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. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday.
Speaker 2: Have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal, Indeed.
Speaker 1: We do lots of big developments. We're going to take
Speaker 1: a look at some of the Trump cabinet picks which
Speaker 1: are coming into view. In fact, we just got some
Speaker 1: updates last evening that we can share with you and
Speaker 1: Sagrel spend some time breaking down some of these fights
Speaker 1: within the Republican Party. You can explain to me and
Speaker 1: everybody else what exactly is going on there. We also
Speaker 1: have some election updates where the Senate finally landed, where
Speaker 1: things are with regard to the House, and some interesting
Speaker 1: media reaction that we can talk about as well. Big
Speaker 1: fight breaking out between Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi. She
Speaker 1: fired shots at him, he has taken some shots back.
Speaker 1: So we'll break all of that down and what it
Speaker 1: could mean for the future of the Democratic Party. We're
Speaker 1: going to break down this pugrum hoax. Sorry, that's what
Speaker 1: it is that is unfolded in Amsterdam, the way the
Speaker 1: media reacted, the truth of what actually unfolded. Give you
Speaker 1: all of those details and also some deeply disturbing new
Speaker 1: statistics released from the UN that reveal at least seventy
Speaker 1: percent of those who have been killed in Gaza by
Speaker 1: the IDF were women and children. So we'll show you
Speaker 1: those numbers. Soccer is going to take a look at
Speaker 1: the media and how this election unfolded, what it means
Speaker 1: going forward. And I'm going to take a look at
Speaker 1: the pod Save Bros. Revealing Biden had polling internally that
Speaker 1: said he was on track to lose four hundred Electoral
Speaker 1: College votes at a time when him and his aides
Speaker 1: were still insisting that he was the best possible candidate
Speaker 1: that Democrats could put forward. What it says about the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party and also the indications that you know, as
Speaker 1: poor as this election went from them could get a
Speaker 1: lot worse things if they don't change course, things could
Speaker 1: get a hell of a lot worse for them.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I'm excited to hear that, though I'm sure
Speaker 2: you are great. It's just what a beautiful statistic, four
Speaker 2: hundred electoral But before we get to that, just thank
Speaker 2: you so much to all of our Premu subscribers.
Speaker 3: You guys made our election night possible.
Speaker 2: I mean, we had logan here, we had our partnership
Speaker 2: with Decision Discs HQ, and we're still going to be
Speaker 2: utilizing some of that in the show. And it was
Speaker 2: really amazing just to not to be able to provide
Speaker 2: like full coverage, but also just see the way that
Speaker 2: you guys reacted to it. A big part of my
Speaker 2: monologue is actually about how many Americans, hundreds of millions
Speaker 2: or tens of millions of people spent their night on
Speaker 2: election night, not just with us, but with other people online.
Speaker 2: And it was the lowest ratings ever for election night
Speaker 2: in mainstream media. That is literally possible because of people
Speaker 2: like you. It was our biggest week literally ever in
Speaker 2: the history of the show, downloads, views and all of that.
Speaker 2: So just thank you to all of you, and we've
Speaker 2: got don't worry, we still got big things planned.
Speaker 3: Twenty twenty six is not yet upon us.
Speaker 1: I'm joking and joking there. We'll get there twenty twenty six. Now,
Speaker 1: I actually think it'll be an interesting year.
Speaker 2: If we think back to it, you know, it may
Speaker 2: be some of the most policy focused show's ever been.
Speaker 2: If we think back to the first year the Biden administration,
Speaker 2: spend a lot of time talking about BBB, about what
Speaker 2: COVID vaccine mandates, et cetera. This really is traditionally the
Speaker 2: first hundred days and the first year is the real
Speaker 2: time when any of the landmark stuff usually does get past.
Speaker 2: It happened in twenty seventeen with Donald Trump. So if
Speaker 2: you like policy, gear up. We'll definitely have a lot
Speaker 2: you know, we'll have a lot more room, We'll have time,
Speaker 2: we can bring in some analysts and some other people
Speaker 2: and really dig into it. So I'm excited about that
Speaker 2: for the next year. So sign up Breakingpoints dot Com
Speaker 2: if you want. It's gonna be a very different show,
Speaker 2: but a good show.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: We'll stick with the news and in some ways, you know, honestly, that's.
Speaker 3: What I prefer to talk about.
Speaker 2: Anyways, It's not just damn elections all the time, So
Speaker 2: I'm excited.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the horse race definitely sends up a lot of oxygen.
Speaker 1: So and listen, I mean, one thing you can say
Speaker 1: about Trump, he certainly it'll be crea. It's a lot
Speaker 1: of injury.
Speaker 3: He will create a lot of content.
Speaker 1: I'm sure. I have no doubt there will not be
Speaker 1: a dearth of things for us to discuss here and.
Speaker 2: Ket exactly all right, already the show is too damn fall.
Speaker 2: So that's where we're at. Okay, let's start with the
Speaker 2: Trump personnel and how the transition and the cabinet is
Speaker 2: beginning to shape up. So we're starting to get some
Speaker 2: interesting signals. To put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: This is hands down the most important one from Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: He says, quote, I will not be inviting former Ambassador
Speaker 2: Nikki Haley or former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to
Speaker 2: join the Trump administration, which is currently information. I very
Speaker 2: much enjoyed, appreciated working with them previously. I would like
Speaker 2: to thank them for their service to our country make
Speaker 2: America great again. So obviously, those are two of the
Speaker 2: most prominent neo cons who previously worked in the Trump
Speaker 2: administration who had not yet I guess denounced Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: You know, it's there were many other much worse ones,
Speaker 2: people like John Bolton wasn't coming.
Speaker 1: Back, right, Bolton's not coming back? Who did he?
Speaker 2: I think he wrote in John McCain or something like
Speaker 2: that for president, according to him in his latest CNN interviews.
Speaker 2: So someone who I think he might have it was
Speaker 2: either McCain or Paul Ryan or something like that.
Speaker 3: It was ridiculous.
Speaker 2: Oh no, sorry, I'm thinking of Jodah Goldberg, who wrote
Speaker 2: Paul Ryan a very serious political intellectualist everyone definitely spend
Speaker 2: their time listening to anyways. So this is important because
Speaker 2: this was a big fight in turn of the transition.
Speaker 2: There was a lot that was a lot of ammunition
Speaker 2: against Haley. It was a lot easier because there's quite
Speaker 2: a bit of bad blood inside the Trump team over Haley.
Speaker 3: In that last week of the campaign where she denounced,
Speaker 3: I don't.
Speaker 1: Think anyone really expected her to be there.
Speaker 2: Right, But it was one of those where I honestly
Speaker 2: think she might have had a chance if she had
Speaker 2: not gone on TV the week before to criticize the
Speaker 2: campaign over MSG and to very publicly kind of make
Speaker 2: a bet that she thought that the campaign was going
Speaker 2: to fail, because there's no reason to do that unless
Speaker 2: you thought that the campaign was going to lose.
Speaker 3: If you did genuinely have a concern, you'd pick up
Speaker 3: the phone.
Speaker 1: Pompeo is.
Speaker 2: Honestly, that shows a real victory I think for the
Speaker 2: online right, in particular, because there was a very coordinated
Speaker 2: campaign by you know, a lot of the Mega America
Speaker 2: first types online who were like, Mike Pompeo cannot be picked.
Speaker 3: He's somebody who he never like. He ever went as
Speaker 3: far as Haley.
Speaker 2: He had little signals that he would give about how
Speaker 2: he didn't necessarily support Trump, but he attended the rallies,
Speaker 2: you know, if Trump shouted him out Previously. Ben Shapiro
Speaker 2: actually gave an interview a couple of weeks ago. He's like,
Speaker 2: have absolute assurance Mike Pompeo will be in the next administration.
Speaker 2: So that is the most high profile like pickoff for
Speaker 2: the neocons. I don't want to get too carried away.
Speaker 2: There's still quite a bit of people that need to
Speaker 2: get picked and we're going to get into some of this.
Speaker 2: But in terms of the most influential positions, I think
Speaker 2: we say relative confidence these people not only not going
Speaker 2: to be back in the admin, but being a Neocon
Speaker 2: specifically very very very hawkish on the outer bounds on Ukraine.
Speaker 2: That is going to be a bit of a problem
Speaker 2: for you. So that's one thing we can say it
Speaker 2: with relative confidence. Let's move on to the next one.
Speaker 2: This was an interesting choice and announcement as well. This
Speaker 2: was the first one on November seven, so a two. Please,
Speaker 2: we'll put it up there on the screen. Trump announced
Speaker 2: that Susie Wiles will be appointed the White House Chief
Speaker 2: of Staff. So Susie Wilds is very much like a
Speaker 2: kind of a non ideological just like campaign operative. She
Speaker 2: has an interesting history actually, so she ran the Trump
Speaker 2: floor to operation in twenty sixteen. Then she joined Ron
Speaker 2: DeSantis's campaign in twenty eighteen. But then DeSantis fired her
Speaker 2: and kind of made it created a jihot against Susie Wilds.
Speaker 1: And so I got the details.
Speaker 3: I don't remember the exact details.
Speaker 2: I think there was a lot of beef around the
Speaker 2: narrow margin of victory for his campaign and whether Trump
Speaker 2: was whatever.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of personalities involved here.
Speaker 2: And so the point is is that after DeSantis jettison
Speaker 2: Wiles from his campaign, she then decided to go and
Speaker 2: join the Trump side and Trump obviously she worked for
Speaker 2: Trump back in twenty twenty, and then from that point
Speaker 2: forward she also had a real gi hut against Ron
Speaker 2: Desanta's her former boss, and so there's quite a bit
Speaker 2: of beef and stuff like that behind that. I would
Speaker 2: not read all that much into this in terms of
Speaker 2: ideology from those who I have spoken to, Susie Wiles
Speaker 2: is a person who is very much a behind the
Speaker 2: scenes hatchet person in terms of execution. So you're like, hey,
Speaker 2: I want this to be don be like, okay, mister president.
Speaker 2: Sounds good. That's generally what it seems to be. She
Speaker 2: doesn't really bring a lot of her own like thoughts
Speaker 2: to the table. She's very much just like an organized
Speaker 2: like make sure the flow chart and all that other
Speaker 2: stuff is working. That's how she appeared to operate on
Speaker 2: the campaign, and by all accounts, she has good rapport
Speaker 2: with Trump enough to be like, hey, you need to.
Speaker 1: Cut some of this shit out.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: We're also talking about Donald Trump, so it's not like
Speaker 2: anybody can control him, but people around him are very
Speaker 2: happy with that choice. They've got a good rapport from
Speaker 2: the successful campaign. Some of you may have seen Susie
Speaker 2: on the election night around like two or three in
Speaker 2: the morning. He was like, Susie, come up here, come
Speaker 2: take the mic, and she was like, no, I'm not
Speaker 2: taking that. She was like, let Chris Chris Lasovita the
Speaker 2: other campaign manage it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, take the mind. I mean, this is a very like,
Speaker 1: you know, standard longtime GOP Apparachick. Yeah, works for Bush,
Speaker 1: worked for what McCain. Yes, she you know, was a
Speaker 1: corporate lobbyat a bunch of like Pharmer clients, et cetera.
Speaker 1: So that's, you know, she comes from a very establishment
Speaker 1: GOP background. I was just looking up what caused the
Speaker 1: split with her and DeSantis. It says they began to
Speaker 1: fracture because the speculation ranges from her taking too much
Speaker 1: credit for DeSantis's victory that would be a big problem
Speaker 1: for Trump speaking too freely to reporters, and another concern
Speaker 1: she was too close to her former client Rick Scott.
Speaker 1: And then I think apparently she also didn't get along
Speaker 1: with Casey DeSantis and his chief of staffs, so that
Speaker 1: there were just some like interpersonal issues there as well.
Speaker 1: So anyway, that seems to be the cause of this
Speaker 1: whatever that is with her DeSantis.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, as I'm looking at all these Trump cabinet
Speaker 1: and personal pics or whatever, one of the things I'm
Speaker 1: thinking about is how many of these people are going
Speaker 1: to end up like denouncing him, leaving the White House,
Speaker 1: like joining the you know, anti Trump side. She seems
Speaker 1: like one that could be possible, just because she is
Speaker 1: such a kind of like standard.
Speaker 2: GOP figure, if only if he humiliated her, which by
Speaker 2: the way, is very possible.
Speaker 3: I would not would never say.
Speaker 1: I think. The only reason I say.
Speaker 3: That STARTI rode the campaign.
Speaker 1: The only thing I the only reason I say that
Speaker 1: is because we can cue up this statt and will
Speaker 1: come back to the element before this, the A two B.
Speaker 1: But apparently she's telling people like she's going to keep
Speaker 1: the clown car away from Trump or whatever. It's like,
Speaker 1: good luck. You know how many people, how many people
Speaker 1: have thought they were going to be able to control
Speaker 1: this person, keep them on the rails, keep them from
Speaker 1: doing the most insane things like that's not going to happen.
Speaker 1: So I still think that there are a lot of
Speaker 1: people who delude themselves into thinking that if they're there,
Speaker 1: they can, you know, keep things headed in whatever direction.
Speaker 1: They think is productive. Here's Laura Ingram. This is a three.
Speaker 1: I think talking to Tulci Gabbard about those comments from Susie.
Speaker 4: Wiles, Congratulations to Susie Wiles. She is fantastic. I've so
Speaker 4: enjoyed working with her. She is a straight shooter, and
Speaker 4: I'm looking forward to seeing her as chief of staff.
Speaker 5: Well, she her source was close quoted as saying the
Speaker 5: clown show is basically not going to have access to
Speaker 5: the Oval office. Essentially, I'm paraphrasing, but the words clown
Speaker 5: show was used.
Speaker 1: Is that a good thing?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 4: You know, she works very well with President Trump. I
Speaker 4: think she did. She is of great credit to winning
Speaker 4: this campaign and being able to make sure that the
Speaker 4: train didn't go off the rails, and so, you know,
Speaker 4: I think she's going to do a fantastic job is
Speaker 4: White House Chief is staff. President Trump seeks counsel from
Speaker 4: those that he wants to but but Susie Wilds will
Speaker 4: provide a great leadership on his behalf.
Speaker 1: I have to yeah, I have to think that those
Speaker 1: comments are specifically about people like Laura Lumoer. Yeah, well
Speaker 1: from there was like a specific like you know, fight
Speaker 1: that she waged to try to keep Laura lumor appear
Speaker 1: to remove Laura Lumer from the Trump in orbit. It
Speaker 1: does appear that she was successful.
Speaker 2: After Laura made it on the plane, she was able
Speaker 2: to offload her from the plane. Now you know, who
Speaker 2: knows how that will work out. Look, I tend to
Speaker 2: agree Trump is a figure who is on the phone
Speaker 2: basically all day long whoever he wants and when he
Speaker 2: wants something, and especially whenever he feels like his advisors
Speaker 2: are keeping him from something. It's almost like childlike where
Speaker 2: he's like, well, and then I need to see that person.
Speaker 3: I elevate that person. I need to get them in
Speaker 3: here to the White House.
Speaker 2: I really saw this in the latter days during Stop
Speaker 2: the Steal, when a lot of his advisors would not
Speaker 2: give him what he wants. Then he was like, Okay,
Speaker 2: I'm just going to invite them privately or through the campaign,
Speaker 2: and they would end up in the Oval office, you know,
Speaker 2: like a lot of these crackpots who eventually pled guilty
Speaker 2: were literally in the Oval with.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and despite.
Speaker 2: You know the efforts of the White House counsel Pat Sippoloni,
Speaker 2: who tried desperately to keep them out. So in general,
Speaker 2: Trump is Look, he's a seven year old man. He's
Speaker 2: gonna do whatever he wants to do. I guess the
Speaker 2: real question is how much interest that Trump even has
Speaker 2: on policy, Because if he doesn't have as much interest
Speaker 2: on policy and he just leaves it to Susie Wilds
Speaker 2: and the people who he points honestly, it could be
Speaker 2: a good thing. But the other side of that is
Speaker 2: that if he does decide to intervene, it can really
Speaker 2: throw an entire wrench into the process. So look, it
Speaker 2: very much remains to be seen. Continuing on the personnel front,
Speaker 2: let's go to the next one.
Speaker 1: A two B.
Speaker 2: Please Trump has offered a least dephonic the job as
Speaker 2: US ambassador chat the United Nations. Yeah, I mean, look,
Speaker 2: it's a coalition party, Crystal and pro Israel is definitely
Speaker 2: a muwe part of the cold.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the thing is she won this position
Speaker 1: by you know, being the chief instigator of the campus
Speaker 1: anti Semitic like yes, the freak out, the freak out, yes,
Speaker 1: which makes her, you know, one of the most woke
Speaker 1: people in the coalition, actually worried about microaggressions, wanting safe
Speaker 1: spaces for these students. But I mean it says a
Speaker 1: lot that the chief qualification she has here is that
Speaker 1: she you know, stoked this whole anti Semitic like panic
Speaker 1: thing and is super pro Israel. And I'm sure she'll
Speaker 1: be there at the UN to give lots of time.
Speaker 1: I was covered to Natyato and you know, back them up.
Speaker 1: So basically Israel now has two UN representatives. Of course
Speaker 1: they already do, yeah, they already did.
Speaker 2: But in this case, I mean, look, there's good and
Speaker 2: there's bad.
Speaker 1: Good.
Speaker 2: Is UN ambassador is one of the dumbest jobs in
Speaker 2: the entire United States government. You're technically part of the cabinet,
Speaker 2: but you know whatever, you live in New York.
Speaker 3: You had to live in some fancy thing.
Speaker 2: And what's the only thing Nikki Haley did in office
Speaker 2: this She's raised her hand a couple of times in.
Speaker 1: Very high profile kind of like glamorous, right, But it's bullshit.
Speaker 1: You don't do anything.
Speaker 2: It's like you literally read from prescripted remarks to the
Speaker 2: Secretary of State gives you.
Speaker 3: So you have very little power.
Speaker 2: On the other hand, you can have a lot of power,
Speaker 2: especially this time, and this is one where I am
Speaker 2: almost betting the farm that the pro Israel donors really
Speaker 2: boosted her. And the other thing to understand about Stephanick
Speaker 2: is not only did she gain a lot of she
Speaker 2: came like more comere nationally prominent, prominent with this whole
Speaker 2: Israel thing, But prior to that, she was a big
Speaker 2: Trump loyalist. She made her bones on the second Trump
Speaker 2: impeachment and she made her speeches for him. She went
Speaker 2: all in on defending Trump so much so I thought
Speaker 2: she was a real contender for vice president because Trump
Speaker 2: loves to her. He would always bring it to mar
Speaker 2: A Lago, and I remember it was like twenty twenty
Speaker 2: two or something, He's like, this lady's going to be president.
Speaker 2: So as usual with Trump, like as long as you're
Speaker 2: personally very you know, if you are willing to defend him,
Speaker 2: then that's the thing that matters the most. So that's
Speaker 2: one where at least dephonic we can learn, you know,
Speaker 2: that's again she does. She's not going to have a
Speaker 2: lot of power, but she will probably be high profile,
Speaker 2: especially with respect to anything Israel related. And this is
Speaker 2: almost one hundred percent a big like, uh, what is
Speaker 2: it like an olive branch to the donors for what
Speaker 2: they want? It could be right, hopefully in my estimation,
Speaker 2: that they give it something like this to her, it's
Speaker 2: like a meaningless position, but it's something in the un
Speaker 2: But then the more important ones like Secretary of State
Speaker 2: and Secretary of Defense, you pick somebody who is going
Speaker 2: to be less hawkish. All of that very much remains
Speaker 2: to be seen. I want to be very very clear
Speaker 2: about that.
Speaker 1: So what do you think was most influential in spiking
Speaker 1: Mike Pumpeio, Because Pumpei was like traveling with Trump at
Speaker 1: the end of the campaign. Trump was talking him up
Speaker 1: on Joe Rogan and Sea. Who do you think was.
Speaker 3: Massing Don Junior?
Speaker 2: So Junior, as it's very interesting, Junior has taken a
Speaker 2: major interest in the transition this time around. And actually Junior,
Speaker 2: unlike most of the people around Trump and very specifically
Speaker 2: like Jared Kushner, is ideological in a much more America
Speaker 2: first way. So, for example, if you look at his
Speaker 2: Twitter feed, Dave Smith, you know, put out a clip
Speaker 2: and he's like, let's make sure Pompeos first, Let's keep
Speaker 2: all the neo cons out. Don Junior was like, I'm
Speaker 2: on it, don't worry about it. Previously, Junior was very
Speaker 2: impactful on picking jd Vance as the vice president. He
Speaker 2: also is a major player in nuking all of the
Speaker 2: people who worked on Project twenty twenty five and on
Speaker 2: the people who's taken a real interest in the transition.
Speaker 2: Trump and him appear to have been become closer at
Speaker 2: least like politically this time around. And Don Junior also
Speaker 2: kind of keeps his finger on the pulse culturally. In fact,
Speaker 2: I would be, you know, remiss if I didn't point
Speaker 2: this out. It's really because of Don Junior and his
Speaker 2: friendship with Dana White and UFC and all these comedians
Speaker 2: and a lot of this podcast stuff even kicked off.
Speaker 2: You know, Don Junior's been at these UFC fights for
Speaker 2: years now. He's somebody who's already friends Dana White because
Speaker 2: his dad was. But he you know, I mean, Andrew
Speaker 2: Schultz has talked about this. Him and Schultz were friends.
Speaker 2: He met Rogan. I mean, if you check out his
Speaker 2: Instagram feed, like he's Tony Hinchcliff and all these they're
Speaker 2: all swimming in the same ether.
Speaker 1: So was apparently influential.
Speaker 2: Baron was more of the gen z Aiden Ross exactly,
Speaker 2: but Junior is like he's the bridge to the millennial comedians,
Speaker 2: I guess, and so I think he was probably the
Speaker 2: most influential on that and is being very influential in
Speaker 2: terms of the transition. So you know, I take some
Speaker 2: heart in that, because again, if you literally just look
Speaker 2: at his own public remarks, I don't think you would
Speaker 2: deny any of this.
Speaker 1: He's he is.
Speaker 2: Somebody who is very ideological on the subject of Ukraine
Speaker 2: and also on the subject of at least as far
Speaker 2: as I can tell, on terms of war with Iron
Speaker 2: I mean, anybody Republican figure who's engaging with Dave Smith.
Speaker 2: I mean, we all know Dave is as legiti as
Speaker 2: it gets on this subject. So that seems to be
Speaker 2: a positive indicator. But let's put the Reuters piece up
Speaker 2: on the screen. This floats some other names that are
Speaker 2: in there. In terms of the secretary's Treasury Secretary, it's
Speaker 2: almost certainly going to be some Wall Street figure. Trump
Speaker 2: is obsessed with this idea that you need to have
Speaker 2: a billionaire like Wall Street financier in head as head
Speaker 2: of the Treasury Secretary because he remembers the Reagan times
Speaker 2: and he wants to he wants to bring some of
Speaker 2: that back. So people like John Paulson Scott Bessen.
Speaker 1: Arry Kudler is still getting to mention in here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't think Larry would get it just because
Speaker 2: it seems I mean, no offense to Larry. But like
Speaker 2: treasure sect is a real job. You know, It's like
Speaker 2: you're not just on TV talking. You actually have to
Speaker 2: really know what you're doing and be like a very high,
Speaker 2: high competent figure. You know, say what you want about
Speaker 2: Steve Mnusan, but you know, when time came, he actually
Speaker 2: did a pretty decent job, at least in terms of
Speaker 2: the small business administration stuff during COVID. Robert Leitheiser, it appears,
Speaker 2: has been tapped as US Trade Representative. Lightheiser is very
Speaker 2: very strong on tariffs. He was the architect of the
Speaker 2: Trump tariff policy. He I thought, hey, you might be
Speaker 2: in charge and then the running for secret of State.
Speaker 3: But we don't have any of that right now.
Speaker 2: But I can tell you, you know, Leitheiser very legit guy,
Speaker 2: not only in the subject of China terrace, but he
Speaker 2: designed USMCA with Mexico. Him and Trump have a very
Speaker 2: very strong relationship. Trump strongly trusts Bob Leithheiser and actually
Speaker 2: would empower him. Usually the trade trade representative does not
Speaker 2: have quite a lot of power. And also the best
Speaker 2: thing for Lathhauser this time around is that Jared Kusher
Speaker 2: is not coming into the ADMIN, and last time around
Speaker 2: he would do all these ad hoc negotiations which would
Speaker 2: undercut him.
Speaker 1: I saw Vivac is a potential for secretary stage you
Speaker 1: buy that.
Speaker 2: It's difficult to believe simply because we're about to talk
Speaker 2: about the Senate math. I don't see it for vic
Speaker 2: I just don't see how you could take somebody who
Speaker 2: is not I'm not saying it would be a bath secretary,
Speaker 2: so actually be good. But the issue is going to
Speaker 2: be do you really think John Thune is going to
Speaker 2: vote for him? Do you really think John Cornyn? Do
Speaker 2: you really think I don't know, I'm trying to think
Speaker 2: of Lisa Murkowski or I don't think lisam Mkowski would
Speaker 2: vote for a vivege in college they have.
Speaker 1: A three Well, first of all, I mean they're talking
Speaker 1: about doing recent appointments anyway. Yeah, we'll be able to
Speaker 1: get people through, you know, even who wouldn't be able
Speaker 1: to garner the majority. But I don't see if a
Speaker 1: VAKED failing a confirmation, it.
Speaker 2: Would be difficult just because he's an unknown figure and
Speaker 2: these people are Washington Creek.
Speaker 1: To like part of somebody gonna get who Trump want.
Speaker 2: So somebody I spoke to you yesterday said that internally
Speaker 2: that there is a real graybeard like bias for the
Speaker 2: big four, and the big four are like Secretary of Treasury,
Speaker 2: Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and Chief of Staff
Speaker 2: and then all of those in general. Look the average
Speaker 2: as in the Senate, it's like sixty five vagas of
Speaker 2: what like forty three. You know, it's like, yeah, to
Speaker 2: get somebody through like.
Speaker 1: That is going to be hard. I don't know, I mean,
Speaker 1: don't get my hopes up.
Speaker 2: I would like I listened, Hey, I think you'd be
Speaker 2: the best cabinet I all think.
Speaker 1: But well, why don't we talk about the next part
Speaker 1: and then we can continue this conversation in there because
Speaker 1: it has you know, relates to this like Senate leadership
Speaker 1: fight and all of those things.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a good point, So let's move there to
Speaker 2: the big Senate leadership fight. So this is like a
Speaker 2: big war going on right now over who should be
Speaker 2: the next GOP leader in the Senate. Mitch McConnell is retiring,
Speaker 2: and stepping down from leader. And so the three candidates
Speaker 2: are Rick Scott, John Thune, and John Cornyn. So John
Speaker 2: Thune and John Cornyn are more establishment types. They were
Speaker 2: already number two and number three in the Republican Conference.
Speaker 2: Rick Scott has become like a Maga rallying cry.
Speaker 3: So let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: For example, from Tucker Carlson, the most prominent to tweet
Speaker 2: this out, he says, what the hell is going on
Speaker 2: in the US Senate? Hours after Trump wins the most
Speaker 2: conclusive mandate in forty years, Mitch McConnell has engineered a
Speaker 2: coup against his agenda by calling early leadership elections. Two
Speaker 2: of the three candidates hate Trump and what he ran on.
Speaker 2: One of them, John Cornyn, is an angry liberal whose
Speaker 2: politics are indistinguishable from Liz Cheney's. The election is Wednesday,
Speaker 2: it's by secret ballot, and it will determine whether or
Speaker 2: not the new administration succeeds. Rick Scott at Florida is
Speaker 2: the only candidate who agrees with Donald Trump. Call your
Speaker 2: senator and demand a public endorsement of Rick Scott. Don't
Speaker 2: let McConnell get away with it again. That is Honestly,
Speaker 2: the big question is what why Rick Scott? And I
Speaker 2: got to be honest, I don't get it at all.
Speaker 2: For example, because Rick Scott was the guy who was
Speaker 2: in charge of the Senate leadership campaign, the what is it,
Speaker 2: the NRSC. He was the head of the NRC in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty two, which was a disaster. Remember he went
Speaker 2: to the Amalfi coast on a yacht.
Speaker 1: He put out that whole like policy friend that called
Speaker 1: for Medicare and Social Security to be sunseted every what
Speaker 1: like three years and have to be revoted.
Speaker 2: Biden campaign ran on and was a huge boon. Remember
Speaker 2: whenever Biden gave his the only frankly good speech he
Speaker 2: gave his president whenever he was giving a State of
Speaker 2: the Union, and he was like, oh, so you agree
Speaker 2: we're not going to cut social security?
Speaker 1: Got it right? No, it was a real up around
Speaker 1: Republicans neck, I mean, Democrats across the country ran on
Speaker 1: that plan. Because when you have the guy who's running
Speaker 1: the Republican campaign putting out like, hey, we're going to
Speaker 1: get rid of Medicare in a couple of years, that's
Speaker 1: such a slam dunk, and everybody a lot of him
Speaker 1: like political acumen. I guess we would say I don't
Speaker 1: get it.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm assuming there must have just been some
Speaker 2: behinds seems to deal with Trump and Rick Scott, where
Speaker 2: Rick was basically like, yes, sir, I'll do whatever you want,
Speaker 2: you know, whereas John Thune and Cornyn I'm not saying
Speaker 2: they won't do it, but it's just different. Like these
Speaker 2: guys are Washington creatures. They've been in office since George W.
Speaker 1: Bush.
Speaker 2: You know, They've seen presidents come and go. They know
Speaker 2: how to slow shit down, they know how to do
Speaker 2: things if they need to, to obfuscate or to stop
Speaker 2: things from coming to the floor. And traditionally this is
Speaker 2: something about the Senate as an institution. Traditionally, the Senate
Speaker 2: as an institution revers its own independence. And so what
Speaker 2: they are very what they love more than anything is
Speaker 2: their ability to do and take as much time as
Speaker 2: they want to get what they see as important done,
Speaker 2: whether it be confirmation, legislation, etc. That's literally their role
Speaker 2: in the democratic process. And so it's understandable, but the
Speaker 2: Senate always chafes at presidential control. The other thing about
Speaker 2: you know, Rex Scott is last time I checked and
Speaker 2: Michael Tracy flag this. Let's put this up there on
Speaker 2: the screen. Rick Scott is a freaking Ukraine kahak. I
Speaker 2: mean quote from Tracy. Rick Scott has consistently denounced the
Speaker 2: administration for not arming Ukraine aggressively enough. His argument is
Speaker 2: that Biden has imposed successive constraints on Ukraine and their
Speaker 2: ability to defeat Russia. As Tracy says, I've interviewed Scott
Speaker 2: myself multiple times and he's never been anything but consistent
Speaker 2: on the subject. So when Magas declared that Scott and
Speaker 2: Trump are in firm agreement, Ukraine would presumably have to
Speaker 2: be one of them, correct. I mean, look, as usual
Speaker 2: with all these actual parsing the details is very inconvenient,
Speaker 2: But that's an important thing, you know, in terms of Ukraine,
Speaker 2: that's one of those that Trump has made a flagship
Speaker 2: promise to end the war in Ukraine. He's spoken now
Speaker 2: with Vladimir Putin and woo Zelinsky will maybe talk a
Speaker 2: little bit more about it tomorrow. But you know, if
Speaker 2: he does end up approving more weapons to Ukraine and
Speaker 2: continuing this war and not bringing it to a close
Speaker 2: like he did with Afghanistan despite his promise, that would
Speaker 2: be a huge betrayal honestly of a lot of the
Speaker 2: promises that he made. So open question that Senate race
Speaker 2: is on Wednesday, it's actually by secret ballot. That's kind
Speaker 2: of interesting. And also the battle lines are very odd.
Speaker 2: So like I'm pretty sure Josh Holly has not supported
Speaker 2: Rick Scott this time around.
Speaker 1: But I mean anytime in one of these bodies, you're
Speaker 1: going to have things that are non ideological, that are
Speaker 1: just like personal beefs. Yeah, there's so and so didn't
Speaker 1: respond to you know, I mean, so you just don't
Speaker 1: know who's who's done a better job like making friends
Speaker 1: and being a nicey nice one.
Speaker 2: Well, see, that's one reason I think Rick Scott may
Speaker 2: have a problem is he pissed a lot of people
Speaker 2: off last time because he ran against Mcconnaldy. Yes, he's
Speaker 2: not particularly popular at least as I understand it within
Speaker 2: the conference, you know, Thune and Corny and look, I
Speaker 2: don't agree with these guys on basically anything. There is
Speaker 2: like opposite as me as it gets on like every
Speaker 2: subject and even on America first. But there is a
Speaker 2: real bias in the Senate to just being around forever
Speaker 2: knowing everybody having everybody's phone number. They've been the whip
Speaker 2: and the number whatever the whip in the what's the
Speaker 2: number one leader or something for you know, over a decade,
Speaker 2: so they've been on the phone.
Speaker 3: They know what pet issue.
Speaker 2: Oh, Susan Collins wants a bridge in fucking Maine or whatever.
Speaker 1: I raised money for you. I showed up, I called
Speaker 1: in this favor, I got this donor to whatever.
Speaker 2: Yeah, corny, I mean, he controls a ton of oil
Speaker 2: money in terms of the donors Thune. He's also very
Speaker 2: popular on the big donor circuit and a lot of
Speaker 2: these establishment types. That's a big question for Rick Scott.
Speaker 2: I mean, can he raise money? Like I said, he
Speaker 2: didn't do a very good job last time. One of
Speaker 2: the reasons McConnell had such a stronghold on the conference
Speaker 2: is he was kind of like Pelosi.
Speaker 1: He was the conduit for billions.
Speaker 3: Of dollars that were flowing from him.
Speaker 2: So it is a big question. I have no idea
Speaker 2: how it will go. I guess it's I mean, it's possible.
Speaker 2: Ran Paul has come out for Rick Scott, but there's
Speaker 2: enough of them that are silent that I'm wondering whether
Speaker 2: they go in a different direction.
Speaker 1: To be honest with you, I don't think it really matters.
Speaker 1: I think Trump has thoroughly bent the party to his will.
Speaker 1: I mean, as evidence by we're about to talk about,
Speaker 1: Trump is saying, Hey, anybody who's going to be majority leader,
Speaker 1: they got to do recess appointments, which basically means that
Speaker 1: you are giving up. If you are the Republican majority leader,
Speaker 1: a big part of what your power and prestige is,
Speaker 1: which is to oversee these confirmation hearings. And all three
Speaker 1: of them instantly were like, Yep, we'll do that, no problem.
Speaker 1: So I don't know that. I mean, I just think
Speaker 1: it's probably at this point a distinction that doesn't really
Speaker 1: make a difference. Yeah, they're going to do what Trump
Speaker 1: wants them to do because they see where the party is, like,
Speaker 1: there is no room for bucking this man when he
Speaker 1: decides that he really wants something done. I guess the
Speaker 1: case the opposite case is that there are many things
Speaker 1: that Trump doesn't really engage on, and that's where perhaps
Speaker 1: it makes the difference. But I just I don't know
Speaker 1: that this fight is ultimately that important. In my opinion.
Speaker 2: The case really matters is stuff like when Trump remember
Speaker 2: pressured Mitch McConnell to nuke the filibuster to get the
Speaker 2: border to bill through, stuff like that. Right where I
Speaker 2: think Dune and Cornyn would be much more an institutionalists,
Speaker 2: like we're not going to touch it, Whereas I think Scott,
Speaker 2: at least from what I can tell right now, I
Speaker 2: mean clearly like he's made a deal with Trump and
Speaker 2: he's like, I'll do whatever you want.
Speaker 1: It would be an interesting thing though.
Speaker 2: Actually if he does, this would be the first Senate
Speaker 2: leader to really be in subservience to the president you know,
Speaker 2: a long time. You know, if we think I'm trying
Speaker 2: to think back, I think it would have to be
Speaker 2: back in the Reagan era. Maybe it's been a while
Speaker 2: since you've had somebody totally in locks with that. Let's
Speaker 2: go to the next part here. Oh yeah, this is
Speaker 2: John Thune. Everybody will love this. He was on CNBC
Speaker 2: and he's like, you know, Trump, I think he needs
Speaker 2: to stay out of the race.
Speaker 1: He shouldn't endorse at all. Let's take a lessen.
Speaker 6: Is President Elect Trump involved and does he have a chosen.
Speaker 1: Preference in the Senate?
Speaker 5: Do you do you know, senator?
Speaker 1: And will that come into play?
Speaker 6: I don't. Well, I don't know that he does. I'm
Speaker 6: staying in regular contact with him and with his team,
Speaker 6: and you know, obviously, if he wants to, he could
Speaker 6: exert a considerable amount of influence on that. But honestly,
Speaker 6: I think my preference would be and I think it's
Speaker 6: probably in his best interest to stay out of that.
Speaker 6: These are Senate secret ballot elections are probably best left
Speaker 6: to senators, and he's got to work with all of
Speaker 6: us when it's all said and done. But whatever he
Speaker 6: decides to do, that's going to be his prerogative. As
Speaker 6: we know, we're going to have that election next Wednesday
Speaker 6: and we'll have a new leader.
Speaker 2: Right, So he's like, hey, I should stay out of it,
Speaker 2: you know, just for everybody's best. Now, this gets to
Speaker 2: what Crystal talked about. Let's put this up there on
Speaker 2: the screen. Trump tweeted yesterday, any Republican senator seeking the
Speaker 2: coveted leadership position in the US Senate must agree to
Speaker 2: recess appointments, without which we will not be able to
Speaker 2: get people confirmed in a timely manner. Sometimes the votes
Speaker 2: can take two years or more. This is what they
Speaker 2: did four years ago. We cannot let it happen again.
Speaker 2: We need positions filled immediately. Additionally, no judges should be
Speaker 2: approved during this period of time because the Democrats are
Speaker 2: looking to ram through their judges as the Republicans fight
Speaker 2: over leadership.
Speaker 3: This is not acceptable, thank you.
Speaker 2: Now, as Crystal said, all three of the candidates said
Speaker 2: that they agreed. But you know, there's a lot of
Speaker 2: logistical hurdles that can come in.
Speaker 3: I mean, and I'm not exactly.
Speaker 2: Sure how it would all work because Schumer still does
Speaker 2: technically like control the Senate and so different now, so
Speaker 2: he would have to acquiesce. There's no way the Democrats
Speaker 2: are going to let that go through, right. They want
Speaker 2: to reprove as many of these federal judges as possible.
Speaker 2: This is game time for them. I also as this
Speaker 2: is very nerdy, so I apologize. But there's something called
Speaker 2: like pro forma session, which they're in right now, which
Speaker 2: specifically prevents recess appointments. So you would have to get
Speaker 2: the Senate majority to you know, agree to change the
Speaker 2: parliamentary rules. I mean, look, it's theoretically possible. I guess
Speaker 2: if Rick Scott did win the election, maybe he could
Speaker 2: do a deal with Schumer. I don't really know. Why
Speaker 2: Schumer would do it.
Speaker 1: But anyway, yeah, and well, previously Obama used the recess
Speaker 1: appointment's powers and it was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court the way that he executed it. So I mean, listen,
Speaker 1: it's a different Supreme Court now, so who knows. They
Speaker 1: may well be like, whatever Trump wants to do, we
Speaker 1: can basically do. But to me, it was also like,
Speaker 1: you have a fifty three forty seven majority, like, who
Speaker 1: is it exactly that you don't think they're that you
Speaker 1: want that isn't going to get confirmed because I just
Speaker 1: think he has such a grip on this party. Now,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe Lisa Murkowski votes agains are Susan Collins,
Speaker 1: but two votes, but you still have a you know,
Speaker 1: three vote margins. So I think it's I don't think
Speaker 1: he's going to have any problem with There's always wild cards.
Speaker 2: People like people that nobody's ever heard of, Todd Young, right,
Speaker 2: the guy who voted for empreachment, you know, from Indiana.
Speaker 1: I don't know. And it's just he's so like at
Speaker 1: this point, it's just so clear where the party is.
Speaker 2: I don't disagree with you, but that's looks the Senate.
Speaker 2: This is part of the reason that people have hated
Speaker 2: the Senate for two centuries because they're annoying. Like, who else,
Speaker 2: who's the doctor, the one who also voted for impeachment?
Speaker 3: What's his name? The guy from Louisiana. I can't even remember, so.
Speaker 2: The doctor, you know, whoever, however, the doctor votes Haggarty.
Speaker 1: I think is his name.
Speaker 3: I'll remember it in a second.
Speaker 2: But there's just this wild cards all over in terms
Speaker 2: of who they are. Barrasso, right, you know, you've got
Speaker 2: folks like that who you know, sometimes they're maga, sometimes
Speaker 2: they're not.
Speaker 1: They all have their.
Speaker 3: Own individual constituencies.
Speaker 2: So I would not bet one hundred percent that Trump
Speaker 2: is able to get everybody who he wants. I mean,
Speaker 2: for example, from the reporting I've read like Trump wants
Speaker 2: to appoint RFK Junior to HHS secretary, but he's like,
Speaker 2: I don't know if he'll be able to make it
Speaker 2: through conform So that is one too where you could see, right,
Speaker 2: you could almost see like a weird right wing case
Speaker 2: against Art where they're like, oh, he's just.
Speaker 1: Liberal, and my god, the thing is that he's done
Speaker 1: before is then okay, if they can't get confirmed, I'll
Speaker 1: just make them acting Secretary and just basically leave them
Speaker 1: there appartment.
Speaker 2: He can, but it has a lot of legal problems
Speaker 2: in terms of their authority and all that.
Speaker 3: You can try and get around it.
Speaker 2: No, I'm saying in terms of the agency, it causes
Speaker 2: real chaos and there's a reason why, you know, people
Speaker 2: wanted to get done. But we will see it is Look,
Speaker 2: if they do go with Rick Scott, I think it's
Speaker 2: a very positive sign for exactly what you're saying in
Speaker 2: terms of Trump being able to get who he wants
Speaker 2: through and a lot of personnel decisions will flow from that,
Speaker 2: and also will flow in terms of whether they do
Speaker 2: recess appointment or not and all of that.
Speaker 3: So everybody stay tuned.
Speaker 2: This stuff, I know can get a little in the weeds,
Speaker 2: but it's very important because this is how the government's
Speaker 2: actually gonna get run.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and notably, you could put a nine up on
Speaker 1: the screen elon coming in for Rick Scott. Yes, for
Speaker 1: Senate Majority Leader. But yeah, so I mean a lot
Speaker 1: of people closing ranks. The one thing that the other
Speaker 1: guys have going for them is that it's a secret ballot.
Speaker 1: So you know, anybody who votes against the will of
Speaker 1: Trump and Musk uh, you know, as long as it
Speaker 1: doesn't get out, they won't necessarily be punished. But like
Speaker 1: I said, my assessment is basically like these guys have
Speaker 1: already all been like, Okay, we'll do recess Appointment's no problem.
Speaker 1: So I just think they're going to do what Trump
Speaker 1: wants anyway, any of the three that gets put in there, yeah.
Speaker 3: Very possible.
Speaker 2: At the same time, there's still quite a few people
Speaker 2: in the media who are trying to grapple with the
Speaker 2: election results. One of them Sonny Houston over at the
Speaker 2: View her explanation for the big Latino shift to the
Speaker 2: right misogyny, racism.
Speaker 7: Let's take a lesson what is wrong with this country
Speaker 7: that they would choose a message of divisiveness, of xenophobia,
Speaker 7: of racism, of misogyny.
Speaker 1: Over a message of exclusiveness, a.
Speaker 7: Message for the people, by the people, the people.
Speaker 1: What the problem is in the publicular vote?
Speaker 7: Sorry, but their Democrats have always been for the working exactly,
Speaker 7: and the Republican.
Speaker 1: Found it elitist.
Speaker 7: You don't have that in the society.
Speaker 3: But when you look at the.
Speaker 8: But Joy, it's it's condescending. There is a there is
Speaker 8: a condescending the way that the.
Speaker 3: Left speaks to its voters.
Speaker 7: It really is a message of joy and inclusiveness.
Speaker 8: No, the message of not being educated, being dumb, and
Speaker 8: what's wrong with America?
Speaker 3: This is that that, Sonny?
Speaker 1: Just what is wrong with America? Harris?
Speaker 8: No, no, No, My point is, I don't blame Joe Biden.
Speaker 8: I don't blame Kamala Harris. Go back as far as
Speaker 8: you want.
Speaker 1: I believe I.
Speaker 8: Blame a messaging within the Democratic Party. You don't believe
Speaker 8: the Republic And I just finished my point. Please, I
Speaker 8: obviously have a problem. Anyone has a problem with Donald Trump.
Speaker 8: The bear question should be yes, Sonny, why did they
Speaker 8: vote for him in sweep?
Speaker 3: Be interesting?
Speaker 1: No, No, we need to be.
Speaker 8: Introspective if we voted for Kamala Harris, we need to
Speaker 8: say what didn't resonate with the voters.
Speaker 3: So that's we're currently at.
Speaker 2: And that's just one of many clips that we could
Speaker 2: have shown you about where things are right now.
Speaker 1: There's been a competition to figure out I don't know
Speaker 1: if you guys thought there was a an Onion video
Speaker 1: about like the race to figure out which minority group
Speaker 1: to blame Democratic laws, and I was like, Wow, you
Speaker 1: guys really are meeting the moment with that one, and
Speaker 1: it's there's a whole content like, you know, white people
Speaker 1: obviously voted for Trump by the largest margins, so they
Speaker 1: could be to blame, but you know, men could be
Speaker 1: to blame. Young men could be to blame. And it's like,
Speaker 1: you know, I think it's reasonable to suggest. In fact,
Speaker 1: I think it's true that gender in particular plays a
Speaker 1: real role in electoral politics. But if you are just
Speaker 1: if your instinct is to blame the voters and not
Speaker 1: do any sort of reflection on like the multi billion
Speaker 1: dollar consultant grift complex that fails, or the Democratic leadership
Speaker 1: which is consistently failed, or the people who circle the
Speaker 1: wagons around Joe Biden even though he was on track
Speaker 1: for a four hundred electoral College vote defeat. Like, if
Speaker 1: that's your instinct, just get out of politics. You're not
Speaker 1: If you think you're all been the Democratic you are not.
Speaker 1: You are not helping the Democrats just by being like, oh,
Speaker 1: it's because Latinos are sexist. Some of those theme Latino
Speaker 1: mann who voted for Donald Trump probably voted for.
Speaker 2: Heller Cullinton back in twenty Not only not some of them,
Speaker 2: almost all of them did vote, especially in those like
Speaker 2: one of the places that she shouted out where Hillary
Speaker 2: won by fifty and Trump won by now seventy five
Speaker 2: and twenty twenty four literally voted for Hillary and they
Speaker 2: actually voted for even higher margins for Barack Obama. So
Speaker 2: it's like, come on, man, like what are we doing here?
Speaker 2: This is the whole thing is ludicrous. And it's like
Speaker 2: you said, this is just a way of not even
Speaker 2: look at a certain point, Sonny is a pundit, right,
Speaker 2: so maybe that's just like how she that's how.
Speaker 1: She sees the world.
Speaker 2: And I guess, like, okay, fine, but it's something because
Speaker 2: that is an obviously ingrained part of the analysis of
Speaker 2: a lot of the Democratic Party elite. And it's also
Speaker 2: deeply convenient to the Grift complex, to the leadership and
Speaker 2: to others, because then it's the voter's fault and it's
Speaker 2: not ours.
Speaker 1: Fine, it's not the Lowsy, it's not Schumer, it's not
Speaker 1: Jamie Harris, and it's the voters. And like I said, like,
Speaker 1: in a sense, I'm sympathetic because I understand that a
Speaker 1: lot of women looking at you know, the policy landscape.
Speaker 1: Of of course, Kamala Harris herself being a woman, and
Speaker 1: people like Nick Fuenta is out there being like yay,
Speaker 1: your body, my choice forever. Like I understand that sense
Speaker 1: of like, wow, maybe this country just hates women, Maybe
Speaker 1: they just don't really like women. And like I said,
Speaker 1: I'd be lying if I said that I didn't think
Speaker 1: gender played any role in this. But you also have
Speaker 1: to you also have to really think about what moves
Speaker 1: us forward, who is actually to blame for this state
Speaker 1: of affairs? And if you're just you know, voters are
Speaker 1: irritumably sexist and racists, then you may as well just
Speaker 1: throw your hands up and give up, because in the
Speaker 1: sunny hawse and worldview, those are like immutable characteristics that
Speaker 1: can't be changed no matter what. So what are you
Speaker 1: going to do?
Speaker 2: I agree, and look on the gender cooint like you
Speaker 2: just said, you know, for anybody out there's like oh
Speaker 2: they just hate women, it's like no, it's like they
Speaker 2: think about things very differently than you. And then maybe
Speaker 2: you need to do a better job of onder standing.
Speaker 2: I mean I felt that way right going into twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two and I go who out there is a
Speaker 2: Number one issue is abortion? I was like, you know,
Speaker 2: what world are we living in Well, there are a
Speaker 2: lot of people. Okay, So clearly I'm like, okay, as
Speaker 2: a man, you know whatever for all these people, not
Speaker 2: really something that I get. So that's not something like, oh,
Speaker 2: these people only care about themselves. I'm like, all right,
Speaker 2: I could emotively understand that.
Speaker 3: Well, you should think about the.
Speaker 2: Other way for people out there who are like, well,
Speaker 2: you know, not necessarily. One third of the people who
Speaker 2: voted for Donald Trump are pro choice, a full thirty
Speaker 2: something percent of the people. He won the popular vote
Speaker 2: in a country where there's some sixty five seventy percent
Speaker 2: approval for roe versus weight as the consensus.
Speaker 1: So how did that happen?
Speaker 2: Is that because people hate women? Or are they multifaceted?
Speaker 2: And they make choices based on the higherarchy of needs
Speaker 2: and about which in way that they think is most
Speaker 2: important and what's going to be the most impactful. And
Speaker 2: so your job is to flip it around and say,
Speaker 2: here's why this is important. Anyway, Let's get to the
Speaker 2: congressional map and let's put this up there on the screen,
Speaker 2: because I want to give everybody an update. So this
Speaker 2: is currently where things stand right now. The projected number
Speaker 2: of CT is two hundred and twenty seats for Republicans
Speaker 2: two hundred and fifteen seats for the Democrats. This honestly
Speaker 2: might be the most interesting result because it does show
Speaker 2: Republicans only one, you know, two seat majority there. That's
Speaker 2: kind of a nightmare considering what's been going on right now,
Speaker 2: all the Mike Johnson the speaker election which was crazy,
Speaker 2: and you know, Matt Gates. And this gives a lot
Speaker 2: of power to the Marjorie Taylor Greens.
Speaker 1: Of the world.
Speaker 2: It also actually gives quite a bit of power to
Speaker 2: some of the swing state Republicans in New York and
Speaker 2: elsewhere who barely hung on because they are gonna The
Speaker 2: reason why I'm saying this is when the policy fights come.
Speaker 2: This is where you are going to see that flex.
Speaker 2: So for example, the salt tax and the salt capital
Speaker 2: the New Jersey, New York people who, let's be fair,
Speaker 2: you know, Trump just ran the ballot up dramatically in
Speaker 2: all of the New England states, like they're going to
Speaker 2: have a big bargaining ship for them. They're like, hey,
Speaker 2: you got to give us something to go back to
Speaker 2: our people. You're going to see the same in any
Speaker 2: of the swinging districts. I think in what is it
Speaker 2: in Orange County and elsewhere in California where you saw
Speaker 2: some swing state races, You're going to see that in Nebraska.
Speaker 2: I bet you that Don Bacon guy who held on
Speaker 2: he's gonna whatever he wants.
Speaker 3: In Omaha, I guarantee you he's going to get.
Speaker 2: So there's gonna be quite a bit of jockeying and
Speaker 2: stuff like that in the House. And it also will
Speaker 2: be very precarious for the way things look policy wise,
Speaker 2: because even though they do technically have a united government,
Speaker 2: it will not be it will not be how it
Speaker 2: traditionally is, which is very narrow Senate margin, very big
Speaker 2: House margin. It's actually be flipped and that has very
Speaker 2: interesting dynamics because the House is also where all the
Speaker 2: revenue stuff has to originate from. So you're going to see,
Speaker 2: you know, taxes, houseways, and means Committee where you have
Speaker 2: a very very narrow margin. It will look differently and
Speaker 2: a lot of the fights and the choke points are
Speaker 2: going to be more in the House this time around.
Speaker 1: Let's go and put up the Senate projections. We got
Speaker 1: some final calls in these races, so we now know
Speaker 1: for sure what the Senate map is gonna look like.
Speaker 1: So in particular, you have Reuben Diego, who was able
Speaker 1: to hold on narrowly win that Arizona Senate race over
Speaker 1: carry Lakey. Also have Jackie Rosen over I always forget
Speaker 1: the name of her freaking opponent, Sam Brown. Sam Brown,
Speaker 1: I always want to say, Scott Brown's that guy from
Speaker 1: MATS Justice.
Speaker 2: Anyway, Do you mean Biden's ambassador to Australia?
Speaker 1: Is that what he ended up in Australia? Didn't that? Anyway? Whatever,
Speaker 1: So Jackie Rosen wins a narrow victory in Nevada, which
Speaker 1: means that, you know, outside of Pennsylvania, which was very
Speaker 1: close and I think headed to a recount with Bob Casey.
Speaker 1: But I mean it looks like McCormick was able to defeat.
Speaker 3: I mean the AP called the race for McCormick already, right.
Speaker 1: I think it is close enough though that it triggers
Speaker 1: a recount.
Speaker 2: Very well if they want to, because Casey basically refused
Speaker 2: to refuses to concede.
Speaker 1: And so yeah, there's some beef.
Speaker 2: Going on with a lot of the Republicans right now
Speaker 2: because Joshua Peer, I think it's up to the governor's
Speaker 2: discretion too, because it costs like two million dollars if
Speaker 2: they do want to do a recount. So there's a
Speaker 2: lot of pressure on CAZy to concede from the right.
Speaker 2: I mean, he doesn't have to, don't want to, but
Speaker 2: it could be a while until they.
Speaker 1: Got Yeah, but a down McCormick is the is the
Speaker 1: one Republican who was able to flip a swing state. Now,
Speaker 1: Republicans picked up in West Virginia, no surprise, picked up
Speaker 1: in Montana and obviously blocked any Democratic you know, Texas, Florida, Nebraska,
Speaker 1: sort of dreams. But when you look at this, the
Speaker 1: one thing that could be hopeful for Democrats and a
Speaker 1: warning side for Republicans is Trump doesn't have a lot
Speaker 1: of coattails. You know, Republicans narrowly hold onto the House,
Speaker 1: make only one very close gain in terms of a
Speaker 1: swing state in the Senate. And you know, the people
Speaker 1: who like Carrie Lake, who were the most sort of
Speaker 1: like Trumpian in their approach to politics, they haven't fared
Speaker 1: particularly well. Like he is a singularly unique figure. And now,
Speaker 1: assuming that there isn't a constitutional amendment, this will be
Speaker 1: his last term in office. So one of the questions
Speaker 1: for Republicans is if this politics holds up post Trump.
Speaker 1: And there are some parallels with Democrats under Obama.
Speaker 3: Yes, so a lot.
Speaker 1: There were a bunch I'm talking hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 1: people who voted for Donald Trump and then just left
Speaker 1: the rest of the ballot empty, which is how people
Speaker 1: like Jackie Rose and Reuben guiet Or are able to
Speaker 1: get over the top. It's basically people who voted only
Speaker 1: for Trump and no one else. Democrats faced a similar
Speaker 1: dynamic under Obama, where you'd have people who were like,
Speaker 1: yes to Barack Obama and I don't care about anything else.
Speaker 1: And we know that with Obama. While he was very
Speaker 1: good at getting himself elected and you know, had some
Speaker 1: coattails as well, especially in two thousand and eight, he
Speaker 1: had huge coattails, he ultimately ended up being very damaging
Speaker 1: for the Democratic Party. That's when you saw massive losses
Speaker 1: in rural districts and areas. They lost the House, they
Speaker 1: lost the SEM of course, they hand up the presidency
Speaker 1: over to Donald Trump post Obama. So you know, I
Speaker 1: don't want to do like my monologue today is about
Speaker 1: how doomed Democrats are. So I'm not doing a cope
Speaker 1: here but there is a question mark about how much
Speaker 1: this politics translates into the future when you do not
Speaker 1: have the singularly charismatic figure of Donald Trump at the
Speaker 1: top of the ticket. I think he outperformed every report
Speaker 1: publican Senate candidate in the country save for Larry Hogan.
Speaker 1: And yes, it's crazy only person I think that outperformed.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right, and which makes sense.
Speaker 2: And you know, he's a Republican running in a blue
Speaker 2: state where he's already popular, so it's a pretty different but.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, he was governor of the state. He
Speaker 1: really tried to like be very moderate, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Which, by the way, head of that workout for him,
Speaker 2: didn't work out for Trump.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess it's lost pretty ton.
Speaker 2: I guess I am fascinated to see this in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty six because that is where usually thermostatic public opinion
Speaker 2: you have a big shift against.
Speaker 3: The ruling pack party.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you're going to have a blowout election when
Speaker 2: you already have what the House right now where it is,
Speaker 2: it will be almost I mean, I wouldn't say certainly nothing,
Speaker 2: but you know, it looks likely that the Democrats would
Speaker 2: be able to reclaim it from what this map I
Speaker 2: looked at, the Senate is not in danger of flipping
Speaker 2: right now. In twenty twenty six, some truly crazy stuff
Speaker 2: would be have to happen. That said crazy stuff has happened.
Speaker 2: Let's think back two Democrats from Georgia. That's never going
Speaker 2: to happen, right, Well, what's the world that we're living
Speaker 2: in right now, so of course things can change. Everybody
Speaker 2: said in two thousand and four that the Democrats were dead,
Speaker 2: they'll never win again. Two thousand and six would freaking
Speaker 2: blowout elections, So yeah, you never know.
Speaker 1: Well, and everybody said Republicans were dead after two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight, right, And I mean, and they kind of
Speaker 1: worred it for a while, but then they came back.
Speaker 1: It was such a massive victory for Barack Obama. I'm
Speaker 1: going to one freaking Indiana, North Carolina, huge coach. And
Speaker 1: there were all kinds of Democratic candidates who were running
Speaker 1: like totally obscure, long shot campaigns with basically no funding,
Speaker 1: and then suddenly it's like, oh my god, I won.
Speaker 1: What the hell?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was Harry Yells.
Speaker 1: Exactly in Virginia, like the Charlottesville area, and it was
Speaker 1: people like that Glen and I was another one in
Speaker 1: virgin I just happened to know the Virginia one as well,
Speaker 1: but down in Virginia Beach. But yeah, and then twenty
Speaker 1: ten was in Obama's words as lacking. So you know,
Speaker 1: we'll see. I'll save some of my commentary also for
Speaker 1: you know, it's in my monologue whatever. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: Democrats are like electorally doomed. I think they can. You know,
Speaker 1: I think there's a chance that you have. I think
Speaker 1: there's a good chance you have a backlash to Trump
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty six, twenty twenty eight, who knows Trump
Speaker 1: won't be on the ballot. So we'll see what approach
Speaker 1: they take. But you know, they also the alarm bells
Speaker 1: are really ringing loudly because there's been such huge demographic
Speaker 1: shifts against them, you know, and if if they don't,
Speaker 1: if they don't stop the bleed, like they will be
Speaker 1: in a position of being basically a permanent minority, because
Speaker 1: if you're only winning college educated voters, like, that's only
Speaker 1: a third of the country.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're father, Yeah, absolutely, I will say again, in
Speaker 2: terms of the popular opinion and all the things change
Speaker 2: a lot, you know, So I just looked at nineteen
Speaker 2: eighty two was the popular vote margin of Democrats eleven
Speaker 2: point eight percent. So in nineteen eighty two, that's crazy
Speaker 2: in terms of House. Yeah, every tip O'Neill and all that.
Speaker 1: I mean, you look, it was only when Gingrich came
Speaker 1: in that they lost the House. That's found the entire
Speaker 1: rea in terestry. They held onto the House.
Speaker 2: Right, So everybody just needs to remember, like things are
Speaker 2: not as clean as they may seem in retrospect, and
Speaker 2: that people in this country can change their mind a
Speaker 2: lot and wildly, and in fact, you know, the whole
Speaker 2: divided government thing, which I think is dumb, but there
Speaker 2: are a lot of voters who like it, right, because
Speaker 2: voters are like, well, I like checks and bounces. It's like, well, well,
Speaker 2: if you're going to vote for a president, don't you
Speaker 2: know want the president to be able to do whatever they.
Speaker 1: Want to do? But whatever people like.
Speaker 2: People like the idea that not very much is going
Speaker 2: to change, like a steady hand on the wheel, but
Speaker 2: not too much. You know, it's somebody in the other side.
Speaker 2: So we could see a swing in that direction. I
Speaker 2: will say if twenty twenty six does go the way
Speaker 2: that you were talking about or.
Speaker 3: Are going to talk about your monologue.
Speaker 1: That is a whole other.
Speaker 2: Story, and that would be time for some serious retrospectives
Speaker 2: as well.
Speaker 1: So it's possible. It certainly is.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you don't screw up the economy, if
Speaker 2: the economy starts doing really well, but in two years
Speaker 2: and we have no war, Ukraine gets wrapped up if
Speaker 2: they if we you know, hostilities in Gaza go down,
Speaker 2: and you see gas prices ticked down, and you see
Speaker 2: the FED which is naturally going to cut rates. Anyway,
Speaker 2: I could see, you know, or a GOP victory that
Speaker 2: time around. Anything, anything is on the table. Let's move
Speaker 2: on to another part of this. There's been a lot
Speaker 2: of discussion about some of the issues that swung people
Speaker 2: to Donald Trump. Obviously, the economy and immigration are there,
Speaker 2: but some interesting new analysis says that also it could
Speaker 2: be cultural issues, specifically transgender issues that had a major
Speaker 2: impact on swing voters.
Speaker 3: We had a clip here from CNN.
Speaker 2: We wanted to play the kind of highlights this fight
Speaker 2: within both elite media and elsewhere and how the issue
Speaker 2: may be talked about now in the future.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listener.
Speaker 6: I think there are a lot of families out there
Speaker 6: who don't believe boys should play girls sports.
Speaker 9: They're not boys.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to listen. I am not going to
Speaker 1: girl a boy.
Speaker 10: When you use.
Speaker 1: Changed boys.
Speaker 10: I'm not gonna sit there a second, because look, this
Speaker 10: is a really heated issue, right And Michael, I know you.
Speaker 10: I know that you understand that people have different views
Speaker 10: on this, I think out of respect for Jay, like,
Speaker 10: let's try to talk about this in.
Speaker 1: A way that is respectful.
Speaker 3: Okay, So let me rephrase this since I'm being targeted here.
Speaker 10: I don't know you are not, but I'm specifically saying
Speaker 10: that I know that you are not intending to be Transphoba.
Speaker 1: He should know that.
Speaker 9: But you want but I want you.
Speaker 1: I want to give you regular people interpret it.
Speaker 9: That's not just why it's not regular people. There's no
Speaker 9: consensus that these are actually boys. This whole thing about
Speaker 9: trans girls is a canard. It's we're talking about a tiny,
Speaker 9: tiny sliver of the populations. Just hold on, Just get
Speaker 9: to your point, my point in terms of its effectiveness,
Speaker 9: regular people with children look at these things and they say,
Speaker 9: you know what, this is a bit too far.
Speaker 3: I do not agree with this.
Speaker 1: I don't like this.
Speaker 6: I think Democrats are going way too much to the
Speaker 6: left on social issues.
Speaker 1: They're uncomfortable with it. A lot of people.
Speaker 3: Believe that, a lot of families believe that. You may
Speaker 3: disagree with that reality.
Speaker 9: But that's why Republicans kept.
Speaker 1: Running those ads over.
Speaker 9: And over and over again, because they saw the metrics
Speaker 9: suggested that in those ads over and over again and
Speaker 9: using rhetoric like you just use saying this is boys
Speaker 9: playing girl sports.
Speaker 10: Were talking about.
Speaker 9: Talking about trans girls playing playing being allowed to play
Speaker 9: with the people who are in their gender. And if
Speaker 9: you don't believe, you don't have to listen to me,
Speaker 9: listen to the American Medical Association, the American Psychological All.
Speaker 2: Right, so preview of what culture War two point zero
Speaker 2: looks like. Now that this has happened, let's put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen. This is really the genesis
Speaker 2: I think of why this is even worth discussing. So
Speaker 2: this is from Blueprint, and this is we've used some
Speaker 2: of their polling and stuff before and they show the
Speaker 2: different issues that have animated different types of voters. So,
Speaker 2: for example, if you look reason to not choose Kamala Harris,
Speaker 2: the number one issue for all voters was inflation was
Speaker 2: too high under the Biden administration. Number two was too
Speaker 2: many immigrants illegally crossed the border under Biden Harris. So
Speaker 2: that makes sense. But actually along the swing voters, this
Speaker 2: was Honestly, I was shocked by this. It says all
Speaker 2: swing voters, but specifically all swing voters who chose Trump.
Speaker 2: It said Kamala Harris is more focused on cultural issues
Speaker 2: like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class. That
Speaker 2: was a plus twenty eight score on Blueprint. Now, look,
Speaker 2: let's be clear. People are not always the best in
Speaker 2: terms of why they vote, and I'm the most consistent
Speaker 2: messenger on that.
Speaker 3: So I'm not going to say that this is the
Speaker 3: number one reason.
Speaker 2: But I mean, I do think this is a vindication
Speaker 2: at least somewhat of that ad that they them add
Speaker 2: that they blanketed the entire state of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and
Speaker 2: Wisconsin for considering the margin and also considering that we
Speaker 2: have some of this data here and also even some
Speaker 2: of the reaction within the Democratic Party.
Speaker 3: So I'm curious what you think.
Speaker 1: So I think that this type of analysis which I
Speaker 1: have myself engaged in, which is basically like, let's focus
Speaker 1: group and poll test and get the voters to tell
Speaker 1: us in this paint by numbers way what we should
Speaker 1: believe in. I think it is worse than worthless. I
Speaker 1: think if you look at the campaign that the Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris team were actually put that chart back up on
Speaker 1: the screen. They basically ran the campaign designed custom like
Speaker 1: platonic ideal of the campaign that would be designed to
Speaker 1: try to deal with these exact poll numbers. Inflation was
Speaker 1: too high. Okay, let me talk about my price gouging plan.
Speaker 1: Let me say I feel your pain. Too many immigrants
Speaker 1: illegally across the border. Oh, don't worry, I'm hawkish on
Speaker 1: the border. Now those other things I said in the past,
Speaker 1: like forget all about that. Actually, I really am like
Speaker 1: more aggressive and hawkish on the border than Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Is too focused on cultural issues like transgender issues rather
Speaker 1: than helping the middle class. I am not even going
Speaker 1: to say the word transgender in my entire campaign. Is
Speaker 1: that true? I didn't know that. I mean not that.
Speaker 1: I maybe once, but not that I recall. Okay, it
Speaker 1: was certainly not. I'm not going to talk about my race.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to talk about my gender. I'm going
Speaker 1: to run around the country with Liz Cheney and try
Speaker 1: to persuade you that actually, I'm just like basically a Republican.
Speaker 1: The only way I'm different from Biden's I'm actually further
Speaker 1: to the right. I'm to put Republicans in my cabinet.
Speaker 1: Like this is the campaign that Democrats ran, And it
Speaker 1: was an objective, clear cut, demonstrable failure. Because as much
Speaker 1: as I would like politics to actually work this way,
Speaker 1: because I have a bunch of poll numbers I could
Speaker 1: put up there about how popular Medicare for all is,
Speaker 1: and how popular minimum wage is and how popular are
Speaker 1: you even do our blah blah blah blah blah. If
Speaker 1: that was the way politics actually worked, Kamala Harris would
Speaker 1: be headed to the White House right now. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think that's fair. Donald Trump ran around talking about Arnold
Speaker 1: Palmer's dick, the idea Democrats are the two divisive ones?
Speaker 1: Are you kidding me? Trump is the most divisive figure
Speaker 1: in modern America politics. The lesson is not to be
Speaker 1: less divisive. The lesson is actually to be more divisive,
Speaker 1: but around the correct lines. So what is Trump's division
Speaker 1: and what does he feed the division in the world
Speaker 1: view that he feeds into the narrative that he feeds
Speaker 1: into with everything he does. The limbus test for being
Speaker 1: part of Donald Trump's party is the problems in your
Speaker 1: lives are because of immigrants, Democrats, cultural elites. I will
Speaker 1: save I will fix it.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: Those are the those are the litmus tests within the
Speaker 1: Republican Party. That is the worldview. It's one I disagree with.
Speaker 1: I've talked a lot about it, but that is the
Speaker 1: worldview and is very clear cut worldview. So when you're
Speaker 1: talking about things like, you know, transgender issues, that fits
Speaker 1: into this idea from him. Cultural elites are trying to
Speaker 1: change you, indoctrinate your kids, take over your life, preach
Speaker 1: to you about what your values should be. When we're
Speaker 1: talking about the border, when we're talking about immigrants, these
Speaker 1: immigrants are going to come into your town. They're going
Speaker 1: to steal your jobs, they are going to drive up Again.
Speaker 1: I think all of this is incorrect, but it's it's
Speaker 1: clear cut, right, It is clear cut, and it is
Speaker 1: extremely divisive. So the problem is not the Democrats were
Speaker 1: too tagget matcher. I don't even remember the last time
Speaker 1: Democrats talked about transgender issues at all. And it's not
Speaker 1: the Democrats were too far right or too far left
Speaker 1: or whatever. The problem is, they have no narrative. They
Speaker 1: do not have a divisive politics, at least not one
Speaker 1: that actually works. This is where Bernie Sanders was on
Speaker 1: the money. Okay, Occupy Wall Street. What's the division there?
Speaker 1: The ninety nine versus the one Bernie Sanders. What's the
Speaker 1: division the people broadly versus the millionaires and the billionaires.
Speaker 1: That's what they need. And so you know the guy
Speaker 1: who was like arguing with your Michael on there, who
Speaker 1: I'm not really familiar with, Michaels. The part that he
Speaker 1: said that was the most important and that should be
Speaker 1: coming out of Democrats' mouths when they're being pressed on
Speaker 1: you know, transgender athletes or whatever is he said, this
Speaker 1: is a canard, and that's the important point. How does
Speaker 1: the five transgender athletes in the country, how does that
Speaker 1: impact you your ability to have a good life, earn
Speaker 1: a good wage, et cetera. It's a distraction. It's a
Speaker 1: distraction from billionaire elites who want another tax cut, or
Speaker 1: you know, Elon and Elon musk Case want another like
Speaker 1: government subsidy, taxpayer subsidized contract. That is what Democrats should
Speaker 1: be leaning into. They should be running away from it.
Speaker 1: They need their own divisive politics, and they need to
Speaker 1: throw out this like focused group poll tested bullshit because
Speaker 1: the paint by numbers way of like, let me just
Speaker 1: pull test my way into what I think is a
Speaker 1: popular program, utter and complete rejected failure.
Speaker 2: So I don't think that any of that is necessarily
Speaker 2: wrong in terms of the focus group. But on the
Speaker 2: I mean, look, I mean I do think it is
Speaker 2: clear that there is a reality problem the Democrats face.
Speaker 2: So what you were saying in terms of you know,
Speaker 2: ohmala day and run on it, it's like, yeah, but
Speaker 2: in twenty nineteen, she literally did say she texted her
Speaker 2: dollars to you know, have gender transition surgery for illegal immigrants.
Speaker 2: That's objectively an insane thing to believe. Like these people
Speaker 2: ran around all throughout the January nineteen Yeah, yeah, Okay,
Speaker 2: Well I hope he bans it, you know, right now.
Speaker 2: And by the way, it looks like that's going to
Speaker 2: be a Day one agenda and so if anything is
Speaker 2: too much an idiot not to follow through. So that's something,
Speaker 2: but really what and also that was Commin's response, It
Speaker 2: didn't work. People get tagged because of the cultural milieu,
Speaker 2: you cannot run. For example, in twenty twenty two, if
Speaker 2: Republicans did not say the word abortion, would that not
Speaker 2: mean that they still get tagged? And rightfully so with
Speaker 2: the issue of abortion. Democrats basically completely changed their views
Speaker 2: on gender after Obergefell and tried to shove it down
Speaker 2: the mouths of American citizens. Dominated cultural elites have tried
Speaker 2: to normalize this transgender ideology, legalize it in terms of
Speaker 2: plugging little children full of castration drugs and puberty blockers.
Speaker 1: And then they say that it's a canard.
Speaker 2: It's not a like thousands of children actually have been
Speaker 2: chemically castrated in this country.
Speaker 3: That is crazy. Now, Is it the number one issue?
Speaker 2: No, but clearly a lot of people are very concerned
Speaker 2: about it. And I think you know at this point
Speaker 2: there is a bit of a mandate on the issue
Speaker 2: because it's one of those where it gets to the
Speaker 2: fact that multi racial groups men, women, young, et cetera,
Speaker 2: do feel as if these issues are have the more
Speaker 2: of an importance in the democratic mind. And what I
Speaker 2: would mean by that is, I remember I had this
Speaker 2: big fight with some progressive on rising back in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 2: and I was like, look, simple question, could you ever
Speaker 2: support Medicare for all if it didn't include trans answer surgeries?
Speaker 2: And they wouldn't answer the question, And like, I think
Speaker 2: that says the whole ballgame. Could you ever support medicare
Speaker 2: for all if it did not cover abortion?
Speaker 1: That's again the same thing.
Speaker 2: So if that's true for you, then you don't support
Speaker 2: you know, or then you do think cultural issues are
Speaker 2: the most important. If you would deny healthcare, you know,
Speaker 2: to what ninety nine point nine percent or whatever the
Speaker 2: US population and put it at risk because it doesn't
Speaker 2: support your transition surgery or abortion, It's like, well, then
Speaker 2: you do care more about the cultural issue than you
Speaker 2: do the so called economics.
Speaker 1: But you're you're actually, in a sense making my point
Speaker 1: because I do think that should be flipped. So I
Speaker 1: think the limbis here, the litmus tests in the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party should be things like billionaires should not exist, we
Speaker 1: should tax the rich war right, they should be clear
Speaker 1: like economic populist, class war. Those should be the litmus tests,
Speaker 1: and then outside of that there should be a lot
Speaker 1: more flexibility on their ques. I'm not talking about what
Speaker 1: is I'm critiquing what is I'm saying it is the
Speaker 1: opposite of what it should be, because instead it's we're
Speaker 1: going to be the coalition of Dick Cheney and Mark
Speaker 1: Cuban and Taylor Swift and Bernie Sanders. And that doesn't
Speaker 1: make any goddamn sense. Okay, that is not a There
Speaker 1: is no division in there that makes any kind of
Speaker 1: rational or electoral sense. So on the specific question of
Speaker 1: like transgender issues, a couple things I would point to.
Speaker 1: Number one, in states where those theay them ads ran
Speaker 1: and they were had to head. You know, these are
Speaker 1: the battleground states where the campaigns were spending all of
Speaker 1: their money and Kama's was running this actually like pretty
Speaker 1: good class Trump's a billionaire doesn't look out for you message.
Speaker 1: She narrowed the gaps significantly. She outperformed in those states
Speaker 1: where the they them ads were being run versus the
Speaker 1: rest of the country. So there's that. And the other
Speaker 1: piece is Democrats ran around this whole country this whole
Speaker 1: year castigating college students, says too woke and too out
Speaker 1: of touch, etc. I just am not sure that there's
Speaker 1: any war to be gained from that sense of politics,
Speaker 1: sort of politics, because ultimately there's always going to be
Speaker 1: some pink careed college kid out there who's saying, like,
Speaker 1: you know, they're introducing themselves with their pronouns and doing
Speaker 1: a land acknowledgement to be like, see, the wokeism got
Speaker 1: them again. Kamala ran the plutonic ideal of the campaign
Speaker 1: that you know, the popularists who say just avoid this
Speaker 1: stuff altogether, that they would suggest, you know, I've been
Speaker 1: saying the same thing on immigration, Like, I think it
Speaker 1: was a dramatic political and moral but political failure for
Speaker 1: them to just feed the ground to the Republican worldview
Speaker 1: and say, you know what, you're right about everything. Immigrants
Speaker 1: actually are bad. Because guess what if that's the worldview,
Speaker 1: Republicans are going to win every single time. If the
Speaker 1: worldview is actually transgender, you know issues are the number
Speaker 1: one issue and cultural elites are trying to like trans
Speaker 1: your your little boy. If you accept that framing, guess
Speaker 1: what Republicans are going to win every single time. How
Speaker 1: about instead saying, you know what, just like it shouldn't
Speaker 1: be the state telling women what they can do with
Speaker 1: their bodies, It shouldn't be the state telling transgender people
Speaker 1: what they can do with their bodies.
Speaker 3: What about children? But the children is the main question,
Speaker 3: and that's it.
Speaker 1: Families, Doc, nobody complicated. I don't think that Donald Trump, yes, they.
Speaker 3: Actually actually you fringe character.
Speaker 1: But even Trump, even Trump, now you know, one of
Speaker 1: his first executive orders he says he's going to is
Speaker 1: making sure that you know, all federal government forms just
Speaker 1: reflects male female and it's a biological sex. What I'm
Speaker 1: saying is that's not just about kids. That's about saying
Speaker 1: basically the message there, and I don't think it's like
Speaker 1: all that important, but the message there is that trans
Speaker 1: people are not real. They don't exist.
Speaker 2: No, it's say, your biological sex is assigned at birth.
Speaker 2: Transgender people, what are the trans people or what are
Speaker 2: the transpropagandas always tell us, transgender people have existed forever, Well,
Speaker 2: you existed whenever the male female form was on there
Speaker 2: is it so important.
Speaker 3: For you to have a form.
Speaker 1: But I just finish, actually that they're the crazy people.
Speaker 1: It's not that critical of an issue. There should be
Speaker 1: flexibility on it within the Democratic coalition. But what I
Speaker 1: will not abide is people like you know, Seth Moulten
Speaker 1: and Tom Swazi who came out immediately, were like, actually,
Speaker 1: I'm on the side of the Republicans when it comes
Speaker 1: to who just their immediate instinct is to throw transgender
Speaker 1: people under the bus. Now, think of how convenient that
Speaker 1: is for Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris herself,
Speaker 1: the entire Democratic consultant grift complex. Think of how convenient
Speaker 1: that is. It does not hurt a single donor to
Speaker 1: throw transgender people under the bus. It does not hurt
Speaker 1: a single Democratic elite. They've been throwing transgender people under
Speaker 1: the bus for years now. At this point does not
Speaker 1: hurt them one bit at all. So listen, I am
Speaker 1: all open to having more I don't think they should
Speaker 1: be doing the word policing. I think there should be
Speaker 1: more flexibility and cultural issues. I think the limits test
Speaker 1: should be around economic populism. That's where the divide belongs.
Speaker 1: But no, if your first reaction is to throw some
Speaker 1: of the most powerless people in the country under the bus,
Speaker 1: you have no spine, no character, and you are running
Speaker 1: cover for the current status quo of the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: and nothing will ever change.
Speaker 3: Okay, I just disagree with that completely.
Speaker 2: I mean the idea that trans people are the least powerful,
Speaker 2: I mean they're the most powerful.
Speaker 3: They ruled our politics for years.
Speaker 1: I mean, these people are noting your fringe gieology.
Speaker 2: Look onto all of us there to look.
Speaker 1: At their income, look at their health outcomes, look at
Speaker 1: their life expectancy, look at their suicide rates. Like that's
Speaker 1: a preposterous view of the world.
Speaker 2: Well, first of all, a lot of that whole, a
Speaker 2: lot of those stats around that population changes because the
Speaker 2: population is dramatically increased, and there's quite a lot of
Speaker 2: people who are either autistic or mentally ill or somehow
Speaker 2: convinced that they're trands.
Speaker 1: So that's number one.
Speaker 2: It's actually I'm very curious to see how the rates
Speaker 2: go whenever we actually get this stuff out of schools.
Speaker 2: My prediction it'll be just like anarexia. It'll be a
Speaker 2: social contagent phenomenon. It's going to plunge, which it was
Speaker 2: all bullshit and fake in the first place. But second
Speaker 2: is that if you look at this whole, like uh
Speaker 2: this transgender at people.
Speaker 1: Under the bus, I mean, same thing.
Speaker 2: It's like, if is it really quote unquote throwing people
Speaker 2: under the bus to say that you biologically however sex
Speaker 2: you're born in, that's the league of sports that you
Speaker 2: have to play, Like, how is that throwing people under
Speaker 2: the bus.
Speaker 1: Because because you know what, I yeah, putting the how
Speaker 1: you feel about the issue aside, because I don't even
Speaker 1: this is my point. I don't give a shit about
Speaker 1: the issue. I genuinely don't. I don't think it's important
Speaker 1: at all, which is why if you are making that
Speaker 1: your main analysis of what went wrong here for Democrats,
Speaker 1: it is wildly dis honest and lacking in any sort
Speaker 1: of courage or moral character. So Seth Moulton put out
Speaker 1: his little statement and one of his staffs resigned.
Speaker 3: The seven please will put it on the screen.
Speaker 1: And you know what that stuffor is correct to resign.
Speaker 1: Not because of the specific position that he took. They
Speaker 1: are correct to resign because it displays such a lack
Speaker 1: of courage and character to go to the easiest, easiest,
Speaker 1: you know target here who has no defense against you.
Speaker 1: You don't have a word to say about Jamie Harrison.
Speaker 1: You don't have a word to say about the two
Speaker 1: billion dollars that are now lining the pockets of the
Speaker 1: consultant grift complex. You don't have anything to say about that.
Speaker 1: So that's why I find this despicable. It's not even
Speaker 1: about the issue. I don't give a shit about that issue.
Speaker 1: That's what and that's what Democrats should be saying. That's
Speaker 1: what they should be saying. But it has to be
Speaker 1: a part. So I'm not even saying that transition had
Speaker 1: nothing to do with this, because Trump had a coherent
Speaker 1: frame and transgender issues and the border and all of
Speaker 1: these other things that would part of the frame. Kama Harrison.
Speaker 1: Democrats have a laundry list of issues no one remembers
Speaker 1: and no one gives a shit about because they don't
Speaker 1: believe they're actually going to do anything with regard to
Speaker 1: those issues. They need a divisive politics. They need to
Speaker 1: be more aggressive in fighting and laying out their worldview
Speaker 1: because if you're constantly just capitulating to the Republican worldview,
Speaker 1: guess what people are going to vote for Republicans. If
Speaker 1: you are not credible that you are going to go
Speaker 1: after the economic elites who are actually responsible for so
Speaker 1: much of the pain in the misery of this country,
Speaker 1: then yeah, they're going to vote for the side that
Speaker 1: actually does have a narrative. So that's why I say,
Speaker 1: just to go back to the original chart we put
Speaker 1: up on the screen. You know, I am someone who
Speaker 1: like I have been that person who's been like, guys,
Speaker 1: look at how popular progressive policy issues are, Like, you
Speaker 1: just need to talk about medicare for all. You just
Speaker 1: need to talk about these things. And that is not enough.
Speaker 1: It has to fit into a clear, credible narrative with
Speaker 1: here and villains, and that is where the real problem is.
Speaker 1: It's not some like you know, people said woke stuff
Speaker 1: and back in twenty twenty, Oh, you know we should
Speaker 1: have tacked a little bit this way on that issue
Speaker 1: or whatever. No, you are lacking a story that makes
Speaker 1: any goddamn sense to anyone in this country. That's what
Speaker 1: has to be fed.
Speaker 3: I think I understand a bit better.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I get what you're saying in terms of if
Speaker 2: you're going to say this as is respect to Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, it would be like if the Republicans lost
Speaker 2: and they're like, oh, well, Trump is the only reason
Speaker 2: that we lost, and.
Speaker 1: I'm like, well, I think if abortion would have been
Speaker 1: a pretty big one.
Speaker 2: It would be like the idea of trying to preserve
Speaker 2: like unpopular parts of coalition without blaming any of the
Speaker 2: people who are really responsible.
Speaker 3: So I do understand it.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I'm curious because I'm not sure if any of this
Speaker 2: exists within the party, which is a good segue to
Speaker 2: the next part about Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 1: Versus it doesn't.
Speaker 3: It's defin for right now, I don't see a single well.
Speaker 2: The other problem is, you know, before we even get
Speaker 2: to the whole Bernie thing, one of the things Matt
Speaker 2: carp keeps talking about is that, you know, Democrats performed
Speaker 2: what is it better with households over one hundred k
Speaker 2: as opposed to a households.
Speaker 3: Under one hundred k? They voted for Trump.
Speaker 2: I mean, then the truth is that people who make
Speaker 2: over one hundred k are predominantly well educated and have
Speaker 2: more far left to views on immigration transition. In fact,
Speaker 2: they think those are the most important stuff, and they
Speaker 2: don't want to hear nothing about you know, taxation or
Speaker 2: any of that. And so that actually might be one
Speaker 2: of the bigger coalitional fights.
Speaker 1: Of course, of course, if Democrats are going to win again,
Speaker 1: they have to go to war with their donor base,
Speaker 1: and we all know how likely that is to happen.