Return to Transcripts main page

State of the Union

Two U.S. Troops Killed in Iranian Attacks; Interview With Michigan Senatorial Candidate Abdul El-Sayed; Interview With Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA); Interview With Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL). Aired 9-10a ET

Aired July 19, 2026 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:44]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST (voice-over): Deadly attack. The U.S. strikes back after Iran kills two American service members with another missing. Is this conflict becoming President Trump's forever war?

Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander retired Admiral James Stavridis is next.

And left turn? Democrats split in Michigan.

REP. HALEY STEVENS (D-MI), SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: My opponent wants to make this race about lies and attacking my integrity.

ABDUL EL-SAYED (D), MICHIGAN SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: Maybe it's time for us to get a U.S. senator who actually wants to go and fight.

TAPPER: With Democrat Senate hopes on the line, can a progressive win an all-important purple state? Dr. Abdul El-Sayed joins me ahead.

Plus: red line. A seismic shift among Democrats over Israel leads a one-time progressive to warn:

SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): That's when I -- would force me out.

TAPPER: Could Pennsylvania's John Fetterman leave Democrats behind? I'll ask him coming up.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: Hello.

I'm Jake Tapper in Washington, where the State of our Union is mourning the loss of American service members. Overnight, the U.S. retaliated against Iran with airstrikes after an Iranian drone attack on U.S. service members in Jordan left two Americans dead and another missing. You're looking at video geolocated by CNN that captures that moment.

The losses highlight urgent questions about the vulnerability of U.S. troops on bases in the Middle East. These are the 15th and 16th and potentially 17th U.S. service members killed since President Trump began this war on February 28.

That's about 20 weeks ago, five months for a war that the president said would last only four to six weeks. President Trump, in response to the deaths of the service members, told News Nation -- quote -- "We hate to see it happen" and told "The New York Post" the deaths are -- quote -- "a shame," while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth tweeted of the service members -- quote -- "Their sacrifice only stiffens our resolve."

CNN's Nic Robertson joins us now from Israel.

Nic, what do these new strikes by Iran tell you about the risk of escalation in the coming days?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: It does seem to indicate that Iran is putting a much closer focus on Jordan itself, a significant number of strikes there, particularly compared to the war back in March, so over the last few days, a significant number of strikes impacting Jordan, impacting air bases there.

That's what the Iranians say they have been targeting. And as we understand from Central Command, those two service personnel killed, one service personnel still missing in action, several others injured, but now back out of hospital. Some of them returned to duties.

It begins to paint that picture of an escalating and accuracy threat, if you will, from the Iranians, and not insignificant in part that Israel has been asked now to house more of the KC-135 Stratotankers, the air tanker refueler for the fighter jets that are prosecuting the attacks in Iran at the moment.

Israel being further away, if you will, from Iran, potentially these air bases where -- and airports where these Stratotankers will be based here will be better protected.

The United States, according to Iran, targeted in the southwest of Iran overnight a civilian nuclear facility right in the southwest, quite close to Kuwait. But it's Kuwait today and Bahrain that have seen the incoming Iranian missiles that have put up their defensive batteries, and those two countries in particular, along with Jordan, seem to be for the most part getting the lion's share of attention, if you will, from Iran's attacks at the moment, Jake.

All right, Nick, thank you so much.

Joining us now to discuss, Admiral James Stavridis, former NATO supreme allied commander and vice chair of the global investment firm Carlyle, also author of the book "2084: A Novel of Future War."

Admiral, thanks for joining us. So these are the first American deaths from hostile fire since the

cease-fire crumbled. President Trump had previously said he would consider going back to full-fledged war if U.S. troops were killed. Do you think the president needs to lay out what his war strategy is moving forward? And does he have any good options here?

[09:05:01]

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST: Let's start by just taking a beat on two more dead Americans, brave men and women, now up to 16. Whatever your tradition, I hope you raise a glass to them tonight, all volunteers.

In terms of the president's options, Jake, I'd say he has three options, and none of them are good. One, he can simply do Pontius Pilate and walk away from this. That would be a terrible outcome for the United States, for the Gulf, for global trade. I don't think he's going to do it, but that certainly is an option.

Option two, he can go big. And I mean back to the level of strikes we were at the start, hundreds of strikes a day, and amping up, going after targets that put pressure on the Iranian economy. That would be a big military move, and that could include boots on the ground.

That's a bad option because it's expensive and no one wants boots on the ground, and it just doesn't kind of add up for the American public. And then, third and finally, so OK, admiral, where does he land? Probably with option three, which is what you're seeing, increasing to some degree the kinetic activity, the bombs, increasing economic sanction pain, hopefully getting our allies on side, and above all, keeping the door open for negotiation.

Some have called this, and I think it's accurate, escalate to de- escalate to force them back to the table.

TAPPER: Before these deaths were reported, "The Wall Street Journal" reported that Iran has adapted to U.S. defenses and U.S. -- and Iran is now capable of firing missiles that can maneuver and travel at high speeds to hit sensitive targets, such as the ones hit in Jordan, although that was a drone strike.

Is Iran getting better at this throughout this war? And do you think that they're likely getting help from Russia or China?

STAVRIDIS: As we say in the military trade, the enemy gets a vote. And the Iranians are adaptive.

By the way, they're watching what's happening very closely in Ukraine, where they are kind of playing the part of the Ukrainians, using innovation, using drones, using maneuver, trying to inflict costs on us the same way the Ukrainians are trying to inflict costs on Vladimir Putin.

And I would say they don't have a great hand of cards, but they're playing it pretty well, kind of reminiscent of the North Vietnamese in the war in Vietnam or the Taliban in Afghanistan. So they're working to make us determine that this candle is not worth the game, that we would in fact ultimately walk away.

I don't think they will succeed at that strategy, but it's certainly the one they're pursuing. And they are thus far at least hanging around the hoop and staying in the game.

TAPPER: Are we providing adequate security for our service members abroad? There has been a lot of coverage, CBS News, "The Washington Post," about those initial casualties, U.S. casualties, I believe they were in Kuwait, and how there weren't sufficient alarms and protections.

STAVRIDIS: The Pentagon is going to tear apart every single one of these strikes. Here, I'm confident they will do whatever it takes to increase the protection.

What I'm a little bit worried about, Jake, is not so much in the Middle East, but it is attacks against our bases and our troops elsewhere in the world where there might be less alert presence. So, think Europe, where we have 100,000 U.S. troops. Think Korea. Think Japan or Okinawa, part of Japan. Those are vulnerabilities that I think the Iranians would not pause at exploiting.

I will give you one other point to think about as we look at this war unfolding. We are all fixated, we should be, on the Suez Canal. We all know that 20 percent of the world's gas and oil flows through it, 20 percent of the fertilizer. There's another choke point right to the left on the map to the West.

It's called the Suez Canal. It's got more traffic flowing through it than the Strait of Hormuz, and the Iranians are beginning to make noises about attempting to close that, using the Houthis in the southwest corner, and so -- of the Arabian Peninsula.

So that ought to be in the back of everyone's mind. Final thought, that may be why you're seeing attacks in Jordan right now, which is the northern tip of the Red Sea. So watch the Suez Canal as a way the Iranians could make another move.

[09:10:06]

TAPPER: All right, Admiral James Stavridis, thank you so much. Appreciate your time, sir.

Coming up: Progressive Democrats are surging across the map. Are they going to help or hurt the traditional Democratic Party in November? One of those candidates, Michigan Senate candidate Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, joins us next. And then Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania joins us to respond.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION.

The divide in the Democratic Party seems to be growing more heated by the day. In the key purple state of Michigan, where the establishment pick, Congresswoman Haley Stevens, is running against my next guest, a progressive, who's rallying this weekend with Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as national Democrats wonder whether he could win in November if he does get the nomination.

[09:15:13]

Joining us now, Democratic Michigan Senate candidate Dr. Abdul El- Sayed, who we should note used to be a CNN commentator or contributor.

Good to see you again.

So you had a huge rally last night with Bernie and AOC. I want to play something you said at this rally in Detroit last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EL-SAYED: Are we going to let $50 million in lies steal this election?

AUDIENCE: No!

EL-SAYED: Are we going to let Trump donors, billionaires and AIPAC lies steal this election?

AUDIENCE: No!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Steal this election is a is a pretty stark term. I haven't really heard it used since 2024.

To be clear, this is a close race. Congresswoman Haley Stevens is a four-term congresswoman endorsed by outgoing Senator Gary Peters. Are you saying that if you don't win this election, it will be because it was stolen?

EL-SAYED: I believe in the rigor of the democratic process, Jake, but I also believe that the corruption of billionaire money, AIPAC money, to the tune of $50 million being spent, is antidemocratic on its own terms.

If you were to take all the outside spending in this race out, this would not be a close election. But it speaks to the way that unfortunately money from DTE, our local utility, money from Blue Cross Blue Shield, money from AIPAC has come in to try to truck this election in favor of somebody who they know is going to do their business, instead of the people's.

And I think that's antidemocratic on its own terms. It's why I'm running on getting money out of politics so we can put money back in people's pockets and pass Medicare for all.

TAPPER: So the attacks on Haley Stevens are also at issue. I know there are a lot of attack ads against you, but there are so many attacks on Haley Stevens that on Friday you posted -- quote -- "It's become impossible to ignore the way that people online make fun of my opponent for things that have nothing to do with her policies or politics. It's unkind and unhelpful" -- unquote.

It's true that there are some really harsh comments about Haley Stevens that I have seen.

Here's one the "She's a suit with a large AIPAC bank account. That's it. She can't string together two coherent sentences. She's a sellout who forgot how to think for herself. Corporate money can't buy her a personality."

Do you know who said that? That was you and your campaign.

EL-SAYED: And I want to speak to that because every single time we talk about all the outside money coming in as a crutch in this election, it seems as though we're not hearing any explanation as to why.

I think we saw some of it last week when the congresswoman voted in favor of sending $3.3 billion of our tax dollars that should be spent on our health care and our schools to a foreign government to buy bombs and tanks. I would really like to hear a fulsome explanation of exactly what the trade-off has been.

And, unfortunately, $50 million doesn't fall off trees. It doesn't come from nowhere. It comes because there's been some expectation on the back. So I want to know what was said to get that money into this election.

But I will be clear. I don't think it's kind to make fun of somebody for how they talk or how they show up. I also don't think it's kind to make insinuations about somebody's character, as is being done to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

And here's the thing about it. I have known the congresswoman for a very long time. In fact, she's met my daughters. My daughter, 8 years old, she told her, "You should be really proud of your dad," although her allies are now running ads to say that somehow I'm disrespectful to women, which my daughter is now hearing about.

So I'd like to hear the same kindness. I want to know whether or not the congresswoman also thinks that that's unkind and unright.

TAPPER: I hear your comments about the ads being run against you that are attacking you from AIPAC and other organizations, but I'm specifically talking about comments you personally made about Haley Stevens.

EL-SAYED: Yes. No, I already told you I think she's plenty smart, plenty capable. I just want to understand why it is that she's been willing to take $50 million from organizations that have their best interests and not Michiganders' best interests at heart.

I have been up and down my state. I actually did the work of traveling, 110 different cities, 475 public events. And where I go, people ask me, how come I can't afford my groceries? Why is my gas so expensive? How am I going to afford health care? And it's crazy to me that you want to run for U.S. Senate and you want to take money from the same -- very same people who are raising prices on everybody.

So I just think we need a fulsome explanation. I would like to hear it. I think the congresswoman has had plenty of opportunities, and I think this is one of them now.

TAPPER: Just to be clear, that the money being spent on her behalf is not money going to her, but I understand the point you're making.

It's interesting, though, because you talk about support for Israel. The New York City Mayor, Zohran Mamdani, just this weekend was asked by "The New York Times" if he thinks there's room in the party for Democrats who work with AIPAC.

And Mayor Mamdani said -- quote -- "If they are Democrats and they run as Democrats and they win as Democrats, then they should be part of the Democratic Party."

When you were asked by CNN if support for Israel could be about anything other than money, you told CNN -- quote -- "not if you're a Democrat and you believe in human rights" -- unquote.

[09:20:00]

You also said the "Every definition of a Jewish state ends up in some articulation of illiberal values" -- unquote.

So it sounds as though, and correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds as though you and Mayor Mamdani disagree about how big this tent should be, whether there's room for it in the tent for Israel supporters.

EL-SAYED: Well, Jake, I will tell you this. There's always room in the tent for folks. And I'm for human rights. I'm for equal rights to peace, dignity, and self-determination.

Whatever you think about the right of Israel to exist, I wonder if they have a right to our tax dollars. And here's the thing about it. Every time I come on CNN, you guys ask me the same questions about these theoretical rights of existence or whether or not I agree with the mayor of New York.

TAPPER: I didn't...

EL-SAYED: I'm running for Senate in Michigan. And, in Michigan, people can't afford their basic needs. They don't get the health care they need and deserve.

They're worried about the quality of their kids' school. And the question seems less to be about the interests of Michiganders than the fact of something happening 6,000 miles away.

I'm running for Michigan Senate, and I want our tax dollars spent in Michigan on our schools and on our health care. And the idea that somebody wants to vote to send that money away, to me, just seems -- seems to be an anathema.

So with all due respect to the mayor of New York, I just think my tax dollar should be spent here. And I'd rather have a conversation about Michiganders than what's happening 6,000 miles away.

TAPPER: The war with Iran is clearly heating up. Three U.S. service members -- well, two were killed and one is missing, overnight. They were stationed in Jordan.

Twenty weeks ago, when Iran's supreme leader was killed, you told your staff, according to audio obtained by "The Washington Free Beacon" -- quote -- "There are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad today, so, like, I just don't want to comment on Khamenei at all" -- unquote.

I thought that quote was interesting because the ayatollah has killed tens of thousands of innocent Iranians, not to mention the proxies that Iran has funded that have killed innocent civilians all over the Middle East. Why were you worried about offending people who support the ayatollah?

EL-SAYED: Jake, on a day where we're mourning the loss of two more service members in a war we never should have fought, I think all of us ought to step back and ask whether or not everybody in Michigan, frankly, everybody in America shouldn't be sad about the fact that this president, backed by the prime minister of a foreign government, took us to a war we had no business fighting in.

So, yes, I didn't want to comment on it then because it's a ridiculous pretext. And now you're asking me about the ayatollah, who's dead, by the way, and you're not asking me about the service members who've died. You're not asking me about whether or not this war should have ever been fought.

You're not asking me about whether or not the costs that are being borne by Michiganders in the tax dollars we pay or the gas prices that are insane right now are worth it.

And so, look, let's have a conversation based in Michigan. I'm running for Senate in Michigan. And I think, here in Michigan, all of us are probably sad about the fact that we went to war that we never should have fought. I'd rather our money be spent here.

TAPPER: I was specifically asking you about comments you didn't want to make because you didn't want to offend people in Dearborn, which is in Michigan.

Let's turn to immigration policy. You have been very critical of Trump's immigration policy. In his new book, Democratic Former Senator Ken Salazar, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Mexico under President Biden, he says basically that the Biden administration was asleep on the wheel on immigration.

He calls the Biden policies a political failure. I know you object to the Trump policy and I know there are lots of reasons you do. Do you have any criticisms of the Biden immigration policy?

EL-SAYED: I think we could have done much better. I believe in a safe and secure border, full stop.

I also believe that we have to be smart about the fact that right now ICE is being used to terrorize people on our streets, talk about two more deaths in the last two weeks alone, at the edge of a force that should not exist. We can have immigration policy that is smart, that keeps our southern border safe, that enforces our immigration laws, but not in a way that tears apart the Constitution itself.

So, yes, I think we could have done a better job. I think it's important for us to be smart. Now, I just want to push back on one thing. You have got this administration. They're making a show out of out of ICE enforcements.

And, at the same time, they're making it fundamentally unlivable for people south of our southern border. How does that make sense at all? This whole point of the Trump administration is to weaponize immigration against the Constitution itself.

And I think the more we're willing to talk about that, the further we go in actually getting to an immigration policy that makes sense in this country.

TAPPER: Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate it.

EL-SAYED: Jake, always a privilege.

TAPPER: I should note that we have also reached out to Congresswoman Haley Stevens' campaign. We hope to have her on the show soon.

Coming up: Bernie Sanders was also an early backer of my next guest. And now, big question, is Senator John Fetterman really thinking of possibly leaving the Democratic Party? I'm going to ask him next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:29:00]

TAPPER: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION.

You just heard from Democratic Senate candidate in Michigan Dr. Abdul El-Sayed. He had some sharp criticism for pro-Israel voices in the Democratic Party and his campaign.

Joining us now to respond is Democratic Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania.

And, Senator, thanks for joining us.

I want to get your response to what we heard from Dr. El-Sayed.

But, first, I want to ask you about the two U.S. service members killed after Iranian missile and drone attacks in Jordan Friday. You broke with your party in the Senate to block measures intended to limit President Trump's war powers in Iran.

Do you worry at all that this war is now escalating into a wider war? Do you have any questions about the president's war strategy? SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): I think it's incredibly important to

confront Iran and to confront Iran with their ambitions, specifically the nuclear ambitions.

Every single Democrat that I'm aware of says we must never let Iran build a nuclear bomb. And here we are again right now. Negotiations and all other kinds of strategies have been employed over the last 47 years, and they have been exccessful (sic) up to now.

[09:30:06]

And so where I'm at, I think we're in an important point in our time, and I think it's entirely appropriate to continue to confront Iran.

TAPPER: OK.

Let's talk about the split in the Democratic Party, because Michigan's candidate, Dr. El-Sayed, has been very critical of AIPAC. But when asked if there's room in the party for Israel supporters, he said -- quote -- "There's always room in the tent, the Democratic Party tent, for folks."

He obviously holds a very different view on Israel than you do. Can the Democratic Party, can the big tent be home to both someone like Dr. El-Sayed and someone like you?

FETTERMAN: I think it's entirely appropriate to be pro-Palestinian. And, of course, I'm deeply sympathetic to many of innocent Palestinians as well over, but where we have become parts in our party now, describing Israel as genocidal state or apartheid state, and now we're not going to vote for any kind of aid.

And now even people like the J Street organization are going to vote against basic things like the Iron Dome, and it's getting more and more incredibly hostile towards Israel. Israel is our important, key ally.

When candidates like you have had the doctor on just before me won't criticize Iran. In fact, he will warn his supporters, well, we can't just be talking about that the leader of Iran was eliminated, which I think I'm proud to say that's a great thing.

Eliminating Hamas leadership, eliminating Hezbollah leadership or Iran, that makes things safe and more just, and that's entirely appropriate views.

TAPPER: You have said that, if the Democratic Party becomes officially and overtly hostile to Israel, that might cause you to leave the party, to become an independent, to be clear, not to become a Republican.

This week, there was a vote in the House to cut off more than $3 billion in military aid to Israel. There are 212 House Democrats; 103 of them voted to cut off that aid. The people voting included former Speaker Nancy Pelosi voting to cut off aid. If -- when would -- when do you view the party as becoming officially

overtly anti-Israel? When it -- when it's all of the House Democrats doing that, when it's a majority? Because you're pretty close right there with 103 out of 212.

FETTERMAN: Well, candidates run on a platform, and if that becomes the Democratic platform that we will now ever vote for any aid and will turn our back on Israel, then that makes -- that makes me to make that decision is really what a Democrat should stand for, or being a part of my party for me.

Now, Jake, I have said this that, if I change my party spontaneously right now, my views and my votes aren't going to change. It's really more of a statement how -- and if you look at the kind of people that are winning our primaries, their centerpieces of their campaign is anti -- anti-Israel kinds of rhetoric, whether it's in my state or it's whether in New York City and what's happening in Colorado now too.

If you believe the Democratic Party's future is rooted in describing Israel as apartheid state or genocidal, and they don't deserve to have our support, that forces me to say, does this really make sense for me as a Democrat with these views are -- continue to actually intensify?

TAPPER: Let's turn to the president's speech a few days ago and the subsequent action by the homeland security secretary, Markwayne Mullin, who alleged with no evidence that more than 250,000 noncitizens are on voting rolls in at least four states, including your home state of Pennsylvania.

Secretary Mullin threatened state election officials with fines and potentially prison time if they don't comply with the Trump administration's efforts to hand over their voting rolls to determine if noncitizens are on the rolls. What did you think of that?

FETTERMAN: Well, I was lieutenant governor during the 2020 election, and I have appeared on your network and many other networks at that time.

That election was absolutely secure, fair, and accurate. And, now, I defended Al Schmidt, a Republican out of Philadelphia, and he described those circumstances absolutely fair and safe. That was the voice of Pennsylvania, and they picked Joe Biden in 2020. That's a fact.

Now, I have a long, documented record of defending and making sure people in America heard that the Pennsylvania election was absolutely secure in 2020. Now, until I see evidence that over a quarter-million migrants that are voted -- are registered to vote, then, yes, that would make me reconsider some of these things.

[09:35:14]

But there's no evidence, and I don't expect that we will see any of that. And I also would remind people, in Pennsylvania out of 67 counties, vast, vast, vast majority of them are deep red counties, and they have never encountered any kinds of fraud.

Now, that's been -- I don't know why the president is dragging up all of this stuff. You're the president. Do something positive, and you are talking about 2020. That's been settled over six years ago. It's deeply unhelpful, and that distracts important things, especially like the Iranian war right now.

TAPPER: All right, Senator John Fetterman, Democrat of the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, thanks for joining us today. Appreciate it.

FETTERMAN: Thank you, Jake.

TAPPER: When we come back: progressive versus establishment, insurgent versus establishment. Who gives Democrats their best hope of winning in November? My panel will discuss next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:40:49]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): American people understand that this country faces enormous crises. And they want change. That is why progressives have been defeating establishment candidates all across the country.

(CHEERING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont last night in Michigan campaigning with progressive Senate candidate Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, who we had earlier on the program.

My panel joins me now.

Congresswoman Kelly from Illinois, so you have a sense of what's going on in the Midwest, Bernie Sanders there very clearly suggesting that establishment Democrats are not the key to change; these progressive insurgents are. What do you think?

REP. ROBIN KELLY (D-IL): I think it depends on who we're talking about.

Like, Diana DeGette just lost, and she was one of the founders of Medicare for all. Just because you have been there a long time doesn't mean that you're not progressive or you're not doing what progressives want you to do.

I think that it seems like experience -- because you have experience, that makes you established, and some people don't want you, but not everybody, of course.

Corbin Trent, co-founder of Brand New Congress, co-director of Justice democrats, former communications director for AOC, just in case the folks out there aren't sure who you are, I suspect that you have a different view.

CORBIN TRENT, CO-FOUNDER, BRAND NEW CONGRESS AND JUSTICE DEMOCRATS: I mean, I think that just because you were one of the original supporters of Medicare for all, we have gone a long time trying to get things like that passed, I think people are looking for results, not just your indications of what you're -- what you stand for.

They want to see change. And I think that we have gone decades and decades without it, not going in the right direction, at least. And that's the -- I think that's the key.

KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Republicans went through something like this about 15 years ago.

TAPPER: With the Tea Party.

SOLTIS ANDERSON: The rise of the Tea Party movement. And what that led to were, in some cases, folks running who were taking on the establishment favorites who won, and actually have become really strong members of the United States House and Senate, Marco Rubio being a great example, not endorsed by the D.C. establishment, but took it on anyways and won.

But then there were lots of other instances of somebody running defeating a more establishment candidate, and then sort of throwing the election away. And I do think the Democrats are at risk now in a variety of seats.

I mean, you saw this. Now it's happened in Maine, where Susan Collins is now not as vulnerable because of all of the disaster happening there. This could be the case in Michigan as well. If Democrats nominate someone from the more extreme wing of the party, that could lead to a less favorable environment for them, even in a moment, just like in 2010 for the Republicans.

Great election for the GOP that year, but did they leave seats on the table by still having nominees...

(CROSSTALK)

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think to boil this down to just insurgent versus establishment overlooks what many of these people are running on.

They're simply beyond insurgency here. I mean, you have got people out there winning primaries that want to abolish borders, abolish ICE, abolish prisons, abolish the police, abolish the United States Senate. This is well outside the bounds of normal political discourse. And it's all happening in the Democratic Party.

I don't think the Democratic Party leadership understands they have already been overwhelmed, and it's just a matter of time before these views become the mainstream platform, and that's what they're going to end up running on in 2028 as well. KELLY: I think we do understand. We talk about it all the time in the

Democratic Caucus. We know we're a big tent caucus, and that we're not all going to agree, but the one thing we agree on, we know we have to win.

And that's what we're concentrating on.

JENNINGS: To do what? To do these things that they're laying out in these...

(CROSSTALK)

JENNINGS: I mean, I know you're -- I know you probably don't agree with the...

(CROSSTALK)

KELLY: We cannot go back to business as usual, though. It wasn't perfect under us. We know we need changes. We know we need health care for everyone.

We know we need better education. We know we need better housing. And we have to do all those things.

JENNINGS: Do we need police? Do we need prisons?

KELLY: Yes.

JENNINGS: Do we need border enforcement?

KELLY: You don't hear most of us saying that.

Yes, we need police, but not in the same way that ICE is doing it.

(CROSSTALK)

TRENT: I mean, the Tea Party, for example, it came out, it wants to abolish the Department of Education. It wants to abolish...

JENNINGS: So did Ronald Reagan. So did Ronald Reagan.

(CROSSTALK)

TRENT: Abolish this, abolish that. Privatize Social Security. Put that in the stock market and see how it does. If it crashes...

JENNINGS: Would have done great if they had done it back in '05.

TRENT: Yes, until it doesn't, right, until it doesn't, which is what happened in the 1930s, when people were struggling.

[09:45:03]

And I think that's what we're seeing right now is a moment sort of like we had in the 1930s in America, where people are tired of the way things are going for them. And we're going to see a transformation in the way our politics is done. And, hopefully, we will see a Democratic...

(CROSSTALK)

JENNINGS: I agree, the anti-Israel, the anti-Jewish rhetoric, it does remind me of the 1930s. I couldn't agree with you more.

TRENT: There is no question that the anti-fascism is also rising. And the fascists were on our shore back then. And what we're committed to now is fighting what, socialists?

JENNINGS: Yes.

TRENT: I mean, the idea of having health care that everyone can...

JENNINGS: Yes, communists, socialists, very antithetical to the American society.

TRENT: Are they the same thing or are they different? Are the same or are they different?

Because I think socialism, TVA, where I'm from, East Tennessee, was built by socialism. The TVA was built by it. Oak Ridge was built by it. Factories were built by it. Alcoa was by it.

JENNINGS: Built by socialism?

TRENT: America -- absolutely. Government workers, 90 percent of the people that built those dams...

(CROSSTALK)

JENNINGS: Having a government is not the same as having socialism.

TRENT: Well, so if it's not the government doing the work and the government building things for the people and then keeping ownership of it, if that's not what socialism is, then what is it? You tell me.

If it's not direct employees building the New York City subway...

JENNINGS: So, you're saying any -- you're saying any level of or any amount of government is socialism?

TRENT: I'm not. I think your people are. I think your guys are, actually.

(CROSSTALK)

JENNINGS: We're not the one running on it.

TRENT: You're the ones that label all this stuff.

JENNINGS: You have a whole faction of your party called Democratic Socialists of America who are running on things well beyond basic government services. They're running on absolute and total radical anarchy that is antithetical to the American...

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Let me just ask you -- let me ask you a point of clarification. Do you think Medicare for all is socialism?

JENNINGS: Well, I think if the government overtakes an entire sector or entire industry, which is -- that's the proposal, that would be socialism, absolutely.

And there are countries around the world that engage in socialist practices where they have taken that over, and the outcomes for those people in many cases are terrible. But it's a legitimate debate.

Are we going to have the government running entire sectors of our economy, such as health care? Conservatives don't believe in that.

SOLTIS ANDERSON: And we took a look in some polling that I did just this past week about Medicare for all, because we know it's going to be more of a topic of conversation, especially as more of these sort of very progressive folks winning these primaries.

What a lot of voters say is they say, great, if we can do it by taxing the rich, that's wonderful, but don't you dare raise taxes on me. And I think this is where for some of the folks in the DSA sort of movement, when the rubber hits the road, that's where this friction on the Democratic Party comes along, where the establishment says, that's nice, but we have got to do stuff that actually works.

And they still may get overtaken by people who say, nope, we're just going to say fight, fight, fight.

TRENT: The current system we have right now, $72 trillion is what it's going to cost us over the next 10 years, our current health care system, $72 million.

JENNINGS: Called Obamacare.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: But you're talking about all the health insurance, agencies, hospitals, everything, yes.

TRENT: Everything, the entire thing is going to cost us -- that's an unsustainable -- and that's not even covering every American. That's the current system.

TAPPER: So let me ask you a question, Congresswoman. Medicare for all, it seems like that is about to become, if not already has become the Democratic Party platform. Is that fair to say?

Does that get rid of insurance companies, or does that just provide like the public option a, they used to talk about with the Obamacare?

KELLY: You know, as was just said, it's been around for a long time, and there's different iterations, but I think that it's going to be the foundation of what we do, because we still don't have health care for everyone. And in the richest country in the history of the world, we need it. I was going to say, my husband, we were in Canada, he got sick, he was in the emergency room three days. His health care bill was $800 for three days.

And then we come -- you could not do that in the United States of America, being in the emergency room three days and only $800. And he received very good treatment.

JENNINGS: I think describing the Canadian system, where people wait weeks and weeks or months and months and months for very basic health care procedures...

(CROSSTALK)

JENNINGS: ... you do not want that here, I promise you. We have the best health care system in the world. We have the best doctors in the world.

To force people into a system where they got to wait months and months and months to get a knee surgery...

(CROSSTALK)

TRENT: They don't even wait here, Scott, because they don't even try to go.

JENNINGS: That's not true.

(CROSSTALK)

JENNINGS: ... surgeries here all the time.

KELLY: But you have to wait here. You have to wait here also.

And my husband, he's not alive anymore, but he was a doctor, so I know.

TAPPER: Yes.

How does this stuff poll with the independent voters? Like, how much is the DSA platform -- well, let's not let's not take the most extreme members of the DSA area, talking about no borders, no jails, et cetera. But let's just, like, Medicare for all, more taxing of the rich, how does that play?

SOLTIS ANDERSON: So those two things test very differently. Taxing the rich is something that you even find some folks on the more conservative side of the aisle being a little bit more open to.

Donald Trump built a coalition. It's not just people who are all pure sort of economic conservatives of days gone by. So there are different pieces of that poll differently. But there is a lot of stuff that is very far left that is not where independents are at.

Do they want someone who's an outsider? Yes. Do they want people who are going to fight? Yes. Do they want them to fight for checking the box of everything that the far left wants? Absolutely not. And that's what I think is leading to Democrats having this political environment that's really favorable to them.

You're the party not in power, you got the wind at your back. And if they choose candidates who are way far out there, they're going to throw away seats that couldn't have been available to them.

JENNINGS: You can't have this conversation without talking about -- you wanted to exclude the extreme positions.

[09:50:03]

The extreme positions are becoming the mainstream positions, including this anti-Israel, anti-Jewish rhetoric which has infected all of these primaries out there.

TAPPER: Last word.

TRENT: Well, I mean, the fact is, though, is that what you -- I wrote a piece called "How to Sell a Tractor," right?

And East Tennessee, when I'm selling a tractor, if I know that I want $15,000 for that tractor, I don't start off asking $15,000. I asked $25,000 maybe, or $18,000. Then I work my way down. So you have to have a position staked out a little further than where you want to end up. So I think far left is good.

TAPPER: All right, everyone, thank you so much. Really appreciate it. Great conversation.

On Thursday night, join us for a debate between the Democratic candidates vying to take on Susan Collins in Maine. My co-host Dana Bash and I are going to host the CNN special event along with "The Bangor Daily News." Maine Democratic Senate debate, that's Thursday night at 8:00 p.m. Eastern on CNN and the CNN app.

He drew his way into history, perhaps the best editorial cartoonist who ever lived, and a political message that resonates even more today. We're going to pay homage to Pat Oliphant next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:55:40]

TAPPER: Perhaps more than anyone else, Pat Oliphant changed the idea and the art of editorial cartooning.

Oliphant died this week at the age of 90. I want to show you some of his work, so you can appreciate him perhaps half as much as I do. He skewered Richard Nixon, and he skewered Bill Clinton, and he skewered the pedophiles in the Catholic Church.

His drawing style had been compared to Picasso and to Daumier. His wit was so sharp, someone once said that, if he weren't a political cartoonist, he would be an assassin. He saw offending politicians as part of his job. The more piercing and outrageous he could be, the better.

Many years ago, Pat Oliphant told CNN -- quote -- "I don't think there's too much of a good thing as far as freedom of thought is concerned. I think this country is marvelous in that you can indeed criticize without fear of libel public figures."

Isn't that a lesson for these times? Here's to the GOAT, Pat Oliphant, in my view, the greatest political cartoonist of all time. May his memory be a blessing.

Thanks for spending your Sunday morning with us.

"FAREED ZAKARIA GPS" starts next.