Meet the Press NOW — March 4

Welcome to Meet the Press. Now I'm Kristen Welker in Washington, after a blockbuster primary night in Texas and North Carolina, where the stakes could not be higher, with the control of Congress up for grabs this November. We'll have much more on the key results and biggest takeaways from the first primaries of the 2026 midterms coming up. But we begin with the intensifying war in the Middle East and the administration defending its military operations in Iran and its efforts to evacuate Americans caught in the crossfire.

It comes as we have brand-new NBC News polling showing voters are skeptical of the mission and the president's handling of it. These are hot off the press. Take a look. 52 percent of registered voters say the U.S.

should not have taken military action against Iran. 54 percent saying they disapprove of the president's handling of the situation. Diving deeper, Republicans largely standing behind the president. Democrats largely critical.

But take a look. Independent voters, 61 percent say they disapprove compared to just 28 percent who approve. Today, my NBC colleague Garrett Haake pressing White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt in her first briefing since the war began. Take a look.

Does the president believe the country supports the actions that he's taken so far in Iran? I think he does. And I think the president knows the country is smart enough to read past many of the fake news headlines produced by people in this room that this action was unjustifiable. Again, this is a rogue terrorist regime that has been threatening the United States, our allies and our people for 47 years.

And the American people are smart enough to know that. Last hour, President Trump touting the success of the U.S. war on Iran. Take a listen.

We're doing very well on the war front, to put it mildly, I would say. Somebody said on a scale of 10, where would you rate it? I said about a 15. For 47 years, we were pushed around and we shouldn't have been.

And I think I can say, and you see it as well as I do, you see the tremendous progress that's being made. Their missiles are being wiped out rapidly. Their launches are being wiped out. They're attacking their neighbors.

They're attacking their, in some cases, allies, or not so long ago allies. And, you know, it's really a nation that was out of control. Also this morning, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth projecting confidence, saying the U.S. is winning, quote, decisively and without mercy, and saying the U.S.

and Israel will soon have control over Iran's skies. The two most powerful air forces in the world will have complete control of Iranian skies, uncontested airspace. I hope all the folks watching understand what uncontested airspace and complete control means. It means we will fly all day, all night, day and night, finding, fixing, and finishing the missiles and defense industrial base of the Iranian military.

Finding and fixing their leaders and their military leaders. And as President Trump said, more and larger waves are coming. We are just getting started. We are accelerating, not decelerating.

Now in that briefing, the Pentagon also releasing this stunning video of what it says is the moment a U.S. submarine launched a torpedo to sink an Iranian warship in international waters. As the U.S. military campaign accelerates right now, the Senate is about to vote on a resolution to rein in the administration's war powers.

That vote is expected to fail. Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to work to get Americans stranded in the Middle East out of the region. The White House saying it's working to charter flights and urging Americans to register with the State Department. We're also learning the identities of four of the six U.S.

service members killed after an Iranian drone attack on a U.S. military facility in Kuwait. White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt saying today the president will attend the dignified transfer of those American troops. Joining me now is NBC News White House correspondent Monica Alba, NBC News chief foreign correspondent and NBC News senior national security correspondent Courtney Kube, Richard Engel, of course, is our chief foreign correspondent.

Thanks to all of you for being here. Monica, let me start with you. And this latest polling that shows a majority of registered voters actually disapprove of the president's handling of the situation in Iran. Any reaction there from the administration?

Do you think that could impact the strategy in Iran at all? Well, I do think it's something that they will be very closely tracking, Kristen. I think they are aware of the idea that just five days into a war, Americans have a sense that could be very different five days from now or five weeks from now, depending on how long this conflict actually goes. And if you dive deeper into our new poll and you look at it across party lines, it is fairly polarized.

You are seeing mostly Democrats who say they disapprove of that. But there are some Republicans and some independents who have concerns and who are basically saying that they disapprove of this, maybe because they don't know enough about it. And maybe they can't justify why the president initially took this decision. And that is really something that the White House and the Trump administration has spent a lot of time talking about, answering questions about in the last couple of days.

And I think that is where the story is really going when you talk about it from the polling and from the political perspective, because attitudes can really change and they can shift depending on whether people don't like the explanations that they're getting or whether they're conflicting or confusing. The White House tried to push back on that narrative a little bit today, saying that they feel they've been clear in their objectives. But we know, Kristen, that even senior top administration officials have offered varying reasons and justifications for why this massive war began in the first place. Yeah.

Well, and you also have to be reporting about that phone call between President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. What can you tell us about that one? Yeah. And this took place about nine days ago, we understand.

Now, look, the Prime Minister of Israel has been in touch with the president, with the White House, repeatedly, consistently urging the U.S. to consider striking Iran to really take the ballistic missile program threat seriously. And now we know that in that phone conversation, the Prime Minister indicated to the president that he believed, according to Israeli intelligence, that the Ayatollah and some of his top deputies and top Iranian officials were going to be in the same place at the same time on Saturday. And that is why we understand from the White House that factored into the president's decision making.

Now, they said that wasn't the only reason that he decided to strike this past weekend, but it did factor in. In fact, the White House press secretary, Karine Levitt today, said he acted based on a feeling that was based on fact. But that was one of the factors, certainly, that made the president decide he wanted to, in conjunction with Israel, launch these massive, massive strikes that ultimately ended up killing the Ayatollah and dozens of other leaders, as the president told you later that day, Kristen. That's just fascinating.

And of course, we've been talking about the effort to try to get the Americans who are stuck in the Middle East out. What's your latest reporting on that, Monica? And I think the administration has tried to approach this with a little more urgency today after there has been an outcry of confusion. And from Americans themselves who are stuck in some of these countries asking for help.

Initially, the State Department said try to get out commercially if you can. The airspace is closed in many of these countries. The airports are shut down. Flights are canceled.

So that was very, very difficult. But we are learning now today that there are other options potentially. In fact, we had the chairman of the Joint Chiefs telling our own Courtney Kube that there are going to be some spots potentially opening up on military aircraft on C-17. So that's one possibility.

And in addition to that, the State Department says they are working on getting some flights chartered from the regions of the United States. They don't want to share details on that, given the possible security risks and the timing there. Certainly an immense amount of urgency to bring those Americans home. Monica, thank you.

Richard, let me turn to you. Let's pick up on where Monica left off, which is the effort to try to bring Americans home. What are you hearing, including about the latest on airspace closures? There's a lot of concern.

A lot of people in this entire region are trying to figure out their travel plans, trying to get to airports where airports are opening up because not every airport is closed in this region. Some flights do appear to be going back online. The number of incoming Iranian strikes is not consistent. It is not everywhere.

And there are certain airlines that are trying to find gaps. But this conflict is also spreading to new countries. So air travel is disrupted all across the region. Land borders are generally the easiest and safest way for people to travel right now.

For example, just a short while ago, Turkey said that NATO interrupted, intercepted an Iranian missile that went into Turkish airspace. Until now, the Istanbul airport has been one of the main airports that people have been using to to transit in and out of this region. So when you have a moving conflict and this very much is a moving conflict, there are thousands, tens of thousands of people trying to get home and not sure where they should go. Another place where the conflict is expanding right now is Lebanon.

Israel just a short while ago launched a new wave of attacks against against Lebanon, targeting Hezbollah leaders. And the leader of Hezbollah, which is an Iranian backed militia group based in southern Lebanon and in southern Beirut. The leader said that Hezbollah joined this fight, would continue to fight and will fight into the end. So we could see even more of an families and continuing to honor them and their service.

But I want a slightly different tone from Secretary of Defense Peik said he was somewhat critical of the fact that the media are focusing so much on these fallen individuals and not on some of the other things that are happening, including the military successes that he says the U.S. is having. Here's a bit about what he had to say. This is what the fake news misses.

We've taken control of Iran's airspace and waterways without boots on the ground. We control their fate. But when a few drones get through or tragic things happen, it's front page news. I get it.

The press only wants to make the president look bad, but try for once to report the reality. The terms of this war will be set by us at every step. Fallen troops on the battlefield will always be front page news. Yes, that is for sure.

And there's gonna be a lot of focus on that moving forward. Courtney, thank you. As always. Good to see you.

Now we should note we will have much more from our brand new NBC News poll, including a fresh batch of numbers on the president's political standing and much, much more this Sunday only on Meet the Press. Coming up next, Capitol Conflict. I'll speak to both a Republican and Democratic lawmaker about the Trump administration's escalating military operations against Iran and the role of Congress in times of war. You're watching The Press Now.

Stay with us. Welcome back. Since the Trump administration has launched its war on Iran, one big question is why now? To which administration officials have given shifting explanations about whether there was an imminent threat to the United States.

Listen. There absolutely was an imminent threat. And the imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran was attacked and we believed they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us. It was my opinion that they were going to attack first.

They were going to attack if we didn't do it. They were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that. So if anything, I might have forced Israel's hand.

What was the intelligence that suggested that somehow they became a threat once again that required us to get involved with Operation Epic Fury? The evidence in front of us since the 12-day war was that Iran had no intention of actually negotiating a nuclear deal that truly meant they did not have a pathway to a nuclear bomb. Joining me now is Republican Congressman Michael McCaul of Texas. He is the chairman emeritus of both the House Foreign Affairs and House Homeland Security Committees.

Thank you so much for joining me, Chairman. Really appreciate it. Yeah, thanks for having me. So you just heard all of those explanations from the administration about why it launched the war with Iran.

Do you have a clear sense of the answer to that question, the why now? Yeah, a lot of people ask that question. I say there's been an imminent threat since 1979 when the Ayatollah came into power. And ever since that time, for over five decades, we've had terror events attacking Americans.

They are the biggest roadblocks of peace in the Middle East. But to answer your question, I don't know of any immediate attack. They were rebuilding their nuclear weapons systems, their ballistic missiles, and their ICBM capability that could hit the United States of America. I think they also saw an opportunity, at least Israel did, to see the Ayatollah convene with his cabinet, so to speak, at the compound.

And it made for a very good opportunity to decapitate Iranian leadership. And I think that dictated the timing of this, in my judgment. Well, you know, and you and others have argued that there's been this threat for 47 years. And I think no one would argue with that.

But the question, I guess, is how can a threat that's existed for 47 years also be imminent? Right. Here's the deal. Midnight hammer, they obliterated it.

They set them back a year or two. They were rebuilding this, however. They were creating intercontinental ballistic missiles. They were not stopping.

You know, Trump tried to negotiate. And when negotiations fail, as these did, and they're not negotiating in good faith, like Maduro did, there will be consequences. And I actually applaud a president who, for the first time in 50 years, since really President Carter has the guts and the courage to take on a regime that has been such the largest state sponsor of terror, largest killer of Americans, but most importantly, they are the roadblock to the Abraham Accord finalization, normalization between the Arab Gulf states like Saudi and joining with Israel. And once that happens, it's gonna be transformational in the Middle East because that threat now has been taken out to a large extent.

I wanna ask you how you see this overall conflict, because quite frankly, President Trump has called it a war. We've heard others in the administration refer to it as a war today. House Speaker Mike Johnson said we're not at war right now. So I'm curious for your take.

Is this a war, Congressman? Well, it does trigger notification under the War Powers Act when you have a conflict in hostile territory, which that's what this is. So they have given notification to the members of Congress. We did have a briefing on this.

The clock now is ticking under the War Powers Act that within 60 days, if this operation is not concluded, then it does require an authorization from Congress. From what I can see, the president has given a five week deadline, but in war, you never know what can happen. But I think it is their goal to conclude this operation before the 60 days expire. So just to be very clear, you're saying the president should come to Congress before the conclusion of the five weeks?

If the conflict is not resolved in 60 days, it will require a cessation of those activities unless authorized by Congress. And when it comes to war powers, I think it's always better for the administration to work with Congress to get the side of the American people supportive of this. And we've seen that throughout our history. It's always better when Congress is working with the executive on these issues, but I don't know in this partisan environment.

You know, I tried to upgrade the 2001 AMUF after 9/11 to include modern day threats. And we tried to add the proxies of Iran, the Shia proxies, that being Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthi rebels. And yet that was met with opposition by both the left and the right, to be honest with you. And so I think that was visionary to try to update the AMUF to update it to the modern threats of both Iran now and the Shia proxies.

That would be the AMUF I could envision if we could get bipartisan support. Congressman, let me ask you about some of NBC's new polling on Iran. According to our poll, 54% disapprove, 41% approve. So underwater.

What do you make of that? If the president's going to war, should the American people not overarchingly support it? Well, they should. You would normally be in a honeymoon phase right now, if you will.

But do you make sure the president's launch a war if he doesn't have more support? Should he be launching a war if he doesn't have more support for it? Well, I think he needs to explain it. And I think he needs to put his best messengers out there, explain what is really happening.

I think also, what are the objectives here? I think the American people will support the end of the Ayatollah freeing the Iranian people from oppression for 50 years. What they don't support is an unending bog down war in the Middle East. I think the administration needs to explain that better.

That's not the objective. Our military objective will be completed in five weeks. And then I think the bigger question here is what happens after that? We don't want to get bogged down and we don't have to nation build after this.

We don't wanna put troops on the ground because they will be targets and magnets for the jihadists. So what is phase two of the operation or the next phase after the military operation is completed? That's gonna be the far more difficult one, but that's ultimately up to the Iranian people to decide and we can help them. But you need three things.

I always talk about leadership, you need weapons, and you need communications. So that has to be part of the next steps. And right now it's not crystal clear. All right, Congressman, let me turn now to the results of last night's first primary of the year in your home state of Texas.

Democrats got a massive turnout and early data shows there was higher turnout for Democrats than Republicans. Are you concerned? And what do you make of the Texas Senate race? Well, you know, what I don't wanna see is in the Senate race, particularly John Cornyn is a good friend of mine.

I was his deputy attorney general. He has moral integrity. We don't wanna see that race drag on three more months to beat up our nominee. And we have a fairly formidable opponent who was nominated by the Democrats in this race.

The latest intelligence I've received is that the president is going to very soon endorse in this Republican Senate primary and tell the other candidates to get out of the race. So we'll see how that goes forward. But I don't think the party can afford, you know, three more months of this. And quite money, quite frankly, the money that still would have to be spent on fighting each other.

All right, Congressman McCaul, we'll see what happens. President Trump indeed teasing an endorsement could be coming up soon. So we'll all watch online to see what he posts. Really appreciate your perspective.

Thanks so much. No, thanks for having me. I appreciate you. Absolutely.

Coming up, it was a wild night of results out of the marquee races for Texas Senate. And they're still counting the votes in key House races. Leecron right here, what kept Crockett in it was the black vote. All of the counties that you see here, just about all of the counties you see here for Crockett, significant black population there.

She clearly won the black vote overwhelmingly in this primary. Well, it's just fascinating to see that turnout. And of course, your point about Hispanics, Steve, that could very well be a big determining factor once we get to the general election. Let me ask you about some of the House races, though.

What were some of your biggest takeaways from the House races, Steve? Yeah, I mean, scary night for incumbents in Texas and probably incumbents nationally saying, you know, what's the atmosphere going to be like when primaries come to their state? You already have one who's gone down, Dan Crenshaw, Republican here in the Houston suburbs. This was the only House Republican incumbent in Texas not endorsed by Donald Trump, and boy, did it show in the results.

Crenshaw losing to Steve Tote. By the way, the part of this district that really did Crenshaw in is right here. This is Montgomery County. No county in America delivered a bigger plurality to Donald Trump in 2024 than this county.

So arguably the most pro-Trump big county in America sides against the one candidate not endorsed by Trump, incumbent in Texas. You go look in the 18th district here, two Democratic incumbents squaring off against each other. It is going to go to a runoff. A bit of a surprise here.

A lot of folks thought that Al Green, longtime incumbent, was the underdog here against Christian Menifee, who was just elected five weeks ago. They are going to go to runoff. There will be an incumbent, obviously, who will lose there. How about this one?

Colin Alred, Democrat who used to be a House member, coming back running against the Democrat who took the seat that he vacated, Julie Johnson. This is going to go to a runoff, but Alred leading preliminarily, double-digit margin over Johnson. There's an incumbent who's in big danger there in the runoff. Another incumbent in big danger, Tony Gonzalez, headed towards a runoff.

There's been a scandal involving Gonzalez lately. He finishes behind Brandon Herrera in the preliminary. And then you take a look over even in North Carolina here. Here's an incumbent, Valerie Fousey, two-term incumbent.

She is ahead by 1,200 votes, 1% over her challenger. Sanders back, progressive insurgent. Scattering of votes left here. You see, we don't have a checkmark.

We haven't called it yet, but Fousey may have done just enough to survive there, but certainly not enough if you're an incumbent looking on nationally saying, how's the atmosphere? It could be tough for an incumbent right now. Yeah, incumbents undoubtedly very jittery when they see those results. Steve, thank you so much.

It was great to be up late with you watching all of the results come in last night. Great to see you as always. Always fun to do it. Thanks, Courtney.

All right, well, joining me now is Democratic Congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania. She's an Air Force veteran and serves on the House Armed Services Committee. Thank you so much for joining me today. Really appreciate it.

Thank you for having me. It's good to see you again. You too. I do want to get your take on Iran in just a moment.

We're going to talk about that, but I have to get your reaction first to these primary results that we saw in Texas where you just heard from Steve Kornacki. Tough night for some incumbents. You also had state representative James Tallarico advancing to the general election. There's still a runoff on the Republican side.

President Trump signaling he's going to endorse soon. What do you make of Democrats' chances of actually winning this Texas Senate seat, which they haven't won in more than 30 years? I'm pretty enthusiastic about them. You saw a lot of enthusiasm in the voter, in the population in Texas from the Democratic side of things.

You saw more Democrats, I believe, turn out to vote just in general than Republicans did. The enthusiasm seems to be there. I was really struck by a headline in the New York Times that reflected somehow that Mr. Tallarico was, you know, the good guy won, so to speak.

Either candidate would have been an amazing candidate, but what I like about the way that Mr. Tallarico ran is he ran trying to bring everybody together, including independents and moderate Republicans. And I think that's a really good way in the general election to move forward as well. I know you just had Mr.

McCall on and he said we can't afford three more months of Republican ennui about who's going to run in Texas. We can't afford three more months of the Republican Party full stop. And so I'm very, very hopeful that we have the opportunity to be able to make some significant changes in the House and also in the Senate in November. All right.

Well, the race is going to be fascinating. That is for sure. I do want to talk about Iran. You mentioned my conversation with Congressman Michael McCaul, which I had a little bit earlier in the program.

You obviously heard him tout the president's decisive action as he described it. He argues the president has the authority to launch this war without Congress for now. How do you respond to that? He says if it gets to five weeks, he's going to need to go to Congress.

How do you respond to that? With all respect to former Chairman McCaul, who is a good friend and who I admire, that's hooey, as my father-in-law would say. Congress and Congress alone declares war and decides whether war is appropriate. Iran, everyone agrees, all of us agree, is a very bad actor on the global stage and has been for more than a few decades.

But that does not justify a war being declared by the president without including the Congress at all. No matter how many days we set for it, that's an arbitrary metric. He should have and still should be coming to the Congress hat in hand, giving us the explanation for what it is that would require the kind of actions that's already been taken and what sort of actions will continue to be taken and what the off ramps are. Well, and let me ask you, because the War Powers Resolution facing an uphill battle, but even if it were to pass, this war has already been launched.

Would it not be after the fact? No, and this is one of the things that frustrates many of us who are here, our Republican colleagues, had that sort of backwards logic of we can't vote on it before it happens and once it's happened, we can't vote on it because it's already happened and here we are. And now we're in this place where we are going to vote on a War Powers Resolution of sorts that is declaring that the president shouldn't go any further without the consent of Congress. And you're not wrong to say that I'm not certain whether it will pass.

And even if it does pass, I'm pretty certain that it won't go anywhere because the president will be able to veto it if it were a certain form of law and it may just die where it is. And that, I think, is still important. I think it's very important that every single representative of the people of America should be asked to be on record for whether this is a lawful war and whether or not their taxpayer dollars, their treasurer, and the people's blood, the blood of the six people who have already died, should be authorized to be expended. And so far, that hasn't happened.

And that's what the Constitution obliges us to do. Let me ask because you were among several of your colleagues who released a video earlier this year reminding military and intelligence service members that they can, in your words, refuse illegal orders. Orders that they deem to be illegal. Do you think the strikes against Iran fall into that category?

You know, I've been mulling that one over and I think it's an interesting question. I think that you are to assume that the orders of the president are lawful orders. And as we wrestle with this issue, we should assume that those are lawful orders. That video was referring to some of the things that are happening either in Venezuela or also within our own borders themselves.

How we use our reserves, how we use our National Guards domestically is important for us to be aware of. And I wasn't saying anything that isn't just stating the law. And I think that that was affirmed by the grand jury that met and all 12 of the regular everyday citizens affirmed that my colleagues and I were literally simply stating the law. I do want to play what Senator John Fetterman from your state of Pennsylvania, and then get your take on the other side.

Take a listen. After they've eliminated their entire leadership of one of the worst regimes in the world. And I think this is a good thing. And I don't know why we all can't agree that the world is better, safer, and it's more just.

And now there could be real peace. Do you agree with him on that broad point that the world is now safer? I would 100% disagree. Again, with respect for my my senator from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, we have no evidence that the world is safer.

We've just created a vacuum by accident or intentionally. This administration has eliminated many of the people who they themselves had identified for the next in line for succession in terms of leadership in Iran. And the idea that we are now in this sort of wait and see ambivalent, you know, place where Secretary Rubio seems to and Secretary Hadad seems to think that their responsibility is only to break it and not to buy it. We are in a really difficult place where I can't argue.

I can't even begin to conceive of the fact that Mr. Fetterman would believe that we are in a safer and Conflict so far. So far, 54% disapprove, 41% approve. If you break it down by party, not surprisingly, more Republicans approve of this war than disapprove.

And Democrats, of course, strong disapproval, 90%. What do you make of these figures? What does it say? I actually think the number that matters the most in that is the independence disapproval number.

Donald Trump's magic, electoral magic, you would say, in 2024 was his ability to turn out first-time voters, people with low propensity voters, people who maybe didn't identify as Democrats or Republicans, decided to turn out because they liked something he was talking about. The key to the midterms are going to be whether those folks turn out again with Donald Trump not on the ballot. And if they have any friction, I mean, we talk about friction when you're buying something online. There's actually electoral friction as well.

If there's any friction to convince them to come out and support a Republican who maybe even Trump has endorsed, it's going to be a real issue. And that 61% saying that they don't support the way he has handled this, it's a big number. Of course, it matters what Republicans think about his handling, and that number is fairly large from those who disapprove. But I do think it's those independents that will be determinative in the midterms, and whether Donald Trump has a successful midterm to turn out people who he turned out in 2024, or if Democrats can sweep back into power.

Sarah, we saw last night in Texas, for example, the enthusiasm with Democrats turning out for their candidates. And that's the type of thing, if you're a Republican strategist, you're thinking about the general election. You're thinking about how do we get those enthusiasm and those turnout numbers up. What do you make of the polling on Iran?

And the fact, quite frankly, that we are starting to see some fissures within the MAGA base of something, hey, wait a minute, this is not what the president campaigned on. Yeah, as we were talking about with independents, obviously, that's not good when you're heading into a midterm election in this upcoming November. And then, but with Republicans, we're even seeing backlash. Even these far-right Republican influencers are coming out and saying, hey, you campaigned on being the guy who would lower gas prices.

You campaigned on being the guy who would end endless wars. And now we are seeing our gas prices are spiking, and he's entered into this new conflict with Iran with no end in sight. There is no long-term strategy. And I feel like there's been a lot of mixed messaging from the administration on, is this a war or is this an operation?

Even on Capitol Hill, senators and members of Congress don't know what to call this. And so I think that that is confusing voters, and they are frustrated because Trump is now breaking multiple campaign promises. And these aren't the first campaign promises we've seen him break. But I just think that this is a tough thing to battle with if you're a Republican on the ballot in November, because you're going to have to answer for these things.

Sarah, you take me to my next question. Let's look at some of that mixed messaging that Sarah references. We have it here. Is it a war?

Let's listen to what people are saying. Do you call this a war right now? I call it Operation Epic Fury. It's limited in scope, time, and its mission.

The mission has been accomplished. I think it'll be done quickly. We're not at war right now. We're four days in to a very specific, clear mission, an operation.

President Trump had the authority to conduct this very limited operation under Article 2 of the War Powers Resolution Act. And this was Defense Secretary Pete Hagseth. Take a listen. The terms of this war will be set by us at every step.

We have unlimited middle and upper ammunition, which is really what we're using in this war. Antoine, respond to what you're hearing. And how do you see Democrats deploying some of this mixed messaging? Will they get into it or no?

Will they stay focused on issues like affordability? Well, I think the Democrats have to stay focused on affordability, because that's going to yield us long-term electoral success. Most of the time when Donald Trump does these random actions like Iran, it's usually to distract from a larger issue that the American people... Obviously, he's sucking wind with his base.

I think every poll is showing that. And so he has to do these things to try to rally the base. But one of the most important numbers I've looked at in your polling is the Republican base number. Why?

Because Trump will not be on the ballot in the midterms. So there's some sort of implications of what that means for general Republican turnout. You talked about enthusiasm last night. Obviously, there's been a surge in Democratic enthusiasm.

And I think that's going to matter going into midterms. One of the other larger questions will be whether or not Trump voters or Republican voters will become one-issue voters going into November. It's a great question. And I turn to you now to pick up on this mixed messaging.

Do you get the sense that the president, that his top advisors and allies, are going to start to explain this war to the American people? Because that's, I think, you even heard Congressman McCall acknowledge that, saying, like, there's still so many questions. Yeah, I think you're seeing that uncertainty in the polling and the way people are responding. I mean, Donald Trump's a lot of things, a very talented campaigner.

Obviously, he's not message disciplined. You know that quite well. He doesn't really stick to a message. And he might call it a war one day, and the next day he'll try and change what he's calling it.

That will complicate things for sure. I think what's interesting is, in past wars, we have seen presidential approval actually boost after a war, especially in the first few weeks. That hasn't happened here. And you have to wonder if it is partly the messaging of, well, it's a war, it's not a war.

Americans don't really know how to think about this issue. And that might be kind of a lagging indicator, per se, of where they feel, how they feel about Donald Trump right now. Well, yeah, and then looming, this Iran conflict loomed over the midterms last night in Texas. What were your key takeaways?

Tough night for some incumbents. James Tallarico pulled off a victory. Senator Cornyn, Ken Paxton in a runoff right now. Both candidates looking for a Trump endorsement.

Yeah, it's going to be expensive, that runoff, especially if Donald Trump doesn't weigh in and endorse in that race. I think it's kind of the perfect moment for Democrats. They have Tallarico, who is someone who is seen as someone who's on the rise, a national figure who can win over more moderate voters, especially in a place like Texas. I do think there's this prove it moment, especially for Democrats in Texas.

They have been told, Democrats have been told for a decade that they're going to turn Texas blue. Donors have been told for a decade. Now is your moment. Beto O'Rourke is it.

There have been a number of these pitches made, especially Democrat donors and operatives and voters as well. There's a prove it moment. Can Democrats actually deliver after a decade? OK, we've got a minute left for you guys to debate.

The environment's different. Candidate quality is different. The environment was great in 2018. I think the environment is a little more target rich for us, a little more fertile ground in Texas.

Obviously, voter registration, demographics and geographics matter. So look for us to put together a unique coalition that we have not put together before in a midterm election. I will say on Texas, I think, obviously, if Ken Paxton is the nominee, that would be best case scenario for Democrats. And being able to run a scandal-plagued Paxton against Tallarico, 36-year-old former public school teacher, quotes the Bible regularly, is a great communicator for the Democratic Party.

But the thing is, I think there's a clear path for Democrats to take back control of the Senate through other states like Ohio, Maine, North Carolina, where they'll have better chances. But Tallarico will give Democrats a run, Republicans a run for their money. And Republicans are going to have to spend a lot more. You have to play everywhere to win anywhere.

So we're playing in the shadow ground in Texas. It's going to be fascinating, as it always is. Thank you so much for a great conversation, Dan, Antoine and Sarah. Appreciate it.

We are back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now. There's more ahead on NBC News Now. Hey, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor and host of The Drink. This month, Demi Lovato is my guest.

The global superstar tells me that she is the happiest she's ever been right now. But getting there, it wasn't simple. Demi opens up about starting in Hollywood young and why she now thinks she may have started too soon. She talks about recovery, her new marriage, and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook.

The Drink is always about the journey to the top. And this was an honest conversation about what that takes. Hope you'll listen and follow The Drink wherever you get your podcasts.