The following is a lightly edited transcript of the August 14 episode of the Daily Blast podcast. Listen to it here.

After we recorded, new Fox polls found Dems up eight in Ohio and down four in Michigan.

Greg Sargent: This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR Network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.

This week, Fox News released a poll showing Democrat Troy Jackson up two points over Susan Collins in Maine. Even more strikingly, Trump is more than 20 points underwater in the state. So we went back and looked at the summer’s Fox polls, and it turns out they’re some of the very worst for Trump of all. He’s deeply underwater in many states he won. This comes as two new forecasts have Dems narrowly favored to win the Senate.

And it also comes as new reporting suggests Trump and his advisors don’t understand how they got to this point. So do Dems really have a shot at the Senate? To parse this question, we’re talking to Democratic strategist Caitlin Legacki, who’s worked on a lot of Senate races. Caitlin, thanks for coming on.

Caitlin Legacki: Thanks for having me.

Sargent: So if you go back through four recent Fox polls of Senate races, here are the top lines. In Maine, Troy Jackson edges Senator Susan Collins by 48 to 46. In Texas, Democrat James Talarico is up on Ken Paxton by 51 to 48. In North Carolina, Roy Cooper is sizably ahead of Republican Michael Whatley by 53 to 44. And in Iowa, Josh Turek is up over Ashley Hinson by 50 to 46.

Caitlin, all of those, with the possible exception of North Carolina, are very close. And I will say, I doubt Roy Cooper’s that far ahead in North Carolina. In your experience, how good a position is this for Democrats given the timing, and what do you make of those numbers?

Legacki: Our friends at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee could not, I think, be in a better position than they are right now. This is an extremely difficult map for Democrats. So to be leading, even if only within the margin of error, in all of these states, it’s an incredible sign that the Senate is within reach.

But I think, to your point, there’s a lot of things that have to go right between now and November for that to happen. And I think that while everyone is doing all of the right things, we certainly cannot take it for granted.

Sargent: Well, I’ll say, I really think that all these Senate races are on a knife’s edge, with the possible exception of North Carolina and Georgia, which is one we didn’t talk about the numbers on. But the main event in these Fox polls is Trump’s dismal favorability ratings. Let’s go through them.

In Maine, it’s 39 to 60. That’s 21 points underwater. In Texas, it’s 45 to 54, nine points underwater in Texas. In North Carolina, it’s 40 to 59, 19 points underwater in North Carolina. And in Iowa, it’s 42 to 55, which is 13 points underwater. Trump won three of those states, two by double digits. I don’t know what to make of numbers like this. What do you make of them?

Legacki: A lot of folks said that they voted against Democrats in 2024 because they were dissatisfied with the Biden administration’s approach to inflation and reducing costs. And Trump campaigned on promises to bring costs down on day one. And I think when you look back at the last two years, almost every single thing he’s done has actually increased costs—whether it’s unnecessary tariffs on allies like Canada, or, you know, needlessly bombing Iran and shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, which has caused some of the highest gas prices we’ve seen in decades. Every single thing he’s done has been like a heat-seeking missile to increase prices on American families. And I think that that’s a huge factor in the dissatisfaction you’re seeing with his job performance.

Sargent: How big do you think Iran is in this? My basic sense is that Iran is playing a huge role in Trump’s low approval ratings. It really symbolizes so many things about the failures of this presidency, and it’s yet another example of a direct link between his own pathological craziness and his policies and high costs on Americans. Do you think Iran is central to the equation here?

Legacki: A hundred percent, I do. I mean one of the most glaring, I think, signifiers of cost and inflation that American families have is the price of gas at the pump. And so every single day, when people are commuting to work and having to fill up their car, they’re seeing five dollars a gallon, six dollars a gallon in some places. And that’s—first of all, it’s frustrating on its own, but it’s doubly so when everyone knows that this was a war of choice.

And so I think part of the reason you’re seeing Democrats doing well and Republicans doing so poorly in a lot of these historically conservative states is because there’s just so much frustration with the way that he’s popping off, as it were, and doing these things needlessly, and refusing to change direction or change course. It just, it drives people crazy.

Sargent: I think also the war is a big reason that the Senate is at risk for Republicans, because voters implicitly understand that Congress has just basically turned a blind eye and essentially given Trump this blank check for this insane adventure he’s on. The war is hitting people with higher costs, it’s creating the impression that Trump is completely lost and rudderless as a leader.

And The Atlantic reports that Trump has “furiously” told aides that Iran is acting in bad faith in these negotiations. Yet, according to The Atlantic, his aides are privately showing him all this data that supposedly shows that if he just bides his time, Iran’s economy will ultimately cause them to surrender: Sir, sir, absolutely, you’re doing the right thing by doing nothing!

So they’re basically telling him right now that doing nothing is a very smart plan, really shrewd on his part. And you can kind of see that manifesting itself in Trump constantly saying things like, “I’ve got nothing but time.” And it’s like, behind the scenes, Republican Senate strategists must be tearing their hair out.

Legacki: I think this speaks, at a macro level, to the dangers of having a president who surrounds himself with yes-men. During the first Trump administration, at least, there were people around him that were willing to get fired from their jobs in order to try to tell him the truth. In the second administration, it’s all sycophants. And what that means is, like, we know he’s being given bad data.

We know people are using that to push their personal political agendas. And the people that are suffering most are American families, and then the families that are being bombed in Iran and elsewhere, simply because, you know, we kind of have a sucker for a president right now.

But the other problem that Republicans in the Senate are dealing with is, you know, the main argument for Susan Collins to get reelected is that she has been a Republican check on Trump. But in all of these instances, you see kind of like this scenario where Republican senators stand up to Trump, they delay something, but then ultimately they fold.

Sargent: Yeah, well, let’s talk about independents for a second, because I think for independents, the failure of Republican senators to stand up to Trump is really critical. In Maine, in the Fox polling, Trump’s favorable rating with independents is 23 to 73. In Texas, it’s 18 to 78. I’m not kidding, those are the numbers. In North Carolina, 24 to 74. In Iowa, 24 to 67.

Again, that’s with independents, in states that Trump mostly won. I just don’t know what to make of that. He’s around fifty points underwater with independents in three of those, a bit less in the fourth. Those numbers just seem too terrible for Trump to be real. What do you think?

Legacki: Yeah, I think that to some degree they are real. But where I agree with you is that they’re not necessarily going to be Democratic voters. And I think that a lot of those independents are just fed up with both parties right now. And so the impetus on Democratic candidates is to stand up to Trump and show how they’re going to be able to be a check and a balance on him.

But then also to show voters how they’re going to do things differently, and how they’re going to stand up to the Democratic leadership in a way that, I think restores some common sense to D.C. And you know, I think that the biggest mistake Democrats can make right now is to conflate the dissatisfaction with Trump as a mandate for Democrats or for Democratic policies, without us actually, like, getting into office and showing that that trust is earned.

Sargent: I think there’s maybe a realistic way to understand these numbers, in keeping with what you’re saying, which is: Trump is in absolutely terrible shape with the electorate, and with the middle of the electorate as well. Like, these numbers with independents are just absolutely awful. But that doesn’t necessarily mean Democrats win them in the numbers that they ultimately need.

And so maybe the way to think about this is, if there’s a way for Democrats to win the Senate this time, it’s in those numbers. In other words, there really is a very real opportunity here to win the Senate in numbers like those. It’s just a matter of converting just enough independents into Democratic voters to make it happen. What do you think of all that?

Legacki: I think that’s exactly right. And I think this goes to the heart of a debate that has been waging within the Democratic Party for the last few presidential elections, where there is a fundamental question of: is it more important to excite and turn out our base, or is it more important to moderate a little bit in an effort to win over those independent voters? And obviously, you know, it’s a balancing act, because we need our base voters to turn out, right? But we also need to win enough of those independents in order to get over the finish line.

And so I think, you know, part of the reason that folks were freaking out about Francesca Hong, and were less enthusiastic about Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, is just that, you know, if we run too far to the left, we run the risk of losing seats that are otherwise winnable. And so I think we have to be very mindful that nothing is a given here. And all of these races, as strong as Democrats’ position is right now—all of these races are extremely losable for us, as much as they are winnable.

Sargent: They are. They are on a knife’s edge, I think, as I said earlier. Let’s talk about the overall map for a sec. I think if Abdul El-Sayed hadn’t won in Michigan, we might feel even a little bit better right now. I think Abdul can get there. I really do. It seems like he wants to win, and it seems like he’s taking the steps necessary to moderate and mend fences in the party and so forth. And it’s going to be a very good year for Democrats. That’s probably enough to get him there.

Democrats need to flip four seats, though, and a lot of those races are very close. We had another poll just out of Texas that had Talarico down one, unfortunately. And so the Fox numbers are encouraging, but they aren’t the whole story. What’s your sense of the whole map? Where do you see the strong spots, and where do you see the weak spots?

Legacki: Yeah, so I think you’re exactly right about Michigan. I think Michigan is still very winnable. It’s just going to cost Democrats more money in terms of outside spending and investment to get there. The strongest spots that I see here are North Carolina and Georgia. I think the bright spots are really Iowa, Texas, and Alaska.

I’d also just mention, as it relates to Maine, both Alaska and Maine have ranked-choice voting. So I think that that adds a wrinkle that makes me a little bit more bullish on Democrats picking up that Alaska seat than otherwise I would be. And then, you know, somehow in all of this, Sherrod Brown in Ohio gets forgotten a lot. And I think, as red as Ohio has gotten in recent years, he’s running a really strong campaign. It’s very local. It’s focused a lot on issues related to data centers. And I think that he’s kind of the sleeper to get us over the finish line.

Sargent: Let’s just assume for now that Georgia is almost certainly going to stay in the Democratic camp. And let’s just also assume that North Carolina Democrats are going to win there. It really does look like Roy Cooper’s going to win. Michael Whatley’s challenge just doesn’t appear strong enough, and Roy Cooper’s well liked in the state and so forth. So that means Democrats have to flip three out of Ohio, Maine, Texas, and Alaska.

There was a time when I would have felt better about Maine than I do now. I think Troy Jackson really doesn’t appear to me to be a strong candidate yet. Maybe he can kind of grow into it, I hope, as you say, that he sort of codes for voters as a generic Dem. I don’t know if that’ll happen, but I really hope so. If you had to pick right now, which three out of Ohio, Maine, Texas, and Alaska would you say Democrats are going to win, if they are?

Legacki: Alaska, Ohio, and Maine. And I actually have a very different take than you do on Maine.

Sargent: OK.

Legacki: Which is that—and part of the reason that I was more in favor of Janet Mills than I was of Graham Platner—is that the worst-case scenario for Susan Collins running this campaign is that it is a referendum on her and whether or not she has been an appropriate check on Donald Trump.

The Graham Platner campaign obviously came with a lot of baggage that would have allowed her to make, I think, the story more about him. And it would have allowed her to make this election more of a choice. I think—having been in this position myself, working for Claire McCaskill in 2012—the worst possible person for Susan Collins to run against is a generic Democrat, right?

And so even if he’s not the world’s strongest campaigner, I think that if he and, like, Democratic outside groups are able to make the Maine election a referendum on Susan Collins and Donald Trump, there’s a very good chance we win there.

Sargent: All right, so you’re thinking Texas is probably the one that’s less likely to flip out of those four.

Legacki: Yeah. And it’s not meant to be any sort of knock on Talarico. He’s running a great campaign, he’s doing everything he needs to. It’s just that Texas is such a big state, it is so expensive to run there. I think it is just inherently the hardest of the three states to win in.

Sargent: Yeah, I think that’s right. And Ohio is going to be really tough, though, let’s face it. I mean, this is a state that Trump won by a very sizable margin in 2024. And I think Alaska is something everybody’s sleeping on in a way. But it does seem possible. It does seem like Sherrod Brown is running a strong enough campaign, and the numbers are bad enough for Trump in red states, that make a pickup in Ohio actually possible.

So you can see a path through the races that you just identified, and it basically goes something like this: Sherrod Brown runs a strong campaign all the way through, and Trump’s terrible numbers just make it possible to eke it out. Troy Jackson runs a generically Democratic campaign in Maine, and they manage to turn it into a referendum on Susan Collins and Donald Trump. And Alaska happens without anybody looking, right?

Legacki: Honestly, it might. And the thing about Ohio that I think people are sleeping on a little bit is that you’ve got both a governor’s race and a Senate race this year. And on the governor side, they’ve got Amy Acton versus Vivek Ramaswamy. Acton is also running a great campaign. Ramaswamy is also running a terrible campaign.

And so I think increasingly it’s hard to see any scenarios in which Republican voters in Ohio are excited about turning out and Democratic voters are unenthusiastic. And so I think those factors lend themselves to kind of a perfect storm in Ohio, of Democrats eking one out there.

Sargent: Well, we have two new forecasts that pretty much bear out what we’re saying in this conversation. The Fifty Plus One forecast has Dems very narrowly favored to retake the Senate, at 55 percent probability. Nate Silver’s new forecast has it at 57 percent. I will tell you, I look at those numbers, Caitlin, and I say to myself, well, OK, I am right to think that everything’s on a knife’s edge here. Like, at first you look at the numbers and you say, OK, well, we’re favored. But, you know, those are incredibly, incredibly close odds, and everything could just flip like that.

Legacki: Yeah, it’s a coin flip. And I think the thing that nobody is really talking about or focused on is the fact that Republican Party committees and outside groups have about twice as much money as Democrats. And you know, Democrats are raising a ton of money, the campaigns are outraising their Republican opponents. But when you’re looking at a disparity of about six hundred and fifty million to three seventy-five, or whatever Democrats have, that’s a big difference. And I think that that is something that right now is the one thing that Democrats aren’t crushing. And that could be the difference-maker.

Sargent: It absolutely could. You can see in the fundraising appeals from some of these candidates that they really see that as well.

Well, Caitlin, let’s close on the comic relief here. It has to do with Iran, and I think this really underscores the degree to which Trump’s terrible numbers and Republicans’ difficult spot is rooted in the Iran war, as well as a few other related things. Michele Tafoya, the Republican candidate for Senate, had this to say about prices and the Iran war. Listen.

Michele Tafoya (voiceover): I think right now, at least, just kind of keeping a stiff upper lip. Maybe you take one less trip to Starbucks, and so that gas goes a little further until this thing is over and these gas prices come back down again. Let’s just try to be patriots about this

Sargent: Well, Caitlin, there you have it. I think what that actually shows is that these Republican candidates all have one other big liability, which is they’re not allowed to seek any distance from Trump. They have to defend everything he does as absolutely perfect, to the point where they actually have to say, “Screw you,” to the voters, in order to sustain their hagiography for Trump.

Legacki: I haven’t seen “suck it up” as a winning message before, but you never know.

Sargent: You never know. Caitlin Legacki, it was really awesome to talk to you. Thanks so much for coming on.

Legacki: Thanks for having me.