Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 1: Everything.
Speaker 2: Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have an amazing show
Speaker 2: for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal, Indeed we do.
Speaker 1: We have lots of fundraising numbers which are always a
Speaker 1: little bit revealing what people are saying versus the reality
Speaker 1: of the campaign and kind of the big headline here
Speaker 1: is Ronda Santis in a little more cash trouble than
Speaker 1: one might expect, in actually having to lay off some staff.
Speaker 1: So we'll break all of that down for you. Bus
Speaker 1: had some interesting interview moments with Tucker Carlson in a
Speaker 1: variety of the GP candidates, so we will bring those
Speaker 1: highlights or low lights look at it. Also some reporting
Speaker 1: on Joe Biden and what is going on with him.
Speaker 1: Apparently you still have donors who are like, we don't
Speaker 1: believe that he's running, well, we'll still evaluating their alternatives. Personally,
Speaker 1: I think it's a lot of cope, but we will
Speaker 1: see what happens there. We also have updates for you
Speaker 1: on that complete Hollywood shutdown, some pretty extraordinary comments from
Speaker 1: Bob Iger of Disney, also Ron Pearlman in response to
Speaker 1: everything that's going on. We also are excited to have
Speaker 1: in the show a used car expert from YouTube to
Speaker 1: break down what the hell is going on in that
Speaker 1: market overall and also specifically with electric vehicles, which I
Speaker 1: think is going to be pretty exciting. So we are
Speaker 1: very much looking forward to that. Sager.
Speaker 3: That's right. We have one administrative announcement.
Speaker 2: As celebration for hitting one million, we are doing a
Speaker 2: limited edition you made in the USA Union breaking points
Speaker 2: dress sock. Let's go and put this up there on
Speaker 2: the screen. That's actually me personally modeling, and please.
Speaker 1: Don't come out lovely ankles or.
Speaker 3: Not shining my shoes.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm sorry, it's a difficult tasks.
Speaker 1: You missed your calling as an ankle mod I certainly did.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like the hand models in Zoolander. Anyway, we are
Speaker 2: releasing these to our premium subscribers first. We expect them
Speaker 2: to sell out pretty quickly. We did a limited edition run.
Speaker 2: I guess if they do well, maybe we'll make some more.
Speaker 2: So it's available shop dot breakingpoints dot com premium subscribers,
Speaker 2: it is at the top of your email. For everybody else,
Speaker 2: you can also sign up become a premium sub and
Speaker 2: then get access as well breakingpoints dot com. There's tab
Speaker 2: as well on our website. But we've got some breaking
Speaker 2: news out of Russia and Ukraine this morning. Why don't
Speaker 2: we take a look at that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so before we jump into the full show, just
Speaker 1: wanted to give you an update on a couple of
Speaker 1: developments that are happening this morning. So you'll recall that
Speaker 1: Kerch Bridge that connects Russia and Crimea that was really
Speaker 1: a symbol of putent sort of takeover of the peninsula
Speaker 1: that have been struck before under suspicious circumstances or uncertain circumstances. Well,
Speaker 1: now this morning we have Ukraine claiming responsibility for a
Speaker 1: new attack on that key Crimea bridge. I'm reading here
Speaker 1: from CNN. They say Ukrainian security official has claimed responsibility
Speaker 1: for an attack on that bridge linking the annexed Crimean
Speaker 1: peninsula to the Russian mainland, a vital supply line for
Speaker 1: Russia's war effort in Ukraine and a personal project for
Speaker 1: President Vladimir Putin. The nearly twelve mile crossing, known as
Speaker 1: the Kirsch Bridge, is the longest in Europe, holds huge
Speaker 1: strategic and symbolic importance. Monday's attack on the bridge was
Speaker 1: the second since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine after
Speaker 1: a fuel tanker exploded while crossing it in October. A
Speaker 1: source in Ukraine's security service told CNN attack was a
Speaker 1: joint operation of that security service and Ukraine's naval forces.
Speaker 1: They spoke on condition of anonymity. So obviously it's huge
Speaker 1: development in terms of the conflict, the war in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: It also comes as there was announcement this morning. You'll
Speaker 1: recall there was this deal that was struck between Russia,
Speaker 1: Ukraine and other forces to sort of guarantee grain shipments
Speaker 1: and ensure their safe passage to try to keep the
Speaker 1: stability of grain prices so food prices worldwide don't spiral
Speaker 1: out of control. That deal has fallen apart. Russia has
Speaker 1: withdrawn from it, so that is also very significant development
Speaker 1: in terms of some of the fallout effects around the
Speaker 1: globe Siger. Obviously, you know, anytime this bridge, which is
Speaker 1: really key and very important to Russia in particular for
Speaker 1: supplying their troops, anytime something happens here, that's a big deal.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's especially a big deal, like you said, because
Speaker 2: Ukraine is not doing very well right now and their
Speaker 2: counter offensive and they need all they can to try
Speaker 2: and disrupt the supply lines that are heading to the
Speaker 2: Russian front. So this is one of the major thoroughfares.
Speaker 2: They've already established rail service back on the bridge. Actually,
Speaker 2: some of the video that we can go ahead and
Speaker 2: put up there right now, you can take very quick
Speaker 2: look here at how it looks as of well, I
Speaker 2: guess morning Russian time from the damage. So all current
Speaker 2: actual traffic in terms of car traffic on the bridge
Speaker 2: has been suspended for the time being. Even though the
Speaker 2: initial attack Crystal was far worse in terms of the damage,
Speaker 2: it did not disrupt the entire bridge the way that
Speaker 2: this one did. Rail service will provide some of a
Speaker 2: lifeline to the Russian forces and obviously they're going to
Speaker 2: try their.
Speaker 3: Best to get this done.
Speaker 2: But it does show you, you know, as Ukraine actually
Speaker 2: falters in their counter offensive in the conventional battlefield, that
Speaker 2: they're going to have to look to try and disrupt
Speaker 2: supply lines and others deeper, both here in this case
Speaker 2: inside of Crimea, possibly as the inside of Russia will
Speaker 2: bring you some extraordinary comments I think tomorrow from the
Speaker 2: top Ukrainian military commander. But the widening of the war,
Speaker 2: the continuing of the war, the cluster munitions and all
Speaker 2: that point actually in this same direction.
Speaker 3: It's really just like World War One all over again.
Speaker 1: I think that one of the things that this attack
Speaker 1: underscores and the willingness of Kiev to take immediate responsibility
Speaker 1: for it is, you know, everybody expects at this point
Speaker 1: that the last attack was also the responsibility of Kiev,
Speaker 1: but at that point they would not claim responsibility. Now
Speaker 1: you know this many months later with the attacks that
Speaker 1: they've engaged in on Russian soil, with you know, drone
Speaker 1: strikes even on the Krumlin, with some of the sabotage
Speaker 1: and the assassinations that they've engaged in on Russian soil,
Speaker 1: and everybody sort of acknowledging, yes, Ukraine is behind these
Speaker 1: attacks in some shape or form, there is an increased
Speaker 1: level of boldness and audacity where they feel perfectly comfortable
Speaker 1: acknowledging an attack on what is you know, civilian infrastructure
Speaker 1: that is also used for military purposes. And you did
Speaker 1: have two people who reportedly, according to Russian sources, were
Speaker 1: killed and their daughter wounded in this attack. So that's
Speaker 1: everything we know.
Speaker 2: That's everything that we got so far. So we'll keep
Speaker 2: everybody updated. As I said, I think we'll do a
Speaker 2: little bit more on Ukraine tomorrow. Let's go ahead to
Speaker 2: the GOP fundraising numbers. As Crystal alluded to, there's a
Speaker 2: lot to get into with all of the candidates, but
Speaker 2: the major and the top story here remains really the
Speaker 2: diminishing campaign of Governor Ron De Santis of Florida and
Speaker 2: his need to turn things around if that's even possible.
Speaker 3: It's going to put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: It was reported on late Saturday night as all of
Speaker 2: the numbers became clear. Quote Desanta's campaign shed staff amid
Speaker 2: a cash crunch. Quote fewer than ten so aka ten
Speaker 2: staffers were let go Thursday, according to a person familiar
Speaker 2: with the campaign. They leaked it almost immediately to Politico,
Speaker 2: saying that many aides who were involved in event planning
Speaker 2: and in other deemed non essential parts of the campaign
Speaker 2: were dropped from the Dessantas campaign and actually Crystal in
Speaker 2: a really interesting turn of events, they almost immediately sent
Speaker 2: their resume over to the Ron Dessantas super Pac, although,
Speaker 2: as a friend familiar with campaign finance law tells me,
Speaker 2: you do have to wait one hundred and twenty days
Speaker 2: before immediately jumping from the campaign to over to the
Speaker 2: super pac, meaning that in this case they do expect
Speaker 2: to be at least not employed by the campaign or
Speaker 2: be able to return to the apparatus for a period
Speaker 2: of four months, which is pretty stunning when you consider.
Speaker 1: That that's a long time in campaign time.
Speaker 3: The headline here is just so obvious.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, having to drop staff almost immediately
Speaker 2: after launch in the first quarter, despite not the worst
Speaker 2: fundraising hall is a really bad sign, and it does
Speaker 2: also show a burn rate of nearly one million dollars
Speaker 2: per month. The problem that the Desantas campaign has right
Speaker 2: now is not only are they trying to fundraise for
Speaker 2: the GOP primary Crystal, but they are also earmarking in
Speaker 2: the case that they somehow do win the general election,
Speaker 2: So they have some of this cash that they were
Speaker 2: able to raise they're having to set aside of the
Speaker 2: existing pool. The burn rate remains high enough that they
Speaker 2: felt that they had to offload payroll, which was their
Speaker 2: biggest expense so far in this And then the worst part,
Speaker 2: which I know that you can break down here, is
Speaker 2: that he has tapped many of his donors for the
Speaker 2: maximum amount. So the large top line figure that DeSantis
Speaker 2: has gotten is not one that is going to be
Speaker 2: sustainable in the long run. So if you've already tapped
Speaker 2: your big donors and you still have to fire staff,
Speaker 2: you don't have enough to move forward.
Speaker 3: You're not in the best position right now as a campaign.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: On the one hand, the dysantists people would look at
Speaker 1: the top line and say, hey, he raised a lot
Speaker 1: of money. He raised more money than almost any of
Speaker 1: the other contenders. However, if you dig a little bit
Speaker 1: beneath the surface, you see a few problems. Number one,
Speaker 1: very burn rate. And that's a big problem, and that's
Speaker 1: why he's shedding staff. Because we've seen this so many
Speaker 1: times before. The Hillary Clinton, multiple Hillary Clinton campaigns come
Speaker 1: to mind. Actually, the Trump campaign last time around comes
Speaker 1: to mind. Where you're just burning through cash. You just
Speaker 1: assume that there's going to be an endless money's bigot.
Speaker 1: You staff up with way too many people, create way
Speaker 1: too much bureaucracy, and you blow through money way too
Speaker 1: quickly before most voters, frankly, are even really paying attention.
Speaker 1: So they're trying to trim back because they see the
Speaker 1: writing on the wall in terms of just they need
Speaker 1: a sustainable pace of operations. And then the other couple
Speaker 1: of pieces that Sager's pointing to do here is when
Speaker 1: you have money coming in directly to the campaign, there
Speaker 1: is a maximum amount you can give for the primary,
Speaker 1: and there's a maximum amount that you can give for
Speaker 1: the general election. So if you have given the toll
Speaker 1: max of primary plus general, you have to reserve those
Speaker 1: funds that are meant for the general election. You have
Speaker 1: to set those aside. You cannot spend them in the
Speaker 1: primary or else you'll be in violation of campaign finance law.
Speaker 1: And then the other piece that I think is really
Speaker 1: important here is that there's a very low rate of
Speaker 1: grassroots small dollar fundraising ability, which actually I'm a little
Speaker 1: bit surprised at because I do think Ronda Santis he's
Speaker 1: well liked within the Republican Party. I do think he
Speaker 1: has some base of support. But what we're seeing across
Speaker 1: the board with all of these fundraising numbers is actually
Speaker 1: there's a lot of grassroots fundraising fatigue. All of the
Speaker 1: candidates are seeing lower grassroots fund raising numbers. Joe Biden
Speaker 1: in particular, he has never been a grassroots fundraising juggernaut.
Speaker 1: We're going to talk more about that when we get
Speaker 1: to the Democrats here, but the fact that rond de
Speaker 1: Santis doesn't have this well of enthusiastic grassroots fundraising support,
Speaker 1: I think is also indicative of a campaign that has
Speaker 1: had more success with the donor class at this point
Speaker 1: than it has with the actual Republican base.
Speaker 2: Look at the end of the the guy's only got
Speaker 2: fifteen percent of his money coming in from small dollar donations.
Speaker 2: That's just not the sustainable path to actually be able
Speaker 2: to make payroll when you have such a high level
Speaker 2: of staff. DeSantis himself, being confronted with this on Fox News,
Speaker 2: which is we've covered a lot here, has really taken
Speaker 2: a turn against the man.
Speaker 3: Here's what they had to say, and here was his response.
Speaker 5: Hey, oh, the governor doesn't do retail campaigning, he's not
Speaker 5: going to be able to go to Iowa. And then
Speaker 5: you know, yesterday I'm out there doing events. You know,
Speaker 5: we have thirty forty people at some of these things,
Speaker 5: shaking hands, answering questions, doing all that. They're like, oh, well,
Speaker 5: he can do it.
Speaker 3: The thirty forty people. That's what we're bragging about here
Speaker 3: in Iowa. No, I don't know if Chrystal.
Speaker 2: Thirty to fortyla do you think that's not That's not
Speaker 2: the checkbox that we're going with. That number should be
Speaker 2: three hundred to four hundred. And you really shouldn't be
Speaker 2: putting a man of rond De Sanchez's stature in a
Speaker 2: room of less than what like two hundred people. If
Speaker 2: you're you know, Asa Hutchinson or any of these other
Speaker 2: smaller candidates, then maybe, but if you are him, you
Speaker 2: really should not put him in a position where it
Speaker 2: can look like he's embarrassed. Let's also put this Washington
Speaker 2: Post piece with a pretty deep dive into the DeSantis
Speaker 2: campaign up on the screen, and as they say, quote
Speaker 2: the long slog inside, the early struggles and the effort
Speaker 2: to rebound. As we have already noted, the initial launch
Speaker 2: on Twitter, with Elon Musk was itself created a lot
Speaker 2: of media problems for the candidate, just simply because it
Speaker 2: was like literally a failure to launch, that his fundraisers
Speaker 2: were convened at the Four Seasons Miami and then they
Speaker 2: had to wait for him because of the delay, none
Speaker 2: of it actually.
Speaker 3: Went up to schedule.
Speaker 2: Then the initial launch interview on Fox Stings itself probably
Speaker 2: should have been what he did the entire time, and
Speaker 2: then a traditional speech. But from that point forward he
Speaker 2: has found his negatives drawn up with GOP primary voters.
Speaker 2: He has seen his poll numbers continue to decline in
Speaker 2: almost every single GOP primary poll that has been held.
Speaker 2: Iowa polls that have since come out don't show him
Speaker 2: even close to neck and neck with the candidate, nor
Speaker 2: does the New Hampshire race. He's largely been able to
Speaker 2: only fund raise from big dollar donors that are able
Speaker 2: to max out, not having them built up a small
Speaker 2: dollar donation base, of which translating effectively the online energy
Speaker 2: to normal people who are actually willing to take their
Speaker 2: credit card out and say I affirmatively want you to
Speaker 2: beat Donald Trump. So when you combine all of those
Speaker 2: three things together and really just the slide after launch,
Speaker 2: which you almost never see happen. You almost always see
Speaker 2: some sort of bump happen post launch and have energy.
Speaker 2: So we combine all of that and you just see
Speaker 2: very very difficult runway right now for Governor Ron Desantas, and.
Speaker 1: You have basically all the media has decided right now
Speaker 1: is the moment to write their like playbook is up
Speaker 1: with DeSantis and disarrays Bloomberg piece this morning, we just
Speaker 1: put the Washington Post piece up on the screen. Fox
Speaker 1: News obviously has moved off of him, and Republican donors
Speaker 1: are kind of holding their fire if they've supported him
Speaker 1: in the past and evaluating their options. You know, there
Speaker 1: were some quotes in that Washington Post piece from donors
Speaker 1: who said that you know, one donor who co hosts
Speaker 1: an event for DeSantis described hearing sentiments such as, what's
Speaker 1: going on and does he even have a chance. The
Speaker 1: donor said he was trying to get other rich Republicans
Speaker 1: to give to DeSantis, but most wanted to keep their
Speaker 1: powder dry after his lackluster beginning. Remember the donor class,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, their only ideology is like protect
Speaker 1: themselves from taxes, so they want to be on the
Speaker 1: team with the winner, and they're worried about Okay, if
Speaker 1: it looks like Trump is going to win, we don't
Speaker 1: want to piss him off too much. We want to
Speaker 1: be able to maintain our access. Or if there's some
Speaker 1: other candidate, maybe a Tim Scott or somebody else out there,
Speaker 1: that we can convince ourselves has a better chance, maybe
Speaker 1: we you know, maybe we play both sides. Maybe we
Speaker 1: just stay out for a while and wait and see
Speaker 1: what happens. So, if you're on DeSantis and we know
Speaker 1: now from his fundraising report that he's really dependent on
Speaker 1: these large donors and they're starting to back away, and
Speaker 1: the media is starting to write your obituary and you
Speaker 1: don't have that, you know, widespread grassroots support, it's you're
Speaker 1: in it. You're just in a tough place, like there's
Speaker 1: no other there's no other way around it. So you know,
Speaker 1: that's how things are looking for him this morning. And
Speaker 1: you know, it is always interesting how they just like
Speaker 1: flip a switch on these narratives and all of a
Speaker 1: sudden it's just like total media, Like, okay, the writing
Speaker 1: is on the wall here. Obviously, we've been seeing morning
Speaker 1: signs literally from the beginning with this campaign. But I
Speaker 1: do think probably the trigger is when you have to
Speaker 1: lay off campaign staff.
Speaker 3: It's undeniable. There just makes sense, you can't spin it.
Speaker 2: And for the Desantas campaign, despite really shunning a lot
Speaker 2: of legacy media, let's go and put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. He will actually be sitting down with
Speaker 2: Jake Tapper apparently for an exclusive interview on Tuesday. Tapper says, quote,
Speaker 2: we have a lot to talk about, so I'm curious
Speaker 2: to see how it goes. Megan Kelly apparently gave him
Speaker 2: some advice instead of publicly saying that she thinks he
Speaker 2: should go on MSNBC and should fight.
Speaker 1: So a good idea.
Speaker 3: Let's see how it does.
Speaker 1: Want. Here's the thing is, he had this very play
Speaker 1: it safe strategy. It's almost like a prevent defense. But
Speaker 1: it's like, dude, you're lose. You don't play prevents defense
Speaker 1: when you're behind. So he was very reluctant to go
Speaker 1: in any at all adversarial spaces. He went with, you know,
Speaker 1: the Murdoch properties that at least previously were one hundred
Speaker 1: percent of supportive of him and getting total softball questions.
Speaker 1: You got to take some risks, You got to shake
Speaker 1: it up. You got to show people. I do think
Speaker 1: that's something that the Republican base could respond to. If
Speaker 1: you're going in and you're mixing it up on MSNBC
Speaker 1: or in Lefty Podcast. Listen, we'd love to have him
Speaker 1: here on Breaking Points. You know, if the offer is
Speaker 1: out there for literally any of the presidential contenders, we
Speaker 1: would love to host them on this show. But he
Speaker 1: needs to just get out there, take every interview he can,
Speaker 1: and you know, show what he's made of to approve
Speaker 1: to the GOP base that he's the fighter that they
Speaker 1: really are still looking for.
Speaker 2: Time to get those dollar numbers up. Let's go to
Speaker 2: the next part here. This is some really interesting stuff
Speaker 2: around the GOP, actual other candidates than DeSantis. So let's
Speaker 2: go ahead and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: We've got very good graphic made by our team that
Speaker 2: actually breaks a lot of this down.
Speaker 3: So what do we know? First, let's start with the.
Speaker 2: Cash on hand figure as of June thirtieth that they
Speaker 2: had to file. Donald Trump has got twenty two point
Speaker 2: five million dollars cash on hand. Tim Scott shocking, I
Speaker 2: guess everybody else he's got twenty one point one million
Speaker 2: it's nice to be the big dollar donors favorite candidate.
Speaker 1: He's actually gotten moved over from his Senates campaign to
Speaker 1: say people.
Speaker 2: Know, and Joe Biden's got twenty million dollars a twenty
Speaker 2: point one million dollars cash on hand, Ron DeSantis twelve
Speaker 2: point two million, Vivik Ramaswami nine million.
Speaker 3: Noteworthy though that in.
Speaker 2: The Ramaswami camp he actually personally loans some money over
Speaker 2: to his campaign. Is actual individual dollar figures probably more
Speaker 2: like two million. Now in terms of the actual money raised,
Speaker 2: keep in mind that this money raise does include loans
Speaker 2: in some cases from the candidates. Ron DeSantis twenty point
Speaker 2: one million, Biden nineteen point nine million, Trump seventeen point
Speaker 2: seven million, Bergham eleven point eight million, Ramaswami seven point seven.
Speaker 2: As we said, though, both Burgham and Ramaswami had personal
Speaker 2: actual contributions to their own campaigns, so seven point seven
Speaker 2: million in the case of Vivek Ramaswami, who's a.
Speaker 3: Very wealthy individual.
Speaker 2: And then Doug Bergham as well loan himself ten million dollars,
Speaker 2: so the real figure is quite a little bit less.
Speaker 2: But what can we learn, I think from these Number
Speaker 2: one is we'll do an entire thing on Biden here
Speaker 2: in a second. But it's not exactly like things are
Speaker 2: going well. But two also comes not only from the
Speaker 2: not only comes really from the actual overall figure and
Speaker 2: the cash on hand. As you saw with DeSantis, he
Speaker 2: raised quite a bit of money, but as we previously
Speaker 2: just said, he tapped out the big donors, and his
Speaker 2: cash on hand is very low because he didn't have
Speaker 2: the overall coffers to be able to come in.
Speaker 3: So that's why his burn rate.
Speaker 2: Whenever it remains so high, he's got to offload that
Speaker 2: as much as possible. Tim Scott, of course, had large
Speaker 2: amounts of money that was able to roll over from
Speaker 2: his Senate campaign. Some these legally allowable under FEC law,
Speaker 2: but the overall actual individual donations you know that came
Speaker 2: in for him not exactly even close to the same.
Speaker 2: Nikki Haley already you know, we did a entire segment
Speaker 2: in the past about how she effectively duped a lot
Speaker 2: of campaign reporters by trying to report far more that
Speaker 2: she'd actually raised than was real. And I think that
Speaker 2: it's pretty obvious here we've got effectively a three candidate
Speaker 2: race at the very very top of the spectrum, Joe
Speaker 2: Biden obviously the sitting president. Then you've got on the
Speaker 2: other hand, you've got Trump and you've got DeSantis.
Speaker 3: But Desanta's is so far behind.
Speaker 2: While he is, you know, technically, I guess in the
Speaker 2: big leagues, he's still running very, very far behind.
Speaker 3: Yeah, both of those two majors.
Speaker 1: Another noteworthy number from the campaign finance reports is a
Speaker 1: really low figure from Vice President Mike Pence. Yes, Vice
Speaker 1: President Mike Pence, who only raised one point two million dollars.
Speaker 1: And think about this, man was literally vice president of
Speaker 1: the United States. He's been in politics for a long time.
Speaker 1: He has a lot of contacts, he is well networked.
Speaker 1: He has been, you know, working the donor lines for
Speaker 1: years and years now. So for him to only raise
Speaker 1: one point two million, that is a really really sad
Speaker 1: show there showing for the former vice president. I think
Speaker 1: that one was really no worthy. And the other piece
Speaker 1: to watch with this is we are coming up. It's
Speaker 1: only about a month till the first Republican primary debate,
Speaker 1: which will be fun. I'm excited about that. I'm sure
Speaker 1: we're going to do big coverage here. We're just starting
Speaker 1: to work on our plans for that, but you have
Speaker 1: to get fifty thousand people or sorry, forty thousand people
Speaker 1: to donate to your campaign in order to make the stage.
Speaker 1: The polling threshold is actually quite low. It's like one
Speaker 1: percent in three major polls something like that, So almost
Speaker 1: all these candidates will be able to achieve the polling metric.
Speaker 1: So it's that donor metric that is going to be
Speaker 1: really tough, and we already see some very innovative techniques
Speaker 1: being employed in order to try to achieve that result.
Speaker 1: So Doug Bergram, who again wealthy tech executive, he is
Speaker 1: promising donors he will give them a twenty dollars gift
Speaker 1: card if they contribute just one dollar to his campaign.
Speaker 1: So there's some sketchiness around exactly the legality of that,
Speaker 1: but that's the direction that he is going in. Vivek
Speaker 1: has also has a sort of creative approach here. He
Speaker 1: has people signing up to fundraise for him and then
Speaker 1: they get a ten percent kickback on any funds that
Speaker 1: they raise for his campaign. So you already see that
Speaker 1: the race is on to try to, you know, gain
Speaker 1: those numbers and be able to meet that donor threshold.
Speaker 1: Of course, former President Trump basically saying he's not really
Speaker 1: planning on engaging in the debates.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he didn't say it effectively, but you know, he
Speaker 2: did give an interview to Fox News that aired yesterday
Speaker 2: where he was like, well, you know, Ronald Reagan didn't
Speaker 2: do any debates, which you know is not true, but
Speaker 2: well he did in nineteen eighty in terms of the
Speaker 2: debates of the primary challenders and all of that. But
Speaker 2: I consistently think, I mean, look, we have no idea
Speaker 2: what he's going to do. He may actually do it,
Speaker 2: and he likes to keep everybody suspense. He may just
Speaker 2: show up, you know, at the very very last minute
Speaker 2: and decide. But because Chris Christy is trying very hard
Speaker 2: to make the debate, Trump is really somebody of superstition.
Speaker 2: He understands what Christy did to the Rubio campaign back
Speaker 2: in twenty sixteen. He's leading so far ahead. I think
Speaker 2: to him, he's like, why would I put myself in
Speaker 2: that position? You know, let everybody else squabble for my
Speaker 2: scraps while I remain on top. For DeSantis, I really
Speaker 2: don't know, I mean, honestly, because he will be the
Speaker 2: number one on the stage. Should he actually choose to
Speaker 2: participate with everybody else. Well, I think it's going to
Speaker 2: be an issue because everybody's gonna be gunning for him.
Speaker 2: You're gonna see Ramaswami going after him. You're going to
Speaker 2: be seeing Tim Scott, Nikki Haley, all of them have
Speaker 2: chosen to fire against him rather than against Donald Trump
Speaker 2: because he's so popular.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: The other governors on the stage, guys like Burghum and
Speaker 2: all of them, Look, they may be irrelevant whenever it
Speaker 2: comes to polling, but they have an ego thing going on.
Speaker 2: Be like, wait, I'm a governor too, Why am I
Speaker 2: not getting the same respect as Ron DeSantis?
Speaker 3: So they will also choose to go after him.
Speaker 2: So I think overall, you know, it's going to be
Speaker 2: a tenuous situation for DeSantis. I don't think he really
Speaker 2: can afford to step out. And if he can hold
Speaker 2: his own I think that'll be great.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And then for Trump himself, well, you know, I do
Speaker 2: think it'll be tough. I think it would be tough
Speaker 2: for him to go on the stage and subject himself
Speaker 2: to attacks ego wise, because I just don't see himself
Speaker 2: doing that. So for him, he's almost certainly going to
Speaker 2: set out although we don't know.
Speaker 1: You never I mean, you never know what that dude.
Speaker 1: I sort of agree with the logic of year ahead.
Speaker 1: You don't need to risk it, whereas DeSantis needs to
Speaker 1: risk it and you know, to play devil's advocate here.
Speaker 1: Perhaps it's elevating for him to be the center of
Speaker 1: attention and be the focus of all the attacks. And
Speaker 1: if he's able to handle that, really well, maybe he
Speaker 1: actually does himself some good by subjecting himself to the
Speaker 1: rigors of the debate. And you know, we've seen many
Speaker 1: times before these candidates when they get into a debate situation,
Speaker 1: it makes them better candidates. I think the people, you know,
Speaker 1: like Biden and Trump, were thinking of just staying in
Speaker 1: the bike the basement and not really going out and
Speaker 1: campaigning that much. You get rusty, right, You got to
Speaker 1: get out there and do your reps and get practiced.
Speaker 1: So I listen, I personally think everybody should be required
Speaker 1: to debate. I think it should be a baseline standard
Speaker 1: for democracy. But that's not the world we live in.
Speaker 1: So Trump is probably going to set it out. We'll
Speaker 1: see for de Santis, you know, listen, maybe he could
Speaker 1: do himself some good there on the stage. I do
Speaker 1: you know, do you think, Sager? It all feels so inevitable,
Speaker 1: Like it feels so much like, all right, we're heading
Speaker 1: for the Biden Trump rematch, and it's hard to imagine
Speaker 1: what's going to push that off course? Doesn't it just
Speaker 1: seem like there must be some curveball that's going to
Speaker 1: come at us. It's going to shake things up, because
Speaker 1: it always does.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I hope, so I think listen, you know, we
Speaker 2: cover the news. I would like for it to be interesting.
Speaker 2: Biden and Trump is the least interesting thing I think
Speaker 2: they could possibly happen.
Speaker 1: I don't know exactly what we're going to do.
Speaker 2: Here's a problem with curveball. Who knows, you know, I
Speaker 2: don't know what it's going to look like. It could
Speaker 2: be terrible. So maybe the curb right fun things that
Speaker 2: you know couldn't necessarily happen. But I do agree that
Speaker 2: the things do seem so predictable. It does feel like
Speaker 2: the writers need to throw something in to get things interesting.
Speaker 2: The big problem I think for the debates is if
Speaker 2: Trump's not there, who cares? I mean, I'm sure you
Speaker 2: remember this. The twenty fifteen GOP debates. Those weren't political events.
Speaker 2: That was a cultural event in America. A million people
Speaker 2: should go back and look at the ratings versus almost
Speaker 2: all previous ones. The very first debate, and Trump didn't
Speaker 2: you know, he delivered. If we're thinking in terms of
Speaker 2: YouTube metrics, he certainly grabbed people's attention and kept retention throughout.
Speaker 2: Because what's the very first thing he said? He said,
Speaker 2: I've only called what do you say, I've only rosy
Speaker 2: O'Donnell in terms of calling women pigs or fat or
Speaker 2: something like that, and then you know, refuses to raise
Speaker 2: his hand saying that he won't commit to supporting the
Speaker 2: GOP nomineem. He got people glued to that screen. He
Speaker 2: turned it into a genuine media event. You know, Rand Paul,
Speaker 2: He's like, why is Rand Paul even on this stage?
Speaker 2: That was just debate number one, And there were these
Speaker 2: events over and over and over again which were very beneficial,
Speaker 2: I think, to him in the long run, and turned
Speaker 2: it into a circus which overall helped his poll numbers.
Speaker 2: Without that Trump factor, I do think it will be
Speaker 2: difficult to actually get people to even watch this thing.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm gonna throw a hot take out there,
Speaker 1: which is I don't think Chris Christy is going to
Speaker 1: be the GP nominee, but I think he's going to
Speaker 1: be more consequential than we are expecting, just because there
Speaker 1: is something compelling about the dude is out there. First
Speaker 1: of all, I've always thought he's, you know, a genuine
Speaker 1: political talent. I think of the everybody outside of Trump,
Speaker 1: I think he's the most politically talented of the candidates
Speaker 1: in the Republican field. And there is something compelling about
Speaker 1: someone who's just willing to go out and say it
Speaker 1: and not like pull punches and not do all this
Speaker 1: weird awkward like, well, I love Donald Trump, but I
Speaker 1: just think we should move on. For reasons that I'm
Speaker 1: unwilling to state the fact that he just goes out there.
Speaker 1: He takes you know, he throws his punches, he says
Speaker 1: what it feels like, he really thinks. I do think
Speaker 1: that he will consolidate the actual like anti Trump part
Speaker 1: of the GOP base. Now that's not a huge percentage,
Speaker 1: but in certain states it could be a significant percentage
Speaker 1: of the Republican electorate. I just saw a New Hampshire
Speaker 1: poll that had Christy moving into third, and he's in
Speaker 1: double digits, and he's leapfrogged over a number of other
Speaker 1: candidates who are ahead of him in terms of fundraising
Speaker 1: and media attention, et cetera. And I certainly think in
Speaker 1: terms of the debates, like if I was Ron DeSantis
Speaker 1: preparing for these debates, the person I would definitely be
Speaker 1: most wary of would be Chris Christie because we know
Speaker 1: what kind of damage he can do when he goes
Speaker 1: on a tear, So he would be the person that
Speaker 1: I would be most aggressively preparing for and figuring out
Speaker 1: how I could parry whatever a tax he might throw
Speaker 1: at you.
Speaker 3: I think you're right. I also think Ramaswami is a
Speaker 3: I think he's a dark horse.
Speaker 1: Kids. Yeah, that's true. He's comfortable on his feet.
Speaker 2: Yeah, very comfortable on his feet. He is very he's
Speaker 2: because he has a legal background. He is very good
Speaker 2: at almost legalistically working through different things. And I've watched
Speaker 2: him do it a couple of pass in CNN panels,
Speaker 2: like arguing over charges against Trump.
Speaker 3: Of course, in that famous debate, I guess against.
Speaker 2: Don Lemon, But I think that his ability to try
Speaker 2: and throw something out of left field, like some sort
Speaker 2: of pledge that sounds interesting, but it's one that the
Speaker 2: Rod Destanta's campaign won't want to back themselves to a
Speaker 2: foreigner or something like that.
Speaker 3: I really could see it.
Speaker 2: He's he does it sometimes on Twitter wile issue like
Speaker 2: you know, pledges and things that Cannon should take, which
Speaker 2: you know many candidates don't do because they don't want
Speaker 2: to put themselves on his ground. So I could very
Speaker 2: much see him kind of boxing Ron de Santis, possibly
Speaker 2: rhetorically at the very least.
Speaker 1: I mean, I saw someone on Twitter. I'll just steal
Speaker 1: their take. It tells you everything about the Republican primary
Speaker 1: that the candidate in the Republican primary who has the
Speaker 1: most online energy is Vivek Ramaswami, whose whole thing is
Speaker 1: basically being like Trump was great. I tell you where
Speaker 1: the bulk of the Republican base actually is. And you know,
Speaker 1: he does have a lot, especially of online energy behind him.
Speaker 1: I was frankly surprised he didn't have higher Grossro's fundraising numbers.
Speaker 1: I thought he would have a pretty good fundraising hall,
Speaker 1: but the overwhelming majority of his contributions actually came directly
Speaker 1: from his own bank account.
Speaker 3: So I agree.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, listen, the problem with Twitter is that
Speaker 2: it is self contained universe. It's one of those things
Speaker 2: which is real until it's really not real. And I
Speaker 2: think that every time that it's not real is whenever
Speaker 2: we extend into actual electoral politics. There are so many
Speaker 2: millions of people who engage with the political system in
Speaker 2: a way that is very difficult for all of us
Speaker 2: who kind of live in this world to conceive. I mean,
Speaker 2: I've said this before, I know I shocked some of
Speaker 2: our viewers. If you watch our show every day, you
Speaker 2: are absolutely at least in the top one or two
Speaker 2: percent of political consumption in the entire US, a huge
Speaker 2: outlier compared to the general population. And if you watch
Speaker 2: the news or even really check in with the news
Speaker 2: on a day to day basis, you remain probably in
Speaker 2: the top like five to ten percent. The average person
Speaker 2: in this country does not think about politics really at all.
Speaker 3: They barely knew who the president is.
Speaker 2: Every once in a while it infiltrates an Instagram feed
Speaker 2: or comes in by a culture, but it is one
Speaker 2: of those which.
Speaker 3: Is remains very very distant and off, so you always
Speaker 3: have to.
Speaker 2: Think about that person, not about the people sitting at
Speaker 2: this desk or the people who are watching.
Speaker 1: This show, and how what percentage of even the online
Speaker 1: support for the day. Exactly are people do people who
Speaker 1: are like I'm voting for Donald Trump, like I like
Speaker 1: you because you like Donald Trump, and I also like
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, but I'm voting for Donald Trump. I mean,
Speaker 1: based on the polling, it seems like there's a good
Speaker 1: chunk that are in that category.
Speaker 3: Absolutely correct. Let's go to the next part here.
Speaker 2: A really interesting event with the Faith and Family Summit
Speaker 2: sponsored by Blaze Media, which they got big coup for
Speaker 2: them actually considering that Glenn Beck is their major media personality,
Speaker 2: They're like, no, let's get Tucker Carlston actually to do it.
Speaker 2: So Tucker, I guess, on the heels of firing from
Speaker 2: Fox News, got to sit down with some of the
Speaker 2: GOP candidates. There were two particular exchanges that Tucker really
Speaker 2: decided to go in against. One was a former Vice
Speaker 2: President Mike Pence, not on stop the Steal, but on
Speaker 2: Ukraine and on religious freedom inside of Ukraine. Number two
Speaker 2: also was with Tim Scott also hitting him for his
Speaker 2: stance on Ukraine, kind of holding him to the Tucker
Speaker 2: no more nationalist standard and the more Trumpian standard on
Speaker 2: the issue.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 6: You are, you are distressed that the Ukrainians don't have
Speaker 6: enough American tanks. Every city in the United States has
Speaker 6: become much worse over the past three years.
Speaker 4: Drive around.
Speaker 6: There's not one city that's gotten better in the United States,
Speaker 6: and it's visible. Our economy has degraded, the suicide rate
Speaker 6: has jumped, public filth and disorder and crime have exponentially increased.
Speaker 6: And yet your concern is that the Ukrainians, a country
Speaker 6: most people can't find out a map, who've received tens
Speaker 6: of billions of US tax dollars, don't have enough tanks.
Speaker 6: I think it's a fair question to ask, like, where's
Speaker 6: the concern for the United States in that?
Speaker 7: Oh, it's not my concern, Tucker. I've heard that routine
Speaker 7: from you before, But that's not my concern. I'm running
Speaker 7: for President of the United States because I think this
Speaker 7: country's in.
Speaker 4: A lot of trouble.
Speaker 7: I think Joe Biden is weakened America at home and abroad.
Speaker 7: And as President of the United States, we're going to
Speaker 7: store law and order in our cities. We're going to
Speaker 7: secure our border, we're going to get this economy move
Speaker 7: it again, and we're going to make make sure that
Speaker 7: we have men and women on our courts at every
Speaker 7: level that will stand for the right to life and
Speaker 7: defend all the God given liberties enshrined in our Constitution.
Speaker 7: Anybody that says that we can't be the leader of
Speaker 7: the free world and solve our problems at home has
Speaker 7: a pretty small view of the greatest nation on Earth.
Speaker 4: We can do both.
Speaker 3: Tim Scott was also pressed there on Ukraine. Crystal.
Speaker 2: I'm pretty sure he meant to say, that's not my
Speaker 2: concern whenever it came to Ukraine doesn't have enough tanks,
Speaker 2: but we pretty bad enough. Look whenever you're being pressed
Speaker 2: there on the actual weather America cities, and they should
Speaker 2: be receiving some sort of increase. But this goes to
Speaker 2: show I think that Tucker did remain one of the
Speaker 2: only forces that was willing to press mainstream Republicans. I
Speaker 2: don't know from what direction, but from I guess more
Speaker 2: anti war direction, more skeptical direction whenever it came to
Speaker 2: aid towards Ukraine, and that this is a very rare
Speaker 2: line of argumentation that we have seen yet for some
Speaker 2: of these candidates. So I was interested, actually to see
Speaker 2: from Mike Pents. I actually think it would be a
Speaker 2: bigger deal if Mike Pence was doing better in the
Speaker 2: space she didn't. Actually, I will say this, Tucker was
Speaker 2: I think a lot kinder to Ron DeSantis, even though
Speaker 2: the DeSantis has been a little bit more wishy washy
Speaker 2: on the issue of Ukraine.
Speaker 3: Interesting, so I did certainly take note of that.
Speaker 1: Interesting. Yeah, I mean, I guess here's my sense of
Speaker 1: how the Ukrainian War will play with the Republican primary voters.
Speaker 1: I think there is a chunk of them that is
Speaker 1: this is a really important issue for them, and that
Speaker 1: like basically all of the people who will be voting
Speaker 1: on Ukraine War in the Republican primary hold the Trump
Speaker 1: position and hold the Tucker position. So that's why there's
Speaker 1: you know, in a space like this, this is like
Speaker 1: niche activist kind of a space, so you can't take
Speaker 1: too much from it and you can't extrapolate too much
Speaker 1: from it to the broader GOP base. But I do
Speaker 1: think to the extent that there is a group of
Speaker 1: voters in the Republican primary who are voting on Ukraine,
Speaker 1: and I do think that that group exists. I think
Speaker 1: they all have the Donald Trump position. So if you
Speaker 1: aren't clearly in that position, you're basically like cutting yourself
Speaker 1: off from whatever ten percent or you know, fifteen percent.
Speaker 1: I'm just pulling these numbers out of thin air of
Speaker 1: the GOP base that is really really focused on that issue.
Speaker 1: So overall, though, the pulling from the republic even from
Speaker 1: the Republican base is fairly mixed. Still on Ukraine, it's
Speaker 1: not the overwhelming numbers that it feels like when you're
Speaker 1: watching that audience react. I think there's more of an
Speaker 1: issue for I mean, Mike Pence has a lot of
Speaker 1: issue in this race, but I think more of the
Speaker 1: issue for him is he just feels very sort of
Speaker 1: like week. It feels easy for him to be humiliated.
Speaker 1: It feels like he was humiliated by Trump for four
Speaker 1: years of the presidency, and he doesn't have the kind
Speaker 1: of like fighter, strong, whatever vibes that it feels to
Speaker 1: me like the base is looking for.
Speaker 2: I think you're right, and you know, I think, look,
Speaker 2: I mean, I've always said this about Ukraine. We spend
Speaker 2: a lot of time covering Ukraine here because we think
Speaker 2: it's important to like the geopolitical situation. But like neither
Speaker 2: of us, crystal whatever, delude ourselves into thinking like yeah,
Speaker 2: this is the most popular issue. I can guarantee you
Speaker 2: if we wanted to be quote more popular, we would
Speaker 2: spend way less time actually talking about Ukraine. In the
Speaker 2: allusion to what we were talking about in our previous
Speaker 2: block about people who actually consume politics, last time I checked,
Speaker 2: foreign affairs ranks at zero percent in terms of the
Speaker 2: most important issue for people whenever they vote. So once again,
Speaker 2: just always try internalize, like where you are versus the
Speaker 2: general population. Most people don't think about Ukraine to the
Speaker 2: extent that they do. They're like, yeah, we should help them,
Speaker 2: but they don't know anything about cluster munitions or anything
Speaker 2: about what's actually going on there. They couldn't tell you
Speaker 2: who what crimea is. They could barely point to Ukraine
Speaker 2: on a map. They think Putin is bad. That's basically
Speaker 2: the extent to which they think about the conflict. So
Speaker 2: whenever it does come to this, it probably is more
Speaker 2: important in these types of interviews for pressing them on
Speaker 2: the policy that they may enact whenever they are president.
Speaker 2: And then, second, as you said, to the extent that
Speaker 2: a GOP primary voter is thinking about this at all,
Speaker 2: they are only thinking about this as Pence taking a
Speaker 2: different position than Trump. They're going to think of it
Speaker 2: as Trump coded, not really about Ukraine and the aid itself,
Speaker 2: although maybe you know some people whenever they're looking at
Speaker 2: this same I really think with Tim Scott.
Speaker 3: So it's an interesting issue always to.
Speaker 2: Think and to look at, you know, politically, in terms
Speaker 2: of how it will actually code in the primary. But overall,
Speaker 2: I don't think it's going to be the most important
Speaker 2: issue is really Trump is the center of gravity.
Speaker 3: That said, you can't see.
Speaker 2: Tucker did talk about his what they people are calling
Speaker 2: the defenstration of Mike Pence there on the stage at
Speaker 2: a Turning Point action conference, and the crowd actually went
Speaker 2: wild in terms of the pressing of Mike Pence and
Speaker 2: about humiliating him on the stage.
Speaker 3: Here's the response that they gave.
Speaker 6: I won't attack anyone on personal grounds or by name.
Speaker 1: It's tempting.
Speaker 3: I will say, it's tempting.
Speaker 6: Who ever said do it, You're the devil on my shoulder.
Speaker 8: Do it.
Speaker 3: I've I've spent my whole life.
Speaker 6: No, no, no no. But if I could make some
Speaker 6: general observations which I think are more edifying than just
Speaker 6: like savaging Mike Pence, I think.
Speaker 1: Which I'm not gonna do because that would be.
Speaker 6: Wrong, and it would be wrong because it's too easy
Speaker 6: and the easy things are not rewarding, are they. You
Speaker 6: don't feel good when you beat your five year old
Speaker 6: in soccer or ping pong?
Speaker 2: Like what crowd has no love there for Mike Pence.
Speaker 2: And look, let's be clear, it's a turning point action conference.
Speaker 2: These are all Charlie Kirk people. These were all mag
Speaker 2: of people, so they're all with predisposed you know, not
Speaker 2: the kindest audience I guess, towards Mike Pence anyways. But
Speaker 2: you know, it does bear it out in terms of
Speaker 2: the way that a lot of people do feel about
Speaker 2: Mike Pence in the primary.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it reminds me of the vibes during that
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen up primary where listen, it was fun to
Speaker 1: watch Trump savage.
Speaker 3: It is fun.
Speaker 1: It's funnavage Jeb Bush and these other MARKA. Ruby and
Speaker 1: these other like weird losers. And you know, that's how
Speaker 1: the Republican base feels about Mike Pence. Some segment of
Speaker 1: them were literally running around the Capitol calling for him
Speaker 1: to be hung on January sixth, So not a lot
Speaker 1: of love for him. There, and so yeah, they're enjoying
Speaker 1: watching his moment of public humiliation. And you know, even
Speaker 1: though listen Mike Pence and his answer to Tucker, I
Speaker 1: think he was talking about like, my concern is not
Speaker 1: that there aren't enough American tanks in Ukraine, but it
Speaker 1: really he really could have done a better job acknowledging that, Yes,
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of pain in America that
Speaker 1: needs to be addressed. And he actually, in a lot
Speaker 1: of ways, Tucker gave him a wide open chance. He
Speaker 1: really did to pivot off of Ukraine, an issue where
Speaker 1: he knows with that audience in particular, he's going to
Speaker 1: be at odds with them. Two, here's what I want
Speaker 1: to do with regard to, you know, the domestic economy.
Speaker 1: And here's what I want to do with regards to
Speaker 1: my plan for revitalizing these cities or whatever it is
Speaker 1: that Mike Pence wants to do. I really don't even know.
Speaker 1: But it was actually a great political opening for him
Speaker 1: to be able to pivot to some of those areas
Speaker 1: where he might be more in step with the Republican base.
Speaker 1: And so it also just shows a level of you know,
Speaker 1: political in artfulness and inability to move, think on your feet,
Speaker 1: be nimble in a difficult situation.
Speaker 3: Ultimately, yeah, I think you're correct, all right.
Speaker 1: So let's get to the Democratic side of the equation here.
Speaker 1: We already teased a little bit that Joe Biden's fundraising
Speaker 1: also had some question marks attached to it. Let's go
Speaker 1: and put this up on the screen from the New
Speaker 1: York Times. You know a little bit of similar vibes
Speaker 1: with the DeSantis campaign in that he raised a good
Speaker 1: amount of money. He raised more than ten million dollars
Speaker 1: actually thirty six hours from wealthy Democrats. Trips to Chicago,
Speaker 1: New York netted millions more, as did fundraising events around Washington.
Speaker 1: They write, proving the party's big donor class is fully
Speaker 1: committed to mister Biden's reelection campaign. However, the small dollar
Speaker 1: online money's bigot that helped mister Biden smash fundraising records
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty has not yet turned on, and there
Speaker 1: are ample sid that it may be months before it does.
Speaker 1: I would say that maybe there's a question mark whether
Speaker 1: it ever does. They raised ten point two million from
Speaker 1: small donors between the Biden campaign and the Biden Victory Fund.
Speaker 1: Those are those who gave two hundred dollars or less
Speaker 1: during this quarter, and for context, that's about half of
Speaker 1: what the Barack Obama and his reelect was able to
Speaker 1: get from small dollar donors during the same percentage during
Speaker 1: the same time frame. Now, I will say something that
Speaker 1: is a benefit to Biden that is different from DeSantis
Speaker 1: is he's not really doing anything, so his burden rate
Speaker 1: is very low, like they're not really spending money at all.
Speaker 1: And again, to be clear, like Joe Biden has a
Speaker 1: lot of money. Big donors on the Democratic side, they're
Speaker 1: all in for him. They're continuing to raise a lot
Speaker 1: of money from him. He has the advantage of all
Speaker 1: these different party committees and whatever. So it's not just
Speaker 1: what he brings into directly into his campaign. So he's
Speaker 1: got a big war chest. Money is not likely to
Speaker 1: be a big problem for him. I think it's more
Speaker 1: indicative of the fact that there is just negative excitement
Speaker 1: for Joe Biden, even among the Democratic Party faithful. The
Speaker 1: best you'll get out of people is like, I think
Speaker 1: he's done a pretty decent job. That's about it, And
Speaker 1: especially among young voters who in many ways feel betrayed
Speaker 1: by some of the promises that he has failed to
Speaker 1: deliver on, and are you know his approval rating has
Speaker 1: fallen off a cliff among that demographic in particular, there
Speaker 1: is little online enthusiasm for him, and there is next
Speaker 1: to no grossrooms fundraising support for him. And so you know,
Speaker 1: we've been saying this for a long time, but their
Speaker 1: theory of the case is just one hundred percent. You
Speaker 1: don't have to be excited about Joe. We're just going
Speaker 1: to get you energized about what the horrific alternative is.
Speaker 1: We're going to try to consolidate the anti Trump forces within,
Speaker 1: you know, within America, regardless of where they fall on
Speaker 1: the ideological spectrum. And their bet is that even with
Speaker 1: a high level of dissatisfaction among some core Democratic constituencies,
Speaker 1: that they will ultimately come home and vote for Biden
Speaker 1: because they do not want four more years of Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: I actually thought it was really interesting Crystal to benchmark
Speaker 2: him against past presidents. So four years ago, in terms
Speaker 2: of the money raised by Trump and his joint fundraising
Speaker 2: committees while he was a sitting president, thirty five percent
Speaker 2: of that money came from donors who gave two hundred
Speaker 2: dollars or less for Biden, only twenty one percent of
Speaker 2: funds to his campaign came from small donors. It also
Speaker 2: can benchmark him against former President Obama from the last
Speaker 2: time that he was running for reelection, only ten point
Speaker 2: two million dollars in small dollar donations, as defined as
Speaker 2: those who gave two hundred dollars or less.
Speaker 3: That figure is.
Speaker 2: Half of the twenty one million President Obama's campaign raised
Speaker 2: during that same period in twenty twelve. So I think
Speaker 2: if you benchmark him against Obama and a Trump, also
Speaker 2: consider this adjust for inflation. That's even more pathetic, and
Speaker 2: in terms of how much of inflation that we've had
Speaker 2: over the last ten years. So just think about that
Speaker 2: a little bit whenever we're benchmarking him to Obama. And
Speaker 2: the reason why that figure really stood out to me
Speaker 2: is Trump obviously, you know, he's like a god of
Speaker 2: small dollar donations. He's really up there in a league
Speaker 2: of his own with Bernie Sanders. There are two of
Speaker 2: really the only two to play the game at such
Speaker 2: a high level, getting average normal people to not only
Speaker 2: one or two times, but multiple times shell out lots
Speaker 2: of money on their behalf at a very wide scale.
Speaker 3: Trump's genius, I guess was.
Speaker 2: Being able to do that and get billionaires to donate
Speaker 2: to his campaign for Biden. Whenever you're looking at this,
Speaker 2: consider the level of enthusiasm, if he can even call
Speaker 2: it that. We were both I guess involved in politics
Speaker 2: at the time. Crystal, not that many people were into
Speaker 2: Barack Obama in twenty twelve, and he was still able
Speaker 2: to raise twenty one million dollars at that time.
Speaker 1: I disagree with that. I think there's a key difference
Speaker 1: between Biden and Obama in that period. Even in twenty twelve,
Speaker 1: you know, as the hope and change like some of
Speaker 1: that had worn off, Democrats still freaking love.
Speaker 3: This uf that I truly did love him.
Speaker 1: I mean they even in twenty twelve. You know, I
Speaker 1: was at AMSBC at the time, so I was at
Speaker 1: the beating heart of the pro Barack Obama media, and
Speaker 1: the Democratic base really loved this guy. And they still do.
Speaker 1: I mean, in spite of you know, all of my
Speaker 1: you can see my monologues on him to see how
Speaker 1: I feel about him, but the Democratic base still really
Speaker 1: loves Barack Obama. Barack Obama is an extraordinarily talented politician.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden never had Barack Obama levels of enthusiasm. He
Speaker 1: certainly doesn't have them now, and he doesn't have Barack
Speaker 1: Obama levels of talent, especially at this point in his career.
Speaker 1: So I think the other thing that I was thinking
Speaker 1: about is, remember that Barack Obama campaign got off to
Speaker 1: a really early start and was very effective at defining
Speaker 1: Mitt Romney out of the gates. They spent a lot
Speaker 1: of money early. There was a lot of hand ringing
Speaker 1: about their burn rates, something we're talking about Rond de
Speaker 1: Santis with today. There was a lot of hand ringing
Speaker 1: about that with the Obama campaign, but they ran these
Speaker 1: incredibly brutally effective economic populist ads against Romney, defining him
Speaker 1: as the caricature of the out of touch rich guy elite,
Speaker 1: and that caricature stuck Mitt Romney. He did his own damage,
Speaker 1: reinforcing that caricature at basically every turn. And now with
Speaker 1: the Biden campaign it's the polar opposite. And in some
Speaker 1: ways it makes sense because listen, are we know who
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: Mitt Romney was kind of squishly defined to the American public,
Speaker 1: So they thought that it was a real opportunity to
Speaker 1: go in, like we're going to define who this guy
Speaker 1: is on our terms, or we're going to fight this
Speaker 1: campaign on our terms. Worked really well here with the
Speaker 1: Biden campaign. Their bet is everybody already knows Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: like people feel however they feel about him. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of people who really hate this guy, and so
Speaker 1: we don't need to spend money early to define who
Speaker 1: he is and what he's all about and try to
Speaker 1: set the campaign on our terms, because he does enough
Speaker 1: and his indictments will speak for themselves as well. So
Speaker 1: then you also have the fact that, unlike Barack Obama,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is not, especially now a very talented politician,
Speaker 1: and so they think it makes sense to basically not
Speaker 1: campaign right now. There are concerns, though about this strategy.
Speaker 1: I found this report from CNN quite extraordinary. Let's put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen. Even at this late date,
Speaker 1: the headline is slow pace of Biden's reelect campaign feeds
Speaker 1: Democrats twenty twenty four anxiety. Even at this late date,
Speaker 1: you apparently still have top Democrats and donors who do
Speaker 1: not actually believe that Biden is going to really run
Speaker 1: for reelection, even though he's launched his campaign and he's
Speaker 1: raising money and he's at least done some minimal campaigning
Speaker 1: and securing certainly of union endorsements. They lead off this
Speaker 1: piece saying, the conversations keep happening, quiet whispers on the
Speaker 1: sidelines of events, text emails for the phone calls, as
Speaker 1: top Democrats and donors reach out to those seen as
Speaker 1: possible replacement presidential candidates get ready. They urge in conversations
Speaker 1: that aids to several of the people involved who have
Speaker 1: described as CNN, despite what he has said, despite the
Speaker 1: campaign that has been announced, President Joe Biden will not
Speaker 1: actually be running for reelection. They feel like time is
Speaker 1: already running out and that the lack of the war
Speaker 1: robust campaign activity they want to see is a sign
Speaker 1: that his heart really isn't in it now. I have
Speaker 1: always thought, even before he really made it clear that
Speaker 1: he was running for reelection, I have always thought, at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, Democrats would have to get
Speaker 1: on board with Joe Biden because they have a Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris problem, because he's in the White House, and because
Speaker 1: he wants another four years too, by the way, So
Speaker 1: I continue to think that these people this is all
Speaker 1: wishful thinking, and like you know, presidential fanfic more than anything,
Speaker 1: but it does show you that there is deep concern
Speaker 1: among you know, Democratic Party elites that Joe Biden's heart
Speaker 1: isn't really in it, that he's not campaigning, and that
Speaker 1: they may have a real problem com general election time,
Speaker 1: even if it is against Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think, you know, the point that he made
Speaker 2: earlier is the best one. At the end of the day,
Speaker 2: it's not going to be about money for the sitting
Speaker 2: president and Trump. Everyone will have plenty of money. This
Speaker 2: is going to be a multi billion dollar election. In
Speaker 2: terms of all the outside groups. It really is just
Speaker 2: a metric of how many real people are really.
Speaker 3: Enthused about this.
Speaker 2: Not many, and that you know is always going to
Speaker 2: remain an issue. But for the donors there is and
Speaker 2: remains fan fake. As you said, the idea of the
Speaker 2: you know, the West wing type president Bartlett just coming
Speaker 2: in to swoop take over and roll.
Speaker 1: It over down Newsom or whatever.
Speaker 2: Newsome is the perfect Bartlett type candidate, you know, the
Speaker 2: uber mensh liberal who's able to like sweep in and
Speaker 2: finally deliver all of the promises that they've been unable
Speaker 2: to get since the Bill Clinton era. Never ends up
Speaker 2: happening though in terms of the actual president, but doesn't
Speaker 2: stop them from dreaming.
Speaker 1: True. Liz Smith pee Boot to Jigito's former campaign manager.
Speaker 1: She's quoted in this piece. I think she puts her
Speaker 1: finger on the pulse of what the Democratic are elite
Speaker 1: are thinking. She says, what motivates people is less love
Speaker 1: of their party but hatred of the other candidate. A
Speaker 1: lot of enthusiasm will come for voting against Republicans. That
Speaker 1: is what they're betting on. But you also have long
Speaker 1: term Democratic fundraiser who said, I'm not sure which is
Speaker 1: harder getting people to focus on the campaign or getting
Speaker 1: people excited about it. If Trump wins next November and
Speaker 1: everyone says, how did that happen, one of the questions
Speaker 1: will be what was the Biden campaign doing in the
Speaker 1: summer of twenty twenty three. So you're possible they think
Speaker 1: the strategy makes sense. They kind of sit back and
Speaker 1: let Trump hang himself and then indatments play out and
Speaker 1: conserve their cash and keep their guy out of the spotlight.
Speaker 1: To be honest with you, I think they're probably right
Speaker 1: about that strategy. But I you know, the best news
Speaker 1: that the Biden campaign has gotten so far is the
Speaker 1: fact that the economic numbers inflation cooling like that, that
Speaker 1: looks a little bit better, even as people are still
Speaker 1: really not feeling that in terms of their everyday lives.
Speaker 1: But I got to tell you, I think they got
Speaker 1: big problems coming up. I think they've got big problems
Speaker 1: for twenty twenty four. I think that the fact that
Speaker 1: you've got a few potential third party candidates. I mean,
Speaker 1: we already know we've got Cornell West in there. That
Speaker 1: you may have this new Labels candidate. You know, it
Speaker 1: only takes just a little bit off of Joe Biden
Speaker 1: or even you know, the independents who didn't like him
Speaker 1: and didn't like Trump and voted for him, like just
Speaker 1: a few of them to go in the other direction,
Speaker 1: for him to be on the other side of an
Speaker 1: election loss. And I just I think they got a
Speaker 1: lot of problems.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, this is where age comes back to
Speaker 2: bite you, Like, yeah, fight like your life depends on it.
Speaker 3: Act like man, this is the most important job in
Speaker 3: the entire world.
Speaker 2: You've got to go, you know, literally go like die
Speaker 2: Trump either fight or die trying, you know, in terms
Speaker 2: of winning. That's how the best politicians have always acted.
Speaker 2: I've read, you know previously, But Glynnon Johnson and Richard Nixon,
Speaker 2: two people who won the greatest electoral victories in modern
Speaker 2: American history. They thought they were going to lose up
Speaker 2: until the end. They still literally obsessed over the details
Speaker 2: up until election day.
Speaker 3: That's what it takes for people who are actual winners.
Speaker 1: Yeah, now, I think that's right. So we'll see how
Speaker 1: it all plays out. We wanted to give you an
Speaker 1: update and some pretty spicy footage coming out of folks
Speaker 1: involved in the total Hollywood strike. Now you've got the
Speaker 1: writers and the actors joining together our first time in
Speaker 1: more than sixty years, to completely shut down all Hollywood productions.
Speaker 1: Pretty extraordinary event. I'm actually covering of my monologue how
Speaker 1: there's a lot of tie ins here with AI and
Speaker 1: the future of technology that are really relevant for everyone.
Speaker 1: But there was a studio executive was quoted as saying
Speaker 1: their endgame with the writer strike in particular, is to
Speaker 1: allow things to drag on until union members start losing
Speaker 1: their apartments and start losing their houses, which is a
Speaker 1: disgusting thing to say about anyone that you're literally admitting
Speaker 1: you want to make people homeless to force them into
Speaker 1: a bad deal. Actor Ron Pearlman had some thoughts on
Speaker 1: this before I throw to it, warning if their children
Speaker 1: were there, some spicy language here, so just a little
Speaker 1: you know, trigger warning, etc. Let's hear what he had
Speaker 1: to say.
Speaker 9: The motherfucker who said we're going to keep this thing
Speaker 9: going until people start losing their houses and their apartments,
Speaker 9: listen to me, motherfucker.
Speaker 4: There's a lot of ways to lose your house.
Speaker 9: Some of it is financial, some of it is karma,
Speaker 9: and some of it is just figuring out who the
Speaker 9: fucks said that, and we know who said that and
Speaker 9: where he fucking lives.
Speaker 4: There's a lot of ways to lose your house.
Speaker 9: You wish that on people, You wish that families starve
Speaker 9: while you're making twenty seven fucking million dollars a year
Speaker 9: for creating nothing. Be careful, motherfucker, Be really careful, because
Speaker 9: that's kind of shit that stirs shit up.
Speaker 1: WHOA Yeah, going all in there now asaga. He did
Speaker 1: walk it back a bit and clarify his comment, and
Speaker 1: actually the clarification is also phenomenal. He says, I don't
Speaker 1: wish anybody any harm. I hope that a hole who
Speaker 1: made that comment also doesn't wish anybody any harm. But
Speaker 1: when you start going around and saying, we're not even
Speaker 1: going to bargain with these e fing dickheads until they
Speaker 1: start fing bleeding and their families start bleeding. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you want to talk about some of the shit
Speaker 1: that makes people so cynical and so pissed off with
Speaker 1: our current climate, I mean, this strike is just sort
Speaker 1: of a symptom of a struggle that's way bigger than
Speaker 1: the strike itself. It's a symptom of the soullessness of
Speaker 1: corporate America, how everything has become corporatized in this country. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm being very clear. I never mentioned one name. I
Speaker 1: don't want anybody to get hurt, but stop with the bullshit,
Speaker 1: because all you're doing is you're effing killing what's beautiful
Speaker 1: in this country by putting a price on everything. Amen.
Speaker 2: Oh, interesting Foster there about mister Peerlman, And I think
Speaker 2: it was backed up really in their view by Disney
Speaker 2: CEO Bob Eiger, who gave one of the most extraordinary
Speaker 2: interviews in modern media history. You may think I'm exaggerating,
Speaker 2: but this interview set off a firestorm, both in terms
Speaker 2: of his response to the screen actors strike, but also
Speaker 2: in terms of some candidate missions that he made on
Speaker 2: the State of Television.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 8: Well, I think it's very disturbing to me. You know,
Speaker 8: we've talked about disruptive forces on this business and all
Speaker 8: the challenges that we're facing in the recovery from COVID,
Speaker 8: which is ongoing, it's not completely back. This is the
Speaker 8: worst time in the world to add to that disruption.
Speaker 8: There's a level of expectation that they have that is
Speaker 8: just not realistic, and they are adding to a set
Speaker 8: of challenges that this business is already facing that is
Speaker 8: quite frankly, very disruptive. I know they're not why not.
Speaker 2: I can't.
Speaker 8: I can't. I can't answer that question.
Speaker 7: Again.
Speaker 8: I respect their right and their desire to get as
Speaker 8: much as they possibly can in compensation for their people.
Speaker 8: You know, I completely respect that. I've been around long
Speaker 8: enough to understand that dynamic and to appreciate it. But
Speaker 8: you also have to be realistic about the business environment
Speaker 8: and what this business can deliver.
Speaker 4: If you're do in the interim, then it's sht a
Speaker 4: lot of scripts.
Speaker 8: It will have, it will have a very very damaging
Speaker 8: effect on the whole business and Unfortunately, there's huge collateral
Speaker 8: damage in the industry to people who are you know,
Speaker 8: who are support services. I could go on and on.
Speaker 8: It will affect the economy of you know, different regions,
Speaker 8: even because there's the size of the business.
Speaker 2: It's a shame, certainly an image there to be sitting
Speaker 2: in the you know, the mountains of Sun Valley, Idaho
Speaker 2: outside six Am and the more as a mere billionaire
Speaker 2: CEO of the Disney Company that tells people that it's
Speaker 2: not a good idea and there's of course going to
Speaker 2: be damaging strikes. I think we'll probably talk a little
Speaker 2: bit more in the future about what he said about
Speaker 2: the challenging business environment. But we did also want to
Speaker 2: give you the response from the Screen Actors Guilt to
Speaker 2: Bob Iger's comments.
Speaker 3: Here's what they had to say.
Speaker 1: What did you think about Bob Iger's comments yesterday?
Speaker 10: I found them terribly repugnant and out of touch, positively
Speaker 10: tone deaf, and you know, I don't think.
Speaker 3: It served him well. If I were.
Speaker 11: That company, I would lock him behind tours.
Speaker 2: That was Franz Drescher, the president of the Screen Actors Guild. Also,
Speaker 2: though I will say it's just extraordinary actually to see
Speaker 2: a major Hollywood actress call out Bob Iger directly, that
Speaker 2: is just not really how it's done. Look, I don't
Speaker 2: work in Hollywood. I know some people would do. This
Speaker 2: is what they have told me, which is that in general,
Speaker 2: you almost never call out studio execs, CEOs and all
Speaker 2: those people by name, because not only they can, can
Speaker 2: they control like all the movies that they make. There's
Speaker 2: only a couple of studios that actually exist, So it
Speaker 2: only takes one or two phone calls to effectively nuke
Speaker 2: your entire career. And it does seem so the seriousness
Speaker 2: which which she is undertaking really the task and of
Speaker 2: the strike. We had the Oppenheimer actors actually leave the
Speaker 2: red carpet in the UK right as the strike was
Speaker 2: authorized because technically they would have broke it.
Speaker 3: So there's a lot going on.
Speaker 2: We got Mission Impossible in theaters right now, Indiana Jones,
Speaker 2: a lot of promotional events and all of those are
Speaker 2: supposed to be happening and going to be canceled. So
Speaker 2: Eiger is not wrong that this will have major ramifications. Yeah, sure, yes,
Speaker 2: I'm not saying he's correct about what they should capitulate to,
Speaker 2: just that the big the event the effect is already.
Speaker 1: It's monumental, no doubt about it. And I mean the
Speaker 1: part that everyone was rightfully pointing to is he's like,
Speaker 1: it's not realistic their demands, and the interviewers like, okay,
Speaker 1: what do you mean. He's like, well, I can't say,
Speaker 1: like okay, then you know how real unrealistic are their
Speaker 1: demands really? And listen, I get it with Hollywood, they're
Speaker 1: not in some ways the most sympathetic group of people,
Speaker 1: but remember that the overwhelming majority of members of this
Speaker 1: union are not the like Hollywood stars and starlits that
Speaker 1: are household names throughout the country. A lot of them
Speaker 1: are journeymen and women, actors who are just like try
Speaker 1: to make rent and try to make it month to month,
Speaker 1: who depend on things like you know, being extras and films,
Speaker 1: who depend on residuals from that you know, commercial they did,
Speaker 1: being able to sustain them while they're going to auditions.
Speaker 1: So for many people who are working in this industry,
Speaker 1: and certainly for the writers who are on strike as well,
Speaker 1: it's not the glamorous life that you may have in
Speaker 1: mind when you think Hollywood and ultimately these issues of
Speaker 1: labor fighting back against capital. I mean, this translates to
Speaker 1: all sorts of industry across the country, and the fact
Speaker 1: that they have a union, that they have the ability
Speaker 1: to strike, that they have some level of cultural prominence too,
Speaker 1: really elevate some of these key issues. But I mean,
Speaker 1: corporate greed is a universal across the country, So there
Speaker 1: is a lot here that does actually translate to other industries,
Speaker 1: other workforces, and is relevant for all of us.
Speaker 2: I know.
Speaker 3: I think that's important.
Speaker 2: Which is, yes, the most visible people often are like
Speaker 2: multimillionaires and all that. But one of the reasons why,
Speaker 2: at least as I understand that they're so willing to
Speaker 2: fight hard on these issues is because once upon a time,
Speaker 2: many of them were also struggling actors and they relied
Speaker 2: on SAG for health insurance, for guaranteed compensation for residuals
Speaker 2: and all these other things that you know that they
Speaker 2: don't necessarily have to rely on anymore, but you know,
Speaker 2: when they did and they were starting out, it was
Speaker 2: a very important thing for their career yea. And it
Speaker 2: helps people who are coming up through the pipeline. So
Speaker 2: that's that's why I think it's important too.
Speaker 1: Typically, Hollywood politics are very like lib identity based sort
Speaker 1: of like surface level, and so it's also kind of
Speaker 1: cool to see these sort of economic populist themes about
Speaker 1: corporate greed coming to the four from people who do
Speaker 1: have a lot of cultural cachet. So I do think
Speaker 1: that part is important as well. All right, let's get
Speaker 1: to the very latest that is happening over on Twitter
Speaker 1: with Elon Musk. This is an interesting turn of events.
Speaker 1: I'm actually curious what Sager hasn't say about this one.
Speaker 1: Okay news up on the screen. So Alan has been
Speaker 1: sort of teasing that he may launch some sort of
Speaker 1: a program so people can actually make money on Twitter
Speaker 1: at peers. They have now rolled out what is at
Speaker 1: least a sort of pilot program in this regard. The
Speaker 1: headline here is Twitter has started paying some creators like
Speaker 1: Andrew Tate and the Crasenstein brothers for generating ad revenue.
Speaker 1: It appears that outside of the Crasenstein brothers, who are like,
Speaker 1: you know, very resistant democrat whatever, a lot of the
Speaker 1: creators who are being paid are on the right. So
Speaker 1: you've got in addition to Andrew Tate, you've got Benny Johnson,
Speaker 1: You've got the Babylon b End Wokeness I think Tim
Speaker 1: Poole was getting payments as well. So far it appears
Speaker 1: to be very ad hoc. Like these people, I don't
Speaker 1: know how they were selected exactly, but the idea is
Speaker 1: there's going to be some sort of a program that
Speaker 1: you can roll in and apply to so that you
Speaker 1: also receive payments based on who is replying to your
Speaker 1: tweets and of how much energy you're generating around your tweets.
Speaker 1: Elon had a little bit to say about this. Let's
Speaker 1: go ahead and put this up on the screen, because
Speaker 1: again it all ties into his blue Twitter check mark play,
Speaker 1: which is you know, now they're not really verified, it's
Speaker 1: you pay for the check mark. He says that the
Speaker 1: pants are not exactly per impression. What matters is how
Speaker 1: many ads were shown to other verified users, so other
Speaker 1: people who pay for the check mark. That's what really
Speaker 1: counts here. Only verified users count, as it is otherwise
Speaker 1: trivial to game the system with bots. Sager.
Speaker 3: Look, I just have to be honest.
Speaker 2: This is so obviously ad hoc and just not keeping
Speaker 2: in any sort of real market competition whatsoever, because the
Speaker 2: thing is crystal. As you and I know, we don't
Speaker 2: make our living luckily because of our direct subscription program,
Speaker 2: but we do make money off of CPM ads that
Speaker 2: are served on the Internet, and there is just literally
Speaker 2: no way that the amount of dollars that we are
Speaker 2: talking about here even remotely lines up with the actual
Speaker 2: market rate for CPA impressions, especially I know.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry that I'm using the ad type.
Speaker 2: We're talking here about the amount of dollars that you
Speaker 2: can charge per one thousand views of this alleged ad.
Speaker 3: We are also talking here about.
Speaker 2: I know what we make on YouTube, and it's not
Speaker 2: even closed apparently to the rate that they're showing here.
Speaker 2: The problem that we have is that we're talking here
Speaker 2: about one of the lowest forms and of ads in
Speaker 2: terms of an ad served on Twitter that you can
Speaker 2: easily scroll past, not in an environment like Spotify when
Speaker 2: people are listening and our ads are served dynamically there,
Speaker 2: or when you're watching our YouTube video. If you don't
Speaker 2: have YouTube premium, you don't have a choice. You were
Speaker 2: asked to sitting down. You got to watch at least
Speaker 2: what five to fifteen seconds or whatever out of that ad.
Speaker 2: That's a very, very actually valuable ad, and I know
Speaker 2: what those pay, and it's not even close to the
Speaker 2: rate of what this is. So in terms of the
Speaker 2: rate that he's talking about, it does seem that, you know,
Speaker 2: they're trying to put their finger on the put their
Speaker 2: finger on the scale here. At the same time, it's
Speaker 2: not actually that much money Elon had previously tweted They're
Speaker 2: only spend about five million dollars over a certain period
Speaker 2: undefined time period, which they'll be paying out. I don't
Speaker 2: think it's a surprise that they are paying it out,
Speaker 2: probably to their most voluble users of Twitter Blue, because
Speaker 2: it comes at the time that Threads just launched and
Speaker 2: they want to make sure that people are using it.
Speaker 2: I don't know if I'm special, but I actually started
Speaker 2: getting ads on my feed from Twitter saying your account
Speaker 2: was eligible for payouts. But because I was wondering, maybe
Speaker 2: it's me. I don't actually tweet that much, so I'd
Speaker 2: be surprised if I was able to generate the right
Speaker 2: amount of impressions. Actually we can find out live let's see.
Speaker 2: But the ad actually that was served to me, let's see. Yeah, So,
Speaker 2: in terms of my impressions, I guess I had one
Speaker 2: point eight million impressions in the month of July so far,
Speaker 2: I don't think that's actually enough.
Speaker 3: I guess I did hit it.
Speaker 2: In June, we had eleven point five million impressions on
Speaker 2: my account. They said that five million or so was
Speaker 2: the actual number that you were supposed to hit for
Speaker 2: your profile.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I guess I did technically qualify.
Speaker 2: But they are serving it to me for why I
Speaker 2: should pay eight dollars a month where you know, I
Speaker 2: may get you know, X amount or whatever.
Speaker 3: Dollars to be clear, would not go to me, We
Speaker 3: go to the business.
Speaker 2: But the point being in for all of this is
Speaker 2: that they're trying to use it, I think as a
Speaker 2: monetary tool to incite people who may qualify for the
Speaker 2: program to actually sign up, especially at a time when
Speaker 2: many people are choosing to decide whether they should post
Speaker 2: on Instagram threads or not. But the reason I would
Speaker 2: be skeptical is Crystal, you and I, as business owners,
Speaker 2: we don't care about one time payments. We care about consistency.
Speaker 2: We care about are we going to get paid every month?
Speaker 2: Not just because we need to get paid, but because
Speaker 2: we have multiple people who work for us right over
Speaker 2: on the other side of that wall. To make sure
Speaker 2: we can hit payroll and all the other expenses, So
Speaker 2: is this a one time thing?
Speaker 3: Is this going to be consistent?
Speaker 2: And this is why Elon not telling us the actual
Speaker 2: rates that are being paid here and inventing some scheme
Speaker 2: where it's like only adds serve to verified users. That's
Speaker 2: just it doesn't track to me as a you'll market
Speaker 2: competition based platform of which every other advertising based business
Speaker 2: is run, especially on the Internet for social media.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it feels a little desperate. Yeah, it feels like
Speaker 1: all right, Threads is actually taking a bite out of
Speaker 1: my you know, creators and my traffic and whatever, and
Speaker 1: I'm worried about the threat that is coming from there.
Speaker 1: So let me do something to try to entice creators
Speaker 1: who in many ways he's very antagonistic towards to try
Speaker 1: to entice them to stay on this platform and commit
Speaker 1: to this platform. But the fact that his decision making
Speaker 1: has been so scattershot, so all over the place, so
Speaker 1: ad hoc. He announces one thing, he changes, it, goes
Speaker 1: back on it, whatever. You know, it's already a big
Speaker 1: gamble when you rely on any of these platforms for
Speaker 1: your revenue, which is why we have got you know,
Speaker 1: very strategically tried to make sure that we have multiple
Speaker 1: streams of revenue and that ultimately we really depend on
Speaker 1: you guys and not any tech job. Elon must Mark
Speaker 1: Zuckerberger and one else for the bulk of our revenue.
Speaker 1: Because any of these platforms can change what they're doing
Speaker 1: at a moment's notice. On YouTube, you will recall, while
Speaker 1: back this was before we were in the game, they
Speaker 1: got nervous about political content and they just decided to
Speaker 1: pull all ads from political content just like that overnight.
Speaker 1: They could do that again at a moment's notice. So
Speaker 1: it is always a risk when you're deciding to depend
Speaker 1: on any one of those platforms. So when you add
Speaker 1: on top of that the layer of just erratic behavior
Speaker 1: and decision making and nothing seems thought out, there's no
Speaker 1: policy in place, there's no clear program, it just adds
Speaker 1: an additional level of nervousness that is not much to
Speaker 1: induce a creator to release. Okay, I'm going to make
Speaker 1: my living here, I'm going to depend on this platform.
Speaker 1: I'm going to invest my time and my efforts and
Speaker 1: my creativity into being a creator here because I think
Speaker 1: this program might pay out for me. Like I just
Speaker 1: I think it would be foolish for anyone to bet
Speaker 1: that this would be anything sustaining for them over time.
Speaker 2: No, you're right, I mean and give to give you
Speaker 2: an example of how capricious this is. I did a
Speaker 2: monologue about the sound of Freedom, I think last week.
Speaker 2: As of right now, it's got five hundred and twenty
Speaker 2: five thousand views.
Speaker 3: You and I have not earned one dollar off of
Speaker 3: that video.
Speaker 2: That video should have earned us like a decent sum
Speaker 2: by in terms of creator math.
Speaker 3: And you know, if you're a.
Speaker 2: Normal person, you don't have access to the direct subscription
Speaker 2: program that we've set up here in order to support
Speaker 2: our business. That it takes a lot of work to
Speaker 2: get that amount of views, you know, you never know.
Speaker 2: It's like a one off hit every once in a while,
Speaker 2: probably one of our most popular videos of this month,
Speaker 2: and we did not earn a single cent. So that
Speaker 2: is why you never want to rely on these people
Speaker 2: for the dollars on this program, and why we're so
Speaker 2: lucky to.
Speaker 3: Have you all of you over here.
Speaker 1: All right, tiger, what are you looking at it?
Speaker 11: Well?
Speaker 2: Supreme Court Justice Lewis brandeis famously referred to states as
Speaker 2: the laboratories of democracies in our federalist system. In my opinion,
Speaker 2: it's a great system. Usually, different states have different needs.
Speaker 2: Different states have things that they can try out that
Speaker 2: may succeed or fail. We can scale them for the
Speaker 2: entire nation if they do. The downside of that, though,
Speaker 2: is that in some cases you have to sit by
Speaker 2: and watch as some states, as cherished as they may be,
Speaker 2: chose to go down a very dark path. For all
Speaker 2: the attention that is paid to the school policies of Florida,
Speaker 2: it is always remarkable to me that the nation's most populous,
Speaker 2: most important economic state, California, gets a free pass from
Speaker 2: the media as it radically transforms its entire education system
Speaker 2: in the pursuit of a terrible goal equity. We have
Speaker 2: discussed this concept ad nauseum here, but to define terms
Speaker 2: properly once again is important. Equity is the desire to
Speaker 2: equalize all outcomes between races. Equality of opportunity seeks to
Speaker 2: give each person the same opportunity to succeed without determining
Speaker 2: their outcome.
Speaker 3: Equity has been the go to.
Speaker 2: Solution for California elites in trying to address racial disparities
Speaker 2: with disastrous outcomes. Already, the city of San Francisco over
Speaker 2: the last several years pursued a so called Algebra for
Speaker 2: None program, which limited opportunities for HIGACHIV students in the
Speaker 2: eighth grade to try and give everyone a better shot
Speaker 2: at learning math. Years into the program now, the results
Speaker 2: are unambiguous. The policy did nothing to address racial disparities,
Speaker 2: only sought to limit the opportunity available to high achieving students.
Speaker 2: Rich students simply just had parents pay for outside tutoring,
Speaker 2: which means tax paying citizens with kids who were ready
Speaker 2: for algebra in eighth grade were actively penalized by their government.
Speaker 2: Since obviously this worked so well in San Francisco and
Speaker 2: was so obviously a failure, the State of California has
Speaker 2: decided to roll out a very similar plan to the
Speaker 2: entire state for math curriculum. The new curriculum seeks to
Speaker 2: quote put meaning making at the center of math classrooms
Speaker 2: and encourages quote teachers to make math culturally relevant and
Speaker 2: accessible for all students, especially students of color who have
Speaker 2: been traditionally marginalized in the subject. Okay, so we're talking
Speaker 2: about making math culturally relevant.
Speaker 3: I think I know where this is going.
Speaker 2: The new framework for teaching math effectively discourages organizations or
Speaker 2: instruction on individual standards for math. Instead, the framework outlines
Speaker 2: quote big ideas in mathematics for each grade that are
Speaker 2: designed to drive instruction in theory. This actually sounds nice,
Speaker 2: but in practice, when I actually look deeper, it is
Speaker 2: clear not only to me, but the heads of major
Speaker 2: math departments at prestigious math departments all across the California
Speaker 2: university system that this moves away from objective metrics and
Speaker 2: actual learning. The new curriculum encourages teachers to make math
Speaker 2: more of a venue to talk about social justice and
Speaker 2: to get students to find a quote sense of belonging,
Speaker 2: and in some cases, to sell math to students as
Speaker 2: a way to quote examine inequities and address important issues
Speaker 2: in their lives and communities. Effectively, they're trying to sell
Speaker 2: math as a kid's to kids as a way to
Speaker 2: look at racial disparities, which is I guess true, but
Speaker 2: should also probably just be sold as a tool that
Speaker 2: is able to do pretty much anything that requires metrics
Speaker 2: and help you understand it. Furthermore, calif Fifornia is doing
Speaker 2: a bait and switch here. They are trying to sound
Speaker 2: reasonable but are very nefarious whenever you look into it.
Speaker 2: California schools are loosening admissions criteria, telling high schools that
Speaker 2: they would consider applicants who skipped algebra two, which originally
Speaker 2: was a cornerstone of math instruction and a baseline for
Speaker 2: people who wanted to continue in the university level. In place,
Speaker 2: schools in California are now saying that quote, data science
Speaker 2: is an acceptable replacement.
Speaker 3: But the reason why the.
Speaker 2: Schools in California are pursuing data science as a replacement
Speaker 2: is quote an equity issue, aka, it sends more students
Speaker 2: to college. How the reality is that the coursework itself
Speaker 2: appears to be less challenging and apparently creates less racial disparities.
Speaker 3: So it is the desirable solution.
Speaker 2: We arrived once again at a place where, in the
Speaker 2: name of equity and equal racial outcomes, we are dumbing
Speaker 2: downstandards for everyone and potentially making higher level math even
Speaker 2: less accessible to those who move through the California public
Speaker 2: education system. In fact, eight black faculty members argued to
Speaker 2: the University of California system in May of twenty twenty
Speaker 2: two that pushing data science over algebra two as a
Speaker 2: requirement quote will harm students from such groups by steering
Speaker 2: them away from being prepared for STEM majors. Why because
Speaker 2: they will not have access to the basic skills to
Speaker 2: keep up in class and will simply drop out. They
Speaker 2: will incur more student debt, or they will waste their time,
Speaker 2: and of course not they will actually not fulfill the
Speaker 2: desired outcome, which is more people of color allegedly.
Speaker 3: In these jobs and positions in these fields.
Speaker 2: The toughest part about all of his racial obsessed equity
Speaker 2: advocates in California is they are mixing important rhetoric with
Speaker 2: race and poisoning the well.
Speaker 3: On the one hand, they are not wrong.
Speaker 2: Data is obviously very important in our current society. When
Speaker 2: is the last time that you needed to quote divide
Speaker 2: by a polynomial? Did you really need to do that
Speaker 2: or did you need to understand large data sets their
Speaker 2: interaction with the world to actually get ahead. I totally
Speaker 2: get that on a conceptual level. The problem is that
Speaker 2: the curriculum they're putting forward seems like an awfully convenient
Speaker 2: way to get more desired minority groups into the University
Speaker 2: of California education system. And it also seems that by
Speaker 2: the talking point is to instead cover for a new
Speaker 2: affirmative action regime. Furthermore, to the black professor's point who
Speaker 2: dissented from this decision, the single most important thing that
Speaker 2: publication can do is give people a chance.
Speaker 3: Rich kids will always be fine, as they.
Speaker 2: Were in San Francisco, no matter what the school is,
Speaker 2: what they're doing. They will have tutors, prep courses, and
Speaker 2: they will have a culture that emphasizes learning. Public education
Speaker 2: should remain a place that demands rigorous standards in the
Speaker 2: name of both preparing better citizens, but also giving opportunities
Speaker 2: to ascend to higher social strata that people would never
Speaker 2: have had the chance if they did not attend that school.
Speaker 2: Asian kids of doctors and engineers, they've got no problems
Speaker 2: continuing those fields.
Speaker 3: But people of.
Speaker 2: Other races whose parents early completed high school have no
Speaker 2: idea what to do. It is the public education system's
Speaker 2: job to give them an actual opportunity and not think
Speaker 2: less of them by dumbing down standards and setting them
Speaker 2: up to fail, or just as bad, punishing high achieving
Speaker 2: students by actively discriminating against them. We are taking a
Speaker 2: major step back as a society if we go down
Speaker 2: this route. One hundred years ago, public education was a
Speaker 2: joke for poor people, while the elites ensconce themselves in
Speaker 2: boarding and finishing schools. There was little to no opportunity
Speaker 2: to actually ascend social rank absent very few outliers. The
Speaker 2: more public education becomes untenable for people with means, they
Speaker 2: will simply exit the system. They will segregate themselves further
Speaker 2: and diminish the cross class mingling, which is vital in
Speaker 2: our society and diminishes the ability to do better in life.
Speaker 2: Maybe that is a plan after all, But if it's not,
Speaker 2: we need to turn towards this equality of opportunity to
Speaker 2: give everyone an actual equal shot instead of trying to
Speaker 2: equalize everyone. I'm curious what you think, Chrystal. You've got
Speaker 2: kids in the public educations.
Speaker 1: And if you want to hear my reaction to Sager's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot.
Speaker 2: Com, Cristal, what are you taking a look at?
Speaker 1: Well? The first major war has broken out between human
Speaker 1: beings and artificial intelligence. Now, this opening skirmish is at
Speaker 1: the core of the complete Hollywood shutdown, as actors have
Speaker 1: now joined writers on the picket lines. This strike, which
Speaker 1: is the first of its kinds since Ronald Reagan was
Speaker 1: head of the Screen Actors Guild. Asager pointed out, it's
Speaker 1: extraordinary for its breadth and for how it will impact
Speaker 1: all of our favorite shows and movies. But while the
Speaker 1: grievances are at their core typical workers' concerns of wages,
Speaker 1: working conditions, and fair treatment, the way that tech is
Speaker 1: upending this entire industry has emerged as a key concern
Speaker 1: for both the writers and the actors that are involved here.
Speaker 1: Just take a listen to SAG after President fran Dresher
Speaker 1: on why their members overwhelmingly felt compelled to strike.
Speaker 10: The entire business model has been changed by streaming digital AI.
Speaker 10: This is a moment of history, that is a moment
Speaker 10: of truth. If we don't stand tall right now, we
Speaker 10: are all going to be in trouble. We are all
Speaker 10: going to be in jeopardy of being replaced by machines
Speaker 10: and big business who cares more about Wall Street than
Speaker 10: you and your family.
Speaker 1: In an interview on MSNBC, she went into even greater
Speaker 1: depth about some of the specific AI proposals that the
Speaker 1: union had so recoiled that just take a listen.
Speaker 11: There are things that they want to have our background
Speaker 11: performers work one day for and get scanned for AI,
Speaker 11: and then they own the likeness of the person digitally,
Speaker 11: and they could use them over and over again. What
Speaker 11: is going to happen to that hardworking background person. They're
Speaker 11: going to be out of business. This is the kind
Speaker 11: of thing that's happening all over the world.
Speaker 1: The issues that are being brought up are so novel,
Speaker 1: and yet in some ways the struggle is the same.
Speaker 3: As it ever was.
Speaker 1: So just to give you a little bit of context here,
Speaker 1: according to the Actors' Union, Hollywood studios want to be
Speaker 1: able to scan actors in order to create AI replicas,
Speaker 1: which those studios could then use for whatever they want,
Speaker 1: literally forever. Now, if that's true, that proposal would completely
Speaker 1: destroy the livelihoods of many actors who depend on background
Speaker 1: work in order to make ends meet. Would basically be
Speaker 1: the end of movie extras. Remember, the overwhelming majority of
Speaker 1: actors are not the superstar, multimillionaire celebrities that become household names.
Speaker 1: They are more likely to be the background actors who
Speaker 1: are living paycheck to paycheck, but who are still a
Speaker 1: key part of making your favorite show or film. Now,
Speaker 1: the studios did push back on this characterization, saying the
Speaker 1: current proposal would only allow the AI scans to be
Speaker 1: used on that particular production for which the background actor
Speaker 1: is employed. Would be really disastrous for them, and apparently
Speaker 1: this tech is already being deployed in the industry. Actress
Speaker 1: Lina Hall wrote on Twitter quote, So Snowpairs for season
Speaker 1: four did a full body scan and full range of
Speaker 1: emotion capture of all the series regulars on the show,
Speaker 1: not ever telling us the real reason why. Now I
Speaker 1: know why, and it's really disturbing because I did not consent.
Speaker 1: Writers are also striking in part over AI concerns. They
Speaker 1: fear that in a world where streaming networks are desperate
Speaker 1: to churn out just as much content as they possibly
Speaker 1: can as quickly as possible, studios could turn to AI
Speaker 1: to cut writers out of the process as much as
Speaker 1: they can. According to The Independent Quote, members of the
Speaker 1: Writers Guild of America WGA shared concerns that producers may
Speaker 1: seek to use AI to write scripts, or at least
Speaker 1: use the technology to complete unfinished screenplayers plays, and have
Speaker 1: also urged production houses to agree to safeguards around its usage.
Speaker 1: Screenwriters fear AI could be used to churn out a
Speaker 1: rough first draft with a few simp prompts, and writers
Speaker 1: may then be hired after this initial step to punch
Speaker 1: such drafts up, albeit at a lower pay rate. These
Speaker 1: concerns expose the techno optimist lie that AI will create
Speaker 1: more jobs than it destroys. Thousands of background actors could
Speaker 1: be put out of work. How many coders will it
Speaker 1: take to program their likenesses into the background? Handful maybe,
Speaker 1: And the job of writer might remain, but it will
Speaker 1: be degraded so that they will effectively be assistance to
Speaker 1: the bots cleaning up the drafts that AI turns out.
Speaker 1: And what's true for this industry is going to be
Speaker 1: true for many, many more, because bosses are always going
Speaker 1: to look for ways to use fewer workers. Workers are expensive,
Speaker 1: they have rights, and there's at least some limitations on
Speaker 1: how much you're allowed to exploit them. Bots they never
Speaker 1: talk back, they never need time off, and they require
Speaker 1: no humanity. If the country only cares about profits for
Speaker 1: the top, human beings could become truly disposable. That's to
Speaker 1: say nothing of the way that Hollywood has already been
Speaker 1: degraded and stripped of beauty, risk taking, and creativity by
Speaker 1: the demand to place the safest, most market palatable bet. Now,
Speaker 1: you may not think that this fight has a lot
Speaker 1: to do with you and then creating an annoyance as
Speaker 1: your favorite show production is delayed. You may think that
Speaker 1: these Hollywood stars and starlits have nothing in common with
Speaker 1: you and our privileged to even have the ability to
Speaker 1: complain about all of this. And you know what, there's
Speaker 1: some truth to that. After all. It is their prominence,
Speaker 1: combined with their union power, by the way, which is
Speaker 1: the only thing that even gives them a chance to
Speaker 1: push back on any of this. But this is just
Speaker 1: the beginning. Automation has already come for blue collar America.
Speaker 1: Now it's coming for white collar workers too. Everyone now
Speaker 1: has an interest in seeing the shared threat to their
Speaker 1: livelihoods and supporting one another in these struggles that will
Speaker 1: draw new lines in the sand of what is acceptable
Speaker 1: and what is immoral in this new landscape. Bottom line,
Speaker 1: technology should benefit human beings, not destroy their lives. Because
Speaker 1: in this future that we are just catching a glimpse of,
Speaker 1: it's not that people will become wholly irrelevant. It's that
Speaker 1: the gulf between the haves and have nots will become
Speaker 1: ever greater as the owner class separation it's more and
Speaker 1: more from the labor class. It's that every last sector
Speaker 1: of our lives will be colonized, commoditized for profit. And
Speaker 1: if this brave new world can come for Hollywood stars
Speaker 1: and starlits, what chance do ordinary people ultimately stand? And
Speaker 1: I think this is a very telling saga of where
Speaker 1: all of these fights are here.
Speaker 2: And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue,
Speaker 2: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 3: Joining us now is Doug Demiro.
Speaker 2: He is a car YouTuber, a very popular host of
Speaker 2: his channel over there, which will have a link on
Speaker 2: the description.
Speaker 3: Doug, it's great to see you. Thank you so much
Speaker 3: for joining us.
Speaker 4: Thank you for having me.
Speaker 3: I appreciate it absolutely so.
Speaker 2: We have an audience very interested in use cars. We've
Speaker 2: been tracking it in terms of the economy. It's a
Speaker 2: key benchmark really of the ability for middle class life
Speaker 2: and others to have accessibility.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: We have some interesting price movement in the used car market,
Speaker 2: used ev prices actually collapsing. Tesla being the reason why
Speaker 2: we know this is a space that you are particularly
Speaker 2: very interested in. What's your sense of the used car
Speaker 2: market and how it's interacting with evs right now.
Speaker 12: Well, I think the used car market in general finally
Speaker 12: seems to be slowing down a little bit after a
Speaker 12: long long time as everyone has seen of crazy prices
Speaker 12: and enormously high demand and low supply. Frankly, but electric
Speaker 12: vehicles specifically do seem to be falling more than others.
Speaker 12: I think there's a lot of different reasons for this.
Speaker 12: One big factor is Tesla, who's of course, like the
Speaker 12: biggest electric vehicle providers, still the biggest manufacturer. You know,
Speaker 12: they've had some price cuts as supply has more caught
Speaker 12: up with demand. They've kind of lowered their prices of
Speaker 12: their new vehicles, which has in turn driven down, you know,
Speaker 12: pricing for used vehicles as people could just go buy
Speaker 12: new ones. But I think there's more factors that play also.
Speaker 12: Gas prices are not what they were, you know, six
Speaker 12: months or a year ago.
Speaker 4: They've come down a little bit. That helps some relief
Speaker 4: that you know, provides a little relief.
Speaker 12: And I think, you know, supply and demand are finally
Speaker 12: catching up a little bit.
Speaker 4: Of course, there's interest rate. It's a lot of different factors.
Speaker 1: Yeah, can you take us through a little bit of
Speaker 1: the story of the broad used car market, because this
Speaker 1: ended up being a really key driver of inflation. Was
Speaker 1: something that we have been tracking here really closely because
Speaker 1: these prices, both of new and used cars, but used
Speaker 1: in particular, were really out of control. Was it just
Speaker 1: supply chain issues or what was the story of what
Speaker 1: was going on there?
Speaker 12: If I were to sum it up in sort of
Speaker 12: the biggest component of it, I would say that supply
Speaker 12: chain issues was certainly the largest factory. You know, when
Speaker 12: COVID happened, a lot of automakers shut down production facilities.
Speaker 4: Thinking that no one was going to buy their cars.
Speaker 12: And then production facilities were kind of forced to shut
Speaker 12: down because they weren't able to produce during COVID because
Speaker 12: of you know, people being close together, et cetera. And
Speaker 12: that really put automakers behind. When then interest rates went
Speaker 12: way down and demand went way up. And so when
Speaker 12: demand is really high for new cars and the new
Speaker 12: cars don't exist, of course people then turned to used
Speaker 12: cars to go and buy them, and that drove used
Speaker 12: car prices absolutely through the roof.
Speaker 4: And so that was a big factor.
Speaker 12: But then you have the other factor of you've had
Speaker 12: basically two years of very limited new car production, and
Speaker 12: so we're seeing in terms of you know, lease returns
Speaker 12: coming back and trade ins. There was just like almost
Speaker 12: a hole for the twenty twenty into twenty twenty two
Speaker 12: model years where there weren't as many cars made, and
Speaker 12: that's going to have a ripple effect on used car
Speaker 12: prices for a while, even though we're starting to see
Speaker 12: it kind of tape.
Speaker 3: Off right, Doug.
Speaker 2: Something some of my favorite videos that I've done is
Speaker 2: about assessing the worth of an actual car. Some of
Speaker 2: these are supercars, which are definitely fun to aspirationally watch.
Speaker 2: I'm sure that's why they're so popular. But what goes
Speaker 2: into assessing the worth of a car of a normal
Speaker 2: car that you or you know, a normal person might drive.
Speaker 2: Somebody is like, I need something to get to work
Speaker 2: back and forth. How do they have to think about
Speaker 2: it in this changing market right now?
Speaker 4: I guess it's kind of based.
Speaker 12: Largely on how much do you need or want a
Speaker 12: vehicle at the moment, right when parks are really cheap
Speaker 12: and supply is huge and you can get a great deal.
Speaker 12: Some people think nothing of Hey, I've had my car
Speaker 12: for a year, so I'm going to go trade into
Speaker 12: a different car. Whatever, you know, it's ten grand off,
Speaker 12: it doesn't matter. But in today's world, it's more like,
Speaker 12: oh my god, cars are so expensive and interest rates
Speaker 12: are so high. You know, I don't want to trade
Speaker 12: up my car unless I've had been in an accident
Speaker 12: and desperately need a new vehicle, or my family has
Speaker 12: grown and I need a van or an suv, And so,
Speaker 12: you know, in terms of assessing like what a car
Speaker 12: is worth, it almost becomes a question of what it
Speaker 12: is worth to someone, and it becomes a question of
Speaker 12: what you know their personal circumstances. Is it really worth
Speaker 12: paying a thousand, five thousand dollars over the sticker price
Speaker 12: for a Honda Odyssey? You know, people made those decisions
Speaker 12: a couple of years ago about a necessity.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And what are some of the factors that are
Speaker 1: contributing to prices now coming back to earth and being
Speaker 1: more in line with whatever normalcy is.
Speaker 12: I think that there's a lot of different factors now.
Speaker 12: I think supply is finally catching up with demand. Automakers
Speaker 12: are kind of back producing again, and a lot of
Speaker 12: now not all, but a lot of car companies have
Speaker 12: been able to bring things back to a relatively more
Speaker 12: normal inventory level, so new cars are more available. But
Speaker 12: I think actually a huge component of it, just like
Speaker 12: in housing, is interest rates. You know, it was one
Speaker 12: thing when you could go and finance a car at
Speaker 12: zero percent or at one percent, a lot of people
Speaker 12: again thought not much of doing that. When things are
Speaker 12: seven eight percent, when automate are offering deals at five percent,
Speaker 12: then you see it becomes a.
Speaker 4: Little bit less, it becomes a little bit harder to
Speaker 4: go and justify that to yourself.
Speaker 12: I think that's having some downward pressure on the car
Speaker 12: market as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and one thing we've tracked is all sorts of
Speaker 1: personal debt measures are up. Credit card debt is you know,
Speaker 1: is massive at this point. Are you seeing the same
Speaker 1: thing in terms of car financing.
Speaker 12: I've generally heard that that's that that's been true that
Speaker 12: car financing and car debt has been sort of at.
Speaker 4: Higher higher levels.
Speaker 12: I mean, sticker prices of cars have continued to go up,
Speaker 12: and as we saw over the last couple of years,
Speaker 12: there was that an enormous amount of you know, deals
Speaker 12: to be had in the car world, so people were
Speaker 12: financing larger and larger percentages of cars in terms of
Speaker 12: like their values, and so I think that that certainly
Speaker 12: has has happened as well.
Speaker 3: My last question really focuses on electric vehicles.
Speaker 2: We've seen an explosion in the market, even anecdotally. I
Speaker 2: see Rivians on the road now, I see some BMW
Speaker 2: electric cars.
Speaker 3: I've seen a Kia, the Hyundai, the Tesla.
Speaker 2: Obviously, as we see increasing penetration along with what we're
Speaker 2: seeing in terms of subsidies and all that, what's your
Speaker 2: general sense of where the EV market will go? Do
Speaker 2: you think that we'll see the price continue to come down,
Speaker 2: become even more accessible to the middle class and the
Speaker 2: lower middle class, Like how far away are we away
Speaker 2: from it becoming a standard vehicle that a normal person
Speaker 2: will consider even as their first car with limited finances.
Speaker 12: That's a great question. I mean, I think that's one
Speaker 12: of the big questions right now in the car industry
Speaker 12: in general, because, as you're kind of implying between BMW
Speaker 12: and Rivian and Tesla, most of the electric cars that
Speaker 12: have been on the market so far have been higher
Speaker 12: end vehicles, and so, yeah, will they become more mainstream?
Speaker 4: Sure? When will that happen? I think that's like the
Speaker 4: big question.
Speaker 12: It's certainly coming down more and more between the Model
Speaker 12: threes and yeah, the Kiev six, the hundae Onic five
Speaker 12: cars and the forty to fifty thousand dollars price point,
Speaker 12: but it's still not ubiquitous. And I think the charging
Speaker 12: infrastructure is a component of that. When are people going
Speaker 12: to be able to get chargers to street parking, to
Speaker 12: apartments that kind of thing. That's a factor, But I
Speaker 12: think it'll be still some years away before you see
Speaker 12: just full widespread adoption of electric vehicles.
Speaker 4: I don't think we're quite there yet.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I think that the charging infrastructure, to me
Speaker 1: is the biggest piece. I have an electric vehicle, so
Speaker 1: does Soccer. But I would not want to only have
Speaker 1: an electric vehicle because for long road trips and things,
Speaker 1: I just you know, I would be nervous about being
Speaker 1: able to make all of that work. Doug, so great
Speaker 1: to have you. Thank you so much for your insights.
Speaker 1: We really enjoyed talking to you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we'd love to have you back, Doug.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Yeah, definitely, thanks for having me.
Speaker 2: All Right, guys, we'll see you later. We've got a
Speaker 2: fun candidate interview coming up which'll post later today for
Speaker 2: our previous subscribers. I think you're going to want to
Speaker 2: take a look at that, so check your inbox.
Speaker 3: We'll see you guys later