Episode 748: Election 2024 – The Debate

Published Sep 7, 2024, 12:28 AM

Newt talks with Michael Barone, a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner and a resident fellow emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute. Their discussion covers the impact of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s suspension of his presidential campaign and endorsement of Donald Trump and the significance of this move in shaping the 2024 race. Their conversation also touches on the shifting political landscape, the polarization of the two main political parties, and the potential outcomes of the upcoming election. They conclude with a discussion on the importance of the debates and the different skill sets of each of the candidates.

On this episode of News World, I'm continuing our series in election twenty twenty four, and this time we're focusing on the presidential race post conventions and looking forward to the debate or debate since September. And I have to say, I can't think of anyone I would rather chatter about this than Michael Burron. We have known each other for something like forty years. He is the senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, a resident Fellow Emeritus at the American Unerprising Institute, and the longtime co author of the Almanac of American Politics, which is the best single book published on American politics. And his I can tell you from personal conversations, his encyclopedic knowledge of American politics, precinct by precinct, is unbelievable. His latest book is Mental Maps of the Founders. How geographic I'm genation guided America's revolutionary leaders. So this is genuinely one of the great students of American politics and one of the great commentators. Michael, welcome and thank you for joining me on news World.

Well, thank you Newton, thanks for the kind introduction. We have indeed been going after this for forty years. In the various entrails of the Capitol Building. You went from pariah to speaker in a shorter time than your Democratic colleagues ever expected, but not as rapidly as you yourself had hoped for.

That's a pretty good way to put it. And you once captured I think, more actually than anybody else did the reader, which I'm essentially an American gaullist, a reference which I'm sure ninety five percent of your readers did not understand at all.

Well, the ossuary at Verdun was a hip.

Off, that's right. No, I really changed my life. So let me start with some of the most recent events, which candidly I'm puzzled by the media's inability to understand. When Robert F. Kennedy Junior suspended his presidential campaign and then went on to endorse Donald Trump. How significant do you think this will be in shaping the twenty twenty four race.

Well, I think it's a medium significance. Certainly, a lot of the standard media outlets have kind of dismissed this and said, look, hey, this couldn't possibly matter at all. He's got relatively small levels of support, the single digits. I think it has some salience and remember, we're looking at something that looks on the basis of current polling, and there's a lot of asterisks we like to add to that, but on the basis of current polling, we're looking at something that is exquisitely short. I mean, I looked at RealClearPolitics dot com average of supposed this morning and of the state of Pennsylvania with nineteen electoral votes, pretty significant state one that Donald Trump carried twenty sixteen lost in twenty twenty, each case by less than one percent of the vote. Donald Trump is leading Kamala Harris by point two percent two tenths of one percent if Robert F. Kennedy Junior's endorsement is worth a net zero point three percent, which the excellent elections polling analyst Nate Silver suggested that point three percent is set to double what Donald Trump's lead in Pennsylvania for those nineteen electoral votes. That makes the difference between the two hundred and thirty five that he won of today's electoral votes. It states that he won in twenty twenty versus two fifty four and puts him in position with another sixteen electoral votes, which is coincidentally the state of George's number electoral votes in each of two seventy. So I think that even a small boost is worth something and perhaps can make a whole lot of difference.

I've struck with two things. There's a poll out this morning that shows that nationally, with Robert F. Kennedy Junior out of the race, they're basically tied at forty eight forty eight. Well, what struck me was this is immediately after their convention. To be tied right after the convention strikes me should be worrisome, much more worrisome to the left than it seems to be.

Well, you have the Nate Silver colleague Eli McCown writing this morning that before we've gotten much in the way of post Democratic convention polls, that Kamala Harris may have gotten her convention bounce in the thirty seven days of puff press coverage, that she's gotten for most of the mainstream media, who have been sitting back there like contented cats, given a little cat nip of joy at the Democratic Convention, and not asking any questions.

If that bounce, whether it's she has real momentum coming from where Biden was, which is different than real momentum pulling away from Trump.

Yeah, I don't think we're going to see anything like seventeen points do coccus lead going into an eight point George W. Bush victory in the popular vote and carrying forty states. I think there's a lot more partisan polarization now. I took a look at one of the convention bounced status, and basically, if you take the conventions from nineteen seventy six until two thousand, those were mostly conventions where it was clear who was going to win those nominations. So in each case, the winning candidate, to a greater elctionser extent, was trying to put on a political commercial for four evenings of ABC, NBCCBS coverage in the days before we had one hundred cable and streaming options. In those days, you've got average convention bounce for Democratic and Republican candidates with seven point two points. If you look at the conventions from two thousand and four to twenty twenty, it's one point eight. And I think what we're seeing for KAMBLA. Harris is more in line of that. And if you go back and look at the Trump convention, you might see something that resembles those very minor bounces, but you know, we're looking at each of these. It's been close. And of course, one of the things that you mentioned that we don't fully know and understand about this election, but that we've seen as critical in electing a president in twenty sixteen and twenty twenty is that there's a divergence there has been between the electoral college of the popular vote. In twenty sixteen and twenty twenty, Democrats were piling up huge numbers of votes in California and New York and several other states that we could easily name Maryland, Massachusetts, and so forth, east and West Coast that weren't giving them any additional electoral votes. I mean, nineteen ninety six, Bill Clinton carried California by thirteen points. He got fifty five electoral votes out of that. Twenty years later, Hillary Clinton carried it by thirty points. She got fifty five electoral votes out of it. Donald Trump won that election despite losing the popular vote, by carrying states in that case like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania by a total of seventy seven thousand popular votes. Is that still going to be a factor in twenty twenty four. We don't know for sure. I mean, The analyst Nate Silver says, well, it's still a factor, but a little less so than in twenty and twenty sixteen. The analyst Sean Trendy, who was one of the first analysts back in twenty thirteen to write about how the white working class vote potentially could be shifting heavily towards the Republicans in a way that other analysts really failed to understand, says, well, the electoral college advantage may not work as much for Trump this time as it worked in the past. I think it's still there to some extent. I think that to some extent Trump it may be piling up votes in places like rural Texas, rural North Florida where he's not piling up a lot of popular vote margin, which is not adding electoral votes to him. And to the extent that he's winning Hispanics and Blacks in states like California and New York which he's not going to carry where he's not going to get electoral votes, he may reduce the Democratic margins there from what they were in those previous elections, So that would tend to even out the or to reduce his electoral college advantage. But I think that it's still probably there to some significant extent, and I think those two analysts I mentioned don't disagree with that it's still there. And you begin to wonder, you know, as an old political consultant, a why the Republicans don't try to get more popular votes and win easily with a big popular vote margin. And Donald Trump does some things that I think are not well calculated for that, and you have to ask why the Democratic Party doesn't cut its losses and cut its wins in perhaps stop pleasing all those California left wingers and maybe try to get a set of issue positions as more palatable in the Midwest, in states like Georgia and Arizona which were narrowly what last time. Instead, they nominate a San Francisco Democrat who basically, well, she did come from the East Bay. She lived in Oakland and Berkeley for a while. She's had staffers say that she no longer stands for a lot of the platforms she ran for president on in her twenty twenty candidacy which ended in twenty nineteen, and when she was for banning fracking, when she was for getting rid of ice and immigration enforcement, where she was talking about getting rid of private health insurance. We've got tweets from anonymous staffers saying, well, hey, she's not for those things anymore. Nobody in the mainstream media has thought to ask her questions about are you no longer for those things that you were so vehemently for, and the perfectly reasonable question of, and not on sympathetic question necessarily of you've changed your mind on this issue? What prompted you to change your mind? What assurance can you give voters that you're going to continue to have as president these issues that you now say that you're not supporting as candidate, given.

That she's essentially a San Francisco radical trying to work her way to the middle, which is a classic traditional position. Your party's nomination on the right or left, and then you run to the middle if you can. I thought picking Tim Watts was an odd choice in that sense, because he's actually further left than she is.

He's further left than she is. He's kind of the town left winger in some small town in the Midwest, the small town he grew up in Nebraska, and man Cato, Minnesota, and Blirth County, Blue Earth as we pronounce it. I think it's more like one syllable for Minnesotan's. She liked him at the comfort level, and she didn't take Josh Shapiro, the governor Pennsylvania. I just laid out for you how crucial Pennsylvania is and the fact that it seems to be a very closely divided state, and it's a state, by the way, Newton where her previous opposition to fracking, her vehement opposition, her promise to ban all fracking. That's a real no no. In about sixty three of the sixty seven counties in Pennsylvania, they've been making a good living and doing well for America for oil and natural gas production out of fracking. In Pennsylvania. They don't have a left wing democratic legislature like New York does next door where they've banned fracking. Pennsylvania has been going to town, people have been making good livings and communities which seemed to have been left behind in the post industrial era and now they're doing well. And she wanted to stop fracking, which was the basis of that kind of a clean energy economy. So she's got some real questions to answer there. And Tim Walls, who seems to have a significant problem with patting the resume is not ideally situated to get it. I have to assume that there's some level of personal comfort with him, that she thought he was more her kind of person. I think there will be an interesting story to tell someday about that selection. Perhaps she will come to think as John Kerrey, the two thousand and four Democratic nominee, came to think that his selection of a vice presidential nominee, then North Carolina Senator John Edwards, was kind of a mistake.

I think when you lose, you always think it's the vice president, and when you win, you're sure had nothing to do with it. I have to say Mark Tayson had a very interesting comment this morning in his column. He said, only one vice president while sitting has won the presidency in one hundred and eighty eight years, and that was George harro Walker Bush. He describes it to the pea country wanted a third Reagan term and suggests that nobody wants a second Biden Harris term.

Well, I think that's right. We've had several vice presidents who've gone on to run for president. Martin van Buren, who established the first Democratic National Convention in eighteen thirty two. He was copying the Anti Masonic Party. He was elected President. Jackson was a popular resident. You had Richard Nixon as the sitting vice president. Nineteen sixty narrowly loses, representing a very popular president, President Eisenhower. He gets rounded off fifty percent of the popular vote, as does his opponent, not quite enough to win. Al Gore in two thousand carries the popular vote, narrowly loses. The Electoral College loses Florida by and adjudicated five hundred and thirty seven votes. George H. W. Bush wins by what turned out to be a comfortable margin with fifty three point four percent of the vote. That's the closest thing to a landslide, by the way, that we've had since that time in nineteen eighty eight. We don't have landslides anymore. We're partly a polarized country. And I think the other reason we don't have landslides anymore because we had an electorate that had experienced the Great Depression, that experienced World War Two, which changed so many people's lives in so many ways, those big upheavals, and when they got president who seemed to produce prosperity, and who seemed to produce peace. They would cross usual party lines and vote for that president. They often wouldn't vote for other candidates of his party, but they'd vote for that president. Again, we saw it with Eisenhower in fifty six, Johnson representing the Kennedy Johnson administration in sixty four, Nixon in seventy two, Ronald Reagan the last one in eighty four. Maybe with echoes of that for the first George Bush in nineteen eighty eight, but at that point we ceased to have an electorate that had a substantial number of voters who remembered the Great Depression, who had personal memories of World War Two. Obviously we don't have an electorate of that kind anymore. So we're not getting landslides, and we're not getting anything even like George H. W. Bush's fifty three point four percent of the vote against Michael Dukakis after being seventeen points behind.

You mentioned the white working class and the degree to which it's gradually migrated away from the Democrats, and where Trump in that sense is kind of a remarkable figure who is a billionaire who appeals to people who are dramatically different economically but share a common culture. But what I've been struck by is you're beginning to see with Latinos and African Americans in the working class level, a similar shift towards Trump. Even with Kamala Harris on the ticket, I suspect Trump will get a much higher percentage of Black male votes than any Republican maybe since Eisenhower.

That appears to be the case. Certainly with the Trump Biden pairings showed Trump doing better among Black voters than previous voters. And you know, black voters have been semi unanimously for Democratic candidates ever since very Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act in nineteen six. Well, people of our particular generation have to remember that was sixty years ago, and maybe that's just not so relevant for a lot of black voters anymore. We do not have Jim Crow in the South, despite what various Black leaders and Democratic politicians are saying, we're not going back to that kind of segregation, which you, as a Southern Republican opposed. Eventually, people in a subgroup that is voting unanimously for one side for historic reasons come to see other issues is more important. We're certainly seeing that with Hispanics where you see the non college educated Hispanic vote may be going for the Democrats by single digits, maybe going fifty to fifty in some cases. And that's going to make a difference in California Central Valley congressional districts, for example. It's going to make a difference in a wide variety of areas Wheneck County, Georgia. It's going to make a difference. It's going to make difference in various places in North Carolina, Northern Virginia, and so forth. It's kind of a quiet vote because it doesn't have media spokesmen who are coming on from the left wing who are vibrantly persuading that they're more oppressed than ever and they've got to vote this way. They've got to vote left wing, or they've got to rebel against the current status quo, or their rebellion against the status quo is a rebellion against what they consider to be inflation illegal immigration. Turns out, not all Hispanics are saying, well, gee, we really want more illegal immigration to the contrary, So this is an interesting development, and it's part of a trend that's been a parent for a while. When you became a Speaker of the House in nineteen ninety four. One of the things I noticed is that Republicans carried a lot of the affluent districts then that are hopelessly democratic. Now those districts have been out of reach for Republicans for a while. But also, I remember when you were the only Republican Congressman from Georgia, when Georgia had ten congressmen. Your district was partly rural Georgia, Carroll County and so forth, Anon in Georgia and partly Kaweda County and partly going into Metro Atlanta. And all those rural, small town districts in Georgia were electing Democrats. That ain't the case anymore. We're looking at a change that started in the nineties. You did a lot to start that. I remember you predicting in the nineteen eighties. You said, look, the Republicans are going to do better in the South because these old Southern Democrats that have been there since the nineteen fifties, sixties, and seventies, someday they're going to retire, and their districts have been voting Republican for president, except maybe when Jimmy Carter was on the ballot. They're going to vote Republican for congressmen. We've got some young Watergate era Democrats that have won those districts. They're politically adept, they're going to run for other officer. We're going to take them out some year. That's a pretty good year for Republicans, and that that's going to change the political landscape of the House of Representatives and of the bounce in the presidential race. And indeed it has come to pass. You are joining in effect the eminent mid twentieth century political scientist Ee Schattschneider. Schatschneider wrote all these articles about how it would be much more rational in America if we had one obviously liberal political party and one obviously conservative political party. This idea of conservative Southern Democrats who are staying with the Democratic Party because of the Civil War, or liberal Republicans who are staying that way because they opposed the industrial labor unions in the nineteen thirties, they were based on obsolete history, and you ought to separate into political parties. And your one time colleague or predecessor in the House. Richard Bowling of Missouri wrote books about how the Democratic party should become a clearly liberal party to use all those votes from those conservative Southerners force them to vote for the liberal policies and things. The Schatzschneider writes, I think most of them were pretty confident if you had one liberal party and one conservative party, the liberals would win most of the time, which is something they wanted to see. Well, mister Schatzschneider has gone, but his dream, his prayers have been answered. We have two political parties divided partly on economic issues, but a lot on cultural issues and basic cultural standpoints. And that's the evolution that's taken place. And as you said, you certainly started in the nineteen nineties when Bill Clinton began running better in the big metropolitan areas than Democrats had before. But when you and House Republicans were capturing a lot of those not high income southern, rural Midwestern districts and so forth that I had been voting Republican for president but not for Congress, it started. Donald Trump accelerated that trend, and we're seeing it work out today. It is still with us. It has left the two parties pretty closely balanced, and both of them. One of the reasons why we haven't seen the kind of legislative compromise and cooperation that you, as Speaker, were able to do with President Bill Clinton. Put two would be intellectual baby boomers in a room with policy ideas and let them go at it with both of your staffers on both sides, nervous about what you guys would agree to. That produced some significant legislative achievements on welfare and riscal balance, a budget and so forth that are difficult to achieve today because the parties are so easily balanced. They both dream of the trifecta. They both dream of getting the presidency, the Senate, and the House, And in fact, in recent times that has happened. The Republicans got that in two thousand and four, Democrats got it in two thousand and eight. Republicans had it briefly and by narrow margins in twenty sixteen. Democrats had it by even narrower margins in twenty twenty, and both parties are thinking about it now. You know, you've got the Democrats musing about the idea of, well, if we just avoid losing more than that one Senate seat in West Virginia, maybe we can pack the Supreme Court with President Harris and Speaker Pelosis in Staale Hakim Jefferies winning a House majority, and those are possible things, although it's kind of a stretch to think they're only going to lose one Senate seat given the lineup of Senate races. And you've got Republicans thinking about a trifect as well, Well, we've got a good chance to pick up a Senate majority. They think President Trump has a good chance to win the election, as we've been discussing, nothing like an assured victory. You got a fifty percent chance of winning it. If it's a fifty percent race, and the House of Representatives, well, Republicans have a majority, and maybe they're going to increase that majority. So both parties do that, you don't get much compromise in the interim. If both parties think that they're going to get a trifecta in the next election, they'll say, why should I settle for half a loaf now, particularly if the other side writes the fine print and I don't even get half a loaf when I can get a whole loaf maybe after the next presidential election. Does that analysis makes sense to you?

That is part of what's happening. I also think, in a funny way, the two parties have moved further apart by having all the liberals in one room talking to themselves and conservatives in one room to themselves. The gap you have to cross in order to get to a deal is much wider than it was in the nineteen nineties. But you know, I have to ask you one question, just because you're in many ways you're much more of a historian than a political scientist, and you put these things in a context. Were you surprised when Biden decided not to run for reelection.

I was modestly surprised. Yes, I was. I thought he would stick in there. I think that Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, the first president in one hundred years to stick around Washington after he left the White House, was probably putting the ice pick in his ribs and basically telling him, at least what I've seen attributed to Pelosi, you know, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. The easy way is the way we're doing it now. The hard way as we do it next week. And I say, you're an incompetent, senile person and you have to leave. Which way do you want to go presidency? You got there. I wouldn't want a niche in history. I wouldn't want to see anything happen to it. And remember, Nancy Pelosi is from San Francisco, but her political roots are in Baltimore. It's a little bit of a rough town politically. It was a two party town for a while when her father was a Democratic mayor. For some years there was also Republican mayors like Theodore R. Mckelden got black voters, Tommy Dallassandra, and Nancy Pelosi's father got the Italian and Irish voters. So that was an old fashioned politics. She's eighty four years old, she's old enough to remember that kind of politics and well as a person that's partly of Italian indeed Sicilian descent. I'm not going to go any farther in to suggesting what she may have observed within the Italian American community in Baltimore, from which she sprang and which she has fond memories.

There's a terrific movie called The Offer, which is the making of the Godfather. It's really really well done, and it's based, of course, on that one line. I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse. And I think there was probably a magic moment when they made Biden an offer and he figured out, or more importantly, Joe figured out they couldn't refuse it. I thought he would hang in until the pressure just began to be so obvious and so powerful. But I have to say Klista and I were in Rome for the Trump Biden debate and we actually got up at like three in the morning to watch it live, and it was so staggering to watch. I mean, Biden just seemed like he wasn't there. I don't know what your reaction to debate was, but I tuned in as a good partisan thinking boy if we could get two or three mistakes out of Biden. But we got ninety minutes out of him. He never was able to fully engage.

Well, you know, we're of roughly the same generation, and people's declines in their health and in their capacity to do this kind of public speaking can decline fairly. Suddenly. Was Biden in this bad of shape in twenty twenty two? I think the answer is not did he just have a bad night. No, I think he had obviously been in some decline. So this is one of the factors we have to live with. You know, if you go back and read the history of World War Two, you see a lot of the leaders drop dead. Military leaders in this and that, or like John McCain's grandfather, an admiral in that war, retires in nineteen forty six after a grueling career in the Pacific theater, and he sits down in an easy chair and drops dead. President Roosevelt dies at age sixty three after a cardiac event your previous I've read somewhere that he had. His blood pressure was three over onein eighty My interness tells me that anybody in that condition today, his recommendation would be immediate hospitalization. People can just decline. And one of the points the Democrats have made is, hey, Donald Trump this year is the same age that Joe Biden wasn't this time in the cycle four years ago, which is true. Now Donald Trump seems to be very much still with it and capable of responding and making arguments and things. But I saw a clip the other day of an interview he did on Oprah Winfrey Show in nineteen eighty eight, which is a time he would have been at forty two years old and he was faster, he was more articulate, he was smoother in his presentation then, if anything, even more self assured, although he had not yet been elected President of the United States, was thinking about it and so forth than he is today at age. Can I do all the things physically that I did forty years ago? Not necessarily?

One last topic one as good. We're currently in the debate about the debates. Given the general pattern, do you think it really makes that much difference?

Well, I think the June twenty seventh debate certainly made some difference, and probably more so than any political debate that we remember of all time. I mean, you know, it's generally thought that then Vice President Nixon lost the nineteen sixty debate, but if you go back and watch the television or the audio tape of it, Nixon performed very ably in that debate, as did Kennedy. With Kennedy had greater charm, I think, but they're both highly competent people in their forties at that time. I think it can make a fair amount of difference. It's interesting that the Democrats initially said, well, you've got a debate in the same format, the same channel, with the same network, ABC that you had agreed to President Biden in and Trump said, well, maybe not, and then he said, well, maybe I'll do it. And then the Democrats said, yeah, but the ground rules have to be different because we want to change it. Well, you know, that's one of those process arguments, you know, saying well, we're going to change the process and so forth. I have an old saying that I've developed in covering politics, which is that all process arguments are insincere, including this one. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are making insincere arguments, and we'll see how they come down to on debates. But I'm also looking forward to the advanced Waltz debate. Vice president debates don't get as much attention as they should. Sometimes they signal something has changed. I remember the nineteen ninety two debate between incumbent Vice President Dan Quayle and Senator then later Vice President Al Gore. It was the first baby boomer debate. It was a Rockham Sockham debate, and they just savaged each other and went at it like crazy. Neither of them, interestingly, is a factor in the debate this year, but neither of them seems to want to play a part in national politics, which is certainly their prerogative. They can claim to have served constructively as vice president. I think in each case that sort of style, I think it'll be interesting. Wallace has stated a whole bunch of things that just turn out to be untrue or allowed to be stated. Misstating his army rank, misstating the form of fertility treatments that he and his wife had, He misstated when he was running for Congress in two thousand and six, had it said he had been given an award by the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce. He'd grown up in Nebraska, and I thought the fertility argument the Walls has had IUI treatment not IVF IVF would have given him a political talking point. But maybe he just got those confused. The military position, he was applying basically for a military position, holding it temporarily, but did not complete the requirements when he retired from the reserve status as he was entitled to do. So you can say, well, he just made mistakes there. How do you make up out of thin air that you got a Nebraska Chamber of Commerce award when you never did. What kind of mindset was there? Some award that he had somewhere that suggested that, and he maybe embellished or changed it. I don't have the answer to that question. Plus, why would you think when you're running for Congress from Minnesota that you got a Nebraska Chamber of Commerce award would be a really killer argument for your election.

It's a little bit like he apparently was a volunteer offensive coach who was never the coach. But of course, if you watch Kamala refers to him constantly as coach because they want to communicate he's just one of us. He's an everyday kind of guy.

It reminds me of the way the proper way to address a person who has been lieutenant governor but was never governor of the state. The proper way to address them is his governor. And I have done that with a number of former lieutenant governors at both parties, and I can report to you that when you say that to them, their faces light up. I'm with you.

I think that actually those two guys have totally different set of talents. But watching the two Wilson jd Vance debate maybe one of the more interesting periods of the whole campaign, because they bring very different set of skills. Both of them will be very aggressive by them.

They've both been unafraid to be provocative, which can be a high risk characteristic. As you may have reflected occasionally in your career.

I have thought about trying to be provocative, but I've never quite gotten around to it. As you know. Listen, Michael, I'm an enormous fan of yours. I think of you as a personal friend as well as a colleague in this almost half century journey trying to understand the American system. The fact that you would be willing to talk to us from Amsterdam, I am deeply in your debt. I want to thank you for joining me at your latest book, Mental Maps of the Founders, our geographic imagination guide to America's revolutionary leaders. It's a great read. It's available now in Amazon, It's in bookstores everywhere, and also our listeners can follow your work at Washington Examiner dot com. Thank you very very much for joining us.

Okay, thank you, mister speaker.

Thank you to my guest, Michael Barone. You can get a link to buy his book, Mental Maps to the Founders on our show page at newtsworld dot com. Newts World is produced by GINGRICHH Three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Guarnsey Sloan. Our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for the show was created by Steve Penley. Special thanks to the team at Gingrish three sixty. If you've been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope you'll go to Apple Podcasts and both rate us with five stars and give us a review so others can learn what it's all about. Right now, listeners of Newtsworld can sign up from my three freeweekly columns at gingristree sixty dot com slash newsletter. I'm Newt Gingrich. This is Newtsworld.

In 1 playlist(s)

  1. Newt's World

    810 clip(s)

Newt's World

Join former House Speaker, professor, historian, and futurist Newt Gingrich as he shares his lifetim 
Social links
Follow podcast
Recent clips
Browse 803 clip(s)