WEBVTT - John Thomas Previews The Election 0:00:01.290 --> 0:00:05.729 Something's not right here. Crime is up all over the state. 0:00:05.809 --> 0:00:08.510 The homelessness in the city is out of control. The 0:00:08.590 --> 0:00:09.830 economy is sick. 0:00:09.869 --> 0:00:11.049 Taxes are high. 0:00:11.110 --> 0:00:13.090 Housing is expensive and businesses are leaving. 0:00:13.270 --> 0:00:13.590 Leaving. 0:00:13.770 --> 0:00:18.840 California needs fixing. And John Phillips is just the man 0:00:18.880 --> 0:00:22.620 to lead the charge. It's the Fix California Hour with 0:00:22.720 --> 0:00:24.420 John Phillips and Randy Wang. 0:00:26.800 --> 0:00:30.140 And we continue at 105 in the afternoon on the 0:00:30.180 --> 0:00:33.540 John Phillips Show. Mr. Randy Wags in Culver City. 0:00:33.860 --> 0:00:38.729 Johnny, we're broadcasting live on radio, 790K ABC in Southern California, 0:00:38.750 --> 0:00:41.610 810K SFO in the Bay Area. And we also do 0:00:41.650 --> 0:00:45.170 this show on video every single day. You can watch 0:00:45.290 --> 0:00:48.449 us participate in the lively chat room and react to 0:00:48.470 --> 0:00:52.700 the news of the day all together with us at johnnydontlike.com. 0:00:52.740 --> 0:00:56.690 That's Johnny with a Y. johnnydontlike.com. While you're there, make 0:00:56.730 --> 0:00:59.810 sure to hit the like button, which we're at 244 0:00:59.810 --> 0:01:03.150 likes already on today's show. And make sure you're subscribed 0:01:03.190 --> 0:01:09.260 to the channel. It's completely free to subscribe. We're at 0:01:09.260 --> 0:01:14.660 9,771 subscribers on our way to 10,000 at johnnydontlike.com. 0:01:15.620 --> 0:01:17.660 It is our pleasure to welcome our next guest to 0:01:17.680 --> 0:01:21.259 the program. He is a Republican political strategist who you 0:01:21.280 --> 0:01:25.430 can follow on X at The Thomas Guide. John Thomas. Welcome. 0:01:26.069 --> 0:01:26.890 Good to be with you, John. 0:01:27.690 --> 0:01:30.880 Well, thanks for being here. So before we get to 0:01:30.980 --> 0:01:35.600 the California elections, let's start out with this bombshell New 0:01:35.700 --> 0:01:40.539 York times report that was released earlier today regarding the 0:01:40.620 --> 0:01:45.000 Alaska Senate race, where you have two Dan Sullivan's on 0:01:45.020 --> 0:01:49.340 the ballot, the democratic candidate who was a former member 0:01:49.360 --> 0:01:52.770 of Congress, had been saying for quite some time that 0:01:52.830 --> 0:01:55.550 she had nothing to do with the second Dan Sullivan 0:01:55.970 --> 0:01:58.490 being on the ballot. Don't forget, in Alaska, they have 0:01:58.510 --> 0:02:02.190 ring-choice voting, so if there's confusion, it can really cause 0:02:02.350 --> 0:02:06.250 all kinds of chaos. Well, according to the New York Times, 0:02:06.790 --> 0:02:10.950 associates of the Democratic candidate in that race said not 0:02:11.030 --> 0:02:14.750 only was she aware of that Dan Sullivan, the second 0:02:14.790 --> 0:02:18.350 Dan Sullivan, being placed on the ballot, But she and 0:02:18.389 --> 0:02:22.090 her campaign were the ones behind it, where they use 0:02:22.490 --> 0:02:26.510 resources to travel around the state, trying to find individuals 0:02:26.590 --> 0:02:29.690 named Dan Sullivan who were willing to run for the 0:02:29.730 --> 0:02:32.710 United States Senate. And they tried to keep it hidden 0:02:32.880 --> 0:02:35.560 from the press because they knew it was a bad look. 0:02:36.240 --> 0:02:38.240 What do you make of what happened there? And do 0:02:38.260 --> 0:02:39.980 you think it's going to have an impact on the 0:02:40.020 --> 0:02:41.079 results of that election? 0:02:42.680 --> 0:02:49.350 You know, this is a big story. the rival candidate 0:02:49.410 --> 0:02:51.870 was behind doing this. I mean, what are the odds 0:02:51.910 --> 0:02:54.190 that two guys named Dan Sullivan run at the same 0:02:54.270 --> 0:02:59.630 time organically? But this is a very, very tight race. 0:03:00.790 --> 0:03:04.910 And so things like this could easily tip the balance. 0:03:05.050 --> 0:03:07.260 I suspect this is the final nail in the coffin. 0:03:07.320 --> 0:03:11.060 Republicans will win this seat. But here's the deal, John. 0:03:12.060 --> 0:03:17.090 Voters don't like being tricked. And because this is such 0:03:17.110 --> 0:03:20.070 a bombshell, it's wall-to-wall coverage, not just nationally, but of 0:03:20.130 --> 0:03:23.020 course across Alaska. And so what does it do? It 0:03:23.139 --> 0:03:27.040 shifts the conversation and the decision point for any remaining 0:03:27.080 --> 0:03:29.899 undecided voters in Alaska from whether or not you like 0:03:29.940 --> 0:03:32.980 Trump or dislike Trump to whether or not you like 0:03:33.040 --> 0:03:37.390 being tricked. And that's a major thing. Now, there's potentially 0:03:37.570 --> 0:03:42.369 civil and criminal penalties as a result, because if the 0:03:42.550 --> 0:03:47.500 rival candidate didn't properly disclose the resources, which, according to 0:03:47.520 --> 0:03:49.840 The New York Times, they didn't. They found a PAC 0:03:50.800 --> 0:03:55.520 that was paying a Democratic operative to coordinate with her campaign. 0:03:55.780 --> 0:03:59.660 That's an illegal campaign contribution if it wasn't disclosed properly. 0:03:59.990 --> 0:04:04.440 But look, there's a reason why Democrats did this. It's because, John, 0:04:04.600 --> 0:04:09.260 they cannot win on the issue set in these tough races. 0:04:09.650 --> 0:04:12.990 They have to trick voters. And Alaska is just one example. 0:04:13.310 --> 0:04:16.490 Jump over to Texas and look at Tallarico. He is 0:04:16.570 --> 0:04:20.740 a lock, stock, barrel, full-blown radical lib. And yet they're 0:04:20.770 --> 0:04:24.400 repackaging him as a moderate. And I can count sightless 0:04:24.740 --> 0:04:28.820 cases in this cycle where Democrats are attempting to deceive 0:04:28.900 --> 0:04:30.469 voters about who they really are. 0:04:31.450 --> 0:04:34.490 Is this also an indictment of ranked choice voting? I 0:04:34.529 --> 0:04:38.630 know that here in California, in Oakland, they have ranked 0:04:38.670 --> 0:04:41.550 choice voting. And ever since ranked choice voting has been 0:04:41.630 --> 0:04:44.750 implemented in Oakland, boy, has that city gone down the 0:04:44.810 --> 0:04:48.659 tubes because your ballot is essentially a trick question. And 0:04:48.700 --> 0:04:51.120 then when you have phony candidates who have the same 0:04:51.160 --> 0:04:55.080 name as legitimate candidates on the ballot, you add that 0:04:55.160 --> 0:04:57.900 to what is already a trick question and you end 0:04:57.980 --> 0:04:59.480 up with just complete chaos. 0:05:00.790 --> 0:05:02.590 Yeah, I got to tell you, I've never liked rank 0:05:02.610 --> 0:05:07.089 choice voting as a political strategist. When I'm confused on 0:05:07.150 --> 0:05:09.250 how to operate a ballot, I'm like, oh, geez, what 0:05:09.310 --> 0:05:11.800 is a low information voter? How are they supposed to 0:05:11.839 --> 0:05:15.099 make heads or tails? And it particularly is damning and 0:05:15.160 --> 0:05:18.020 confusing in these races where let's be real, like it's 0:05:18.360 --> 0:05:22.860 between two candidates. And so any confusion around the edges 0:05:23.279 --> 0:05:26.020 does matter. And John, let's look back historically, by the way. 0:05:26.120 --> 0:05:28.930 It was Scott Baugh here in California, I believe, that 0:05:28.960 --> 0:05:33.390 got indicted over similar tactics and approaches where he was 0:05:33.450 --> 0:05:38.730 caught attempting to electioneer. And he had significant penalties forced 0:05:38.830 --> 0:05:41.330 on him. So we haven't not only do I think 0:05:41.390 --> 0:05:44.820 that this tilts the Senate race in the Republicans' favor, 0:05:44.860 --> 0:05:47.580 but there could be criminal ramifications as a result. 0:05:48.630 --> 0:05:51.229 All right, let's come back to California for a moment 0:05:51.270 --> 0:05:53.990 because there's a brand new poll that came out this 0:05:54.050 --> 0:05:58.050 morning conducted by the Los Angeles Times about the L.A. 0:05:58.110 --> 0:06:02.490 mayor's race. Now, a California Post poll that came out 0:06:02.690 --> 0:06:05.990 earlier in the week showed Nithya Raman with a healthy lead. 0:06:06.750 --> 0:06:09.729 That poll is similar to other polls that we've seen 0:06:09.870 --> 0:06:13.770 so far in this race conducted by other organizations. But 0:06:13.850 --> 0:06:16.980 now the L.A. Times has this race at Even Stevens. 0:06:17.490 --> 0:06:20.750 It's an outlier from what we've been seeing. Do you 0:06:20.790 --> 0:06:23.950 believe that this poll is showing movement in the direction 0:06:24.110 --> 0:06:27.890 of Karen Bass, maybe undecideds making up their minds and 0:06:28.290 --> 0:06:31.110 being scared by the DSA label and deciding to vote 0:06:31.130 --> 0:06:33.390 for Bass even though they don't like her? They don't 0:06:33.450 --> 0:06:35.929 like her performance as mayor in the first four years? 0:06:36.529 --> 0:06:38.570 Or do you think that this is a junk poll 0:06:39.040 --> 0:06:42.220 that is in no way reflective of what everyone else 0:06:42.300 --> 0:06:42.640 is saying? 0:06:44.089 --> 0:06:46.989 Um, I, I think it's maybe a blend of the two, John. 0:06:47.150 --> 0:06:49.630 I think it's that Bass is, uh, kind of reached 0:06:49.670 --> 0:06:54.370 her ceiling, meaning any remaining undecideds that might've broken to her, uh, have, 0:06:54.430 --> 0:06:57.279 have come home. Uh, that's probably as a result of 0:06:57.400 --> 0:07:00.520 her negative advertising against Rahm and, you know, has, has 0:07:00.600 --> 0:07:05.060 brought her undecideds home. Uh, the, the truth is though, 0:07:05.080 --> 0:07:08.760 the story really is, if you look at the fave 0:07:08.839 --> 0:07:13.010 unfave numbers of each of the candidates, uh, Bass is 0:07:13.090 --> 0:07:18.860 still double-digit underwater. Rahman's negatives have increased as well as 0:07:18.920 --> 0:07:21.540 a result of some of the negative campaigning from Bass, 0:07:21.820 --> 0:07:25.980 but the spread is still disproportionately large where voters are 0:07:26.180 --> 0:07:30.540 unhappy with Bass, which is foreshadowing whatever remaining undecideds are, John, 0:07:30.580 --> 0:07:32.640 whether it's you believe the Times poll at, what, 14% 0:07:32.640 --> 0:07:36.980 or 17% undecided, or you believe the Post poll, we 0:07:37.020 --> 0:07:40.050 can forecast to say, okay, if you do a proportional 0:07:40.120 --> 0:07:46.110 spread based upon unfavorable numbers, Bass isn't likely to prevail 0:07:46.210 --> 0:07:47.950 in this one. And then you look at a national 0:07:47.970 --> 0:07:56.510 dynamic of turnout. Enthusiasm is with the more extreme liberal 0:07:56.550 --> 0:07:59.630 base that is more likely to be a Rahman core supporter. 0:07:59.850 --> 0:08:02.890 And I think the USC poll is undercounting that potential 0:08:02.930 --> 0:08:04.270 turnout in a city like LA. 0:08:05.190 --> 0:08:07.030 If Karen Bass were to get you on the phone 0:08:07.710 --> 0:08:09.910 and say, John, I want you to broker a deal 0:08:09.950 --> 0:08:12.670 for me, I want you to go to the chairman 0:08:12.690 --> 0:08:16.950 of the party, the Republican Party, Roxanne Hogue, to Spencer Pratt, 0:08:17.010 --> 0:08:20.250 to Rick Caruso, to other people on the right side 0:08:20.270 --> 0:08:24.030 of the aisle, and I want you to cut a 0:08:24.070 --> 0:08:26.650 deal to get their support behind me, and I want 0:08:26.670 --> 0:08:29.950 to offer something tangible that they can then take back 0:08:30.010 --> 0:08:33.460 to their people and say, look, it's not just that 0:08:33.559 --> 0:08:38.080 Karen Bass is not Nithya Raman. Karen Bass offered us X, Y, 0:08:38.120 --> 0:08:42.200 and Z. What should she be offering Republicans right now 0:08:42.260 --> 0:08:44.679 that's something beyond I'm not Nithya Raman? 0:08:45.670 --> 0:08:49.550 Well, I know Roxanne, the chairwoman of the LA GOP, 0:08:49.590 --> 0:08:52.309 is most likely listening right now. She's an avid fan 0:08:52.350 --> 0:08:55.140 and listener, so maybe she can put this deal together. 0:08:55.500 --> 0:08:57.680 But look, I think what Bass has to do in 0:08:57.720 --> 0:09:01.400 that situation, she has to give Republicans things they're looking for. 0:09:02.179 --> 0:09:05.440 She has to make certain pledges on no new taxes. 0:09:05.840 --> 0:09:09.200 She has to make certain law enforcement pledges. She needs 0:09:09.240 --> 0:09:13.250 to pledge to appoint a police commissioner and police chief 0:09:13.500 --> 0:09:16.190 that Republicans can live with and like. She needs to 0:09:16.210 --> 0:09:20.330 give them some tangible policy wins here. I would say 0:09:20.390 --> 0:09:23.230 the biggest thing would be opening up the spigot for 0:09:23.309 --> 0:09:27.010 more housing development and a pledge not to raise taxes. 0:09:27.130 --> 0:09:30.070 But I just, John, I just don't know. I mean, 0:09:30.110 --> 0:09:34.750 we saw Rick Caruso come out and essentially endorse Karen Bass. 0:09:35.210 --> 0:09:37.770 I just don't know that there's much you can say 0:09:37.809 --> 0:09:42.469 at this point to move voters to Bass's corner because 0:09:42.530 --> 0:09:44.870 people have made up their mind. Now it's just a 0:09:44.910 --> 0:09:47.450 question of if you don't like Bass, are you able 0:09:47.470 --> 0:09:50.730 to bite your tongue and vote for Rahman or do 0:09:50.750 --> 0:09:52.790 you just not vote at all? And my hunch is 0:09:52.850 --> 0:09:55.470 if you're undecided Republican at this point, you're not voting 0:09:55.510 --> 0:09:55.670 at all. 0:09:56.650 --> 0:09:59.489 You've worked with Rick Caruso in the past. You know 0:09:59.510 --> 0:10:04.620 Rick Caruso. as a man Rick Caruso came out this 0:10:04.679 --> 0:10:07.600 week and revealed to the world that he is voting 0:10:07.640 --> 0:10:11.120 for Karen Bass but not endorsing her and said that 0:10:11.140 --> 0:10:14.099 he stands by all of his past criticism what do 0:10:14.120 --> 0:10:15.160 you make of that move. 0:10:17.580 --> 0:10:18.140 Oh, gosh. 0:10:18.780 --> 0:10:25.390 It really gutted me to see that because when Rick 0:10:25.450 --> 0:10:28.790 went on a tour, a podcast tour, you know, when 0:10:28.830 --> 0:10:32.369 he was attempting to run for mayor again, attempting to 0:10:32.410 --> 0:10:35.700 run for governor, he was asked repeatedly about what he 0:10:35.720 --> 0:10:38.040 thinks about California, what he thinks about Karen Bass. And 0:10:38.080 --> 0:10:41.660 he didn't mince words. And he said exactly what he felt, 0:10:42.280 --> 0:10:46.380 which is, you know, Bass has completely and utterly failed 0:10:46.400 --> 0:10:49.870 the city. And the city is doomed under her leadership. Now, 0:10:50.510 --> 0:10:52.929 what the sad part is to me, John, is both 0:10:52.950 --> 0:10:55.700 things can't be true. He can't have been honest in 0:10:55.740 --> 0:10:59.060 that moment, or either he was lying in that moment 0:10:59.080 --> 0:11:01.839 because he thought his political career could benefit, which I 0:11:01.860 --> 0:11:05.380 don't think he was lying, or he's lying now. And 0:11:06.059 --> 0:11:08.699 because perhaps a real estate developer wants somebody who's not 0:11:08.740 --> 0:11:10.560 a socialist, and that's good for a real estate developer. 0:11:11.440 --> 0:11:13.520 I just think he should have sat it out honestly 0:11:13.900 --> 0:11:16.300 and taken the principal position. Because I'm not sure that 0:11:16.320 --> 0:11:19.600 he moves any voters with his position. And my big 0:11:19.620 --> 0:11:22.480 takeaway here, John, is unfortunately, and I like Rick a lot. 0:11:22.500 --> 0:11:24.199 I think he's an incredible businessman. I think he's a 0:11:24.280 --> 0:11:27.240 good man. But I think he's just shown poor political 0:11:27.280 --> 0:11:30.429 timing judgment here. He's got to sit it out. He 0:11:30.470 --> 0:11:34.750 missed his window multiple times. Voters, I think people kind 0:11:34.790 --> 0:11:36.849 of looked at him as a bit of a principled 0:11:36.910 --> 0:11:39.469 hero now. And we're not seeing that at all. It 0:11:39.490 --> 0:11:41.390 looks like he's more of a pragmatist and might be 0:11:41.429 --> 0:11:43.740 putting his own business interests first and not the people. 0:11:44.830 --> 0:11:47.610 It seems like whoever is now giving him political advice 0:11:47.770 --> 0:11:52.050 is giving him horrific political advice. He lost an election 0:11:52.070 --> 0:11:54.730 that he should have won. He got behind a number 0:11:54.770 --> 0:11:59.490 of candidates in the last election who lost. He's endorsing 0:11:59.510 --> 0:12:03.270 a mayor running for re-election who he's been extremely critical of, 0:12:03.600 --> 0:12:06.840 who is likely to lose the election. At what point 0:12:06.860 --> 0:12:07.880 does he get his money back? 0:12:10.330 --> 0:12:13.570 There's a no guarantee of success clause in consultants' contracts 0:12:13.610 --> 0:12:16.770 for a reason. But you're right. He's getting horrific advice. 0:12:17.890 --> 0:12:21.840 And it's really just undermining his credibility. He's kind of 0:12:21.880 --> 0:12:24.600 taken a role. He did have a role as almost 0:12:24.620 --> 0:12:29.420 an elder statesman without an elected title. But he keeps 0:12:29.760 --> 0:12:33.540 fumbling the ball. And here's the thing, John. Bass probably 0:12:33.600 --> 0:12:35.580 is not going to win. And so it just is 0:12:35.640 --> 0:12:40.230 another ding. on Caruso's record. I know he's got a 0:12:40.270 --> 0:12:43.910 big checkbook, but his political capital is really about to 0:12:43.970 --> 0:12:44.330 run out. 0:12:46.050 --> 0:12:48.510 All right, let's shift gears and go statewide here for 0:12:48.550 --> 0:12:52.390 a second, because the most recent poll, the LA Times 0:12:52.450 --> 0:12:55.930 poll that just came out, has Steve Hilton trailing by 0:12:56.030 --> 0:13:00.309 double digits to Javier Becerra, something close to 20 points. 0:13:00.770 --> 0:13:03.410 That is consistent with other polls that we have seen 0:13:03.550 --> 0:13:08.460 in the past conducted by other organizations. Javier Becerra is 0:13:08.510 --> 0:13:13.580 not actively campaigning in this race. He's not doing interviews. 0:13:14.040 --> 0:13:17.580 He's not doing candidate forums. He did one debate, and 0:13:17.620 --> 0:13:20.880 that was it. It was hosted by a national organization 0:13:20.920 --> 0:13:22.960 where a lot of the talk was about Donald Trump, 0:13:23.340 --> 0:13:26.240 and there wasn't a lot of talk about California and 0:13:26.320 --> 0:13:30.160 state issues. And it doesn't seem like there's any punishment 0:13:30.179 --> 0:13:33.080 for that. Voters seem to be okay with it, and 0:13:33.100 --> 0:13:36.650 he's not being punished in the polls for not having 0:13:36.670 --> 0:13:39.750 an honest conversation about the future of the state of California. 0:13:40.470 --> 0:13:43.490 What do you make of that race and how static 0:13:43.530 --> 0:13:44.550 those polls have been? 0:13:46.410 --> 0:13:50.100 Well, it's not for Steve Hilton's lack of trying, but 0:13:50.260 --> 0:13:53.620 the media in the state of California, the mainstream media 0:13:53.660 --> 0:13:55.940 have kind of dubbed this just not a contest. And 0:13:56.020 --> 0:14:01.200 so they haven't pushed Javier Becerra at all And so 0:14:01.640 --> 0:14:04.439 I just don't think the general public has dialed in here. 0:14:04.820 --> 0:14:06.900 It seems like when I look at the vote share, 0:14:06.980 --> 0:14:09.540 the simplest way to look at this race is really 0:14:09.820 --> 0:14:13.120 Donald Trump's approval ratings roughly in the state. And that's 0:14:13.160 --> 0:14:14.160 where Steve's going to kind. 0:14:14.080 --> 0:14:15.120 Of stack up at. 0:14:15.980 --> 0:14:19.780 Steve hasn't been able to break through. Look, he's, I think, 0:14:19.830 --> 0:14:23.810 doing a good job given the lack of resources that 0:14:23.830 --> 0:14:26.410 he has. He doesn't have the Tom Steyer or the 0:14:26.450 --> 0:14:29.470 Rick Caruso level of spend. Anyway, it's just a really 0:14:29.530 --> 0:14:33.390 sad I think, reflection of our politics. Because campaigns, I 0:14:33.400 --> 0:14:36.390 don't think debates would flip the outcome of this race, John. 0:14:36.810 --> 0:14:39.770 But I do think that part of a campaign, the 0:14:39.830 --> 0:14:43.890 healthy process, is that you force candidates to take positions 0:14:44.250 --> 0:14:46.810 and defend them. And then you can hold them accountable 0:14:47.030 --> 0:14:49.540 once they get elected to the things that they said 0:14:49.760 --> 0:14:53.880 on the trail. And Becerra has never been stress test 0:14:54.040 --> 0:14:57.200 in this race. And so that means that he can 0:14:57.340 --> 0:14:59.800 say or kind of do whatever. And it's harder to 0:14:59.860 --> 0:15:02.480 hold him accountable when he is governor. And that's just 0:15:02.520 --> 0:15:03.880 horrible for the state of California. 0:15:04.680 --> 0:15:09.200 Voter ID, according to PPIC, is underwater. Does that have 0:15:09.360 --> 0:15:10.460 any chance at passing? 0:15:11.590 --> 0:15:13.610 I don't see it. I don't see it there. 0:15:15.750 --> 0:15:18.150 Do you think that the title and summary that was 0:15:18.210 --> 0:15:22.650 written extremely deceptively by the attorney general, Rob Bonta, did 0:15:22.690 --> 0:15:23.000 that in? 0:15:23.640 --> 0:15:29.620 Yeah, on statewide ballot measures, that is the ballgame unless 0:15:29.780 --> 0:15:33.190 one side has a ton of resources. The exception of 0:15:33.210 --> 0:15:37.490 the rule would be the wealth tax because Sergey Brin 0:15:37.550 --> 0:15:40.450 from Google has just spent so much money. He's just 0:15:40.490 --> 0:15:43.570 gone around the ballot summary, is able to educate voters 0:15:43.610 --> 0:15:45.630 on the consequences of the wealth tax. It looks like 0:15:45.670 --> 0:15:49.650 that'll fail. But generally, The power that the attorney general 0:15:49.690 --> 0:15:52.390 has is really in writing these things. You know, I 0:15:52.390 --> 0:15:54.810 was just looking at a ballot in Texas, John, and 0:15:54.850 --> 0:15:59.240 there are tax increases, ballot measures in certain areas. And 0:15:59.250 --> 0:16:02.239 it says at the very top, because there's a Republican 0:16:02.320 --> 0:16:04.960 attorney general that writes these things, it says in bold, 0:16:05.400 --> 0:16:09.600 this is a tax increase and then goes into what 0:16:09.640 --> 0:16:11.060 it does. And that really does matter. 0:16:12.790 --> 0:16:17.030 What about Prop 43, the Protect Proposition 13 Act? That 0:16:17.100 --> 0:16:20.160 is in the 40s. It is certainly not where they 0:16:20.200 --> 0:16:22.060 want it to be. You want your initiative to be 0:16:22.240 --> 0:16:25.680 over 50%. It's not there. Do you think that one 0:16:25.720 --> 0:16:26.900 has a chance at passing? 0:16:27.560 --> 0:16:29.720 I struggle to see a path at this point if 0:16:29.780 --> 0:16:32.440 it's not within the margin of error. I just don't 0:16:32.460 --> 0:16:33.780 think it's going to make it at this point. 0:16:35.020 --> 0:16:38.190 What about all the bonds at the beginning of the ballot? 0:16:38.330 --> 0:16:41.320 There's a lot of spending involved. on the ballot. And 0:16:41.530 --> 0:16:44.320 certainly if those pass, the amount of money the state 0:16:44.380 --> 0:16:46.500 of California is putting on the credit card is going 0:16:46.520 --> 0:16:47.900 to go up and up and up. 0:16:49.040 --> 0:16:49.280 Yeah. 0:16:49.940 --> 0:16:52.300 I can't remember. There were a few specific, I can't 0:16:52.320 --> 0:16:54.040 remember off the top of my head, but I think 0:16:54.080 --> 0:16:57.200 a couple of them did look poised to pass. And 0:16:57.220 --> 0:17:01.000 that's really, again, a reflection of There's been spending for them, 0:17:01.040 --> 0:17:04.940 but also how the ballot is written. It's like in L.A. County, 0:17:05.080 --> 0:17:07.480 in L.A. City, I still just don't understand why voters 0:17:07.500 --> 0:17:10.880 keep voting for tax increases. But they do. And really, 0:17:10.920 --> 0:17:12.620 it has so much to do with how these things 0:17:12.680 --> 0:17:16.419 are worded in terms of like who the money benefits. 0:17:17.520 --> 0:17:21.080 But of course, Californians are the ones that pay the taxes. 0:17:21.160 --> 0:17:22.840 And I just don't think voters really think about it 0:17:22.859 --> 0:17:23.180 that way. 0:17:24.119 --> 0:17:27.000 Is the moral of the story so far, assuming that 0:17:27.040 --> 0:17:30.300 these poll numbers hold, that if the unions all remain 0:17:30.359 --> 0:17:33.070 on the same page, then you can get any tax 0:17:33.130 --> 0:17:36.030 increase you want through. You can kill any tax cut 0:17:36.050 --> 0:17:38.530 that you want to kill. You can get any bond passed. 0:17:38.950 --> 0:17:41.609 But if the unions aren't on the same page as 0:17:41.650 --> 0:17:45.860 they aren't with the wealth confiscation tax, that's when voters 0:17:45.960 --> 0:17:46.540 lash out. 0:17:47.060 --> 0:17:49.320 Yeah, that's a really astute way to look at it, John. 0:17:49.359 --> 0:17:53.380 I think that's probably the key. And it's not just 0:17:53.460 --> 0:17:57.160 because the union's money, but essentially unions in the state 0:17:57.180 --> 0:18:01.260 of California are part of like a democratic key. And 0:18:01.300 --> 0:18:05.060 when they speak with one voice, it cues to voters 0:18:05.570 --> 0:18:08.950 that this is a good thing, safe thing for Democrat 0:18:08.990 --> 0:18:11.869 voters to vote for. So yes, when they're together, it 0:18:12.570 --> 0:18:15.670 typically does pass. And so really that it'll be interesting 0:18:15.710 --> 0:18:19.890 in future wealth tax pushes, you know, could a wealth 0:18:19.930 --> 0:18:23.139 tax sponsor come back and say, what we're going to 0:18:23.180 --> 0:18:25.600 do is we're going to give a piece of that 0:18:25.680 --> 0:18:28.159 tax to all the unions that And then that's how 0:18:28.200 --> 0:18:30.359 you lock up union support on the front end. Can 0:18:30.400 --> 0:18:33.090 you pass a wealth tax that way by holding together 0:18:33.130 --> 0:18:34.750 the unions? I think it would work if that were 0:18:34.770 --> 0:18:35.090 the case. 0:18:35.570 --> 0:18:37.250 So you think this isn't the last we're going to 0:18:37.290 --> 0:18:40.070 see of a wealth confiscation tax in California? 0:18:41.609 --> 0:18:44.040 No, I think they're going to take another swing at it. 0:18:44.070 --> 0:18:46.630 But I think the good news, assuming the wealth tax fails, 0:18:47.010 --> 0:18:51.870 is I think it'll put a dampener on national wealth 0:18:51.930 --> 0:18:54.450 tax movements, because if they can't pass it in California, 0:18:54.470 --> 0:18:56.830 I think there's a national Dems will be a little 0:18:56.850 --> 0:18:59.649 bit scared. Look, if we can't get it through in California, 0:18:59.910 --> 0:19:01.879 we might lose on it in other more swing states. 0:19:02.660 --> 0:19:06.680 All right. John Thomas, Republican political strategist. You can follow 0:19:06.720 --> 0:19:09.720 him on Exit the Thomas Guide. Thank you so much 0:19:09.740 --> 0:19:10.680 for stopping by today. 0:19:11.020 --> 0:19:11.640 Great to see you, John. 0:19:12.380 --> 0:19:15.000 It's the John Phillips Show. If you want to email 0:19:15.040 --> 0:19:18.229 the show, you can do so at johnnydontlikeshow at gmail.com. 0:19:19.109 --> 0:19:24.020 That's johnnydontlikeshow at gmail.com. And if you want to watch 0:19:24.100 --> 0:19:26.980 us perform the show live, participate in the chat and 0:19:27.020 --> 0:19:31.000 click that like button. Randy, that's easy to do at johnnydontlike.com. 0:19:31.180 --> 0:19:34.170 The party's here every single day from noon to three. 0:19:34.430 --> 0:19:37.990 Go meet up with your fellow listeners online and participate 0:19:38.030 --> 0:19:41.210 in the chat at johnnydontlike.com. If you've never watched our 0:19:41.250 --> 0:19:44.160 live show before, now's the time. Grab your phone, grab 0:19:44.180 --> 0:19:47.770 your computer, go to johnnydontlike.com. Tell us what you really 0:19:47.810 --> 0:19:49.850 think about the stuff we're talking about and make sure 0:19:49.869 --> 0:19:51.940 you hit that like button and make sure you subscribe 0:19:51.980 --> 0:19:54.520 to the channel. It's free and we're trying to grow 0:19:54.560 --> 0:19:57.740 this message and spread it out there further and further 0:19:58.000 --> 0:20:00.850 every single day at johnnydontlike.com. 0:20:01.200 --> 0:20:04.109 And that's also where you can get the accountability podcast. 0:20:04.320 --> 0:20:05.820 Brand new episode drops today. 0:20:05.900 --> 0:20:08.639 John talks to Robert Cahaley about the polls that we're 0:20:08.680 --> 0:20:12.100 seeing up and down this country for the midterms. We'll 0:20:12.119 --> 0:20:13.620 have a preview at two o'clock. 0:20:14.280 --> 0:20:18.149 And we continue at 134 in the afternoon on the 0:20:18.210 --> 0:20:21.129 John Phillips show. And Randy, we're going to be in 0:20:21.190 --> 0:20:22.630 San Francisco on Friday. 0:20:22.950 --> 0:20:24.210 How exciting is this? 0:20:24.310 --> 0:20:27.270 Literally tomorrow after we sign off at three, Johnny and 0:20:27.330 --> 0:20:29.679 I are hopping to the airports and we are heading 0:20:29.780 --> 0:20:32.800 up to the Bay area for Because we're doing our 0:20:32.920 --> 0:20:37.369 first big live event in San Francisco, in Union Square, 0:20:37.830 --> 0:20:40.570 at Johnny Foley's Irish Pub. Oh, wait, let me put 0:20:40.609 --> 0:20:42.410 up that picture that I have for this thing. I 0:20:42.430 --> 0:20:44.330 forget that I can do this. There's got to be 0:20:44.350 --> 0:20:46.130 an easier way for me to do this. But look 0:20:46.170 --> 0:20:49.580 at this, everybody. We're going to be at Johnny Foley's 0:20:49.880 --> 0:20:54.340 Irish Pub from noon to 3 on Friday, October 30th. 0:20:55.330 --> 0:20:57.210 And we're going to have a ton of guests there, 0:20:57.290 --> 0:21:00.280 including our friend Susan Shelley from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer 0:21:00.320 --> 0:21:04.480 Association talking yes on 43. We want Prop 43 to 0:21:04.500 --> 0:21:07.680 go across the finish line, so tell everyone you know 0:21:08.060 --> 0:21:11.580 that a yes on 43 means it's harder to raise 0:21:11.619 --> 0:21:14.379 your taxes. That is a message I think we can 0:21:14.540 --> 0:21:16.930 all get behind, so spread it far and wide. We'll 0:21:16.950 --> 0:21:19.290 be giving out schwag and yard signs and all kinds 0:21:19.330 --> 0:21:22.129 of other things and bumper stickers for johnnydontlike.com at. 0:21:24.109 --> 0:21:28.869 Johnny Foley's Irish Pub in San Francisco's Union Square this 0:21:29.010 --> 0:21:32.270 Friday from noon to three. People have been emailing and 0:21:32.350 --> 0:21:34.010 asking in the chat when they should get there. 0:21:34.030 --> 0:21:36.310 I think if you get there at noon, you'll be fine. 0:21:37.470 --> 0:21:38.369 I mean, it might be busy. 0:21:38.450 --> 0:21:38.910 I don't know. 0:21:39.210 --> 0:21:40.950 I've seen a lot of emails from a lot of 0:21:40.990 --> 0:21:43.929 people saying they're coming to say hi. So join us 0:21:44.290 --> 0:21:47.970 this Friday from noon to three at Johnny Foley's Irish Pub. 0:21:48.470 --> 0:21:50.570 We've never had a live event in the Bay Area, 0:21:50.590 --> 0:21:51.939 so we have nothing to base it on. 0:21:52.460 --> 0:21:55.500 We're very, yeah, that's exactly what sales said. We're going 0:21:55.520 --> 0:22:00.050 to have a great time up there. We're very excited. 0:22:00.410 --> 0:22:03.350