Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 2: Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday, have an amazing show for
Speaker 2: everybody today.
Speaker 1: What do we have, prysonal indeed, we do, guess what, guys,
Speaker 1: one week, seven day to election day. We are taking
Speaker 1: a look this morning at the top ads for each
Speaker 1: campaign where they are spending the most dollars, making their
Speaker 1: closing cases very interesting. Contrast in terms of what their
Speaker 1: theory of how to move voters in these final days.
Speaker 4: Are is whatever. I don't know. Well, thank flish. Language
Speaker 4: is really going well this morning, all right.
Speaker 1: We also are going to take a look at the
Speaker 1: bull case for Kamala. We've been looking at some negative
Speaker 1: indicators for her, some positive indicators for Trump, so today
Speaker 1: we wanted to flip the script into there are a
Speaker 1: few pieces of news that fit nicely into.
Speaker 4: That, So we're going to make that case.
Speaker 1: We also are going to take a look at how
Speaker 1: Trump is prepping Stop the Steal two point zero and
Speaker 1: whether or not those efforts could be successful given that
Speaker 1: you have new legislation that's passed, given that he is
Speaker 1: no longer president of the United States. So we'll dig
Speaker 1: into the weeds with that, so everybody knows what to
Speaker 1: expect were he to lose the race next week. Both
Speaker 1: camps out there playing for the Muslim vote, especially in
Speaker 1: the state of Michigan. Barack Obama making some interesting comments
Speaker 1: yesterday that comes on the heels of Trump securing some
Speaker 1: Muslim endorsements that he touted in that state, which of
Speaker 1: course is crucial. Elon is being sued over his big
Speaker 1: daily million dollar lottery by the Philly DA and he
Speaker 1: also his organizing efforts on the ground have come under
Speaker 1: scrutiny to see whether or not they have been successful.
Speaker 1: On the Trump campaign's behalf. We're also doing a little
Speaker 1: follow up, just a quick follow up on this whole
Speaker 1: Washington Post story. We added this yesterday when we found
Speaker 1: out that after Bezos decided that they were not going
Speaker 1: to endure in this race. They have lost more than
Speaker 1: two hundred thousand subscribers.
Speaker 4: Yesterday the number we were getting was two thousand.
Speaker 1: Yeah, then NPR was able to report by yesterday midday,
Speaker 1: so it's undoubtedly more than this.
Speaker 4: At this point, they had lost.
Speaker 1: More than two hundred thousand subscribers. That is like ten
Speaker 1: percent of their subscriber base, so they are bleading subscribers
Speaker 1: at this point. Bezos himself felt the need to come
Speaker 1: out and publish it on BED. I don't think it
Speaker 1: helped matter, So we'll bring you all of that, and
Speaker 1: then I have a monolog today and taking a look
Speaker 1: at Trump's most important potentially moment on Joe Rogan, which
Speaker 1: went a little bit undernoticed given the Wale psychologists discussion
Speaker 1: and then the whole Madison Square gardens situation. But something
Speaker 1: important that we should all take a look at. There
Speaker 1: we go, that's what's on TEP.
Speaker 2: Before we get to that. Thank you to all of
Speaker 2: our premium subscribers. We're really excited one week to election day,
Speaker 2: Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 3: You can take advantage.
Speaker 2: We have a lot of fun stuff literally running a
Speaker 2: bunch of tests today for election night. We've got an
Speaker 2: exclusive partnership with Logan Phillips with Decision Desk HQ, we
Speaker 2: are going to be a full fledged newsroom on election Night,
Speaker 2: which is really exciting. That's something that you guys have
Speaker 2: been asking for for years and we invested.
Speaker 3: A lot into it.
Speaker 2: So if you want to sign up support that, Breakingpoints
Speaker 2: dot Com will also have some subscriber benefits that you
Speaker 2: guys will be able to take advantage of on election Night.
Speaker 2: So we're really excited. We've got a whole week of
Speaker 2: coverage and all that planned. No matter what happens, we
Speaker 2: will be there right there with you. So, as Chrystal said,
Speaker 2: let's start with the ads, and the ads give us
Speaker 2: a lot of insight into the dollar figures that are
Speaker 2: being spent and similarly, what most people are hearing. I
Speaker 2: know a lot of people will watch this show and
Speaker 2: who are online. You guys are consuming a lot of stuff.
Speaker 2: But if you're just you know, living your life in
Speaker 2: the Pennsylvania and Arizona, in Wisconsin or others, this is
Speaker 2: most likely what you are going to see on your airwave.
Speaker 2: So we're going to start with Kamala Harris and the
Speaker 2: two ads that have the most money behind them in
Speaker 2: the Swing States.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen a lot of money. I know,
Speaker 3: Richard Well, we're going to Twitter.
Speaker 5: I am not rich as hell. I work hard. I
Speaker 5: scrape to get by. Donald Trump wants to give tax
Speaker 5: breaks to billionaires, but Kamala Harris has plans to help us.
Speaker 5: She's going to crack down on price gouging and cut
Speaker 5: taxes for working people like me. I voted for Donald
Speaker 5: Trump before, but this time I'm voting for Kamala.
Speaker 4: I no, what are you doing.
Speaker 3: You're rich as hell. I'm going to give you. I'm
Speaker 3: not rich as hell.
Speaker 6: I'm the one that really needs to break not the
Speaker 6: people that are already rich and have the money. The
Speaker 6: one percent don't serve anybody but themselves, So for them
Speaker 6: to get a tax break, no, that's not cool. Kamala
Speaker 6: Harris is gonna make billionaires pay their fair share, and
Speaker 6: she's gonna cut taxes for working people like me. I'm buddy,
Speaker 6: and I'm not rich as hell, and I'm voting for
Speaker 6: Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3: F F Pact is responsible for the content of this ad.
Speaker 2: So those were the two ads. They've got what forty
Speaker 2: something million dollars behind them. Now you can clearly see
Speaker 2: that it's very focused on the richest. Hell comment, I
Speaker 2: wouldn't note that that second ad that resident is from Allentown, Pennsylvania.
Speaker 2: I've come to know the region well, it's for my
Speaker 2: wife's family is from. Ronald Trump will actually be there
Speaker 2: today because of a big swinging area. It also is
Speaker 2: the first test. It has one of the largest Puerto
Speaker 2: Rican populations in the state. And having been there, I
Speaker 2: can tell you there's yard signs everywhere for both candidates.
Speaker 2: So in terms of the enthusiasm, they certainly take it
Speaker 2: seriously for who they're going to vote for. But it
Speaker 2: is certainly that last part is one that you're seeing
Speaker 2: quite a bit on the airwaves, specifically for Kamala Harris
Speaker 2: on that And frankly, I was a little bit surprised
Speaker 2: because if you also from my own experience having been there,
Speaker 2: watch some Eagle game or Phillies game. Well there it
Speaker 2: was a lot more abortion ads that I saw. But
Speaker 2: it maybe things have changed in the last month or
Speaker 2: so on this tax and a billionaire one.
Speaker 3: But look, it's not a bad strategy.
Speaker 2: Obviously, It's one that anybody who watches this show would
Speaker 2: be able to connect to and could understand why that
Speaker 2: would move swing voters so very much, could be the
Speaker 2: thing that pushes over the edge.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they're going for class war, and obviously I'm here
Speaker 1: for it. You know, I've been seeing one in Virginia
Speaker 1: that is similar that says, like, you know, Canada Day
Speaker 1: is for the billionaires and actually even has a picture
Speaker 1: of Trump with Jeffrey Epstein and a bunch of other Yeah,
Speaker 1: which is kind of noteworthy. And then Canada be is
Speaker 1: for you is basically the idea so very much in
Speaker 1: line with this. The first one we showed you also
Speaker 1: hit the note of like, listen, I voted for Trump
Speaker 1: in the past, this time I'm going with Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: So one thing that's noteworthy to me is while a
Speaker 1: lot of what is you know, what the speeches are
Speaker 1: about Kama's coming out and doing this speech on the ellipse,
Speaker 1: is that today that might be today actually, but she's
Speaker 1: giving that big, like closing speech on the Ellipse that's
Speaker 1: supposed to be about like democracy and those larger threats.
Speaker 1: They're talking a lot about the comments from John Kelly saying, hey,
Speaker 1: I serve with this guy and he is a.
Speaker 4: Fascist to the core.
Speaker 1: While they're doing that in terms of the sort of
Speaker 1: national media messaging, what they're actually putting paid and like
Speaker 1: what they're running paid ads on is this much more
Speaker 1: class economic focus message. And you know, some of the
Speaker 1: polling indicates that this has helped to move voters so
Speaker 1: that she has at the very least narrowed the gap
Speaker 1: with Trump on the economy. Some polls show that she
Speaker 1: is actually exceeding him or has matched him with regard
Speaker 1: to who people feel will be better for the economy.
Speaker 1: Every pole I've seen shows voters giving her an edge
Speaker 1: on who would be better for the middle class. That's
Speaker 1: obviously the message they're driving here. So you know, in general,
Speaker 1: I think it's pretty smart strategy.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And then for Trump, I mean clearly, and I've been
Speaker 2: talking about this, it's immigration all day long, and we're
Speaker 2: going to get to issues and what people say is
Speaker 2: their top I honestly kind of don't believe them anymore.
Speaker 2: I've gotten to that just because of where the way
Speaker 2: that the dollar figures are being spent on various different things,
Speaker 2: and also in terms of.
Speaker 3: What's moving the needle.
Speaker 2: Could be wrong, though Kamala certainly does win. So here
Speaker 2: are two of the biggest ads with money behind Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 7: His San Francisco DA liberal Kamala Harris later killers go free,
Speaker 7: and as California Attorney Gender, Kamala continued to put criminals first.
Speaker 7: After a little girl was raped and buried alive, laws
Speaker 7: were passed to keep sex offenders away from children, Kamala
Speaker 7: ignored Jessica's law and allowed convicted sex offenders to live
Speaker 7: near schools and parks. Kamala Harris has always put criminals first.
Speaker 7: Don't make America her next victim. Make America Great Again, Inc.
Speaker 7: Is responsible for the content of this advertising.
Speaker 8: He murdered a father of three sentenced to life in prison.
Speaker 8: Kamala Harris pushed to use tax dollars to pay for
Speaker 8: his sex change.
Speaker 9: I made sure that they changed the policy so that
Speaker 9: every transgender inmate would have access.
Speaker 8: It sounds insane because it is insane. Kamala was the
Speaker 8: first to help pay for a prisoner's sex change.
Speaker 9: The power that I had, I used it in a
Speaker 9: way that was about pushing for the movement. Frankly, and
Speaker 9: the agenda.
Speaker 8: Kamala's agenda is they them, not you.
Speaker 3: I'm Donald J. Trump, and I approved this message.
Speaker 2: That last when I heard over and over again when
Speaker 2: I was there in Pennsylvania. But I mean, look, I
Speaker 2: think it's clearly that they have some different theories about
Speaker 2: what is going to move people, and actually, can we
Speaker 2: put a sticks up on the screen, because this is
Speaker 2: really what it all comes down to our people. What
Speaker 2: do people mean when they say certain things are their
Speaker 2: top issues? So here is from Pew researchers came out
Speaker 2: last month. The economy is the top issues for voters
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty four. Number one is the economy amongst
Speaker 2: Harris and Trump supporters and all voters at eighty one percent.
Speaker 2: Number two is healthcare at sixty five. Three is Supreme Court, four,
Speaker 2: foreign policy, five, violent crime six Immigration. But the thing is,
Speaker 2: how can you look at those ads where that are
Speaker 2: being run and say that this comports with that and
Speaker 2: specifically in terms of what switches it like If healthcare
Speaker 2: is truly number two, I don't see a single person
Speaker 2: talking about healthcare in terms of that concepts of a
Speaker 2: plan answer from Trump, which obviously was ridiculous, But then
Speaker 2: you would assume if that was so devastating that the
Speaker 2: Harris campaign would be pumping it into every swing state
Speaker 2: living room.
Speaker 3: They seem to believe that they can compete.
Speaker 2: As you said on this better for the middle class question,
Speaker 2: a lot of people still do trust Trump on the economy.
Speaker 2: The spread is not the way that it used to be,
Speaker 2: but it's pretty clear that immigration is that number one now.
Speaker 2: The other theory is that if you do look at
Speaker 2: the spread between immigration and between immigration for Democrats and Republicans,
Speaker 2: immigration is a number two issue for Republicans, right, and
Speaker 2: then violent crime is what I think number three, just
Speaker 2: eyeballing it there. So if that's true, then the other
Speaker 2: way we could read it is that Trump's ads are
Speaker 2: all about driving his base and making sure that turnout
Speaker 2: is as high as possible, whereas with Kamala, obviously they
Speaker 2: have abortion, which is one of their top issues. But
Speaker 2: for them it says, what, if I'm reading correctly, healthcare,
Speaker 2: Supreme Court are their top issues.
Speaker 3: I don't hear a lot of that coming out of them.
Speaker 2: So maybe theirs is more of a swing state strategy
Speaker 2: and they're just banking on these voters who are already
Speaker 2: committed Dems on abortion to come out and vote. But
Speaker 2: either way, none of this is one hundred percent like
Speaker 2: aligns with the app As we've seen Crystal.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's culture war versus class war in
Speaker 1: terms of the closing messages that they are making on
Speaker 1: the airwaves. And I don't think that it's necessarily surprising
Speaker 1: given the way that Trump has run campaigns in the past,
Speaker 1: that his is a base turnout strategy. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: that's part of why you see the like Madison Square
Speaker 1: Garden rally and letting their freak flag fly, like very
Speaker 1: different from how you would normally position yourself for a
Speaker 1: general election. And you know, we'll see I've seen some
Speaker 1: polling that suggested that the you know, the ad attack
Speaker 1: attacking Kamala Harris on transgender issues in particular, has been
Speaker 1: very ineffective in that many voters couldn't even recall that
Speaker 1: they'd seen it, in spite of the fact that it's
Speaker 1: blanketed the airwaves. And then you know, on the hair side,
Speaker 1: I think you're right that they're looking more at That's
Speaker 1: part of why having the Republican they're saying I used
Speaker 1: to be with Trump, now I'm with Kamala. They're really
Speaker 1: trying to go at that sort of moderate swing voter
Speaker 1: they're still in.
Speaker 4: They're in the mode of still trying.
Speaker 1: To persuade some of those swing voters that they think
Speaker 1: are gettable for them, potentially in the suburbs. And so
Speaker 1: that's the direction that they're ultimately going in. You know,
Speaker 1: from based on the polling research that that we've seen
Speaker 1: what Matt KRP shared with us from the Center for
Speaker 1: Working Class Politics about the messages that work best, especially
Speaker 1: in the swing state of Pennsylvania. You know, they found
Speaker 1: that the uh, basically class war like the strong populist
Speaker 1: message pulled best in terms of moving voters. The second
Speaker 1: was progressive economics that you know move voters, and then
Speaker 1: way down the list was the threat to democracy message.
Speaker 1: So you know, it seems like the Harris people are
Speaker 1: seeing that and at least in terms of their paid communications,
Speaker 1: are responding accordingly. And you know, I guess one of
Speaker 1: the big questions is how much paid community communications to
Speaker 1: move anybody at this point, you know, is it? But
Speaker 1: even if it's marginal, the tens of millions of dollars
Speaker 1: that are blanketing the airwaves, you have to think that
Speaker 1: it accounts for something. The last thing I'll say about
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign strategy, which we mentioned before, is these
Speaker 1: ads are not just about those specific issues they're also
Speaker 1: about painting a portrait of Kamala Harris as having these
Speaker 1: like weird extreme ideas and it's not worthy to me too.
Speaker 1: In terms of the different strategies, this was something we
Speaker 1: saw in the dollar figures previously. The Democratic campaign is
Speaker 1: doing some straight negative but most of their ad dollars
Speaker 1: and that's what we saw on the two ads that
Speaker 1: we ran for you are a contrast, right, They're about,
Speaker 1: here's a positive for Kamala Harris in contrast to a
Speaker 1: negative for Donald Trump. The Trump is campaign is leaning
Speaker 1: heavily into just negatives, not building up Trump. Not a contrast,
Speaker 1: but like, let's try to dirty u Kamala Harris, Let's
Speaker 1: make you question whether she's really the person that you
Speaker 1: want there as commander in chief.
Speaker 4: And probably that has to do, you know.
Speaker 1: Partly with just like a different philosophy about what moves voters,
Speaker 1: and also the fact that she does have a higher
Speaker 1: approval rating than him, so they probably feel like they
Speaker 1: need to bring her back.
Speaker 3: Down there as a bit. That's what I mean for Trump.
Speaker 2: Everybody on Earth at this point knows how they feel
Speaker 2: about Donald Trump, positively or negatively. I don't think building
Speaker 2: him up is going to change all of that. But
Speaker 2: the last part I would really get to is this
Speaker 2: theory paid communications versus earned media, And I'm just a
Speaker 2: firm believer that earned media in the national media environment
Speaker 2: is just so much more important.
Speaker 3: Even putting earned a side.
Speaker 2: So, for example, Kamala may be done by how much
Speaker 2: is it forty million behind those two ads? I think
Speaker 2: we just said, But I mean the truth is is
Speaker 2: that the majority of her media coverage in the last
Speaker 2: two weeks has been almost all Liz Cheney democracy focused.
Speaker 2: That was what her event, and I think it was
Speaker 2: in Malvern, Pennsylvania, one of the wealthiest suburbs of the
Speaker 2: Philadelphia mainline with Liz Cheney was all about similar in Michigan.
Speaker 2: Her her event, I think today is about democracy the fascism.
Speaker 2: I mean, this has become like basically mainstream if you
Speaker 2: look on CNN or any elsewhere in terms of what
Speaker 2: the majority discussion is is all about, like Trump is
Speaker 2: a fascist and all that. I mean, Frank, look again,
Speaker 2: I could be two twenty sixteen rose colored glasses, but
Speaker 2: it's all been tried before, and if any I mean,
Speaker 2: it's the least original argument in the book. Trump is
Speaker 2: going to be a fascist. Trump is going to be
Speaker 2: a dictator. The other side of it would be exactly
Speaker 2: what I just said about Donald Trump. This is a
Speaker 2: base turnout strategy. Democrats hate Trump. You know, I'm walking
Speaker 2: around my neighborhood, which is ninety something percent for Biden dictatorship.
Speaker 2: Bad signs are everywhere. Stop Project twenty. I mean, this
Speaker 2: is the beating heart of true Blue. But I mean
Speaker 2: these people are fired up, They're ready to vote. And
Speaker 2: I saw somebody say that Democrats seem more enthusiastic than
Speaker 2: they have been since a campaign.
Speaker 3: Of Barack Obama.
Speaker 2: Obviously Barack Obama won twice, right, so that's not a
Speaker 2: bad thing, yeah, to be at, but some of the
Speaker 2: turnout data doesn't necessarily comport with that. We're going to
Speaker 2: do a segment soon about early vote. It actually is
Speaker 2: not looking terrible for a comma, but I have seen
Speaker 2: the warning signs. I think is in Milwaukee, for example,
Speaker 2: black turnout is like a forty year low. There's a
Speaker 2: little bit different signs in Georgia, but low blackturn it
Speaker 2: would not be what happened with Barack Obama.
Speaker 3: So of course, you know, we can look in every
Speaker 3: different direction.
Speaker 2: What we're all just trying to do here is just
Speaker 2: show people this is what swing voters are more likely
Speaker 2: to see. But they're also very likely to consume a
Speaker 2: lot of national media through the ether, not through watching
Speaker 2: CNN or elsewhere, through online, through clips, through this show,
Speaker 2: any other podcast that people listen to, and I'm just
Speaker 2: generally going.
Speaker 3: To bet on the ladder for what people are really
Speaker 3: going to hear.
Speaker 1: I think probably for Democrats, the messaging about fascism and
Speaker 1: the danger, the sort of existential danger that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: poses to the country, that's probably about bringing their.
Speaker 4: Own voters home.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what I was thinking, And.
Speaker 1: There has been some signs of that, by the way.
Speaker 1: For example, there was a poll, an NDABLEACP poll of
Speaker 1: black men in particular, and they had pulled them before,
Speaker 1: and it showed black men shifting back towards Kamala Harris,
Speaker 1: her winning especially among young black men, her winning black
Speaker 1: men in this particular poll overall at the same rates
Speaker 1: as Joe Biden. So I do think some of the messaging,
Speaker 1: the sort of earned media messaging from the Harris campaign
Speaker 1: and the speech she's giving, etc. Is about kind of
Speaker 1: bringing people who typically vote Democratic, who are maybe disgusted
Speaker 1: with the Biden policy potentially on the Warren Gaza trying
Speaker 1: to bring them back home. I think it's probably some
Speaker 1: of the strategy there. And then you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: Trump doesn't do himself any favors with having this Madison
Speaker 1: Square Garden rally where he's calling where his warm up
Speaker 1: backs is calling Puerto Rico and island garbage and making
Speaker 1: all kinds of other offensive comments throughout the night, not
Speaker 1: just from the comedian, and that Nate Silver had a
Speaker 1: write up of whether or not he thought that would
Speaker 1: make a difference. Move the needle can put that up
Speaker 1: in the screen.
Speaker 4: He thinks it could be. And the reason is he
Speaker 4: looks at in.
Speaker 1: Particular the Google search traffic for Trump and it has
Speaker 1: spiked after the Madison Square Garden rally. Now maybe you
Speaker 1: think that's the positive because hey, Trump's you know, dominating
Speaker 1: the narrative, blah blah blah. But I think more this
Speaker 1: is feeding a democratic narrative about the reminding people of
Speaker 1: the negatives, the reasons they soured on Donald Trump before,
Speaker 1: and his approval rating had especially post assassination, had assassination
Speaker 1: attempt had creeped up and kind of stayed there. So
Speaker 1: there is room for him for those negatives to creep
Speaker 1: back up.
Speaker 4: So in that sense, I don't really agree with. I
Speaker 4: know it's a common analysis.
Speaker 1: I understand where it comes from, that like none of
Speaker 1: these scandals really stick to him, but he does historically.
Speaker 4: Have like a low approval rating.
Speaker 1: He did lose in twenty twenty, his party did poorly
Speaker 1: in both twenty eighteen and surprisingly in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 4: So and I don't know.
Speaker 1: That it's totally accurate. He can, there is no doubt
Speaker 1: he can get away with things that would be total
Speaker 1: career enders for virtually any other politician. But the idea
Speaker 1: has no impact at all. I don't really buy that,
Speaker 1: because we have seen how his approval rating has been
Speaker 1: consistently negative in part because of these sorts of stuns
Speaker 1: as usual.
Speaker 2: The state the case can be overstated in both directions.
Speaker 2: I would put it what you just said is that
Speaker 2: in general, these things don't tend to stick. In twenty twenty,
Speaker 2: lose by some forty thousand votes across three states. It's
Speaker 2: not exactly an overwhelming mandate by Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: And if we consider I.
Speaker 1: Mean, he won the popular vote by four and a
Speaker 1: half percentage, right, But that doesn't matter any won all
Speaker 1: the critical battleground states. So yeah, it's I mean, sometimes
Speaker 1: on how.
Speaker 2: You look at Georgia ten thousand in Arizona. I forget
Speaker 2: what the other I think is Michigan.
Speaker 1: Right, But I'm just saying, you know, when you lose
Speaker 1: the popular vote by almost five percentage points, like that
Speaker 1: is a significant vote against you. And given the fact
Speaker 1: that now the gap has likely closed between the electoral
Speaker 1: college and the popular vote, like you know, if you certainly,
Speaker 1: if you if he faced today a four and a
Speaker 1: half point loss, it would be a landslide in terms
Speaker 1: of the battleground states all going to Kamala Harrison definitely.
Speaker 2: But that doesn't look like if that's going be the case.
Speaker 2: I mean, if anything, what I think with Trump is
Speaker 2: a lot of this stuff is baked in and ultimately
Speaker 2: what will swing the so called swing independent voters. And
Speaker 2: it's just difficult, I think for anybody who does this
Speaker 2: for a living or has long standing and well held
Speaker 2: political beliefs to understand it's just not how those people
Speaker 2: think maybe this will be enough to push them over
Speaker 2: the edge. But something that has been consistent with these
Speaker 2: swinging independent voters, the things that piss them off or
Speaker 2: not the things that may piss you off, or any
Speaker 2: other like liberal commentator, same vice versa. By the way,
Speaker 2: for you know, anybody who's on the right, you know,
Speaker 2: somebody who's saying that is something verboten to us or ridiculous,
Speaker 2: doesn't sound all that ridiculous.
Speaker 3: Whenever it goes to a swing voter.
Speaker 2: What actually moves them is almost impossible to determine. It's
Speaker 2: like alchemy in terms of what the actual like spotlight
Speaker 2: on Trump is going to see. One of the reasons
Speaker 2: my bias, and again this is a bias tells me
Speaker 2: that it's probably good for him, is that the more
Speaker 2: reason control of the conversation, the better off that he is.
Speaker 2: As it has been in the past for his approval ratings. Now,
Speaker 2: the question is about whether things have shifted enough from
Speaker 2: twenty twenty two onward for people to take this very
Speaker 2: very seriously in the way that they did then that
Speaker 2: they didn't, let's say, in twenty and sixteen, and same
Speaker 2: with Republican voters. Now, the Republican voter data would have
Speaker 2: to comport with the idea that there is some long
Speaker 2: heald like revulsion with Trump, but there hasn't it hasn't happened. Like,
Speaker 2: if the Liz Cheney Democratic theory of like, oh, drump
Speaker 2: is so bad that he's turning people off were true,
Speaker 2: you would see higher percentage of Republicans not wanting to
Speaker 2: vote for him. But I mean, in the New York
Speaker 2: Times Santa Poal, Trump is actually doing better with Republicans
Speaker 2: and Kama is doing with Democrats. Now we're talking about
Speaker 2: two and four points. Okay, so let's not overstate the
Speaker 2: case either direction. But my point is you would want
Speaker 2: that number to be like ten percent.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 2: The other theory is anybody who's still pissed off by Trump,
Speaker 2: they're not Democrats or they're not Republicans anymore. They left
Speaker 2: the party a long time ago. And in fact, if
Speaker 2: you roll the tape, I kind of predicted that in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was totally wrong.
Speaker 2: I've thought that there actually would be, you know, some
Speaker 2: sort of pushback or whatever. But yeah, by and large,
Speaker 2: it hasn't been the case people reconcile themselves to Trump.
Speaker 2: I think the Biden presidency has not been good, and
Speaker 2: so based on that a lot of people are willing
Speaker 2: to just come home and have negative polarization and partisanship.
Speaker 2: I genuinely have no clue. We will obviously find out
Speaker 2: on election day. But everybody who thinks that these are
Speaker 2: enders for Trump, I mean, how many times does an
Speaker 2: old Donnie need to wriggle his way out for us
Speaker 2: to learn a different lesson? In terms of what people
Speaker 2: actually see when they see this man, It's almost certainly
Speaker 2: not what most people will commentate on this for a
Speaker 2: living as I.
Speaker 1: Just think that analysis is very twenty sixteen, Yeah, when
Speaker 1: he has been consistently losing since then, and so two
Speaker 1: things are different. I mean, the major thing that's different
Speaker 1: is that he himself is trying for a different coalition
Speaker 1: than he was in twenty sixteen. In twenty sixteen, it
Speaker 1: was all about let me just juice the numbers with
Speaker 1: the white working class, and obviously in key swing states
Speaker 1: that was enough. This time, they have seen erosion with
Speaker 1: white voters, especially white college educated voters. So to try
Speaker 1: to make up for that, it's about going after you know,
Speaker 1: these less frequent black and brown younger men in particular,
Speaker 1: and so you know, it's not the same group that
Speaker 1: you're going after. And I think the campaign realizes that
Speaker 1: there may be more sensitivity around some of these comments
Speaker 1: with their aspired to voting coalition than there was in
Speaker 1: the past. So, for example, the Trump campaign distanced themselves
Speaker 1: from the Tony Hinchcliff joke about Puerto Rico being an
Speaker 1: island of trash. Every single Republican I think in Florida immediately,
Speaker 1: Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, all these different Republican members of
Speaker 1: Congress in Florida came out and condemned the comments. The
Speaker 1: head of the Republican Party in Puerto Rico condemned the comments.
Speaker 1: So you know, it's not just like me, some lefty
Speaker 1: liberal commentator saying it. The Trump campaign clearly sees it
Speaker 1: as an issue as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah maybe, I mean, frankly, I think that's kind of
Speaker 2: a stupid strategy. First of all, because it was literally
Speaker 2: at your rally, so there's.
Speaker 3: No disowning it. Number one.
Speaker 2: But number two is again like, if we really believe
Speaker 2: this theory of black and Latino voters, it's just incorrect.
Speaker 2: If it's going to push you over the finish line,
Speaker 2: Like we're this tiny slice of the electorate. It's maybe
Speaker 2: eight percent in the swing states, especially in the wider
Speaker 2: states across the blue wall white voters is the whole ballgame. Ironically,
Speaker 2: there are a lot of like, very racist commentators who
Speaker 2: often throw this at Trump because they're like, hey, man,
Speaker 2: why are you've chasing the black vote? Whites are the
Speaker 2: only ones who actually matter for you, and look, you know,
Speaker 2: weird horseshoe theory. I kind of agree with them, just
Speaker 2: on a statistical basis that their whole like you know,
Speaker 2: what was it First Step Act and all this, it
Speaker 2: hasn't really done anything in terms of pushing people to
Speaker 2: come out and vote for Trump predominantly.
Speaker 3: I just read a study yesterday.
Speaker 2: A big part of the reason that the Latino shift
Speaker 2: has happened amongst Latino men's specific is based on literally
Speaker 2: Latin x verbiage and on an aversion to cultural liberalism
Speaker 2: that has nothing to do with Trump or even like
Speaker 2: a Puerto Rico comment or whatever. It has to do
Speaker 2: much more with like cultural conservatism deep at heart. And also, frankly,
Speaker 2: a lot of these people are more working class and
Speaker 2: are not college educated and thus have a very different
Speaker 2: like cultural more that they swim in as opposed to
Speaker 2: everybody else. So that seems to be, you know, the
Speaker 2: only reason it's happened, I guess is a long way
Speaker 2: of saying is I don't think the Puerto Rico joke
Speaker 2: is gonna matter that much.
Speaker 3: I really don't.
Speaker 2: I mean again, like if if somebody makes a joke
Speaker 2: about where you're from and that's literally enough for you
Speaker 2: to come out and vote for somebody.
Speaker 3: Else, to me, that seems insane.
Speaker 2: But I mean, maybe you know all the Puerto Ricans
Speaker 2: this country thing differently than me.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I'd like to think I'm more like everybody else. It
Speaker 2: just seems to me that the reason why they would
Speaker 2: come out to vote is number one of this long standing,
Speaker 2: like years long aversion to cultural liberalism.
Speaker 3: As they said in.
Speaker 2: That I think as an NBER study, we can maybe
Speaker 2: talk about it next week.
Speaker 3: But that's that's.
Speaker 2: What the driver just seems to be behind a lot
Speaker 2: of this black and Latino movement. But at the end
Speaker 2: of the day, you know, the ballgame is still white
Speaker 2: working class voters, because all he needs to do, with believe,
Speaker 2: is turn out at twenty sixteen levels or slightly above
Speaker 2: from twenty twenty, and he could still win with no
Speaker 2: more increase in the black or the Latino vote.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, and when a race is really really close,
Speaker 1: like If it's as close in the Swing States as
Speaker 1: it was last time, then you could look at any
Speaker 1: one community and say a little bit of a erosion year,
Speaker 1: a little bit of erosion there is what made the difference.
Speaker 1: I mean, PENNSYL Vnue what they're like half a million
Speaker 1: people who are of Puerto Rican descent, and I have
Speaker 1: no special insights into that community, but I do know
Speaker 1: that it's been reported.
Speaker 4: Like you know, Spanish language talk radio is all over it.
Speaker 1: Bad Bunny has apparently moved elections in the past, and
Speaker 1: he is all over like every basically Puerto Rican star
Speaker 1: is all over it. People are calling into radio stations
Speaker 1: locally in Philly and saying, I was thinking about Trump,
Speaker 1: but there's no way I'm going to vote for that man. So,
Speaker 1: you know, can it make some difference on the margins?
Speaker 1: I think it's possible. I think it's possible. I don't
Speaker 1: want to oversell it, right, I don't want to say, leoh,
Speaker 1: this is the ballgame.
Speaker 4: It's over for him.
Speaker 1: But when you tie that into not just the specific
Speaker 1: impact on like you know, Puerto Ricans, but how it
Speaker 1: feeds into the Harris messaging about how this person is,
Speaker 1: what does she say, she says like unhinged, unstable, and
Speaker 1: the messaging about you know, him being a danger and
Speaker 1: just someone you really don't want a position of power.
Speaker 1: He gave them ammunition in the final week, and I
Speaker 1: think it's pretty clear from his campaign's reaction that they
Speaker 1: think it could be a problem for him. I just
Speaker 1: know if I was looking at, you know, how the
Speaker 1: Democrats were closing and there was some equivalent you know,
Speaker 1: scandal on the Democratic side, and all of their ad
Speaker 1: dollars were going to, like, let me push out these
Speaker 1: niche culture war issue ads that really only appealed to
Speaker 1: the Democratic base, I would be like, this is you,
Speaker 1: this is preposterous that you're closing this way. And so
Speaker 1: now I don't think that the Trump campaign is closing. Well,
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean they're going to lose, but you know,
Speaker 1: I don't think that they're putting their best forward, in
Speaker 1: my foot forward, in my opinion, in this final week.
Speaker 3: Let's go and.
Speaker 4: Shift to the.
Speaker 1: Bowl case for Kamala Harris, because we have talked about,
Speaker 1: you know, yesterday we talked about the polls shifting towards Trump.
Speaker 1: We showed you some of those indications that his campaign
Speaker 1: feels very confident about where they're standing at this point.
Speaker 4: Kamala Harris will start with this.
Speaker 1: She went on Club Shayshay, this is Shannon Sharp's program.
Speaker 1: This was released yesterday, and you know it was a
Speaker 1: very like friendly.
Speaker 3: It was all.
Speaker 1: It was as all these podcast interviews have been. It
Speaker 1: was again makes me deeply depressed about the media landscape
Speaker 1: in which we exist. But in any case, let's take
Speaker 1: a listen to a little bit of how that went.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 9: So I'm really glad you brought that up, Shannon. So
Speaker 9: first of all, let's clear up certain myths. Okay, you
Speaker 9: know those checks that went out.
Speaker 5: Yes, those Skimmy's right, stimulus check?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I know, well, right, we gotta be stimulus. But
Speaker 3: they called him stimmy. It's okay.
Speaker 9: The reason those came about is because there was a
Speaker 9: Democratic majority in the House of Representatives in Congress, people
Speaker 9: like Maxine Waters, people like Hakeem Jeffries right, yes, who
Speaker 9: did the work of pushing to say people need help
Speaker 9: right now and we need to send out checks. There
Speaker 9: was a whole lot of opposition to it, including from
Speaker 9: Donald Trump's White House.
Speaker 3: Yes, even him, I think he was Yes.
Speaker 9: That's why those checks.
Speaker 4: Remember Congress holds the purse.
Speaker 9: Yes, so really Congress wrote those checks. But then Donald Trump,
Speaker 9: unlike any president before after, decided he put his name
Speaker 9: on those checks.
Speaker 3: So therefore people thought.
Speaker 9: So people thought, Donald Trump, they gave me that check.
Speaker 1: So similar messaging has been coming from Barack Obama when
Speaker 1: he's been on the trail about like, oh, Trump's taking
Speaker 1: credit for the economy being good. When he came in,
Speaker 1: that was me. I'm the one who built that economy.
Speaker 1: So her trying to you know, close the gap again
Speaker 1: with Trump on the economic issues, and obviously on this podcast,
Speaker 1: attempt to reach young men, young black men in particular,
Speaker 1: and sort of you know, humanize herself with that group.
Speaker 3: I guess.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you listen to it that by the way,
Speaker 2: that was like thirty minutes into the convent, maybe twenty
Speaker 2: five minutes. I believe the rest of the time was
Speaker 2: about music or whatever, and man, we need to fundraise.
Speaker 2: If you know, there was how many ad breaks were there?
Speaker 2: I counted nine. I could be wrong while I was
Speaker 2: listening to it. So Shannon, buy yourself a new sup bro.
Speaker 2: Contact me, let me know I can help you out
Speaker 2: in terms of in terms of the actual content.
Speaker 3: I don't know. It seemed to deeply cringe worthy to me.
Speaker 2: As you said, it's been fitting with this politic this
Speaker 2: U the podcast Election.
Speaker 4: Podcast, Election sucks basically a lot of fans.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's just bullshit, is the best way I
Speaker 2: could describe. He even opened the interview, He's like, and
Speaker 2: we hope that you win. I was like, come on, bro, Like,
Speaker 2: what are we doing here. It's not even a pretense
Speaker 2: of a challenge on anything. Now, let's shift to the billcase,
Speaker 2: because they obviously these you know, stimulus checks didn't matter
Speaker 2: last time around. And let's think about where the signs
Speaker 2: could be for Kamala Harris that most people are not
Speaker 2: aware of right now, and in the early vote, there
Speaker 2: are some signs that show that there's actually quite a
Speaker 2: bit of strength. Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: This was really interesting. This was what you go amongst
Speaker 2: forty eight, seven hundred and thirty two, like thos actually
Speaker 2: a huge sample. And then if you actually dig into it,
Speaker 2: what you start to look at is the swing from
Speaker 2: fifty one percent for Kamala Harris and then forty seven
Speaker 2: percent for Donald Trump that would crystal would be the
Speaker 2: same four points that Biden effectively won the popular vote
Speaker 2: by last time around, Yeah, which could be enough to
Speaker 2: put him over the edge. And if you combine that
Speaker 2: with some of the other early vote numbers that were
Speaker 2: beginning to see it could be a sign of strength. Frame.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if we leave this up on the screen, you know,
Speaker 1: this is a large enough stamp. This is the largest
Speaker 1: survey of voters that we will get. Forty eight thousand
Speaker 1: likely voters is a preposterously large number. The methodology here
Speaker 1: is a little bit different. They do a pre and
Speaker 1: post election interview. The data from that study they make
Speaker 1: available to scholars. This is something that's done every year,
Speaker 1: so this is a large scale survey of political attitudes.
Speaker 1: They run it then through their own likely voter model
Speaker 1: in order to come up with these numbers. So they
Speaker 1: give a four point gap in favor of Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: That's the same amount that ipso's ABC poll that we
Speaker 1: covered yesterday had in favor of Kamala Harris, and your
Speaker 1: right to point out that's roughly the margin of victory
Speaker 1: and the popular for Joe Biden as well.
Speaker 4: Just keep this up for another second.
Speaker 1: You know a couple things that jump out here, The
Speaker 1: gender gap, they have Kamala Harris actually winning men forty
Speaker 1: nine eight, very different than other surveys that we've seen.
Speaker 1: You know, that could indicate they're picking up something that
Speaker 1: other surveys aren't. They could indicate that their survey is wrong.
Speaker 1: They have Kamala Harris with a significant gap with women
Speaker 1: fifty three forty two, so that's noteworthy. They show her
Speaker 1: per performing basically the way Biden did among young voters
Speaker 1: eighteen to thirty nine. She wins them fifty nine to
Speaker 1: thirty seven. If you look at the rural urban suburban split,
Speaker 1: they have her dominating the urban category, winning the suburban category,
Speaker 1: which I believe Trump has won in the past, and
Speaker 1: then obviously losing bad in the rurals to Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: So that's the data that they show here, and so
Speaker 1: we can ask the question, Okay, well, how has this
Speaker 1: survey done in the past, since this is something that
Speaker 1: they do every time. Last time in twenty twenty, they
Speaker 1: actually precisely nailed Biden's nationwide percentage, so they got exactly
Speaker 1: right what percent of the popular vote he would get. However,
Speaker 1: they did underestimate Trump by four so you know, they
Speaker 1: they got Biden's number right, But they underestimated Trump, so
Speaker 1: that's you know, worth noting they found Trump losing to
Speaker 1: Biden fifty one to forty three. The twenty sixteen survey
Speaker 1: apparently underestimated both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, with Clinton
Speaker 1: taking forty three percent Trump taking thirty nine percent in
Speaker 1: their pre election survey. They would go on to win
Speaker 1: forty eight percent and forty six percent respectively. Of course,
Speaker 1: we remember Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by two
Speaker 1: percentage points but lost in the electoral college, so they
Speaker 1: had the the margin was pretty close, and they had
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton getting more of the popular vote, but in
Speaker 1: the end, you know, they actually underestimated both of those candidates.
Speaker 4: So take that for what it's worth.
Speaker 1: But the fact that it's such a large sample makes
Speaker 1: people take this particular survey relatively seriously.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, that's why it mattered. Let's go to the
Speaker 2: next one. This was one that we wanted to highlight,
Speaker 2: and actually we mentioned it a little bit with Logan,
Speaker 2: but it's still very important to dig into and look
Speaker 2: particularly at that Nebraska number. So what they have is
Speaker 2: that in Nebraska, Dan Osborne of course in a tight
Speaker 2: race there, but more important Dan, Yeah, I mean, I'm
Speaker 2: rooting for a shock. What they have most importantly within
Speaker 2: this is that they have Kamala up by what some
Speaker 2: twelve points or so in that special district. Now, the
Speaker 2: reason why that matters is that that special district is
Speaker 2: Nebraska not only has its own electoral college vote, which
Speaker 2: is what would put her at two seventy two sixty
Speaker 2: eight if Trump does win Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, but
Speaker 2: that Omaha suburb and white college educated vote was one
Speaker 2: that Biden only won by seven or eight last time around.
Speaker 3: So it actually shows.
Speaker 2: An overperformance amongst white college educated voters, which last time
Speaker 2: was a big precursor for what the twenty twenty vote
Speaker 2: ended up looking like in the suburban vote shift. So
Speaker 2: what would see is that not only would you have
Speaker 2: Kamala doing as well as Biden last time around with
Speaker 2: white college educated voters, but even better. Now can we
Speaker 2: transpose that to the swing states? I mean, you know,
Speaker 2: not entirely, but it is an indicator of strength with
Speaker 2: that core demographic group and one that if it were
Speaker 2: to bear out on election day, would be enough to
Speaker 2: put her over the edge.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, if Kamala actually won this district that
Speaker 1: Biden won by six if she wins it by twelve,
Speaker 1: that is not consistent with her losing yea, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean because it would certainly extrapolate out to you know,
Speaker 1: Midwestern states or Midwestern college educative voters or whatever like.
Speaker 1: If she is winning these type of districts by a
Speaker 1: significant amount more than Biden was winning these districts, that
Speaker 1: would be very indicative. It's one survey. Take it with
Speaker 1: grains of salt, blah blah blah. But one of the
Speaker 1: things that we've been noting is that there have been
Speaker 1: a few surveys like this, a few polls that have
Speaker 1: found that when you drill down to to the congressional
Speaker 1: district level, as this poll does, or to the county
Speaker 1: wide level, the more granular you go, the better. It
Speaker 1: seems like the numbers are for Kamala Harris. So we
Speaker 1: can put this one up on the screen. This is
Speaker 1: from USA today. So they found in Wisconsin a deadlocked race.
Speaker 1: Trump actually with a one point lead forty eight to
Speaker 1: forty seven in the state overall. However, when you drill
Speaker 1: down into Door County, Wisconsin, which has been a bell
Speaker 1: weather for the state, meaning whichever way this county goes,
Speaker 1: the state tends to go.
Speaker 4: Kamala Harris has an edge.
Speaker 1: She leads Trump in that area fifty to forty seven,
Speaker 1: and that is larger than what Biden won that district by.
Speaker 1: He won that county by one and a half percentage points,
Speaker 1: again margin of vera one survey. The overall top line
Speaker 1: result not great for her, since it shows it tied
Speaker 1: with Trump with a one point lead, But there have
Speaker 1: been a number of these that have consistently found when
Speaker 1: you look at the county level, when you look at
Speaker 1: the congressional district level, it seems like she's doing better
Speaker 1: than the statewide or the national polling would indicate.
Speaker 4: There's another thing.
Speaker 1: That is a positive sign for the Harris people, which
Speaker 1: is that we can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 4: Some of the polls.
Speaker 1: Now that you have people who have already voted, right,
Speaker 1: who have already cast their ballots, some of the pollsters
Speaker 1: have been breaking down, okay, among people who have already voted,
Speaker 1: who are they voting for?
Speaker 4: Who is leading?
Speaker 1: And these have consistently found an almost preposterously high level
Speaker 1: of support for Kamala Harris in the early vote, much
Speaker 1: higher than you would expect given the partisan breakdown of
Speaker 1: the data that we know from the early votes. So
Speaker 1: in Arizona they have Kamala leading. This is according to
Speaker 1: Marriswing state polls among early voters fifty six forty four.
Speaker 1: In Georgia they have her leading fifty five forty five.
Speaker 1: In North Carolina they have her leading fifty five forty three.
Speaker 1: This person opines, Yes, these are essentially stabs, not waited
Speaker 1: to be representative of that population, but it is an
Speaker 1: unmistakable pattern. In addition, we can put the next one
Speaker 1: up on the screen. This is another USA Today poll.
Speaker 1: They also looked at voters who had already cast their
Speaker 1: ballots and asked, okay, well, who did you vote for
Speaker 1: you person that has already voted early by mail or
Speaker 1: early in person, and they found Kamala Harris leading by
Speaker 1: a two to one margin among those early voters.
Speaker 4: Sixty three thirty four.
Speaker 1: They say that preference turns around among those who plan
Speaker 1: to wait until election day to vote, with Trump ahead
Speaker 1: fifty two thirty five. And I've seen other instances that
Speaker 1: have also found very positive trends in favor of Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris among early voters. Now, on the other hand, Sager,
Speaker 1: you would expect Democrats to have an advantage in the
Speaker 1: early vote because of habits that were established during COVID,
Speaker 1: because you still have Donald Trump even to this day
Speaker 1: running around and in Elon Munk too, by the way,
Speaker 1: casting doubt on mail in balloting. Republicans are buy and
Speaker 1: large trying to show up to vote early in person.
Speaker 1: That is their preferred method of early voting in the
Speaker 1: state of Pennsylvania. That's actually an onerous process. I was
Speaker 1: reading yesterday. They don't have a normal like you just
Speaker 1: show up and it's like election day and you just
Speaker 1: go and cast your ballot and feed in the voting machin.
Speaker 1: You have to go request an absence, see ballot, go home,
Speaker 1: fill it out, come back. It's like very cumbersome and
Speaker 1: it's stupid, right, and people are getting very frustrated with
Speaker 1: that process. But in any case, so especially given the
Speaker 1: way that things have trended historically recently, there have been
Speaker 1: the voting patterns early have been kind of all over
Speaker 1: the place. Makes it very difficult to read into what
Speaker 1: these early numbers are indicative of. But like I said,
Speaker 1: what they seem to indicate in terms of the hopeful
Speaker 1: case is if you look at the partisan breakdown of
Speaker 1: who we know is voted early based on Target Smart
Speaker 1: and other data analysts, and then you look at this
Speaker 1: level of margin, it seems to indicate that some substantial
Speaker 1: proportion of independence are also coming into the Democratic camp,
Speaker 1: which is precisely what put them over the top in
Speaker 1: so many places in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and so I was just looking this morning and
Speaker 2: I saw a very good concise summary from Mark Caputo,
Speaker 2: who's a reporter. He usually covers Florida, and he just says, look,
Speaker 2: number one, Trump is doing well in sun Belt. It's
Speaker 2: not enough. He needs one third of rust Belt states
Speaker 2: to swing. So Harris has a bigger Roust Belt voter
Speaker 2: pool to draw them, but they are not showing up
Speaker 2: early in the way that she needs so far. If
Speaker 2: they do, she wins three seven days ago. I thought
Speaker 2: that was a very concise way of looking at it.
Speaker 2: In terms of the numbers. The big question mark is
Speaker 2: about those similar early vote domination that happened last time around.
Speaker 3: People are trying.
Speaker 2: To say, oh, well, it's possible that that shows depressed
Speaker 2: democratic turnout, but it just seems way more likely that
Speaker 2: everybody is fundamentally different from four years ago from the
Speaker 2: way that they vote part of why it is so
Speaker 2: difficult to look at any of the patterns the other
Speaker 2: in the independent category that you just flagged. Yeah, and
Speaker 2: that's really important too, where the non identified and what
Speaker 2: they vote for is really matters a lot. Now, if
Speaker 2: that is true, that is an indicator of a twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two style dynamic where our voter is super high turnout,
Speaker 2: but the independence predominantly swing in one direction, which is
Speaker 2: just enough to put you over the edge. So, I mean, look,
Speaker 2: we wanted to make sure that you guys got a
Speaker 2: very clear picture that there's a very real path for
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris victory.
Speaker 3: The other thing, that's the key.
Speaker 1: The other thing I would say that is the point
Speaker 1: you've been making Soger, is that back in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: some of the warning signs for Hillary Clinton was that
Speaker 1: when you dug down into that district or county level data.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, she was host things didn't look good. They
Speaker 4: didn't look good.
Speaker 1: And so you had these sort of canary and the
Speaker 1: coal mines of different congressional districts that were like, oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know, that doesn't that doesn't look great.
Speaker 4: But there was so much, you know, there was so.
Speaker 1: Much assumption, so many assumptions about the inevitability of Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton that that was all sort of papered over until
Speaker 1: after the fact when people looked back and said, you know,
Speaker 1: there were some warnings here, people just totally ignored them
Speaker 1: this time. If anything, those warning signs are going in
Speaker 1: the other direction. The congressional district and county level data
Speaker 1: looks better for Kamala Harris, looks very poor for Donald Trump. Now,
Speaker 1: these district level samples are can also be faulty. They
Speaker 1: can also have a significant margin of error. But I
Speaker 1: think after election day, if she overperforms, these are some
Speaker 1: of the things that we will look back to and say, ah,
Speaker 1: that was an indication of something that was going on
Speaker 1: that pollsters were missing at the top line. The other
Speaker 1: thing that I'll mention is, I don't know if you
Speaker 1: saw this, but somebody wrote a post yesterday, like a
Speaker 1: polster wrote out a post about how important the assumptions
Speaker 1: that they make in waiting their likely voter models are
Speaker 1: in terms of determining the ultimate result of the poll. So,
Speaker 1: and this is something we talked to Logan about. It's
Speaker 1: going to post for everybody on Friday. It's available now
Speaker 1: for premium subscribers. But this idea that polsters were so
Speaker 1: burned in twenty sixteen and twenty twenty that they're effectively
Speaker 1: hedging their bets and potentially even subconsciously kind of putting
Speaker 1: their finger, their you know, finger on the scales, I'm
Speaker 1: on the scale of these polls to try to engineer
Speaker 1: a result that's roughly fifty to fifty because that feels
Speaker 1: comfortable for them, because they don't want to be the
Speaker 1: outlier that becomes the you know, the what was a
Speaker 1: Wisconsin by seventeen for Joe Biden pulled but got a
Speaker 1: business preposterous? This was a preposterous result, like how dare you?
Speaker 1: How can we ever trust anything? They don't want to
Speaker 1: be in that situation. So if you have a bunch
Speaker 1: of posters that all are all hurting around this like
Speaker 1: fifty to fifty race, then number one, you're not going
Speaker 1: to get single down, and number two, the race is
Speaker 1: likely to be within a few points of that, so
Speaker 1: you're not going to get burned as having been wildly wrong.
Speaker 1: So it's possible there's some of that going on and
Speaker 1: that the electorate has changed postdobs in a way that
Speaker 1: pollsters haven't aren't really reflecting and haven't really accounted for
Speaker 1: the last thing I'll put up on the screen that
Speaker 1: people are sharing is, let's say we've thought about, Okay,
Speaker 1: if the polling miss is what it was in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: or if the polling miss is what it was in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, Donald Trump is going to win, that's where
Speaker 1: we are.
Speaker 4: But if the polling miss is.
Speaker 1: What it was in twenty twenty two, that is a
Speaker 1: very different picture. I can put this up on the
Speaker 1: screen in that instance, so you can see in the
Speaker 1: first column that's where the polls.
Speaker 4: Are right now.
Speaker 1: I think this is according to the New York Times.
Speaker 1: So you've got Kamala plus one overall, plus one in Wisconsin,
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of states that are deadlocked, and then
Speaker 1: Georgia and Arizona plus two for Trump. If the polls
Speaker 1: missed like they did in twenty twenty two, Kamala wins
Speaker 1: every state except Georgia, where the polls actually in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two were accurate, which was different from the norm.
Speaker 1: So you know, it's possible that this is the world
Speaker 1: that we're living in post next week election, where even
Speaker 1: if they're off by just a couple points in these
Speaker 1: swing states. If you have a miss, if they you know,
Speaker 1: if they don't take account of the post roll electorate
Speaker 1: in a way that they did in twenty twenty two
Speaker 1: and they have a similar miss, that it's going to
Speaker 1: end up being a very clear cut result in favor
Speaker 1: of Kamala.
Speaker 3: Harris, Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2: H can't help but look at that other category, right, Yeah, funny,
Speaker 2: no doubt about whins every single swing stage. Yeah, and
Speaker 2: that blowout victory.
Speaker 1: Honestly, either one of those scenarios I think nobody should
Speaker 1: be surprised by.
Speaker 4: Oh no, nobody should be surprised by.
Speaker 2: It's a weird thing to go into an election and
Speaker 2: not be surprised by any result. I guess the only
Speaker 2: one that would truly shock me is a tie, like
Speaker 2: a sixty nine two sixty nine.
Speaker 3: Yeah. The other one that.
Speaker 1: Especially because that would require this Nebraska district that we
Speaker 1: just covered that seems to be going very clearly for Kamala,
Speaker 1: that would require that to flip the Trump.
Speaker 2: The only other one that would surprise me is is
Speaker 2: not just a tie. Is Kamala wins the electoral college
Speaker 2: loses the popular vote.
Speaker 3: That would be genuinely shocked.
Speaker 4: That would be fun, but that fun.
Speaker 1: I am low key cheering for that one because I
Speaker 1: do think that would be the end of the electoral college.
Speaker 4: That I would I own cheering for the end of
Speaker 4: the elect.
Speaker 3: Have some interesting results. Yeah, it would end the electoral college.
Speaker 2: The Republicans would almost certainly have to ditch the pro
Speaker 2: life coalition if you ever want to win the popular vote.
Speaker 3: So yea, it's certainly possible. Maybe I should cheer towards.
Speaker 10: So.
Speaker 1: As we have mentioned multiple times, at this point, we
Speaker 1: are one week out from election day and things are
Speaker 1: starting to get very edgy, I guess, very a little
Speaker 1: bit ominous.
Speaker 4: We can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: We had a number of ballot drop boxes three different
Speaker 1: places in the state of Washington and also in the
Speaker 1: state of Oregon that were set on fire, according to
Speaker 1: local authorities. In this particular video that you can see
Speaker 1: here where the ballots are on fire, this was in
Speaker 1: Clark County at the Fisher's Landing Transit Center. They say
Speaker 1: that hundreds of ballots were inside at the time. The
Speaker 1: last pickup had been eleven am on Saturday. A Vancouver
Speaker 1: ballot box had also burned us in Washington in an
Speaker 1: arson Monday morning, authorities report with hundreds of ballots they're
Speaker 1: possibly damaged in a fire. They also think that that
Speaker 1: is connected to another arson incident in Portland, Oregon. You know,
Speaker 1: the police have put out an image of a car
Speaker 1: that they think, you know, that is a person of
Speaker 1: interest potentially in these arsons which they believe to be connected.
Speaker 1: You know, you might think, like Oregon and Washington, these
Speaker 1: are not swing states, what is going on here? But
Speaker 1: one of these areas actually is a swing district in
Speaker 1: terms of a congressional race. Marie Lousen camp Perez won
Speaker 1: this district very narrowly last time around. And of course
Speaker 1: even if it's not a swing state, people are voting
Speaker 1: on a variety of things. To have their ballots in
Speaker 1: the mail burned up is you know, is very troubling
Speaker 1: and also of course causes people to be concerned, Hey
Speaker 1: did my ballot make it in? Was it in that box?
Speaker 1: Is my vote going to actually count here? So this
Speaker 1: is this is troubling.
Speaker 2: And say, well, well, in uh An, Oregon specifically, it's
Speaker 2: all mail in voting, so that that's what people need.
Speaker 2: Unders that's right, Yeah, about they don't even do in
Speaker 2: person voting. Everything is mailing kind of interesting. They have
Speaker 2: a very high voter participation, but that's a secondary conversation
Speaker 2: for the people who are anti mail in voting. The
Speaker 2: key that you also mentioned is that this is the
Speaker 2: how do you say her name is a Gluesen comonlu
Speaker 2: Camp Gluesen Camp, Perez and Joe Kent, which was a
Speaker 2: complete nail bier last time.
Speaker 4: What was a few thousand votes?
Speaker 2: Maybe barely anything? Yeah, Ken, just a lot of people
Speaker 2: might know him. He's like a maga guy.
Speaker 3: Oh that podcast. It was a former Green Beret. I forget.
Speaker 3: He's an interesting guy. I'll put it that way.
Speaker 2: My point though, is that he would became a big
Speaker 2: celebrity online that in twenty twenty two swing vote against him,
Speaker 2: A lot of people watching that for potential signs of
Speaker 2: where things could go. Interestingly enough, it remains a toss
Speaker 2: up in the polls today. Last time around, Kent actually
Speaker 2: appeared to have a major advantage and it was a shock.
Speaker 2: So it's a big question mark two about the reliability
Speaker 2: of polls. And obviously that would be one of those
Speaker 2: districts that could be precursor where if she does win reelection,
Speaker 2: that could be one that we could look to and
Speaker 2: be like, oh, that's you know, similar to the twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two D wave that ended up materializing or at
Speaker 2: least blunting the red wave. Whereas if he wins, and
Speaker 2: he wins handily, that would indicate like a Trump vote.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, potentially.
Speaker 1: So in any case, it's something we have an eye on,
Speaker 1: and you know, obviously troubling series of events, we wanted
Speaker 1: to take some time and teasing this for a while
Speaker 1: to lay out what is likely to happen in the
Speaker 1: event which obviously far from certain, in the event that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump loses, what will stop the steal two point.
Speaker 4: Zero look like?
Speaker 1: And as Saga is rightly pointed out here, there are
Speaker 1: a few things that are positive that have happened since
Speaker 1: January sixth. You had in a legislation that was passed
Speaker 1: that was meant to prevent the sequence of events that
Speaker 1: occurred last time, where there were big question marks about
Speaker 1: what Mike Pence's role as the vice president is in
Speaker 1: certifying the results and whether or not the state legislators
Speaker 1: just have like cart blanche to pick whatever the hell's
Speaker 1: later electors they want to pick. There was legislation that
Speaker 1: was passed that sought to provide clarity to avoid that
Speaker 1: same sequence of events. So that's positive. And then the
Speaker 1: other thing is just that Donald Trump is not in
Speaker 1: charge of the federal government right now.
Speaker 4: So we has tools at his disposal.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean that he's not going to try
Speaker 1: some stuff, and that doesn't mean that he isn't already
Speaker 1: laying the groundwork to contest the results in the event
Speaker 1: that he does actually lose.
Speaker 4: We've heard this in a lot of his rhetoric.
Speaker 1: We also hear it from Elon Musk, both at his
Speaker 1: town halls and also on his own platform of Twitter.
Speaker 1: You hear it from all sorts of Republicans. Republicans are
Speaker 1: starting to get asked. I saw Jim Jordan was just
Speaker 1: asked whether or not he would urge Donald Trump to
Speaker 1: accept the results of the election.
Speaker 4: He refused to say so.
Speaker 1: Just as a reminder of that, here is a little
Speaker 1: taste of how Donald Trump is talking about the election
Speaker 1: when he's asked whether or not he will accept the
Speaker 1: results either way?
Speaker 4: Will you accept the results about the action?
Speaker 10: Yeah, sure, if it's a fair election, always I would
Speaker 10: always accept it. I consays to be a fair election.
Speaker 10: We're leading in all the balls and then we're leading
Speaker 10: in every swing state. Real well, it's now I think so.
Speaker 10: In fact, they just had an RCP said you're a
Speaker 10: ninety three point three terms of winning. As that's pretty good.
Speaker 1: So one of the key things he says there's soccer
Speaker 1: that we've talked about, is he says I have a
Speaker 1: ninety three point two percent chance of winning. And part
Speaker 1: of the MAGA approach right now led by the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign is to protect total and complete confidence that there
Speaker 1: is no way that they can lose this race. Now,
Speaker 1: on the one hand, that may just be like there,
Speaker 1: you know, that's a very Donald Trump kind of thing
Speaker 1: to do, like, of course I'm.
Speaker 4: Going to win, I'm a winner, blah blah.
Speaker 1: Blah, But it also helps to lay the groundwork for
Speaker 1: if he were to lose this say I had a
Speaker 1: ninety three percent chance of winning, like there's no way
Speaker 1: that I could have possibly lost, And then you pair
Speaker 1: that with I don't know if you just saw he
Speaker 1: just put out a true social in this, again consistent
Speaker 1: with other things that he's been doing where he's already
Speaker 1: claiming that there's fraud in Pennsylvania that could be determinative
Speaker 1: referring to a ballot registration issue in Lancaster County, which
Speaker 1: is interesting in and of itself and could be actually
Speaker 1: from the Republican side of the aisle, but using that
Speaker 1: in incident to already call into question the legitimacy of
Speaker 1: the Pennsylvania elections, he's.
Speaker 2: Going to declare that a one no matter what. So
Speaker 2: if the question is really like if he actually does
Speaker 2: win or not. The interesting part, too, is on the
Speaker 2: legal stuff. As you mentioned, can we please put C
Speaker 2: three up there on the screen. From all of my reading,
Speaker 2: a lot of it is going to focus here. This
Speaker 2: is a Wall Street Journal article which is actually very important.
Speaker 2: It's called, quote the Secret of Billionaire network funding, Stop
Speaker 2: the Steal two point zero one hundred and forty million dollars,
Speaker 2: nearly fifty groups working on quote election integrity and another
Speaker 2: crusade of hours. And what it focuses on specifically are
Speaker 2: quote training an army of volunteers to monitor voting on
Speaker 2: election day two hundred thousand dollars, poll watchers, poll workers,
Speaker 2: legal experts recruited by the RNC. One group is essentially
Speaker 2: Facebook for election fraud, allowing users to post, comment, and
Speaker 2: share anything that they deem to be quote election regularities,
Speaker 2: filing incident reports with US are then followed up by
Speaker 2: lawyers and the legal team they focus specifically on this
Speaker 2: is what is it the Center for Election Innovation and Research,
Speaker 2: and they talk about some of the quote unquote like
Speaker 2: different things that they are looking out for, but the
Speaker 2: actual legal maneuverability inside of this. Specifically, because of the
Speaker 2: passage of the Electoral count Act, has significantly going to
Speaker 2: change the way that both certification works at the congressional
Speaker 2: level and at the state level. I believe that what
Speaker 2: this will look like is it's going to push the
Speaker 2: certification fight down and that is based on this article
Speaker 2: and when we're about to talk to Because previously certification
Speaker 2: was both at the state legislature level without gubernatorial approval
Speaker 2: and then being sent to the so called slate to Congress,
Speaker 2: it was kind of elevated up Now certification fights are
Speaker 2: going to happen more at the county level and specifically
Speaker 2: local officials, people who have been elected to whatever where
Speaker 2: you have seen the so called Election Integrity Network has
Speaker 2: a lot of people, specifically more redder areas that have
Speaker 2: put themselves on those and that is where you could
Speaker 2: see the alternate slate push come from. But yeah, there
Speaker 2: is a change fundamentally from the way that things worked
Speaker 2: back in twenty twenty, back in the twenty twenty election,
Speaker 2: and it's going to be a lot less I would
Speaker 2: say institutional. The other thing is is that even with
Speaker 2: this army of lawyers and I can't keep getting away
Speaker 2: from this. Look at Rudy at Giuliani, he is literally bankrupt.
Speaker 2: And if you look at all of the who is
Speaker 2: it Jenna Ellis, if Sidney Powell was che cheeseborough, I
Speaker 2: forget how to put whatever his name is, all pled
Speaker 2: guilty and Georgia, all of them are out hundreds.
Speaker 3: Of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Speaker 2: Trump's the only guy not out any money on legal
Speaker 2: fees because what is it Super America pack or whatever?
Speaker 2: Are the people who paid for it, so, you know,
Speaker 2: and that's your hard earned money. You can do what
Speaker 2: you want with it to donate. The point I think
Speaker 2: just comes back to what stopped. Still two point zero
Speaker 2: is going to look like is much more local this
Speaker 2: time around. Lots of fight to the county level for certification,
Speaker 2: potentially fights around the Secretary of State for certification as well,
Speaker 2: although a lot of that has changed because the Electoral
Speaker 2: Count Act.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so let me do a couple things and just
Speaker 1: bear with me for a moment. So, on the one
Speaker 1: side of the ledger, in terms of positive sort of bulwarks,
Speaker 1: you have number one, Trump isn't president and number two
Speaker 1: the Electoral Count Act, and those are significant. On the
Speaker 1: other side of the ledger, you have a more premeditated,
Speaker 1: more organized plan in advance than you did before, as
Speaker 1: evidenced by the secretive network of billionaires who have been
Speaker 1: already they're already filing lawsuits. They were upset that Trump
Speaker 1: was not more effective in contesting the election results last
Speaker 1: time around, so they vowed that this time they would
Speaker 1: have a plan and they would be ready, and it's
Speaker 1: extremely well funded, and it is well organized, and they've
Speaker 1: already filed a bunch of these lawsuits. In addition, I
Speaker 1: don't think you're going to see the same level of
Speaker 1: Republican elected Republican resistance to Trump fraudulently claiming that he
Speaker 1: won the election, because they've seen how this went before,
Speaker 1: and people who were you know, who really resisted. First
Speaker 1: of all, they were ousted in Republican primaries. They see
Speaker 1: where the Republican bases at this point where they're overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: believe that Joe Biden lost, that Donald Trump won, They're
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly primed to believe once again that Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: inevitable and there is no way that he could possibly lose.
Speaker 1: And they see the way that that position has in
Speaker 1: most instances, not all, but in most instances been rewarded
Speaker 1: within the party.
Speaker 4: So let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: From Politico, they chart kind of a worst case scenario
Speaker 1: for how this could all go down. They say, the
Speaker 1: very real scenario where Trump loses and takes power. Anyway, now,
Speaker 1: as you go through these steps, and I Am going
Speaker 1: to take the time to go through these steps just
Speaker 1: so you guys can see how.
Speaker 4: This might all play out.
Speaker 1: But it is very tenuous, like it would require a
Speaker 1: lot happen, and it's a very like narrow That's why.
Speaker 3: They say out and I'm like, come on, but I mean,
Speaker 3: I think it's worth policy.
Speaker 1: You have to, like, you know, plan for Okay, what's
Speaker 1: the worst case scenario. I think that would be a
Speaker 1: better case scenario.
Speaker 4: It is probably a.
Speaker 1: Better way to freda But in any case, I think
Speaker 1: it's good that they went through and lay this out.
Speaker 1: It was at least helpful for me to think about it.
Speaker 1: So they have bullet points here that I'll just go
Speaker 1: through so you could see the sequence of events that
Speaker 1: would have to happen. Number one is already happening. He
Speaker 1: will deepen distrust the election results, making unsupported or hyperbolic
Speaker 1: claims of widespread voter fraud, mounting long shot losses, challenging
Speaker 1: enough ballots to flip the income in key states. That
Speaker 1: plan is already being executed on, even in advance of
Speaker 1: election day. Next, he will lean on friendly county and
Speaker 1: state officials to resist certifying election results, a futile errand
Speaker 1: they say that would nevertheless fuel a campaign to put
Speaker 1: pressure on elected Republican legislators in state houses and Congress.
Speaker 1: So in a number of the battleground states, you have
Speaker 1: legislatures that are Republican controlled, even as in many of
Speaker 1: these same states you have governors who are either like
Speaker 1: Brian Kemp, a Republican but already has a pretty established
Speaker 1: track record of standing up to Trump on his bullshit.
Speaker 4: Or they're Democrats.
Speaker 1: So you could end up with a situation where the
Speaker 1: state legislatures send the fraudulent Trump slate of electors to Congress,
Speaker 1: and the governor sends the legitimate actual electors for Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris in that state. This is of course, in the
Speaker 1: event that Trump were to in reality lose.
Speaker 4: That sends it to Congress.
Speaker 1: Now this is where the Electoral Account Act comes into play,
Speaker 1: because it should. The language of the law makes it
Speaker 1: such that it should be an open and closed case
Speaker 1: that Kamala Harris actually as Vice President, presides over the
Speaker 1: certification at the Senate level. They say this is just
Speaker 1: a ceremonial position. They also say that the state legislators
Speaker 1: aren't the ones who get to determine who are the
Speaker 1: legitimate electors from the state. So you would think that
Speaker 1: would be open and shut, and perhaps it is. However,
Speaker 1: John Eastman, who was key in crafting the previous you know,
Speaker 1: fake elector's legal strategy last time around, he contests that
Speaker 1: the Electoral Count Act is constitutional and that has not
Speaker 1: been determined yet. He believes that based on the language
Speaker 1: of the Constitution. I don't think that there are a
Speaker 1: lot of people that agree with him, but he thinks
Speaker 1: this is still the case that.
Speaker 4: The state legislatures.
Speaker 1: Still hold all the power and that even with this
Speaker 1: legislation because he sees it as unconstitutional. He doesn't think
Speaker 1: the legislation changes anything whatsoever. Mike Johnson, who is of
Speaker 1: course currently Speaker of the House and would you know,
Speaker 1: potentially continue to be Speaker of the House if Republicans
Speaker 1: are able to hold onto the House. He has not
Speaker 1: said how he would handle such a scenario. So if
Speaker 1: you have, you know, either congressional foot dragging, or if
Speaker 1: it ends up going to the Supreme Court and they're
Speaker 1: able to keep Kama Harris from getting to two hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy Electoral College votes, then it's a contest contingent election.
Speaker 1: It goes to the House houses run by Republicans. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump elected president. So the most tenuous part of this.
Speaker 1: A lot of these pieces are like, yeah, I could
Speaker 1: totally see that happening. The most tenuous part of it
Speaker 1: is the John Eastpi constitutional theory, which to my knowledge
Speaker 1: is not supported widely. And the Supreme Court obviously very conservative,
Speaker 1: many of the justices appointed by Donald Trump, but they
Speaker 1: have also ruled against Donald Trump, and the court's last
Speaker 1: time around did overwhelmingly rule against Donald Trump. Now, I
Speaker 1: would prefer not to have to bet on that kind
Speaker 1: of a like, you know, last ditch effort to prohibit
Speaker 1: him from stealing the election. But I do feel like
Speaker 1: there is enough of a track record in place there
Speaker 1: that we can feel like they probably are not going
Speaker 1: to go along with this, relatively like Kakamami legal theory
Speaker 1: of John Baseman.
Speaker 2: I will give you the case for that, which is
Speaker 2: that if let's say, in this scenario where that happened,
Speaker 2: then why would the Dems not nuke the court forever?
Speaker 2: Like if from that point forward, because also remember in
Speaker 2: this scenario, you would still have some sort of divided government.
Speaker 2: You would probably have some insane situation where one chamber
Speaker 2: is democratic and they like refuse to I mean, we
Speaker 2: can go on this hypothetical forever in terms of refusing
Speaker 2: to swear people in and what that would all look like.
Speaker 2: But irl the reason why I doubt it the most
Speaker 2: is because all of it hinges on the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: The Roberts Court is extremely small sea conservative people misunderstand. Yes,
Speaker 2: that both means that the Dobbs thing and the presidential
Speaker 2: immunity stuff will go through, But fundamentally, what Roberts cares
Speaker 2: about more than anything else is preventing court packing and
Speaker 2: preserving the quote unquote like institutional respect of the court.
Speaker 3: If they did this, it would be over.
Speaker 2: Basically, I mean we would be in full on Banana
Speaker 2: Republic territory. And I mean, could you blame anybody, Like,
Speaker 2: what would you say if that happened, if you're on
Speaker 2: the left and that and this scenario played out.
Speaker 3: Honestly, you would be an idiot not to say, all right,
Speaker 3: that's it, let's go. You know, the Supreme Court is yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: But if you know, if somebody did at the left
Speaker 2: of that, I'll be like, Okay, it's over, let's go.
Speaker 2: You know, it's like it's on in terms of like
Speaker 2: law fair and everything where things are right now this
Speaker 2: that would make it look like child's play. So this
Speaker 2: is why, you know, I know, I know it's caused
Speaker 2: some heartburn over on certain YouTube channels, but I have
Speaker 2: a lot of faith in the Electoral count Act and
Speaker 2: specifically in the way that the reform has now happened,
Speaker 2: specifically because of what even the institutional question marks were
Speaker 2: last time around, on top of all of the punishment
Speaker 2: that you saw for all of those that participated last
Speaker 2: time around. Like, if anything, if John Eastman and Sydney
Speaker 2: Powell were the best you could get last time around,
Speaker 2: and both of them are either under censure or have
Speaker 2: now been effectively bankrupt. Who do you think you're going
Speaker 2: to get this time to really co sign some of
Speaker 2: this stuff now? Lawsuits in Michigan court, Texas court and
Speaker 2: all that.
Speaker 3: I mean, is it annoying? Yeah for sure?
Speaker 2: But you know every was it sixty something suits, It
Speaker 2: all got struck down last time around, right December. I
Speaker 2: wanted twenty eighth. I could be wrong. We covered them
Speaker 2: all in and out last time. Yeah, I used to
Speaker 2: haven psyclopedic knowledge, but I think it was December twenty eighth.
Speaker 3: Every single court case was lost, you know. I mean
Speaker 3: you'll know quite soon.
Speaker 1: Well, here's a couple of things that I would say.
Speaker 1: First of all, you know, I think we already see
Speaker 1: who will support Trump in the new stop the Seal
Speaker 1: two point zero claims.
Speaker 4: I mean, first of all, his vice president.
Speaker 2: Second of all, he doesn't have this MS, he doesn't
Speaker 2: have the same impact. He doesn't even certification doesn't even matter.
Speaker 2: First of all, he's not even the vice president. So
Speaker 2: if you want to object to the electors, like, okay,
Speaker 2: go for it.
Speaker 1: But what I'm saying is you're you're submitting that Trump
Speaker 1: is going to be on an island this time and
Speaker 1: he's not going to have the you know, lawyers and
Speaker 1: institutional backing. That's not true, because we already see.
Speaker 3: There's I'm saying, it's going to be very different than
Speaker 3: last night.
Speaker 1: But hold on, it's not going to hold on a second,
Speaker 1: because we cover that Wall Street. We just showed that
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal article where you actually have a more
Speaker 1: stout network of donors and lawyers in advance who are
Speaker 1: prepped and ready to go.
Speaker 4: So I don't think that that is true.
Speaker 1: I do think that, you know, the part about like
Speaker 1: it is better that we have the Electoral Account Act,
Speaker 1: and that definitely, you know, provides another tool in the
Speaker 1: arsenal to try to prevent any sort of like effectively
Speaker 1: coup from occurring. Where I maybe differ with you, I
Speaker 1: don't know, maybe we don't differ on this is that
Speaker 1: even if it doesn't get to the place of like
Speaker 1: Trump is actually going to steal the election, there is
Speaker 1: so much damage that can be done between here and there.
Speaker 1: So last time around, he didn't steal the election, but
Speaker 1: it still was really bad for the country and it
Speaker 1: was really ugly and has created deep fissures that to
Speaker 1: this day have not healed and are not going to
Speaker 1: heal for a very long time. The possible, you know,
Speaker 1: the possibility of more political violence, I think, really, you know,
Speaker 1: looms quite large and significant, especially if you see you know,
Speaker 1: we're already seeing we don't know who did it, and
Speaker 1: I don't want to place blame on any particular partisan camp,
Speaker 1: but you know, we already see ballot box being blown
Speaker 1: up in advance of election day using incendiary devices. So
Speaker 1: that's why I don't want to downplay even if I
Speaker 1: do think it's more difficult for him this time around
Speaker 1: to have a plausible path to actually steal the election.
Speaker 1: I don't want to downplay that, even just going through
Speaker 1: these steps of like we're gonna say it's rigged, we're
Speaker 1: going to claim it's fraudulent. Guess what, the Republicans, they're
Speaker 1: gonna believe it, and many more. I believe Republican elected
Speaker 1: officials are going to go along with it and accept
Speaker 1: it this time than they did last time around, because
Speaker 1: that's where all of the incentives for like conservative maga
Speaker 1: world stardom lie. So I don't disagree with you that
Speaker 1: I think it's less likely this time that there's a
Speaker 1: plausible path where he, like you know, fraudulently in a coup,
Speaker 1: takes power, which also didn't happen last time either. But
Speaker 1: I think that there's still a lot of damage that
Speaker 1: can be done that is short of you know, actual
Speaker 1: banana republic whop.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I guess you know
Speaker 2: what the response would be. The American people have spoken,
Speaker 2: who are Republicans, and this is what they like, they
Speaker 2: so they can rue you know, the consequences of it,
Speaker 2: and that's just the country we live in.
Speaker 3: I don't know what.
Speaker 2: I don't think that there is anything to be done
Speaker 2: about it outside of Donald Trump literally being a different
Speaker 2: human being and being rejected by the voters. And they
Speaker 2: have decided that not only do they like him, but
Speaker 2: they literally love him on the Republican side, and it's
Speaker 2: up to the primary and we're at a situation where
Speaker 2: probably forty something percent or more people are going to
Speaker 2: vote for him and see it as legitimate. I wouldn't
Speaker 2: say it's the best thing I've said before. I don't
Speaker 2: know how you really look at a guy like JD
Speaker 2: next to Trump, and you're like, yeah, Trump is the
Speaker 2: person who he used to be president, but.
Speaker 3: I'm not the electorate.
Speaker 2: I don't really know what to say other than people
Speaker 2: seem to not care as much people seem to believe it.
Speaker 2: Does Trump have a responsibility certainly, you know, to try
Speaker 2: and tone down things, but he's not going to. So
Speaker 2: everything that you're worried about, I think is just simply,
Speaker 2: I guess, baken to the overall political consensus and direction
Speaker 2: of the country. I mean, one thing you should maybe
Speaker 2: hope for is that the more they go pack down
Speaker 2: that path, you'll have two successful elections where the American
Speaker 2: people would have rejected it wholesale and outright. And if anything,
Speaker 2: it will lead to even more democratic control and institutional
Speaker 2: backstops through the Electoral count Act, maybe even more so
Speaker 2: whatever they try last time around, on top of criminal
Speaker 2: charges if it goes down that way. So, because we
Speaker 2: can't say sit here and say that Trump did not
Speaker 2: pay a price for January sixth, right, it's probably the
Speaker 2: biggest price that the Republicans have paid, maybe up next
Speaker 2: to Roe versus weigh. We can't say that those who
Speaker 2: participated walked away Scott free. I mean, look, literally look
Speaker 2: at Rudy Giuliani. I mean, Steve Bannon just came out
Speaker 2: of prison today, served time in a federal penitentiary. So
Speaker 2: it's not like these things have been cost lists to
Speaker 2: Republicans or to Republican elites that they can just go
Speaker 2: along in a similar way as last time around. I mean,
Speaker 2: there's I just think it's fundamentally different. Like if you're
Speaker 2: going to vote to not certify the election, yeah, I
Speaker 2: think it's dumb.
Speaker 3: But you know, on the.
Speaker 2: Other case of it would be David Perdue ran a
Speaker 2: whole campaign against what's his name, Brian camp.
Speaker 3: Based on office feel and he lost. In the state
Speaker 3: of Georgia.
Speaker 2: Tom Cotton voted emphatically for certification. He didn't pay any price.
Speaker 2: In twenty twenty, I believe Marco Rubio voted to certify.
Speaker 2: He didn't pay any price. Trump, you know, endorsed all
Speaker 2: kinds of people who voted to certify the election, of
Speaker 2: all the people who even voted for impeachment. Some of
Speaker 2: them lost, you know, on the Republican ground, but a
Speaker 2: lot of them remain, like remain in office quite quiet
Speaker 2: and still popular Republicans in their home state.
Speaker 3: So you know, it's not necessarily like the total.
Speaker 2: Dividing line that people thought going into twenty twenty three,
Speaker 2: I thought it would be, But these days there's a
Speaker 2: real electoral path for people who don't go along with this,
Speaker 2: and they don't pay any price for it at the
Speaker 2: ballot box.
Speaker 1: I don't think that that's necessarily true. I mean, I
Speaker 1: agree with your cases, Like Brian Camp is the clearest
Speaker 1: case right where you know truth. They're the famous phone call.
Speaker 1: Trump's like, find me the votes I need. He's like, no,
Speaker 1: they go to war basically, and now because they need him,
Speaker 1: because they want to win the.
Speaker 4: State of Georgia.
Speaker 1: They've had to effectively kiss and make up. On the
Speaker 1: other hand, you know where the incentives are in like
Speaker 1: the mega influencer sphere which many of these but hold on,
Speaker 1: which many of these elected officials, you know, basically traffic
Speaker 1: in the like maga influencer sphere, is to indulge all
Speaker 1: of the most deranged conspiracies about this. And you have
Speaker 1: Elon Musk, who was the richest and one of the
Speaker 1: most powerful people in the world, who was already indulging
Speaker 1: in advance in pre election conspiracies about fraud et cetera.
Speaker 1: So you know, I personally think this has been much
Speaker 1: more normalized within the Republican Party than it was last
Speaker 1: time around, and you're going to see less resistance this.
Speaker 4: Time than you did.
Speaker 1: You know, that's why even you know Mike Johnson, who
Speaker 1: is Speaker of the House right now, he won't say
Speaker 1: what he'll do. Jordan won't say what he'll do. So anyway,
Speaker 1: we're going to see how it's all going to play out.
Speaker 1: I just would say, like my whole goal in wanting
Speaker 1: to lay this all out is just so people know
Speaker 1: what to expect, right too, as much as best as
Speaker 1: we can lay out here's how things could unfold. Right
Speaker 1: if Trump loses, Here's how things could unfold. Here's the
Speaker 1: playbook that they have ready to go, that they're already
Speaker 1: planning to run, So that you're not caught off guard,
Speaker 1: so you know what to expect, so that perhaps it's less,
Speaker 1: you know, less unsettling. Perhaps it's just you know, by
Speaker 1: understanding what's going on, perhaps you are not yourself bamboozled
Speaker 1: by the inevitable conspiracy theories and inevitable claiming of victory
Speaker 1: no matter what happens on election day, so that you
Speaker 1: just are mentally prepared for like, Okay, here's the playbook
Speaker 1: they're going to run, and here's you know, here's how
Speaker 1: they're already laying out the groundwork for that, and here's
Speaker 1: what to expect so that you don't get, you know,
Speaker 1: fooled by any of them.
Speaker 3: I think that's fair.
Speaker 2: That said, anybody who watched this segment and isn't immediately
Speaker 2: convinced and is willing to be like, well, what about
Speaker 2: you know, this one viral clip that I saw, Good
Speaker 2: luck to you.
Speaker 3: It's probably not much that we can say to help you.
Speaker 2: That's actually been my experience with most stop to steal people.
Speaker 2: There is basically nothing that you can tell these people
Speaker 2: that won't convince them. They are swimming in an island
Speaker 2: of bullshit. And you know, I mean that's what you
Speaker 2: were talking about with mag influencers. If you pay the
Speaker 2: political price and they continue to want to go down
Speaker 2: that rabbit hole, and they will just continue to sign
Speaker 2: their own death warrants of irrelevance. So that's the free
Speaker 2: market at work. You know, that's democracy in action. I
Speaker 2: don't care, you know, if people want to Matt Gates
Speaker 2: and all these other folks want to just continue doing
Speaker 2: this and they just continue losing like popular vote and
Speaker 2: the electoral college. In this scenario, if something like that happened,
Speaker 2: one thing that we do know is that Trump does
Speaker 2: lose this election, then he likely well he said he
Speaker 2: won't run again.
Speaker 3: Well, what does that show you?
Speaker 2: Then we're going to try and get an entire generation
Speaker 2: of people without any of the charisma or the celebrity
Speaker 2: or the like, you know, plot armor of Donald Trump
Speaker 2: who are trying to recreate. Well, I think we all
Speaker 2: know how that works out, Madam Carey Lake. So I'm
Speaker 2: not worried about it in terms of the political fix
Speaker 2: outside of Yeah, do I think damage will be done
Speaker 2: institutionally and trustwise, yes, certainly.
Speaker 3: But you know, at a certain point, that's what people want.
Speaker 3: I don't know what else to say.
Speaker 2: Like, people like it, they believe it, they forgive it,
Speaker 2: they look past it, at least on the Republican side,
Speaker 2: and until they learn a different lesson, then that's just
Speaker 2: simply the direction that people want to go down. You know,
Speaker 2: what can you say to people at a certain point,
Speaker 2: they don't want to listen anymore. That's been my experience
Speaker 2: and why I don't even try to talk to these
Speaker 2: folks anymore. Just because you know, if you see some
Speaker 2: of the stuff they go down, you know, in terms
Speaker 2: of what they put dominion aside and the way that
Speaker 2: they can explain about every judge is corrupt and why
Speaker 2: this happens, and.
Speaker 3: Well really the Hunter Biden.
Speaker 2: Laptop actually, and it's like it's just it never ends
Speaker 2: with them.
Speaker 3: So you know, we'll see with the prices, I guess.
Speaker 1: One, well note that, I'll, i'll, we can wrap this
Speaker 1: up and move to the next block. On is last election,
Speaker 1: Kyle was on Rogan's podcast that night and beforehand, before
Speaker 1: the results came in, he laid out, like, you know,
Speaker 1: there's probably going to be the red mirage effect, where
Speaker 1: you know, the first ballots that come in from rural
Speaker 1: areas or in day of voting are likely to be
Speaker 1: more Republican, and then as the night goes on, things
Speaker 1: are likely to shift. And because he had laid that
Speaker 1: out in advance, when it all happened, then it didn't
Speaker 1: feel like fraud. It was like, oh, well, you know,
Speaker 1: this was predicted, like Kyle told me this was going
Speaker 1: to happen, and this is what happened. So I'm not
Speaker 1: going to like really buy into or indulge these election conspiracies.
Speaker 1: And so there are people, you know, like Joe and
Speaker 1: like others out there who are trying to figure out
Speaker 1: what's going on who have some skepticism of institutions. But
Speaker 1: if you can tell them in advance, like no, here's
Speaker 1: and by the way, there is likely to be another
Speaker 1: red mirage effect at least in certain states this election.
Speaker 1: But if you can anticipate like this is what it's
Speaker 1: going to look like, this is the arguments that they're
Speaker 1: going to make, this is how it's all going to
Speaker 1: go down, then it can help to inoculate some people
Speaker 1: out there from falling into you know, you know, like
Speaker 1: an understandable mistrust of institutions can keep from leading them
Speaker 1: down the path of believing things that ultimately are not true.
Speaker 3: I hope you're right.
Speaker 4: That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 3: You have a lot more faith in people than I do.