Speaker 1: Welcome back to a numbers game with Brian Grudeski. Thank
Speaker 1: you all for being here again. I forgot to mention
Speaker 1: this on Monday show, but I want to thank all
Speaker 1: the veterans. It was Veterans Day on Tuesday. It's a
Speaker 1: problem of mine where I just don't look at like
Speaker 1: three days ahead and to see there's a big holiday.
Speaker 1: So I missed saying it the day before. But Happy
Speaker 1: Veterans Data. All the veterans out there, thank you for
Speaker 1: your service for joining our armed forces and keeping our
Speaker 1: nation free. I appreciate everything you have done and do
Speaker 1: so anyway, I hope you guys had a great day.
Speaker 1: I want to briefly talk about some economic news before
Speaker 1: doing a full ask Me Anything segment. So Goldman sachs
Speaker 1: Is estimated that the economy loss around fifty thousand jobs
Speaker 1: in October. Now that's not the official government data. Because
Speaker 1: of the government shutdown, there was a delay getting out
Speaker 1: the official data, so we don't know the official data yet,
Speaker 1: but this is just an estimate. I'm going to do
Speaker 1: an episode next week dedicated to the economy, and I
Speaker 1: am going to have another whole episode on it AI
Speaker 1: regulation on the government, which would be really really good.
Speaker 1: I think of lining up with a very impressive guest
Speaker 1: for that show, so that'll be next week. And I
Speaker 1: got to get more on immigration because there's so much
Speaker 1: immigration news. But I looked at my emails and I
Speaker 1: was backed up on asking me any things, and I
Speaker 1: was like, some of these questions are so dated. I
Speaker 1: have to just do a whole episode and kind of
Speaker 1: empty the inbox because I really appreciate you guys. I
Speaker 1: appreciate you joining me asked Me Anything segment. By the way,
Speaker 1: before the end of the year, I'm going to bring
Speaker 1: on one of my old campaign buddies to discuss anything
Speaker 1: about running for office or you know, campaigns or like
Speaker 1: the meat and potatoes a campaign is not just like
Speaker 1: the overall idea of politics or a big meta issue,
Speaker 1: but just like what it's like to work on a campaign,
Speaker 1: how to run for office, all those real meat and
Speaker 1: potato questions. I think you guys really enjoyed that episode
Speaker 1: I did like early early in the year and when
Speaker 1: my first episode. So I'm going to do it again.
Speaker 1: I hope you guys will be part of it and
Speaker 1: do a whole ask Me anything just about campaigns and
Speaker 1: working in politics and what that whole thing is like.
Speaker 1: So email me Ryan at Numbers Game podcast dot com.
Speaker 1: Ryan at numbers Plural Game podcast dot com. Put in
Speaker 1: the headline campaign episode. I'll be sure to answer all
Speaker 1: those questions and then once again ask me anything because
Speaker 1: we do. We love this part of the show. It
Speaker 1: really makes the whole entire podcast. You know about anything
Speaker 1: about you know, I feel like a dialogue. I'm not
Speaker 1: just talking to a computer. So okay, here goes, ask
Speaker 1: me anything for the day. So first question comes from
Speaker 1: e cardialist. He says, my family took a trip to
Speaker 1: Washingt d C. About ten years ago. All of my
Speaker 1: travel research and tourist books made a point to not
Speaker 1: having a floor plan of the White House and stated
Speaker 1: that the location of the Oval Office has not been
Speaker 1: released to the public. I actually did not know that.
Speaker 1: With the most with the recent ballroom outrage, I've seen
Speaker 1: a number of images that show the exact location, shape,
Speaker 1: and size of the Oval Office. Until this week, I
Speaker 1: didn't know that it was in the White House. Rather,
Speaker 1: it is in the West Wing. It wasn't in the
Speaker 1: White House. It's in the West Wing. When did the
Speaker 1: location of the Oval Office become something people didn't try
Speaker 1: to protect I actually had never heard of that before,
Speaker 1: because I I feel like there's models of the White
Speaker 1: House that you could buy, and the West Wing is there,
Speaker 1: and the Oval Office is there. I didn't I didn't
Speaker 1: know that that was not supposed to be public. I
Speaker 1: feel like it was. There was a movie called Civil
Speaker 1: War that was released a couple of years ago. It
Speaker 1: was there was a war, obviously a civil war, a
Speaker 1: new civil war, and they were invading the White House
Speaker 1: and they went through like door to door Florida, Florida
Speaker 1: to get to the west to the gets to the Oval.
Speaker 1: And I was watching my buddy John mcintee, and John
Speaker 1: was Trump's body man and then the head of PPO
Speaker 1: during the first term of the administration. And one thing
Speaker 1: John said to me, I was like, Wow, they really
Speaker 1: got this very accurate, Like this is extremely accurate the
Speaker 1: layout of the White House. So I feel like it was.
Speaker 1: I feel like it was there, Like I feel like
Speaker 1: people could have gotten a hold of it. I don't know,
Speaker 1: maybe this was the one tour guy, or maybe this
Speaker 1: is the one book that says that the old Office
Speaker 1: is not located, but I feel like it probably was.
Speaker 1: And about the outrage in general. Look, Dan Turntine said
Speaker 1: this on this podcast. Democrats fundamentally believe that we are
Speaker 1: in a fever dream that Trump will just go away
Speaker 1: if there's enough controversy, if there's enough protests, if there's
Speaker 1: enough no King's rally that you know it's Russia or
Speaker 1: Epstein know the ballroom or anything like Liberals Finnament's believe
Speaker 1: were just one more controversy away from wake up the
Speaker 1: eyes of millions of people that this whole thing was
Speaker 1: misguided and that will return to normalcy as they see it.
Speaker 1: And if only they were focused on policies that make
Speaker 1: them popular, they would be much further along to being
Speaker 1: effective against him. Okay, next question, Hey, Ryan, Although I
Speaker 1: have a boy's name, I am actually a girl. What
Speaker 1: a way to start off a question. I am from
Speaker 1: the South and my parents give me my grandmother's made
Speaker 1: a name. Pause. So I have a Candida running for
Speaker 1: office in the South and he has his grandmother's made
Speaker 1: a name. And apparently I did not know this, but
Speaker 1: this is I learned this this year that that is
Speaker 1: a very common tradition in the South. I have to
Speaker 1: say I really like it. I really like the idea
Speaker 1: of honoring your maternal sides family by giving the first
Speaker 1: name of the child to their last name. So the
Speaker 1: Candon's name is Morgan Murphy, and Morgan was his grandmother's
Speaker 1: last name. Yes, his grandmother's last name, So that is
Speaker 1: I think it's very very cool. It's a very cool
Speaker 1: Southern tradition I just learned about. The question continues, why
Speaker 1: do you think Democrats are holding out on the shutdown?
Speaker 1: It is because the past the Republicans have given into
Speaker 1: their temper tantrum. Can you please give us the numbers
Speaker 1: you're so talented at doing on past shutdowns and how
Speaker 1: they play out, whether Conservatives have given in play cared
Speaker 1: the Democrats. Secondly, I know you want to Buck and
Speaker 1: Clay to discuss the Jewish vote. How has it changed
Speaker 1: or not changed his October seventh, and how does it
Speaker 1: stand now now? And why could you do a longer
Speaker 1: segment on that? Please? Rock Rock love that you are
Speaker 1: at this question very very smart stuff. So I am
Speaker 1: going to discuss first the shutdown. Obviously it's over now,
Speaker 1: but I think a big part of it that no
Speaker 1: one was really talking about was one was to juice
Speaker 1: the election in New Jersey and Virginia. I think there
Speaker 1: was a pure political thing right to give you langry,
Speaker 1: but a lot of it really has to do with
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer's career. Rewind the date. What was being talked
Speaker 1: about on September thirtieth, twenty twenty five that one of
Speaker 1: the big stories was a poll that had come out
Speaker 1: from Pew Research, and it found that Schumer was the
Speaker 1: most unpopular national politician in the country, more than John Thune,
Speaker 1: more than Donald Trump, more than JD. Vans, more than
Speaker 1: Hakim Jeffries. Schumer had a negative twenty nine percent approval rating.
Speaker 1: But what made it worse for Schumer was that he
Speaker 1: was also underwater nationally with Democrats. He was at negative
Speaker 1: four nationally among his own party. And that poll came
Speaker 1: out several I guess, maybe like ten weeks or eleven
Speaker 1: weeks after. Another poll showed that AOC was beating Schumer
Speaker 1: in New York City if they went to a statewide primary,
Speaker 1: But in the New York City, which is forty two
Speaker 1: percent of the state's populations in those five burrows in
Speaker 1: a head to head competition, Schumer was losing to AOC
Speaker 1: by twenty one points in New York City, means that
Speaker 1: he'd have to make up a ton of votes out
Speaker 1: on Long Island and in the suburbs of New York
Speaker 1: up state in Westchester, Rockland, and then further in western
Speaker 1: New York. That's not a great place for Schumer to be.
Speaker 1: He was very worried, I think by the fact that
Speaker 1: Democrats didn't believe he was up for the fight against Trump.
Speaker 1: That was often another number one thing cited it Schumer's
Speaker 1: not a fighter, so Schumer needed the narrative to change
Speaker 1: that he was going to fight. And I think that's
Speaker 1: why you see more mainstream Democrats. I guess the term
Speaker 1: if we were in the UK would be backbenchers Schumer
Speaker 1: back benchers, people who side with the leadership most of
Speaker 1: the time. That's why they voted to continue the shutdown,
Speaker 1: which they wouldn't have done had had Schumer told them to,
Speaker 1: you know, get rid of the shutdown, like let's keep
Speaker 1: the thing everything funded. They basically kind of go with
Speaker 1: a lot of what Schumer's cues are. That's why it's
Speaker 1: believed that Schumer gave them the okay, enough of them
Speaker 1: who are either retiring or they're not up for a
Speaker 1: very long time to sit there and devote to end
Speaker 1: the shutdown with getting very little concessions from the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: It's very rare except for Trump's term. It was very
Speaker 1: rare before that for the Republican president to have a
Speaker 1: government shutdown, especially with the Republican majority. I don't think
Speaker 1: Bush ever had them. So that's I mean, that's really
Speaker 1: where I think a big part of it was. It
Speaker 1: was really Schumer trying to make a stand. Schumer trying
Speaker 1: to sit there and say, you know, look, I'm this
Speaker 1: strong fighter, and I think things just got so bad
Speaker 1: between the air flights being canceled and snap benefits and
Speaker 1: you know, all the rest of it that they ultimately caved,
Speaker 1: which is more or less what the Democrats said. They
Speaker 1: basically caved. My guess is that Schumer gave him the blessing,
Speaker 1: hoping he wouldn't get his prints on it, and of
Speaker 1: course it went to a huge backlash. Congress and Rocannor
Speaker 1: and several other people are saying Schumer needs to step
Speaker 1: aside his leader. I think this is the last ditch
Speaker 1: effort to save Schumer's career, and I didn't think it's
Speaker 1: going to work. I don't. As far as the Jewish
Speaker 1: vot goes. I'm going to try to dedicate an episode
Speaker 1: to this later on the year because it's something that
Speaker 1: everyone talks about. Here's the deal. Since October seventh, there's
Speaker 1: only been two major elections, so I guess three major
Speaker 1: elections right in New York City, Virginia, and New Jersey's governorship,
Speaker 1: which saw a big left wing shift along across the board.
Speaker 1: New York City didn't really have a Republican running. We
Speaker 1: had a Republican running on the ticket, but his name
Speaker 1: was on the ballot, but he It was basically a
Speaker 1: moderate republic Democrat versus a left wing Democrat race. That's
Speaker 1: how the media branded it. So the Jewish vote was
Speaker 1: very clearly aligned with Guomo there, so it's not really
Speaker 1: a good test case. In New Jersey, the Orthodox Jewish
Speaker 1: vote was very strong for Chitarelly, extremely strong for Chitarelly.
Speaker 1: It's one of the very few places that swung right
Speaker 1: word from twenty twenty four. And as far as Virginia goes,
Speaker 1: there's not really a heavy Jewish presences that they're in.
Speaker 1: You get polling, accurate polling, don here's the problem with
Speaker 1: the Jewish vote as far as these studies that come
Speaker 1: one there is. There's a nonprofit I will think of
Speaker 1: the name of it, probably after this episode's over, that
Speaker 1: is a left wing nonprofit. And they immediately released the
Speaker 1: first eggs of Poles right after the elections saying how
Speaker 1: the Jewish vote broke, but the Jewish vote always seems
Speaker 1: to break even more left wing than the previous election.
Speaker 1: They kind of manipulate the data and they given the
Speaker 1: media eats it up because it's a good narrative the
Speaker 1: media really wants. When you look at the Jewish vote,
Speaker 1: you're really breaking it into three different groups of people.
Speaker 1: You're breaking into non religious Jews. Who are you know, secular,
Speaker 1: who would be somebody like a fran Drusher, a Jerry Seinfeld,
Speaker 1: a Woody Allen, somebody who they are a fran Leeblitz.
Speaker 1: They are Bill Maher, I guess is half Jewish. They
Speaker 1: are Jewish in the sense of their birth or their circumstances,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't really influence their politics all that much.
Speaker 1: They don't have a special attachment to Israel. They are
Speaker 1: just they're just Jewish. So when and they for the
Speaker 1: longest time where the all huge teche of the Jewish
Speaker 1: population in America, probably most of the majority. So when
Speaker 1: everyone would say, oh, the Jewish votes not moving, well,
Speaker 1: they vote like non religious, college educated whites. Well, that
Speaker 1: is one of the most left wing groups in America.
Speaker 1: Then there's also the Then there's the conservative Jews. This
Speaker 1: is like conservative or Orthodox. Those are two separate things,
Speaker 1: if you know Judaism, but I'm going to lump them
Speaker 1: in together. Politically, they tend to vote, you know, much
Speaker 1: more Republican than the secular Jews do. But that would
Speaker 1: be something like a Ben Shapiro, right. They are when
Speaker 1: they are Republicans. I have found they are the most
Speaker 1: consistent Republicans. They are of the Jewish population. They are
Speaker 1: very consistently. I'm a Republican. I vote Republican very very
Speaker 1: very like down the line constantly. And then the last
Speaker 1: group is the like ultra Orthodox, the Hasidum. They are
Speaker 1: the ones who wear you know, the outfits and the
Speaker 1: hats and that where the fur. Their wives have wigs
Speaker 1: a lot. They live in cloister community where they don't
Speaker 1: do a lot of the outside of the Jewish community.
Speaker 1: You'll see them in Borough Park or a curious joal
Speaker 1: in New York or Lakewood, New Jersey. They tend to
Speaker 1: vote for how the rabbis want. And I know it's
Speaker 1: like a very controversial thing to sit there and say,
Speaker 1: but they do block vote based upon rabbi endorsements. That's
Speaker 1: why the rabbi's endorsements are so important, because they have
Speaker 1: huge voters to turnout. They turn out at maximum level
Speaker 1: in every election for doll catcher or for president, doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: and they have a huge interest in having certain things
Speaker 1: granted from the state. I will tell you I went
Speaker 1: to an Asidic This is the craziest thing in the world.
Speaker 1: I went to a Hasidic a meeting with acidic Jews
Speaker 1: Hassidic rabbis in Brooklyn, and they were asking about education
Speaker 1: issues because I run the seventeen seventy six project pack.
Speaker 1: And I guess to the place and it looked like
Speaker 1: a doctor's office. It looked so strange. It looked like
Speaker 1: a doctor's office or like a like a call center,
Speaker 1: like I couldn't make out what where I was. And finally,
Speaker 1: because it was like a waiting room. But then there
Speaker 1: was rows of Jewish women, you know, having someone in
Speaker 1: front of them, sitting next to them doing phone calls
Speaker 1: to somebody or other, and having computers. So I finally
Speaker 1: got to meet with the rabbis and I asked the
Speaker 1: person who brought me, who is not a rabbi but
Speaker 1: is Jewish, said to them, where am I? Like, what
Speaker 1: is this place? I've never seen something of this before
Speaker 1: in my life. And they said, oh, this is where
Speaker 1: we signed everyone up for Medicaid and Social Security benefits.
Speaker 1: And the Republican voice in my head wanted to sit
Speaker 1: there and scream like crazy. And it was really funny
Speaker 1: because when the snap benefits were ending and they were
Speaker 1: having a bunch of people, you know, who were definitely
Speaker 1: able bodied in my opinion, going on the news to say,
Speaker 1: you know, look at my hungry kids and they have
Speaker 1: like the nice nails, and they have new iPhones, and
Speaker 1: they probably shouldn't be on welfare benefits and we should
Speaker 1: probably have better ways of monitoring welfare benefits and they
Speaker 1: have six kids by who knows. That same friend who
Speaker 1: brought me to the call center was like, this is ridiculous.
Speaker 1: People be working, and I said, that's exactly what I
Speaker 1: thought about all those people at that Medicaid call center
Speaker 1: that he brought me to. Anyway, those that voting block
Speaker 1: votes extremely one way or the other. So like that's
Speaker 1: when you'll see like these elections where it's Trump, you know,
Speaker 1: ninety seven to two, and then down ballot it will
Speaker 1: be a Democrat like ninety five to like three. Like
Speaker 1: it will be one way or the other, and they
Speaker 1: have no loyalty to party. It's really an issues based thing.
Speaker 1: They tend to vote Republican federally and Democrat locally in
Speaker 1: my opinion. Okay, so I've made to a whole episode
Speaker 1: on this, but I just get, you know, with everything
Speaker 1: about I feel tremendously bad for my Jewish friends and
Speaker 1: for my friends who are Zionists who feel like they
Speaker 1: are under a constant attack and duress. And it's led
Speaker 1: to a place where having an honest conversation good and bad,
Speaker 1: it's very difficult without feeling like you're kind of piling
Speaker 1: on to a very unfair moment. I would like to
Speaker 1: go into the Jewish vote one day, though, and maybe
Speaker 1: break it down. I'll have one of my friends who's
Speaker 1: Jewish to sit there and works in Jewish politics, sit
Speaker 1: there and really discuss and break it down. But maybe
Speaker 1: I'll do a lot of it because it is fascinating.
Speaker 1: It's very interesting. Okay, speaking of Jews. Next question comes
Speaker 1: from Joel. I don't know Joel is Jewish, but the
Speaker 1: questions about Jews, okay? And Joel says, suppose Israeli Prime
Speaker 1: Minister Netanya, who visits New York City and now Mayor Mandanni,
Speaker 1: has him arrested on war crimes, what federal laws or
Speaker 1: doctrines would apply. Could Mandanni himself be arrested under the
Speaker 1: Logan Act for interfering with foreign affairs? Or would it
Speaker 1: just not happened? Thanks for engaging with your audience so thoughtfully.
Speaker 1: You've definitely got a loyal listen here. Oh thank you, Joel.
Speaker 1: It's really kind of you. So it's a great question. Netnia,
Speaker 1: who has a warrant for his arrest under the International
Speaker 1: Crime Criminal Court for crimes against humanity and soon to
Speaker 1: be Mayor Mandannie, has said over and over he plans
Speaker 1: on arresting him if he comes to New York City.
Speaker 1: Legal experts say that he doesn't really have the authority.
Speaker 1: I look this up because I'm not a lawyer and
Speaker 1: I don't pretend to play one. So this comes from
Speaker 1: India Today and the Time Times magazine. It says the
Speaker 1: United States is not a signatory on the International Criminal Court,
Speaker 1: which means the ICC has no jurisdiction within the US territory.
Speaker 1: As Times reported after interviewing Mandannie, several federal laws would
Speaker 1: be would obstruct any local attempt to execute an international
Speaker 1: arrest warrant. The US Constitution gives the federal government authority
Speaker 1: over foreign affairs, a power repeatedly upheld by the American courts.
Speaker 1: In practice, this means that even if the New York
Speaker 1: City authorities were to attempt to detain Yahoo, federal agencies
Speaker 1: would override that move. Mendanni himself acknowledged these limits during
Speaker 1: his Zeno interview. He said, quote, I'm going to operate
Speaker 1: within the bounds of the law on not Donald Trump
Speaker 1: seeking to create my own legal system. Of course, he's
Speaker 1: got to hit Trump, but this at the time of
Speaker 1: celebrating Benjamin Yahoo in the city from those in the
Speaker 1: leading political positions, has come to an end. So he
Speaker 1: can't do it. I mean, that's basically the long law
Speaker 1: and short of it. He can't do it. And I
Speaker 1: think that he knows he can't do it. It's just
Speaker 1: him being a union know what. Okay. Tristan Shelby writes
Speaker 1: about the elections turnout was definitely the main issue, but
Speaker 1: I think the shutdown and lack of focus on cost
Speaker 1: of living and inflation by Trump and the White House
Speaker 1: played it a role too. Seems like Trump and Jdvans
Speaker 1: are aware that these about these issues. Hopefully they'll immediately
Speaker 1: focus on it. I would look into pushing care for
Speaker 1: leaf checks before Christmas to make more of the public
Speaker 1: on board with tariffs and help give extra income during
Speaker 1: the holiday season. I would like to raise a minimal wage.
Speaker 1: It's a winning issue and I would take away take
Speaker 1: away from the damas, but doubt this establishment GOP will
Speaker 1: be on board. Looking forward to Thursday's podcast. Okay, so
Speaker 1: here's the thing, and I don't mean to sound like
Speaker 1: a libertarian, because you know I can't stand libertarians. Here
Speaker 1: is the thing about the minimal wage. Worker scarcity creates
Speaker 1: higher and minimum wages. Right, if you have less foreign
Speaker 1: workers being pumped into the country, the minimal wage will
Speaker 1: rise naturally, especially for people with low skills. Right. There's
Speaker 1: no minimum wage conversation happening among doctors or nurses or
Speaker 1: educated class. It's really the uneducated population, not uninformed uneducated.
Speaker 1: I think there's a difference, but people without a college degree,
Speaker 1: who are working blue collar jobs or are they're working
Speaker 1: service jobs, that protecting those workers is of the most importance,
Speaker 1: and other ones really feeling the tremendous exhaustion of the
Speaker 1: last five years of inflation and constant spending. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that the two thousand dollars check idea is
Speaker 1: would be popular, but our deficit is so large, our
Speaker 1: debt is so large that anything that we could do
Speaker 1: to bring that down will help reduce inflation over time.
Speaker 1: It is more essential to bring down the deficit and
Speaker 1: the debt than to worry about these two thousand dollar
Speaker 1: checks that will help the working class more over the
Speaker 1: long term. And I know if you're listening, I know
Speaker 1: if you're hungry, you don't think about the long term.
Speaker 1: I know if you have credit card payments and you're
Speaker 1: looking at Christmas and I know you're not thinking of
Speaker 1: the long term. I get it. I completely understand. I've
Speaker 1: been broke at times. I know what that feels like,
Speaker 1: I know how tough it can be, and I know
Speaker 1: what a two thousand dollars track would mean for a
Speaker 1: lot of people. So I'm not discouraging that. I'm just
Speaker 1: trying to think of a bigger policy issue, saying how
Speaker 1: do we help Americans and the best way is to
Speaker 1: reduce the deficit. It will bring down inflations. I'm not
Speaker 1: really for that, although I understand him doing this. In
Speaker 1: my opinion on the ADMIN in the last few months
Speaker 1: is they Trump ha spent a lot of time looking
Speaker 1: at overseas and international issues, which is very common for
Speaker 1: second term presidents. Right you have Clinton who did it
Speaker 1: in Israel. Bush, I mean, I guess this whole entire
Speaker 1: second term was dealt with with foreign policy issues, but
Speaker 1: the Iraq War mainly, and then you had Obama with
Speaker 1: trying to do the Iran deal. Like second terms are
Speaker 1: oftentimes for legacy making historical foreign policy accomplishments, and President Trump,
Speaker 1: to his credit, it has a number of them. But
Speaker 1: like I said in the post election podcast, because you
Speaker 1: saw this swing both among white working class voters and
Speaker 1: Latino voters who are of a similar economic level, similar
Speaker 1: economic indicators, I think economics played a more significant role
Speaker 1: than people. And Republicans are are willing to admit. Inflation
Speaker 1: is down from Biden years, but prices aren't down, which
Speaker 1: you know if you're struggling three years ago. Because inflation
Speaker 1: was very high. Unless you've got a significant raise, you're
Speaker 1: probably still struggling. Unemployment for young people is very high
Speaker 1: right now. If you're in your fifties and you got
Speaker 1: a kid to graduate at college, I'm sure you're sitting
Speaker 1: there with a lot of anxiety of how they can
Speaker 1: get a job. Credit card debt is that its highest
Speaker 1: amount ever. Q three of twenty twenty five was over
Speaker 1: a trillion dollars. People are really struggling, and I think
Speaker 1: there's anger because Trump was known to be so successful
Speaker 1: in this first time on the economy, they were hoping
Speaker 1: he could just change it all immediately. Polls find that
Speaker 1: Trump is so severely underwater. When it comes to inflation,
Speaker 1: it's negative twenty six points. And when you ask voters,
Speaker 1: this is in the polls. If you ask voters who
Speaker 1: do you blame on affordability and unaffordability, really Americans say
Speaker 1: Trump over Biden fifty four to twenty one. He is
Speaker 1: the president. So that's who people blame. And is it
Speaker 1: should be a concern for Republicans because they are in power,
Speaker 1: and people blame the people in power. It's just how
Speaker 1: it works, even if it's not fair, even if some
Speaker 1: of this problems predate Trump's first term, even if a
Speaker 1: lot of it happened right after COVID and because of
Speaker 1: COVID heavy lies the crown. It's just how the voters
Speaker 1: see things. So we'll be back with more. Ask me
Speaker 1: anything after this. All right, back to ask me anything.
Speaker 1: This question comes from Bill. He says, I know you're
Speaker 1: not an electional lawyer. I'm not even a college graduate,
Speaker 1: but I saw this on Twitter and thought it was
Speaker 1: interesting way to challenge it. I can get a lot
Speaker 1: of attention. It's about the Virginia redistricting push. The rule
Speaker 1: require of the amendment to pass through the legislator before
Speaker 1: an election and again after. But the election was ongoing,
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands of vote were cast because of mail
Speaker 1: in ballads under the VIA law. Is this before an election?
Speaker 1: It seems wrong? Okay, I'm not an election lawyer. I
Speaker 1: did look this up a little bit, and technically it
Speaker 1: is before an election because it's an election day, I'm sure,
Speaker 1: and that's an interesting debate, and who knows how a
Speaker 1: judge would rule, So I don't know. I mean, it
Speaker 1: seems like election day is the marker, not when early
Speaker 1: ballots are being mailed I guess it's an interesting way
Speaker 1: of considering it. I couldn't find anything online, any resource
Speaker 1: online that showed that this had been argued before, and
Speaker 1: mail in ballots obviously have been greatly expanded since COVID.
Speaker 1: So we'll see. If this does go through, Democrats will
Speaker 1: likely pick up three more seats in Virginia from the
Speaker 1: Republicans through redistricting efforts. You know, Republicans when the registioning
Speaker 1: is stuff started. This is definitely the falsiest move by
Speaker 1: any of the legislators now that I'm thinking about it.
Speaker 1: But when the registionings starts, Republicans, we're having this big advantage,
Speaker 1: but losing what we're going to lose in Virginia and
Speaker 1: what we lost in California, and seeing how the districts
Speaker 1: are being changed, it's going to be very I mean,
Speaker 1: Republicans may only come out with one or two more
Speaker 1: season they went in with, depending what Florida, Indiana, and
Speaker 1: Kansas do. Unless SCOTUS strikes down Section two of the
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, unless
Speaker 1: they start immediately going to the redistricting, it's going to
Speaker 1: be a very very you know, big question of did
Speaker 1: they gain very much at all. I mean maybe they
Speaker 1: gained like one or two seats, but it's not enough
Speaker 1: to deflect from a blue wave, like it won't be
Speaker 1: enough to stop a blue wave from crashing. I mean,
Speaker 1: they'll save a few seats, but not that many. A
Speaker 1: big question really remains for what DeSantis does in Florida,
Speaker 1: because he could redistrict Democrats out of four seats in
Speaker 1: Florida pretty easily as long as the Hispanic vote doesn't
Speaker 1: retract significantly. And obviously the Hispanic vote in Florida is
Speaker 1: differently than the Hispanic vote everywhere else in the country.
Speaker 1: So we'll see what happens in Florida, see what happens
Speaker 1: in Kansas. But between Virginia and California, it's not very
Speaker 1: faitable for Republicans unless the VRA is struck down. I
Speaker 1: would say overall, if it's not struck down, you're looking
Speaker 1: at maybe two or three one or two seats extra
Speaker 1: game for Republicans. If it is struck down, you might
Speaker 1: see a lot more. And if it's limited, it's like Louisiana,
Speaker 1: Alabama or the court cases were maybe like four seats
Speaker 1: so yeah, I mean that's that was the gamble that
Speaker 1: Republicans took. They're going to come up with a little
Speaker 1: bit of an advantage, but not enough to stop a blue
Speaker 1: wave if it crashes through a country next November. Okay,
Speaker 1: next question, And you guys know I am terrible pronouncing names,
Speaker 1: so I apologize ahead of time. Per drawl our karia,
Speaker 1: I know I butchered that, and whoever you are, I
Speaker 1: am so sorry forgive me. I'm from Queens, New York.
Speaker 1: I don't breathe through my nose. I don't say ours correct.
Speaker 1: I'm working on a lot of you know, handicaps right now,
Speaker 1: so I'm sorry. The email says huge fan of your work.
Speaker 1: I am currently here in Florida, not a US citizen,
Speaker 1: just a permanent resident. I felt terrible by the election
Speaker 1: day result and I was following you before to kind
Speaker 1: of you before, so kind of was expected. What I
Speaker 1: realized is that we were losing by eleven in Wisconsin
Speaker 1: during the Supreme Court race. Was there any races that
Speaker 1: were precursors to the two governors races? That's a great question,
Speaker 1: And once again, p Jwall, I am sorry I was
Speaker 1: saying your name incorrectly. That's a great question, though I
Speaker 1: don't think there was any singular race, but there was
Speaker 1: definitely a question over voter intensity. If you look at
Speaker 1: all the precursor special elections that were happening, both on
Speaker 1: the state legislative level and the congressional level, you could
Speaker 1: see Democrat intensity was really very, very high, higher than
Speaker 1: it had been almost ever in recent times. You have
Speaker 1: the Arizona seventh congressional race where Democrats did thirteen points
Speaker 1: better than they did last year, Florida's first where they
Speaker 1: did seventeen points better, Florida's six where they did nineteen
Speaker 1: points better, and Florida Sorry, Virginia eleven, where they did
Speaker 1: sixteen points better. So there were all those special elections
Speaker 1: where Democrats were doing between thirteen to nineteen points better
Speaker 1: than they had done in twenty twenty four. That's not
Speaker 1: because those districts. Those were all safe districts, by the way,
Speaker 1: the Republicans and Democrats didn't flipping of those districts. It
Speaker 1: was just that the voter intensity by their own party
Speaker 1: was so heavy. I mean, it is this issue of
Speaker 1: complacency among voters. When your parties in the White House,
Speaker 1: you think you know the president's got it, I'm going
Speaker 1: to sleep in. I just, you know, campaigned and voted
Speaker 1: for this guy who won, So why am I going
Speaker 1: to get out there? And that really started to show
Speaker 1: the signs that there was something kind of brewing. There's
Speaker 1: also a ton of local state legislative races where Democrats
Speaker 1: way outperform numbers. I'm not going to go through all
Speaker 1: of them because there was dozens, but it definitely showed
Speaker 1: that the trend was in democrats favor. I don't know
Speaker 1: if there's any signs specifically the Latino and working white vote,
Speaker 1: working like coll ass blue collar vote. I'm nothing that
Speaker 1: I can see from those things, but definitely the signs
Speaker 1: of voter intensity was clear on display. I think people
Speaker 1: are just kind of ignoring it because the old adage is, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, these special elections, they don't decide anything. That's
Speaker 1: just a special election, which is true until it's not
Speaker 1: until it is predictive. Okay, This last question for this
Speaker 1: episode comes from Joseph. He says, Hey, Ryan, I'm a
Speaker 1: big fan of your work as a Trump voter. I
Speaker 1: feel like he has been disappointing on a lot of
Speaker 1: key policy issues. Do you think he's getting bad advice
Speaker 1: from Susie Wilds, Brooke Rowans, and Howard Lutnick side of
Speaker 1: the adamant Okay, this is an interesting question. So I
Speaker 1: am not a personal fan of several members of the administration.
Speaker 1: I think other people do a very very good job.
Speaker 1: Susie Wilds, I give a lot of credit to is
Speaker 1: a tough job to be any chief of staff, to
Speaker 1: be Trump'sjuba staff, It's extremely difficult, right, It's not easy,
Speaker 1: no easy gig. And she's a woman of a particular
Speaker 1: age who doesn't allow for many leaks or any leaks
Speaker 1: really to go through this White House. And I think
Speaker 1: she's done a very good job at managing the situation
Speaker 1: to the best of her abilities. Howard Lonik I don't
Speaker 1: have a lot of positive things to say about him,
Speaker 1: and Brooke Rowlin's the same. That being said, I think
Speaker 1: that it's just more than the people that we know.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of people who come in and
Speaker 1: out of Trump's orbit who influence them, who sit there
Speaker 1: and say this thing or that thing. You know, they
Speaker 1: constantly being peddled about the deportations and the tariffs, and
Speaker 1: there's a lot of things that are very much people
Speaker 1: pushing Trump on this issue or that issue. So I
Speaker 1: don't think it's just the people that we know. And
Speaker 1: more times than not, in my experience working in politics,
Speaker 1: both from the journalism side and the political side, a
Speaker 1: lot of times it's not the people that you know.
Speaker 1: I remember back in twenty seventeen, I sent this tweet
Speaker 1: out and I wrote, I think I wrote a story
Speaker 1: about it, but I was getting calls from inside the
Speaker 1: White House, my sources inside the West Wing who were saying,
Speaker 1: these are the people who were really against Trump, and
Speaker 1: they've all been shown themselves as prominent never trumpers. They
Speaker 1: were even they've been the guy who wrote that book, Anonymous,
Speaker 1: who wrote that op ed for the New York Times.
Speaker 1: He was on my list as somebody who was against
Speaker 1: Trump and the White House. No one knew. I mean,
Speaker 1: he wasn't a very famous person. I think. Listen, it's
Speaker 1: been a rough couple weeks with headlines from the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: I know that. And Trump did not make it easier
Speaker 1: on his supporters. From the Lori Ingram interview, I'm not
Speaker 1: you know, I'm not gonna pretend and say, oh no,
Speaker 1: everything is going fine. Look away, look away, look away,
Speaker 1: it's not my role, it's on my job. I'm here
Speaker 1: to have an honest conversation with my listeners. I think
Speaker 1: it's I think it's important to sit there and say, one,
Speaker 1: no politician is perfect, and you're never going to get
Speaker 1: one hundred percent of what you want. So, as somebody
Speaker 1: who was a Day one Trump supporter, let's look at
Speaker 1: what we're getting. Right. Deportations are happening. Five hundred thousand
Speaker 1: and two million self Deportation's great, fantastic, And he's not
Speaker 1: backing down, which there's all the effort in the world
Speaker 1: to back down right now. And he's not backing down.
Speaker 1: On foreign policy, he's been pretty good. You know, we
Speaker 1: haven't gotten more into more interventionist wars, and there was
Speaker 1: every incentive to do it. So I want that to
Speaker 1: be very clear. On the economy, it's struggling and I'm
Speaker 1: and I don't know if there is an easy way
Speaker 1: to get out of it. We may have tougher times
Speaker 1: ahead of us before we are in the clear. And
Speaker 1: part of that is a change in the American economy,
Speaker 1: in part because of AI and how that's changing the economy,
Speaker 1: in part because of worries over how tariffs have been issued.
Speaker 1: It's been all over the place. I will admit that,
Speaker 1: even though I'm supportive in general of tariffs, I think
Speaker 1: that they have been all over the place. The messaging
Speaker 1: has been a disaster. Everyone's got a different answer for everything.
Speaker 1: I think Scott has said is doing a really good job,
Speaker 1: though with a treasury much better than what's doing. And
Speaker 1: I think that I think that the economy is the
Speaker 1: main issue. I know it's easy and I did this
Speaker 1: a lot during term one, right, blaming everyone around Trump
Speaker 1: for Trump's shortcomings, and sometimes they are. You know, there
Speaker 1: are people who in his ear who are giving him
Speaker 1: better device it's one hundred and ten percent. But at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, Trump is Trump, right, He's not.
Speaker 1: He is a great politician because he is not nailed
Speaker 1: to strict ideology. Unfortunately, that includes his own ideology that
Speaker 1: he creates and that he campaigns on. So I think
Speaker 1: it's not been a perfect administration. I think that there's
Speaker 1: been a lot of hiccups and misplacements and kind of
Speaker 1: got lost after the first four months of just one
Speaker 1: win after the other, win after the other win. I
Speaker 1: want to get back to that earlier's place. But I
Speaker 1: think a lot more commitment. Is going to need it
Speaker 1: on the economy right now because it's really really struggling.
Speaker 1: I think that's where voters really their minds are. So anyway,
Speaker 1: thank you for that question. I really appreciate it. Monday,
Speaker 1: I'll be back with a full episode I think on
Speaker 1: the economy, but it might be an AI, it'd be
Speaker 1: one of the other though. We're going to a great episode.
Speaker 1: And please, I mean more questions on asking me anything.
Speaker 1: Ryan at numbers gamepodcast dot com. I always appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thank you guys for listening. Please like and subscribe on YouTube,
Speaker 1: on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you all. Thank you. Have a great weekend.