John Zogby: [00:00:00] can the Democrats stay united behind a fellow like, Talarico?

John Zogby: Ken Paxton, puts Texas in play,

Jeremy Zogby: Is, Trump eating his own party?

John Zogby: Do we really think that we can do regime change again

Jeremy Zogby: The question becomes is how long can Americans, continue like this?

John Zogby: It's a bright, sunny day in upstate New York, and welcome to another edition of Real Polling in Real Time with Zogby. we're here on a Thursday this week because have real polling in real time, and w- we wanna get right to it. Jer, how you doing today?

Jeremy Zogby: I'm doing well, and thank you for the, the weather forecast because we take that very seriously in upstate New York

John Zogby: Y- yes, we do. we're gonna do something, [00:01:00] with, weather and, weather metaphor. Gonna do something a little different. Instead of sticking to one, possibly two topics, we're gonna do a series of lightning rounds, because obviously a lot has happened in the past week, and then we also have a considerable amount of polling data to share. So topic number one is, of course, Iran. what, is the end game in, Iran? who's in the room? Who's in charge? get a sense at all?

Jeremy Zogby: I, do, but I, wanna hear your thoughts first

John Zogby: okay. Yeah, there are folks in the room and I-- they are ideologues. They're making all of the same mistakes from the past, which basically is that the former colonial world only understands one thing, and that is that, they respond when a gun is pointed to their head. of course, the history of colonialism and [00:02:00] suggests that the very opposite is true. So what is going on is, a reinsertion imperialism on the part of the United States its ally Israel anti-colonialism and a, sense of betrayal in the hands of the West on the part of Iran. Now look, are very complicated. There are no heroes. learned in graduate school many years ago, never go into an understanding of diplomacy and, global politics with a sense that everything is good guys versus bad guys. But the fact of the matter is we have blood on our hands. The Iranians, and their count- their, surrogates have blood on their hands. But how are we dealing with this? with this in a way that proposes no [00:03:00] real solution. n- number one, did anybody realize that the Strait of Hormuz, would be closed, that Iran could do that? That we have actually empowered Iran to do something that they hadn't done before? Do we honestly believe that a proud civilization is going to give up w- the lever- one piece of leverage that it has, and that is refined, u- uranium? Do we really think that we can do regime change again when we have failed at regime change, including Iran, going back to the 1950s when we've done it, when we have failed times over? what kind of thinking is in the room? What's the end game here? And can you possibly believe when you go to bed at night peace is at hand and wake up the next morning and [00:04:00] have, Americans shooting down drones and, being, in aggressive position again? This is not to suggest Iranian sainthood all, but it is to suggest this is no way to run a circus

Jeremy Zogby: it's terrible that we-- I find myself having to say that. You're, you just said that about when you criticize the war, when you criticize the current actions right now, specifically in Iran, that individual is often put in that defensive position of having to say that. And that's terrible because, in the United States, Iran is by and large, not loved.

Jeremy Zogby: Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that, folks want this war to continue, that, voters, think the president, needs to stick to his guns and finish off [00:05:00] the job. But, I just think that's a, tragic thing that w- you know, we have to reiterate that, Iran is, the regime is not loved and that they're not necessarily good people, that they're terrible people.

Jeremy Zogby: because when we're talking about geopolitics, we're just trying to figure out what's going on. We're just trying to understand what is strategic. Now, what you asked was, who's in the room? what's the ideology governing this? What's really going on? And there are some popular beliefs, One of which is, and, it's believable.

Jeremy Zogby: it's, it's fashionable to, say it's the neocons. I've often thought that. look, the neo- the neoconservative ideology has by and large driven our foreign policy going back to at least George [00:06:00] W. Bush. And of course, those guys who were the architects of the, war on terror and the great Middle East project, and I'm saying that very ironically, regime change in seven nations, that even goes back further.

Jeremy Zogby: that goes back to Bibi Netanyahu's 1996 paper, "A Clean Break." But those architects in that circle go back to the '70s, right? but here's the problem with the notion that it's the neocons. I would have believed that up until about two weeks ago. One of the grand neocons of them all, Robert Kagan, and I don't know if you caught this in the news or not, Dad, but he actually was, was on a podcast or, a news interview, and I can't remember which.

Jeremy Zogby: But he basically said the United States lost and Trump lost the war. So for a neocon who pretty much every person within that circle has waited for this moment, [00:07:00] has longed for, the removal of the Islamic regime. For one of the chief architects, Robert Kagan, very influential to say that is very revealing.

Jeremy Zogby: So what does that tell us? Now, another popular narrative, of course, is that Bibi Netanyahu is in the driver's seat, and he, has been for years, and that's very believable because if you go back and you look at, that paper that he wrote in 1996, "A Clean Break"- that was, 30 years ago. He said there needs to be regime change in, in, in the following nations: Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, and of course, Iran.

Jeremy Zogby: Now, Iran is the last one that, that we haven't had the regime change. All those other nations, to some degree, there has [00:08:00] been regime change. You could argue against Lebanon, but I could, counter that, but I'm not gonna get into that. So, we're, just coming to a full circle here with the neocons.

Jeremy Zogby: Israel is driving the, our foreign policy, and that reminds me of, a question that we've been asking, ever since all of this started. We've been asking voters who do they believe that this war in Iran, whose, who, whose best interest is it? And, we offer the choices: it's mainly in Israel's interest, not the United States; it's both in the interest of Israel and the US; or neither.

Jeremy Zogby: And, while a plurality, 39%, tell us that it's both in the interest of Israel and the, US, I find it equally interesting that 33%, a third of voters, are saying it's mainly [00:09:00] Israel's interest, not the United States. And that's popular across the board. 42% of Democrats think that. Of course, much lower within the Republican Party.

Jeremy Zogby: Only 20%, share that sentiment that it's mainly Israel, not the United States. But independent voters here are looking very much like Democrats. Almost 40% of them think it's mainly in the interest of, the US and, I'm sorry, mainly in the interest of Israel, not the US. Now, I want to share one other number, to just gel this all together in terms of where sentiment is in terms of US voters or the United States and this long relationship that we've had with the nation of Israel, which has been, over the years, by and large, based on this where sh- you know, we have shared values, Judeo-Christian.

Jeremy Zogby: That's what conservatives and, religious-minded people think. [00:10:00] and also that they're the sole democracy in the Middle East. And so for decades, we've had this strategic relationship, and we've been tracking this for several months now, and we've asked, flat out, do you think that this relationship with Israel is, a strategic asset or a liability?

Jeremy Zogby: Today it's at the highest numbers in terms of a liability. Half of voters, 50%, are telling us that it's a liability, and only 33% of voters are saying it's, it-- that relationship is a strategic asset. So that's where sentiment is heading, and the voters are there in terms of mainly being against this war, not seeing any long-term gains.

Jeremy Zogby: Meanwhile, the voters are just waiting for policymakers to catch up to them

John Zogby: so let's change gears right now. Voters voted in Texas, and it was an earthquake. [00:11:00] th- this was a very competitive race, between an establishment Republican figure who's been around for, many decades and has been in the US Senate since, 2003, John Cornyn, versus, firebrand, most recently attorney general, longtime attorney general of Texas.

John Zogby: but a man who kind of defines, Texas corruption scandal in many ways. And I'm not... That's not a partisan comment at all. It's just reading the newspapers. this was a competitive race Donald Trump, a few days before the vote this past Tuesday, en- endorsed Ken Paxton, and then the entire, Cornyn campaign just fell off a cliff. Final numbers, were, Paxton 64%, 36%. That is just simply, a, [00:12:00] blowout. are implications here of a deep split the Texas Republican Party. Now, John Cornyn, ever the party, stalwart and faithful turned around within 24 hours, bitter as that campaign was, endorsed Paxton. however, not so sure that he can bring his supporters or members of the establishment, with him. don't wanna lose the seat, but, you talk to longtime Texas Republicans, and they're having a very difficult time swallowing Ken Paxton as their standard-bearer and somebody that they feel could actually lose that seat and begin the actual, not fantasy, but actual process of turning Texas, into a blue state again. Now that race, [00:13:00] Paxton will face very in- interesting and very different fellow, James Talarico, is, a state senator, a young man, on one hand a, a very religious person, former s- seminarian, wears his Christianity on his sleeve, a social liberal. On the other hand, many elements of where he stands are with the progressive wing of the Dem- Democratic Party. And the issue is, can the Democrats stay united behind a fellow like, Talarico? would-be opponent in Democratic primary was a real firebrand, Jasmine, Jasmine Crockett, who eventually pulled out of the race, but has not enthusiastically endorsed Talarico, and she brings a lot of progressive weight with her. So this is almost two candidates, [00:14:00] two different parties in a race to hit a brick wall, and I'm not sure what's gonna happen. Polls suggest it's tight, slight edge to Talarico. The Cook Report, very respected, changed the seat from likely Republican to leans Republican.

John Zogby: That's huge for Texas. your thoughts?

Jeremy Zogby: I remember we were here, four years ago, and there was a lot of similar chatter about Texas being in play. And, that, that was a- about this time, heading into the summer and through the summer. But then in the fall, it, just didn't pan out. I, suspect that's, probably the case.

Jeremy Zogby: I agree with, Charlie Cook of, bringing it down from likely to, to the next, notch of leaning Republican. That's just my sense [00:15:00] on it. but I wanna go back to the Republican Party and what's going on here because, w- we go back to Kentucky, we go back to Ohio and Indiana, and this recons- consolidation of, MAGA reasserting itself, against the quote, unquote "RINOs," within the party.

Jeremy Zogby: And I think the one question, and I don't have the answer, but the one question I wanna ask that I don't think anybody is even asking, is while it looks like, and it's convincing that MAGA is reasserting control of the Republican Party, the one thing that, that, that's not being, taken in- into consideration is, Trump eating his own party?

Jeremy Zogby: Because in, in doing this, in unseating the incumbents that, he doesn't like and, or the incumbents [00:16:00] that don't like him, he's in effect creating lame ducks who have no loyalty to him and may become very bitter. And that's something that I think, political analysts are not really thinking about. I'm not at least hearing.

John Zogby: Yeah, y- the Republican playbook is to plan for a turnaround of the economy by August. that's very tenuous. Yeah, I think it's very hard to project anything on th- on this economy s- at, least in a positive direction. But that's what they're banking on. And secondly, they're... The fallback, as always, is gonna be social issues. it's going to be gay marriage, transgender rights, who's in your child's bathroom, and that sort of thing. And that is a vulnerability that the Democrats [00:17:00] particularly if they let themselves be dominated by that issue, they let that be the, the issue by which they're defined. And of course, the president, if his, health holds up, has the ability to travel all over the country, draw large crowds, dominate the media like perhaps no one else history.

John Zogby: So even though we join most all of our fellow pollsters a congressional generic that suggests a very positive, campaign, turnout and, a- and impact for Democrats in November, this is still very much in play. Ken Paxton, puts the, D- Democrat or, puts Texas in play, and Jim Talarico un- untested, very [00:18:00] interesting to see if this is one of the futures of the Democratic Party. So we have a cabinet turnover. That's our third topic. This is interesting because it's appearing one at a time. Pam Bondi, Tulsi Gabbard, three women,

Jeremy Zogby: Four

John Zogby: four women. however, let's step back for a moment here and, realize these are four key cabinet posts, that have ended all within, what, a few weeks of each other. I- is there a broader meaning here? Is this an administration in disarray?

Jeremy Zogby: we remember in the first Trump administration, the, turnover rate was, maybe even, maybe was even, more intense, than it is, [00:19:00] over a year in. But this time, that one, yeah, that wa- that was chaos. I think the main dynamic here is the issue of loyalty. Who... Pam Bondi, I, do believe did a good job demonstrating her loyalty.

Jeremy Zogby: Of course, we know, why she had to go. that was just, that was a, toxic mess for the president. Gabbard is, I think, the quintessential, question over, who is able to publicly display their, unquestionable loyalty to the president. and she wasn't able to do it, and that's why she's gone.

Jeremy Zogby: The other three, were mired in controversy, and it appeared were becoming liabilities to the president and the party. I do [00:20:00] suspect we'll probably see, another turn-- another ousting or two. I won't speculate as to who that specifically is, but the point is, there's a pattern. There's a pattern, within a little bit over a year, and as you mentioned, these were very key positions

John Zogby: Okay, fourth, finally, the crystal ball. we measure what is, but we also measure what will be and what do, the American people expect will be. before I get into a backdrop of all this, we've been asking a question about national unity, 'cause we do hear from folks who say, "We're in a civil war." and how's this gonna end? the national community that Madison and the Founding Fathers worked so hard to, [00:21:00] build, is the national, community, going to be a thing of the past? Are we actually going to split? What do the American people expect in terms of national unity?

Jeremy Zogby: Yeah. this wild card issue and topic came up, first just to, to set the context here, is because Canada is, going on, is having this conversation as we speak. And as you've mentioned in the podcast, they've been through it before with Quebec, and a vote, on whether Quebec would secede or not, and it came pretty close.

Jeremy Zogby: But now it's Alberta and it's over energy, it's over oil. And, Alberta is, very different from, from Ottawa where, you know, where Canada is governed. But reading that news reminded me of hyperpolarization. The age of [00:22:00] hyperpolarization is the era that we're in. and this is particularly stark and visible over the last 20 years, and it has driven politics and elections over the past several cycles.

Jeremy Zogby: And so the question becomes is how long can Americans, continue like this? And, what happens? What gives? So we, actually put a question in, our last national survey last week, basically simply asking voters, "In your view, do you believe America will remain united?" And we gave it a timeline.

Jeremy Zogby: And so I, I found these results striking. in the first question, whether they believe America will remain united in five years, 55% said yes. Then we expand the timeline to 10 years. That goes down to f- [00:23:00] 51% say yes. And then we go to 20 years, and then it dips below 50%. 48% of Americans believe 20 years from now that we'll remain united.

Jeremy Zogby: I, find that very shocking. and I'm sure you have some comments on that.

John Zogby: Yeah, I do. this is the closest I think we've ever been, aside obviously from the Civil War, actually breaking up the Union, at one and the same time, there are serious challenges to the Constitution. both sides used to be able, when there was this tough talk before, including during the Civil War, both sides were able to draw strength from the Constitution. the Constitution now has become to ultra partisans, not even a tool. It's become something that's in the way and to be [00:24:00] flouted, if it's in the way of, of the case that you're trying to make. that as far as the United States is concerned, it, it's, a real possibility. and we see that in several states, number of states, particularly out West, where there are actual visible movements to secede. Now, back to Canada, I learned in the 1960s that when, when Quebec came within a tenth of a percent of actually separating, that a, an interesting dynamic going on there 'cause it was Quebec, but then it was also, Alberta that was saying, "We provide so much wealth, but we're thousands of miles away in a government dominated by [00:25:00] Ontario." And there was talk even back then of Alberta taking its wealth and going on its own. All the way over to the East you had the, Atlantic that were saying, "We're nothing but an orphan We're the smallest. We used to provide the key trade. We're the entry point many new Canadians, and nobody pays any attention to us because Ontario and Quebec are so huge and they're engaged in their own dynamic." And a lovely, beautiful Canada, certainly has a darker side to it when it comes to its politics and governance, and that we're catching up with the Canadians on this. That's all I have to say, but I like doing the lightning round.

Jeremy Zogby: Yeah, I, do too. And I'll just add by saying, first of all, we've given our listeners and viewers a lot to chew on over this upcoming weekend, but [00:26:00] I will add one more thought to this last topic is, and you and I have talked about this probably going back to one of our earliest podcasts, but what we're talking about happening in Canada and potentially, I, I- to what degree, I don't know, the numbers that I shared speak for themselves, but, of this happening in the United States, let us not forget that this would actually be a global thing.

Jeremy Zogby: And this fits into our, one of our larger themes about, we're looking at some point, whether that's five or 10 years from now, or maybe even happening before our eyes, I would actually argue that, this global revolution, happening. And, it's, we're getting close to something like that

John Zogby: What happens to the nation state? Long term, but not that long. It's, it's something that starting to be discussed [00:27:00] already.

John Zogby: with all of that, have a good week

Jeremy Zogby: Have a good week