Now, are you paying attention, America and Democrats? Because the socialists are not just winning in the blue bubble of New York. Carl Rove has always been paying attention and joins us now. Carl, What do you take it away from the fact that Colorado had two socialists do extremely well yesterday? And Michael Bennett got knocked off by an attorney general who wanted to be the next governor, and he's pretty much an established.
He calls himself a moderate. I never see him voting for anything conservative. Your thoughts about what took place.
Well, first of all, I think you got to differentiate between the two results in Colorado. In the congressional races. One is in a district that is essentially the city of Denver, most of the city of Denver, which may surprise people, but it's a very liberal town. And the other one was in a very closely fought, competitive congressional district to the north and slightly east of Denver, the northeast part of. Of the Denver metro area, and then it heads up towards the Wyoming border.
One of them is to is shouldn't be a surprise. I mean, where the DSA has succeeded are in very liberal districts. I'm going to test your knowledge in New York. What percentage of the vote do you think Donald Trump got in the 7th, 10th, and 13th congressional districts, the three districts where DSA Challengers won the nomination for Congress? Old New York City, right?
Oh yeah, the seventh inch, yeah. I would say about twenty percent. Oh, really? How about you're close with one of them? In the 7th district, it is 19.3%.
In the 10th district, it is 14.1%. And in the 13th district, it is 11.1.
Now, the country is voted 49.8 for Trump, 48.3 for Harris, so a 1.5% differential between the two. In the 7th district, there was a 60-point difference. In the 10th, there was a 71-point difference. And in the 13th, there's a 77-point district. These are not representative of where the country is.
And we're going to see more Democratic socialist victories in these very far left-wing congressional districts like the district in Denver. But the interesting thing is going to be how are they going to fare in the general election in the 8th district where they're going to go up against Gabe Evans, a thoughtful, Productive hardworking, moderately conservative. Republican in a district that was basically won by Donald Trump by two points. The DSA can win primaries in places like the 7th, 10th, 13th, and the 1st of Colorado. But I think it's going to be a real test of their polling power to see how well they do in the 8th District of Colorado and also in states like Maine and Michigan.
If they nominate Al Sahid in Michigan, I think the Republicans have an excellent chance to swipe a Democratic senatorial seat.
Okay, he said a few things. The one that won, the progressive state candidate, Manny Rutanelle, won that nomination to go against Gabe Evans. And the Cook report says that was likely to flip. That was one of the best chances that the Democrats had to flip that seat. I think it's less likely, but not zero lightly.
When Denver, this is Diane DeGette, who has been representing Denver since 1997, this district, but lost substantially because the DSA stepped up.
Now, I expect some moderates to step up. Like, I don't know if you saw Tom Swazi on our Fox and Friends on Thursday. He came out and said, look, I'm a capitalist and I don't hate Israel. And 17 or 14 others said the same thing. I thought Congressman Jason Rowe would say the same thing as a veteran.
Here's what he said: cut five. Mm-hmm. That's why we have primaries, right? That's why primary voters are able to decide. You know, are you taking a PAC money or not?
Like, I don't, for example, because I don't think it's the right thing to do. And then you have to figure out how do you support your entire population? How do you support your entire constituency? How do you create a safe space for one of the most diverse communities in the country? What's he even talking about?
Number one, he doesn't take AIPAC money.
Okay.
Now you just want to be anti-APACAPACAPA. Maybe he doesn't take PAC money at all. I mean, if you're not going to take APAC money, you're either doing it because you don't want to take any PAC money at all, in which case I salute your honesty and your steadfastness, or because you don't want to take it from Jews, in which case, you know, you're scared of your listeners. It sounds like the latter. It sounds like the latter, or else you would have said, I don't take it.
It sure does. It sure does. So that was a moderate, Carl. I thought it would be like someone who declares he's a moderate. But obviously, they're not showing the courage that you would think a veteran would have.
Well, Hakeem Jeffries will not call them out. Chuck Schumer will not call them out. They're probably the two least popular Democrats these days. Their endorsement means nothing.
Well, again, I'm not certain I agree with that. Their endorsement means something. Think about it. What did Schumer do? He got the candidate he wanted in Alaska.
He got the candidate he wanted in Ohio. He got the candidate that he wanted in Texas. He got the candidate he wanted in Montana. He helped engineer a situation where the Democrats had the independent candidate they wanted in Nebraska. And what did the left do?
The left, you know, basically turned a seat that they could have flipped in Maine into one where the latest poll has Susan Collins up by three. He wanted the governor. Remember, she never led a single poll six years ago and won by eight. There are a bunch of shy, you know, Susan voters in Maine, in my opinion. But I mean, I love how these people are beating their chest.
Oh, congratulations. You got your person nominated in a district where Donald Trump got 11% of the vote and the Democrats ran a mere 77 points ahead of the Republicans in the race for the presidency. Do you think you're going to be a very good person? Going to be able to translate that to the rest of the country?
Well, let me ask some. If you have that guy, Christopher Rabb over in Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania, he's an avowed socialist radical. And then you have also, you mentioned Abdul. Abdul Al Saeed. Yeah, Al Saeed, whatever it is.
He's up likely to win that primary. He's winning in almost all the primaries. But head to head with Mike Rogers, it's one or two points depending on what poll you look at. How does that even close?
Well, two things. One is, first of all, he's ahead because there's a three-way race. And second of all, he's ahead of he's close to Rogers today because Rogers is laying behind the log, building his resources, and all of the public attention is on the Democratic nominee.
So I think that's going to change after the primary. And he's going to be held to account in a general election for comments that his opponents either cannot or will not hold him to account for. History isn't just in textbooks. It's the story of us, the United States. 2026 marks 250 years of America.
And throughout the year, Bill Hammer takes listeners on a journey through the 250 most impactful moments in American history. From the spark of revolution to the battles for freedom. The ideas, inventions, and decisions that changed the world. The 250 most impactful moments in American history podcast. Listen and follow now at FoxnewsPodcasts.com.
Cheers to America's 250th birthday. Get 20% off your first purchase at FoxnewsWineshop.com with code FN Radio20. 20% discount excludes wine club offers and cannot be combined with any other promotion. Expires July 31st, 2026. Must be 21 or older to order.
Please drink responsibly.
So Diane DeGette was endorsed by Akeem Jeffries, and Chuck Schumer wanted the sitting governor of Maine.
So they were rebuked on both counts. Hakeem Jeffries' name was brought up in one of the victory parties, he was booed, and Chuck Schumer tried to walk in a parade and was heckled. I'm not used to seeing that for those two guys, are you? No, and it's a sign of how disruptive the Democratic Party is. And, you know, as an observer, I'm bemused.
As a Republican and a conservative, I'm thrilled. But, you know, the Democrats are going to have to confront their hard left. And, you know, the people who understand that the Democrats are not going to be the majority party or win in 2028 the White House if they keep going far left are the smart people in that party. I mean, again, I repeat. Do you really think that somebody who wins in a district where Donald Trump lost by 77 points?
And that's a district that is far left. Do you think that the person who wins that kind of district in a Democratic primary where less than a third of the votes, the primary vote total was less than a third of the total amount of votes cast in the presidential election? I mean, we're talking about a minority of a minority. You know, a slim majority of a minority winning in these congressional races in districts that are far left, and they're not going to elect a Republican. That's not what America, that's not how you win on an election in America by nominating people who can only win in that kind of turf.
So, when you talk about the Supreme Court decision, the one on campaign finance, where it said Republicans wanted to make sure that there would be additional, can you stop me here if you understand it differently? They can communicate with the RNC, the candidate, and with super PACs. And maybe raise the amount of money that they can bring into a campaign. How does that affect a guy? How does it affect a campaign?
Well, first of all, I applaud it because it strengthens parties. Citizens United held that money is speech, which is right. At that point, there was only one kind of corporation in America that was allowed to participate openly in political campaigns: labor unions. You know, labor unions put a little bit of money in from their packs, the voluntary contributions of their members. Virtually, you know, the lion's share of the money they spent in political campaigns was taken out of their corporate treasuries.
Nobody volunteered to give that money to politics. They just took it out of the pockets of their members through mandatory dues and then turned around and spent it on politics. Citizens United said everybody can spend whatever they want to spend as long as they are not in coordination with the campaigns. This decision said that political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, can coordinate with candidates and can spend more money on their behalves. It held that the limits on the political parties spending money was unconstitutional because, again, money is.
Speech.
Now, this doesn't mean that the parties can take $10 million from a donor and spend it. The limits on how much you can contribute to a party still stand. It was the limit on how much you can spend on behalf of the candidates of your party that was lifted.
So how does that affect the super PACs?
Well, look, I helped found one of the early super PACs on the Republican side. Ed Gillespie and I in 2010 formed American Crossroads Senate Leadership Fund.
So, you know, I understand the importance of super PACs. I also understand their danger. You know, they are independent entities generally run by consultants for the consultants with little or no oversight.
So in the case of American Crossroads Senate Leadership Fund, we said we're going to have an independent board that's going to set compensation. Nobody who works for the super PAC can be paid under the table by any vendor. There has to be, you know, an annual audit, et cetera. That's not how most of these super PACs are run. And so while I think I understand their importance and believe that they have a role, I like it when the parties have a bigger role because the parties are elected.
In the case of the Republican Party, if the president is Republican, they generally pick who the chairman is, but otherwise it's selected by. The state chairman, national committee man, and committee woman from every one of the states and territories, 160 some odd people. And we can hold them accountable. And they have to be publicly audited. And we see their reports, and there are people looking over their shoulder.
So I'm more in favor of strengthening parties. I like the fact that in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, and 70s, before we started passing these campaign spending limits, that parties were stronger. I think that both political parties were better when they were led by people who said, I've got authority, I've got resources, and I'm going to deploy them on behalf of candidates and causes that I believe will help us win. That's a lot different than we have today with the super PACs, where it basically is: I'm a consultant, let me get a fundraiser, we'll go out and raise a bunch of money, and I get to be in charge of spending it, and I get to be in charge of determining how much I get paid for that. I cannot tell you how many super PACs I've seen in which the amount of money the consultants are charging is simply irresponsible.
Carl, we only have two minutes left, but I'm watching this civil war go on with the Democratic Party, and they want to put a nominee out there, likely ARC, for president, maybe more. Do you think Republicans are going to go through something similar in 208? When Trump's gone? I don't think it will be. Yes, because every time you have somebody new, whether it's Eisenhower leaving, Jeff Ford leaving, Reagan leaving.
I mean, remember, Reagan was very popular in 1988, and yet his vice president, George H.W. Bush, had a primary season and had to win. And I think Reagan wisely waited until September of 1988 to endorse George H.W. Bush. I thought that was smart.
It was good for Bush, and it was good for Reagan. But yeah, I think we're going to have a battle in 28. And the president, I think, is going to make the mistake of thinking that it is better for his cause and his reputation and his role in history to pick who his nominee, who the party's nominee ought to be. But, Carl, that's so interesting. I forgot about that because Eisenhower didn't do much for Nixon, I remember.
I wouldn't even remember. I read. And then Reagan, but Bush, I didn't recall. But you don't think it would be insulting for the president not to back his own vice president? Presidential elections are constantly one of two things.
They are Change or more the same. And Reagan was smart enough to understand that after an eight-year run, which left him with popularity, his personal approval rating in 1988 was in the 60s, that still the country wanted some kind of a change. And it was one thing for him to run for re-election in 84 and say, you're going to get more of the same from me. But, you know, look, there's a reason why, in the history of the United States, only two vice presidents have succeeded the president under whom they served: Martin Van Buren and George H.W. Bush.
It's difficult to do because the constant desire of the American people is change. Yeah, it's interesting because I know Bill Clinton, I assume he would have endorsed Gore, but Gore wanted no part of him at the time. And Carl, unfortunately, have to leave it there. Just fascinating to talk to you about this. Interesting times, and I can't wait for that RNC midterm convention.
Another time for Carl Rove and I to get together in Dallas. That is tech stat. Yes. Thanks so much, Cole. Back in a moment.
