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 coverage.
Speaker 3: 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.
Speaker 1: What do we have, Crystal, Indeed, we do last that
Speaker 1: is breaking this morning. We've got Kamala Harris out on
Speaker 1: a bit of a media tour sixty minutes call our
Speaker 1: Daddy Pie. Yes, many people are saying, so we'll look
Speaker 1: at some of the clips that have come out of that.
Speaker 1: We also have Trump with a big rally returning to Butler, Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: this time with Elon Musk. So that was quite interesting,
Speaker 1: huge crowd there to see the former president. We also
Speaker 1: had some huge economic numbers that came out on Friday,
Speaker 1: really big jobs report. We also have some other economic
Speaker 1: news in terms of the port strike being averted or
Speaker 1: being over so we'll get into all of that and
Speaker 1: what that means for you, and also for the political situation.
Speaker 1: What's going to happen in November. Today is the is
Speaker 1: October seventh, so it's one year anniversary from October seventh.
Speaker 1: We're going to take a look at, you know, a
Speaker 1: year of war on Gaza and where things go from
Speaker 1: here as best we can tell.
Speaker 4: We're also, of.
Speaker 1: Course still watching closely to see what Israel's response is
Speaker 1: to Aron. So really that whole region continues to be
Speaker 1: on edge in the face of Israeli provocations. And we've
Speaker 1: got Gabriel Sherman joining us here. He's got a new
Speaker 1: movie out. It's called The Apprentice, and it is sort
Speaker 1: of like Donald Trump's origin story. So it'll be very
Speaker 1: interesting to talk to him about that and like, because
Speaker 1: this is I mean, at this point he's been Donald
Speaker 1: Trump has been in the public sphere for literally decades.
Speaker 1: My entire life, your entire life. It'll be interesting to
Speaker 1: ask Gabe, like, what is new that we'll get out.
Speaker 4: Of this movie?
Speaker 2: I totally agree. Also, is like is the movie a
Speaker 2: political hit job? Is it actually interesting? Like what is
Speaker 2: the attempt game? Just for people know, he wrote one
Speaker 2: of my favorite books, which is biography of Roger Ail's
Speaker 2: called The Loudest Voice in the Room.
Speaker 3: I highly recommend people watch it.
Speaker 2: I believe he also participated in that Showtime series where
Speaker 2: Russell Crowe played Roger Aile's highly worth watching that as well.
Speaker 2: So yes, look, I understand he's liberal coded, but he's
Speaker 2: a good writer, he's a good journalist, and I'm excited
Speaker 2: to talk.
Speaker 1: The reviews I've read of it say it's it avoids
Speaker 1: that sort of just like you know, d are best
Speaker 1: read dynamic, and really tries to get into the psyche
Speaker 1: of like what you build this extraordinarily influential figure at America.
Speaker 2: If you read Gabe Sherman's work, it's like very clear
Speaker 2: where he's coming from, but he does a good job
Speaker 2: of actually humanizing and bringing these people to life, where
Speaker 2: if you are right wing, left wing or whatever, you'll
Speaker 2: come away from it being like, oh, I kind of
Speaker 2: understand how this person ticks a little bit more. Yeah, listen,
Speaker 2: you know, he's an old man and people are relatively
Speaker 2: said in their ways, and the origin story of that
Speaker 2: is actually quite fascinating. So yeah, all long way of saying,
Speaker 2: excited to talk to him. Before we get to that,
Speaker 2: let's put this up there on the screen. We've got
Speaker 2: our discount going on right now for the election. You
Speaker 2: can go ahead and sign up BP twenty twenty four
Speaker 2: the promo code for fifteen dollars off of our premium membership.
Speaker 2: We've got exclusive election content. We've only got twenty nine
Speaker 2: days left. Let's pike that next one up there. Twenty
Speaker 2: nine days until the election, only four weeks. So in
Speaker 2: the next four weeks, guys, we've got a lot of
Speaker 2: stuff that will be exclusive to our premium subscribers. Crystallinize,
Speaker 2: exclusive election predictions, our maps, et cetera. But more importantly
Speaker 2: those partnership that we have going on with our race
Speaker 2: to the White House Logan Phillips, who's got a great
Speaker 2: projection of his own, his own model, and he's going
Speaker 2: to give us some exclusive insights. So you guys get
Speaker 2: the first access to that Breakingpoints dot com as well
Speaker 2: as all of our ams.
Speaker 3: Which will actually be shooting later today. So there you go.
Speaker 3: You should sign up for this.
Speaker 1: It's been such a weird election site, that's right. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: the timing of it feels all wrong and weird, just
Speaker 1: given the Biden dropout, the condensed timeline and no debates.
Speaker 4: One debate.
Speaker 2: Traditionally we're supposed to have more debates, like right around
Speaker 2: now is when the I think the second or the
Speaker 2: third would be there. We've also got a lot more
Speaker 2: early voting this time around. It's a crazy life, it
Speaker 2: really is, and there's a lot to say about it.
Speaker 2: And with that, of course, we considering the crazy election.
Speaker 2: This is also in some ways the podcast election. This
Speaker 2: is the election where you have both candidates who are
Speaker 2: very much making use of the new sphere of podcasts
Speaker 2: and their reach. First and foremost was Kamala Harris, who
Speaker 2: out of nowhere announced a media slew of appearances. First
Speaker 2: and foremost is Call Her Daddy with Alex Cooper, where
Speaker 2: the topic of abortion was predominant and really was the
Speaker 2: one that they spent the most time on.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen to how that went for her.
Speaker 5: Madam Vice President Alex welcome to call her Daddy.
Speaker 4: It is good to be with you.
Speaker 5: I do want to clarify something in the debate. Former
Speaker 5: President Trump claimed that some states are executing babies after birth.
Speaker 4: Can you just clarify that.
Speaker 6: Is not happening anywhere in the United States. It is
Speaker 6: not happening, and it's a lot just it's a bold
Speaker 6: faced lie that he is suggesting that. Can you imagine,
Speaker 6: Can you imagine he is suggesting that women in their
Speaker 6: ninth month of pregnancy are electing to have an abortion.
Speaker 4: Are you kidding? That is.
Speaker 6: So outrageously inaccurate, And it's so insulting to suggest that
Speaker 6: that would be happening and that women would be doing that.
Speaker 6: It's not happening anywhere. This guy is full of lies.
Speaker 6: I mean, I just have to be very candid with you.
Speaker 6: When I was Attorney General, I was the top law
Speaker 6: enforcement officer of the biggest state in this country, and
Speaker 6: I was acutely aware that the words I spoke could
Speaker 6: be the difference between whether a corporation was in business
Speaker 6: or out of business, That the words I spoke could
Speaker 6: move markets. The idea that someone is not only so
Speaker 6: careless and irresponsible and reckless, but out and out lies
Speaker 6: to create fear and division in our country and thinks
Speaker 6: he should be President of the United States, standing behind
Speaker 6: the seal of the President of the United States using
Speaker 6: the microphone that comes with that.
Speaker 2: So that was a decent enough taste of it. I
Speaker 2: listened to the full thing. It was basically all abortion
Speaker 2: all the time. Like no offense to Alex, it's not
Speaker 2: really I guess her job to like sit they're and challenge.
Speaker 3: It was relatively people.
Speaker 1: Because I actually never listened to this podcasts, I know
Speaker 1: that sounds very like so it's one of the biggest
Speaker 1: podcasts in the world.
Speaker 3: Second podcast it's like and Men, Yes call her Daddy.
Speaker 1: And I think the closest equivalent is to kind of
Speaker 1: say it is sort of like Rogan for women.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, I mean it is the pop culture the
Speaker 2: flagship pop culture show for women, so in the same
Speaker 2: way that there's like the Rogan universe and the Barstool universe,
Speaker 2: which is like sports, UFC, comedy and all of that.
Speaker 2: To be fair to Alex Cooper, with the niche that
Speaker 2: she created effectively is to have that but for women.
Speaker 2: The show itself started off as like basically this raunchy
Speaker 2: sex show under Barstool.
Speaker 3: It's since transformed.
Speaker 2: Into I would almost say, like an Oprah for millennial
Speaker 2: gen Z women. A lot of the guests or reality
Speaker 2: television stars. It's a lot of like a lot of
Speaker 2: it is like dating advice or like how to find.
Speaker 4: That kind of stuff.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, look, it's not bad. I guess we're
Speaker 2: se clearly people really enjoy it. She just struck one
Speaker 2: hundred and twenty five million dollar deal. I mean, I
Speaker 2: will say this look as cringe as I found a
Speaker 2: lot of the content. It's obviously not for me. It's
Speaker 2: for younger gen Z and millennial women, which is the
Speaker 2: hardest core demographic trending towards the Democratic Party in the
Speaker 2: last decade, and especially.
Speaker 3: When you flip that on the side with men.
Speaker 2: So the way I would look at it is there
Speaker 2: is a reason that Trump is doing the Theovon podcast.
Speaker 2: You'll be doing some other interesting podcasts which you guys
Speaker 2: will see soon, the Aiden Ross Show and others, which
Speaker 2: is trying to shore up that while at the same
Speaker 2: time Kamala is now appearing on Call Her Daddy. They
Speaker 2: really are two sides of the same coin, and it
Speaker 2: is It's not a bad strategy, especially if you want
Speaker 2: to go and you want to talk there about the
Speaker 2: issue of abortion. That's exactly something that I would do.
Speaker 2: What is interesting is that Alex did reverse her past position.
Speaker 2: She had actually been offered Joe Biden and Kamala Harris
Speaker 2: in the past, while Biden was still in the race.
Speaker 2: She said, I'm not interested in being political or any
Speaker 2: of that. But look, I mean, he doesn't take a
Speaker 2: genius to figure out that the girl who does call
Speaker 2: her Daddy is herself a liberal, especially since he's done
Speaker 2: previous stuff about Roe versus Wade. And I think one
Speaker 2: of the major cultural takeaways you can have from it
Speaker 2: is that the childish cat Lady thing was a big
Speaker 2: flagship of that Call Her Daddy podcast on top of
Speaker 2: the issue of abortion that broke through in the same
Speaker 2: way like the Taylor Swift endorsement did as well. So
Speaker 2: it's not surprising, but it is definitely it fits with
Speaker 2: the media strategy of both of these campaigns. When you're
Speaker 2: looking at young people, you want to go with the
Speaker 2: podcast demographic, and you specifically want to go to the
Speaker 2: demographics that are trending the most in your direction. Here
Speaker 2: we're talking about young women, and we're talking about the
Speaker 2: issue abortion.
Speaker 1: And you're talking about young women who are not necessarily
Speaker 1: politically engaged. So the thought is, Okay, well, this is
Speaker 1: a platform, This is a show that has.
Speaker 4: A wide reach among young women who may not.
Speaker 1: Be super plugged into the election, that I can speak
Speaker 1: to directly here on issues that I presume that they're
Speaker 1: going to be aligned on and interested in, etc. So
Speaker 1: I mean, certainly as a political strategy seems quite sound,
Speaker 1: quite reasonable, And it does as you were saying, Sager,
Speaker 1: like the choice of which podcast Trump is doing versus
Speaker 1: the choice of podcasts that Kamlin is doing, also underscores
Speaker 1: like the underlying gender dynamics in this election, which some
Speaker 1: of the polls indicate you could have the largest gender
Speaker 1: gap possibly in history by the time voters go to
Speaker 1: the polls. And nowhere is that gender gap larger than
Speaker 1: among gen Z. So you know, when you're talking about
Speaker 1: I mean the podcast audience, it's not like podcasts are
Speaker 1: brand new. Older people have also discovered podcasts, so it's
Speaker 1: not like it's all gen Z. But certainly you're not
Speaker 1: reaching young people on traditional news shows. This is your
Speaker 1: chance to reach out to younger demographics.
Speaker 2: I would put it as for sure, older people will
Speaker 2: listen to podcasts, but a lot of them watch the
Speaker 2: news and consume the news, whereas a lot of gen
Speaker 2: Z people in particular, they're not turning the news.
Speaker 3: On at all.
Speaker 2: At best, you know, they maybe serve a clip from
Speaker 2: like US or anybody else who does independent media news shows,
Speaker 2: and even then you know you're lucky if that's actually happening. Irl,
Speaker 2: it's like watching a viral clip go somewhere and or
Speaker 2: listening to your favorite call Her Daddy episode Yeah, on
Speaker 2: your drive to work or on a runner, or.
Speaker 1: I could see this being the sort of thing that
Speaker 1: gets clipped into and shared out to.
Speaker 2: Your talk that she's a huge Alex Cooper is massive
Speaker 2: on TikTok on Instagram as well.
Speaker 3: So look, I mean it was a smart strategy.
Speaker 2: It's smart too whenever Trump does it, and he goes
Speaker 2: on these more like lifestyle men's podcasts as well, and
Speaker 2: I think you will see more of that during this
Speaker 2: election and not less now. Also, though she did do
Speaker 2: some actual flagship like traditional media as flagship really as
Speaker 2: it gets with sixty Minutes. This was as part of
Speaker 2: sixty Minutes major election series where they had interviews lined
Speaker 2: up with Trump and with Kamala. Trump actually ended up
Speaker 2: pulling out of sixty Minutes, but Kamala did.
Speaker 3: Sit for an interview with them.
Speaker 2: Perhaps most noteworthy was this answer on the US relationship
Speaker 2: with Israel. Some vintage Kamala word salad.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 7: We supply Israel with billions of dollars in military aid,
Speaker 7: and yet Prime Minister of net and Yahoo seems to
Speaker 7: be charting his own course. The Biden Harris administration has
Speaker 7: pressed him to agree to cease fire, He's resisted. You
Speaker 7: urged him not to go into Lebanon. He went in.
Speaker 7: Any way, he has promised to make Iran pay for
Speaker 7: the missile attack, and that has the potential of expanding
Speaker 7: the war. Does the US have no sway over Prime
Speaker 7: Minister NETANYAHUU.
Speaker 6: The aid that we have given Israel allowed Israel to
Speaker 6: defend itself against two hundred ballistic missiles that were just
Speaker 6: meant to attack the Israelis and the people of Israel.
Speaker 6: And when we think about the threat that hamas Hezbolah
Speaker 6: presents Iran, I think that it is without any question,
Speaker 6: are imperative to do what we can to allow Israel
Speaker 6: to defend itself against those kinds of attacks.
Speaker 7: But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyah who is not listening.
Speaker 3: Well, Bill.
Speaker 6: The work that we have done has resulted in a
Speaker 6: number of of movements in that region by Israel that
Speaker 6: were very much prompted by or a result of many things,
Speaker 6: including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.
Speaker 7: Do we have a real close ally in prime Minister
Speaker 7: in Yahoo?
Speaker 6: I think, with all due respect, the better question is
Speaker 6: do we have an important alliance between the American people
Speaker 6: and the Israeli people? And the answer to that question
Speaker 6: is yes.
Speaker 2: All right, so let me just repeat this about Israel,
Speaker 2: She says, well, Bill, the work that we have done
Speaker 2: has resulted in a number of movements in that region
Speaker 2: by Israel that were very much prompted or a result
Speaker 2: of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to
Speaker 2: happen in the region.
Speaker 4: A lot of.
Speaker 3: Translator, What does that mean exactly? Well, you know, look,
Speaker 3: we'll give sixteen minutes credit. The questions are actually quite
Speaker 3: good throughout the interview.
Speaker 1: Much better than Hey, how quick do you want to
Speaker 1: like nuk Aran? You know, which was the opening question
Speaker 1: of the day.
Speaker 4: Give them that so much better framing here serves the answer.
Speaker 2: Well, it's a little bit difficult, and I think that
Speaker 2: highlights the very classic thing about the Kamala campaign, where
Speaker 2: devoid of a lot of substance about what people are
Speaker 2: actually going to do. And look, this isn't just about
Speaker 2: a critic of like us personally. It is clear through
Speaker 2: all the polling that we see right now amongst swing voters,
Speaker 2: the tiny slice of swing voters that are left in
Speaker 2: this country, they want to see more substance from Kamala.
Speaker 2: They actually are yearning to be like, hey, what are
Speaker 2: you going to do? Maybe not even if they care
Speaker 2: about the policy details, although I think some do, But
Speaker 2: there is this feeling that with Trump, I know everything
Speaker 2: I have, not only was he in office, I feel
Speaker 2: like I know what he's going to do. There's a
Speaker 2: familiarity there with Kamala. The question mark is still big
Speaker 2: enough that answers like this. I really don't think they
Speaker 2: behoove her to swing voters.
Speaker 1: They definitely did not behoove her to anyone. I mean,
Speaker 1: let's and let's talk about the politics first. So poll
Speaker 1: after poll shows not only do people want more substance,
Speaker 1: they want separation from Joe Biden. The messages that tests
Speaker 1: the best for Kamala Harris and have since she got
Speaker 1: into the race is where she establishes her own ideas
Speaker 1: and her separation from this continually unpopular president. So here
Speaker 1: you have an issue where his policy is failed, where
Speaker 1: he is very unpopular, where not just the base of
Speaker 1: the party, but the majority of the American public would
Speaker 1: like to see a different direction in terms of actually
Speaker 1: using US leverage to I don't know, withhold weaponshipment so
Speaker 1: that we can't don't continue to see, you know, complete
Speaker 1: annihilation throughout the entire Middle East, which is the track
Speaker 1: that we're on right now vis a vis Israel and
Speaker 1: Iran and Lebanon and Gaza and the West Bank, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. So here you have perfect opportunity
Speaker 1: to establish a little bit of distance, and instead you
Speaker 1: get whatever the hell that was. And the true of
Speaker 1: the matter is, if you're there just to defend the
Speaker 1: Biden policy, you can't. You can't because the Biden policy
Speaker 1: has been one of impotence and failure.
Speaker 4: You know, at this point, there was once a.
Speaker 1: Time where they could have said, okay, well, and not
Speaker 1: that this was really accurate, but at least it was
Speaker 1: something they could tell we've avoided a wider war.
Speaker 4: You can't say that anymore.
Speaker 1: So you've allowed total annihilation of the Gaza strip, and
Speaker 1: now we stand on the precipice of some massive escalation
Speaker 1: with regards to Iran, so you can't answer that question
Speaker 1: and say, oh, here's how our policy has worked, here's
Speaker 1: how we've used leverage, here's how we've constrained Israeli behavior,
Speaker 1: because there's literally nothing you could point to at this point. So,
Speaker 1: you know, just to give people a sense on the
Speaker 1: substance here as well, there's all these articles being written
Speaker 1: now that are total cope and cover for Joe Biden
Speaker 1: and Kamala Harris that are like, oh, well, you know,
Speaker 1: they just he tried, but he just doesn't really have
Speaker 1: power in the region, total incomplete bullshit. The SURF shared
Speaker 1: this list of US presidents all Republicans, by the way,
Speaker 1: who effectively used leverage to constrain Israeli behavior. Can go
Speaker 1: back to Dwight Eisenhower during the Suez Crisis of the fifties.
Speaker 1: Leverage the threat of sanctions to con vinst Israel withdraw
Speaker 1: from the Sinai Peninsula. Also temporarily delayed funding to Israel
Speaker 1: over its construction of a hydroelectric project on the Jordan River.
Speaker 4: Ronald Reagan back in.
Speaker 1: Nineteen eighty one indefinitely delayed two shipments of F sixteen
Speaker 1: fighter jets to Israel over escalating levels of violence in
Speaker 1: the Middle East. The following year, warned Congress Israel might
Speaker 1: have violated its arms agreement with the US by using
Speaker 1: American made weapons during its invasion of Lebanon. In nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty three, reaffirmed he would not send those F sixteen
Speaker 1: jets until Israel withdrew from Lebanon. Quote, while these forces
Speaker 1: are in the position of occupying another country that now
Speaker 1: has asked them to leave, we are forbidden by launch
Speaker 1: or release those planes.
Speaker 4: George H. W. Bush.
Speaker 1: In nineteen ninety two, the Bush administration threatened to withhold
Speaker 1: the delivery of ten billion dollars in loading guarantees to
Speaker 1: Israel if it continued building settlements in the occupied West
Speaker 1: Bank and got according to the Washington Post, So, somehow
Speaker 1: previous presidents have managed to figure this out and not
Speaker 1: just get rolled over and over and over and over again,
Speaker 1: not just allow the country to be humiliated and civilians
Speaker 1: to be endlessly slaughtered throughout the entire region. But this
Speaker 1: hapless failed president, with the policy that Kamala Harris is
Speaker 1: here defending, couldn't seem to do anything more than temporarily
Speaker 1: delay one shipment of weapons that then, of course was
Speaker 1: superseded by many many, many more shipments of weapons so
Speaker 1: Israel could continue to do whatever the hell they want.
Speaker 1: And Bbnatnyahu knows all of this, which is why he
Speaker 1: has known from the beginning that any of these quote
Speaker 1: unquote red lines were utterly meaningless because Biden and Harris
Speaker 1: were unwilling to use the leverage that is available to
Speaker 1: the US in order to constrain their behavior.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we will. I'm sure you know.
Speaker 2: This is part of the other problem without debates is
Speaker 2: that you know, this is about as good as we're
Speaker 2: probably going to get before election day of a genuine
Speaker 2: substance of answer from Kamala, especially considering the rest of
Speaker 2: the interviews that we have lined up.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: So Monday, we had the sixty minutes interview that's going
Speaker 2: to air in full Tuesday, Harris will speak to the View,
Speaker 2: the Howard Stern Show and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.
Speaker 2: I'm sure we'll get a lot of hard hitting stuff
Speaker 2: out of those. And then we have Harris campaigning in Nevada.
Speaker 2: She will participate in a Univision town hall. Finally, on Friday,
Speaker 2: she will campaign in Arizona. The reason why I think
Speaker 2: This schedule is very important, especially if you pair it
Speaker 2: with the Call Her Daddy appearance that aired yesterday. Is
Speaker 2: let's look at the full view of the demographics in
Speaker 2: each one. For Call Her Daddy, it's young women. For
Speaker 2: the View Howard Stern, and for the Late Show, we're
Speaker 2: talking about white boomers specifically. Then Univision we're looking at Latinos,
Speaker 2: and then obviously Harris campaigning in the battleground state of Arizona.
Speaker 2: So what we see is their electoral path of which
Speaker 2: they need to shore people up. They need to drive
Speaker 2: up the vote as much as possible there with young women,
Speaker 2: with boomers. They need to try and win those college
Speaker 2: educated voters at even higher pace than they did last
Speaker 2: time around more suburban folks, the people who are older,
Speaker 2: anybody who still tunes into the Vie, Howard Stearn or
Speaker 2: the Late Show, and then the Univision town hall that
Speaker 2: is going to be directly targeted at Latino voters of
Speaker 2: whom she's lost the most ground with compared to past Democrats,
Speaker 2: where Trump is likely to win not a majority per se,
Speaker 2: but maybe a majority of men and very likely as
Speaker 2: close to fifty to fifty as a Republican will have
Speaker 2: gotten since George W.
Speaker 3: Bush back in the two thousands.
Speaker 2: So I think those appearances, when we take them all together,
Speaker 2: even sixty minutes, honestly, it's one of those probably is
Speaker 2: still the most watched news program in the entire country.
Speaker 2: You put that together, you really see a clear picture
Speaker 2: of the demographics they are going hard for them. They
Speaker 2: are trying to drive out turnout amongst the people who
Speaker 2: they see either as needing to shore up or the
Speaker 2: traditional constituencies of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: I think you can also read into this that they
Speaker 1: have somewhat decided to switch strategies from the just like
Speaker 1: hiding her and you know, hoping that the paid communications
Speaker 1: are sufficient. They appear to have heard the criticism that, like, listen,
Speaker 1: this thing is on a knife sedge and if you
Speaker 1: want to win, you got to be out there doing
Speaker 1: more than playing prevent defense. So that's also part of
Speaker 1: what's noteworthy about this, you know, relatively more aggressive schedule
Speaker 1: of media appearances. And yeah, the call her Daddy is
Speaker 1: more of a niche audio. It's a large audience, but
Speaker 1: it's also like targeting a specific demographic. Univision also obviously
Speaker 1: targeting a specific demographic.
Speaker 4: The other ones.
Speaker 1: These are broad general population, like very mainstream the view
Speaker 1: the Howard Stern Show, Late Show with Stephen Colbert, more
Speaker 1: of a broad swath of the American public and certainly
Speaker 1: an older demographic.
Speaker 4: Then call her daddy for example.
Speaker 3: There you go. Makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 2: On top of that switch strategy, Like you said, Tim
Speaker 2: Wallas is now announced a slew of media appearances similarly
Speaker 2: appeared on Fox New Sunday, and a challenging back and
Speaker 2: forth on the issue you of abortion. Honestly smart because
Speaker 2: really it showed that he was nervous in that debate
Speaker 2: and he was rusty a little bit. I think in
Speaker 2: terms of answering questions this time around it definitely changed
Speaker 2: up a bit. He was challenged on abortion and on
Speaker 2: past misstatements. Let's go ahead and listen to the abortion section. First,
Speaker 2: abortion is.
Speaker 8: Legal throughout pregnancy in Minnesota. There is no ban or
Speaker 8: limits on abortion in Minnesota based on how far along
Speaker 8: in a pregnancy you are. You signed the bill that
Speaker 8: makes it legal through all nine months. Is that a
Speaker 8: position you think Democrats should advocate for nationally?
Speaker 9: Look, the Vice President, I have been clear the restoration
Speaker 9: of Roe versus Wade is what we're asking for this
Speaker 9: Wade to make her own the law does. The law
Speaker 9: is very clear. It does not change that that has
Speaker 9: been debunked on every occasion.
Speaker 3: But this is age.
Speaker 8: Let's agree what you signed is there's not a single
Speaker 8: limit through nine months of pregnancy. Roe had a trimester
Speaker 8: framework that did have limits through the pregnancy. The Minnesota
Speaker 8: law does.
Speaker 3: Not have that.
Speaker 9: This puts This puts the decision with the woman in
Speaker 9: her healthcare providers. The situation we have is when you
Speaker 9: don't have the ability of health care providers to provide that.
Speaker 9: That's where you end up with a situation like Amanda
Speaker 9: Zuworski in Texas, where they are afraid to do what's necessary.
Speaker 9: This doesn't change anything. It puts the decision back on
Speaker 9: to the woman, to the physicians. And we know that
Speaker 9: this is simply something to be brought up Tims. To
Speaker 9: be very clear, Donald Trump's asking for a nation wide
Speaker 9: abortion bank, and again we don't see this lead.
Speaker 8: That he will not sign a national abortion band. Are
Speaker 8: you calling that just it's a flat out line soon.
Speaker 9: Yes, of course, and Senator Vance has in the past
Speaker 9: said so too. Now, look, they may see this as
Speaker 9: an election issue. We see it as a right of
Speaker 9: women to make their own bodily decisions.
Speaker 2: So look, clearly that was that is good ground for
Speaker 2: Tim Walls and the Kamala Harris campaign, And it was
Speaker 2: an intentional choice that his first cable news interview was
Speaker 2: going to go to Fox News Sunday. He also got
Speaker 2: asked about those past misstatements. Let's see how it went
Speaker 2: for him, his best, very shaky area in the debate,
Speaker 2: it went a little bit better for him.
Speaker 8: Listen before we go, because I wish that we had
Speaker 8: a full hour. I want to give you a chance
Speaker 8: because you called yourself a knucklehead this week, to talk
Speaker 8: about some of your misstatements. You've modified your story or
Speaker 8: explained that you misspoke about things involving your military rank,
Speaker 8: about carrying a weapon in war, your nineteen ninety five
Speaker 8: DUI arrest, using IVF to have your beautiful children, Guss
Speaker 8: and Hope being in Hong Kong and China in the
Speaker 8: summer of nineteen eighty nine during the Taneman events, A
Speaker 8: lot of people would say they couldn't get away with
Speaker 8: saying I'm just too passionate, my grammar's not right, I'm
Speaker 8: a knucklehead.
Speaker 4: What do you say?
Speaker 8: To the American people who think I don't know that
Speaker 8: I can trust this guy with all those modifications to
Speaker 8: be the potential commander in chief of this country.
Speaker 9: Yeah, well I think they heard me. They heard me
Speaker 9: the other night speaking passionately about gun violence and misspeaking.
Speaker 9: And I got to be honest with you, Ashannon. I
Speaker 9: don't think people care whether I used IUI or IVF
Speaker 9: when we talk about this. What they understand and is
Speaker 9: Donald Trump would resist those things. Look, I speak passionately.
Speaker 9: I had an entire career decades before I was in
Speaker 9: public office. They know, and I'm very proud of my
Speaker 9: twenty four years in service and my record. I have
Speaker 9: never disparaged someone else in this. But I know that's
Speaker 9: not what Donald Trump does.
Speaker 3: So look, I mean, I don't know what it is.
Speaker 2: Wallts is a lot bit more common, like a different
Speaker 2: guy in cable news as opposed to the well China misspoke.
Speaker 2: I don't know what's going on there. But look, this
Speaker 2: is why it's just funny. That's why he got the
Speaker 2: VP pick in the first place. He's going viral on
Speaker 2: TV and then it took a bad debate performance for
Speaker 2: him to then go back on TV. But look, I mean,
Speaker 2: I guess you could see two different ways. One is
Speaker 2: they see it clearly as an error that they weren't
Speaker 2: doing more media and they were trying to safe strategy.
Speaker 2: They also could be intentional, as in they held it
Speaker 2: back as far as they could risk wise, and then
Speaker 2: in the sprint to election day, only twenty nine days left,
Speaker 2: you're going to try and Pepper in his more media appearances. Traditionally,
Speaker 2: this is when the most amount of eyeballs will be
Speaker 2: on these people, and with the swing voters in a
Speaker 2: very very narrow election really only data wise, three weeks
Speaker 2: before is when they really start to pay attention. This
Speaker 2: is crazy, I mean to me, probably to you most
Speaker 2: of the people who watch this show. There are millions
Speaker 2: of people, specifically swing voters, who don't make up their
Speaker 2: mind until like two weeks before election. Some of them
Speaker 2: don't even make up their mind until like the day
Speaker 2: of the election day. And the things they look for
Speaker 2: and they consider their votes on are not the way
Speaker 2: that you and I would be doing it. And a
Speaker 2: lot of it will be dependent on media, it will
Speaker 2: dependent on the vibe of the candidate, sometimes the vibe
Speaker 2: of the day itself. There's a lot of political science
Speaker 2: research on this, So it's kind of fascinating in the
Speaker 2: era where there are less swing voters than ever, but
Speaker 2: they are still so determinative and matter. This period will
Speaker 2: be the most important, and that's when media, I think,
Speaker 2: is going to matter the most.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean it's possible also that they were just like
Speaker 1: super focused on debate prep, but in my opinion, this
Speaker 1: is better debate prep than carently whatever Pete budage was
Speaker 1: thrown at him in you know, in a cloistered room.
Speaker 4: So it's funny.
Speaker 1: I mean, I understand that the debate skill set and
Speaker 1: just the sense of pressure among at this one moment,
Speaker 1: you know, you've got this one opportunity, this one debate,
Speaker 1: and you've got someone who's aversarra, you don't know what's
Speaker 1: they're gonna throw at you, et cetera, et cetera. I
Speaker 1: understand it being somewhat different, but it's kind of wild
Speaker 1: how much better he is in these cable news interviews
Speaker 1: where he's so comfortable, he's so forceful, he's able to
Speaker 1: like turn it, you know, difficult questions into a strength,
Speaker 1: et cetera. I knew he must have done welling before
Speaker 1: I watch it, because the only things that the like
Speaker 1: Trump war rooms accounts were sharing was like the tough
Speaker 1: questions she was asking, not even his responses. So you know,
Speaker 1: this is really a big part of why he hands
Speaker 1: up on the ticket because he brings this level of
Speaker 1: comfort and you know, this level of like you know,
Speaker 1: aggressive and effective communication skills to the tickets. So you know,
Speaker 1: hopefully they'll be putting him out there more because I
Speaker 1: do think in these settings he really is an asset
Speaker 1: and proves that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, he's.
Speaker 1: Not a great debater, but he's when it comes to
Speaker 1: communicating in these forums, he's certainly ready.
Speaker 4: For prime time.
Speaker 2: It's just in general, it's always just better to go on,
Speaker 2: especially in an adversarial interview. Yeah, like that one was
Speaker 2: pretty fair, and so you know, it works for him.
Speaker 2: Obviously it worked well for JD. Vance too, because I
Speaker 2: was a lot of the way that his team prepared
Speaker 2: for those debates, which is just throw him into every
Speaker 2: single Jake Tapper interview or Meet the Press or Margaret
Speaker 2: Brennan on CBS. And that's part of why he felt
Speaker 2: very comfortable there from the very beginning. Let's move now
Speaker 2: to Donald Trump and their strategy kind of a mirror
Speaker 2: image here in terms of call her daddy. So who
Speaker 2: do you go for? You want to go for some
Speaker 2: bro icons? That was of course Elon Musk. And that's
Speaker 2: after Trump returned to Butler, Pennsylvania. He returned to Butler, Pennsylvania,
Speaker 2: the site of that attempted assassination against him, to deliver
Speaker 2: a rally, crazy rally. Some twenty thousand people were in
Speaker 2: at ten absolutely raucous crowd in Pennsylvania, the most critical
Speaker 2: battleground state and where polls show it is completely tied
Speaker 2: up there. So let's go ahead and take a listen
Speaker 2: to Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: And what do you had to say?
Speaker 10: I'm here, take over, Elie, Yes, take over.
Speaker 11: As you can see, I'm not just maga, I'm dark mega. Well,
Speaker 11: first of all, I want to say what an honor
Speaker 11: it is to be here. And you know, the true
Speaker 11: test of someone's character is how they behave under fire.
Speaker 11: And we had one president who couldn't climb a flight
Speaker 11: of stairs and another who was fist pumping after getting shot.
Speaker 10: Fight fight, fight, blood coming down the face.
Speaker 11: Got fourteen states now that that don't require voter. I
Speaker 11: d California, where I used to live, is just just
Speaker 11: passed a law banning voter ID for voting. I still
Speaker 11: can't believe that's real. So how are you supposed to
Speaker 11: have a good proper election if there's no ID?
Speaker 2: All right, So Elon is dark? Maga took the stage
Speaker 2: iconic photo. Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: I didn't say iconic necessarily in a good way. He
Speaker 2: could take it whichever.
Speaker 4: Way you want. Trump's face there is funny to give
Speaker 4: it him a look. Late.
Speaker 3: Well, I was like, what did I get myself in?
Speaker 2: But look, at this point, Elon's preference for the Republicans
Speaker 2: well known and obvious. To the question of how exactly
Speaker 2: will manifest I still don't know, although look, you can't
Speaker 2: deny that it clearly still has relatively high favorability rating
Speaker 2: amongst young men from what I was looking at.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, a couple things to say. I mean, first
Speaker 1: of all, it's important to keep in mind Elon is
Speaker 1: maybe Trump's top Funder Trump, We're going to get into
Speaker 1: some of the fundraising numbers, the campaign and the RNC
Speaker 1: raising way less money than Kamalin. The Democrats like an
Speaker 1: order of magnitude of disparity that we haven't seen before.
Speaker 1: What's helping to somewhat close the gap is in part
Speaker 1: Elon Musk's Superpack, which is doing some of the traditional
Speaker 1: field work, et cetera. And so I mean it is
Speaker 1: like we do have to point out the irony of
Speaker 1: Republicans very upset about Twitter being supposedly biased under Jack Dorsey,
Speaker 1: and now you've got a guy who's running it explicitly
Speaker 1: in favor of Donald Trump, who is speaking at his
Speaker 1: rallies and funding his campaign to a large extent. And
Speaker 1: you know, for some reason, I don't see as much
Speaker 1: handbringing about that. So in any case, you know, it's
Speaker 1: it's also look, Elon's billionaire, He's got a lot of
Speaker 1: government contracts. He's got a lot to gain also from
Speaker 1: having very cozy relationship with the President of the United States,
Speaker 1: so that part should not go unremarked upon either.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's interesting too to look at his pack,
Speaker 2: the America Pack. I was just in Pennsylvania this weekend,
Speaker 2: and they were actually quite a lot of ads that
Speaker 2: I saw that were done by that America Pack. So
Speaker 2: that's direct that to direct evidence of the impact that
Speaker 2: he's having. Trump also did a as I was saying,
Speaker 2: which is when he was shot at that exact moment
Speaker 2: when he was pointing towards a graph and a chart,
Speaker 2: the chart that he credits with saving his life.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen to how that went.
Speaker 10: Pennsylvania. We love Pennsylvania. And as I was saying, oh,
Speaker 10: I love that I love that chart. I love that graph.
Speaker 3: I love that chart. I love that graph.
Speaker 2: So that was it was a big moment there for
Speaker 2: the crowd, especially, like I said, I was in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 3: I'm telling you the number of.
Speaker 2: Political ads that people are dealing with over there, My god,
Speaker 2: God bless you. It's also all of these signs everywhere
Speaker 2: where you can tell people are jazzed up. Whether it's Trump,
Speaker 2: whether it's Kamala, whichever era you in and which way
Speaker 2: it tilts, they are huge. It also is in the
Speaker 2: context these rallies of Donald Trump and now the media
Speaker 2: strategy by Kamala there's some really interesting insight into how
Speaker 2: both of these people are spending their last month of
Speaker 2: the campaign.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: So, as Crystal alluded to, Kamala Harris has a massive
Speaker 2: disparity in money and her ability to spend on traditional
Speaker 2: advertising in the lead up to election. She has placed
Speaker 2: two hundred and sixty three million dollars in ads between
Speaker 2: the end of the convention and October fourth, two and
Speaker 2: a half times as much as the one hundred and
Speaker 2: nine million spent by Donald Trump. She has more staff,
Speaker 2: more volunteers, a larger surrogate operation, more digital advertising, more
Speaker 2: sophisticated smartphone based organizing program, extra money for extraneous spells
Speaker 2: and whistles typically reserved for corporate product launches and professional
Speaker 2: sports championships. A quote Harris Drone light Show recently flew
Speaker 2: over Philadelphia. Her rally attended often get light up pop
Speaker 2: up race alerts. They are even plans in the works
Speaker 2: for a late October infomercial to air on Swing state
Speaker 2: broadcast networks. The scale of her financial advantage larger than
Speaker 2: anything Trump faced in his previous two races for the
Speaker 2: White House.
Speaker 3: Now look, money is and everything.
Speaker 2: As they accurately point out, Hillary outspent him massively back
Speaker 2: in two thousand and sixteen. But if we put this
Speaker 2: next one up on the screen just to show people
Speaker 2: the scale of it, the scale is genuinely unprecedented. Twenty twenty,
Speaker 2: Joe Biden outspent him significantly, so did Hillary, but this
Speaker 2: time We're talking orders of magnitude larger. To bypass that
Speaker 2: with Trump and his allies are looking to is to
Speaker 2: get earned media and traditional like the way that they
Speaker 2: really always have is capture public attention, get billions of
Speaker 2: dollars in free advertising, control the conversation. And he also
Speaker 2: has some incumbency bias as well, considering he was the
Speaker 2: president previously and everybody in America not only knew his
Speaker 2: name before twenty sixteen, but they definitely know his name
Speaker 2: these days, So that's a bit of a difference. The
Speaker 2: strategy calm on trying to spend her way there, try
Speaker 2: and get herself across the finish line on election day.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean that chart really kind of blew my mind,
Speaker 1: to be honest with you, because my recollection of twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen as well was like, oh, Hillary out spent him
Speaker 1: by a ton, and then you look at this and
Speaker 1: it's dwarfed by the amount the Kamala is spending against him.
Speaker 1: And these totals reflect the Harris campaign and the DNC
Speaker 1: versus the Trump campaign and the RNC. Now they are
Speaker 1: obviously not the only players in the election. You also
Speaker 1: have these outside super packs and there the Trump campaign,
Speaker 1: this is another way that they're different from the Harris campaign.
Speaker 1: They're more reliant on these outside groups. This was a
Speaker 1: similar strategy that we saw with like Ron de Santis,
Speaker 1: where he really outsourced a lot of what was even
Speaker 1: traditional campaign like in house work to outside packs. Didn't
Speaker 1: work out that well for him, but doesn't mean it's
Speaker 1: not going to work for Donald Trump. But even when
Speaker 1: you factor in those outside groups, you still have a
Speaker 1: huge disparity on the Democratic side. According to this article,
Speaker 1: when advertising by outside groups is added to the candidate's campaigns,
Speaker 1: Democrats spent about two hundred and twenty five million dollars
Speaker 1: more on paid presidential advertising between the end of the
Speaker 1: Democratic Convention and October fourth. That's about one point eight
Speaker 1: times the amount that was spent by Republicans. So, you know,
Speaker 1: we're going to have a real live experiment here about
Speaker 1: how much money matters in presidential politics.
Speaker 4: Now, based on the political.
Speaker 1: Science of my own sense of how elections go, money
Speaker 1: matters a lot, But it matters the more, Like the
Speaker 1: further you go down the ticket, the more that it matters.
Speaker 1: So you drop a million dollars into some local city
Speaker 1: council race, yeah, that's going to matter a lot, or
Speaker 1: at the congressional level, it matters a lot more since
Speaker 1: you have just like less national media attention less ability to.
Speaker 4: Get earned media.
Speaker 1: Here, you have in Donald Trump someone who is obviously
Speaker 1: a known commodity who can get attention and eyeballs whenever
Speaker 1: he wants to without having to spend a dime. So
Speaker 1: is it determined. It's certainly not determinive here. How much
Speaker 1: of an impact it has even that is yet to
Speaker 1: be seen. And then the other thing they point out
Speaker 1: in this article as well is that you know, Coalma's
Speaker 1: running more of a traditional campaign. They've got field offices
Speaker 1: across the country, They've built out this huge volunteer base.
Speaker 1: You know, they're going door knocking and doing all the
Speaker 1: traditional field work that you associate with a presidential campaign
Speaker 1: and campaigns at all levels. Trump is really not as
Speaker 1: focused on that. He is more focused on the earned
Speaker 1: media on the podcast sphere, on generating attention through his
Speaker 1: own sort of you know, words, deeds, antics, etc. And
Speaker 1: I think the other thing to comment on is he
Speaker 1: used to have such a prolific grassroots fundraising base, but
Speaker 1: he's been hitting that list for almost a decade now,
Speaker 1: and I think there's also some sense of like that
Speaker 1: that base is sort of worn out, and it's not
Speaker 1: just Trump that's been hitting them up for money. It's
Speaker 1: a whole sphere of Trump aligned grifters who are trying
Speaker 1: to sell.
Speaker 4: Them, you know, gold coins and you know, you.
Speaker 1: Build the wall crap, the whole universe of Republican candidates
Speaker 1: also who are trying to hit that list, who are
Speaker 1: trying to you know, trying to get money out of
Speaker 1: them for their campaigns as well. And so I also
Speaker 1: think that they've really kind of burnt that list down,
Speaker 1: and there isn't as much grassroots enthusiasm. When Kamala came
Speaker 1: into Biden had zero Grossroos enthusiasm. Ever, when Kamma came
Speaker 1: into the race, she had a genuine surge of enthusiasm
Speaker 1: on the Democratic side. They brought in a lot of
Speaker 1: new grassroots donors who hadn't given to the party before.
Speaker 1: And so you couple that with the fact that we're
Speaker 1: about to show you in the Economy Block, she's gone
Speaker 1: in this whole like Wall Street charm offensive to try
Speaker 1: to suck up as much Wall Street cash as she can,
Speaker 1: and you've got the makings of we'll see whether it's
Speaker 1: a successful presidential campaign, but it is certainly a very
Speaker 1: successful fundraising campaign.
Speaker 2: My inkling is I don't think money all matters all
Speaker 2: that much past a certain level in a presidential race,
Speaker 2: especially one where Trump is such a polarizing figure. I
Speaker 2: think this probably matters a lot more in congressional and
Speaker 2: incentive races door knocking, ex But just the reason why
Speaker 2: people vote for president is not the same in terms
Speaker 2: of oh, somebody showed up and knocked on my door.
Speaker 3: A lot of those very old school stuff.
Speaker 2: I especially think in a media environment like today, especially
Speaker 2: also why people vote, there's a lot of negative voting,
Speaker 2: as in, I'm voting for this person to prevent the
Speaker 2: other side. I don't think you necessarily need to be
Speaker 2: touched by organizing. But look, I could be totally wrong.
Speaker 2: You know, clearly they do spend hundreds of millions of dollars.
Speaker 2: They don't do it for no reason. It yields something
Speaker 2: to what I'm again, I'm not sure yet. I'm pretty
Speaker 2: sure it's like the Coca Cola experiment, where the absence
Speaker 2: of advertising definitely can be felt, but the actual proactive
Speaker 2: like measurability of each particular ad.
Speaker 3: Dollar doesn't really exist. For this one.
Speaker 2: So I'm not sure. And if Trump does lose, I
Speaker 2: don't think it will be because of money.
Speaker 1: What money doesn't hurt either, Yeah, let me on the
Speaker 1: field program stuff.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: I think the best case you can make for it
Speaker 1: is that if you you have people who you've identified
Speaker 1: as like, Okay, these are people who will vote for me,
Speaker 1: but you need to get them to turn out. A
Speaker 1: field program can help to make sure you're banking those votes,
Speaker 1: you're getting the early votes in, you're encouraging people like Okay,
Speaker 1: today's election day. What's your plan? You know you need
Speaker 1: to get to the polls. How are you going to
Speaker 1: do it? And it gives you a better sense of
Speaker 1: kind of where you are because you are tracking all
Speaker 1: of these voters and having direct contact with them to know, Okay,
Speaker 1: are they in our team, are they on the other team?
Speaker 1: Have they voted, have they not voted, et cetera. And
Speaker 1: so the research shows it can move races like a
Speaker 1: point and hey, if you're talking about a really narrow election,
Speaker 1: it could end up making the difference, especially you know,
Speaker 1: maybe in North Carolina where you have all of these
Speaker 1: voting issues. Now in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene being
Speaker 1: able to make contact with these voters and encourage them
Speaker 1: to get to the polls, it can potentially make a difference.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: I am also very skeptical at how much the paid
Speaker 1: on TV advertisements. Consultants love them because that's what they
Speaker 1: make all their money. So the conventional wisdom about them
Speaker 1: really mattering has not been shaken because of how much
Speaker 1: money is being made on all of them. But at
Speaker 1: the presidential level in particular, I don't know how much
Speaker 1: your people watching the TV and like really going, oh,
Speaker 1: that's a good point. Now I'm going to vote for
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris. It's just hard for me to imagine. Maybe
Speaker 1: it makes the difference, but it's difficult for me to
Speaker 1: see people really like making up their minds based on
Speaker 1: this flood of advertising that's hitting them in the face
Speaker 1: every time that their favorite show goes to commercial break.
Speaker 3: I agree.
Speaker 2: I wanted to make sure we got you guys all
Speaker 2: an update on that Port strike. Let's go ahead and
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen. Interesting development. The
Speaker 2: port strike has ended for now as the workers have
Speaker 2: agreed to a tentative deal on wages and contract extensions.
Speaker 3: So let me explain, because it is kind of complicated.
Speaker 2: Basically, the two sides have extended their existing contract through
Speaker 2: January fifteenth to provide time to negotiate a new contract
Speaker 2: as opposed to a strike that would completely closed the
Speaker 2: East Coast and the Gulf Coast ports. After the International
Speaker 2: Longshoreman's Association and the US Maritime Alliance have agreed to
Speaker 2: that tentative deal. So I don't think it takes a
Speaker 2: genius to see that January fifteenth is when, oh, right
Speaker 2: after election Day. It's also five days before Inauguration Day, Okay.
Speaker 3: Got it.
Speaker 2: So clearly there was some major political pressure that was
Speaker 2: put down on the Longshorm, and there were a lot
Speaker 2: of takes about how either they were betraying Biden or
Speaker 2: about how they were in collusion with Trump, when in reality,
Speaker 2: it looks like they were in it for themselves to
Speaker 2: try and get a raised, which is aka their job,
Speaker 2: as the opinion what they were.
Speaker 3: Trying to do.
Speaker 2: But all of the doom and gloom crystal has officially
Speaker 2: been allayed until January fifteenth, whenever it appears that some
Speaker 2: sort of deal will be negotiated. So I think, if anything,
Speaker 2: what this does most damage to is all the take
Speaker 2: economy that was.
Speaker 4: There were so many economy took it.
Speaker 3: There were so many takes.
Speaker 4: I don't know if you guys.
Speaker 1: Thought there were a lot of like a liberal conspiracy
Speaker 1: about how the head of the longshoreman union is buddies
Speaker 1: with Trump. So this was like, you know, seeing as
Speaker 1: some attempt to screw over Kamala Harris specifically. I was
Speaker 1: always skeptical of this because also the longshoreman like they
Speaker 1: endorsed Kamala Harris.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I know, so they you know, are officially behind her.
Speaker 1: But in addition, it's worth noting so in this temporary agreement,
Speaker 1: they've already secured a significant wage increase. Their wages are
Speaker 1: going to rise sixty one point five percent over six
Speaker 1: years under this tentative agreement. The piece that seems like
Speaker 1: it still really needs to be worked out, which is
Speaker 1: a very critical one, is about automation, because a lot
Speaker 1: of the longshoreman's jobs are being automated out of existence.
Speaker 1: I think it's one of the primary areas of automation innovation,
Speaker 1: So that remains to be worked out. I also think
Speaker 1: you have to give the Biden administration a lot of
Speaker 1: credit for how they handled this. Joe Biden himself was
Speaker 1: quite clear coming down in multiple statements on the side
Speaker 1: of the worker. There was a push from Republicans in Congress,
Speaker 1: in particular, to get him to invoke Taft Hartley to
Speaker 1: block any sort of strike activity and first force these
Speaker 1: workers back to work.
Speaker 4: He said, absolutely not.
Speaker 1: You had Pete mayor Pete working behind the scenes, but
Speaker 1: also most critically Biden administration acting Labor Secretary Julie Sue,
Speaker 1: the Long Sharman's Union, you know, thanked her directly for
Speaker 1: her work on their behalf to try to secure this
Speaker 1: tentative agreement. So in any case, you know, this had
Speaker 1: a potential to be an absolute sort of catastrophe and nightmare.
Speaker 1: We played for you some of the quite striking and
Speaker 1: quite militant in a way that I appreciate comments from
Speaker 1: the head of this union saying listen, we will cripple you.
Speaker 1: And he's not wrong. You know, so much of our
Speaker 1: commerce depends on these ports working effectively, working efficiently. We
Speaker 1: saw what happened in COVID when you had the ports
Speaker 1: screwed up and the backlog and all of the rippling
Speaker 1: effects that it took years.
Speaker 4: To overcome from that.
Speaker 1: So it's good news in my pay for everyone, that
Speaker 1: they were able to secure this tenet of agreement, they're
Speaker 1: able to get these wage hikes, and let's hope that
Speaker 1: they also are able to secure a good deal.
Speaker 4: When it comes to automation.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: It also it highlights some interesting union politics around them, because,
Speaker 2: like I said, it was clear that there was a significant,
Speaker 2: especially elite and democratic backlash against them when it looked
Speaker 2: like they were going to strike, with a lot of
Speaker 2: those calls Biden's called, notwithstanding a lot of the commentarya
Speaker 2: being like.
Speaker 3: They're deliberately trying to destroy Biden.
Speaker 2: On the flip side of that, and some insight into
Speaker 2: union politics, let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: The International Association of Firefighters on Thursday said it would
Speaker 2: not make a presidential endorsement in what was quote viewed
Speaker 2: as a blow to Kamala Harris's campaign. The union, which
Speaker 2: represents three hundred thousand career firefighters, determined quote by a
Speaker 2: margin of one point two percent, slim margin obviously against
Speaker 2: picking a candidate. The reason why I think this is
Speaker 2: so significant, Chris, I'm not sure if you remember this.
Speaker 3: We interviewed the.
Speaker 2: President of the International Association of Firefighters the day that
Speaker 2: Joe Biden came out with his candidacy, and it was
Speaker 2: because he was the first union to come out and
Speaker 2: to endorse Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: They loved Biden.
Speaker 2: Naden where the very first union to come out and
Speaker 2: to back him previously earlier this year, I think jd.
Speaker 2: Vance visited the firefighters union conference.
Speaker 3: I think it was in Boston. Got food, Okay, well
Speaker 3: didn't so maybe it worked out for him, So I
Speaker 3: think it. I think there's a lot.
Speaker 4: Going on here. There is. There is a lot going
Speaker 4: on here.
Speaker 1: I mean from a policy perspective, it obviously makes zero
Speaker 1: sense that you would endorse Joe Biden not endorse Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris when they have literally the exact same policy when
Speaker 1: it comes to unions. And Kamala Harris has been very
Speaker 1: consistent pro union throughout her career. So you know, if
Speaker 1: you look at certainly looking at her time in the Senate,
Speaker 1: looking at her you know, being part of the Biden
Speaker 1: Harris administration, this is the most pro union. Not that
Speaker 1: they were perfect, they were not perfect, especially when it
Speaker 1: came to the railway strike. This is definitely the most
Speaker 1: pro union administration that we have had in our lifetime
Speaker 1: in the modern era, and so to be willing to
Speaker 1: endorse Joe Biden but not Kamala Harris, Like, it's just
Speaker 1: about basically vibes and their sense that their membership is less,
Speaker 1: has less affinity for her, likes her less than they
Speaker 1: liked Joe Biden.
Speaker 4: And it also is a blow to this.
Speaker 1: You know, political theory that I would like to believe
Speaker 1: was a reality of quote unquote deliverism, where if you
Speaker 1: deliver for a constituency in terms of their you know,
Speaker 1: their direct interests, that you were going to benefit from that.
Speaker 1: And you know, again this was a very pro union administration.
Speaker 1: Trump was very anti union in his administration. You know,
Speaker 1: it is unwilling to move forward on things like the
Speaker 1: pro Act, and yet they still can't figure out who
Speaker 1: to endorse in this race.
Speaker 4: So there you go. Well, look doesn't make a lot
Speaker 4: of sense.
Speaker 3: It's up to the membership.
Speaker 2: And that's why I'm saying, like it's obvious now that
Speaker 2: the divide. I mean this, Look, I agree with you deliverism.
Speaker 2: I'd like for it to be a thing, but it's not.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's clear that we are ruled mostly by culture,
Speaker 2: and with these you actually had I believe Tim Walls
Speaker 2: spoke at that event as well, but both of the
Speaker 2: candidates courting them specifically on the Republican side. I do
Speaker 2: think it's kind of vindicating, you know, for inviting Sean O'Brien,
Speaker 2: who ended up not endorsing anybody in the presidential race,
Speaker 2: and for jd going to the firefighters union where Joe
Speaker 2: Biden was there. Sure, you know, a couple of people
Speaker 2: in the back man boot him, but them not coming
Speaker 2: out and endorsing Biden.
Speaker 3: I mean, sorry, Harris, that's a big deal.
Speaker 2: And especially with two of those major those two of
Speaker 2: those major unions now not entering the fray, that is
Speaker 2: a major change in union politics.
Speaker 3: Those are two of the I mean, three hundred thousand
Speaker 3: people is huge.
Speaker 2: Obviously, police unions have been pro Republican now for a
Speaker 2: decade or yeah, but.
Speaker 4: When you combine special special situation.
Speaker 3: It's complicated.
Speaker 2: So it's like police union's on the right, teachers' unions
Speaker 2: and most of the other unions on the left. But
Speaker 2: this whole new just not endorsing does show you that
Speaker 2: it's the membership itself which is trending in a very
Speaker 2: different direction. And it fits with that CNN clip that
Speaker 2: we did in our last show about the historic rise
Speaker 2: in some of the working class support for Donald Trump
Speaker 2: and specifically about where the issues of disagreement are. Almost
Speaker 2: certainly if you were to survey these people, immigration is
Speaker 2: gonna be the number one reason.
Speaker 3: That a lot of them are pro Trump.
Speaker 2: Just to show what the dividing line is between those people,
Speaker 2: and also, you know, in terms of how they view
Speaker 2: what they can get in the future, because the theory
Speaker 2: I've seen too is, yeah, look, Trump one point zero
Speaker 2: wasn't great for unions, but this time around, by not
Speaker 2: endorsing which Trump sees as the victory right, especially for
Speaker 2: teamsters and for firefighters here, they think that maybe they
Speaker 2: can curry favor with him.
Speaker 3: And perhaps it's a sigment.
Speaker 2: It's a signal that they think that Trump may be
Speaker 2: the person who's in the White House next time around,
Speaker 2: that they can get something out of him last next time,
Speaker 2: especially if you spoke at the RNC or not endorsing
Speaker 2: Biden when you were the first union to do so.
Speaker 2: Obviously it's a risky theory, but yeah, yeah, which.
Speaker 1: Just say good luck for that if you think that
Speaker 1: the second administration, I mean, this is a lifelong union
Speaker 1: investor he's still going on with the Elon musk and
Speaker 1: joking about how cool it was for him to fire
Speaker 1: striking workers. He's still going on and on about how
Speaker 1: he would do anything to get out of paying overtime
Speaker 1: to workers, Like that's who he is. To the extent
Speaker 1: that he has any core ideological commitments, this has been
Speaker 1: a pretty consistent one. So you know, if you think
Speaker 1: that you not endorsing is going to lead you to
Speaker 1: getting some favoritism under his administration, like, just good luck
Speaker 1: with that.
Speaker 3: Maybe maybe they're right. I don't know.
Speaker 2: I still think that things could change in the second
Speaker 2: time around, but perhaps I'm too much of an optimist.
Speaker 2: Let's go to the next part here on the economy.
Speaker 2: This is with Heather Long reporting about the strong jobs report.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there on the screen. Very interesting data.
Speaker 2: The US economy has added two hundred and fifty four
Speaker 2: thousand jobs in September, above expectations, a major bounce from August.
Speaker 2: Unemployment rate is now down to four point one percent.
Speaker 2: This is interesting just because this is right before the election,
Speaker 2: and it does show there are signals that people are
Speaker 2: feeling a little bit differently about the economy as opposed
Speaker 2: to let's say twenty twenty one. That's especially indicated in
Speaker 2: this Cook political report. Let's put that next one up,
Speaker 2: please on the screen. It shows that Trump actually led
Speaker 2: Harris on inflation and cost of living from forty eight
Speaker 2: to forty two. Today, voters are more evenly divided on
Speaker 2: who they trust to handle the issue. The tariff plan,
Speaker 2: they said forty five percent of companies said that import
Speaker 2: goods would quote increase the price consumers pay for the tariff.
Speaker 3: VOTERSZ YOUO.
Speaker 2: On the economy are quote improving a bit? Forty six
Speaker 2: percent now say the economy is getting better or staying
Speaker 2: the same, which is up thirty eight percent from May,
Speaker 2: and then quote young people are the most pessimistic about
Speaker 2: the economy.
Speaker 3: Amongst the youngest.
Speaker 2: Cohort of voters, sixty three percent think inflation is getting worse.
Speaker 2: So some insights, I think where you could get from
Speaker 2: this are not only on the economy but about the
Speaker 2: edge of the economy. So it's not a good thing
Speaker 2: if the Trump margin is not bigger with the economy,
Speaker 2: because that always was a major advantage for him. At
Speaker 2: the same time, with the jobs report and all, it's
Speaker 2: always difficult to parse, especially with wage data and all
Speaker 2: of this because the unemployment rate has been low for
Speaker 2: quite some time, they've been beating jobs expectations and all
Speaker 2: of that. But clearly people's experience of the economy and
Speaker 2: even of inflation and their memories of the last couple
Speaker 2: of years have really weighed them down, I think correctly,
Speaker 2: and I don't think this also factors in, for example,
Speaker 2: housing and a lot of the other structural problems. So
Speaker 2: I'm of like two minds of the way to look
Speaker 2: at it. And this is part of the other problem
Speaker 2: with there's this huge war amongst economists right now but
Speaker 2: whether the economy is good or bad, and my general
Speaker 2: instinct is just to trust people whenever people are like
Speaker 2: it's okay. Basically rich people people with assets and others
Speaker 2: are like, yeah, I'm feeling better now. The younger voters
Speaker 2: who are most locked out are like, I'm not happy
Speaker 2: about this at all, And poor and or middle class
Speaker 2: people are like, yeah, it's getting better ish, But I
Speaker 2: wasn't very I haven't been very happy over the last
Speaker 2: couple of years.
Speaker 1: I would love to see the divide on economic pop
Speaker 1: pessimism between homeowners and not because I do think housing
Speaker 1: is I mean it is a big part of why
Speaker 1: people feel so dissatisfied with the economy in the direction
Speaker 1: of the economy, and so it makes sense that young
Speaker 1: voters would be the most pessimistic about where the economy stands,
Speaker 1: and you know, would have the most negative feelings because
Speaker 1: they're more likely to not be homeowners and they are
Speaker 1: more likely to be you know, getting gouged by landlords
Speaker 1: who are using these algorithms to like price fix and
Speaker 1: you know, getting screwed on rent prices, and then they're
Speaker 1: looking and thinking like, I'm never going to be able
Speaker 1: to own a home, and these prices just keep escalating
Speaker 1: and escalating and escalating out of control. That cost of
Speaker 1: housing is so central to my whole budget. Like, no,
Speaker 1: of course, I don't feel like the economy is great.
Speaker 1: So I do feel like that is one of the
Speaker 1: central continues to be one of the central divides in
Speaker 1: our economy, in our society, and also one of the
Speaker 1: central pain points for everyone up and down the spectrum.
Speaker 4: But if you're not a homeowner in.
Speaker 1: Particular, that is a massive pain point, you know. Going
Speaker 1: back to the politics, I do think these numbers are
Speaker 1: significant that Kamala has a raced Trump had a huge
Speaker 1: lead on inflation when it came to Joe Biden. People,
Speaker 1: even though Kamala's policies aren't really all that different from
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, people feel like she's different, feel like she
Speaker 1: would be better on the economy than he would be,
Speaker 1: you know, at least she's sent to And I guess
Speaker 1: that's part of it as well.
Speaker 4: So the fact she's a racist lead there is important.
Speaker 1: The fact she's even cut his lead on the economy
Speaker 1: overall down to five points is also, I think quite
Speaker 1: significant because that has always been one of the strongest issues.
Speaker 1: And I would say, you know, whatever you think about
Speaker 1: Ascager and I have a disagreement about Trump's tariff plan.
Speaker 1: He's in support of that across the board tariff. I'm
Speaker 1: very much opposed. I think it's sort of, you know,
Speaker 1: economic insanity. It would certainly escalate the price of consumer goods,
Speaker 1: you know, kind of across the board. How much is
Speaker 1: a matter of some debate. But I think that's a
Speaker 1: very strong message for her. I think they should be
Speaker 1: running a lot of ads, apparently, focus groups coming out
Speaker 1: of her debate with Donald Trump said, in terms of
Speaker 1: her economic pitch, the thing that hit the best was
Speaker 1: her describing his tariffs as the Trump Tax and talking
Speaker 1: about how it would increase the price of goods.
Speaker 4: It reminds me of Tiger. I don't know.
Speaker 1: You've probably seen these commercials that for Republicans who support
Speaker 1: the quote unquote flat tax, which would just.
Speaker 4: Get rid of the income tax, but then you get.
Speaker 1: Tax more on everything you buy at the grocery store.
Speaker 1: I've seen these very effective ads at the congressional level
Speaker 1: where it's somebody like going through the grocery store shopping
Speaker 1: and showing how much the price of goods will increase
Speaker 1: on every single purchase. Some of the most devastating and
Speaker 1: effective ads that I think I've honestly ever seen. So
Speaker 1: if she wants to continue sort of building on now
Speaker 1: she's even with him, I think they should be hitting
Speaker 1: that over and over and over again, because you know,
Speaker 1: the biggest issue that people have in the economy right
Speaker 1: now is high prices. So if you're explaining to people
Speaker 1: like he's going to make things worse with this policy,
Speaker 1: I think it would. I think it's very politically, but
Speaker 1: that's what It doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 2: Her administration and Biden have expanded more tariffs than Donald
Speaker 2: Trump did while in office, so clearly they philosophically support tariffs.
Speaker 2: The reason that the prices are high right now is
Speaker 2: because of the global supply chain. The reason why we
Speaker 2: need tariffs is specifically to build up domestic manufacturing. So
Speaker 2: I don't I just don't think it falls apart in
Speaker 2: my opinion, how long is actual analysis.
Speaker 1: Having selective tariffs on industries that you know you want
Speaker 1: to build up like that makes sense. Having tariffs on
Speaker 1: like bananas and coffee makes no sense.
Speaker 4: And even if you want to, I mean certain.
Speaker 1: Industries like we're just not well suited, like our climate
Speaker 1: is not particularly well suited to And also a big
Speaker 1: part of our manufacturing sector is advanced manufacturing, where you
Speaker 1: require parts from overseas in order to you know, build
Speaker 1: and assemble that final product. So now you're talking about
Speaker 1: all of those costs coming in, all those pieces coming
Speaker 1: in from overseas are going to have an added cost
Speaker 1: to it that actually doesn't even necessarily accomplish what you
Speaker 1: want to accomplish with it, which is to build out
Speaker 1: domestic manufacturing. So again, you know, whether you support the
Speaker 1: policy or not, it's pretty clear it is going to
Speaker 1: increase prices across the board. So having a few areas
Speaker 1: where Okay, you know, we can handle prices increasing on
Speaker 1: washing machines or whatever for some time period. But for
Speaker 1: voters looking at this and thinking, okay, we're going to
Speaker 1: increase prices on literally everything across the board, yeah, it's
Speaker 1: it's unpopular. It's already unpopular, And like I said, I
Speaker 1: think it's effective political messaging to lean into that.
Speaker 4: Given where the pain point is, it's up to America.
Speaker 2: You people want cheap shit from China and from everywhere else,
Speaker 2: and you want to complain about inflation every time something
Speaker 2: happens in a global thing, then yeah, go ahead, go
Speaker 2: ahead and support your.
Speaker 4: Place and concerns are reasonable.
Speaker 2: No, sorry, okay, but I'm saying, if you have to
Speaker 2: decide what you want, you want to be you want
Speaker 2: to be extremely vulnerable to price shocks for every single
Speaker 2: little thing that you consume in the economy, or do
Speaker 2: you actually want to try and buy as much stuff
Speaker 2: that's made here in America as possible? And that's a
Speaker 2: vision that I support. Also with tariffs, it would bring
Speaker 2: in hundreds of billions of dollars in additional revenue. That
Speaker 2: is unambiguous. America is the beacon of global trade. People
Speaker 2: will export here no matter what. The idea that we're
Speaker 2: not going to have some beneficial uh from some beneficial
Speaker 2: not only monetary but manufacturing rise from tariffs.
Speaker 3: It's like ridiculous.
Speaker 2: And that's what I mean too, is if she was
Speaker 2: running a purely neoliberal trade campaign, fine, but her only
Speaker 2: objection is like, oh, there's tariffs on uh, there's there's
Speaker 2: not there's too many tariffs on other sectors. But the
Speaker 2: whole idea of targeted tariffs reveals that the idea of
Speaker 2: tariff itself is The big ideological war we had to
Speaker 2: fight was whether tariffs are useful in any context. They
Speaker 2: have already conceded that. Now it's just a battle between
Speaker 2: where the tariffs should be and not.
Speaker 3: And clearly what we saw.
Speaker 2: From the Midwestern States all throughout the Trump administration, people
Speaker 2: kept saying, oh, all these people are going to revolt,
Speaker 2: all these farmers, et cetera. It's not true. It actually
Speaker 2: benefited their economy. It's not like our trade with China
Speaker 2: was affected really at all. If anything, our trade deficit
Speaker 2: went up under.
Speaker 1: Our trade up the jidjo up under the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: My point sore, But here's the thing. There's a big
Speaker 1: difference between you know, you don't have to have an
Speaker 1: all or nothing approach. So again, there are certain industries
Speaker 1: that are important for you know, for the economic base,
Speaker 1: that are growing industries of the future, like evs that
Speaker 1: are important for our national security. Steel I think would
Speaker 1: be an important you know, fall into that category that
Speaker 1: are important in terms of During COVID, we learned like,
Speaker 1: oh shit, we don't make any mass or downs here,
Speaker 1: Like there are some critical supply lines that yes, it
Speaker 1: makes sense to protect those industries even if it comes
Speaker 1: at some cost to consumers. To do that across the
Speaker 1: board just doesn't make any sense. Then you're just hiking
Speaker 1: prices on everything, including things that we don't really have
Speaker 1: any interest in making here and that you know, or
Speaker 1: we don't have the climate even to grow here. So
Speaker 1: you know, I think there's a very I think it
Speaker 1: makes a lot of sense to actually have targeted tariffs
Speaker 1: and the other pieces. So under Trump, you just had
Speaker 1: these certain tariffs, and it actually didn't accomplish what they
Speaker 1: wanted to accomplish, which was to bring manufacturing jobs back.
Speaker 1: As you mentioned, Saga, the trade deficit actually increased with
Speaker 1: China and we lost manufacturing jobs. Even excluding the COVID era,
Speaker 1: you know, economic decline. We've seen more manufacturing job creation
Speaker 1: under the Biden administration because they've had a combination both
Speaker 1: of targeted tariffs plus industrial policy investment through things like
Speaker 1: the Infrastructure Act and the Chips Act. The EV sector
Speaker 1: is you know, one important indicator of that. In particular,
Speaker 1: they focused on, you know, increasing battery EV battery production
Speaker 1: here in the US, and that has actually borne some fruit.
Speaker 1: But to just do terrafs across the board, you know,
Speaker 1: it's using a sledgehammer for a policy that you would
Speaker 1: more makes more sense to use a scalpel or perhaps
Speaker 1: a large knife, but not a sledgehammer.
Speaker 2: I'm a proponent of industrial policy, and that would be
Speaker 2: my criticism of the Trump administration. But on the tariff question, again,
Speaker 2: like a lot of it is frankly just it's honest.
Speaker 2: If you are also a person who supports ter like,
Speaker 2: here's the truth. You will pay more for electronics under
Speaker 2: the Biden administration than you did under let's say, the
Speaker 2: Bush administration, especially whenever we factor in the export duties
Speaker 2: or the export import duties with respect to tariffs. I
Speaker 2: think that's fine. I think that's a good thing. I
Speaker 2: think it was a good thing under the Trump administration. Yes,
Speaker 2: it's true tariffs alone are not going to accomplish anything,
Speaker 2: but it's also about the economic vision of the United States.
Speaker 2: What Trump talks a lot about is smooth Holly, which
Speaker 2: is derided by a lot of these brainded economists, and
Speaker 2: they have this whole theory about how smooth Holly is
Speaker 2: really why the Great Depression went the way it was,
Speaker 2: and I don't agree with that at all. And there's
Speaker 2: a growing amount of literature that goes into that, specifically
Speaker 2: around the manufacturing piece, like what you talked about with
Speaker 2: the advanced manufacturing. That's not necessarily the only economy that
Speaker 2: we want to live in, which is just purely high
Speaker 2: tech manufacturing. You actually want labor capital jobs that don't
Speaker 2: require like a minimum or a minimum of a college
Speaker 2: educationation for mechanical engineering to be able to work with
Speaker 2: and then importing a lot of the other cheaper stuff
Speaker 2: from China, Vietnam, whatever, India, et cetera, Mexico. You actually
Speaker 2: want the regard the majority of that supply chain you
Speaker 2: know here in the US, and that will require a
Speaker 2: significant amount of terrorists. I'm not just honest, I think
Speaker 2: it would lead to higher price. I also think it
Speaker 2: would unleash more you know GDP here in the US.
Speaker 2: And I think it's unfortunate that this whole tariff thing.
Speaker 2: It's like when the way that they talk about it,
Speaker 2: where they don't ever acknowledge that they believe in a
Speaker 2: very similar vision, just a similar vision targeted towards industries
Speaker 2: which they think are more important.
Speaker 3: But yeah, at the end of the day, you're agreeing
Speaker 3: with the philosophy. No, No, the philosophy is important.
Speaker 4: I mean you're acting like.
Speaker 1: There's only one answer tariff's yes or tariffs no. Where
Speaker 1: it's very reasonable and I think correct to say it depends, right,
Speaker 1: is it an industry that is you know, has an
Speaker 1: important job based here in the US. Isn't an industry
Speaker 1: that is growing for the future, like you know green tag.
Speaker 1: I mean, the amount of solar panels that we manufacture
Speaker 1: here has skyrocketed under the Biden administration because of the
Speaker 1: combination of tariffs and industrial policy.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: So I don't think that the answer is just teriffs
Speaker 1: yes or tariffs no. You could say, all right, it
Speaker 1: makes sense and it's a reasonable trade off for consumers
Speaker 1: to have to pay more for washing machines or have
Speaker 1: to pay more for ev vehicles, even in the short term,
Speaker 1: because this is an industry that's important to the future,
Speaker 1: and that is important to our economy in the future,
Speaker 1: Like the trade off is worth it versus just this,
Speaker 1: you know, blanket across the board. Now we just want
Speaker 1: to raise prices on everything, including bananas, which it doesn't
Speaker 1: even make sense.
Speaker 4: For us to grow here in the US. So that's
Speaker 4: my only point.
Speaker 1: I'll just go back to the political point, which is
Speaker 1: that even though you support it and other people do
Speaker 1: as well, I think it is a very potent political
Speaker 1: messaging at a time when the top economic pain point
Speaker 1: is prices to point out that Trump's policies unambiguously would
Speaker 1: rate prices on a lot of goods across the board.
Speaker 1: The last thing I'll say is, you know, it is
Speaker 1: a very different economic landscape than twenty sixteen. You know,
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen we had low inflation. In twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: price increases we're not you know, didn't rate for consumers
Speaker 1: because we weren't experiencing them. So it is a very
Speaker 1: different economic landscape that this blanket across the board. Tariff
Speaker 1: policy enters into.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, you're not wrong, and I agree Americans are
Speaker 2: very short term in the way that they're thinking.
Speaker 3: But you know, I.
Speaker 1: Got one to be able to run groceries and be
Speaker 1: able to take it people and live for which is massilization.
Speaker 2: Yes, you know, per capita things were more expensive. People
Speaker 2: also had a lot more money back in the nineteen
Speaker 2: seventies before all of this trade bullshit that currently happened.
Speaker 2: So the more indirection of tariffs, I think we're better
Speaker 2: off that we are. I mean, even the solar thing
Speaker 2: is a good example for the only reason that they're fake.
Speaker 2: This these manufacturing numbers on solar are totally fake, especially
Speaker 2: because they had to waive the tariff on the import
Speaker 2: duty from China because no solar company was able to
Speaker 2: actually properly manufacture it in the US. We had whole
Speaker 2: debates about this a couple of years ago. People can
Speaker 2: go and watch. In fact, I think Rocanna and I
Speaker 2: argue about it here at the desk. They had to
Speaker 2: waive the tariff on it because it's not actually capable
Speaker 2: here in the US.
Speaker 3: That's a perfect example.
Speaker 2: Yes, you need industrial policy, but for a lot of
Speaker 2: this stuff, you know, the teriff itself is important in
Speaker 2: actually literally forcing the manufacture here in the US too,
Speaker 2: especially against nations like China, which not only do they
Speaker 2: have massive tariffs on us, but have their own state
Speaker 2: sponsored industrial policy. Every high tech manufacturing piece that people
Speaker 2: always point to, France, Germany, expert, these are massively subsidized
Speaker 2: by their own government. Only in America are we the
Speaker 2: fools that float entirely on free market? And just let
Speaker 2: all these other companies are these countries completely take advantage
Speaker 2: of it from steel transshipping. I mean, it's a disaster
Speaker 2: an economic lands.
Speaker 1: Even for what you're talking about, just you know, increasing manufacturing. Again,
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense to put teriffs on things like
Speaker 1: bananas and coffee.
Speaker 4: Will put that aside.
Speaker 1: But okay, let's imagine that you are manufacturing something that
Speaker 1: requires a lot of imports from overseas, and now suddenly
Speaker 1: your costs have gone up on every single one.
Speaker 4: Of those pieces. What are you likely to do?
Speaker 1: You It is just as likely that you decide to
Speaker 1: relocate your factory to an international location and then bear
Speaker 1: the cost of okay, just one time, I'm don't have
Speaker 1: to pay, you know, it's the tariff in coming in
Speaker 1: to sell into the US market. It's just as likely
Speaker 1: that you end up with a lot of those jobs
Speaker 1: leaving to go to places where they can import the
Speaker 1: goods without having to pay that tariff on every single
Speaker 1: piece that goes into manufacturing the final product. So it's
Speaker 1: not even clear that for what you're talking about that
Speaker 1: you end up with high prices and you could also
Speaker 1: end up with losing manufacturing jobs in some of these industries.
Speaker 1: So that's why I just say, like it makes perfect
Speaker 1: sense to me and I you know, in certain industries
Speaker 1: to be protection is that this is something we wanted foster.
Speaker 1: We're going to put a tariff, we're going to do
Speaker 1: industrial policy, We're going to have these incentives for companies
Speaker 1: to locate here. We have seen that be successful under
Speaker 1: the Biden administration in certain key areas in a way
Speaker 1: that it wasn't under the Trump administration because all they
Speaker 1: did was tariffs. But in some industries, again, it just
Speaker 1: makes no sense, especially especially if it's not coupled with
Speaker 1: that industrial policy, then the only thing that you're doing
Speaker 1: is raising prices and also potentially losing manufacturing jobs.
Speaker 2: And my response would be a we have the long
Speaker 2: arm of the US government. If you want to try
Speaker 2: and leave in good luck, because we should penalize the
Speaker 2: shit out of you. And that's actually not thing Trump support.
Speaker 2: So I think that's good, whether it would ever get
Speaker 2: through a Trump Congress or any of that. But I mean,
Speaker 2: that's not a philosophical basis. It's like, Okay, you want
Speaker 2: to leave John Deere GM and all of this, then welcome.
Speaker 2: You're going to have to pay a lot of money
Speaker 2: back to enter our markets if you want to lose
Speaker 2: our if you want to leave our country. And if
Speaker 2: anybody who thinks this is radical, every nation on earth
Speaker 2: does this. If you're a Swiss manufactacturing company Pharma, good
Speaker 2: luck you're leaving Switzerland. If you are Volvo or any
Speaker 2: of these other companies in Europe, yeah, good luck actually
Speaker 2: leaving your flagship.
Speaker 3: They will smack you. It will never happen.
Speaker 2: Only here are we saying like it's even an acceptable
Speaker 2: solution that people who would get billions of dollars in
Speaker 2: government subsidies are allowed to just freely leave or whatever
Speaker 2: when they want, especially when they're still in the red,
Speaker 2: considering their contribution to us and all the taxpayer assistants,
Speaker 2: stop cities, et cetera. That they get on a basis.
Speaker 2: So that's why the tariff is in general. On the policy,
Speaker 2: I don't agree. I don't disagree. I think it probably politically,
Speaker 2: you know, it's not landing the way that I wish
Speaker 2: it would. And I think people should actually have to
Speaker 2: think about this stuff not in terms of like the
Speaker 2: immediate term of whether something is going to cost ten
Speaker 2: cents more or less. You need to think much more
Speaker 2: in the future because if you don't, then you'll end
Speaker 2: up in a COVID situation where you can't buy anything
Speaker 2: at the grocery store, or you're going to have a
Speaker 2: three year supply shock to the US economy and everyone's
Speaker 2: going to freak out and wonder how exactly that happened.
Speaker 2: That's forty years of problems that happened.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So let's go ahead and move on to Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris courting Wall Street, because there are some big questions
Speaker 1: about whether she would continue the parts of the Biden
Speaker 1: administration that you know, I really support, and those pieces
Speaker 1: have been specifically around corporate power and anti trust and
Speaker 1: also the more aggressive approach that the SEC has taken
Speaker 1: towards crypto. By the way, one of the I think
Speaker 1: undercovered stories in this election by ourselves and everybody in
Speaker 1: media is that Crypto is the largest funder by industry
Speaker 1: of this both campaigns. I mean, if you look across
Speaker 1: our entire political spectrum, the amount of dollars coming from
Speaker 1: Crypto dwarfs literally any other industry. So they seem to
Speaker 1: effectively have gotten their way. You know, Trump flipped on
Speaker 1: his views on crypto. Kamala seems to be behind the scenes,
Speaker 1: you know, doing some similar like I'll be different than
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. We can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: From the Financial Times, they had a good writeup of
Speaker 1: the behind the scenes charm offensive that they describe as beginning.
Speaker 4: To quote unquote pay off.
Speaker 1: She's been building ties with finance bosses and an attempt
Speaker 1: to quell support for Donald Trump. They quote one leading
Speaker 1: private equity investor that I thought this was pretty interesting.
Speaker 1: He said, I was going to vote for Trump because
Speaker 1: I was annoyed about being targeted by Biden. I could
Speaker 1: reconsidered now. Trump is still better on taxes, meaning that
Speaker 1: he will cut taxes for the rich. But Hair seems
Speaker 1: to be more like Clinton than Obama or Biden. Hard
Speaker 1: to think of more damning words. Also, the delusional view
Speaker 1: of Obama is crazy, but it's fair that Biden. You know,
Speaker 1: the Biden administration has been more aggressive, certainly on antitrust
Speaker 1: than the Obama, Clinton, Bush or Trump administrations.
Speaker 4: So she has.
Speaker 1: Still Soger not taken a public position on whether she
Speaker 1: would maintain Lena Kahan in uh, you know, at the FTC.
Speaker 1: But behind the same scene, she seems to be indicating
Speaker 1: to these Wall Street people that, like, I'm going to
Speaker 1: be different than by The.
Speaker 2: Biggest tell to me was Ben Horowitz. People who don't
Speaker 2: know who that is. He's the co head of a
Speaker 2: sixteen Z who previously had actually come out and endorsed
Speaker 2: Donald Trump and is now actually quote making significant donations
Speaker 2: to Kamala Harris. As of just yesterday it was announced
Speaker 2: that because of his quote long standing relationship and him
Speaker 2: and his wife who have known Kamala Harris, that they
Speaker 2: have decided they will be making significant donation to entities
Speaker 2: who support the Harris Walls campaign. But that perhaps was
Speaker 2: the biggest tell to me because he previously had I
Speaker 2: literally endorsed Donald Trump and said that he was better
Speaker 2: for technology, the technology industry, and the Biden administration was
Speaker 2: bad specifically Lena Khan and all of that. So the
Speaker 2: flip from Horowitz on that was the most significant to
Speaker 2: me about where things are going. I don't think people
Speaker 2: like that to give billions or millions of dollars and
Speaker 2: who are themselves billionaires with money that is on the line,
Speaker 2: unless they have somewhat of assurance of the way things
Speaker 2: are going to go. That broke just broke yesterday.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I saw that as well.
Speaker 1: I mean to me, it's like it's deeply troubling, Like
Speaker 1: Kamala clearly very few ideological commitments to anything, and it
Speaker 1: doesn't even like she doesn't even really need their money.
Speaker 1: Like we shared you the charts before, she's wildly out
Speaker 1: fundraising him. She's wildly out spending him. So it would
Speaker 1: be far better Kamala Harris, I know you don't care
Speaker 1: about like the morals of the principles. It would be
Speaker 1: far better politically for you to be seen as having
Speaker 1: an adversary or relationship with the people that most of
Speaker 1: the country absolutely hates. And listen, there's a lot you
Speaker 1: can say about Donald Trump this time and the coziness
Speaker 1: with billionaires. He just literally had, you know, one of
Speaker 1: the world's wealthiest men up on stage with him at
Speaker 1: a rally. He's been going around to oil and gas
Speaker 1: executives saying, give me a billion dollars and I'll give
Speaker 1: you whatever you want. He's been shamelessly, in a way
Speaker 1: that is more brazen than, frankly, anything we've seen before,
Speaker 1: going to wealthy billionaires and saying, fund my campaign and
Speaker 1: I will cut your taxes and give you everything that
Speaker 1: you want.
Speaker 4: But you can't make that case.
Speaker 1: When you are yourself engaged in some version of the
Speaker 1: same game. So you know, the other thing that I
Speaker 1: see is like Mark Cuban going around and making this
Speaker 1: case publicly basically, you know, making a similar case. Oh,
Speaker 1: she's going to be different than Biden, She's going to
Speaker 1: be better at Wall Street, etcetera, etcetera. And it's like,
Speaker 1: I don't know why you think this helps your campaign.
Speaker 1: It also speaks to the embrace of the Cheney's. I mean,
Speaker 1: embracing Dick Cheney is just this man is pure ev
Speaker 1: It's just disgusting to affiliate yourself with him whatsoever. And
Speaker 1: I don't know what you think you're getting out of that.
Speaker 1: When so much of the public is in favor of
Speaker 1: taxing these people. More is in favor of a more
Speaker 1: aggressive stance visa VI. The rich is disgusted with how
Speaker 1: much they've eaten of the economy and how much they
Speaker 1: control the entire world. So even just from a base
Speaker 1: political perspective, I don't get it, and certainly from a
Speaker 1: moral and policy perspective, I think it is the dead
Speaker 1: wrong direction for her to take.
Speaker 3: I yeah, I it's uh yes.
Speaker 2: However, with the money, with who she is, with the
Speaker 2: people who are surrounding her, it's not a surprise exactly
Speaker 2: why she's going in that direction.