Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do
Speaker 2: we have Crystal and Dan.
Speaker 1: We do a bunch of new polls, including a new
Speaker 1: yon one out from the New York Times, which is
Speaker 1: like shows a totally different picture than the ones that
Speaker 1: we're on. Yesterday from NBC News, we got a Nate
Speaker 1: Silver Election model update, so we'll get into all of that.
Speaker 1: We also have some Oprah clips from the big Kamala
Speaker 1: Oprah moment that we wanted to share with you all.
Speaker 1: Want to discuss what that did for her campaign if anything.
Speaker 1: Also some news on whether or not Kamala and Trump
Speaker 1: are going to debate again. She says yes, He says
Speaker 1: probably not. So that's where things stand. Bunjo oal sex
Speaker 1: scandals that we got to talk to you about this morning.
Speaker 1: We'll just is the North Carolina are okay, top reporter here.
Speaker 4: In d C.
Speaker 1: So a lot of interesting things that went down this weekend,
Speaker 1: and on a much much more serious note, basically horror
Speaker 1: in the Middle East as Israel prepares to turn Lebanon
Speaker 1: into Gaza, very much projecting that that's the direction that
Speaker 1: they're going in. So you know, something that has been
Speaker 1: feared and foreshadowed for many, many months, and yet the
Speaker 1: US administration has done absolutely nothing to block that dimensuality
Speaker 1: that we have now arrived at. So a lot to
Speaker 1: talk about this morning.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's right.
Speaker 2: Before we get to that, we are announcing some special
Speaker 2: stuff here. We from now on till election Day are
Speaker 2: going to be doing some exclusive election content for our
Speaker 2: premium subscribers. It's going to be first available on locals
Speaker 2: and everywhere else our premiums get that content. So, for example,
Speaker 2: today we're going to be having any exclusive conversation with
Speaker 2: a forecaster, give some of our own predictions and some
Speaker 2: of our own state of the race. So if you
Speaker 2: want first access to that Breaking Points dot Com, it
Speaker 2: will be available for free just many days later on
Speaker 2: the free podcast channels as well as on YouTube. So
Speaker 2: if you want to go ahead and sign up for
Speaker 2: that exclusive election content you can. You can breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 2: Like I said, we'll be doing a lot of stuff
Speaker 2: like these conversations, are election predictions, maps, etc. So go
Speaker 2: ahead and take advantage of that breakingpoints dot Com to
Speaker 2: become a premium subscriber.
Speaker 3: Now let's go ahead and put this up there on
Speaker 3: the screen.
Speaker 2: We are officially in the absolute run up to the election,
Speaker 2: only forty three days until that happens, and people are
Speaker 2: already voting, including in the state of Virginia nearby.
Speaker 3: Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 3: The video.
Speaker 2: This was a Virginia precinct on the very first day
Speaker 2: of early voting. You can see people lined up around
Speaker 2: the block. People really made an event of it. I
Speaker 2: personally experienced this as well. When I was walking around
Speaker 2: on Friday. I was stunned at the crowds. I was like, well,
Speaker 2: maybe a fancy news shop or something open, no news elections,
Speaker 2: That's what it was. People were voting, people were geared up.
Speaker 2: Most of these people are going to be upper middle
Speaker 2: class liberal because this is northern Virginia. But it does
Speaker 2: demonstrate that there is a lot of enthusiasm. In fact,
Speaker 2: the one day voting a record was broken by one pm.
Speaker 2: Prior to twenty twenty two, more people had already voted
Speaker 2: by just in the middle of the day than in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty two in that election, So there's significantly a
Speaker 2: lot of enthusiasm. I am told in the rural districts
Speaker 2: in Virginia there were similar levels of enthusiasm as well.
Speaker 2: So Trump people are also showing up to vote, but
Speaker 2: they just don't live around here in Northern Virginia. So
Speaker 2: it's a tight election. People are fired up, they're ready
Speaker 2: to go, and we're in for it, Crystal.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And this is also when we start to get into
Speaker 1: the phase of election where people look to any sort
Speaker 1: of metrics that they can to grab on too to
Speaker 1: figure out what the hell is going on. And I
Speaker 1: would just caution twenty twenty let's all, you know, put
Speaker 1: our minds back where that was during the pandemic. It
Speaker 1: was a totally different electoral landscape. So you really can't
Speaker 1: compare the early voting numbers here with the early voting
Speaker 1: numbers there because it just was such a totally different
Speaker 1: situation with people wanting to vote early, with the fact
Speaker 1: that Trump was discouraging anything other than day of election voting.
Speaker 1: It really is an apples and orange comparison. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I know that's not satisfying, but I just wanted to
Speaker 1: put that into the mix, Like, don't make too much
Speaker 1: of any of these early data signs because it's very difficult,
Speaker 1: I think, to compare them to past election cycles.
Speaker 3: Exactly.
Speaker 2: I'm glad that you said that, because that's one of
Speaker 2: those where there will be quite a bit and I've
Speaker 2: actually seen a lot of these go viral. They're like,
Speaker 2: if we just correct the polls for twenty sixteen and
Speaker 2: twenty twenty, Trump is one hundred percent going to win.
Speaker 2: I'm like, yeah, there's just one problem is that we
Speaker 2: had a twenty twenty two election, so you know, and also,
Speaker 2: I mean, I keep saying this. Elections are every four years.
Speaker 2: We don't have a very good sample size. We have
Speaker 2: some knowledge of what things are, and outliers happen all
Speaker 2: the time. As debates don't matter right famously.
Speaker 3: Well what does the say they do until they do?
Speaker 3: So there you go.
Speaker 2: Let's go to a two. Please up on the screen.
Speaker 2: This is important from Nate Silver. We now see he says,
Speaker 2: quote the big picture, this is his latest election forecast.
Speaker 2: Who is favored to win the presidency. He actually has
Speaker 2: now Kamala at fifty one percent and Donald Trump at
Speaker 2: forty eight point six.
Speaker 3: That's basically a coin to os. He might as well
Speaker 3: look at that.
Speaker 2: Anybody trying to parse, like, oh, Kamala's up or Trump
Speaker 2: is out. Listen, forty eight point six percent versus fifty
Speaker 2: one That is a fifty to fifty And basically, in
Speaker 2: my mind, anything in the sixty to forty range might
Speaker 2: as well be fifty to fifty just because of how
Speaker 2: the polls have been off in both directions. Just this morning,
Speaker 2: underscoring man is a slew of polls from the New
Speaker 2: York Times.
Speaker 3: We can go ahead and put that on the screen.
Speaker 3: I mean, this should show you.
Speaker 2: As close as it possibly can get for what the
Speaker 2: electoral map could look like. So the New York Times
Speaker 2: has Trump with significant strength in the sun Belt battleground states.
Speaker 2: For example, in the state of Arizona, they have Donald
Speaker 2: Trump at fifty percent to Harris's forty five.
Speaker 3: They you have Georgia.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump forty nine percent to Harris's forty five. Both
Speaker 2: of those are actually really quite good polls for Trump
Speaker 2: because previously you had seen things differently. I should note
Speaker 2: at least for Georgia that there are within the margin
Speaker 2: of error, and then in North Carolina you have forty
Speaker 2: nine to forty seven. I would put that North Carolina
Speaker 2: number effectively at a tie, especially considering some of the
Speaker 2: North Carolina news we have later on in the show.
Speaker 2: But what we can learn at least from this is
Speaker 2: if you look at the overall polling average that they
Speaker 2: peg THEIRS against Crystal Arizona, they have Trump plus five
Speaker 2: the polling average Trump plus two. Georgia they have Trump
Speaker 2: plus four, polling averages, Trump plus two. North Carolina the
Speaker 2: polling averages even they have Trump plus three. So those
Speaker 2: are the latest polls that they are pegging themselves. You
Speaker 2: should also look to some of the past polling where
Speaker 2: they didn't necessarily have Trump up nearly this much in
Speaker 2: the state of Arizona. But you know, now as crunch time,
Speaker 2: most people a lot of people actually.
Speaker 3: As swing voters.
Speaker 2: Some past data indicates they don't really make up their
Speaker 2: mind until about three to four weeks.
Speaker 3: Before the election.
Speaker 2: That could change because you can vote a lot earlier
Speaker 2: now these days, So maybe right now is like really
Speaker 2: the crunch time for people and how they're thinking about
Speaker 2: the elections. But you should just consider, you know, if
Speaker 2: you do watch a show like this, or you're reading
Speaker 2: the news or any of that, you're kind of an
Speaker 2: outlier relatives to the general population and how they think
Speaker 2: about politics and all that can actually change significantly, And
Speaker 2: in such a close election like today, it's make or
Speaker 2: break time for both the candidates.
Speaker 6: I mean, we're just waiting to see which way the
Speaker 6: polling miss goes.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And that's nothing against the pollsters. It's gotten increasingly
Speaker 1: hard to pull or for understandable reasons, like you know,
Speaker 1: people are on cell phones, there's a low response. Then
Speaker 1: you have these response rate biases where when something happens
Speaker 1: that one side is really excited about, then they want
Speaker 1: to pick up the phone and talk.
Speaker 6: To the pollster, et cetera.
Speaker 1: So you know, it's very perplexing to look at like
Speaker 1: the New York Times Siena polls that just came out,
Speaker 1: which are really bad for Kamala Harris, and then look
Speaker 1: at the NBC News polls that just came out which
Speaker 1: are really good for Kamala Harris. But the truth of
Speaker 1: the matter is, you know, both of them, if you
Speaker 1: factor in the margin of error, are continued to show
Speaker 1: a really tight, really close race. I do want a
Speaker 1: twelve er second on the Nate Silver model because part
Speaker 1: of why he was so pessimistic about Kamala Harris coming
Speaker 1: out of the convention, where other models showed more strength
Speaker 1: for her, and now the streams have crossed again and
Speaker 1: he has her a very slight favorite. He had factored
Speaker 1: in like, oh, I'm going to assume that she's going
Speaker 1: to get this two point post convention bounce, and so
Speaker 1: I'm going to basically like back that out of my averages,
Speaker 1: and that's how we ended up showing so much Trump
Speaker 1: strength coming out of the convention. And now that the
Speaker 1: polls haven't shifted all that much and his model has
Speaker 1: shifted a lot, I think it's fair to say, like
Speaker 1: factoring that in may not have really been like Trump
Speaker 1: didn't get a convention mount so there were extenuating circumstances
Speaker 1: by and dropping out of the race, whatever. But I
Speaker 1: think also Kamala doesn't appear to have gotten that much
Speaker 1: of a convention bounce either, and backing that out and
Speaker 1: assuming that she did, and then sort of like digging
Speaker 1: her for that. I'm not sure that that actually bore
Speaker 1: out in reality, which is just a testament to the fact.
Speaker 1: Look again, you have to go based on history, that's
Speaker 1: what he's working on. This is again not to slam
Speaker 1: him or whatever. I know, everybody's like doing their best
Speaker 1: they can with the data that they have, But I
Speaker 1: think it just shows you this is a very kind
Speaker 1: of locked in electorate. There's going to be very little
Speaker 1: movement between these two candidates. These poles are going to
Speaker 1: look like fifty to fifty basically from here to election day.
Speaker 1: And one other thing I wanted to flag, especially in
Speaker 1: light of the New New York Times Siena poll that shows,
Speaker 1: you know, Georgia with Trump with a little bit of
Speaker 1: an edge there. You know, in general, I think the
Speaker 1: poles have tended to show him in Georgia with a
Speaker 1: little bit of an edge, and him doing a little
Speaker 1: bit better in Georgia than North Carolina, which is kind
Speaker 1: of interesting as well and obviously reverse.
Speaker 6: Of last time.
Speaker 1: But we just got the news out of Georgia that
Speaker 1: their Board of Elections, which has been stacked with a
Speaker 1: lot of sort of like hardcore Trump loyalists has now
Speaker 1: determined that they're going to require all election day votes
Speaker 1: to be.
Speaker 6: Hand counted hand counted.
Speaker 1: That means Georgia is going to take forever to come
Speaker 1: in on election night.
Speaker 6: Yes, I think it's a horrible idea.
Speaker 1: I think it injects chaos into an already chaotic situation,
Speaker 1: but that's what they've decided. So just keep in mind
Speaker 1: we are probably going to be waiting election night a
Speaker 1: long time to actually figure out what the heck is
Speaker 1: going on in Georgia. And then the other piece of
Speaker 1: that is the rural areas that are obviously stronger for
Speaker 1: Trump and obviously have very much lower population counts, they
Speaker 1: are likely to come in earlier than the larger population center.
Speaker 1: So you could have this what we had back in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, the quote unquote red mirage in Georgia where
Speaker 1: it looks like Trump is running way ahead because the
Speaker 1: areas that are stronger for Democrats come in later with
Speaker 1: this new hand counting, which I again think is a
Speaker 1: horrible idea, but that's what they've decided.
Speaker 2: Well, the what they say is that that it would
Speaker 2: basically it could take not even the day of it
Speaker 2: commenced day of but I mean it could take up
Speaker 2: to weeks apparently according to some of the board members.
Speaker 3: Insane that are there.
Speaker 2: I do believe that this will undergo significant court challenge.
Speaker 2: So this isn't one hundred percent just yet, both about
Speaker 2: feasibility that some of the people who are against this
Speaker 2: are claiming that it's literally impossible to do. But it
Speaker 2: does demonstrate I mean, look, this is always the chaos
Speaker 2: in the United States where all fifty states get to
Speaker 2: decide how they run their own elections and they only
Speaker 2: have their own proclivities. On the other side of the
Speaker 2: of the coin, for Kamala was a decent run coming
Speaker 2: out of NBC. Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: For example, we have her at registered polls. They claim
Speaker 2: a five percent lead Harris forty nine, Trump forty four.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 2: Harris's favorability has jumped sixteen points since July, according to them,
Speaker 2: the largest increase for any politician in NBC since Bush's
Speaker 2: forty three standing surge after nine to eleven.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that is crazy if we continue in the battleground run,
Speaker 3: Let's go to this run.
Speaker 2: But this does show really a similar story where according
Speaker 2: to them in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Harris is act truly
Speaker 2: leading and or tied. So they have Michigan at fifty
Speaker 2: to forty eight. For Harris, Pennsylvania they have forty nine
Speaker 2: to forty nine basically tied. Wisconsin they have fifty forty
Speaker 2: eight four Harris. So she, according to them, is showing
Speaker 2: strength in those traditional blue wall states in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada.
Speaker 3: Though they had her up.
Speaker 2: For example, in Arizona and down by one in Georgia,
Speaker 2: up by three in Nevada, and then up by one
Speaker 2: in the.
Speaker 3: State of North Carolina.
Speaker 2: When you combine it though with New York Times Sienna,
Speaker 2: I think you do see a pretty significant fifty fifth
Speaker 2: basically the any any one that shows her winning. Also
Speaker 2: there's an equally decent one to show her losing. In
Speaker 2: terms of the betting markets, there has been an interesting move.
Speaker 2: If we could go to Polymarket please and put a
Speaker 2: five on the screen.
Speaker 3: Polymarket, which currently has about a.
Speaker 2: Billion dollars worth of bets on the presidential election, has
Speaker 2: Kamala at fifty two forty seven as of yesterday. I
Speaker 2: just checked it and it looks like it's fifty one
Speaker 2: forty seven.
Speaker 3: Now, so there you go, and.
Speaker 2: Basically fifty to fifty again, for anybody who is an
Speaker 2: avid better you would know that there's, yes, there's significant
Speaker 2: upside I think for the people who are working spreads
Speaker 2: and others for fifty two to forty seven. But you
Speaker 2: could just see that that is as close to tie
Speaker 2: as it gets. And you know, Harry Enton over at CNN,
Speaker 2: he's got decent analysis and he always tries to point
Speaker 2: out this is the closest election in almost sixty years
Speaker 2: here in the United States. And if that's the truth,
Speaker 2: on election day, I think we should all just be
Speaker 2: comfortable with the fact that we're not going to go
Speaker 2: We're not going to we're almost certainly not going to
Speaker 2: know the results of the election on the day of,
Speaker 2: especially if that Georgia number remains where it is. Recall,
Speaker 2: last time around, nobody was able to officially call the election.
Speaker 2: What did you say five days in twenty twenty, there's
Speaker 2: gonna be some difference because it won't be as many
Speaker 2: mail in ballots possibly and all of that. But you know,
Speaker 2: be comfortable with patients and be comfortable with just waiting
Speaker 2: for a lot of data, because that's just it looks
Speaker 2: like that's the direction that things are going that are
Speaker 2: going now, I.
Speaker 6: Have not reconciled myself to that reality.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying I'm not ready to yet already not
Speaker 2: preferable outcome.
Speaker 6: But yeah, well.
Speaker 1: Last time, I mean, if recollection serves sometime two am,
Speaker 1: three am, it became pretty clear that it was going
Speaker 1: to be Joe Biden. You know, that's when you started
Speaker 1: to get a you know, clear sense of Arizona, clear
Speaker 1: sense of Georgia, Pennsylvania like it.
Speaker 6: But as you said, it took.
Speaker 1: It took days before I think Fox News was the
Speaker 1: first to officially call it right.
Speaker 3: Yes, and over a very questionable Arizona call.
Speaker 6: Hey ended up being right.
Speaker 3: They ended up being right. But that's like, that's like
Speaker 3: being right on Roulette being right.
Speaker 1: But then obviously, I mean, this is the thing is
Speaker 1: when it's close, then it opens the window for Trump
Speaker 1: tried this last time. I don't think there's any reason
Speaker 1: we should expect him not to try this time again.
Speaker 1: If he is on the losing end of a close election,
Speaker 1: to do everything he can to go to the courts
Speaker 1: and come up the works and claim it's stolen, and
Speaker 1: then you know, they're already in a lot of ways
Speaker 1: setting the stage for that. So just buckle up, because
Speaker 1: here we go again.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right. Be comfortable with ambiguity. That's where things
Speaker 2: stand as of right now. All right, let's get to Oprah,
Speaker 2: as Crystal said, and we'll review. So as you guys
Speaker 2: will remember, a Kama and Oprah set up a big
Speaker 2: campaign event, notably not an interview, although they tried to
Speaker 2: make it look a little bit like in interview. We
Speaker 2: had some of the choice moments of the event, which
Speaker 2: was basically scripted and mostly on teleprompter. From what we
Speaker 2: could see, Let's take a listen.
Speaker 7: What is on your heart to say to the American people?
Speaker 7: As we have forty seven days until November fifth, what's
Speaker 7: on your heart? Well say to particularly those people who
Speaker 7: are still undecided or maybe indifferent or on the fence.
Speaker 8: Still, we love our country of our country. I know
Speaker 8: we all do. That's why everybody's here right now. We
Speaker 8: love our country. We take pride in the privilege of
Speaker 8: being American, and this is a moment where we can
Speaker 8: and must come together as Americans, understanding we have so
Speaker 8: much more in common than what separates us. Let's come
Speaker 8: together with the character that we are so proud of
Speaker 8: about who we are, which is we are an optimistic people.
Speaker 6: We are an optimistic people.
Speaker 8: Americans by character are people who have dreams and ambitions
Speaker 8: and aspirations. We believe in what is possible, We believe
Speaker 8: in what can be, and we believe in fighting for that.
Speaker 8: That's how we came into being because the people before
Speaker 8: us understood that one of the greatest expressions for the
Speaker 8: love of our country, one of the greatest expressions of patriotism,
Speaker 8: is to fight for the ideals of who we are,
Speaker 8: which includes freedom to make decisions about your own body,
Speaker 8: freedom to be safe from gun violence, freedom to have
Speaker 8: access to the ballot box, freedom to be who you
Speaker 8: are and just be, to love who you love openly
Speaker 8: and with pride, freedom to just.
Speaker 3: Be, freedom to just be. It took a while to
Speaker 3: get there.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think the main problem I have with
Speaker 2: a lot of these answers is that she always takes
Speaker 2: forever to actually get to anything about others, and it's
Speaker 2: not just like well in America and they're like the
Speaker 2: weird inflection.
Speaker 3: Also, the hand gestures is very ricky.
Speaker 2: Bobby asked to me, even though it was literally on
Speaker 2: a teleprompter. She knew the question that was there from
Speaker 2: photos that were from the background. I just couldn't believe
Speaker 2: that that's the best you can come up with. It
Speaker 2: reminds me of Dana Bash interviews. She's like, what's your
Speaker 2: Day one agenda? She's like, well, it's like takes forever to.
Speaker 6: Get She always does the like she didn't do it
Speaker 6: in this answer, which I always liked.
Speaker 3: Class it's like, A mean, it's like a meme. Now
Speaker 3: at this point, I grew up in a middle.
Speaker 1: Class fan, but I have to tell you, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's it is wild to see. We talked earlier about
Speaker 1: how much her favorability reading has skyrocketed, and you know,
Speaker 1: I think she's trying to go for the like generic
Speaker 1: democrat vibe, and that's what this.
Speaker 6: Answer feels like.
Speaker 1: It's like, let me just throw on a bunch of
Speaker 1: Barack Obama esque buzzwords about like.
Speaker 6: Unity and what unites this is greater than.
Speaker 1: What divides us, and we fight and we have values
Speaker 1: and whatever, and just like put it all together and
Speaker 1: serve it out to you. And you know, that's that's
Speaker 1: kind of what the vibe she's going for. And so
Speaker 1: I think that you know that's consistent with the answer
Speaker 1: she gave. It's also the sort of thing I don't know,
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, I think because Trump is so wild
Speaker 1: that now that she's the standard bearer and not Biden,
Speaker 1: it hits for people a little different because it does
Speaker 1: just feel like very sort of normal politicians speak, and.
Speaker 6: It's like, for a decent.
Speaker 1: Chunk of America, roughly fifty percent, they're like, yes, just
Speaker 1: give me something that's that sounds kind of normal, Like
Speaker 1: that's all I want, and that's what you know, that's
Speaker 1: the spot she's landing in.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 2: She did give at least an interesting one interesting answer
Speaker 2: on guns.
Speaker 7: Let's take a listen, so powerful at the convention when
Speaker 7: you when you said you have guns?
Speaker 8: No, at the debate.
Speaker 3: At the debate, does a gun know that.
Speaker 8: And getting shot?
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, I hear that.
Speaker 7: I hear that.
Speaker 6: Probably should not have said that, but.
Speaker 3: My staff would deal with that later.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, all right, So you'll recall Kama said she
Speaker 2: was a gun owner. What was it during her d No,
Speaker 2: it was during the debate, That's what it was. And
Speaker 2: I actually doubted it. I was like, come on, But
Speaker 2: apparently people went back in check twenty fourteen.
Speaker 3: So this is not a long stainer.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I will say in the state of California, you know,
Speaker 2: if somebody breaks into your house and you do shoot them,
Speaker 2: good luck with the police because you've got some there's
Speaker 2: I believe they have a duty to retreat thing on
Speaker 2: their books. For those of you who are in self
Speaker 2: defense law, you know what I'm talking about. But anyways,
Speaker 2: there are two ways you could look at that one.
Speaker 2: And I saw a lot of right wingers being like, look,
Speaker 2: she's losing so badly that she's trying to come after
Speaker 2: us in terms of shoot somebody who's breaking into your house.
Speaker 2: I don't think there was a lot of strategy behind
Speaker 2: that comment. I think it was just her trying to
Speaker 2: be quote hashtag relatable. I don't know what else to
Speaker 2: say about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I saw a lot of right wingers sharing this too,
Speaker 1: and I was like, I don't think that this really
Speaker 1: is serving your cause that much, because, yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: any if it's strategic at all.
Speaker 3: Which I grew through, probably I don't think it will.
Speaker 1: It's a play to like, see I'm not the like
Speaker 1: crazy liberal coastal elitist you think.
Speaker 6: I am, Like I'm a gun owner, and I.
Speaker 1: Like also wanted to fend my home, which is again
Speaker 1: very relatable sentiments.
Speaker 6: So I don't know she pulls it off. I think
Speaker 6: she pulls it off.
Speaker 3: I don't think so.
Speaker 6: I think if you are familiar charming moment.
Speaker 2: A California person saying that, oh I'm gonna prohoo you I,
Speaker 2: it's like, okay, then you know, good luck, you know, good.
Speaker 6: Luck with the California More the thought she lives.
Speaker 2: Good right, she lives in Washington, live ten times worse
Speaker 2: of a gun owning state.
Speaker 3: Let's put the last one up there on this.
Speaker 6: He's in the White House.
Speaker 1: I don't think she's going to have to be worrying
Speaker 1: about her own self defense any That's another I think
Speaker 1: she's probably.
Speaker 3: Going to be.
Speaker 2: You know, a lot of these people were anti gun.
Speaker 2: We got a lot of security around them. What we've
Speaker 2: got here is new Fox News Howard University poll. This
Speaker 2: was actually another interesting moment from the interview about likely
Speaker 2: black voters in swing states. Has Kamala at eighty two,
Speaker 2: Donald Trump at twelve, undecided at five. That was where
Speaker 2: Trump was in twenty twenty. According to this Just again,
Speaker 2: this is one pole indicating is not quote unquote gaining
Speaker 2: black votes. Here's the only reason that I do doubt
Speaker 2: that is that Trump's strength in the Sun Belt does
Speaker 2: indicate that he has got more strength amongst people who
Speaker 2: are minorities by definition because of the Georgia and the
Speaker 2: Arizona and Nevada electorates. So if you look at his
Speaker 2: gains in those states and actually where his tightest and
Speaker 2: worst states were relative to twenty twenty and twenty sixteen,
Speaker 2: it was in the wider states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Speaker 2: And in fact, some of the Crosstap polling where we
Speaker 2: have seen Kamala strength in some of the battleground states
Speaker 2: in the Upper Midwest have been because specifically of gains
Speaker 2: amongst white voters in much wider states on average than
Speaker 2: the rest.
Speaker 3: So you take that for what it is.
Speaker 2: But there was an interesting moment Emily and Ryan covered
Speaker 2: at the Kamal at the Black Journalist event where she's like, look,
Speaker 2: I'm not taking black votes for granted, and I mean,
Speaker 2: honestly you shouldn't, you know, looking again at the air
Speaker 2: Georgia strength, at the Trump strength in Arizona, and if
Speaker 2: we look again at those twenty twenty returns of Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: specifically in the Laredo and South Texas area among Hispanics,
Speaker 2: and then you put that on top of Nevada and Arizona,
Speaker 2: you could see very clearly that there is some strength
Speaker 2: there for Trump amongst Latinos. And actually Kamala for example,
Speaker 2: is running Spanish only language adds on border security alongside
Speaker 2: Reuben Gego. So the difference in the national conversation compared
Speaker 2: to how they're trying is totally is totally separate from
Speaker 2: what it actually looks like at an executing level.
Speaker 1: I think one thing you can definitely say, Joe Biden
Speaker 1: did obviously very well with black voters back in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Their support had waned visa VI Joe Biden. I think
Speaker 1: one thing that is very clear since Kamala Harris has
Speaker 1: become the standard bearer is that she has improved those
Speaker 1: numbers significantly. Is she all the way back to where
Speaker 1: Joe Biden was in say twenty twenty, You know this
Speaker 1: pole would indicate I've seen other polls that would indicate
Speaker 1: that that's the case. Hard to say exactly, but you know,
Speaker 1: she is improving her margins with Black voters, with Latino
Speaker 1: voters certainly with younger voters as well. Over where Joe
Speaker 1: Biden was when he was in this race, not necessarily
Speaker 1: matching on all of those tables where he was in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty with a winning coalition. So it's something to
Speaker 1: keep an eye on, you know, as a question of
Speaker 1: whether that narrative about Trump winning over black voters may
Speaker 1: have been overstated. You know, question Mark put a pin
Speaker 1: in it right now and will watch what develops with
Speaker 1: more polling.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2: All right, Well, let's get now to our conversation with
Speaker 2: an election forecaster. You've seen him before here on the show.
Speaker 2: As a reminder, this is going to be exclusive to
Speaker 2: our premium subscribers. Otherwise you guys can wait and you
Speaker 2: can watch it for free sometime later. But let's get
Speaker 2: him in here and let's talk.
Speaker 1: So we also have some news about whether or not
Speaker 1: there is going to be another Kamala Harris versus Donald
Speaker 1: Trump debate. Kamala Harris has accepted a debate invitation. Let's
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. She says she will
Speaker 1: gladly accept a second presidential debate on October twenty third.
Speaker 1: I hope Donald Trump will join me, He seemed to
Speaker 1: be at a rally. Less receptive to that. It's a
Speaker 1: CNN debate invitation. By the way, Fox News I think,
Speaker 1: had also invited them to a debate, but she specifically
Speaker 1: accepted the CNN debate invitation. He seemed less amenable to
Speaker 1: doing another anywhere. Let's say, to listen to what he.
Speaker 9: Had to say, and they would like just announce a
Speaker 9: little while ago, as that was coming off the plane,
Speaker 9: they would like to do another debate. Although good entertainment value,
Speaker 9: a lot of people say, do it. It's great entertainment.
Speaker 9: I've already done two, one with Cook at Joe Biden
Speaker 9: at CNN and the other one with Kamala on ABC.
Speaker 9: CNN was very fair. I thought Joe was driven out
Speaker 9: of the race. It was a coup, by the way,
Speaker 9: but he was driven out of the race. And they've
Speaker 9: been widely criticized by the radical left lunatics for all
Speaker 9: of the fairness. They were very fair. In other words,
Speaker 9: they won't be fair again because they took a lot
Speaker 9: of abuse from the radical left. ABC was three on one,
Speaker 9: but I was given credit for having done a very
Speaker 9: very good job. I appreciate that we did a great job.
Speaker 9: It was three on one. The problem with another debate
Speaker 9: is that it's just too late. Voting has already started.
Speaker 9: She's had her chance to do it with Fox. You know,
Speaker 9: Fox invited us on and I waited and waited, and
Speaker 9: they turned it down, and they turned it down. But
Speaker 9: now she wants to do a debate right before the
Speaker 9: election with CNN because she's losing badly. You know, it's
Speaker 9: like a fighter. She sees the pole, she sees what's happening.
Speaker 9: She's losing badly, but it's like a fighter who goes
Speaker 9: into the ring and gets knocked out. The first thing
Speaker 9: he says is I want to rematch.
Speaker 3: I want to rematch, all right.
Speaker 1: You know it's funny because he undercuts himself a little
Speaker 1: bit here by saying that CNN was like very fair
Speaker 1: to him, since this is the radical left is criticizing
Speaker 1: them for all the fairness.
Speaker 6: That is what he says.
Speaker 1: But this is another CNN debate invitation. So if they
Speaker 1: were so fair lost time, why not do another one?
Speaker 1: And it is kind of perplexing to me because I
Speaker 1: do feel like he would very likely improve his performance
Speaker 1: over last time.
Speaker 6: He's clearly they've clearly.
Speaker 1: The race is fifty to fifty he's got a very
Speaker 1: good shot at winning, right, but he also has very
Speaker 1: clearly failed to define her in a negative way. You know,
Speaker 1: her favorability rating has gone up a lot, and they
Speaker 1: have not really been able to dig that effectively. So
Speaker 1: it is another shot for him to sort of dirty
Speaker 1: her up. From her perspective too, I understand why she
Speaker 1: wants to do it again because it went really well
Speaker 1: for her last time, and she did get a bump
Speaker 1: of the polls after the debate, somewhat of a bump
Speaker 1: in the polls after the debate. So if you do
Speaker 1: another one and you have a similar result, and you
Speaker 1: you know, draw him out and bait him in the
Speaker 1: way you did the first time around, you've got another
Speaker 1: chance to you know, get a little bit of a
Speaker 1: bump in the polls coming into election day. So, in
Speaker 1: my opinion, the logic for both of them, given how
Speaker 1: close the race is, is that they should have another debate,
Speaker 1: but it's looking unlikely given Trump's now repeated comments that
Speaker 1: he's not interested in one.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, and I think Trump really should have done another
Speaker 2: debate because also, something we just talked about with our
Speaker 2: election forecast segment and previously was that most people who
Speaker 2: are swing voters. And I know this sounds anathema. They
Speaker 2: don't make up their mind until very shortly before the
Speaker 2: election in October twenty third debate would be good for
Speaker 2: Trump because that is when the country is dialed in.
Speaker 2: I mean, these long campaigns, I know everybody is sick
Speaker 2: of them, but unless you are a real political animal,
Speaker 2: most people don't pay any attention until about statistically about
Speaker 2: three weeks before election day. So you want to have
Speaker 2: those I mean, those debates were scheduled there for a
Speaker 2: reason because that's when the most people were paying attention.
Speaker 3: That's when the stakes started highest.
Speaker 2: That's when you could confront the possibility of the October
Speaker 2: surprise and you get to respond and all that. And
Speaker 2: the problem for Trump right now is his overall like
Speaker 2: profile level is down. So for example, we're gonna talk
Speaker 2: a lot about this tomorrow, but looking at data just
Speaker 2: this morning that shows that the amount of rallies that
Speaker 2: he is doing today versus twenty sixteen significantly down. I
Speaker 2: mean I'm talking like orders of magnitude. So his ability
Speaker 2: to take over the new cycle is different. He's not
Speaker 2: the novel character that he was in twenty twenty, at
Speaker 2: least he was the president and it was COVID, so
Speaker 2: people were glued to their phones. Right now, he's less
Speaker 2: in control of the cycle than it ever before. Now
Speaker 2: this actually could be to his advantage. So let me
Speaker 2: give the bowl case for what he's doing. The overall pulling.
Speaker 2: I'm looking out on splits say that people think Kamala
Speaker 2: is too liberal and they don't view Trump as too conservative.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying that that is correct. I saying that's
Speaker 3: what people say.
Speaker 2: So you don't want people to remember Trump in a
Speaker 2: recent light. You want to remember him in a fond like, Hey,
Speaker 2: gas prices were low under Trump, which.
Speaker 6: Is growl glass.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the more a recent New York Times polling the
Speaker 2: number one reason for Trump's strength and all the Sun
Speaker 2: Belt states, which are the most economically dynamic, is I
Speaker 2: felt like I was better off under Trump.
Speaker 3: Then Trump today doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: Kamalo is the only thing. He should remain a flashpoint.
Speaker 2: So I could make the case either way. But Trump
Speaker 2: is a very skilled debater. He's a good politician. I
Speaker 2: want him out there if I'm on his team.
Speaker 9: Know.
Speaker 2: Also leaving it to the last word now goes to
Speaker 2: JD and to Tim Wallace. Why would you ever want
Speaker 2: to give the last word to your vice presidential candidates?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 3: That doesn't make any sense because it's not about you, right,
Speaker 3: you know.
Speaker 6: And JD.
Speaker 1: Van Pas of all the candidate, he has the lowest
Speaker 1: favorability ratings, so he's like, you know, the weakest part
Speaker 1: of your campaign to put out there. I mean, he's
Speaker 1: fine on cable news as an attack dog, but yeah,
Speaker 1: in terms of like actually winning people over for the campaign,
Speaker 1: that's a different story. I mean, I think in some
Speaker 1: ways we kind of overthink this with Trump. The rally
Speaker 1: data really points to it. I think he's just, you know,
Speaker 1: he's older, like as possible. He doesn't want to do
Speaker 1: as much. Even his own aids in the.
Speaker 6: Article about how is rallied a down and like, yeah,
Speaker 6: he wants.
Speaker 1: To spend more time in mar A Lago. He just
Speaker 1: doesn't want to do him as much, you know, and
Speaker 1: look relatable. I'm sure, you know, especially given how old
Speaker 1: he is at this point. But I think that's a
Speaker 1: big part of it. The first one didn't go well,
Speaker 1: he got outside, you know, it directly counter to what
Speaker 1: he says about how Grady did and how she lost
Speaker 1: was you know, terrible for her.
Speaker 6: Et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: The pulls overwhelmingly showed even among Republicans. Many Republicans also
Speaker 1: thought that he lost. The one part of it that
Speaker 1: came out of it that he thought apparently was a win,
Speaker 1: was like the Haitian pets thing, which at least made
Speaker 1: the news cycle into something that he had said. But
Speaker 1: this also did not end up being a positive or
Speaker 1: good story for him or something that you know, for
Speaker 1: him to focus on that moved the campaign forward. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it didn't go well for me. He didn't
Speaker 1: enjoy the experience, and he just doesn't want to do
Speaker 1: it again. To me, it's kind of what it comes
Speaker 1: down to, because from a campaign logic rationale, unless you
Speaker 1: really are so convinced that it's going to go just
Speaker 1: as poorly for you second time around as it did
Speaker 1: the first time, it really doesn't make a lot of sense.
Speaker 1: So the other thing is, you know, Kmmin gets to say,
Speaker 1: she gets to look tough like Listen, I said I
Speaker 1: would do it, and he won't do it. It really
Speaker 1: negates all the conversation, the very legitimate critique of her
Speaker 1: that you know, she still isn't really doing interviews. She
Speaker 1: isn't doing press of veils, et cetera. She was very
Speaker 1: closed off to the press.
Speaker 6: Tim Walls, who can at.
Speaker 1: Which I don't understand because I thought the whole reason
Speaker 1: you put this man on the ticket is because he's
Speaker 1: great on cable news. He's also been largely hidden from
Speaker 1: the press. But it really takes the focus on that
Speaker 1: because it gives the vibe of like, oh, well, she
Speaker 1: wants to go out there and engage in the democratic process.
Speaker 6: He's the one who's hiding and doesn't want to do
Speaker 6: the debate.
Speaker 1: So if I were her, I would also say, hey, yeah,
Speaker 1: we'll even do the Fox News debate if you want.
Speaker 6: You know, I'm open to that as well.
Speaker 3: I agree and.
Speaker 1: Col is bluff because I think he's just set on
Speaker 1: I don't want to do anymore period, end of story.
Speaker 1: And we saw that in his Fox News interview where
Speaker 1: he was like, well, I don't want the Fox News
Speaker 1: moderators to be Martha or Brett. I would want him
Speaker 1: to be like Jesse Waters and Sean Hannity, which I.
Speaker 3: Would call the Fox News bluff in particular.
Speaker 2: Yea, because Brett Bayer and Martha mccowum, like, look, you
Speaker 2: can think what you want. Are they right leaning yet?
Speaker 2: But they're not bad. They've moderated a decent amount of debates.
Speaker 6: They would do totally.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they would do a fine enough job.
Speaker 2: Look, I've seen Brett press Trump before, and Trump can
Speaker 2: get himself into actually some serious issues. So my point
Speaker 2: is that it would put him in Uh, it would
Speaker 2: rhetorically be a good move for her. Overall, this shows
Speaker 2: the weaknesses of both of these candidates. Is just all
Speaker 2: over the place. He does whatever he wants. But I
Speaker 2: always thin Kamala is very risk averse and only agreeing
Speaker 2: to this. So for example, you know, Tim Wallace has
Speaker 2: done less interviews than even Kamala Harris, Kamala is doing.
Speaker 3: You know what she's done.
Speaker 2: I believe two or three she's done, According to Axios,
Speaker 2: the least amount of interviews of any major candidate in
Speaker 2: modern American history. Trump at the very least does these
Speaker 2: press conferences, or he's you know, he's doing random stuff.
Speaker 2: Everyone's Sheryl Atkinson or whatever.
Speaker 3: You know all this. Look, I'm not saying it's great,
Speaker 3: but it's something.
Speaker 2: And they last her forty five minutes, and even when
Speaker 2: the interviewer is friendly, interesting stuff sometimes comes out of it.
Speaker 3: I think she at the very least should be doing
Speaker 3: something like that.
Speaker 2: But they're very, very risk averse, probably in an inheritance
Speaker 2: of the Biden team. I could be wrong, but overall
Speaker 2: this is bad for America and for because now the
Speaker 2: election will be litigated through proxies and.
Speaker 3: Worse through ads.
Speaker 2: Ads are a terrible way to experience politics.
Speaker 3: Kamala Harris wants to you know, Dore's Donald Trump and JD.
Speaker 3: Vans where I destroy this country.
Speaker 2: It's the worst possible way to actually engage with elections,
Speaker 2: and I think it leaves a lot more up to
Speaker 2: chance when you would have a lot more control.
Speaker 3: Like we just spoke with Logan about.
Speaker 2: You know, the reason that Kamala did well in the
Speaker 2: state of Pennsylvania relative to every other battleground state is
Speaker 2: because more people in Pennsylvania watched the debates than any
Speaker 2: other state. Per Kapita, there's a lesson in that risk
Speaker 2: and reward. That's what politics ultimately really is about. And
Speaker 2: right now, both of them are taking the most risk
Speaker 2: averse strategy.
Speaker 1: Which is crazy because neither one of them can afford that. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's the thing I mean. I would say Kama is
Speaker 1: being very risk averse on the media. On the debates,
Speaker 1: she's being more bold, And I just cannot understand why
Speaker 1: they are not using Tim Waals as more of an
Speaker 1: asset on cable news, because that, again is like how
Speaker 1: he got the job.
Speaker 6: She didn't really know him. He went out on.
Speaker 1: Cable news, he said the weird thing. People loved it.
Speaker 1: They were like, you know, sharing all his clips. He
Speaker 1: was really great at it, you know, quick on his feet.
Speaker 1: Even when he got asked things that were a little
Speaker 1: bit challenging about his agenda being too liberal or whatever, he.
Speaker 6: Was very he was very talent at it. So, okay,
Speaker 6: you've got this.
Speaker 1: Asset on your side that you put on the ticket, Like,
Speaker 1: why are you hiding him? That part doesn't make any
Speaker 1: sense to me. Hiding her makes a little more sense
Speaker 1: to me because she can be more unsteady in these interviews.
Speaker 1: She's more of a cautious politician. She's more uncomfortable in
Speaker 1: unscripted settings. So far, they've done a really great job
Speaker 1: of protecting her from any moments that would be a
Speaker 1: train wreck from her. So I'm not saying it's good.
Speaker 1: It's not good obviously for democracy. It's a terrible precedent
Speaker 1: to set. It's one that was in some ways already
Speaker 1: set by Biden back in twenty twenty when he did
Speaker 1: so little over the excuse of the pandemic. She's carrying
Speaker 1: that mantle forward and basically betting that she can get
Speaker 1: away with it. And it may be the correct bet,
Speaker 1: but the Tim Walls piece just strategically makes really no
Speaker 1: sense to me one hopever.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the whole thing is very risk averse.
Speaker 2: It's very much like I want to make sure that
Speaker 2: everything is very tightly controlled. The Oprah event is a
Speaker 2: good example. It's a fake interview and you don't particularly good, so.
Speaker 3: You got to put yourself out there. We got to
Speaker 3: see what happens.
Speaker 2: In general, it's bad for America and only have one debate,
Speaker 2: you know, on the issues, et cetera. The feedback actually,
Speaker 2: if you look at that debate, Crystal was for the
Speaker 2: Some of the independent voters who weren't swayed by Kamma
Speaker 2: were like, all I saw was performance and I didn't
Speaker 2: see substance. That's a lesson, you know, people are at Look,
Speaker 2: many people often lie about what they really want whenever
Speaker 2: it comes.
Speaker 3: But I do believe them whatever they say.
Speaker 2: I want to feel as if there is more substance
Speaker 2: behind them, whether they believe the substance or want any
Speaker 2: of that, right, it's very that's dubious.
Speaker 1: I mean, but they did put like the literal performer
Speaker 1: in chief, Donald Trump into the White House, so the
Speaker 1: performance does sell.
Speaker 6: Let's get to this.
Speaker 1: North Carolina chased a lot of times here. This is
Speaker 1: a really wild one. So in the state of North Carolina,
Speaker 1: in addition to the presidential race, which is obviously hotly contested,
Speaker 1: they also are electing a new governor. Democrat Josh Stein
Speaker 1: is up against the current lieutenant governor, Republican Mark Robinson.
Speaker 1: Robinson has a history of quite crazy comments, including you know,
Speaker 1: dabbling in Holocaust, nihilism and the like. However, CNN was
Speaker 1: able to unearth comments made by Robinson on a porn
Speaker 1: site for him called Nude Africa over a number of years.
Speaker 1: Now this was, you know, over a decade ago, so
Speaker 1: keep that in mind.
Speaker 6: Perhaps he's shifted his views. But before I go.
Speaker 1: Into them, just you know, I don't know about you.
Speaker 1: I am quite convinced that this was him. They caught
Speaker 1: cross checked off the email. He claims it's not him,
Speaker 1: it was he used his own name, disqualifying in and
Speaker 1: of itself. Okay, an email address that he's used in
Speaker 1: many other instances, you know, sort of publicly available email address.
Speaker 6: It was a username.
Speaker 1: Mini Soldier or something like that chat linked to him,
Speaker 1: which has been linked to him, that he's used also
Speaker 1: in the past.
Speaker 2: They gave him opportunity to comment. He denied it. So
Speaker 2: we're presenting you all the facts, but his own How
Speaker 2: about this? The people who work for him, they believe it.
Speaker 2: Let's let's put that way, shall we.
Speaker 1: Yes, all right, so let's put this up the screen.
Speaker 1: I'll give you some of the quote unquote highlights of
Speaker 1: what they found here. Headline is I'm a black Nazi.
Speaker 1: North Carolina GOP nominee for governor made dozens of disturbing
Speaker 1: comments on a porn forum. So in addition to saying
Speaker 1: I'm a black Nazi, he also said, quote slavery is
Speaker 1: not bad. Some people need to be slaves. I wish
Speaker 1: they would bring slavery back. I would certainly buy a few. Also,
Speaker 1: with regards to Barack Obama, he said, I would take
Speaker 1: Hitler over any of the shit that's in Washington right now.
Speaker 1: Referring again to Barack Obama. Also with regards to former
Speaker 1: President Obama, he said, get that effing commie bastard off
Speaker 1: the National Mall. When he was you know, when they
Speaker 1: had first unveiled the new MLK junior statue of MLK himself,
Speaker 1: he said, quote, I'm not in the KKK. They don't
Speaker 1: let blacks join. If I was in the KKK, I
Speaker 1: would have called trigger warning. This is a racial slur,
Speaker 1: Martin Lucifer Cohon Robinson posted on the site. There was
Speaker 1: also a lot of disturbing sexual material here, including him
Speaker 1: describing in great detail his quote own sexual arousal as
Speaker 1: an adult from the memory of secretly peeping on women
Speaker 1: in public gym showers as a fourteen year old. He
Speaker 1: described himself as a perv, and he also expressed enjoyment.
Speaker 1: This may be his biggest issue with the Republican base
Speaker 1: of watching transgender porn. So those are some of the
Speaker 1: things that he posted there. I'm not going to read
Speaker 1: the next part. I'll just put it up on the screen.
Speaker 1: There were also elaborate fantasies that he went into great
Speaker 1: detail about about his wife's sister, his literal sister. In
Speaker 1: imagine being his wife, I imagine being his wife, Okay,
Speaker 1: we can take that down. Also, after the Internet got
Speaker 1: a hold of and different reporters got ahold of this
Speaker 1: username that he had apparently been using in all kinds
Speaker 1: of different contexts, including on this porn forum. They found
Speaker 1: all kinds of things that this username was connected to,
Speaker 1: including it seems he took his black nazidom relatively seriously,
Speaker 1: because we can put this up on the screen. He
Speaker 1: was also signed up for German lessons on Duo Lingo
Speaker 1: using that username as well. I believe he also was
Speaker 1: in the Ashley Madison link leak with the which is
Speaker 1: a website to dedicate it to people.
Speaker 3: Who want to cheat.
Speaker 1: And have affairs, and so yeah, a lot there. This
Speaker 1: all came out, by the way, just to give a
Speaker 1: little bit of the backstory. Was it Friday that this
Speaker 1: all happened. Thursday or Friday? Yeah, I don't remember Thursday
Speaker 1: or Friday. Anyway, we got this indication that the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign was trying to talk him into dropping out of
Speaker 1: the race North Carolina obviously being critical. The ballot deadline
Speaker 1: for him to drop out was literally the night that
Speaker 1: all of us dropped. So everyone was sitting around on
Speaker 1: Twitter waiting for this news to drop ALTI comes out
Speaker 1: and he has denied it again.
Speaker 6: I think this is not.
Speaker 1: The right direction to go in in terms of dealing
Speaker 1: with these comments like it is in my opinion obviously
Speaker 1: him and what would be a better approach would be
Speaker 1: to be like, oh, that was a long time ago
Speaker 1: and I was just trolling, like I was just being
Speaker 1: an Internet troll. Instead, he rather unbelievably denies that this
Speaker 1: is him whatsoever. Let's take a listen to what he
Speaker 1: has to say.
Speaker 4: The people here of North Carolina know I have been
Speaker 4: completely transparent about my history, all the wards, and we
Speaker 4: put them all out. We let folks know about it.
Speaker 4: But the folks here also know my character, They know
Speaker 4: who I am, They know my voice, so to speak.
Speaker 4: This is not my voice. This is not things that
Speaker 4: we would ever say or even think, and so absolutely
Speaker 4: we do.
Speaker 5: How do you explain all of the matching details on
Speaker 5: this profile? The profile on New to Africa lists your
Speaker 5: full name as Mark Robinson. The email listed on an
Speaker 5: account is an email that you used. You have used
Speaker 5: elsewhere on the Internet, including with your photo. You have
Speaker 5: used that name Mini Soldier on multiple social media accounts,
Speaker 5: including Twitter, Pinterest, Black planet and YouTube. How can you
Speaker 5: deny with all of these matching details that this is you.
Speaker 4: Look, I'm not going to get into the venutia of
Speaker 4: how some might manufacture this dese selacious tabloid lies, but
Speaker 4: I can tell you this. There's been over one million
Speaker 4: dollars spent on me through AI by billionaire son who's
Speaker 4: bound and determined to destroy me. The things that people
Speaker 4: can do with the Internet now is incredible. But what
Speaker 4: I can tell you is this, again, these are not
Speaker 4: my words. This is simply tabloid trash being used as
Speaker 4: a distraction from the substantive issues that the people of
Speaker 4: this day are facing.
Speaker 1: So anyway, he did not drop out on the race.
Speaker 1: He is still in the race, although he has apparently
Speaker 1: three campaign staffers left everyone else designed.
Speaker 6: Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 2: For the on screen, all right, just so we all understand,
Speaker 2: Robinson now won't appear at Trump's North Carolina rally. So
Speaker 2: from what I understand from the backstory is that this
Speaker 2: was all known during the primary, but Republicans decided not
Speaker 2: to drop it against him because Donald Trump endorsed him,
Speaker 2: and they were pretty they were pretty clear that Mark
Speaker 2: Robinson was going to become the eventual GOP nominee and
Speaker 2: they didn't want it hurt. So this information has been
Speaker 2: out there amongst opposition researchers and others for quite a
Speaker 2: long time. Now you put that together with the fact
Speaker 2: that this comes out now before the deadline. It was
Speaker 2: actually it appears to have been Republicans who likely leaked
Speaker 2: this to try and force him off the ballot to
Speaker 2: salvage their chances. Robinson, of course, is such an ego
Speaker 2: maniac that he decided to stay in the race. Toronald
Speaker 2: Trump will no longer appear with him on the ballot.
Speaker 2: And this is now in what is very likely a
Speaker 2: very significant and perhaps even the tipping point state. So
Speaker 2: for example, let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Just look at where the polling average is right now
Speaker 2: for North Carolina Trump forty seven point.
Speaker 3: Five, Harris forty seven point four. It could not be closer.
Speaker 2: So we have i mean, Mostriano level event that is
Speaker 2: currently happening now at this overall, in this overall statewide election,
Speaker 2: and in a fifty to fifty race, let's say that
Speaker 2: he cost Trump even twenty thousand votes. I mean, Donald
Speaker 2: Trump only lost the state of Georgia by some ten
Speaker 2: thousand votes. Last time around, the margin of victory was
Speaker 2: only what fifty sixty thousand votes. I think over a
Speaker 2: couple of states. You just have to consider how close
Speaker 2: this is. Something we also talked about with Logan, the
Speaker 2: election forecaster, was that this could also convince some Republicans
Speaker 2: to not come out to vote. It could be a
Speaker 2: depressive effect. So it could be there's a multi confluence
Speaker 2: of events here. I'm not saying Trump could still lose
Speaker 2: or Trump couldn't still win the state of North Carolina.
Speaker 2: It's just that whenever it's fifty to fifty, we shouldn't
Speaker 2: be screwing around, you know, with the one of the
Speaker 2: most googled politicians now in all of the United States,
Speaker 2: people desperate for the lurid details and then coming up
Speaker 2: with bs excuses like oh it was Ai.
Speaker 3: You know that is taking me out, Like you got
Speaker 3: to at least have something.
Speaker 6: Bet I said.
Speaker 1: I at least just say like, oh, I was just trolling,
Speaker 1: like you know, freedom of speech, like I was just
Speaker 1: being absurd, I would be.
Speaker 6: You should just say, or more defensable.
Speaker 3: Is a pastor? Is a pastor?
Speaker 2: You should have said, is a pastor I've you know,
Speaker 2: like he's like I'm addicted to porn like many other
Speaker 2: young men, I've seen the lights.
Speaker 1: Okay, but that does an excuse me saying black Nazi
Speaker 1: who wants to own slaves.
Speaker 2: Look you say that carried away?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean there is a bigger consistent problem here
Speaker 1: for Republicans, which is they have an extreme candidate issue.
Speaker 1: You know, you've got this guy here, You've got Carrie
Speaker 1: Lake out in Arizona who's very likely to lose that
Speaker 1: Senate seat to Reuben Diego. You know, last cycle you
Speaker 1: had in Mastrano who you referenced, you had herschel Walker,
Speaker 1: who now looks quite changed in comparison to you know,
Speaker 1: to this individual Mark Robinson.
Speaker 6: So you you.
Speaker 1: Also have a candidate quality issue where Republicans nominate people
Speaker 1: who have no prayer in hell of winning. Like a
Speaker 1: Republican goubernatorial candidate in North Carolina should be winning that
Speaker 1: state all day long, or at least didn't. Content doesn't
Speaker 1: sending Lieutenant governor right, you should at least be in contention,
Speaker 1: and instead the polls already have him down by double
Speaker 1: digits is probably only going to widen. I mean, you're
Speaker 1: talking about probably a Democratic victory for governor in that
Speaker 1: state by like fifteen points. That's insane in North Carolina,
Speaker 1: all because of the dude that you nominated. So, I
Speaker 1: mean there's a deeper reckoning for the Republican Party where
Speaker 1: it's like, you know, some of the wild I'm not
Speaker 1: saying Trump has said anything like a a black nazy Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm not trying it, but some of the wilder things
Speaker 1: that Trump does say he can get away with and
Speaker 1: other Canadates cannot get away with. So yeah, I don't
Speaker 1: know what turns that particular piece around for the Republican Party,
Speaker 1: but I'll tell you Democrats are running wild with this.
Speaker 6: Trump had called him.
Speaker 1: Trump had called Mark Robinson quote Martin Luther King on steroids, I.
Speaker 3: Mean, is bigger? Is bigger than doctor K.
Speaker 1: They've taken that clip and any other time that he
Speaker 1: endorsed him. Because prior to this incident, Robinson, in spite
Speaker 1: of other many insane things that he said in the
Speaker 1: past that are documented, they were you know, he was
Speaker 1: a regular.
Speaker 6: At their campaign events. He was a speaker at the
Speaker 6: R and C.
Speaker 1: It's not like they were keeping the sky at an
Speaker 1: arms length distance whatsoever. And so they're going to make
Speaker 1: as much out of that as they possibly can.
Speaker 6: And you know, in the.
Speaker 1: State of North Carolina, if it succeeds in knocking half
Speaker 1: a point off of Donald Trump, that maybe all that
Speaker 1: they need to be able to claim that state, and
Speaker 1: the map becomes very difficult for Trump if he loses
Speaker 1: North Carolina's.
Speaker 2: That's why it's probably the most significant. And this is
Speaker 2: a statewide election. This is something where they could tie
Speaker 2: them together. Look, it is possible. You just don't want
Speaker 2: to be dealing with this nonsense whenever things are as
Speaker 2: tight as they are and you reference the aids. I mean,
Speaker 2: the guy who's running his campaign now is literally a
Speaker 2: convicted felon. Jack Bergman somebody who he's a lawyer. He
Speaker 2: was involved and a whole bunch of schemes has been
Speaker 2: indicted previously.
Speaker 3: At the Daily Caller, we used to deal with.
Speaker 6: Him for felony.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's something to do with that. But
Speaker 2: my point was is that I remember him. He used
Speaker 2: to run around with this other guy and they would
Speaker 2: often make major claims and do big press conferences and
Speaker 2: they got in big trouble with the feds, uh for
Speaker 2: basically shopping OPPO. Except the point is is that they're
Speaker 2: not sending their best to Mark Robinson's campaign. I'll put
Speaker 2: it that his top ays have resigned, his campaign manager.
Speaker 2: He's only got three people now that are left on staff.
Speaker 2: That's another problem where very often there's like a there's
Speaker 2: a real work together effect in these tight races where
Speaker 2: the Trump campaign will work with the googlenatorial.
Speaker 6: Campaign, co ordinated campaign.
Speaker 2: Right, so you have a coordinated campaign, it's all about
Speaker 2: get out the vote, and now you lose statewide operations
Speaker 2: and people are going to go all in on Trump.
Speaker 2: But then now Robinson's name will be left off. So
Speaker 2: just overall, like we're not looking at we're not looking
Speaker 2: at things that are good right now for Donald Trump
Speaker 2: in the state of North Carolina.
Speaker 3: This one took Washington by storm.
Speaker 2: This is a difficult one unless you literally live here
Speaker 2: and you kind of know the characters.
Speaker 3: But we will do our best.
Speaker 6: So let's go and put this on definitely the talking
Speaker 6: to town.
Speaker 2: Oh, this is the talk of the town. Let's put
Speaker 2: it up there on the screen. This is a scoop
Speaker 2: from Oliver Darcy. He started his own newsletter called Status.
Speaker 2: He says, R nuzzies RFK relationship.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: According to Oliver Darcy, This was Thursday night. He put
Speaker 2: out a story. New York Magazine has said that's Washington
Speaker 2: correspondent Olivia Nuzzy is on leave after learning the Star
Speaker 2: journalist had allegedly engaged in an inappropriate relationship with the
Speaker 2: reporting subject. That person is RFK Junior, according to people
Speaker 2: are familiar with the matter. According to them, there had
Speaker 2: been a quote unquote personal relationship between the two, which,
Speaker 2: according to a Nuzzy and to RFK, never became an
Speaker 2: intimate in person or into them. It was strictly online
Speaker 2: and restricted to the communications between the two. Now since
Speaker 2: that report, there has been more that has come out
Speaker 2: giving us some of the alleged details.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: The way that this all came out, according to New
Speaker 2: York Magazine, and again there's a lot of according tows
Speaker 2: going on here, is that RFK Junior, according to them,
Speaker 2: had either been quote bragging or telling people that he
Speaker 2: had quote unquote intimate photos of reporter Olivia Nuzzy. She's
Speaker 2: only thirty one, he's seventy years old. Those rumors got
Speaker 2: back to the editor of New York Magazine, who was
Speaker 2: actually in Europe, so how he had heard about it.
Speaker 2: That's a very interesting story. So according to them, that's
Speaker 2: how it happened. In New York Magazine, editor in chief
Speaker 2: heard that RK Junior had been telling people this about
Speaker 2: this reporter Olivia Nuzzy. He then confronted Nuzzy. Nuzzy allegedly
Speaker 2: denied it multiple times until she then confirmed the relationships.
Speaker 2: She's been put on leave as they do a quote
Speaker 2: unquote investigation. Hard to see how she isn't fired. Now
Speaker 2: if we moved to the next part, the basically the
Speaker 2: backs who is being pushed now by RFK and some
Speaker 2: of the people close to him.
Speaker 3: Let's put the new posts please.
Speaker 2: So according to them, quote unquote, Olivia Nuvevey was obsessed
Speaker 2: and pursued RFK Junior aggressively and he had to block her.
Speaker 2: This was according to one of these journalists who was
Speaker 2: very close to RFK Junior.
Speaker 6: And she was literally kennedy. She related, I.
Speaker 3: Was trying to figure that out. I didn't want to
Speaker 3: notice that.
Speaker 2: According to them, what happened, basically, the RFK Junior story
Speaker 2: is that she hung out with r K Junior, that
Speaker 2: they did hiking trips. She wrote about it. She talked
Speaker 2: about why he was a formidable candidate. Apparently after that incident,
Speaker 2: she had his phone number. By the way, all of
Speaker 2: a sudden, his phone number. That's not like a you know,
Speaker 2: like a secret thing. Most reporters have sourced his phone numbers.
Speaker 2: She allegedly spammed him with nude photographs. RFK Junior blocked
Speaker 2: Olivia Nuzzy. She then allegedly sent him an email saying
Speaker 2: that she had comment that she needed from him so
Speaker 2: that he would unblock her, and she then proceeded to
Speaker 2: bombard him with more nude images. Is obviously a convenience
Speaker 2: story for Urka Junior, who is married, but that is
Speaker 2: their narrative of events. Nuzzy, for her part, has not
Speaker 2: put out anything like trying to absolve herself or any
Speaker 2: of the transcript. People are noting that she did send
Speaker 2: this tweet in twenty fifteen. Let's put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. Why does Hollywood think female reporters sleep
Speaker 2: with their sources. This was something that she wrote for
Speaker 2: New York magazine Help Cause, hero not helping the cause,
Speaker 2: Olivia Nuzzy.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I guess there's a lot to say
Speaker 3: about this.
Speaker 6: Well well, and she also did you mention this was
Speaker 6: engaged to Ryan Lizza.
Speaker 1: I didn't want to bring him into a week I
Speaker 1: mean that engagement is now off anyway.
Speaker 6: Just to complete the now. According to agree affair, the
Speaker 6: background is that.
Speaker 2: Liza had previously been me tooed from New York. I
Speaker 2: think the New Yorker nobody ever got really the whole story.
Speaker 2: But he was fired, which was like very dramatic, and
Speaker 2: then after eventually ended up. I forget exactly where he
Speaker 2: ended up, but he resurfaced, he got himself a new job,
Speaker 2: and he'd been then with Olivia, and people were put
Speaker 2: into the Tawdrey kind of relationship there.
Speaker 1: But the whole point is also another big where he
Speaker 1: runs political play.
Speaker 2: Insider. So they were like a real Washington power couple.
Speaker 2: I guess beyond that, really what it is is not
Speaker 2: only like the nature of their relationship. According to them,
Speaker 2: they had broken up like a month or so before
Speaker 2: this entire story came out, So I don't know, I mean,
Speaker 2: beyond any of the personal stuff, I guess it just
Speaker 2: gets back to anytime something like this comes out in
Speaker 2: the open, it's a disgusting look at Washington. It really is, like,
Speaker 2: look a lot of the stuff it happens and it
Speaker 2: doesn't actually come out and see the light of day.
Speaker 2: Probably the only reason it did is because Rfka Junior
Speaker 2: either couldn't give his mouth shup or allegedly the real
Speaker 2: story is that he was getting bombarded with this. But
Speaker 2: I mean he never complained, I guess to her bosses.
Speaker 3: I don't know. The whole point is is messy and
Speaker 3: yeah it's gross and I don't know. Yahay.
Speaker 1: Let me take you through my emotional journey on this story. Okay, So,
Speaker 1: first of all, Kyle actually woke me up from a
Speaker 1: dead sweep to inform me with this news act.
Speaker 3: I woke my wife up in the morning six am, I.
Speaker 1: Guess, And when I chudged it the level of difficulty
Speaker 1: my brain had come run the words that were coming
Speaker 1: out of his mouth. I wish you all could could understand.
Speaker 1: So my first gut instinct, of course, was like Jesus,
Speaker 1: she's like thirty years I seven, Like what why would
Speaker 1: you do? Like, you know, just sort of shock and
Speaker 1: kind of horror at the details here. As this story
Speaker 1: has progressed and we've learned more details, especially the fact
Speaker 1: he was bragging about this, Like, my emotions shifted to
Speaker 1: a lot of sympathy for her, not to excuse you know,
Speaker 1: sleeping with a source or having a digital affair. They say,
Speaker 1: with a source or whatever. It's obviously unethical. I'm also
Speaker 1: sure it's something that like a lot of people in
Speaker 1: this town are engaged in, which is again your your
Speaker 1: point about like a little look into the way that
Speaker 1: a lot of this town this is the opt.
Speaker 3: Case, but there are a lot of people who do this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So anyway, my emotions have really shifted to a
Speaker 1: lot of sympathy for her because one thing, if you
Speaker 1: are here like this is all anyone's talking about, ripping
Speaker 1: her to shreds, you know, saying all kinds of horrific
Speaker 1: things about her, et cetera, et cetera. But more to
Speaker 1: the point, like if you believe him that she was
Speaker 1: obsessed in just spamming him with nude pictures, like I
Speaker 1: have a bridge to sell you.
Speaker 6: This man is ann he used to have in his phone.
Speaker 1: Some thirty eight mistresses while he was with his ex
Speaker 1: wife who ended up killing herself, by the way, So
Speaker 1: we're supposed to believe that she was so obsessed with
Speaker 1: the seven year old man that she was spamming him
Speaker 1: nudes and he you know, and he was having to.
Speaker 6: Blog, I do not buy it.
Speaker 1: He has a wife, he doesn't want her to leave him,
Speaker 1: and so that's why, very likely why he's saying what
Speaker 1: he's saying. The other thing is, there's nothing that discuss
Speaker 1: me more than a man who goes around bragging about
Speaker 1: his sexual exploits and specifically bragging about the like nude
Speaker 1: image of his girlfriend or his fling or his whoever,
Speaker 1: especially and we don't know that this is the case,
Speaker 1: but especially when they share said images around with their buddies.
Speaker 1: There is nothing. There are a few things to me
Speaker 1: that are more disgusting than that. So that sequence of
Speaker 1: events has completely shifted me to like just sympathy for Olivia. Again,
Speaker 1: it was unethical. I'm not excusing the behavior. It was perplexing.
Speaker 1: It was, in my opinion, like a lot of things.
Speaker 1: But yeah, the response to it has been disturbing to
Speaker 1: me as a.
Speaker 2: Well okay, well let's put it. Yeah, let's put so.
Speaker 2: The online reaction, I agree, is out of control.
Speaker 6: It's out of control.
Speaker 2: Needs to get fired. I mean, this is out of
Speaker 2: control behavior. This is completely inexcusable. It's look, you're you're,
Speaker 2: you are irresponsible for the consequences of your actions on RFK.
Speaker 3: Look, I have no idea.
Speaker 2: I guess what the what would the kopey that he
Speaker 2: wasn't bragging he was telling people about it, irl what
Speaker 2: he should have done, and I don't know what exactly
Speaker 2: the case is is go to the and be like
Speaker 2: if this were true, right, so is be like, go
Speaker 2: to the bosses and be like, hey, your employee is
Speaker 2: totally out of control, and this is what's happening. And
Speaker 2: that's part of the reason I'm sketched out is because
Speaker 2: anybody who legitimately was like a target of being constantly
Speaker 2: bombarded would want to do something like that. Now here's
Speaker 2: my challenge to both of the parties. At this point,
Speaker 2: I'm sick.
Speaker 3: Of reading the background.
Speaker 2: Release the transcript, but blur out the images, all right,
Speaker 2: delete them. I don't nobody cares about the images at
Speaker 2: this point. I want to see whether somebody was blocked,
Speaker 2: what the actual correspondence and all that was. And at
Speaker 2: this point, for Nuzzy, I mean, you have only yourself
Speaker 2: to save here where you're being in the tabloids, people
Speaker 2: are saying that you were the one who was bombarding
Speaker 2: RFK with all of this, So Gavin de Becker is
Speaker 2: currently quote unquote running the investigation. Something he did last
Speaker 2: time around, at least with the Jeff Bezos case, is
Speaker 2: they released all of the communications between when Bezos was
Speaker 2: caught like sending images. I'll just put it that way
Speaker 2: to his current what is it fiance, Lauren Sanchez, it
Speaker 2: appeared to have been leaked by Lawrence's brother Michael. Crazy
Speaker 2: story in terms of that background. The point is that
Speaker 2: Becker released like all of the background with Jeff Bezos,
Speaker 2: where Bezos was like, screw you, I'm not paying any
Speaker 2: blackmail you could see here for all the world to see.
Speaker 2: I think they do need to release it now at
Speaker 2: this point, one of them, because really is the only
Speaker 2: way you could save like any sort of any sort
Speaker 2: of credibility on this matter. But for Nazzi, I mean,
Speaker 2: I think she's done.
Speaker 3: Like I don't. I don't think he can come back
Speaker 3: from this one. That's it.
Speaker 1: Well, I think she's done at this current job. Can
Speaker 1: she come back over time?
Speaker 3: Sure?
Speaker 1: She's very young, talented, she is a talented writer. I
Speaker 1: read her profile of RFK. It was great, No, it
Speaker 1: was good, it was really good. She also wrote a
Speaker 1: good piece. But look, nobody's saying that you're not.
Speaker 6: Here's the other thing. Here's the other thing.
Speaker 1: Of course, here's the other thing that's pissing me off, though,
Speaker 1: is that this has also led to a bunch of
Speaker 1: like Biden dead enders. She wrote, I don't know if
Speaker 1: you guys remember those, but we read it.
Speaker 6: We probably cover on the show.
Speaker 1: She wrote one of the definitive accounts of Biden's decline
Speaker 1: that had a lot of inside the circle details about
Speaker 1: how donors were like seeing him in person and horrified
Speaker 1: by how he was unable to function essentially, and now
Speaker 1: you've got a lot of Biden dead enders who are like, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, we should look again at this, at this article,
Speaker 1: and basically dismiss it as being biased, etc. If anything,
Speaker 1: the only problem with that article was how late it
Speaker 1: came in the game after it was already very clear
Speaker 1: that that declined the camp.
Speaker 2: It came out after the debate, and yeah, it's clear
Speaker 2: that they held it and they had all that reporting
Speaker 2: prior and they didn't run right.
Speaker 1: That was the only problem with that. It wasn't that
Speaker 1: she was too hard on Biden. It was that she
Speaker 1: went too easy on it. That it should have come
Speaker 1: out much earlier so that it could better inform the
Speaker 1: electorate about what was really going on behind the scenes.
Speaker 6: So that was fisting me off. So is she done?
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know, a lot of people have
Speaker 1: been able to come back from a lot of terrible things.
Speaker 6: Is she probably done in this job yet? Should she be? Yeah?
Speaker 6: I mean you can't, like, you just can't. You can't.
Speaker 1: You can't connect yourself, connect yourself like this with the source,
Speaker 1: with a you know, a reporting someone you're reporting directly on, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 6: But in terms of the reaction, and I.
Speaker 1: Just his his science story, I'm sorry, I just don't.
Speaker 6: I just don't believe.
Speaker 3: And I think it's to release a transcript.
Speaker 1: I think it's disgusting that he was out there like
Speaker 1: bragging about this. If he was really under like you said,
Speaker 1: so right, if he's really under such assault by this
Speaker 1: woman who oh my god, poor me, she's spamming me nudes?
Speaker 6: Then like, are you okay? Are you are you doing
Speaker 6: all right?
Speaker 2: I'll tell you why this is sad. This is you know,
Speaker 2: he's married to Cheryl Hines. I love Cheryl Hines from
Speaker 2: your enthusiasm. So first of all, we feel terrible for Cheryl, right,
Speaker 2: that's humiliating. Yet she doesn't deserve this. I feel bad
Speaker 2: for Ryan Lizza as well. You know these are now
Speaker 2: we've had two basically relationships that are now either you know,
Speaker 2: broken and and or like significantly stressed. So let this
Speaker 2: just be you know, like the major thing, like be faithful.
Speaker 3: To your spouse.
Speaker 2: Just don't put people through this, especially when you're in
Speaker 2: the public eye, because it's really people don't deserve this,
Speaker 2: you know, they're outside actors. And now for her own career,
Speaker 2: it's really sad because I think she was very talented,
Speaker 2: but this will just be the scarlet letter, you know,
Speaker 2: for all time.
Speaker 1: Especially Lizza, like you said, you have me too thing.
Speaker 1: He's recovered. I don't even remember his scandal. I don't
Speaker 1: remember it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but enough people do, and especially for her, Like
Speaker 2: in terms of it's one thing. It's one thing to
Speaker 2: like have a me too scandal with somebody, with somebody
Speaker 2: who's not a subject of major reporting, But to do
Speaker 2: it with a presidential candidate and be involved with them
Speaker 2: at the height of the at the height of like
Speaker 2: all of the attention around it, that just does code
Speaker 2: a little bit different.
Speaker 3: I don't know if that's I don't know.
Speaker 6: All I'm saying.
Speaker 1: I'm seeing people recover from a lot worse. And listen,
Speaker 1: maybe I mean, look, maybe there is a gender dynamic
Speaker 1: here where because she's a woman, like it hangs.
Speaker 6: Over her more heavily.
Speaker 1: The label of like, you know, oh, you're a slut
Speaker 1: who just is going to sleep around with your sources
Speaker 1: or whatever. Maybe that does hang over her more heavily.
Speaker 1: But the last thing I just have to open on
Speaker 1: is I don't know if I buy that it wasn't physical.
Speaker 1: He also was caught lying already about he said, oh
Speaker 1: I only met her that once for the profile, and
Speaker 1: then she wrote a hit piece on me.
Speaker 6: That wasn't true.
Speaker 1: They definitely have been in you know, at events together
Speaker 1: and other you know, professional or potentially private settings together,
Speaker 1: so that already he's been caught in a lie. I
Speaker 1: don't know if I believe that it wasn't actually physical,
Speaker 1: that it was just digital. But in some ways like
Speaker 1: having a digital relationship.
Speaker 6: He's kind of crazier to me. But I don't know. Listen, people.
Speaker 3: Advertisement for TRT seven years old, but a young man on.
Speaker 1: All right, let's get all right, let's actually the hardest
Speaker 1: turn of all time, because we are now at a
Speaker 1: point of you know, escalating chaos in the Middle East.
Speaker 1: We of course tracked last week how Israel was able
Speaker 1: to blow up the pagers and then the walkie talk
Speaker 1: of a lot of HESBLA members, and then you know,
Speaker 1: there was huge collateral damage. There were children who were killed,
Speaker 1: people were public market places, etc. Then they started the
Speaker 1: out and out bombing campaign.
Speaker 6: And now we are.
Speaker 1: Getting incredibly deeply disturbing indications that Israel plans an all
Speaker 1: out assault on at least a portion of Lebanon, somewhat
Speaker 1: akin to what has already been done to Gaza. Here
Speaker 1: is Army Chief of Staff Daniel Hagari effectively threatening all
Speaker 1: of the civilians, building the case that inside of homes
Speaker 1: and other civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, that these are legitimate
Speaker 1: military targets. Again, sounds very familiar to the case that
Speaker 1: was made in Gaza in order to justify blowing up homes, schools, hospitals,
Speaker 1: mosques and everything in between. Let's take a listen to
Speaker 1: a bit of what he had to.
Speaker 10: Say about an hour ago, following indications that Risbala was
Speaker 10: preparing to fire towards Israeli territory. We began striking terrorist
Speaker 10: targets throughout Lebanon. That ris Bala terist organization has been
Speaker 10: continuously launching attacks on Israeli civilians and has no plans
Speaker 10: to stop. This is thousand Lebanon. There are dozens of
Speaker 10: Lebanese villages situated along approximately eighty kilometers of the border
Speaker 10: with Israel. For over twenty years, Risbala has deployed its
Speaker 10: arms inside homes and militarized civilian infrastructure. As a result
Speaker 10: that his Balatarist organization has turned southern Lebanon into a bottlefield.
Speaker 10: This is a village in southern Lebanon. Riz Bala stores
Speaker 10: cruise missiles, rockets, launchers and UAVs inside civilian homes, hidden
Speaker 10: behind the Lebanese population living in the village. We are
Speaker 10: monitoring these activities, locating the weapons and destroying them with
Speaker 10: precise intelligence based strikes.
Speaker 1: And sure enough, this morning I'm looking at the New
Speaker 1: York Times right now they say scores at least one
Speaker 1: hundred people killed in southern Lebanon after Israel has begun
Speaker 1: a massive bombardment. We have some images from over the
Speaker 1: weekend that show you the size and the scale of
Speaker 1: this military operation.
Speaker 6: I mean, this is a huge.
Speaker 1: Blast that's depicted here, and we also have some images
Speaker 1: of a residential apartment building that was utterly demolished and
Speaker 1: leveled in this bombing campaign. According to reports over the weekend,
Speaker 1: they hummel southern Lebanon with strikes on about four hundred
Speaker 1: different targets. HESWLA is responding with some rocket attacks as well,
Speaker 1: although largely theirs have been disrupted by the Iron Defense
Speaker 1: Iron Dome Defense missile defense system, so you know, effectively
Speaker 1: they're threatening to do in Lebanon what they did in Gaza.
Speaker 1: Civilians have been told to evacuate the area and the
Speaker 1: rhetoric that is being used is deeply disturbing. Let's put
Speaker 1: this next piece up on the screen. This is a voiceover.
Speaker 1: I'll just give you a sense of what the Israeli
Speaker 1: Education Minister is saying on This is channel fourteen. This
Speaker 1: is sort of like their Fox News ish propaganda channel.
Speaker 1: He says, quote, there's no difference between Hesbola and Lebanon.
Speaker 1: Lebanon will be annihilated, it will cease to exist.
Speaker 6: Again.
Speaker 1: This isn't some random fringe figure. This is an Israeli minister,
Speaker 1: member of the government how did we get to this
Speaker 1: place of fresh horror. Well, let's put the next piece
Speaker 1: up on the screen. By an administration who they're extremely
Speaker 1: concerned about this risk of all out war, but are
Speaker 1: they going to do anything. No, Israel officials are telling
Speaker 1: them that they're increasing attacks against HESBLA are not intended
Speaker 1: to lead to war, but are an attempt to reach
Speaker 1: de escalation through escalation. Obviously, that is the most preposters
Speaker 1: from an Axios report. By the way, this is the
Speaker 1: most preposterous idea you could possibly imagine.
Speaker 6: As well.
Speaker 1: Was not involved in the October seventh the tacks. They've
Speaker 1: made it very clear that if there is a ceasefire
Speaker 1: deal that ends the hostilities and returns the hostages, that
Speaker 1: their bombardment, you know, the rockets that they've been firing
Speaker 1: into northern Israel would stop. And yet, because of Bebe's
Speaker 1: determination from the beginning to broaden this war and the
Speaker 1: Biden administration's failure to stop it by using any sort
Speaker 1: of leverage, here we are with the region just continuing
Speaker 1: to spiral.
Speaker 6: Soccer.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's actually very terrifying.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is probably the closest that we are
Speaker 2: just yet now currently as of this morning, it just
Speaker 2: says we don't have an official number of.
Speaker 3: What the death toll.
Speaker 2: I do love all of this escalator, de escalation, through escalation,
Speaker 2: anytime anybody is selling you that they are selling you
Speaker 2: a bridge, and that currently I mean really, what stands
Speaker 2: out to me is the complete vacuum of US leadership.
Speaker 2: Our president is literally dementia ridden, unable to accomplish anything
Speaker 2: in the Middle East. Our Secretary of State is effectively
Speaker 2: a nobody throughout this entire thing. Israel did not clear
Speaker 2: any of its pager gambit with the United States with
Speaker 2: its intelligence. Lebanon currently and Hesbola are responding and whatever
Speaker 2: the way they see fit. The Iranians are very involved
Speaker 2: in the Israelis are just doing whatever they want to do.
Speaker 2: There are no checks on this entire system now, and
Speaker 2: we're the ones who are going to pay the bill. Like,
Speaker 2: let's all be very clear about what this means. Who
Speaker 2: do you think funds ironedome US? Who do you think
Speaker 2: responded to those Iran attacks?
Speaker 6: US?
Speaker 2: Whose aircraft carriers are the ones they're securing any piece
Speaker 2: whatever is left in the region US. If this goes big,
Speaker 2: Israel will suffer for dramatic I'm not saying they won't win.
Speaker 2: They probably will because they have a lot enough, they
Speaker 2: have a lot more firepower, but the amount of casualties
Speaker 2: they will suffer in a war with Hasboula will be
Speaker 2: ten to one hundred times what they experienced in Gaza.
Speaker 2: Hezbola is a very sharp and paramilitary force. They have
Speaker 2: much more Iranian backing, they have much better and sophisticated technology,
Speaker 2: as evidence by the fact they've been penetrated Iron Dome,
Speaker 2: and they've got more regional actors and others on their side,
Speaker 2: as evidence by the fact that the Israelis take them
Speaker 2: much more seriously, and the two thousand and six war
Speaker 2: still as a very black mark on the IDF that
Speaker 2: they have always had to deal with for the domestic
Speaker 2: populace and its confidence in its military. So you can
Speaker 2: be rest assured, not only would we have to spend
Speaker 2: a ton more money, the likelihood of US getting involved
Speaker 2: here I think would be almost tenfold relative to what
Speaker 2: happened with Gaza. And that is something that I'm genuinely
Speaker 2: terrified by, because if they're running out of weapons, just
Speaker 2: dropping jade ams basis civilian population with no ability to
Speaker 2: choose back, what does it look like whenever you actually
Speaker 2: hit the fire, not a peer military, but definitely a
Speaker 2: much more respectable fighting force.
Speaker 3: That is something I worry a lot about.
Speaker 1: So Haretz estimates that there have been one hundred and
Speaker 1: eighty two killed in Lebanon in these new attacks, and
Speaker 1: hundreds wounded in retaliation. You now had thirty five rockets
Speaker 1: fired by Hesbela at Israel's at military targets in Israel's north. Again,
Speaker 1: this mostly is intercepted by the missile defense system Iron Dome.
Speaker 6: So I don't know.
Speaker 1: That there were any Israeli deaths, but you know, at
Speaker 1: the same time, we can't lose sight of the offensive
Speaker 1: in Gaza continues. They just bombed a school turned shelter
Speaker 1: with dozens killed there as well. They're floating a new
Speaker 1: plan to once again fully evacuate Gaza City, which, if
Speaker 1: you guys will recall back we're almost a year, we've
Speaker 1: almost come to a year anniversary, and back at the
Speaker 1: beginning of their onslaught, Gaza City was the first target
Speaker 1: ever was forced to evacuate. Then they you know, slowly
Speaker 1: moved south that destroyed everything in the entire Godza strip.
Speaker 1: Now you have some people who have come back north,
Speaker 1: and now they're threatening to evacuate them all again and say, oh,
Speaker 1: if you don't leave, then you're a legitimate military target.
Speaker 1: We're gonna kill everyone who remains. This is what's being
Speaker 1: floated right now. So it's just so dark that the
Speaker 1: Biden administration has completely given up on a ceasefire. There
Speaker 1: is not even a prospect on the table anymore. You know,
Speaker 1: Bebe has sustained at this point, He's much more popular now.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's recovered his popularity at this point and
Speaker 1: seems to have withstood the you know, the continued protests moving.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that there aren't still protests that are
Speaker 1: quite heated ongoing, but he seems to have withstood a
Speaker 1: lot of that, and there's just no end in sight.
Speaker 1: There is no peaceful coexistence anywhere in sight. And we
Speaker 1: have spent a lot of time here talking about potential
Speaker 1: day after quote unquote that what day after?
Speaker 6: There is no day after? This is this is the plan.
Speaker 1: Like what we're looking at is just continued continued bombing,
Speaker 1: continued bombardment, continued slaughter, all of that. It's just indefinite
Speaker 1: in perpetuity that as far as I can see, is
Speaker 1: the plan there to have no day after that is
Speaker 1: the plan. And obviously, you know, the Israelis bear responses.
Speaker 1: Is Raeli government bears responsibility for the war crimes that
Speaker 1: they have committed, but we also bear a lot of responsibility.
Speaker 1: We're the ones that are tax dollari go on to
Speaker 1: ship these weapons that are being dropped now on civilians
Speaker 1: in Lebanon and being dropped in Gaza. And you know,
Speaker 1: the West Bank has been invaded as well, and our
Speaker 1: political leadership has just decided that it's too hard to
Speaker 1: force Israel to stop, so they're just gonna allow to
Speaker 1: keep going.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I read now the US has directly warned Israel
Speaker 2: against opening a full blown war with Hesbola. This is
Speaker 2: from the Financial Times.
Speaker 1: I mean they already like it's already over, it's done.
Speaker 1: The full blown is here.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 1: We don't have a ground invasion yet, yes, hopefully, yeah, but.
Speaker 6: Uh and not just again.
Speaker 1: From the beginning post October seventh, one of the very
Speaker 1: early on and consistently stated objectives of the Biden administration
Speaker 1: was to keep this from spiraling in a wider war.
Speaker 6: Now it's been a wider war for quite a while now,
Speaker 6: but this.
Speaker 1: Is another big, big step. Your policy failed. Like you
Speaker 1: are complete and utter failure on a moral level, on
Speaker 1: American strategic interest level, on a just like level of
Speaker 1: humiliation and impotence. You are a total and complete failure.
Speaker 1: And now apparently you've just given up. You know, we're
Speaker 1: never going to get anything more than those like, oh
Speaker 1: he's spoken difficult. Yeah, he had a tough conversation with baby.
Speaker 1: Who fucking cares? Like who cares? It does not It
Speaker 1: obviously does not matter. And then at a certain point
Speaker 1: you have to say, like, if the strategy has been
Speaker 1: deployed consistently over all these months and you know the
Speaker 1: result it's going to get, then at some point you're like, okay,
Speaker 1: well you're just you're just lying that you have a
Speaker 1: different objective than BB. You have to be, because you
Speaker 1: can't be so stupid as to not expect exactly the
Speaker 1: result that we're getting here. So it's you know, it's
Speaker 1: incredibly dark. It's incredibly dark, and I think from the
Speaker 1: side of the of Hamas of Sinowar at all, they
Speaker 1: feel like they, you know, are willing to bear the
Speaker 1: cost of tens of thousands of Palestinians who have now
Speaker 1: been killed potentially even up to you know, one hundred
Speaker 1: thousand who have been killed, according to some estimates, buried
Speaker 1: under the rubble, life, made unlivable, communicable diseases, all the rest.
Speaker 1: And they think they can outlast the Israelis, and that,
Speaker 1: you know, if there's enough of a security. They've sort
Speaker 1: of breached the security status quo in Israel where they
Speaker 1: no longer feel safe and they believe that they can
Speaker 1: sort of outlast the Israelis. And it's like, you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's just death and horror, death and horror. As
Speaker 1: far as you can say, that's unfortunate, only the grim
Speaker 1: picture we have this morning.
Speaker 2: Yep, all right, thank you guys so much for watching.
Speaker 2: We appreciate it. We'll keep everybody updated. As a reminder,
Speaker 2: we've got that exclusive election content from our premium subscribers,
Speaker 2: Breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 3: Otherwise, we'll see you all tomorrow