Trump Puts Conditions on Accepting Election Results

0:00Every day, animals across the country face abuse and neglect. And every day, the ASPCA shows up to rescue animals in crisis. But they can't do it alone. Visit ASPCA.org slash need. Become a donor today to provide the care and shelter these animals urgently need. And for a limited time, the ASPCA will send you a free gift as a special thank you. Visit ASPCA.org slash need. Life is all about making decisions. Sometimes you make questionable ones, like buying a new TV that's too big for the wall because the electronics store employee was a little too good at their job. Then sometimes you make great ones, like protecting your home and auto with Progressive.

0:47You get customized coverage options so you can be sure you have the right coverage. Get your quote today at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and other insurers. Not available in all states.

1:03Abby Phillip: Tonight, one week before America votes, the president two steps in Texas and sows the seeds of doubt before the results. You'll respect the results, whatever happens. I will if they're on a selection. Plus, do Democrats need to move more to the center or brace for the move to socialism? Two stars, two takes. Also, some of its creators warned it could end the world, so would you invest in the AI boom? And it's been a divisive issue in America's elections. Now Israel decides the fate of its controversial leader. Live at the table, Van Jones, Noah Rothman, Kate Bedingfield, Shermichael Singleton, and Carrie Champion.

1:50Abby Phillip: Welcome to a special edition of Newsnight Midterm Countdown.

2:09Good evening.

2:10Abby Phillip: I'm Michael Smirconish in New York for Abby. One week from right now, CNN is going to be deep into election night coverage. John King will be at the magic wall and a long midterm campaign will finally be over. By this hour, we may know who controls the House and the Senate. And if the result is what more and more forecasters expect, a new question will then take center stage. How will the White House handle it? Each day, more outlets project a good night for Democrats. Even Fox News just moved 22 House and Senate races toward the Democrats. The pundits, the prognosticators, the prediction markets, they're nearly unanimous.

2:48Abby Phillip: Of course, almost 30 million Americans have already voted, but most haven't. Nobody knows for sure how it ends. Still, it's worth asking how the president would respond to a bad night. And tonight we got a glimpse. And you'll respect the results, whatever happens. I will if they're on a selection deal. Be careful of the voter fraud. Be careful. Well, you have Mays and you have your U.S. attorney and you have a couple of people here, but we're going to watch that voter fraud. They cheat so well, I figured they didn't have to do this. They're the greatest cheaters of elections, I think, in history.

3:25Abby Phillip: So accepting the results, that's conditional for the president. And many of his baseless claims have picked up steam. Nearly 600 high-profile conservative media accounts and podcasts have published more than 7 ,000 statements questioning the integrity of the election. That's according to The Washington Post. That includes everything from non-citizens voting to mail ballot fraud. Those themes are said to be twice as prevalent now as they were in the last election. And in some respects, the fight has already begun as the feds launch pre-election day challenges in California and Alaska. Former Democratic Senator Bill Bradley writing in The New York Times, we don't know if the Trump administration officials will follow through on their threats to interfere with the work of election officials, but we must be prepared.

4:10Abby Phillip: Before we open it up to the table here, we invite you at home to join the debate. Head to CNN.com slash Abby and weigh in. We'll get to some of your comments throughout the course of the program. Okay, Van, maybe we don't have to wonder. Maybe we already have the playbook, given that the administration has taken a preemptive step in Alaska. Will that then be the market playbook if it's close? Yeah, look, I think the Trump administration is going to try to put marbles on the stairs and banana peels on the sidewalks and do all the types of everything they can to try to mess this thing up. I will say about Alaska, because I try to be fair, It's a little bit of a dirty trick, I believe, to try to mix up the voters.

4:49But I think that they've cured that. But it's nowhere near as big a dirty trick as Trump calling for a mid-decade gerrymander for the whole country. So both sides are not respecting our electoral system. But I think you're going to see Trump pull every trick in the book. And it ain't going to matter because this blue wave is coming.

5:07Abby Phillip: Sure, Michael. It's all going to come down to the size of the margin if it goes the way, right? In other words, if it's a big victory for Democrats the way that the prediction markets and the prognosticators and the pundits think, then I don't think, I hope, we won't get into any of this terrain. Well, I hope we don't, but I'm skeptical of the idea of a blue wave. I don't think we'll see what we saw in 2018 or 2006 where you saw Democrats win 50, 60 seats or when Michael Steele was chair of the Republican Party, and we had the largest victory, I think, in six or seven decades at that point. I think you have to redefine what success looks like in this current political climate.

5:41The Democrats may win 20 or 25 seats. That's victory. A win is a win. I'll give them credit there. Before Hakeem Jeffries, you now have to govern. In a very divided caucus, you're going to have some DSA candidates, some more progressive candidates. And then you want to have some type of governing capability to tee up your 2028 presidential candidates. Let me show you what they're saying even at Fox.

6:01Abby Phillip: Put that on the screen. This is from the Fox Power Ranking just today. Republicans have 195 seats in their column. a good night for them would take that total to only 212. So on a good night, according to that projection, far short of a majority. That's one projection. Even Cook Political Report stayed at 15 to 20 seats. I think that's more likely. That said, this is not a mandate to not try to govern. This is not a mandate to impeach Trump. Now, maybe you go after some cabinet officials. I understand the political strategy behind that. But I think Democrats' success isn't because Democrats have articulated a great message to the American people.

6:38I think it's because voters aren't very happy about what they've seen from the president.

6:41Abby Phillip: My question is, how's he going to take it if it goes down the way that all the data suggests that it will? Well, I think Democrats would be wise and Americans would be wise to anticipate the worst. The president has a tendency to react poorly to bad elections. When it comes to Alaska, as we were just talking about, there's now some serious conversations about the prospect that the president will say, don't seat Mary Patola if she wins. and then impose that proposition on Thune. And, you know, obviously that Schumer and Thune would have to come to a deal there. Nevertheless, it would be a profound display of disrespect for the electoral system.

7:14All that being said, Cher Michael's right. There has been a lot of expectations management in the press over the last week. In The New York Times, they had this piece today saying, hey, listen, Republicans have a ton of money. They have a big organizational apparatus at the state level. Maybe you should really tether your expectations to reality. And then in The Washington Post, they had a piece saying, don't expect Democrats in the majority to do anything about pricing. They're not going to throttle the AI boom with a regulatory garrote. They're not going to undermine the Iran war because elementary logic suggests that if you give Iran a free hand in the Strait of Hormuz, it won't put downward pressure on fuel prices.

7:48And they can't do anything about tariffs because the Supreme Court already stepped in and said, listen, this is the national security stuff. I'd love for Democrats to claw power away from the executive branch. I don't think this Democratic Party will do that. I will say I do think they will get they'll try to get caught trying, though. I do think that part of what voters are angry about is Trump's overreach, is a sense that he has expanded executive power beyond and that he's using it essentially solely for his own enrichment. And I think when Democrats take the majority, one of the things they're going to try to do is demonstrate that they are using their, you know, their leverage to try to pull back.

8:23And but I will say concern about going too far. In my mind, yeah, absolutely. No question about it. I would be very against. It seems that she wanted investigations day one. I know they're trying to measure that. But I do believe if we talk about this, I'm really confused at what you're saying. So you're saying that the media is measuring expectations, saying that Democrats won't do too much or they will do too much. I'm confused. Where are you going with this? When it comes to governing, that they either won't or can't. This is The Washington Post. For the most part, it's won't. That they won't or can't.

8:51For the most part, it's won't. I'm sorry. It's mostly won't. It's can't when it comes to tariffs, although they could claw back some national security powers. I don't expect Democrats to take any power away from the president. So if there's this big blue wave that they're talking about, you're saying that they won't do anything once they have the power? Is that what you're suggesting? Not what they're proposing. They will not throttle the AI boom. That is the driver of American economic growth right now. They're not going to put an end to the Iran war because that would make fuel prices go. But what I think is it's a two-step.

9:18It turns out the country is so divided. You have to have triple blue or triple red to get anything done. And so I think the first step, just like in 2006, we were living under the horrors of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, which now look like Mickey Mouse to the time we thought was awful. 2006, we got the House and Senate. 2008, we were able to govern. We got health care done. So I don't think we can get everything done we want to get done with just the House and the Senate. But we set ourselves up in 2008 to go back triple blue.

9:46Abby Phillip: To Van's point, hasn't the bar been set too high, Kate, by Democrats? In other words, there's an anticipation now that you're going to bring about change. How do you bring about change when the president has that veto? Yeah, I want to say so. Look, I wouldn't say the bar has been set too high by Democrats on bringing about change, because, again, I think half the battle in two years where Donald Trump is going to be still sitting in the White House, half the battle is showing the American people that we're using everything in our power in a way that Republicans in Congress have not done. Republicans in Congress have essentially aided and embedded everything Trump's wanted to do.

10:18I think that Democrats will get some credit for showing that they're willing to stand up in a way Republicans weren't. But the one thing I will say, though, I do think that Democrats, as just a purely political punditry matter, do need to do a little expectations management here. We're now at a place where, you know, there's the possibility Democrats are going to win, you know, 10, 12, 15 seats in the House, going to eke out a win in the Senate. which if you had told me that a year ago, I would have said home run, grand slam. And we've now sort of let the narrative get to a place where, you know, it's like when the majority is one potential exercise.

10:53Abby Phillip: Here's one potential exercise of power. The former vice president weighing in tonight on the subject of whether impeachment should be pursued. Here's what she said. I think that going on in the direction of impeachment is not a good idea. Just to be honest with you, I just because we have limited resources and I think the energy and the resources need to be put into accountability, need to be put into investigations. And that's where the time should be spent. Carrie, you're shaking your head. Go ahead. I mean, I agree with her. I do believe there is this happy medium. And I don't necessarily know if the Democrats even know how to go about that right now.

11:34But what I do believe is that the American people are going to say we want change. So the first thing that we're going to talk about is affordability. I want to see some sort of change there. I want to see gas prices. I want to make sure groceries are normal. I think that should be the first state of business so that they can maybe even have a run at something in 2028. That looks like a symbol. I don't think any of that is possible.

11:52Abby Phillip: Can I say the biggest prize at stake in this election is control of the Senate for the specific reason of the federal judiciary. Lifetime appointments. Everybody focuses on the Supreme Court. The real power is the appellate court. And those confirmation hearings could be thwarted if they win the Senate, but only if they win the Senate. Anybody disagree with that? I think I think that's right. Look, I think I think I think the federal courts are all messed up now. And I think people have a lot of concerns. That's the main thing that we have to remember is this is a very complicated government governing structure.

12:25I think if people think that Democrats are going to win and then tomorrow the gas prices are going to come down, that's just not how the world works. But they're going to want that. That's not how the world works. They're going to expect something. That's why you're saying the expectations are too high. Yeah, got to curb your enthusiasm. Democrats could actually. They would do themselves a world of favor. Americans have a revealed preference for divided government. They actually don't. It frustrates partisans when nothing gets. It frustrates partisans when nothing's coming out of Washington legislatively.

12:55But when it comes to the average American, they see checks and balances. And they do regard this administration as not being properly checked by Congress. I think that's something that Democrats could deliver on, not necessarily grandstanding hearings or impeachment hearings. That's if they think Americans are sending them to Washington to do speeches, they're going to be sorely mistaken. However, just existing as a check on the Republican president could satisfy whatever mandate they're trying to achieve. They're setting the bar too high. But I do think in terms of expectations, I mean, let's say Republicans do keep the Senate and you're talking about gas prices.

13:26Let's look at Israel and funding to Israel. That's a big issue with Democratic voters. It's a big issue with younger Republican voters. can Hakeem Jeffries make a deal with John Thune? Is that possible? Will the Democratic base permit him, give him the permission slip to do so? I think it's going to be very, very tough for him. There needs to be some optics that make them feel like they've done something. So whatever that is, it's a deal that they negotiated. And I would argue, just quickly, I would argue optics that show that they're going at the things that matter. That matter the most to people.

13:57And impeachment is a political tool. We've seen now multiple times the politics around it. when it comes to Donald Trump is not effective. It doesn't mean, listen, I'm not arguing that I don't think Donald Trump has committed impeachable offenses. I do think that. But I think as a political matter, Democrats spending all of their bandwidth right out of the gate on that. And there will be. And that's something that Hakeem Jeffries is going to have to navigate.

14:20Abby Phillip: Passing things that don't make it into law, I don't know what that gets them with the base that will have put them in control of the House and Senate. We've got to move on. Next, if Democrats do win the midterms, should the party move more to the center or more to the left? Two liberal stars have different opinions on that. Plus, if AI has a chance to end the world, would you invest in it? And will these CEOs be considered heroes or villains in the future? We'll talk about that.

14:50Progressive's Accident Response can contact emergency services if you're in a major accident. The only thing worse than someone you love being in an accident is not being able to help them. So Progressive is here to help when you can't. So get peace of mind knowing your loved ones are protected with Progressive's accident response. Learn more at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Limited availability in California. Driver is responsible for emergency and towing charges not covered by the policy. Coverage subject to policy terms and conditions.

15:20Abby Phillip: This podcast is supported by Anthropic, the public benefit corporation behind Claude. Everyone's got a hard question about AI. Anthropic was built to surface those questions and share what it finds along the way, because there's hope in hard questions. Ask yours at claude.ai slash Spotify and keep thinking. That's claude.ai slash Spotify.

15:52Abby Phillip: Two Democratic heavyweights laying out their visions for the future of the party. Should it move closer to the center or should it pivot farther to the left? California Governor Gavin Newsom argues the party should embrace the Democratic Socialist Movement, which he recently said will become dominant and mainstream moving forward. It echoes comments that he's made in the past. If you have these candidates and this platform that is clearly animating the base, energizing turnout, should more of those ideas be worked into the broader Democratic platform? I think they are. I mean, we want money out of politics.

16:24Abby Phillip: I've been supporting clean money campaigns for decades. But there seems to be a little distance between some leadership and those DSA candidates. But not the ideas. If it's about more money in your pocket, lowering costs, it's about getting money out of politics, and it's about Medicare for all, I think we're pretty aligned. That's a DSA position. That's a mainstream position within the Democratic Party. So I think in many ways, it's just a label. And it's a familiar, forgive me, you're talking the wrong person, such a familiar label to me. Yeah. We call them progressives. But former Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel says Democrats should reclaim the center.

16:56Abby Phillip: In an essay for The Wall Street Journal, he writes, Millions of McCain-Romney voters are redefining their political identities, and they will be the most responsible for Democratic gains in November. These voters do not want to be associated with MAGA, and they see themselves as free agents. The question for Democrats, he adds, is whether the party is willing to give them a permanent home. Kate, we talked about a week from tonight. Let's talk about a week from tomorrow morning, the future of the Democratic Party, because the gun for 2028 then begins. How does this get resolved? Yeah, well, listen, I'm a little bit more where Rahm is than where Gavin Newsom is, in part because I think if you've worked on campaigns where you've had to win in red, in purple districts, states, you recognize that you have to be able, you have to have a party brand that can reach across the aisle, that can bring in some of those voters.

17:45And I think that a Democratic Party that defines itself solely as a Democratic Socialist Party, which I don't think that's what Newsom was arguing, by the way, but a party that embraces that is going to turn a lot of those voters off. Now, here's one thing I will say, though. I disagree a little bit with Newsom on the idea that some of the things he rattled off there, getting money out of politics, you know, making health care more affordable, are solely DSA policies. I mean, I think the Democrats need to be for what feels like a change in the status quo. I think that's part of the reaction that people that's part of the excitement that people are feeling toward these DSA candidates.

18:23They feel like these are people who are going to go in. They're going to challenge the status quo. I think that Democrats can do that in a way that doesn't pigeonhole them with policies that are not broadly appealing to a huge swath of the country.

18:35Abby Phillip: OK, so I think that Gavin Newsom has the right strategy for how you win a Democratic nomination. Rahm has the right strategy for how you win the White House. Here's another taste from Rahm Emanuel. The activists who reside in blue bubbles are sure to interpret the election results as vindication, but the party's assent won't be born of some newfound enthusiasm for far-left policies, such as defunding the police or offering free health care to illegal immigrants. Is he right? He's right. As much as I... He's right. As much as I agree with the sentiments in that op-ed, Rahm Emanuel is describing a majority party.

19:10Both parties should want to be majority parties. However, I think he's engaged in a category error. He described the 25 % of non-MAGA Republicans who he believes are a persuadable constituency. These are not Mitt Romney voters or John McCain voters. These are not defense hawks. They are not limited government conservatives. I'm very interested in the polling on this. They're less likely to describe themselves as conservative or very conservative. They're very low trust. They hate foreign policy. They certainly hate American wars, but they hate the conduct of foreign policy. They think most people are getting a short shrift because there's too much influence in their politics from billionaires, corporations and even political parties themselves.

19:44And they don't follow the news and they're hard to get out to vote. Rahm Emanuel is right. In many ways, this is a Democratic constituency. It was a Democratic constituency until Donald Trump made it a Republican constituency. A reversion to a pre-Trump mean is not an epochal reordering of the American electorate.

19:58Abby Phillip: Carrie, can I ask, is Gavin Newsom trying to create that lane for himself, that DSA lane? Is that what this is all about? I think he's doing it for himself. But I was just having this conversation with Kate, and I think it's really interesting. I don't necessarily know that the Democratic Party, and as we are talking about it, knows what identity is. I don't think it should be left or center. I think that they have to realize they can't become one, come all. The whole reaching across the aisle, that sounds great, but it has to be very clear what they are about. So I would say, here are some topics.

20:24I would say I know plenty of Democrats who don't believe in abortion. I know plenty of Democrats who think we should be tougher on immigration. And that shouldn't just be something that is considered for the conservative people. And they have to be able to talk about these things and be OK talking about it. What Gavin has done from my home state of California, he said that early and people have been upset with him. But because there's so much infighting with the Democratic Party, I can't see how they're going to ever be able to find their way. We have two big figures talking about two totally different things.

20:53And that's where the trouble is.

20:54Abby Phillip: May I show you all some data about how the Democratic Party is perceived? This comes from The New York Times and Siena. I'll put that on the screen. 49 percent, this is of overall voters, 49 percent say the Democratic Party is too far left. Half of Americans think the party is too far left. Within the party, 63 percent say, you know, the porridge is not too hot, not too cold. It's just right. 63 percent say we're not too far either way. Any reaction to that data? Look, I just want to say a few things about this party. Number one, we need the energy of the progressives. Right. And a lot of the ideas from the progressive that they're claiming are these socialist ideas, I'm sorry, we've had these ideas since 1972 with Shirley Chisholm saying people, if they get sick, they should be able to see a doctor.

21:42Reverend Jesse Jackson had these ideas in 84 and 88. So some of these ideas, these kind of champagne socialists are showing up late, gentrifying the party. They got a$9 latte in their hand, calling themselves socialists and trying to tell us what to do. Guys, you think your icon is Karl Marx? Your icon is Christopher Columbus. You're discovering stuff that's been in the black community the whole time. So some of this stuff is just obnoxious, and we just don't want to hear from them on that. But the energy is correct. Some of the ideas are correct. The problem with the DSA is they are a mix of progressive ideas and regressive ideas.

22:13They have progressive ideas that would make the country better, like everybody can see a doctor, a better education. And then they have regressive ideas like no borders, no police, no prisons, no Israel. I mean, stuff that would make the world a little bit chaotic and crazy. And so I think what has to happen is that moderates like Rahm, who's correct, swing voters and swing states win elections at the end, need to be able. That's smart. We've got to get the good out of this new energy and leave all these nutty ideas out of the party.

22:45Abby Phillip: Sure, Michael. You're hoping they go in the DSA direction, right? I am. I mean, look at California. It's a poorly run state. There's a reason why so many of the residents have moved to states like Texas, my home state, many businesses. have left California for a reason. I think Gavin Newsom is incorrect. I think Rahm Emanuel, I respect him, but I think he's wrong. This idea of this Romney, McCain, Republicans that are all of a sudden going to give Democrats the strategic advantages that they need nationally, I think is incorrect. If I were a Democrat, I would hyperinvest my resources in African Americans in the South.

23:17If you want to look at a state like Texas, if they lose, look at Mississippi, if they lose, it will be because they did not put the resources in their base. If Trump taught us one thing, it's hyperinvest in your base. I think both of those gentlemen are incorrect.

23:29Abby Phillip: Can I ask Kate about Rahm himself and the way he's approaching this with purpose, serious issues? You're smiling. I'm admiring. I like the fact that he's serious, that he's listening. He went to Israel and he gave that speech about Israel. Can he get any traction? Listen, I may be a little biased because I worked for Rahm in 2006. In that year when Democrats had an incredible year, I was working at the DCCC under Rahm Emanuel's leadership. So I'm a little biased. And I think what he's doing is driving our party in a good direction. I think he is forcing conversations. He's having these conversations about education in particular that really haven't been front and center in this year that I think is a great thing for Democrats to reclaim.

24:13Because you remember, you know, you look back to like 2020, 2022, even back to 2021, the governor's race in Virginia. Democrats really suffered on issues of education and parents. Does he have the energy that he's talking about? He's like the DSA. I know right from everybody. So Vance says we need the DSA energy. He said we don't need the regressive ideas. Can Rahm do that? One thing Rahm Emanuel has to tell you is energy. I don't know if that brings it. I don't know. This is a fantasy. DSA and Democratic politics are not compatible. This party will not moderate after this election. There's a competing element, and that's the Abdul El-Sayed model, which is confrontational.

24:56Don't give an inch. Listen, Rahm Emanuel, tough, smart, successful mayor of a tough city, Chicago, successful chief of staff, successful congressperson. I think people assume that he can't get there because he was with Clinton, Obama. He's too old school. He's got the energy of a teenager and he's got good ideas. Yeah, I'm just questioning where is the lane?

25:16Abby Phillip: From the folks at home, can I read this? The only socialism, says a viewer I'm interested in, is schooling, health care, and I believe states should own electricity and water and provide it to their constituents. Essentials for living should not be for profit. Can that be sold? It was sold to the British people when they nationalized the utilities. And then they nationalized the money. Margaret Thatcher actually had a livable condition. No, these are not new ideas. These are ancient ideas. The state monopoly on utilities is something we sloughed off in the 70s because it was an antiquated model.

25:50We're not returning to that.

25:51Abby Phillip: No, I would have said that. That would have been my answer. Talk about regressive. I've looked at the data, and you've looked at the data. The data among young Americans in particular, socialism is viewed more favorably than capitalism. But if you ask them if they like free markets, they do. Why do you think so, Michael? Go ahead. Because a lot of young people believe that they don't have the same access to the opportunities that their parents and their grandparents have. Even the vice president, to his credit, said this about a month ago on Fox News. If Republicans take for granted the economic pains of millennials and Gen Zers, we will regret it.

26:22We're pushing them into the DSA.

26:24Abby Phillip: I used to be of the opinion that Democrats, I'm not one nor a Republican, but I used to be of the opinion that, you know, you, I'm looking at the two of you. You need Frank Luntz to come in and give you a new name for socialism so that you can sell it. There isn't a new name. It has many names. Let me just say one thing. When the young people say socialism, some of them went to college and they know what they mean. But a lot of people, when they say socialism, they mean not this. Yeah, that's it. Not this thing. Not this. And so we got to figure out what they're actually talking about. Some of them are not talking about seasoned means.

27:01They're not talking about seasoned means of production. They're talking about being able to pay their rent. But they're not saying DSA or they're not saying center. And they mean not the rich getting richer. They mean me and my family being able to provide a good life. That's what they mean.

27:11Abby Phillip: Okay, moving on. Next, as Donald Trump concentrates on what to call AI, even threatening to ban the phrase in favor of one that he came up with, Anthropic revealing a list of all the technology's risks before it can become one of the richest companies in the world. We'll get to that next.

27:32Life is all about making decisions. Sometimes you make questionable ones, like buying a new TV that's too big for the wall because the electronics store employee was a little too good at their job. Then sometimes you make great ones, like protecting your home and auto with Progressive. You get customized coverage options so you can be sure you have the right coverage. Get your quote today at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and other insurers not available in all states.

28:09Abby Phillip: Tonight, it's expected to be one of the largest stock market debuts ever. Anthropic, the company behind the popular AI chatbot Claude, filed to go public this week, even as its CEO warns the technology could wipe out humanity. The company's IPO filing included a massive and wide-ranging list of risk factors, including fears that its technology can be used with malice and the potential that it could spiral out of human control. In September, Anthropic said that it had blocked multiple accounts using the company's models in ways that could support the development of biological weapons. The company also warns attackers can use AI agents for cyber attacks and do things like change code, delete or modify data and circumvent safeguards due to the speed of AI development and in an emerging but extremely competitive industry.

28:56Abby Phillip: Anthropic admits that it might not fully understand its own technology. Even if humans could keep watch, models are sometimes starting to cover their tracks and conceal their behavior. As fears swirl, the IPO could reportedly value the company at up to$2 trillion. Van, I want to show you something from the IPO. We'll put it up on the screen. This is the number of words in Anthropik's risk factor section as compared to its tech rivals. So 69.8, 70 ,000 words. I read these today in the IPO. Take a look at SpaceX 29.9. SpaceX, they have rockets. They blow things up. And yet twice and then some, the anthropic concern.

29:38That's entirely appropriate. And you could probably put 2x or 10x on those numbers of words because we're seeing things in the AI space that are shocking. We are seeing these models behave in ways that are terrifying because everything that we're doing to try to box them in, block them in, just to test them, they can outsmart us already. And the thing that people don't understand about these technologies is the exponential factor. As smart as they are now, they will be twice as smart next year and twice as smart as that the next year. And so Dario is not hyping things up, blah, blah, blah. These are real concerns.

30:16Now, what's the problem is, what's missing in action is the federal government. The Claim Act, all the different things have been put forward that would give you an FDA to regulate this. Trump won't move on it. Isn't it too late? Listen, I don't think that it's too late. I think the problem is that without any guidance, all these firms just keep chasing each other down the street. And you've got to listen. And they have been begging. And people say, well, all they're trying to do is create a regulatory moat around themselves. They can smash competition. Two things can be true at the same time.

30:46It can, in fact, be true that they want to change the laws in ways that will help them. And they also can be responding to things that are terrifying. And we've got to be smart enough as a society to say we are going to have to regulate these companies. We have to pass the legislations on the table. And we also are going to have to to have accountability when they screw up because big screw ups are coming.

31:06Abby Phillip: OK. And if we regulate, does that mean that China wins the A.I. That is because they're not going to regulate at all. I think it's a bit irresponsible, though, for Anthropic, because unlike OpenAI, they've taken the time to say, you know what, we're not going to go public this year. They're allegedly waiting until next year. We need to vet this more, more security measures in place. Anthropic should probably do the same thing, Van, instead of chasing after making trillions of dollars. Estimated two trillion valuation is a bit concerning to me. But I also understand Trump's position and posture on this, which is the expectation that the Chinese aren't going to really be guarded by any moral or ethical rules at all.

31:40Therefore, we must lead this next frontier. And I think he's kind of right in that regard.

31:44Abby Phillip: Can I say I'm not normally in the business of reading a prospectus for an IPO, but I recommend that everybody pull this one and at least read the opening section where they say we make your cancer, but then there are political risks. And here's one in particular that I highlighted. Authoritarian governments may use AI to create high-tech surveillance states, deepen repression, and make themselves much more difficult to dislodge. We are committed to working with free societies to provide a counterweight to authoritarian abuse and to promote freedom and democracy. Listen, we were talking in the last segment about what is socialism?

32:18What do people mean when they say I'm for socialism? I think one of the things they mean is looking at these eye popping numbers and the kind of IPO that we're looking at, looking at the wealth that some of these people at Anthropic are going to accrue. like next to statements like our technology is going to be used to, you know, crush human rights around the world. And, you know, by the way, it might, you know, escape its its fencing and eliminate all of humanity. And, you know, we're not public. We're not. But we're going public because we're going to make a bunch of money. So I think as a political matter, this is going to be a huge, huge turbocharging of the populism that, frankly, we're we're seeing rise on both sides of the aisle.

32:57I mean, this to me is a this is a real kind of shining, shiny object and easy to easy to.

33:04Abby Phillip: Champing it a bit to get in on. Yeah. But let me frame the question, if I may, and pick up on something that Kate just said. Put on the screen the seven names, because in the prospectus, there comes a point where there they are. They're the seven founders. They're all going to be multibillionaires. They already are. OK. And so my question, though, for you is 250 years from now, how will those founders, if you will, be judged? I don't know. I think it'll be... Most likely, it'll be something of a mixed legacy. Sure, you were at the present, at the inception of a technology that's going to define the next generation.

33:40And you also probably made some mistakes along the way and certainly misled investors along the way. There's something in that IPO prospectus that I think everybody should read where they concede that the imminence of model sentience, as they describe it, could lead to a backlash among the political class that could expand beyond existing political regulations and harm the bottom line. That's a long way of saying to investors, our conception of this product as being functionally conscious is actually going to have downsides for our product. And they do believe it's functionally conscious. The New York Times reported in a very disquieting piece about this tour that the Anthropic took that took them all the way to the Vatican, which they're enlisting religious figures to talk about anthropics, emotional vectors.

34:23Is that good or bad news?

34:24Abby Phillip: Because there's got some moral foundation put in. Maybe we should be abhorning them. It's just a misconception. One second. One thing Chris Olsen said in that piece where he said, listen, we're seeing neuroscience, things that mirror neuroscience. I can't gainsay his experience. But what I can say is the key word in that sentence is mirrors. What he's talking about is mimicry. If you're talking about extending personhood to this thing, you might as well extend it to a macaw because it learned how to ape its handlers. That's really outdated. I used to think what you just said is what I was saying 18 months ago.

34:54That's what a lot of people are saying. We're seeing things that are not just mirroring humans. We're seeing things that are exceeding human cognition. And this is going to create some problems. I don't know what to do about it. But everybody's got to update your talking points, guys. These things are really extraordinary. I'm serious. That was kind of funny. That was funny. He said there needs to be federal regulation. You say that this is what the kids are talking about. This is socialism. We are having a conversation about something that I know 90 pages of that was a warning of the 300 pages.

35:2990 pages was a warning of what it could do. It's duplicative. It could be conniving. And it's telling you to be kind to it. And we still aren't talking about it like we should be. Update talking points. We should be a lot. There is a need, Michael, I think, for an ontological debate about this. Whether it's sentient or not, Noah, I'm not exactly sure. But if this thing is superseding our capabilities, our intellectual faculties and curiosity, how do you control this? You can't. How do you define what it is to assure that it doesn't cause massive harm to humanity? Here's the one thing that you said that I disagree with you on, Michael, is that the Chinese are just going to do whatever they want to do.

36:05There's two things. One is the Chinese are already regulating AI more than we are, number one. Number two, the bioterrorism threat freaks out authoritarians as well as Democrats. And so I do think that the first step should be a bioterrorism accord between the U.S. and China as a first step of testing whether. I don't think you could trust them. But here's the thing. They say the same thing about us. But you love Ronald Reagan and all these great heroes in your life. Somebody's got to step up and try to get these folks together. Right. And the alternative is just unchecked. In the same way that we were.

36:35The Soviets violated every treaty they ever signed, including the biological weapons. Well, we violate every treaty against Native Americans. But here we are. Okay. Oh, there it is.

36:42Abby Phillip: Moving on. Van. Next, he's been the center of a fiery debate here in America. But tonight, the fate of Benjamin Netanyahu hangs in the balance. After Israel votes, what will U.S. politicians do if he loses his power?

37:14knowing your loved ones are protected with Progressive's accident response. Learn more at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates, limited availability in California. Driver is responsible for emergency and towing charges not covered by the policy. Coverage subject to policy terms and conditions.

37:30Abby Phillip: This podcast is supported by Anthropic, the public benefit corporation behind Claude. Everyone's got a hard question about AI. Anthropic was built to surface those questions and share what it finds along the way, because there's hope in hard questions. Ask yours at claude.ai slash Spotify and keep thinking. That's claude.ai slash Spotify.

38:02Abby Phillip: Benjamin Netanyahu fighting to hold on to power as voters cast ballots in Israel's most consequential election in years. Exit poll shows results are shifting slightly toward Netanyahu, who are putting him tied or slightly ahead of the opposition bloc. But the prime minister is still well short of a majority. This is Israel's first national election since the October 7th attacks, with the country seeing its highest voter turnout in more than 50 years. Final results expected over the next 48 hours, but it could take days or even weeks for a coalition building to take place and be successful. Noah, I want to show you two charts, two data sets, and then have you react to them.

38:39Abby Phillip: The first shows unfavorability and how it has grown of Israel among Americans. Actually, it's the second one, if you could put that up. 60%. Head over to the other chart. There we go. 60 % unfavorable American views of Israel. Now go to the first, which shows the convergence of these graphs, how we have sympathy now more for Palestinians than we do for Israelis. First time that's been charted in 25, 26 years. Question for you. How much of that recently is attributable to Americans' perception of Netanyahu? I think not. I mean, it depends on who you're talking about. I think what these graphics describe is just completely divorced from what we're talking about, which is the Israeli election, which seems actually kind of essential to.

39:24Abby Phillip: We're three years away from 1 ,200 people hang on being slaughtered. Yeah. And there's more sympathy in this country for Palestinians than Israelis. Explain that to me. Well, there's been a very effective propaganda campaign. For example, one of the results that we're seeing tonight is a profound outpouring of Arab vote. What we're looking at is we're just talking about exit polls, as you said, but possibly up to 18 MKs from the Arab population inside Israel, demonstrating that Israel is as bad at genocide as they are at apartheid. Can these Israelis just get anything right? And yet you hear very often about how Israel is an apartheid state.

40:00You hear from the mayor of New York City. You hear from the activists in the DSA. The Arab voters who just voted in 18 MKs probably don't agree. That's the sort of thing that we get that graph. That's the sort of reason why we have these conceptions about the Netanyahu government. And by the way, if Eisenkot becomes prime minister, you will see no change in the perception of this country from those who have been demonizing it for the last three years.

40:20Abby Phillip: You may disagree with the basis for it. I'm simply asking if the perception of Netanyahu is what has driven the pendulum to swing in this country against Israel. And my answer is no. It is contingent on a propaganda campaign aimed at Israel, not its government. You know, I do see it differently. I mean, people remember George Floyd. And you asked people why, in a moment, did people who had never thought about anti-black racism never question the police? They saw one image and 20 million white people marched in a pandemic because they saw something that was so shocking that it changed their mind about something as central as the police and racism.

40:59You've seen, because of the war in Gaza, images that are much more shocking than George Floyd, repeatedly available to the public, and those images have changed people's minds. Yes, is there a propaganda element? Yes. But there's also a reality that the pain and suffering of the Palestinian people has struck a chord globally. And I think that Netanyahu has been maybe the worst person to explain to the global public what this is all about. And so I do think now you say that Gadi Eisenkot, if he becomes prime minister, it won't change anything. It won't change everything. But I do think that a change of leadership in Israel can change, can open a door for a new conversation.

41:41But it's not just propaganda. The reality on the ground has shocked people around the world. I don't think anybody in the United States really cares about judicial reform or whether the Haredes serve in the military. I don't think they care about domestic Israeli politics. And I think the George Floyd analogy is very, no, I think they honestly have a much more insidious view. But what he's saying makes sense to me. The visuals, what we're talking about is the visuals that we had never seen before. This is shocking. That is disturbing to people. We're separating this from. You've never seen more before?

42:09We've never seen children murdered in a way before that it's at our doorstep every single day. So you're implying what? And if you have been dismissive about it, it's true. You can be dismissive about it or you want to. It's a simple question. The question is. I'm not dismissing you. I'm asking what you're asking. No, not me. the issue at hand. The issue at hand is why do so many people have some sort of favorable attitude or approach or saying, guess what, I feel for these Palestinians it's because of what we're seeing. That's all he's saying. You have to be able to separate the two issues. I don't think anybody's arguing.

42:36I think the George Floyd metaphor is actually quite good because there was a fashion there. There was a fad. And it became not only socially desirable, but imperative that you express that phenomenon in Instagram posts with the black square going out during the middle of COVID where every medical professional said But the epidemic of racism is more important than the epidemic of COVID. There was a social contagion.

42:58Abby Phillip: Okay, may I quickly advance this? I want to go back to where we began the program talking about a week from tonight. Kate, I'm looking at you. So if a week from tonight it goes the way that people think that it will go, how does a Democratic House look at this relationship with Israel? Yeah, well, it has changed dramatically. And I think the pressure is going to continue for a Democratic majority House to show that they are not going to, they're no longer going to provide unconditional aid to Israel. I mean, the position on this has changed dramatically in the Democratic caucus, not because, I don't think anybody's arguing, because people in the United States care tremendously about internal politics in Israel, but because they have seen the execution of this war, and they have seen these images.

43:43With the BBN and Yahoo having right-wingers in his government that say horrific things. Those things together have caused problems. Absolutely. And that drove Arab turnout. And there will. And yes. And the Democrats are going to continue to need to show that they are that they are making changes substantively. Yeah. No blank checks. I think, Michael, this is going to be a big deal in 2028 on both sides. 2028. Yes, there's a foreign constituency even within the Republican Party with men 45 and under who are very, very skeptical of our involvement and prolonged engagement in Middle Eastern politics, particularly, they believe, driven by Israel.

44:20Even so much so that Vice President Vance has been very calculating in how he's tried to handle and discuss the issue. Let me just say one thing. I think the red line in the Democratic Party needs to be this. If you're trying to improve Israel as a majority Jewish democratic state, all criticisms and policy proposals are welcome. But if you're trying to remove Israel from the map, if you're saying that the Israelis should be wiped off the map, that they are somehow uniquely illegitimate as a country, I think that has no place in this party. But I think we've got to make room for the pain of a young generation seeing all this stuff.

44:54This is the first war fought on TikTok. That's a different thing. When you had color television in the Vietnam War and people saw those images, those young people marched in the 60s as well. So we have to give the young people some empathy and give them better leadership than we've seen from Bibi Dettinian. Okay.

45:10Abby Phillip: Thanks to all of you. We'll be back in just a moment to react to your feedback from CNN.com slash Abby.

45:29Abby Phillip: Here's some viewer feedback from CNN.com slash Abby. Can you please stop having Smirconish host for Abby? It makes it borderline unwatchable. Borderline is like margin of error. It could be three ahead. I disagree. Question for the panel. Do ads even make that much of an impact anymore? I feel like everyone in my life can't wait for all the crazy ads to be gone. LOL. Any reaction? Absolutely. There's a lot of political scientist data that says people say, I hate negative ads. But they work. Yet they're moved by them. They work every single time. But does money matter at this stage? I mean, Elon could write whatever check he wants to write now.

46:06Abby Phillip: I mean, it's a wash, isn't it? It matters when it puts a meaningful fact in front of a voter who might not have otherwise seen it and hammers it over and over. I would say in this environment, and one thing we used to always say on campaigns is earned beats paid. So if the narrative about the candidate is favorable, positive, and you are running a bunch of paid negative ads and voters believe it or don't, there's a real difference between the credibility of earned versus the credibility of paid, which people recognize is a tool of somebody who's trying to get you to think one way or the other.

46:40But if it is if paid media is hammering a narrative that is already one that people believe or accept. Yes, it absolutely makes us ask for that next week.

46:51Abby Phillip: OK, one more. I think this action of impeaching Trump again will garner sympathy for MAGA and will initiate a backlash against Democrats. It ain't gonna happen. Look, the Democratic Party establishment has been peeing on this fire for three months to try to make sure the base understands we're not impeaching the guy. So and so it's not going to happen. And we don't have to talk anymore. But they may impeach a subordinate like Pete Hegseth, for example. And that might be a more fruitful avenue. It could raise all the same problems associated with impeaching Donald Trump, creating all this groundswell of support for Donald Trump.

47:22I think that would work well, actually. Yeah, it might have the same effect. But what happens in the Senate? Well, see, that's the hard part. Well, we don't know. But we were sitting having this conversation. Kate is now my advisor. We're best friends. Yeah, and she thinks it may work well, no? In the Senate. Are we going to win the Senate?

47:39Abby Phillip: Well, I'll tell you how that vote would work in the Senate if it were a secret vote. Yes. If it were a secret vote. If it was a secret vote, what would it be? Get the cameras on. I don't know. 98? I don't know. We're out of time. That much I know. Everybody, thank you for being here. Before we go, catch me every weekday morning, 9 a.m. Eastern Time on Sirius XM's POTUS channel. Saturdays here on CNN, 9 a.m. Eastern Time. Thank you for watching. Newsnight Laura Coates Live starts right now.

48:09if you're in a major accident. The only thing worse than someone you love being in an accident is not being able to help them. So Progressive is here to help when you can't. So get peace of mind knowing your loved ones are protected with Progressive's Accident Response. Learn more at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Limited availability in California. Driver is responsible for emergency and towing charges not covered by the policy. Coverage subject to policy terms and conditions. The Secret Society of Semi-Homemade. Listen up. Sam's Club has pre-made dishes for a Thanksgiving feast that's ready in two hours, all while tasting suspiciously homemade.

48:46Come join us. Sam's Club. Individual oven times may vary.