like, that's the end of this. And then, apparently, today, some people got really triggered by our view of masculinity.
COATES: Do you have any regrets? And also, as America would like to now, what's your next video going to be about?
(LAUGHTER)
REED: Well, you know, I'm a dad with two art degrees, so if anyone has money, I've got features, I've got scripts --
(LAUGHTER)
-- I've got, you know, if I could do this with 400 bucks and some friends, let me direct my first feature.
[23:45:03]
But yeah, no, I don't have any regrets. I mean, people have asked me, am I worried about the campaign? I mean, I think we've seen what Kamala Harris has done as a prosecutor, as a V.P, mounting a campaign in a month, putting out a convention, taking Donald Trump at the debate. Like, I'm not too worried about her. She seems pretty capable. COATES: Jacob Reed, thank you so much.
REED: Thank you.
COATES: Well, there's the next question. How far is Elon Musk willing to go to help Donald Trump get elected? Because there's new reporting that suggests pretty darn far. Far like showing up at your doorstep. Far. We'll explain.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: All right, picture this. You're in Pennsylvania and you get a knock on your door. You open it, and it's the world's richest man standing there with a message just for you: Vote for Donald Trump. Hey, it might happen. In fact, it could happen. According to "The New York Times," Elon Musk is actually considering going door knocking for Trump in the battleground state. That'd be a pretty extraordinary move and one that would show just how badly Musk wants Trump to win.
Remember, he was literally jumping for him at the Butler-Pennsylvania rally this weekend, this past weekend, and then said this to Dr. Carlson.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER FOX NEWS HOST: If he loses, man, what --
(LAUGHTER)
ELON MUSK, CEO, TESLA MOTORS: If he loses, I'm (bleep).
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: It does seem that way. You can't just be like --
MUSK: Yeah, I'm like, how long do you think my prison sentence is going to be? Do you think?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Was he kidding? Was he not? Who knows? But he is putting his money where his mouth is. I mean, I'm talking about a lot of money. According to "The New York Times," Musk has talked about putting up $140 to $180 million. That's of his own cash to fund a PAC that helps Trump.
Teddy Schleifer is one of "The New York Times" reporters behind this detailed scoop. He's with us now. Teddy, you're reporting that Trump thinks it might actually be more than that, which we can't verify. But how would this money be used? THEODORE SCHLEIFER, REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, it would be used to maybe not have Elon Musk knock on your door, but to have up to 6,000 other people knock on people's doors. You know, Elon, for the last six months or so, has been kind of quietly plotting this last hurrah in Pennsylvania and a bunch of other states with advisors and with his own money.
I mean, $150 million is a lot to us. It's not a lot to someone who's worth $250 billion. And he has paid canvassers all across the country, especially in Pennsylvania, who are knocking on doors trying to fulfill kind of Elon's pretty romantic view of how American politics should work, which is neighbors convincing neighbors to support Donald Trump.
COATES: I mean, that amount of money is nobody's chump change. But your point is taken about how this might be a drop in his proverbial bucket and the idea of him going from door to door. I mean, there are plenty of battleground states, by the way, to pick from. Why do you think Musk is so focused on Pennsylvania? Why the door-knocking specifically there?
SCHLEIFER: Yeah, we know that Elon Musk has told confidants in recent weeks that he sees Pennsylvania as the linchpin to Trump's reelection. That's not that, you know, scalding a take. I mean, a lot of people think that and, you know, the Harris campaign thinks that, the Trump campaign thinks that. That's why so much money is being spent on Pennsylvania.
You know, I think why so much of Elon's energy is being spent there, so much so that Elon is sort of de facto living in Pennsylvania through Election Day as much as he lives anywhere, is, you know, this is going to be a really tight -- tightly contested race in that state and, you know, you might say, wow, that's a lot of money to waste on, you know, changing a couple thousand votes, but a couple thousand votes could be the difference between President Harris and President Trump, and so that's why Elon Musk cares so much about it.
COATES: You know, money is one thing. But they're just social media currency components, all of this, right? You're reporting that Musk has actually coordinated with the Trump campaign to suppress content on X? Tell me about that.
SCHLEIFER: Sure. So, the Musk operation and the Trump operation were in contact earlier this fall when there was some confidential information about J.D. Vance that was posted on X. You know, to be fair, this information included J.D. Vance's personal information and included -- you know, it was not just like, you know, negative information about the running mate, which is why the Trump campaign and the Vance campaign got in touch with the Musk operation to get this stuff off of the website.
Now, you know, liberals are crying about -- howling about this, sort of seeing it as the exact sort of censorship that Elon Musk was meant to -- meant to get rid of when he bought the company for $44 billion. And, you know, from the Trump campaign's perspective, this is why it's so important and matters so much to them, that they have an ally running kind of this important utility. So, the relationship matters not just because of Musk's money, but because Musk can do what the Trump campaign would like him to do.
COATES: Teddy, I think it's interesting. You said something as recently as April. Musk said he wasn't so sure about Trump. What happened --
SCHLEIFER: Yeah.
COATES: -- to make him so all-in now?
[23:55:00]
Was the assassination attempt really the motivator for him?
SCHLEIFER: You know, I think the trajectory of this is interesting and it's subtle and, you know, it might, in fact, track how some viewers feel about Trump, which was, you know, initially, Trump -- sorry, initially, Elon was a supporter of Ron DeSantis during the republican primary, and he did not want Joe Biden to be president. He thinks that, you know, the states of this election are existential, as probably lots of people do, kind of which side of the existential divide you find yourself on.
And so, Elon really did not want Joe Biden to win. But he was somewhat maybe lukewarm about Trump specifically. And then over the course of the spring, he had a series of dinners with friends where he sorts of kind of got into the idea of spending all of his resources to elect Trump. He really is concerned about illegal immigration specifically.
And then by the time of the assassination attempt, you know, people might recall on that day, it was only 45 minutes or so after the assassination attempt happened to Trump, Elon was on Twitter endorsing him. And I know that was surprising to even some of his friends because this whole idea of the super PAC Was supposed to stay a secret the entire time.
COATES: Yes.
SCHLEIFER: You know, Elon was saying early in the year that he wanted to support Trump but only if he could do it secretly. And juxtapose that one with what we are seeing now is pretty -- there has clearly been a change.
COATES: Fascinating. Teddy Schleifer, thank you so much.
SCHLEIFER: You bet.
COATES: Hey, thank you all for watching. And be sure to check out the all- new episode of "Real Time with Bill Maher" where yours truly is part of the panel. You can watch it now on HBO and Max or check out CNN's encore presentation tomorrow at 8 p.m. Eastern. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
