‘Trump Has Given Her a Giant Opening’

Kamala Harris has a chance to win on a message that most people think is Donald Trump's strength. It's the economy, stupid.

That's the view of James Carville, who legendarily helped Bill Clinton win the White House with that message in 1992. Now, the "Ragin' Cajun" says Trump "has given her a giant opening" by telling voters "they have nothing to lose" financially by voting for him. Carville's advice to Harris is to remind voters the opposite is true with an argument that goes like this:

"He thinks you have nothing to lose. I think you have something to gain. I think most of you feel like you're pretty secure in your jobs. If you have a little bit in your IRA, you've got a little bit more now. You've got something to lose."

This cycle, Carville, 79, has been omnipresent on podcasts and television and in print giving his very, very unfiltered views on 2024. He was an early player in outside efforts to force Joe Biden off the ticket. And he has been a loud critic of certain left-wing strains in the Democratic party. "Winning is Everything, Stupid," is the title of a new documentary about Carville that is set to premiere on CNN on Oct. 5 — and our conversation for the Playbook Deep Dive podcast about who will win this election amplified its premise.

I caught up with Carville on Thursday. We talked about his outlook on the election; what he thinks Democrats could learn from Trump's "huckster" style; and why he has absolutely no remorse for voicing his complaint that the Democratic Party's culture was dominated by what he calls "preachy females."

Let's talk about the race here. James, where are we right now?

So I can remember a past you can't, but we can both remember the politics of the 21st century. And in politics of the 21st century, only in one election, 2008, did we know who was going to win. And you know, I don't like to make election predictions, but this is one thing. If there are seven swing states, the most unlikely result is that they break four-three.

You think it's more likely to go one way or the other?

I think, at the end, somebody is going to close a lot better. And in defense of polling, they can't pick that up sometimes.

It's funny you say that because I have this memory of you on CNN during election night 2002. That night, all the competitive Senate seats broke towards Republicans. It was a good lesson on what you just described — that swing states don't always break evenly.

Correct. I put a trash can over my head.

Yes, that's why I remember it.

It kind of graphically brought the point home.

But the point to remember is there's only so much that polling can give you. And I also think how Harris handles the economy question is critical. And I want to make this point here: I think Trump has given her a giant opening.

The hardest, most difficult strategic thing you can do in American presidential politics is — when can you take credit for the economy? The economy was clearly gangbusters in the '90s. We got wiped out in '94 because the recovery had not been underway sufficiently where its tentacles got down to ordinary people.

And so now I get five texts a day [saying]: "Look at this stuff!" Somebody just sent me how good growth was. And if you argue with people by telling them that the economy is better than they think, you're almost [always] going to lose that argument.

But Trump came in and gave [her] a golden opportunity. Because he didn't say, "the economy is sluggish" or "prices are too high. I'll pick it up." He said, "You have nothing to lose. It's awful. The whole thing has fallen apart. We're going to start slapping tariffs on everything. We're going to start deporting people."

I think people do feel like they have something to lose. But he has moved the ball from "Is it a good economy or a bad economy?" to an economy where you have nothing to lose. And that's a big shift. Because you now are not burdened with trying to tell people it's better than you think. You can just say, "He thinks you have nothing to lose. I think you have something to gain. I think most of you feel like you're pretty secure in your jobs. If you have a little bit in your IRA, you've got a little bit more now. You've got something to lose."

And if she talks about it like that and keeps running loops of tape of [Trump saying], "What the hell do you have to lose? It's all falling apart," I don't think that's a hard sell to tell people that you've got something to lose here.

Let's talk about Harris versus Biden, because what you're talking about here on the economic message had a lot to do with Biden. What's your analysis of what Harris has been able to do message-wise better than Biden? And where do you think she's still got some work to do?

Well, she's 25 years younger. That's the most powerful message that you had. And I can't tell you the number of people that would do focus groups or research that would call me and say that they don't think Biden has anything to do with the economy because he's too old. And you'd actually [hear] people say, "How could he cause inflation? He's too old to cause inflation. He's too old to fix it." I mean, come on, people.

You can't blame him for anything. You can't give him credit for anything.

She's done better. I think the way that she closes is not "the economy is better than you think," but "we think you have got something and you can do better. And he thinks you've got nothing to lose, that your whole economic situation is equivalent to a third world country." And that's a much easier argument for Democrats.

Let's talk about an issue that you are identified with a lot, which is telling Democrats to tone down identity politics. This is a tricky subject for a candidate who is a Black woman, where there's a temptation to want to emphasize her gender and biracial heritage. But it seems like her campaign is downplaying that. What's your sense of how she is dealing with these competing pressures?

I very much agree with her strategy. It is evident that she's a woman. You don't need to tell people. I can look.

I can't tell you what part Black or what part South Asian she is, but I could figure out that she's not a Caucasian. You don't need it.

So it's like the white Democratic candidates that need to do that sometimes?

People know your race. They can look. Now, a lot of times — I have pollsters who tell me they don't even ask race questions anymore because — thank God — if you go to metropolitan Atlanta, you don't know who the hell is what. Or you go to Fort Bend County, Texas . And I think it's a good thing. It's not the basis upon which to run a campaign. People know it. They can see it. You got to give the public some credit. I can look at you and tell you're a Caucasian. There's no doubt about it.

Do you see her consciously and affirmatively trying to stay away from that issue?

Yes. She doesn't bring it up.

You had this great line in the documentary that "Democrats spend too much time trying to change the dictionary rather than changing minds." That's sort of your anti-woke slogan, right?

First of all, [identity politics] is not popular at all. Twelve percent of the entire Democratic Party describes itself as "progressive liberal." I don't know what that means. I know I'm a liberal. I really am.

We started using language that people do not use. And we are trying to convince people to vote for us. And I tell the identity community, "I want the same things you want. But if you want to accomplish a place where people have greater opportunity to succeed, where wealthy and fortunate people pay a greater share of taxes to give less fortunate people a leg up in the world, I'm 1,000 percent for that. But why wouldn't you communicate that in the language that people use every day?"

I always use the example where I live in New Orleans. I have more encounters with Black people than probably anybody in the commentariat. And suppose I went down to the store and I see three guys and I said, "Hey fellas, how are things in the community of color?"

They'd say, "What's this son of a bitch talking about?"

And to make a further point, the term "communities of color" is actually irritating. And I'll tell you why. Because the assumption by overeducated whites is that everybody who is not white is the same. And it's just bullshit. And it's so frickin' arrogant.

You're arguing with the intersectionalists. You've been in academia, you know what that word means.

They're fine people. They didn't storm the Capitol on Jan. 6. They're not pulling for Russia. They're actually kind of well-motivated — I would say naive — but clearly want to rush to the future. You know, they want to get on with 50 years from now . And, you know, the Supreme Court could do a lot of damage in the next 50 years if we don't we don't win elections.

You're constantly in touch with all of the factions of the Democratic Party. What's the best argument you've heard on the other side that has made you modify your views on the more progressive, identity-driven issues?

To be a member of the Democratic Party historically is, above all, to be a member of a coalition. We actually practiced coalition politics way more than they do. And what I would tell people is, if you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you're not in a coalition. The nature of a coalition is to cause certain members of the coalition some discomfort. Now, our coalition goes from Dick Cheney to Pramila Jayapal. Somebody is going to be uncomfortable in this coalition, right?

But the contradictions in the coalition get resolved after the election, not before the election. And that's very, very important to remember. And the other thing to remember is — he now has changed his mind, I congratulate him — but in 2016, Bernie Sanders said the important thing is to have the argument, not win the election. No! The important thing is to win the election. Then you have the argument.

Let me push back on that a little bit, because each member of this coalition will say, "You've got to lock in the promises before the election." And that's why these fights have to happen. Your argument is about winning in politics, but if they're going to help your candidate win, then these interest groups are going to want something from the candidate.

And that's fine. I know interest groups. I raise money for an interest group. They used to come in to the campaign and they said "the activist community." And I said, "Get these goddamn people as far away from me as you can. Put them two floors away from me." Because if you work for an interest group, it might be an environmental group, a women's reproductive health group, a fight poverty group, historical preservation — you ever see these people? Man, they'll drive you goddamn batshit in the middle of a campaign.

They represent and raise money from people who support this. This is their passion. The campaign and the campaign manager has one job: to win the election. If you want, after we win, come see the people and we'll talk about a cabinet position maybe, or we'll talk about how we do legislation, but for right now, tell your people this is the best way. Don't push an activist agenda during the middle of a campaign. Push winning the election. And that's kind of hard for people to understand.

For a long time, Democrats just wanted to feel good about themselves: We were more tolerant, we were more educated. We had a broader view. And we'd lose the election because the public wasn't ready to accept our advanced vision of the nation. That's a stupid fucking argument. OK? I can't tell you the number of times in politics — "Oh, poor Dukakis. He was such a good man," and "they used Willie Horton" or you know, "John Kerry was a really accomplished guy." True. But it's no good if you don't win. Politics is not to make an individual feel superior about her or himself. It is to win an election. And we have to understand that.

Let's talk about hucksterism in politics. In your documentary, you make the case for some salesmanship in the business. Trump definitely believes that. Tell us a little bit about hucksterism and what should Kamala Harris be doing that borrows a little bit from it?

So, you know, my mother sold encyclopedias. And the word "huckster" — I'm kind of favorably disposed towards it.

You like it, but other people think it's negative.

I understand. But other people don't understand what politics is about. To me, hucksterism is effective salesmanship. And I have so many people that I would see and they [would say], "I want to do policy, James."

Well, you could do all the frickin' policy you want, but if we ain't selling, we're not winning. And there's become this idea that there's something sleazy about selling, which is a very dangerous idea. I'm doing this podcast, you're selling this to somebody, I promise you.

I mean, everybody should be selling all the time. Campaigns are not decided by editorial page writers, all right? They're really decided by salesmen and hucksters.

Who are the Louisiana Republicans that you know? It seems like you and Mike Johnson still have some beef.

I mean, I know a lot of Republicans.

Do you know Johnson at all?

Not really. But I did a whole YouTube video on him and I got something like 800,000 views. I know exactly who Mike Johnson is. I know precisely who he is. I know the people that influenced him. People don't realize how many influential, really far right people come from just the Baton Rouge area. Rod Dreher is probably the most influential person on that side of the equation. Tony Perkins is very big in that kind of Christian nationalist movement. And a lot of them formed who Mike Johnson is. And Mike Johnson — I think he actually believes the earth is 5,000 years old. But he also fervently believes in fossil fuels and is too stupid to see the distinction between young earth-ism and fossil fuels.

You just don't know enough about intelligent design, James.

Right.

But I am not trying to beat up on Mike Johnson. Because don't you think that one of the most interesting things about him is that he has governed as speaker without paying too much attention to those issues and the sort of ideology of the folks you're describing there?

A good question. He tries to accommodate [them] everywhere [he] can. But at the end of the day, on Ukraine funding, at the end of the day, on keeping the government open, I think he did. I do think Johnson has exhibited an ability to at least demonstrate he has some idea of the majesty of the job.

One thing we didn't talk about is your opinion of Tim Walz. I should mention that podcast you did with Gov. Josh Shapiro I thought was interesting because at one point he called you out for your very, very famous expression about Pennsylvania being Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and Alabama in between. Am I right about that?

The actual quote is from "Paoli to Penn Hills, it's Alabama without Black people." Paoli is the westernmost Philadelphia suburb and Penn Hills, the easternmost of Pittsburgh.

Oh interesting! You changed a bit or was that always your quote?

That was the original quote. Then it just became "Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Alabama in the middle." The only people that take offense from that are people that are not from Pennsylvania. People say, "That's exactly right!"

No, Shapiro told you he was offended by it, if I'm remembering correctly, in the podcast with you and Al Hunt.

Well if he did, I'm not offended that he's offended by it. He does very well in "Alabama." In that part of the state he really outperforms.

All right, so you're sticking to this despite what he said?

Absolutely. Because I think it's a graphic way — if you say something where people have an image of it, you get your point across. If I'd say that "outside of urban areas, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania exhibits certain rural characteristics that would be in line with more the Midwest than it would be the East Coast," no one knows [what] the fuck I'm saying.

One of the best pieces of advice from a famous Orwell essay about writing is about how crucial mental images are in getting any point across. He knew what he was talking about.

If I think that Democrats are doing insufficiently well for males, I will message it. But if I say there are "too many preachy females in Democratic campaign culture," I get my point across. OK? Everybody knows what I'm saying. What are they going to do to me? I mean, the real thing that somebody told me two years ago and I actually concluded was kind of true is that, "Man, you can say shit no one else can say."

You personally can?

Yes.

Why is that? Why do you get away with that?

Well, there's nothing to fire me from. But if you're the adjunct art professor at some overpriced college in Minneapolis, they'll run your ass out in a second.

Regarding your "preachy females" comment, a lot of people thought that was sexist and beat you up for it. Did you feel it necessary to apologize? Did you apologize? Should you apologize?

I made my point. And the fact that you're talking about it is making my point because I was making the point that our messaging tends to be over-feminized: "Don't drink beer, don't smoke dope, don't watch football." And they're like, "Get out of my life!" It's a guy working 10 hours a day in a tire store in South Atlanta and he doesn't want someone in his face shaking a finger at him.

Was the statement exaggerated? Yes, it was intentionally exaggerated. The idea that somebody like me is going to sit down with Maureen Dowd and do an interview and use something like that and not know what I was doing and looking for a desired effect is ludicrous. That was not a gaffe. That was intentional. And by the way, I think it worked. I think [Tim] Walz, in his own way, Harris's people said, "We're going to find the most male-like guy we can find. We're going to find a soldier, a football coach, a hunter." Boom!

Do you think it was the right pick?

I would have wanted Josh [Shapiro] or Andy [Beshear] because I know them. They're friends of mine.

So it was a personal thing.

Yeah, it's a personal thing. But I think that strategically, the decision made sense. She didn't want another coastal person — which is a problem we have — and she wanted someone with kind of real male credentials. It doesn't matter that he's liberal. The problem we have is not ideology, it's cultural. And it's so felt by people in the rest of the country. Coastal people have no idea. They think they are educated, smart, decent, tolerant people. And they may be, but they have no idea of their arrogance or the way that they are received by people. And I used to think that when I lived in Washington, "Ah, I know most of these people. They're not that arrogant." But when I got to Louisiana, there is a — I wouldn't say intentional — but there's a kind of condescending look at the rest of the country and people feel it.