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 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 2: Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday. We have a great show
Speaker 2: for everybody today. But of course we have the statness
Speaker 2: going on right now with Hurricane Milton making landfall, but
Speaker 2: we are going to cover that and we're going to
Speaker 2: get to a lot of other political stuff as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. All eyes certainly on Florida right now
Speaker 1: as residents there are waking up to scenes of mass devastations,
Speaker 1: So we'll bring you everything we know about that storm
Speaker 1: and the chaos that it is wrought in that state.
Speaker 1: Were also are going to take a look at some
Speaker 1: of the political news coming out. We have some new
Speaker 1: data on a rare Republican advantage in voter self identification
Speaker 1: and what that could mean for twenty twenty four. Also,
Speaker 1: take you look at Trump went on Sager's friend Andrew
Speaker 1: Schultz's podcast, and the results are actually pretty interesting. We'll
Speaker 1: share you with you some of those clips. Mark Cuban
Speaker 1: is joining the war against Lena Khan. Bernie Sanders and
Speaker 1: AOC are diving into that as well, so we'll intra
Speaker 1: party fight there. As Kamala continues to be silent about
Speaker 1: whether or not she would keep Lena Khan, who's the
Speaker 1: head of the FTC and has been quite aggressive about
Speaker 1: challenging corporate power, probably the best, the best bureaucrat in
Speaker 1: the Biden administration, Kamala's can continue to be silent about
Speaker 1: whether or not she would keep her on board. We're
Speaker 1: also keeping her eyes on the Middle East. BB apparently
Speaker 1: spoke with Joe Biden. We are still waiting whatever that
Speaker 1: attack on Iran is going to be. You have Galant
Speaker 1: giving some indications of what it might look like. A
Speaker 1: Fox News reporter also sparking some backlash from the right
Speaker 1: after making sympathetic comments for Palestinian journalists. Will show you
Speaker 1: that clip, and there's some UFO stuff that Sager's going
Speaker 1: to explain to me into all of you as well.
Speaker 2: Immaculate Constellation that's the only thing that you need to
Speaker 2: know and get to the hurricane.
Speaker 1: So, guys, we are just getting our first look at
Speaker 1: the damage wrought by Hurricane Milton, which slammed into Florida
Speaker 1: as a Category three hurricane. It had previously been as
Speaker 1: high as category five, escalating rapidly within a single day
Speaker 1: from a tropical storm to a category five hurricane with
Speaker 1: winds so strong that actually they're contemplating adding another category
Speaker 1: category six to deal with storms of this strength fueled
Speaker 1: by incredibly hot waters in the Gulf of Mexico. There,
Speaker 1: we can go ahead and put up some of the
Speaker 1: images that we've gathered to show you this morning, so
Speaker 1: you can just see the torrential rain and the palm
Speaker 1: trees blowing in that incredible wind. This appears to be
Speaker 1: some transformers that are blowing. This was I believe this
Speaker 1: was from some Weather Channel footage. This was I believe
Speaker 1: where Jim Canty was in a parking garage, and you
Speaker 1: can see the way that the storm surge flooded many
Speaker 1: areas of Florida. Three million residents this morning without power,
Speaker 1: and part of what was so dangerous here too is
Speaker 1: you can see this tornado. There were many tornadoes across
Speaker 1: the state. Some people were killed by those tornadoes. This
Speaker 1: is a look at Tropicana Field and the roof was
Speaker 1: torn off. This is a crane that was blown off
Speaker 1: of the roof of a building here right outside of
Speaker 1: the Tampa Bay Times. Very very dangerous because you actually
Speaker 1: you know reporters who were there at the Times building
Speaker 1: trying to do their job and cover this hurricane. When
Speaker 1: this crane comes down. I also have a lot of
Speaker 1: questions about why you leave a crane up when you're
Speaker 1: facing a Category three hurricane. But what we know this
Speaker 1: morning is that the flooding is incredibly substantial. We know
Speaker 1: that some unknown number of people lost their lives because
Speaker 1: they were killed by tornadoes. We know a few people
Speaker 1: were killed by tornadoes in a retirement community. We know
Speaker 1: that there are three million people who lost power as
Speaker 1: a result of this. And in advance, there was a
Speaker 1: huge effort to evacuate as many people as possible from Florida,
Speaker 1: because if you looked at the track of this thing,
Speaker 1: which hit the west coast of Florida near Sarasota and
Speaker 1: then traveled across the state, it was a good a
Speaker 1: large portion of the state, almost the entirety of the
Speaker 1: state that was impacted in one way or another by
Speaker 1: Hurricane Milton. This also coming, as we know, on the
Speaker 1: heels of Hurricane Helen. Some of these places were still
Speaker 1: cleaning up and hadn't recovered from Helene, and less than
Speaker 1: two weeks later hit by another brutally strong storm that
Speaker 1: was again fueled by those very warm waters in the
Speaker 1: Gulf of Mexico. So, you know, we're still still getting
Speaker 1: a sense of just how much devastation and damage here
Speaker 1: and what the death toel will ultimately be.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what's really crazy is all those tornadoes that also
Speaker 2: ripped Florida at the same time. So I have the
Speaker 2: numbers here in front of me. There were one hundred
Speaker 2: and sixteen tornado warnings that were issued across the state,
Speaker 2: including far away on the different side of the coast.
Speaker 2: I'm not exactly sure why, whatever, something to do with
Speaker 2: barometric pressure, etc. But nearly one hundred and twenty five
Speaker 2: homes were destroyed. A lot of these were areas that
Speaker 2: didn't actually expect, you know, to be hit by the
Speaker 2: hurricane or were kind of less of an impact, and
Speaker 2: so they were pretty surprised by all of that happening.
Speaker 2: But so far, I mean the damage still well a
Speaker 2: damage in Saint Petersburg and in some of these other areas.
Speaker 2: The initial stormstters that was indicated was almost like six
Speaker 2: to seven feet that came through, So I mean that's
Speaker 2: just devastating for a lot of the homes and the
Speaker 2: other areas. It's still very early in the morning, so
Speaker 2: we don't have like a full account, but you know,
Speaker 2: people are going to have to return. There's going to
Speaker 2: have to be quite a lot of rebuilding, especially in
Speaker 2: a lot of those downtown areas. Florida authorities and others
Speaker 2: are already preparing for the influx of people coming back
Speaker 2: and seeming to prepare, so I think it's going to
Speaker 2: be a days and perhaps like a week's even years
Speaker 2: long thing, you know, to recover the area.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there were some people who had fled from the
Speaker 1: inland devastation of Hurricane Helene to some of these areas
Speaker 1: in Florida and then had to evacuate and flee again
Speaker 1: because of this storm. It reminds me a little bit
Speaker 1: of you know, I don't know if you guys recall
Speaker 1: after Katrina hit famously in Louisiana New Orleans area, a
Speaker 1: lot of people fled to Texasca. I'm sure you remember this.
Speaker 1: And then Hurricane Rita hits and devastates areas of Texas,
Speaker 1: and you know, they're left once again fleeing and trying
Speaker 1: to preserve their lives and their livelihoods and their possessions.
Speaker 1: Just to echo what you were saying about the storm
Speaker 1: surge and the amount of water here truly astonishing. So
Speaker 1: this is from Matthew Capucci. He says, this is insane.
Speaker 1: Saint Petersburg. He's an atmospheric scientist, by the way, In
Speaker 1: self described stormchaser, Saint Petersburg has reported five point h
Speaker 1: nine inches of rain in one hour, more than five
Speaker 1: inches of rain in a single hour, and nine inches
Speaker 1: in three hours. He says that is actually more rare
Speaker 1: than a one thousand year rain event. So just wrap
Speaker 1: your head around the fact that we had two storms
Speaker 1: in a two weeks time period that were one in
Speaker 1: one thousand year events, or at least they previously were.
Speaker 1: And you know, of course, you can't say exactly how
Speaker 1: much is climate change and how much is just you know,
Speaker 1: things that happened during hurricane season. But every meteorologist seems
Speaker 1: to indicate that the exceptionally warm waters in the Gulf
Speaker 1: of Mexico are part of what contributed to the strength
Speaker 1: and ultimate devastation of both of these storms. And so
Speaker 1: in a lot of ways, this is sort of, you know,
Speaker 1: the devastating new normal. You already have a situation in
Speaker 1: Florida that we've covered before, Soger, where insurance you can't
Speaker 1: in certain parts of Florida, in certain areas, you literally
Speaker 1: cannot get homeowners insurance. So Florida while it's seeing you know,
Speaker 1: huge population boom, a lot of people moving to the
Speaker 1: state because they like some of the you know, the
Speaker 1: polite policies, they like the quality of life, they like
Speaker 1: the sunshine and the ocean, all of that. Then not
Speaker 1: only is housing of course expensive everywhere and expensive in Florida,
Speaker 1: but then you're hit with this additional massive cost for
Speaker 1: homeowners insurance if you can even get it. This is
Speaker 1: going to continue to be an escalating problem. I know
Speaker 1: some of these insurers dropped another several hundred thousand customers
Speaker 1: from their policies. The state really has no idea how
Speaker 1: to handle this, doesn't have the money or sufficient funds
Speaker 1: in order to themselves run a home owner's insurance market
Speaker 1: for areas that are essentially uninsurable. Now, so that's sort of,
Speaker 1: you know, some of the longer term projection. Here soccer
Speaker 1: was talking about the tornadoes. Let's go and put a
Speaker 1: three up on the screen. This gives you a sense
Speaker 1: of how many tornadoes were cited and hit Florida as
Speaker 1: a consequence of Hurricane Milton. So the National Weather Service
Speaker 1: issued about one hundred tornado warnings between noon and sea
Speaker 1: yesterday in Florida, at least twenty reports of sightings and damage.
Speaker 1: And as I mentioned before, usually with hurricanes, it's not
Speaker 1: uncommon that you have tornadoes that spin up as a
Speaker 1: result of hurricanes or storms in general. But apparently I
Speaker 1: was reading this morning that these were exceptionally strong. Usually
Speaker 1: the tornadoes that you get associated with hurricanes are relatively
Speaker 1: weak and Pete arount quickly. These were exceptionally strong, and
Speaker 1: we know, as I said before, that they claimed some
Speaker 1: number of lives. We're not sure how many at this point.
Speaker 1: So that was part of what caused so much damage
Speaker 1: and devastation in the state in advance of the hurricane. Yesterday,
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris took the opportunity actually to call into the
Speaker 1: Weather Channel and to explain to people what benefits were
Speaker 1: available for them, and also notably to issue a warning
Speaker 1: to would be price gouchers about taking advantage of people's desperation.
Speaker 1: Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 4: There are federal resources you are in hide to receive
Speaker 4: without conditions, and there are resources that are available to
Speaker 4: you to deal with what you need right now to
Speaker 4: for example, get money to be able to fill your
Speaker 4: prescriptions and deal with a hotel expense and help you
Speaker 4: recover over the longer term. The other point I would
Speaker 4: make is this, and I've done this work in my career. Sadly,
Speaker 4: there are some folks who during the moment of a
Speaker 4: crisis will be very predatory and start jacking up prices
Speaker 4: like gasoline or hotels or airlines to take advantage of
Speaker 4: the desperation people experiencing. So to anybody who's thinking about
Speaker 4: jacket up those prices those companies they are thinking about
Speaker 4: doing it, know that we are monitoring and we're launching
Speaker 4: and if there is that kind of price gouging, that
Speaker 4: there will be a consequence for that, because it's just
Speaker 4: wrong to take advantage of people who are desperate for help,
Speaker 4: and so know that we're watching that as well.
Speaker 1: So using natural disasters and hurricanes as for political purpose
Speaker 1: in age old age old pursue.
Speaker 3: I was going to say, we're in it right now.
Speaker 2: Ron DeSantis just went on television this morning because there's
Speaker 2: been this whole like beef between It was like Kamala
Speaker 2: called DeSantis and apparently he was like, I'm not going
Speaker 2: to take the call. And then actually, Kamala's advisors are
Speaker 2: very upset right now with Joe Biden because Biden was like, oh, he's.
Speaker 3: Doing a great job.
Speaker 2: Ron Santas De Santas and Biden apparently have been on
Speaker 2: the phone.
Speaker 1: The Santas also compliment in Biden's yes.
Speaker 2: Compliment Biden. He's like, well, Biden's actually the president. I
Speaker 2: mean he does have a point, he went on televiend,
Speaker 2: I mean, what does the.
Speaker 1: Vice president really have to do anything? And we're being honest, Yeah.
Speaker 2: All the storms I've dealt with under this administration, she
Speaker 2: has never called into Florida or offered any support. She's
Speaker 2: trying to inject herself into this because of her political campaign.
Speaker 2: I also read that Kama advisors were furious that Biden
Speaker 2: took the podium at the press briefing because it kind
Speaker 2: of I believe there was like a counter programming going
Speaker 2: on because she had had some event that she was
Speaker 2: participating in. So, yes, the political maschinations behind the hurricane
Speaker 2: are alive, and well almost certainly we'll see it too
Speaker 2: with visits. You maybe separate visits by Kamala and Biden
Speaker 2: in to view the destruction. That's another time honored tradition
Speaker 2: for Presidents Trump as well in terms of how they
Speaker 2: decide to respond. But you know, overall, I would just hope,
Speaker 2: especially that Florida can do what North Carolina's done now
Speaker 2: so far, North Carolina in general actually seems quite committed
Speaker 2: to being like, hey, we're temporarily going to make sure
Speaker 2: that people who were at displays can be able to vote.
Speaker 2: We're going to figure this out, set up precincts, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Let's set have the same thing for Florida. Let's try
Speaker 2: not with us at least, you know, make it too political,
Speaker 2: and let's just make sure people in Tampas, Sarrisota, et cetera,
Speaker 2: come home, rebuild. Definitely thinking about that insurance thing. In fact,
Speaker 2: this could be a landmark moment in the history of
Speaker 2: insurance because we're going to find out just how much
Speaker 2: the devastation is, whether that state backed insurance company has
Speaker 2: the funds and is able to meet those goals. It
Speaker 2: could require billions of bailout from the federal government, which
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: It's complicated because we.
Speaker 2: Got California and Florida, two of the most popular states
Speaker 2: in the entire Union, who now basically are unensurable from
Speaker 2: wildfires and from hurricanes. And then is the federal government's
Speaker 2: going to backstop that? Like how does it work?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 3: You know, it's a crazy system. I don't know. I'm
Speaker 3: up two minds.
Speaker 2: You know, they both create a ton for the economy,
Speaker 2: both Florida and California, and massive GDP and you know
Speaker 2: benefit to the nation. But it's also kind of crazy,
Speaker 2: you know, if the government's coming to bail you out
Speaker 2: every single time that there is a storm or wildfire.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean Also what Florida doesn't have an income tax,
Speaker 1: They have no one, so it's like, yeah, so they
Speaker 1: don't tax their people and then they whatever the rest
Speaker 1: of the country you pick up the tab for.
Speaker 2: Actually, in fact, to be fair, ye, the way that
Speaker 2: they make all their money is because people go to
Speaker 2: Florida for they charge these exorbitant like hotel and visitors taxes,
Speaker 2: so America is paying for it no matter what. That's
Speaker 2: how they make all their revenue. Every time they go
Speaker 2: to Disney World, you pay the state with Florida. So
Speaker 2: I don't know, well the O.
Speaker 1: The other thing is that you know the the risk
Speaker 1: is accelerated, or you know, is higher in certain parts
Speaker 1: of the country. Certainly you think about your Florida, I
Speaker 1: think about California wildfires. Colorado is another place that suffers
Speaker 1: from wildfires. But I think one of the things we
Speaker 1: learned from Halllene is that really nowhere it is safe.
Speaker 1: You know, if you were living in Asheville, North Carolina,
Speaker 1: western North Carolina, in Appalachia, you were not thinking that
Speaker 1: a hurricane was going to come through and destroy everything
Speaker 1: that you have ever known and loved, Like that was
Speaker 1: not on your radar whatsoever. In fact, there were articles
Speaker 1: about people who moved to Asheville specifically because they thought
Speaker 1: this was a quote unquote climate change haven where they
Speaker 1: weren't going to be impacted. And so, you know, it's
Speaker 1: very hard to predict the impact that you're going to
Speaker 1: have from these storms and these increasingly regular extreme events. Again,
Speaker 1: these two storms back to back, both one in one
Speaker 1: thousand year occurrences that now are just happening on you know,
Speaker 1: a weekly basis, and we'll see what the rest of
Speaker 1: hurricane season has in store for us. But you know,
Speaker 1: right now, we're just praying for the people who are
Speaker 1: there in Florida and praying for a quick recovery and
Speaker 1: that the loss of life in particular is as minimal
Speaker 1: as absolutely possible. I think I hope that most people
Speaker 1: heeded the calls to evacuate, which were quite strenuous. I
Speaker 1: know you and Ryan covered what was it, the Tampa
Speaker 1: mayor lay the first day you will die, so please leave.
Speaker 1: So hopefully most people heeded those calls and were able
Speaker 1: to survive this farm.
Speaker 2: Like I said on that show, Florida it's either one,
Speaker 2: number two or number three state that listens to breaking points.
Speaker 2: So to all of our people out there there you go,
Speaker 2: we love you, Thank you about you safe.
Speaker 1: So we continue to get really interesting indications out of
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty four race. Harrenton, who really has done
Speaker 1: a good job crunching the numbers over at CNN, did
Speaker 1: a segment recently about just how close this race is,
Speaker 1: which has been kind of the steady state for a
Speaker 1: number of weeks. Now, let's take a listen to what
Speaker 1: he had to say.
Speaker 5: How much for the state pole averages miss by all
Speaker 5: right ridge error since nineteen hundred and seventy two in
Speaker 5: the close races in those battleground states, we've been looking
Speaker 5: at three point four points, three point four points every
Speaker 5: single state, All seven of those key battleground states are
Speaker 5: within three point four points. What's the chance for an
Speaker 5: even larger err You know, we talk about the margin
Speaker 5: of error, right, So what is that ninety five percent
Speaker 5: confidence interval? What is that true margin of error? Five
Speaker 5: percent of errors in state polling averages are off by
Speaker 5: more off by more than nine point four points.
Speaker 3: These battleground states are well within that.
Speaker 5: I want you to remember this number because the bottom
Speaker 5: line is this race is going to be too close
Speaker 5: to call almost certainly all the way till election day.
Speaker 5: It's definitely going to be within this interval, and it's
Speaker 5: most likely going to be within this interval. So the
Speaker 5: bottom line is the state polling averages tell us. What
Speaker 5: it tells us is it's just a race that is
Speaker 5: too close to call.
Speaker 1: I mean It makes a lot of Sun Soccer. When
Speaker 1: you look at the Trump era, you have twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: extremely close election, twenty eighteen midterms, very close election, twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: extremely closed election twenty twenty two. You know, Democrats did
Speaker 1: what that was a weird one because you add Democrats
Speaker 1: doing really well in certain states and then Republican surging
Speaker 1: in Florida and New York in particular. Nate Cohne over
Speaker 1: the New York Times, his theory of the case is
Speaker 1: basically that the election is shaping up to look a
Speaker 1: lot like the twenty twenty two midterms. That would have
Speaker 1: huge implications also for the popular vote advantage in electoral
Speaker 1: college advantage that the Republicans have. It would actually narrow
Speaker 1: that gap. But the bottom line is that if the
Speaker 1: polls are off three points in one way, you get
Speaker 1: a Trump landslide in terms of the electoral college. If
Speaker 1: they're off three points the other way, you get a
Speaker 1: Kamala landslide in the electoral college. All those things are
Speaker 1: on the table. And in spite of all of the
Speaker 1: wild twists and turns that we have seen throughout this campaign,
Speaker 1: since Kamala came in and kind of rose to the
Speaker 1: position that she's at right now, it has basically been stable.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly, and that's kind of the fascinating part.
Speaker 2: In fact, this morning I was reading a lot of
Speaker 2: Democratic activists who were talking to Axios about their consternation
Speaker 2: that they've thrown almost three hundred million dollars of advertising
Speaker 2: into the Blue Wall states so far with the reserved
Speaker 2: another three hundred million coming even just in the state
Speaker 2: of Pennsylvania, and they have seen basically no movement whatsoever.
Speaker 2: So the dollar figure, like I said previously, comparing it
Speaker 2: to Coca Cola, we know that if it wasn't there,
Speaker 2: it would have an impact, But we do know that
Speaker 2: its presence, we're not really sure what that impact is.
Speaker 2: Not to build on this theory because this is a
Speaker 2: little bit complicated, but everybody stick with us. Let's put
Speaker 2: the next one, please up on the screen. From the
Speaker 2: Wall Street Journal, more Americans identify as Republican than Democrat. Now,
Speaker 2: as they say, here's what that means for the election. Now,
Speaker 2: this could mean could mean that there would be a
Speaker 2: narrower Trump Trump Harris margin in the popular vote, but
Speaker 2: does not necessarily mean that Trump will win the electoral college.
Speaker 3: This is complicated, but just stick with us.
Speaker 2: The reason why is that just because more Americans identify
Speaker 2: as Republican, if Trump wins Florida by thirteen points, which
Speaker 2: was the New York Times has as opposed to the
Speaker 2: three points that he won back in twenty twenty, it
Speaker 2: doesn't make all that much of a difference in the
Speaker 2: electoral cause it was going read anyway, right, It's going
Speaker 2: right anyway, and you win the electoral votes no matter what.
Speaker 2: But let's say that the margin or for Harris drops
Speaker 2: in Texas, or sorry, goes up in Texas, goes down
Speaker 2: in Florida, all these other places like for example, Trump
Speaker 2: is doing rallies in Coachella in California, He's doing a
Speaker 2: rally in Madison Square Garden, which is twenty eight days
Speaker 2: to election day.
Speaker 3: I mean, it doesn't make a whole lot of electoral sense.
Speaker 2: But what we know from both of those things is
Speaker 2: that you're watching the margins of victory for Republicans go
Speaker 2: up in traditionally blue states and.
Speaker 3: Probably go up even more in the Sunbelt.
Speaker 2: The problem that they accurately point out is that in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty two, even though Republican identification was very very high,
Speaker 2: and in fact beat Democrats on the generic ballot, it's
Speaker 2: that all of the swing voters broke so hard for
Speaker 2: the Democrats that was able to put the Democratic candidates
Speaker 2: up over the margin of victory. So just because Republicans
Speaker 2: have a major ballot advantage here does not mean that
Speaker 2: they will win again. I understand that this is counterintuitive,
Speaker 2: but the thing is is that more Americans identifying as
Speaker 2: Republican actually just means there are less swing voters.
Speaker 3: So in some ways that's good.
Speaker 2: It means that you have people who are explicitly like
Speaker 2: parts and are they're going to come out and they're
Speaker 2: going to vote for you, But it will not take
Speaker 2: you across the finish line. You still need to win
Speaker 2: the swing voters, and if the swing voters break in
Speaker 2: the same way they did in twenty twenty two, you
Speaker 2: will lose every single one of the swing states.
Speaker 1: I mean, the TLDR of this is that the electoral
Speaker 1: college is really stupid, because it makes no sense that
Speaker 1: if you win a bunch more voters in Florida or
Speaker 1: California or in New York that it literally does not
Speaker 1: matter at all. But that's the reality. I mean, all
Speaker 1: indications are that Republicans have improved their position in New York,
Speaker 1: but Democrats are still going to win New York. So yeah,
Speaker 1: that helps reduce your popular vote totals, it does not
Speaker 1: matter at all in terms of the electoral out That's
Speaker 1: a stupid situation, like it should not be the case
Speaker 1: that what voters think in New York matter, like doesn't
Speaker 1: matter at all versus what voters think in Michigan or
Speaker 1: Wisconsin or Pennsylvania in particular. But that's a system that
Speaker 1: we have. So this, again is what Nate Cone has
Speaker 1: been writing about over at the New York Times, and
Speaker 1: I encourage you to go read because it's a very
Speaker 1: interesting analysis. There's something else that ties into this that
Speaker 1: I'll do my best to explain, but basically, the idea
Speaker 1: is that Trump is picking up a lot of voters
Speaker 1: in those two states, in particular, Florida and New York,
Speaker 1: so that means that he is narrowing That helps to
Speaker 1: narrow that electoral college edge, which means that when you're
Speaker 1: seeing these national polls that have Kamala Harris up three
Speaker 1: points or even up two points, that might be sufficient
Speaker 1: to get her over the top, whereas previously Democrats needed
Speaker 1: to win by a closer to certainly three to four
Speaker 1: points in order to be able to win the electoral
Speaker 1: college vote. So in any case, you know, it was
Speaker 1: interesting reading about this Republican self identification. One of the
Speaker 1: things that they find in terms of driving some of
Speaker 1: these movements is just like who's the party that holds
Speaker 1: the White House and how do people feel about that person.
Speaker 1: So if you have you know, George b. Bush, for example,
Speaker 1: after nine to eleven, he has this huge surgeon popularity
Speaker 1: and that was the last time that you even had
Speaker 1: for a brief period Republicans outpacing Democrats in terms of
Speaker 1: how people describe themselves because he was very popular and
Speaker 1: he was a Republican. Now, obviously you have Joe Biden
Speaker 1: in the White House. He is very unpopular. So that
Speaker 1: has caused democratic self identification to take a hit. To
Speaker 1: your point, Soccer, I mean, it certainly is something that
Speaker 1: Republicans will be happy about. It gives them a little
Speaker 1: bit of a leg up and an edge going into
Speaker 1: this election. But in twenty twenty two, Democrats won independence
Speaker 1: sufficiently to overcome that edge that Republicans had at that time.
Speaker 1: So it's an interesting note, but it is not by
Speaker 1: any means determinative of what the outcome may actually be.
Speaker 1: Let's go and put this next piece up on the screen.
Speaker 1: This is the late New York Times poll which finds
Speaker 1: that Kamala Harris has taken a narrow three point lead
Speaker 1: in the national popular vote forty nine forty six. The
Speaker 1: same poll last time around had the two of them
Speaker 1: tied I believe at forty seven percent if memory serves,
Speaker 1: this is the first time in this particular poll that
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris has actually led Trump since July when Biden
Speaker 1: dropped out of the race. So certainly she'll be happy
Speaker 1: with that outcome from the New York Times. Has just
Speaker 1: taken very seriously, whether it deserves all of the like,
Speaker 1: you know, this is one of the ones that everybody
Speaker 1: stops and takes note of when these polls come out.
Speaker 1: She has short up her support, they say, among older voters,
Speaker 1: has begun making inroads among Republicans. Nine percent say they
Speaker 1: plan to support her, up slightly from five percent last month,
Speaker 1: and she appears to have closed the gap on the
Speaker 1: question of change, a critical factor, they write, in an
Speaker 1: election where voters have repeatedly told pollsters they believe the
Speaker 1: nation is heading in the wrong direction in that one,
Speaker 1: because she did herself no favors this week on that
Speaker 1: question of who would be the change candidate when she
Speaker 1: could not literally name a single thing that she would
Speaker 1: do different than Joe Biden, which is like, how do
Speaker 1: you not know how to answer this question? At this point,
Speaker 1: all of the polling shows that it is important to
Speaker 1: voters that she separate herself from Joe Biden. But what
Speaker 1: I took note of here is, you know, this kind
Speaker 1: of dovetails with idea that more people are self identifying
Speaker 1: as Republicans. This helps to explain their Liz Cheney strategy.
Speaker 1: You know, this is not a strategy that I would
Speaker 1: personally go forward with. I think they should be emphasizing
Speaker 1: more of their economic positions. I think they should be
Speaker 1: doing more work to close that gap with Trump on
Speaker 1: the economy and on inflation, in particular in those industrial
Speaker 1: Midwestern states. But they believe that there is a sufficient
Speaker 1: majority anti Trump coalition that the more they lean into
Speaker 1: like oh my god, Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney endorsed us,
Speaker 1: and the less they talk about hard policy proposals that
Speaker 1: could be controversial among some Republican voters, the better off
Speaker 1: they'll be that's their theory is basically like, we're going
Speaker 1: to put back together the pro Joe Biden, anti Trump coalition,
Speaker 1: and we believe, based on the electoral results in eighteen
Speaker 1: and twenty and twenty two that that's enough to get
Speaker 1: us over the top. And you know, they'll look at
Speaker 1: this and say, oh, see it's working. Now we've got
Speaker 1: nine percent of Republicans supporting us instead of five percent.
Speaker 3: Maybe that's an awful lot.
Speaker 2: I mean, these polls are only one thousand people, you know,
Speaker 2: that are even the sample size.
Speaker 3: So how many is that? Like ninety?
Speaker 2: It's like, are you really going to base your political
Speaker 2: theory based on that?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is all the problem with a lot
Speaker 2: of cross tab diving is these samples are not that big.
Speaker 2: And by the way, that's actually quite big for a
Speaker 2: over national poll and where they do live caller, but
Speaker 2: statistical sampling and all that. The deeper that you try
Speaker 2: and go, it's very difficult. That's why you should try
Speaker 2: to look at averages and ultimately the actual outcome on
Speaker 2: election day will tell us a lot more. I did
Speaker 2: see this morning I possible indication from Reuters. They say
Speaker 2: that Kamala Harris is quote erased Republican Trump advantage in
Speaker 2: the vast middle of American society, suburban residents and middle
Speaker 2: income households. That's basically who they're trying to go after
Speaker 2: with that Republican theory.
Speaker 1: Again, they're going after those Nikki Hayley voter.
Speaker 2: Here's the reason, the main one that I just don't
Speaker 2: think that that is correct is that, yes, those Republicans
Speaker 2: and all that may be disgusted with Trump, but when
Speaker 2: you're also not acting as a change agent, which we're
Speaker 2: about to get to in her answer on the view,
Speaker 2: that's where I think it's going to be really difficult.
Speaker 2: Like I also saw Crystal you know, remember that JD
Speaker 2: Van's answer about the election, and we thought it was
Speaker 2: going to be everywhere. So it turns out that those
Speaker 2: ads Dave Wigel pointed this out, those ads don't have
Speaker 2: a lot of money behind them.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Internet, they're just on Twitter.
Speaker 2: They're not actually like the major ones that are playing
Speaker 2: in the battleground states. So I can tell you, like
Speaker 2: I said, I was in Pennsylvania, every anti Trump ad
Speaker 2: was just about abortion, and that I mean, clearly that's something.
Speaker 3: But abortion's not going to be enough.
Speaker 2: We talked to Logan Phillips just to carry you across
Speaker 2: because not aspressions in twenty twenty two. I think the
Speaker 2: economy and feeling like you're going to do something different
Speaker 2: is really important. And that answer that she gave on
Speaker 2: the view, I don't think that that. I think the
Speaker 2: fact that the Trump campaign is now planning on blasting
Speaker 2: that everywhere that does tell you actually quite a bit.
Speaker 2: Why don't we take a listen. I know Ryan and
Speaker 2: Emiley brought some of these yesterday, but let's relive it.
Speaker 6: What do you think would be the biggest specific difference
Speaker 6: between your presidency and a Biden see a Biden presidency. Well,
Speaker 6: we're obviously two different people, and we have a lot
Speaker 6: of shared life experiences, for example, the way we feel
Speaker 6: about our family and our parents and so on. But
Speaker 6: we're also different people, and I will bring those sensibilities
Speaker 6: to how I lead by part. Listen, I plan on
Speaker 6: having a Republican in my cabinet.
Speaker 3: You got a list Yeah, right, you have to.
Speaker 6: What's the difference between Joe Biden and me? Well, that
Speaker 6: will be.
Speaker 3: One of the differences.
Speaker 1: I'm going to have a Republican in my.
Speaker 3: Cabinet because I don't.
Speaker 6: I don't feel burdened, but letting pride get in the
Speaker 6: way of a good idea, yeah.
Speaker 2: Right, right, So that exactly is the dynamic that we're
Speaker 2: talking about here. So let mean, look, we'll see, we
Speaker 2: got twenty seven more days. We'll find out on election
Speaker 2: day whether she's correct, If this turns out to be
Speaker 2: the right theory, I don't know. I give up because
Speaker 2: it's like just saying, oh, Liz Cheney is going to
Speaker 2: be my secretary of Defense, which you know, between the
Speaker 2: Iran comments about our greatest adversary, the Liz Cheney thing,
Speaker 2: and now seeing Republican in my cabinet, I think we
Speaker 2: all know who that person is going to be, or
Speaker 2: at least it's going to be somewhere there in the cabinet,
Speaker 2: and then we combine it with I actually wouldn't change
Speaker 2: anything from the Biden administration except bringing in somebody who
Speaker 2: is way worse on national policy.
Speaker 3: If that's enough. I honestly, I don't really know what
Speaker 3: to say.
Speaker 1: But it's not even true that Biden doesn't have Republicans
Speaker 1: in his government. I mean, Ray is a Republican, right,
Speaker 1: aren't there other people anything?
Speaker 3: What does the term mean at this point.
Speaker 1: It's so here's here's what I would say. I'm inclined
Speaker 1: to agree with you that they are really screwing up
Speaker 1: right now, like they should be leaning into economics because
Speaker 1: my view is people who are going to vote for
Speaker 1: democracy and part of the anti DRUP like they already
Speaker 1: know where they stand. That's why they're not running ads
Speaker 1: about JD Vance's answer, because it's like, yeah, those people
Speaker 1: are already locked in, right and now we just got
Speaker 1: to turn them out. And they do have massive funds
Speaker 1: in terms of their you know, overall operation turnout operations.
Speaker 1: She raised a billion dollars we just learned as of
Speaker 1: yesterday in less than three months time. Like that is
Speaker 1: unheard of, ungodly amounts of money that she's been able
Speaker 1: to raise. So they're gonna have plenty of money for
Speaker 1: the field operation, whatever they want to do down the
Speaker 1: stretch ads, et cetera, et cetera. The only thing is
Speaker 1: like I just I just a very humble at this
Speaker 1: point about what is actually going to work, because in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, they were doing the same, like let's
Speaker 1: just talk about democracy and extremism and not offer literally
Speaker 1: anything on economics. In twenty twenty Joe Biden did not
Speaker 1: run on a single economic position, to the best of
Speaker 1: my recollection, even though we ended up, you know, having
Speaker 1: a pretty good domestic economic agenda, but did not run
Speaker 1: on really any of that in terms of the general election.
Speaker 1: And it worked out. You know, in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: I really thought I was I thought, like, the red
Speaker 1: wave is coming. People are angry about inflation, y'all aren't
Speaker 1: talking about it. You know, there's people think you're on
Speaker 1: the wrong track, et cetera, et cetera. Joe Biden is
Speaker 1: already pretty unpopular, and I was wrong. So maybe they're right.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's enough. Maybe just getting together the old like
Speaker 1: anti Trump band again. Maybe they're correct that there just
Speaker 1: is an anti Trump majority, and the less that you
Speaker 1: promise on policy, the less divisive that you are, And
Speaker 1: if you just lean into that like generic Democrat position,
Speaker 1: maybe it's sufficient. I genuinely do not know.
Speaker 3: Oh, I agree with you.
Speaker 2: That's my point is I'm like, I really hope this
Speaker 2: isn't correct, but I fear that it is. It might
Speaker 2: shaybe let's put this on the screen. Well, actually, at
Speaker 2: the very least this time we're going to get a
Speaker 2: real test, because what we have here from Axios is
Speaker 2: that Republicans are again planning to spend heavily to promote
Speaker 2: this clip of saying that there's not a thing that
Speaker 2: she would do differently. I saw Jade vanc and Trump
Speaker 2: are now playing that clip actually at their rallies. Obviously,
Speaker 2: people go into a Trump rally are already voting for Republican.
Speaker 2: But the point is is that they see that as
Speaker 2: very beneficial to them.
Speaker 3: There is a significant.
Speaker 2: Amount of dollars behind. We need an actual change in
Speaker 2: the White House. One of the areas that she's always
Speaker 2: struggled the most with is differentiating herself from Biden. The
Speaker 2: only thing she can really come up with is, I
Speaker 2: would have a Republican in my cabinet. I would also
Speaker 2: know maybe part of this is media, because Christal, what
Speaker 2: you and I know is that even if there isn't
Speaker 2: a necessarily major constituency for this stuff, there's nobody who
Speaker 2: loves it more than Morning Joe or like MSNBC's with
Speaker 2: Nicole Wallace, this idea of a Republican in the cabinet,
Speaker 2: So it could be to get more favorable media attention.
Speaker 3: The other thing is maybe it's just what she believes.
Speaker 3: She doesn't want to do anyth different.
Speaker 1: She does not believe anything. Yeah, I mean, and that's
Speaker 1: part of why my theory of why she does so
Speaker 1: poorly in these interviews, and her aids were basically right,
Speaker 1: like she shouldn't have done these from just pure tactical perspective,
Speaker 1: just don't do the interview. I send him walls down.
Speaker 1: He does a fantastic job in these interview situations. But yeah,
Speaker 1: they were correct about the basement strategy. Not that I'm
Speaker 1: saying it's a good thing for democracy. It's not, but
Speaker 1: in terms of tactical political decision making, they were probably
Speaker 1: right about that. But it's just because it's a lot
Speaker 1: harder to nail an interview like this when you don't
Speaker 1: believe anything, because you just have to memorize every answer
Speaker 1: versus asking yourself like, oh, well, what do I actually
Speaker 1: think about that? Let me use my brain to articulate it.
Speaker 1: It's like, oh, what am I supposed to say to this?
Speaker 1: What a my aids tell me the right answer is here.
Speaker 1: And then this was a classic Kabala moment in that
Speaker 1: it's a totally foreseeable question, Like totally foreseeable question it
Speaker 1: should be a lip. She should be hoping to get
Speaker 1: that question so that she can knock it out of
Speaker 1: the park of the ways in which she's going to
Speaker 1: be different from Joe Biden, like that would only serve her.
Speaker 1: And yet on this very predictable soft ball question she
Speaker 1: completely whiffs. So you know, this is what happens when
Speaker 1: she I don't know if the preparation fails her or
Speaker 1: brain fails her in terms of trying to recall what
Speaker 1: our advisors want her to say in that moment, because yeah,
Speaker 1: it's really difficult to try to memorize a thousand different
Speaker 1: answers on things when you yourself don't really have any
Speaker 1: core beliefs to draw in and go back to. Like
Speaker 1: she doesn't have the ability to say, oh, well, how
Speaker 1: would I actually be different from Joe Biden, Because to
Speaker 1: be honest with you, if she was really answering that
Speaker 1: question truthfully, it'd be like, oh, I'm probably going to
Speaker 1: be more receptive to like the crypto bros. And you know,
Speaker 1: maybe get rid of Gary Gensler and Lena Khan and
Speaker 1: be more friendly to Silicon Valley to Wall Street, which
Speaker 1: I guess, as we'll get to you later in the show.
Speaker 1: The Mark Cubans of the world and others would be
Speaker 1: happy about, but may not be the best general election message.
Speaker 3: That's a good point.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, I think the part of the issue
Speaker 2: is I feel like in previous elections we had a
Speaker 2: lot more either events or ten pole news. So twenty twenty,
Speaker 2: obviously there was COVID, and that was just such a
Speaker 2: crazy environment that we were covering. Not only the attempts
Speaker 2: at interview or sorry rallies, but we had the traditional debates.
Speaker 2: Trump had COVID, that was all happening. Then we had
Speaker 2: the whole mail in balloting thing. Had this just election,
Speaker 2: especially since Kamla got picked, just feels remarkably stable to me.
Speaker 2: And I know that's a weird thing to say, but
Speaker 2: the test case and the theories put forth by both
Speaker 2: of these candidates have been effectively locked in stone and absent.
Speaker 2: You know, a quote unquote October surprise of a genuine
Speaker 2: war in Lebanon and Iran some you know, obviously the
Speaker 2: hurricane that just happened.
Speaker 3: It's devastating.
Speaker 2: Hopefully we don't see any major fallout or anything from that,
Speaker 2: hoping it doesn't change anything.
Speaker 3: But wait, you know, we don't yet know. But between
Speaker 3: those like I don't see anything yet.
Speaker 2: Of course, look the Comy letter came when October twenty third,
Speaker 2: I want to say, so there's still plenty of time
Speaker 2: that something could significantly change. In fact, I read a
Speaker 2: insane statistic. I think I talked about this with you
Speaker 2: last time. In the twenty sixteen election, nine percent of
Speaker 2: the electorate did not make up their minds until a
Speaker 2: week before the election.
Speaker 3: That is crazy to me.
Speaker 1: We just do I just if we have that electorate anymore.
Speaker 7: You might be right, but I'm like, wow, like not
Speaker 7: knowing who you're going to vote for it nine days
Speaker 7: before election day and just be like okay, yeah, I
Speaker 7: mean I agree, it's probably less.
Speaker 2: It may not be nine, but let's say it's four.
Speaker 2: I mean four is enough. You could swing the entire thing.
Speaker 3: So there are a lot of people out there that
Speaker 3: think that way.
Speaker 1: The other thing is though, that we just we vote
Speaker 1: differently than we did in twenty sixteen. I mean early
Speaker 1: voting and mail in voting, you know, obviously spiked massively
Speaker 1: during the pandemic, and it's not going to be as
Speaker 1: high as the levels in twenty twenty. But it's not
Speaker 1: going back to twenty sixteen either, so you'd almost need
Speaker 1: more of like a September surprise than an October surprise.
Speaker 1: And we've had a lot of surprises in thrace so far,
Speaker 1: and after Joe Biden is out, you know, everything that's
Speaker 1: happened since you know, maybe the polls take one point
Speaker 1: this way or one point that way, but overall it
Speaker 1: is just really stable and the steady like stable place
Speaker 1: it is is common well, hovering with like a maybe
Speaker 1: about a three point lead in the popular vote, which
Speaker 1: is like translates into every swing state effectively being tied
Speaker 1: and within the margin of error. So you know, it's
Speaker 1: really a question of are the polls accurate? Are they
Speaker 1: you know, are they missing some dynamic. That's the other
Speaker 1: thing that Nate Cone has been talking about is some
Speaker 1: of the pollsters they're very worried about understating Republican support
Speaker 1: and Trump support again, right, because they really blew it.
Speaker 1: You know, they're they famously blew it in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: but they actually were more wrong in twenty twenty. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's correct, they were more off. It's just that Joe
Speaker 1: Biden still had enough of an edge to win, so
Speaker 1: they didn't get quite as much backlash as twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: but they were actually more wrong in twenty twenty and
Speaker 1: so some of the pollsters who've been burned by that
Speaker 1: have adopted this practice, which was previously seen as like
Speaker 1: ad polling practice, where they weight the voter sample based
Speaker 1: on how people self report who they voted for last time.
Speaker 1: People are not reliable actually even about who they voted
Speaker 1: for in the last election. And without getting into the
Speaker 1: technical details of this, the impact of using that method
Speaker 1: as for waiting the electorate is that you're likely to
Speaker 1: overstate the amount of support for the last loser of
Speaker 1: the election. But they feel like, okay, but we've gotten
Speaker 1: it so wrong so many times, we need to use
Speaker 1: Trump's numbers so that we don't have a similar miss again. Now,
Speaker 1: if you look at the polsters who were doing that
Speaker 1: versus the polsters who are not doing that, and by
Speaker 1: the way, the New York Times, where Nate con Is
Speaker 1: is one of the polsters that is not doing that,
Speaker 1: the results in most cases are not all that much different.
Speaker 1: But the subtle difference is that the polsters who are
Speaker 1: using that you know, waiting based on self identification method,
Speaker 1: their polls are sort of mirroring what happened in twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: and using that method is likely to get you to
Speaker 1: basically mirror the last results of the last election, and
Speaker 1: the New York Times, Poles and other ones that aren't
Speaker 1: using that method, they're seeing warshifts that look more like
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty two midterm elections. That's why you end
Speaker 1: up with the New York Times poll of Florida being
Speaker 1: a thirteen point lead for Donald Trump, where other polls
Speaker 1: have shown it actually quite close, being like three points
Speaker 1: even two points, four points more in the single digits
Speaker 1: versus thirteen points. So Nate's point is basically like, you know,
Speaker 1: I understand, I'm sympathetic to why polsters are doing this,
Speaker 1: but if you are using this method, you may be
Speaker 1: missing some shift that has happened post twenty twenty. And
Speaker 1: I don't think any of us would be surprised, especially
Speaker 1: given what we saw on the twenty twenty two midterms
Speaker 1: and how that was such a like different election. In
Speaker 1: terms of some places, the red wave did actually materialize,
Speaker 1: but in a lot of key swings states it did not.
Speaker 1: Any other direction, the map in the country looks a
Speaker 1: lot different than it did pre pandemic, So in any case,
Speaker 1: that's something else to watch out for. Let's go and
Speaker 1: put this next piece up on the screen. This is
Speaker 1: a report out of Pennsylvania, which it really is kind
Speaker 1: of the ballgame. Pennsylvania really is kind of the ballgame.
Speaker 1: Whichever two of these two candidates wins Pennsylvania is very
Speaker 1: likely to be the next president in the United States,
Speaker 1: and they are going all in the head. The beginning
Speaker 1: paragraph here in this article sets when Vice President Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris rolled out her economic agenda. She went to Pittsburgh
Speaker 1: when she unveiled her running mate. She went to Philly.
Speaker 1: When she had to pick a place for Obama's first
Speaker 1: ball rally, it was back to Pittsburgh. Trump has earmarked
Speaker 1: the greatest share of his advertising budget for Pennsylvania's held
Speaker 1: more rallies in the state than in any other battleground
Speaker 1: since Miss Harris joined the race, including two on Wednesday,
Speaker 1: three in the last week. And they talk about why
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania is so compelling. It's sort of like a microcosm
Speaker 1: of all of America. They write. It's home to urban
Speaker 1: centers like Philly. Of course, large population of black voters
Speaker 1: who Dems need to mobilize, has fast growing, highly educated
Speaker 1: mostly white suburbs outside of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, where Republicans
Speaker 1: have been bleeding support in the Trump years. There are
Speaker 1: struggling industrial towns where Trump needs to maximize the vote,
Speaker 1: smaller cities that are actually booming with Latino immigrants where
Speaker 1: Harris wants to make gains, And there's a significant, although
Speaker 1: shrinking rural population. White voters without college degrees who make
Speaker 1: up mister Trump's base, still account for roughly half the vote.
Speaker 1: And if you look at Pennsylvania politically, Democrats did very
Speaker 1: well there in twenty twenty two, in part because Republicans
Speaker 1: had sort of like uniquely poor candidates in doctor Oz
Speaker 1: and what's the other dud's name Haran for governor called
Speaker 1: Lostria Mastriano, who was really really out there. And so
Speaker 1: Democrats did well at the Senate and the guminatorial level.
Speaker 1: But if you look at the legislature, it's the only
Speaker 1: state in the country where Democrats have one chamber and
Speaker 1: Republicans have the other. And the margin in the state's
Speaker 1: lower chamber is a single seat. That tells you just
Speaker 1: how closely Pennsylvania is divided is divided, and why this
Speaker 1: is such a dogfight between them.
Speaker 2: And the dollars show that dollars are the only place
Speaker 2: where there is not as much of a disparity between
Speaker 2: the Democrats and the Republicans. You have one hundred and
Speaker 2: eighty million being spent so far by the Democrats, one
Speaker 2: hundred and seventy million by the Republicans. In fact, they
Speaker 2: look at Pennsylvania. I think part of the reason too
Speaker 2: is not only is that Pennsylvania is the tipping point state,
Speaker 2: but the general theory that both of the campaigns seem
Speaker 2: to have is that a polling error is going to
Speaker 2: miss in either way. And so the theory behind that
Speaker 2: means that it would be very unlikely to let's say,
Speaker 2: win Pennsylvania and not also win Wisconsin, yeah, or Michigan, right,
Speaker 2: although I guess to be fair, in twenty sixteen, Trump
Speaker 2: only won Michigan by like ten thousand votes. I did
Speaker 2: look at his victory margin or lost margin in twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: It's eight five hundred and fifty five votes in the
Speaker 2: state of Pennsylvania. That's incredibly close after almost six million,
Speaker 2: or more than six million votes that were in the election.
Speaker 3: So what that means, you know, for this is that
Speaker 3: it really is just.
Speaker 2: Get down to turn out in the constituencies that you
Speaker 2: can and then just kind of hope and pray for
Speaker 2: those swing voters to come out. The point about Pennsylvania
Speaker 2: being America is very important. They have those industrial steel towns.
Speaker 2: They have a long legacy of you know, half the
Speaker 2: half of the state. It's gigantic, as more in common
Speaker 2: with the industrial Midwest than it does with the East coast.
Speaker 2: The east coast side has a lot of more economic dynamism.
Speaker 2: You've got the you know, the Pennsylvania mainline suburbs has
Speaker 2: quite a bit of wealth that is there. Pennsylvania or
Speaker 2: Philadelphia itself has got its own like constituencies. You've got
Speaker 2: black population, Hispanic population as well. We saw previously that
Speaker 2: we played here on the show about how the poor
Speaker 2: areas of Philadelphia are actually swinging to Trump the biggest.
Speaker 2: We don't know if that's an urban only phenomenon, if
Speaker 2: it also translates.
Speaker 3: To poorer, more rural areas in the state.
Speaker 2: So the point is that it's changing a lot, and
Speaker 2: obviously it's very up for grabs. Doctor Oz lost the
Speaker 2: state by almost six points back in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 2: so that could be an indicator. Also made an indicator
Speaker 2: to me about the strength of abortion. John Fetterman, if
Speaker 2: you remember that time, it barely even you know, put
Speaker 2: a comp Yeah, he.
Speaker 1: Had just had that stroke. It was like basically remember
Speaker 1: the debate performance.
Speaker 2: It was crazy, right, yeah, I mean it's only recently
Speaker 2: these like regained his power of speech. But my point
Speaker 2: is that, you know, Fetterman, I thought he was going
Speaker 2: to lose. To this day, I still don't really get
Speaker 2: it how anybody voted for him back in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 2: But he won, not just by a little he won
Speaker 2: by a lot, like six points in a major swing state.
Speaker 2: So that was the power of abortion at that time.
Speaker 2: Shapiro beat Mastriano by thirteen points. So the question about
Speaker 2: the whole polling thing and the tightness is if twenty
Speaker 2: twenty is the benchmark for what they're pulling against, I
Speaker 2: don't know. To me, the state seems to have shifted
Speaker 2: quite a bit in that time. At the same time,
Speaker 2: Trump is such a unique figure that he's so much
Speaker 2: better and more appealing to Republican voters or even swing
Speaker 2: voters than an Oz or a Mastriano or even a
Speaker 2: Dave McCormick. If you look at how much more he's
Speaker 2: running ahead of him, that maybe he's the only guy
Speaker 2: left in America who could still win of this state
Speaker 2: of Pennsylvania as a Republican. So it's complicated, you know,
Speaker 2: in terms of how we look at it, but the
Speaker 2: inside battle for it and the likelihood of it being
Speaker 2: the tipping point state is so high. I was just
Speaker 2: looking again, it's almost like thirty or forty percent or
Speaker 2: whatever for the Nate Silver forecast of whoever wins it,
Speaker 2: and just in general, if we think about it like
Speaker 2: that will be the main one to watch on election night.
Speaker 2: We're lucky who were on East coast time, so is Pennsylvania.
Speaker 2: We can see it was called at roughly two am
Speaker 2: on twenty sixteen election night. If it is as close
Speaker 2: as again as it was in twenty twenty, it could
Speaker 2: take a while, especially with mail in ballots, although I
Speaker 2: do believe the mail in balloting. You know, things have
Speaker 2: changed in the last couple of years for processing, it's
Speaker 2: no longer COVID and all of that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, But basically take brace for a long election.
Speaker 1: They still, I believe, have law on the books that
Speaker 1: says you can't even begin processing those mail in ballots
Speaker 1: until election day. That means even just like smoothing out
Speaker 1: the envelopes and preparing them to be fed into the machine,
Speaker 1: which means that it's going to take longer. And it
Speaker 1: also means that just like last time around, Remember we
Speaker 1: talked about that quote unquote red mirage because a lot
Speaker 1: of the Republican in person votes on that day and
Speaker 1: in smaller counties where they're able to count things more quickly,
Speaker 1: those came in first, and that's what helped Trump to
Speaker 1: spin his tales about how the election was stolen and
Speaker 1: you know, Philadelphia blah blah blah, yeah, stop the count
Speaker 1: we are likely to see. It may not be as
Speaker 1: dramatic an effect as last In fact, I don't think
Speaker 1: it will be as dramatic an effect as last time,
Speaker 1: but it will still be something to watch more on
Speaker 1: election day, that is likely, those Republican in person, small
Speaker 1: county votes are likely to come in more quickly than
Speaker 1: the big urban areas or even the big suburban areas
Speaker 1: where Democrats are stronger. The other thing to point out
Speaker 1: about Pennsylvania is Trump just had his giant rally in Butler,
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania with Elon Musk. We're turning to the site of
Speaker 1: that assassination attempt on his life. And that's another like
Speaker 1: X factor in all of this. Whether that helped to
Speaker 1: drive local enthusiasm for Trump the rally with Elin, I
Speaker 1: don't know what the final numbers were, but I mean
Speaker 1: it was huge. There were a lot of people there,
Speaker 1: obviously a lot of energy around that. New York Times
Speaker 1: interviewed some local supporters who were really energized and inspired
Speaker 1: by his reaction in that moment and decided, you know,
Speaker 1: not only am I going to vote for I'm going
Speaker 1: to volunteer, I'm going to be a precinct captain or whatever.
Speaker 1: So that is possible, possible to see that impact as well.
Speaker 1: But just to give you a sense of just how
Speaker 1: close these are the status in terms of the polls,
Speaker 1: we can put up the latest RCP average. Now RCP
Speaker 1: it's not a model. It just literally takes in every pole,
Speaker 1: whether it's a good pollster or a bad pollster or
Speaker 1: an in between polster, whatever their record is, they just
Speaker 1: feed them in to the average. But based on their
Speaker 1: average of every single pole that's out there, the partisan ones,
Speaker 1: on the nonpartisan ones, they've got Trump at point two
Speaker 1: of a lead over Kamala Harris. In other words, it
Speaker 1: could not possibly be closer. And Tiger, I know you've
Speaker 1: spent some time in the state.
Speaker 3: Well just for a weekend.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you were you and are you still getting
Speaker 1: like detoxing from.
Speaker 3: All the play I'm I'm not lying.
Speaker 2: Like my in lawns, they like to watch actual cable
Speaker 2: television and like sitting there being bombarded with those ads
Speaker 2: is maddening, especially I think we're watching the Phillies game.
Speaker 2: Every single commercial break is just it's literally Trump at Comma,
Speaker 2: at Dave McCormick, ad, Bob Casey, ad, then whoever the
Speaker 2: congressional candidate is.
Speaker 3: I'm like, I'm gonna lose my goddamn mind. It was
Speaker 3: the first time.
Speaker 2: I'm like, I'm happy I don't live in a swing
Speaker 2: state because I don't think I could handle this. Because
Speaker 2: even if you don't want to engage with it and
Speaker 2: you don't watch terrestrial TV, it's on the radio.
Speaker 3: The yard signs are everywhere. I will say they do.
Speaker 3: They just very cypically engage people. I'll give them that.
Speaker 2: Like when you ride along the highway or anywhere here
Speaker 2: in Virginia's I wouldn't say it's as common, but there,
Speaker 2: I mean every house if whoever they're supporting, they're there.
Speaker 2: There does seem to be a lot of neighborliness, so
Speaker 2: that's good, you know, people respect each other. But it
Speaker 2: was fascinating for me to see it like in action
Speaker 2: of what it really looks like in the hardcore wing state.
Speaker 2: For you, right before in election, the ads are just everywhere,
Speaker 2: and also, like I said, the choice of those ads
Speaker 2: for Trump every ad immigration, immigration, immigration, immigration, migrant immigration.
Speaker 2: And then there were some Dave McCormick ads which tried
Speaker 2: to do that thing where he's like Bob Casey's the
Speaker 2: real radical on abortion, but from Bob Casey and from Kamala, it.
Speaker 3: Was abortion all day long.
Speaker 2: It was all ro versus Wade for their paid advertising.
Speaker 2: I mean possibly because I was in literally in the suburbs,
Speaker 2: so maybe that's why the targeting was there, But it
Speaker 2: seemed to me like that I took note of the
Speaker 2: fact that it was so strong, so unified in that
Speaker 2: message from both of those candidates, from the Senate candidates
Speaker 2: as well as the presidential candidates, that clearly they've got
Speaker 2: a lot of internals this is the main thing to go.
Speaker 3: All in on. Very interesting, it makes sense, yeah, makes sense.
Speaker 2: Foreign President Donald Trump joined the Flag Podcasts with my
Speaker 2: friend Andrew Schultz and his entire crew over there, and
Speaker 2: the results were actually incredible.
Speaker 3: Before we get into a crystal life.
Speaker 2: Even though I've been discussing it, the way that they
Speaker 2: handled this was amazing, And really what it came down
Speaker 2: to is they didn't have the look.
Speaker 3: In general, as people know, I advocate dressing up, treating
Speaker 3: the president, etc. But it's a comedy.
Speaker 2: Podcast, so in general, their theory of going into it
Speaker 2: was let's just treat him like a normal guest.
Speaker 3: And by doing that.
Speaker 2: There was actually a lot that came out of it,
Speaker 2: both in the way that Trump obviously was felt very
Speaker 2: comfortable and all that, but it also led to some
Speaker 2: real world moments where I'm not sure Trump has ever
Speaker 2: experienced that from an interviewer. Actually, the most noteworthy moment
Speaker 2: to me came at the very end where Andrew was
Speaker 2: challenging and even interrupting Trump and Trump let him, which
Speaker 2: was even the crazier part about the phrase make America
Speaker 2: great again.
Speaker 3: So let's go ahead and let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 8: Or mega make America great again. I'm gonna make this
Speaker 8: country great again. It's not a great country right now.
Speaker 8: It's loaded up. Always a great country, it's a great
Speaker 8: see that's always a great okay, But I say it
Speaker 8: has the potential, and it was a great country. I
Speaker 8: think now there's so much hatred and there's so much dissension.
Speaker 8: I think when you have people that can't walk down
Speaker 8: Fifth Avenue, when you have people that can't walk down
Speaker 8: the street, it ceases to be.
Speaker 3: You can always be better, We can always be better.
Speaker 8: Yeah, but you can't blindfold yourself to say I'm honest
Speaker 8: about it.
Speaker 3: But to me, I'm really proud of America.
Speaker 9: Because I think that I don't I think I can
Speaker 9: be the best version of myself here. You know, I
Speaker 9: think that Donald Trump can only happen in America. Your life,
Speaker 9: what has happened to you? This is an American story.
Speaker 3: I mean, I thought that was interesting. I have not
Speaker 3: I'm shocked Trump let him talk. Actually, it shows that
Speaker 3: Trump likes him.
Speaker 2: Having interviewed Trump in the past, he can be very
Speaker 2: difficult to interrupt in that regard, but it was it
Speaker 2: was an interesting moment to me, both in the challenge. Also, look,
Speaker 2: no surprise, Trump's not going out and flagrant out of
Speaker 2: the goodness of his own heart. He's doing it to
Speaker 2: try and reach the people who watched comedy podcasts, which
Speaker 2: is predominantly young men between the age of like eighteen
Speaker 2: to thirty five, and so I was like, huh, that
Speaker 2: is I'd be curious. Look, obviously, I'm in politics all
Speaker 2: day long. If this is your maybe not first exposure,
Speaker 2: but maybe your first like long form exposure, Trump, I
Speaker 2: don't really know what to take away from that.
Speaker 3: I thought I thought it was interesting.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they definitely think that there's an opportunity to move
Speaker 1: some young men their way and that there's an opening
Speaker 1: there and that podcast like this helped to serve that purpose.
Speaker 1: And this has been an integral part of their strategy.
Speaker 1: We saw Kamala Harris do like the Call Her Daddy
Speaker 1: podcast as well, so you know they also have their
Speaker 1: own podcast strategy. But I think Trump campaign, I think
Speaker 1: it's fair to say, has lead more into a podcast
Speaker 1: strategy this election. So it'll be interesting to see what
Speaker 1: the results are. But yeah, to go back to your
Speaker 1: point about like I liked the I mean, Andrew Schultz
Speaker 1: is not a journalist. He's not going to us like
Speaker 1: he didn't try to pose. It's like, oh, I'm going
Speaker 1: to do a bunch of tough followups or whatever. I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna treat you the way that I would treat
Speaker 1: any normal guests. And by the way, I'm gonna laugh
Speaker 1: in your face and mock you effectively to your face.
Speaker 1: We should watch that when it's called for, and I
Speaker 1: kind of liked the vibe of that. I think we
Speaker 1: should normalize laughing and mocking polaticives in her face is
Speaker 1: more often.
Speaker 2: Let's take a listen. This was on the basically truthful comment.
Speaker 8: They can say what they want. I have a hard
Speaker 8: time doing it to them because I'm basic, you know,
Speaker 8: I'm basically a truthful person. But frankly, fly, she's given
Speaker 8: me so much ammunition I don't really have to She's
Speaker 8: a radical left lunatic who will destroy our nation. Other
Speaker 8: than that, but she will destroy our nation.
Speaker 3: That was great. You could see he just couldn't keep
Speaker 3: it together. You could also see Akash in the frame
Speaker 3: there just trying to.
Speaker 2: Trying to feel his eyes because he also was laughing
Speaker 2: at him.
Speaker 3: But I mean, yeah, I thought that was good.
Speaker 2: They genuinely just treated him like you would treat anybody else.
Speaker 2: He also, it was clear was like picking up on it.
Speaker 2: He started doing his bit about the weave.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: This is perhaps the biggest insight into Trump's mind because
Speaker 2: what he's picking up on is there have been previous
Speaker 2: leaks and criticisms of Trump, not even advisors, but also
Speaker 2: other politicians who are like, hey, he's rambling and he
Speaker 2: doesn't come to the point. He takes that very much
Speaker 2: to heart because to him, he calls it the weave,
Speaker 2: and he believes it's part of his superpower. So he
Speaker 2: explained this on flagrant Let's take a.
Speaker 8: Lesson, you know, and I do a thing full the weave.
Speaker 8: And there were those that are fair that say this
Speaker 8: guy is so genius, and then others would say, oh,
Speaker 8: he rambled.
Speaker 3: I don't ramble.
Speaker 8: What you do is you weave things, and you do it.
Speaker 8: You have to have certain things. You need an extraordinary
Speaker 8: memory because you have to come back to where you started.
Speaker 8: The weave is only good that you could go all
Speaker 8: the way over here and so far here or there,
Speaker 8: and I can come back to exactly where I started. Now,
Speaker 8: someday when you don't come back to where you started.
Speaker 8: But the weave is the way when you're telling, like
Speaker 8: a story, I was telling the story at a rally
Speaker 8: the other day in front of thousands of people, and
Speaker 8: I started off, and then something in the story I
Speaker 8: actually mentioned air Force one. It was air Force one,
Speaker 8: will say, so I mentioned air Force one, and then
Speaker 8: I said, how I got one point six billion dollars
Speaker 8: off the price of air Force one. So but then
Speaker 8: you have to come back to the story, where was
Speaker 8: air Force one taken?
Speaker 3: I do a weave. I call it the weave. There
Speaker 3: you go, call it to me. From Trump's own break,
Speaker 3: there was.
Speaker 1: A few things to say about that. First of all,
Speaker 1: that feels to me like that New York Times analysis
Speaker 1: of how he's gotten more rambly and more like disjointed
Speaker 1: and angrier and all these things like that.
Speaker 3: He oh of course read that.
Speaker 1: As much as he loves to hate you New York Times,
Speaker 1: he's always been sort of like obsessed with what these
Speaker 1: you know, prestigious mainstream outlets have to say. So that's
Speaker 1: one thing. The other thing is, my sixteen year old
Speaker 1: told me soccer that it's a thing on TikTok where
Speaker 1: they say that Trump talks kind of like he's like
Speaker 1: a sixteen year old girl. So with the basically truthful
Speaker 1: thing like being like, yeah, I'm like a basically truthful person.
Speaker 2: I had not thought about that either. I don't spend
Speaker 2: a lot of time with sixteen year old girls, but
Speaker 2: it does make sense. He certainly doesn't make sense basically a.
Speaker 1: Truthful person, and like Kamala Harris is just she's mean
Speaker 1: and nasty, and it's like, wow, that actually kind of
Speaker 1: fits fit.
Speaker 2: I mean, one of Trump's great strengths is he speaks
Speaker 2: in incredibly simple sentences.
Speaker 3: I saw. I remember back in twenty sixteen. People would criticize.
Speaker 2: Him for that though, like Trump speaks at a third
Speaker 2: grade reading level or whatever, and I was like, well,
Speaker 2: you know, you should look at the average reading level
Speaker 2: of America, because that's usually a good idea.
Speaker 1: I do think it's fair to say that his communication
Speaker 1: is not as Sharpert Chris. But if you go back
Speaker 1: and listen to him in twenty sixteen, especially if you
Speaker 1: compare his debate performance versus Hillary Clinton in comparison to
Speaker 1: his matchup versus Kamala Harris, he was way more crisp
Speaker 1: to the point able to more effectively do the weave,
Speaker 1: to stay on topic, et cetera, versus you know, in
Speaker 1: the Kamala Harris matchup, he was easily thrown off course,
Speaker 1: distracted from the main points he was supposed to hit.
Speaker 1: In fact, at the very end of the debate, you
Speaker 1: saw it sort of like click, oh shit, I was
Speaker 1: supposed to say that she's just like Joe Biden. I
Speaker 1: was supposed to hit her on these things. Let me
Speaker 1: just get it in here, you know, before the buzzer.
Speaker 1: So I do think it's fair to say that he
Speaker 1: is not as crisp as he was in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: that he's not as able to pull off the weave
Speaker 1: as he once was.
Speaker 2: Had some moments there, well, I don't know, you weren't
Speaker 2: there for the snake, which I had to sit through
Speaker 2: many times, used to memory. But he had a moment
Speaker 2: where he talked about nicknames, which is really funny because
Speaker 2: he was like, you have to make the nickname pew
Speaker 2: like actually hit. But he acknowledges some of his best
Speaker 2: nicknames were from twenty sixteen.
Speaker 3: Yeah, in the primary.
Speaker 1: He has not had a nickname hit really for a while.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like, Comrade Kamala, He's like, you know, it's
Speaker 2: hard to say, it's difficult.
Speaker 1: Which no one even understood.
Speaker 2: Well, he only he hasn't really said that one. That
Speaker 2: one was more via text. He's a few times as
Speaker 2: he but I mean, clearly isn't isn't caught on Tim,
Speaker 2: It's okay, it doesn't.
Speaker 3: It doesn't hit, it doesn't. Lion Ted was just so good.
Speaker 2: I can barely describe it to people about how much
Speaker 2: it hit at that time.
Speaker 3: Even Little Marco.
Speaker 1: Little Marco, yeah, like legendary.
Speaker 2: He tried the same. Sleepy Joe. I mean it was good,
Speaker 2: but I don't know for some reason it didn't. It
Speaker 2: didn't quite hit as well. But this this time around,
Speaker 2: he doesn't seem to be there. He even said he's like, well,
Speaker 2: some of my best nick names, I can't talk about
Speaker 2: them anymore because they're all my friends.
Speaker 1: Now that's funny.
Speaker 3: It was good.
Speaker 1: I think Sleepy Joe. I mean it was. It was
Speaker 1: good in one sense because it's sort of like Landon
Speaker 1: was accurate. Like the reason Crooked Hillary was so devastating
Speaker 1: is because people are like, she's correct, she like it. Yeah, literally,
Speaker 1: And I think Sleepy Joe, like it just doesn't have
Speaker 1: the same uh like tuoperative energy, Like it's not as
Speaker 1: vicious as crooked it. It doesn't bite. Just someone's sleepy. They're
Speaker 1: not like a threat. They're not scary, they're just kind
Speaker 1: of like, Okay, they're a little drowsy, you know. So
Speaker 1: I don't know that it especially an election where people
Speaker 1: are like, all right, it's been so chaotic, could we
Speaker 1: just have maybe a little bit of sleepy Joe, Like,
Speaker 1: let's just have a little sleepy time and be a
Speaker 1: little calm. I think that's part of why it didn't work.
Speaker 1: But in this election, he really hasn't had any any
Speaker 1: w's on the nickname front. And yeah, back in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: that was that was the main skill. There was one
Speaker 1: other clip that I found funny from this podcast that
Speaker 1: we didn't pull, but answer was like, so, so, what's
Speaker 1: what happened with Mike pens caught up with Mike Pence lately?
Speaker 3: Yeah, with Mike Pence. Well, Mike, he's a nice man,
Speaker 3: but you know, he didn't do what he said to
Speaker 3: you what he should have done.
Speaker 1: And the column when people have already taken that part
Speaker 1: and spliced it into at least an internet ad where
Speaker 1: they have that clip and then they flashed to like
Speaker 1: January sixth, and you know, people running around the Capitol
Speaker 1: calling for him to be hung, et cetera. Et cetera.
Speaker 1: So I did think that that was like I think
Speaker 1: what he did well Andrew Schultz in this podcast is
Speaker 1: you didn't try to be something other than what he is,
Speaker 1: and yet he did still did some things that were
Speaker 1: that were effective that you know, didn't take Trump too seriously,
Speaker 1: that did treat him just like he was another person
Speaker 1: who was going to come on the podcast that they
Speaker 1: were going to screw around with. And you know, I
Speaker 1: think that was that was a wise and smart approach,
Speaker 1: and it's going to we're going to have a whole this. Obviously,
Speaker 1: politicians in the past, they've gone on podcasts. They you know,
Speaker 1: even in the Obama era he was doing like interviews
Speaker 1: with YouTubers and.
Speaker 3: Whatever Marmarage's podcasts, remember that.
Speaker 1: But I do feel like this is kind of a
Speaker 1: breakout cycle in terms of podcasts being central to a strategy,
Speaker 1: because you've had so many cord cutters young Like, you're
Speaker 1: not going to reach young people going on any of
Speaker 1: the cable news shows or going on even with a
Speaker 1: Stephen c there, which still reaches a large audience, but
Speaker 1: not a young audience. So the best you would get
Speaker 1: on that is some kind of a viral moment that
Speaker 1: gets clipped up and put on TikTok. So I do
Speaker 1: feel like this is the first election where the choosing
Speaker 1: these podcasts to target some demographic group, whethers young men
Speaker 1: or young women, where that has really become a central
Speaker 1: part of both campaign strategies. But certainly the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: has leaned into it more than the Hairs camp.
Speaker 2: I was just reading watching post analysis this morning about
Speaker 2: how central the young male thesis is to the Trump campaign,
Speaker 2: how not only is the campaign rung by dudes, but
Speaker 2: very much is like a dude's rock campaign. By the way,
Speaker 2: I still think that is a very effective strategy. As
Speaker 2: I've said before, if you look at the main gains
Speaker 2: for Trump amongst racial minority groups, it's all within men.
Speaker 2: If anything, there's been more of a polarization. Young men
Speaker 2: are now more right wing than any previous younger generation,
Speaker 2: especially in the spread.
Speaker 3: With young women.
Speaker 2: So I've always said, I'm like, if you want the
Speaker 2: real tiracial coalition, it's just dudes.
Speaker 3: That's what you should be able to run on.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's necessarily good social sociologically, but electorally
Speaker 2: it could work. So clearly they think that that can work.
Speaker 2: Also with Kamala. I mean, I don't want to race
Speaker 2: like she did go on Call Her Daddy. I've seen
Speaker 2: a lot of people be like, oh, it didn't even
Speaker 2: get that many of views guys like Call Her Daddy's
Speaker 2: not video first podcast like it was a a It's
Speaker 2: an audio podcast that predominantly is listened to and or
Speaker 2: downloaded too. I'd be willing to bet it was in
Speaker 2: the millions. I mean the average download that they're getting
Speaker 2: is like five million a week or something.
Speaker 3: That's crazy. It's the second largest podcast in the freaking world.
Speaker 1: So what you I'm sure predominantly young women.
Speaker 3: It's almost all young women. So it's like that.
Speaker 1: And apparently like Bill Crystal, who was did you see that?
Speaker 3: Wait? What is this?
Speaker 1: There is some political playbook or some some piece about
Speaker 1: the Call Her Daddy thing that they had to disclose, like, oh,
Speaker 1: Bill Crystal's a.
Speaker 2: Founding member of the Daddy Gang. Oh my god, so
Speaker 2: wo I didn't even know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah. The last thing that I'll say about
Speaker 1: about this, just to make like trying to make a
Speaker 1: substance to political point here, is that the polling pretty
Speaker 1: consistently shows that Kamala is leading. When you talk about
Speaker 1: the voters who show up every election. She's leading among those,
Speaker 1: like I'm there in the midterms, I'm there for the
Speaker 1: special elections, I'm there certainly for every presidential election, I'm
Speaker 1: there for the problem. Like that voter Kamala Harris is
Speaker 1: leading with the less frequent voters is where Trump has
Speaker 1: an edge. And certainly the like young male demographic would
Speaker 1: be a classic like less frequent voter type of demographic,
Speaker 1: and that's what they're really counting on, is to to
Speaker 1: turn out those less frequent voters UH to come and
Speaker 1: support Donald Trump. So time will tell. I mean, certainly
Speaker 1: past indications when Trump is on the ballot, it usually
Speaker 1: leads to very high turnout, so you know, maybe that
Speaker 1: works out for him. On the other hand, if you're
Speaker 1: going to have that kind of a strategy where you're
Speaker 1: trying to turn out less frequent voters, I do think
Speaker 1: that having a more effective field operation they reportedly have
Speaker 1: and more money for an effective field operation, which they
Speaker 1: also are lacking in maybe a critical piece because if
Speaker 1: you're trying to you know, got to remind someone you
Speaker 1: got to contact is did you turn out? What's your
Speaker 1: plan to turn out? Have you voted yet? Who do
Speaker 1: you like? That requires a lot of energy and effort,
Speaker 1: So you know that it's surprising to me that they
Speaker 1: haven't invested more in that turnout operation, that classic field operation,
Speaker 1: given how much their strategy is reliant on these less
Speaker 1: frequent voters.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, yeah, I mean I think it will be. Look,
Speaker 2: I mean religious, I can't. I can't wait at this
Speaker 2: point now for election night, just because there's been so
Speaker 2: many like theories and tests that I'm so interested in, Like,
Speaker 2: at this point, I just want to see the data.
Speaker 3: I want to see what actually happens.