Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 1: I made this case an article for drop site last
Speaker 1: week that basically the coalitions, the groups of voters that
Speaker 1: are fleeing the Democratic Party the fastest are the exact
Speaker 1: groups of voters that we're Bernie Sanders was the strongest,
Speaker 1: and it's because of you know what I just lay
Speaker 1: down about how he has a coherent, narrative vision of
Speaker 1: the world, He has a coherent, divisive politics versus this
Speaker 1: like dumb neoliberal laundry list crap that Gamala and Biden
Speaker 1: and all these people run with. And so he wrote
Speaker 1: out a pretty scathing indictment of the Democratic Party which
Speaker 1: we covered last week, where he said they've abandoned working
Speaker 1: class people, which I think is you know, under and
Speaker 1: I believe the case when you look at the way
Speaker 1: that the covid erasocial safety Net was rolled back under
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. Yes, they did good stuff on anti dress,
Speaker 1: good stuff on labor that is not helping people's material
Speaker 1: conditions today. So he put that out and Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: shot back at him. Here is Bernie getting asked about
Speaker 1: Pelosi's comments and responding, misticalisten.
Speaker 3: Bernie Sanders has not won. Let me with all due respect,
Speaker 3: and I have a great deal of respect for him
Speaker 3: for what he stands for, but I don't respect him
Speaker 3: saying that the Democratic Party has abandoned the working class family.
Speaker 4: Senator, how do you respond to Nancy Pelosi?
Speaker 5: Well, Nancy is a friend of mine and we've worked
Speaker 5: together on many issues. But here is reality I have
Speaker 5: to say to Nancy in the Senate. In the last
Speaker 5: two years, we have not even brought forth legislation to
Speaker 5: raise the minimal wage to a living wage, despite the
Speaker 5: fact that some twenty million people in this country are
Speaker 5: working for less than fifteen dollars an hour in americ today,
Speaker 5: we have not brought in the Senate, we have not
Speaker 5: brought to the floor the pro Act to make it
Speaker 5: easier for workers to join unions. We're not talking about
Speaker 5: the find benefit pension plans so that our elderly can
Speaker 5: retire with security. We're not talking about lifting the cap
Speaker 5: on social Security so that we can extend the solvency
Speaker 5: of social Security and raised benefits. Bottom line, if you're
Speaker 5: an average working person out there, do you really think
Speaker 5: that the Democratic Party is going to the mats, taking
Speaker 5: on powerful special interest and fighting for you. I think
Speaker 5: the overwhelming answer is no. And that is what has
Speaker 5: got to change.
Speaker 1: Some real talk there from Bertie. If you are your
Speaker 1: average voter, you really think the Democratic Party has going
Speaker 1: to the mat help and to help you.
Speaker 4: No, you don't.
Speaker 1: No, you don't because they are way too berholden to
Speaker 1: the donor class. And we'll probably cover this tomorrow, but
Speaker 1: even Center Chris Murphy put on a long tweet thread
Speaker 1: where he was like, you know what, Bernie out a point,
Speaker 1: and the fact of the matter is the reason that
Speaker 1: we attacked him, so vicur firusly is because what he
Speaker 1: says is uncomfortable for our donor base.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean I was going to say, in terms
Speaker 2: of the accountability stuff, this one is almost like too
Speaker 2: insane to believe. We'll put it up there on the
Speaker 2: screen Jamie Harrison, the DNC saying that Bernie is quote
Speaker 2: straight up BS Biden was the most pro worker president
Speaker 2: in my lifetime, et cetera, et cetera. He said, there
Speaker 2: are a lot of post selection takes and this one
Speaker 2: ain't a good one. Yeah, which is really funny because
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know, you know, I have a
Speaker 2: weird thing where, you know, in some ways Jamie Harrison
Speaker 2: is not necessarily wrong, like in terms of the individual
Speaker 2: like checklist politics, but that's kind of why I think
Speaker 2: culture and immigration did reign so supreme, because clearly, you know,
Speaker 2: that type of checklist politics is totally rejected, you know,
Speaker 2: by a lot of these multiracial working class voters who
Speaker 2: decided to do to go and to swing for Trump.
Speaker 2: Whereas I think Harrison and them are in this world
Speaker 2: where they think that they can laundry list, you know,
Speaker 2: box check things and that people will just come along
Speaker 2: with them, when it's pretty clear there's a much bigger
Speaker 2: story that is at play, right, And.
Speaker 1: It's also the fact, I mean, Biden is literally incapable
Speaker 1: of articulating what he did and laying out I mean,
Speaker 1: because I think that the anti trust stuff the labor stuff,
Speaker 1: like the you know, all of that has been very solid.
Speaker 1: The industrial policy of the bidendministration all very very good. Okay,
Speaker 1: maybe if you had someone who was capable of selling
Speaker 1: that and of portraying it as like, you know, these
Speaker 1: are some of the ways that we're pushing back against
Speaker 1: these economic elites, perhaps it would have mattered more. But
Speaker 1: I think more to the point of the idea that
Speaker 1: you hear from liberals are like, oh, well, actually the
Speaker 1: economy is great under Biden. It's like, no, it wasn't
Speaker 1: for most ordinary people.
Speaker 4: Guess what.
Speaker 1: Inflation hit them really hard. Prices still are quite high.
Speaker 1: Just because inflation slow doesn't mean the prices went back down.
Speaker 1: And under Trump there was a huge expansion of the
Speaker 1: social safety net to deal with COVID. Biden had his
Speaker 1: highest approval ratings and the Democratic Party was the most
Speaker 1: popular at the beginning of his administration when he was
Speaker 1: passing the expansive American Rescue Plan. The story of his
Speaker 1: administration viz. Of the most regular people is COVID era
Speaker 1: social safety net protections being rolled back, child tax credit gone,
Speaker 1: rent forbearance gone, student loan debt forbearance gone. All of
Speaker 1: these things that were incredibly important to people, that really
Speaker 1: helped them. Those are going away at the same time
Speaker 1: that inflation is spiking.
Speaker 4: So that's how most.
Speaker 1: Ordinary people are experiencing this. You know, as I hope
Speaker 1: Lena Khan stays I think that that direction, I'm very
Speaker 1: confident she won't.
Speaker 4: But anyway, I think that direction is really important.
Speaker 1: The labor stuff super important. But again, this doesn't hit
Speaker 1: right now today. So to pretend like, oh, this is
Speaker 1: an indictment of deliveryism or whatever I think is just foolish.
Speaker 1: And to pretend like the economy was so great for
Speaker 1: regular people under Joe Biden is just a complete fantasy world.
Speaker 1: So in any case, you know, Jamie Harrison right now
Speaker 1: is taking a lot of heat because his stewardship of
Speaker 1: the Dancy is a disaster, and so he's trying to
Speaker 1: blame shift and you know, pretend like Bernie doesn't have
Speaker 1: any kind of a point here. But there's a reason
Speaker 1: why Bernie Sanders continues to be even though he's quote
Speaker 1: unquote the furthest left in the Democratic Party, he continues
Speaker 1: to be one of the most popular politicians on either
Speaker 1: side of the aisle in the entire country, with independence,
Speaker 1: because it's not about this left right spectrum.
Speaker 4: It's about top versus bottom.
Speaker 1: And that's something Bernie instinctively gets and to your point, Cyber,
Speaker 1: almost no one else in the Democratic Party does. So
Speaker 1: you know, we'll see where things go from here. You
Speaker 1: do have bizarrely a few people on MSNBC and see
Speaker 1: CNN and Chris Murphy and David Brooks being like, hey,
Speaker 1: you know what, maybe Bernie had a point, But honestly,
Speaker 1: can I imagine them like going to war with their
Speaker 1: donor class.
Speaker 4: No, I can't imagine that.
Speaker 1: I think more likely what you're going to get is
Speaker 1: more of the Seth Moulton direction of like, let me
Speaker 1: just agree with the Republicans and their narrative framing of
Speaker 1: the world and capitulate on those issues, the kindler, gentler
Speaker 1: version hope that when Trump is gone that the next
Speaker 1: Republican can is less charismatic and we've got a shot
Speaker 1: against them. And you know, that's that's what I think
Speaker 1: is the most likely direction for the future of the Democrats.
Speaker 2: They're already posible. Yeah, let's go ahead and play the
Speaker 2: next one here. Just to give some more color on that.
Speaker 6: Joe Rogan, very popular podcaster, he endorsed Donald Trump in
Speaker 6: the final days of the election four years ago. You
Speaker 6: went on his podcast. You got a lot of blowback
Speaker 6: for doing that and fort touting that he endorsed you.
Speaker 6: So is this the kind of example of Democrats perhaps
Speaker 6: shunning or vilifying people who don't totally agree with them.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think that's fair enough. Look, you goin to
Speaker 5: have an argument with Rogan, agree with them, disagree with them,
Speaker 5: But what's the problem going on in those shows? It's
Speaker 5: hought for me to understand that. So I think we've
Speaker 5: got to get it. And clearly, you have an alternative
Speaker 5: media out there, a lot of podcasts that have millions
Speaker 5: and millions of views. Get on the show, disagree with
Speaker 5: you here, I agree with you there. I don't see
Speaker 5: a problem in doing that. And you're right, I got
Speaker 5: vilified by some of the Democratic establish them because I
Speaker 5: went on Rogan show. Now a lot of other people
Speaker 5: are doing just that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I thought that was It's funny too,
Speaker 2: because Dana Bash now it's almost sheepishly being like, well,
Speaker 2: you got a little blowback for going on there, and
Speaker 2: he's like, yeah, there was only wrong going.
Speaker 4: On there was on her network.
Speaker 1: Yes, she didn't have anything to say about it, then yeah,
Speaker 1: it's like, yeah, it's too late now, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, and Rogan is kind of the like kind
Speaker 1: of emblematic of the Bernie to Trump pipeline, right, And
Speaker 1: that's what happens when you don't have a coherent worldview,
Speaker 1: you are you shrink from every fight. You're terrified of
Speaker 1: picking big fights, You're terrified of device apology. Again, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is like the most divisive theory. Is not afraid
Speaker 1: of picking fights. You're not afraid of being controversy. It's
Speaker 1: not afraid of saying things that don't focus group and
Speaker 1: poll test well, like, take a lesson from that, Take
Speaker 1: a lesson from that, because that is actually the politics
Speaker 1: that are most successful. This was interesting. I wanted to
Speaker 1: show people this, put this up on the screen. In
Speaker 1: terms of AOC's performance, So her district actually was one
Speaker 1: of the biggest swings in the country towards Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Now is it's in the Bronx, very overwhelmingly democratic, so
Speaker 1: it's not like he came close to winning, but there
Speaker 1: was a twenty four percent swing, almost a quarter percent
Speaker 1: swing at the presidential level, and AOC basically stayed exactly
Speaker 1: where she was, which means you have this very it's
Speaker 1: sort of confounding for a lot of the analyzes that
Speaker 1: are out there, especially the Lego Democrats were two woke
Speaker 1: analyzes because AOC is probably one of the most woke
Speaker 1: members of Congress, right fair to say, right of all
Speaker 1: the Democrats that are out there, you know, she probably
Speaker 1: is most comfortable talking about transgender issues and you know,
Speaker 1: doing land acknowledge like she does all that stuff. I
Speaker 1: think her language lately has been a little bit better
Speaker 1: and more accessible, but she definitely felt paray to, like
Speaker 1: the very academic language all of those things. And yet
Speaker 1: now there exists out there by the tens of thousands
Speaker 1: people who voted for Donald Trump and then voted for
Speaker 1: Alexandria Acossia Cortez, and I am bound to Determined Saga
Speaker 1: to find some of those.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we are on a mission here at VP. If
Speaker 2: you voted for AOC in the Bronx and you voted
Speaker 2: for Donald Trump, please contact us and we will have
Speaker 2: you on the show. You mean, no troll you have
Speaker 2: How would we have proof? What's the what's the proof?
Speaker 2: You think people out there took pictures of their ballot
Speaker 2: There's probably enough people out there who did somebody has yeah, somebody,
Speaker 2: you got to have a proof about how you did it.
Speaker 2: We will vet you. It's not just anybody who will
Speaker 2: be allowed on this program. But I'm very curious to
Speaker 2: see who those people are. I really am. As you
Speaker 2: said too, there's some acknowledgment here on MSNBC also around this,
Speaker 2: Crystal Jen Saki, Let's take a listen.
Speaker 7: There is sexism, there's racism. All of that is true.
Speaker 7: But I also think there is a real question. I
Speaker 7: hope people start looking at about who people are listening to.
Speaker 7: In my view, there was an over listening to and
Speaker 7: an overlifting up of people who left Trump, not people
Speaker 7: who left the Democratic Party. The people who left the
Speaker 7: Democratic Party are the people who are going to win
Speaker 7: in the future. The people who left Trump, the never
Speaker 7: trumpers who have important voices and have that is not
Speaker 7: the winning coalition.
Speaker 1: It's funny for her to say that on Morning Joe
Speaker 1: in particular, because that is like, that's there never Trump
Speaker 1: HQ right there, right, I mean, that's who Joe Scarborough,
Speaker 1: that's who he is. So she's saying that to his face,
Speaker 1: which is quite extraordinary. And you know, I was just
Speaker 1: recalling remember back in twenty twenty soccer, when it looked
Speaker 1: like Bernie would actually win. It was like winning Nevada
Speaker 1: and there was no one who was there was like
Speaker 1: a short period and see it un kind of freaked
Speaker 1: out because they realized, like, oh shit, this guy could
Speaker 1: be the Democratic.
Speaker 4: Nominee, and we don't have really anyone in.
Speaker 1: Our roster who is part of this coalition, who can
Speaker 1: speak to it, who has any sort of access to it, whatever,
Speaker 1: And so they started booking myself and several other like
Speaker 1: Bernie type lefties. And then the second that you know,
Speaker 1: Cliburn moves in and Joe wins South Carolina, Bamba Mace's
Speaker 1: move all the Cannons drop out whatever, Like obviously they've
Speaker 1: never been invited back. And it is noteworthy that almost
Speaker 1: without exect you can point to if Unina's on there
Speaker 1: a few times, Meddi Hassan's on there now and then,
Speaker 1: but by and large CNN and MSNBC have completely locked
Speaker 1: down the Bernie left perspective from their airwaves. You are
Speaker 1: much more likely as a Trump Republican to make it
Speaker 1: on standon than you are, truly and you was certainly
Speaker 1: much more likely as a never Trump Republican and those
Speaker 1: people basically only exist in cable news green rooms. Yes,
Speaker 1: so if your whole worldview is being shaped by the
Speaker 1: ideology of Joe Scarborough and Cole Wallace, then yeah, you're
Speaker 1: going to come up with a very skewed understanding of
Speaker 1: what is actually making voters tick. And you know, I
Speaker 1: don't think it's an accident that the one ideology that
Speaker 1: really is basically completely shut out of any of these
Speaker 1: networks and completely invisiblized on any of these networks and
Speaker 1: we're dis miss etcetera, etcetera, is the one that maybe
Speaker 1: would actually threaten capital's bottom line. But you know, I
Speaker 1: do I expect any of this to change, even as
Speaker 1: you have a few people on there who are like, eah,
Speaker 1: maybe Bernie kind of had a point, Not really, but
Speaker 1: I guess it's like I'm glad to hear it better
Speaker 1: late than I never.
Speaker 4: But you know, it is where it is, like.
Speaker 1: The world has moved on, people have evolved their political views.
Speaker 1: You have certain things are will be very difficult to
Speaker 1: you know, shake people off of, Like the coalition that
Speaker 1: was there for Bernie is not a Bernie coalition anymore.
Speaker 1: Like the world has moved on, so to just try to,
Speaker 1: like now in retrospect recreate that from scratch, I'm just
Speaker 1: not even sure as possible. Let's talk about those chain
Speaker 1: of events that went down in Amsterdam. So there was
Speaker 1: a soccer game between with one of the clubs being
Speaker 1: this sort of like you know, hard right wing Israeli
Speaker 1: football club. It's so weird to me, I was saying
Speaker 1: to you, like, I don't understand soccer hooligan culture because
Speaker 1: it's so near to me that there's like politics associated
Speaker 1: with these different Yeah.
Speaker 2: Soccer, Well, it goes back to the original like brawling
Speaker 2: days in Europe, right, So, like you know, remember, I mean,
Speaker 2: if you read a lot of the history about post
Speaker 2: World War One Europe, there was like a real fus
Speaker 2: of outside gang soccer hooligans and others who would be
Speaker 2: explicitly affiliated like with the fascists or with the socialists
Speaker 2: or the communists or the other. So it's actually very
Speaker 2: very interesting if everybody's like Peaky Blinders goes into it
Speaker 2: a little bit. If anybody watches that show, it's very distinct.
Speaker 2: It's a euro thing. It does not exist here at all.
Speaker 1: So anyway, it was somewhat predictable because there is a
Speaker 1: large pro Palestine population in the Netherlands, and specifically among
Speaker 1: the like Muslims in the Netherlands, of which there is
Speaker 1: a significant number, that this could be cause for trouble,
Speaker 1: and in fact, there were some politicians who were like, guys,
Speaker 1: we got to take steps like this could be a
Speaker 1: real issue, because it's not like these Israeli football fans
Speaker 1: just show up and mind their business. As we will
Speaker 1: show you in some future videos. They were out chanting
Speaker 1: death to Arabs and bragging about how many Palestinians they
Speaker 1: murdered and vandalizing, burning Palestinian flags and attacking Muslim cab
Speaker 1: drivers and etc. And so there was an ugly and
Speaker 1: violent response to that. And I'm not justifying any of
Speaker 1: this violence all the way around, but by and large,
Speaker 1: the way the media covered this was as if the
Speaker 1: perfect little angel Israeli football fans mining their own business,
Speaker 1: came to town and then they were viciously hunted in
Speaker 1: the streets simply because of their religion. And obviously that
Speaker 1: lacks a whole lot of contexts. And you can imagine
Speaker 1: imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and
Speaker 1: it was a group of Muslims who went to a
Speaker 1: town and were marching around chanting death to all the
Speaker 1: Jews and we're going to murder your children. I don't
Speaker 1: think that same context would probably be missing from the
Speaker 1: events that ultimately unfolded, so emblematic of this whole situation
Speaker 1: that went.
Speaker 4: Down and turned extremely violent and.
Speaker 1: Led to you know, hospitalizations and the Israeli fans having
Speaker 1: to be like air lifted out by the Israeli government.
Speaker 1: Sky News air of video that was actually somewhat honest
Speaker 1: about what unfolded and what led to the events, and
Speaker 1: then after they posted it, they had to take it
Speaker 1: down because providing that context and telling the truth about
Speaker 1: all of the events and how they unfolded was apparently
Speaker 1: too much.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 8: Violence in Amsterdam left at least five people injured and
Speaker 8: dozens had been arrested for what happened. Supporters of Israeli
Speaker 8: football club Macibi tel Aviv arrived in Amsterdam ahead of
Speaker 8: their UEFA Europa League match against Amsterdam club Ias on Wednesday.
Speaker 8: Social media videos verified by Sky News show maccabee Tel
Speaker 8: Aviv fans tearing down Palestinian flags from outside of homes.
Speaker 8: Other social media videos appeared to show residents chasing Macibee
Speaker 8: Tel Aviv fans. On Thursday, just before the game, crowds
Speaker 8: of Maccabee fans were filmed singing racist and anti Arab songs,
Speaker 8: while a pro Palestinian demonstration had been banned by the
Speaker 8: mayor over fears there would be clashes. Later that evening,
Speaker 8: during the match, Israeli supporters appeared to disrupt the minute
Speaker 8: silence for Valencia flood victims with chants, whistles and fireworks.
Speaker 8: Mccarby fans were seen attacking locals as a police car
Speaker 8: can be seen driving by. People with Palestinian flags were
Speaker 8: seen marching on the streets. Mccarby supporters say they were
Speaker 8: beaten and attacked on the streets of the Dutch capitol,
Speaker 8: with videos showing some of the violence.
Speaker 1: So, in any case, ugly actions taken all around. But
Speaker 1: because this piece from sky News actually showed some of
Speaker 1: the provocations and some of the violence from the Israeli side,
Speaker 1: that had to be predictively. The reaction has been insanely
Speaker 1: hyperbolic from and dishonest from American politicians and influencers. We
Speaker 1: can put up a little sampling. We got some highlights
Speaker 1: here from Richie Torres, who says that Mehdi Hassan is
Speaker 1: justifying a pagram against Jews in Amsterdam. Barry Weiss, there's
Speaker 1: a pagram unfolding right now. They all got the pagram
Speaker 1: message right away, President Biden. The anti Semitic attacks on
Speaker 1: Israeli soccer fans are despicable echo dark moments in history
Speaker 1: when Jews were persecuted.
Speaker 4: No one asked agar why the You know, Jewish people
Speaker 4: who are.
Speaker 1: Living in Amsterdam, they don't seem to be having too
Speaker 1: much of a problem. You know, it's kind of weird
Speaker 1: if they're just like hunting Jews on the streets now
Speaker 1: in Amsterdam, you would think they might have some issues
Speaker 1: that preceded this particular event.
Speaker 2: The whole thing is wild. And at first I was like, oh, well,
Speaker 2: it's crazy. I mean, look, it's like semi plausible that
Speaker 2: the Arab populations who live in Europe, who have long
Speaker 2: standing like Islamist beliefs would be anti Israel's I guess,
Speaker 2: you know whatever. And then you know, the more I
Speaker 2: looked and read into it, I was like, wait, hold,
Speaker 2: I was like, none of this shit makes any sense
Speaker 2: at all. And this is part of the problem is
Speaker 2: in terms of the rhetoric also that people throw out
Speaker 2: for you know, pogram is program is a term that
Speaker 2: has a specific meaning, right, It's like state sanctioned mob
Speaker 2: violence against Jews to expel them from land. A even
Speaker 2: a clash would have been a better way to describe it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think I think that's.
Speaker 2: Like accurate, right, Yeah, we could say accurate like there
Speaker 2: was a clash on the streets where a bunch of
Speaker 2: Israeli soccer hooligans basically brought a lot of attention to
Speaker 2: themselves and then a bunch of people who were pro
Speaker 2: Palestine were like, hey, screw that, and then they got
Speaker 2: into a fight. Okay whatever I mean. By the way,
Speaker 2: that's quite the norm for like anything in terms of
Speaker 2: Liverpool versus Manchester or whatever. But to describe it as
Speaker 2: one way is just simply inaccurate. It's it's literally false,
Speaker 2: and that's part of the victim complex that pervades like
Speaker 2: so much of this within the media too. And we
Speaker 2: were talking to our producer Griffin who was watching CNN
Speaker 2: and he was like, guy, this Amsterdam story is as
Speaker 2: big as the election over on CNS, and it's like
Speaker 2: and that's the only reason I even feel insane. That's
Speaker 2: another question. Why is the president of the United States
Speaker 2: tweeting out about whatever some bullshit clashing streets of Amsterdam.
Speaker 2: We have way bigger shit going on in this country. Okay, Israel, sure,
Speaker 2: that's your country. You deal with your problems. Well, like,
Speaker 2: why do we have to get involved? And then people
Speaker 2: are like, oh, we should cut off, like we should
Speaker 2: cut off relations with the Netherlands, Like.
Speaker 4: What is going on here?
Speaker 8: Yeah?
Speaker 2: I saw somebody say that was what the fuck is
Speaker 2: happening here?
Speaker 4: Oh my god, I just I just can't.
Speaker 2: But by the way, Amsterdam it's a cool place. I
Speaker 2: don't you never bet. I hate the weed, hate the
Speaker 2: drugs and all that. But other than the fact they've
Speaker 2: ruined it for themselves with their drug policy, beautiful city.
Speaker 1: So you actually had this young dust journalist. I saw
Speaker 1: that he is like fourteen years old. Go ahead and
Speaker 1: start playing this who actually did some on the ground
Speaker 1: reporting that has been important for people to be able to,
Speaker 1: you know, push back and like actually show some of
Speaker 1: the events that preceded the worst of the violence.
Speaker 4: And in the.
Speaker 1: Video, as this person writes, they can be seen carrying
Speaker 1: steel pipes throwing stones at homes.
Speaker 4: So you know, you can see these were not just
Speaker 4: like little.
Speaker 1: Innocent you know, I'm just coming to watch the game
Speaker 1: and have a good time. And then when they after
Speaker 1: they were airlift and put the next one up on
Speaker 1: the screen, after they were flown out by the Israeli
Speaker 1: government back to Israel. Here they are arriving at Tel
Speaker 1: Aviv airport and guess what they're singing, IDF wll F
Speaker 1: the Arabs. Why is school out in Gaza? There are
Speaker 1: no children left there. So again, like even after all
Speaker 1: of this, like this is who we're talking about, Okay,
Speaker 1: these are not some just like innocent minding their own
Speaker 1: business people. This was part of the provocation, along with
Speaker 1: actual violence, vandalism.
Speaker 4: Et cetera. So just the thoroughly, thoroughly.
Speaker 1: Dishonest telling of events and reporting of events that has
Speaker 1: the impact of you know, if you're just like a
Speaker 1: regular or Jewish person taking in this narrative, regular person
Speaker 1: in general, you would feel much you would feel it,
Speaker 1: oh my god, like people are just being hunted out
Speaker 1: there for no reason. And it doesn't help people make
Speaker 1: sense of the world and understand cause and effect and
Speaker 1: how this all ultimately unfolded. And again, I am not
Speaker 1: con like I think violence all the way around apporrent,
Speaker 1: I don't think it's a way to respond to even
Speaker 1: the ugliest of provocations such as these, but you have
Speaker 1: to be honest about the events that actually unfolded. At
Speaker 1: the same time, I wanted to update everyone on a
Speaker 1: un report that has come out that has laid down
Speaker 1: in horrific detail exactly who is being killed by the
Speaker 1: IDF in Gaza. Strip We can put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. So this is a graph that shows by
Speaker 1: age and also by gender, who has been killed in
Speaker 1: residential buildings in Gaza since October seventh. And as this
Speaker 1: person pines, the base of this pyramid of death are
Speaker 1: babies and toddlers. So those largest bars that you see
Speaker 1: at the bottom, the single largest age group that was
Speaker 1: killed were five to nine year olds five to nine
Speaker 1: year olds. If you add up all these numbers, you'll
Speaker 1: find that some seventy percent of those killed that you
Speaker 1: know are confirmed and still a lot of questions about
Speaker 1: exactly how many people have been killed, but seventy percent
Speaker 1: of them females and children, women and children. So that's
Speaker 1: what we're talking about here in terms of the prosecution
Speaker 1: of this war. Also let's put this next piece up
Speaker 1: on the screen, because this is also significant and totally
Speaker 1: something we've predicted and has been obvious to anyone who
Speaker 1: is following. But why not is now admitting that net
Speaker 1: Nyahu's Mochrich ben Givier in the type they do not
Speaker 1: want the hostages back. They say that the problem of
Speaker 1: the hostages will be solved quote naturally and tragically because
Speaker 1: they will be killed the deaths in captivity. They write
Speaker 1: in why of another twenty to thirty hostages will be
Speaker 1: swallowed up in the sea of morning for the fallen soldiers. Then,
Speaker 1: when public anger is channeled against the US, Israeli leadership
Speaker 1: will not be in a hurry to withdraw from the
Speaker 1: Gaza territory, that the idea of captured from the terrorist organization.
Speaker 1: Ministers in MK's on the right do not hide their
Speaker 1: ambitions to establish settlements there. And you know, BB basically
Speaker 1: place to bet that Trump would be victorious.
Speaker 4: He was correct. He fired.
Speaker 1: Now you have Galant, who is not a good guy.
Speaker 1: He's you know, was the one who was talking about
Speaker 1: Palestinians or animal human animals, we need to treat them
Speaker 1: as such. But he was within the government interested in
Speaker 1: pursuing some sort of a ceasefire deal and hostage negotiation deal.
Speaker 1: He has now been asked the quote unquote General's plan
Speaker 1: is in full effect where they're sealing off northern Gaza.
Speaker 1: Anyone left there no aid is just going to be
Speaker 1: murdered and massacred strikes continue within the Gaza strip that continue,
Speaker 1: you know, are devastating and Biebe definitely feels now like
Speaker 1: he has a completely free hand, not that he didn't
Speaker 1: before it, but now he has a completely free hand,
Speaker 1: including to do things like just re established settlements in
Speaker 1: the Gaza Strip, which is something that's very important to
Speaker 1: as coalition partners.
Speaker 4: Where he may have.
Speaker 1: Had a fear that Biden Harris administration might have drawn
Speaker 1: some sort of red line there. We can be damn
Speaker 1: sure that now there will be no red line and
Speaker 1: he'll have his friend at least Stefanick in the UN.
Speaker 2: It's on the whole red line thing though, like Biden
Speaker 2: didn't have red line, let him invade Lebanon, he let
Speaker 2: him take over the West Bank and let him level Gaza.
Speaker 2: So like, you know, substantively, will there really be any difference,
Speaker 2: I think it will just be rhetoric.
Speaker 1: It's hard to say, to be honest, I mean, I
Speaker 1: think certain things I do think are different. For example,
Speaker 1: like Miriam Maddilson, who is one of Trump's top donors,
Speaker 1: one of the things she wants is to allow them
Speaker 1: to annex the West Bank as well. So I think,
Speaker 1: you know, it's clear actually in that Macabee soccer video
Speaker 1: that we played, one of the soccer who wigets was
Speaker 1: running around with a Trump sign, like Israeli's overwhelmingly wanted
Speaker 1: Trump because they're not even gonna get any tutting, any pressure, know,
Speaker 1: nothing whatsoever. So I do think it's some different, But
Speaker 1: you know, it's impossible to argue at this point that
Speaker 1: it's not like Biden and Harris drow any hard red
Speaker 1: lines that they ever.
Speaker 2: That's kind of what I mean. Look, in practice, this
Speaker 2: is also where the farce. You know, it's like, oh,
Speaker 2: well Israel is officially going to annex the West It's like, okay,
Speaker 2: well they literally occupy it, they run it. They know
Speaker 2: it's in terms of militarily occupying, arresting, and have total impunity.
Speaker 2: Right now, is there any difference between that and official annexation?
Speaker 2: Like not really? I mean, I guess in terms of
Speaker 2: internal administration. But you know, I mean, I'm not seeing
Speaker 2: that much different. You know, the one thing people should
Speaker 2: hope for is don't forget this. So the reporting is
Speaker 2: is that Trump has talked to Netanyahu three times already.
Speaker 2: He was elected six days ago, so no, actually really
Speaker 2: five days ago in terms of the number of calendar days.
Speaker 2: Three times they've been on the phone. Remember that reporting
Speaker 2: and behind the scenes where they're like, he was like, look,
Speaker 2: you do what you got to do, but you need
Speaker 2: to wrap this up by that time that you're over
Speaker 2: one thing that is a thing against Netanyah? Who is that?
Speaker 2: Because Netanya who is one of the first leaders to
Speaker 2: congratulate by his on Trump's or on Biden's election. Trump
Speaker 2: never forgave him for that and still is very upset.
Speaker 2: So there is possibility of some like, look, I'm not
Speaker 2: going to paint some pro pala side picture any of that.
Speaker 2: All the policy stuff is going to go in Israel's direction.
Speaker 2: I could see him saying something along lines of listen,
Speaker 2: you've had your fun, but now it's over, like we
Speaker 2: cannot deal with all of these bombings and this anti
Speaker 2: aircraft defense. Just from a sheer like aesthetic perspective, that
Speaker 2: he doesn't want to deal with it, that is. And
Speaker 2: the other thing is BB in them if they do
Speaker 2: give them, you know, the West Bank and all this
Speaker 2: other maybe they say, you know, with the firing of
Speaker 2: uf Glaunch and all this, maybe we don't expand the
Speaker 2: war we've gotten. I mean, look, they've gotten everything they've
Speaker 2: ever wanted. They have total control of guys, they have
Speaker 2: total control of the West Bank, and they literally are
Speaker 2: militarily occupying the sovereign nation half the sovereign nation of Lebanon.
Speaker 2: What else could you want, like, other than regime change
Speaker 2: in Iran, that's not going to happen at least we
Speaker 2: can hope.
Speaker 1: So well, Yeah, I don't know why you're so confident
Speaker 1: about that one. I mean, he put in charge of
Speaker 1: filling out some of his more positions is Brian Hook's
Speaker 1: guy is very pro.
Speaker 2: Hook is on the fence right now. He's not in
Speaker 2: charge per se. He's up for NSA and he's part
Speaker 2: of the transition.
Speaker 1: But there is still almost uniformly throughout the Republican coalition
Speaker 1: there's a good divide on Ukraine.
Speaker 4: On Iran, there's really not a divide.
Speaker 1: I mean it like Trump himself was out saying, hey,
Speaker 1: let's they should strike Iranian nuclear facilities, And the track
Speaker 1: record of his first administration was extremely hawkish vs Iran.
Speaker 1: So you know, I think it's very likely that you're
Speaker 1: going to see a hawkish foreign policy vis.
Speaker 2: I think you will see heavy sanctions and look sanctions piece,
Speaker 2: no question, all right, in terms of choking the Iranian economy,
Speaker 2: that's going to happen. No, there's no doubt about it.
Speaker 2: The actual war though, I wouldn't be so sure. So
Speaker 2: Bridge Colby, who's up for National Security Advisor, he was
Speaker 2: just on Tucker Carlson Show yesterday making the case against
Speaker 2: war with Iran. Whyat would be a disaster. There are
Speaker 2: several and that was one of the first sections actually
Speaker 2: that Tucker talked about with him. It's a big priority
Speaker 2: for Tucker. It's also a big Don Junior thing also
Speaker 2: in terms of in terms of the coalition for how
Speaker 2: it all looks like, you're not wrong in terms of
Speaker 2: them being more hawkish, like on the nuclear deal and
Speaker 2: all that, But for actual regime change, it's more figures
Speaker 2: like Hook and others who may push that, but they're
Speaker 2: as far as I can tell right now, a little
Speaker 2: bit more in the minority. I don't want to overstate
Speaker 2: the case. You know, for example, heavy sanctions on Iran
Speaker 2: could still lead to a conflagration because of the nuclear program.
Speaker 2: You know, who knows that the Iranians also get a vote.
Speaker 2: I don't know what they're gonna do. You know, if
Speaker 2: they could decide to say fuck this, I'm going nuclear
Speaker 2: after the way that we've been treated over.
Speaker 4: The last honestly, you know, five years, logical thing for
Speaker 4: them to do.
Speaker 2: Well, it's just as controversial.
Speaker 1: To say, but that, I mean, that's the sum total
Speaker 1: of our foreign policy.
Speaker 4: Makes that the logical direction from.
Speaker 2: Me, and nobody wants to hear it. But yeah, you know,
Speaker 2: look at Kim Jong un. The best thing that they
Speaker 2: ever did was get a nuclear weapon. It was correct.
Speaker 2: Every time we tell the Kim regime, we're like, hey,
Speaker 2: you guys should give up your nukes, They're like, are
Speaker 2: you kidding me? Look at Gadafi, they shoved a rod
Speaker 2: up as asked. It's never happening with regards.
Speaker 1: To Russia, like the there's even any reluctance to just
Speaker 1: go in there and like crush one is because they
Speaker 1: have an act right, So that's the foreign policy. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying it's good. I think there's you know, I'm
Speaker 1: in favor of, like, you know, getting rid of the
Speaker 1: Dukes all together. But that's the logic that we've laid
Speaker 1: out in terms of our foreign policies.
Speaker 4: So yeah, if I was a roun not just like that,
Speaker 4: we should have all of things.
Speaker 2: Look at India, Pakistan, right, you know, Saudi Arabia, Israel.
Speaker 2: Everybody knows Israel as a nuclear we I mean, these
Speaker 2: people will do it for a reason, so it is
Speaker 2: highly rational for them to pursue. I don't disagree with you.
Speaker 2: The only question is whether they can withstand the economic pressure.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure. I mean, their economy is it's a problem.
Speaker 2: And you know, obviously they've they've got they've already come
Speaker 2: off of years of issues. So it's really up to
Speaker 2: them and to their own regime on how they want
Speaker 2: to decide.
Speaker 4: All right, Sorry, were you looking at well?
Speaker 2: Election Night twenty twenty four was historic for many reasons
Speaker 2: that we have covered and we will continue to cover
Speaker 2: on this show. But one of the great shocks of
Speaker 2: them all, even to someone like me who has observed
Speaker 2: and participated in those trends for the better part of
Speaker 2: a decade is how many of you spent election night.
Speaker 2: It used to be really not that long ago. Election
Speaker 2: night was synonymous with cable news. It was one of
Speaker 2: the few monopolies that they had left. They had the data,
Speaker 2: they have the analysts, they have the pull to project
Speaker 2: and to call races. I'd say even a decade ago,
Speaker 2: they had a near total monopoly on all of it,
Speaker 2: despite the rise of social media. But within the last
Speaker 2: decade it is almost flipped completely. And even I was
Speaker 2: shocked at the statistics that came out showing how precipitous
Speaker 2: the drop in ratings for cable news networks on election
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty four was. Nielsen data released after the
Speaker 2: election shows that some forty two million Americans tuned in
Speaker 2: to watch election night coverage last Tuesday. That is a
Speaker 2: full twenty five percent drop from four years Prior internalized
Speaker 2: that twenty five percent drop in just four years for
Speaker 2: literally the most important night in cable news history, an
Speaker 2: election where more than one hundred million people voted and
Speaker 2: where more than half of them were not watching cable television.
Speaker 2: Juxtaposed that with the sheer numbers that we were talking
Speaker 2: about in terms of people who are consuming new media.
Speaker 2: A new Wall Street Journal analysis finds it nearly forty
Speaker 2: seven percent of US adults have now listened to a
Speaker 2: podcast in the last month of twenty twenty four, with
Speaker 2: hockey stick growth growing every single year since twenty ten.
Speaker 2: What's even more astonishing are the numbers with Americans below
Speaker 2: the age of fifty four. That same analysis finds it
Speaker 2: more than fifty percent of Americans below the age of
Speaker 2: fifty four regularly consumed podcasts, with a slightly higher share
Speaker 2: of men than women. Compare that with the lightning growth
Speaker 2: of that lightning growth with the median age of cable
Speaker 2: TV on MSNBC, the median age of seventy. On Fox,
Speaker 2: it's sixty nine. On CNN it's sixty eight. So remember
Speaker 2: that the median age. That's the median, which means there's
Speaker 2: a group of eighty and ninety year olds who are
Speaker 2: also watching their fair share of cable TV. All of
Speaker 2: this data even tracks what we are doing here. Election
Speaker 2: Night was our biggest ever livestream viewers, downloads, and we
Speaker 2: are just a small slice of a pie that includes
Speaker 2: dozens of independent shows out there, all of whom at
Speaker 2: least that I've spoken to. They all had major record
Speaker 2: ratings and nights after the election. This is incredibly important
Speaker 2: for a number of reasons. One is it validates a
Speaker 2: central bet that the Trump campaign made about three months
Speaker 2: ago to go on as many podcasts as possible, to
Speaker 2: reach as many people as possible, especially for young men,
Speaker 2: and hope that they drive out to vote. There was
Speaker 2: a lot of discussion around this, but on the other
Speaker 2: side of this election we can say confidently it worked.
Speaker 2: Trump won more than voters under the age of thirty
Speaker 2: than any Republican candidate since two thousand and eight. But
Speaker 2: the headline is not just that he blew Kamala Harris
Speaker 2: out with young men under the age of third thirty.
Speaker 2: It's also that he improved his vote margins significantly with
Speaker 2: young women. Here too, there are some very interesting explanations.
Speaker 2: It's not just podcasts that young people are consuming, but
Speaker 2: also TikTok, Instagram, and short form content. Trump wrapped up
Speaker 2: an astonishing fourteen point three million followers on TikTok versus
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris only had nine point three million, and the
Speaker 2: same journal analysis finds that some forty percent of Americans
Speaker 2: under the age of thirty used TikTok as a regular
Speaker 2: source of news, especially young women, and basically every way
Speaker 2: across all platforms. Trump dominated new media. Accident. That is
Speaker 2: also the same election where he won the popular vote
Speaker 2: for the first time. It is not an accident that
Speaker 2: it's the same election where he won a majority of
Speaker 2: Latino men and dramatically improved his margins with young black men.
Speaker 2: There are almost no demographic groups in the United States
Speaker 2: that did not shift towards Donald Trump. So I will
Speaker 2: end with the recommendation then to the Trump white House.
Speaker 2: The biggest mistake that you can make is to fall
Speaker 2: into the traditions of Washington. As I described in detail
Speaker 2: here in a post on Twitter, the entire White House
Speaker 2: Correspondents Association is a cartel. It is designed to keep
Speaker 2: out new entrants, not just conservatives, but people like our
Speaker 2: very own Ryan Grimm. They run the credentialing process, the
Speaker 2: seating chart, and they have in place a million rules
Speaker 2: to stop new media from coming in. The Trump white
Speaker 2: House actually owes its win to new media in a
Speaker 2: way that nobody has before, and to the Internet, unlike
Speaker 2: endly candidates since Barack Obama. So it is vital they
Speaker 2: shake things up, do away with the current White House
Speaker 2: breast briefing as we know it. Stats in the rooms
Speaker 2: should not be they should be rotated. Preference should be
Speaker 2: given actually to those with audience it's, rather than the
Speaker 2: aging television networks who have preference for traditions that go
Speaker 2: back to the nineteen eighties. Left and right wing journalists
Speaker 2: of all stripes and audience should be invited, and the
Speaker 2: briefing itself should have the pace of a longer YouTube
Speaker 2: video rather than the current cable TV style food fight
Speaker 2: debate that those people turn it into. This will require
Speaker 2: a lot of work and it will piss off the
Speaker 2: traditional press royally, but all the data I have presented
Speaker 2: here makes the case that to not do so would
Speaker 2: actually be against the interests of the Trump White House,
Speaker 2: but it'll also be against disservice to the American people.
Speaker 2: As traditional media is losing its relevance and its viewership,
Speaker 2: it is imperative for the People's House to actually meet
Speaker 2: Americans where they are at, and we can say confidently
Speaker 2: they're definitely not on mainstream media, at least not anymore.
Speaker 2: I think it's crazy, Crystal.
Speaker 1: And if you want to hear my reaction to Sagres's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com. In
Speaker 1: the wake of Donald Trump's sweeping battleground state victory, the
Speaker 1: Potsdave America Bros. Made a pretty stunning revelation for actually,
Speaker 1: it could have been so much worse.
Speaker 4: Here is Jon Favreau.
Speaker 9: Joe Biden's decision to run for president again was a
Speaker 9: catastrophic mistake.
Speaker 5: It just was.
Speaker 9: And he in his inner circle they refused to believe
Speaker 9: the polls. They refused to believe he was unpopular. They
Speaker 9: refused to acknowledge until very late that anyone could be
Speaker 9: upset about inflation. And they just kept telling us that
Speaker 9: his presidency was historic and it was the greatest economy ever.
Speaker 9: We just heard him again say that it's the greatest
Speaker 9: economy ever. Clearly seventy eighty percent of voters don't believe that.
Speaker 9: They don't believe that about their own personal financial situation,
Speaker 9: but they just keep telling us that. And then after
Speaker 9: the debate, the Biden people told us that the polls
Speaker 9: were fine and Biden was still the strongest candidate. They
Speaker 9: were privately telling reporters at the time that Kamala Harris
Speaker 9: couldn't win, So they were shiving Kamala Harris two reporters,
Speaker 9: while they told everyone else, not a time for an
Speaker 9: open process, and his vice president can't win, so he's
Speaker 9: the strongest candidate. Then we find out when the Biden
Speaker 9: campaign becomes the Harris campaign that the Biden campaign's own
Speaker 9: internal polling at the time when they were telling us
Speaker 9: he was the strongest candidate, showed that Donald Trump was
Speaker 9: going to win four hundred electoral votes. That's what their
Speaker 9: own internal polling said.
Speaker 1: Four hundred electoral College votes. Do you understand what that
Speaker 1: looks like? With the actual results, Dems took a real shallaking,
Speaker 1: losing the Senate, almost certainly failing and went back the House,
Speaker 1: but they kept it close enough that they probably lived
Speaker 1: to fight another day. A Joe Biden four hundred electoral
Speaker 1: college vote defeat means Republicans at or close to a
Speaker 1: filibuster proof supermajority in the Senate, a gigantic margin in
Speaker 1: the House. It means the Democratic Party completely burned to ashes,
Speaker 1: with nothing but a post apocalyptic landscape remaining. The Mandate
Speaker 1: and the power of Trump's Republican Party would be unmatched,
Speaker 1: not even close in modern politics. After all, Reagans still
Speaker 1: had to contend with the Democratic House, even as he
Speaker 1: notched landslide electoral college victories. The four hundred electoral college
Speaker 1: vote revelation is important, though, for a number of reasons.
Speaker 4: First of all, obviously.
Speaker 1: An indictment of Joe Biden himself, whose legacy is now genocide.
Speaker 1: Plus ushering an unrestrained Trump back into the White House,
Speaker 1: the arrogance and delusion of this man is truly stunning.
Speaker 1: It's also clearly an absolute indictment of every single party
Speaker 1: official elite who circled the wagons to keep Joe Biden
Speaker 1: in the race and to prohibit any sort of real
Speaker 1: Democratic primary. You people claimed you thought Trump was an
Speaker 1: existential threat, You sure a shit did knack like it,
Speaker 1: did you? Instead, you marched delusionally forward, claiming the president
Speaker 1: in a clear state of advanced decline was really a
Speaker 1: secret political genius. But this alternative timeline four hundred electoral
Speaker 1: College vote defeat is also a potential forecast of what
Speaker 1: could come should the Democratic Party not make a dramatic
Speaker 1: turn now, Because as bad as the selection was, Democrats
Speaker 1: haven't even come close to hitting rock bottom. Dem saw
Speaker 1: dramatic shifts against them among Latino men and gen Z
Speaker 1: young men in particular, the class divide was quite stark.
Speaker 1: Harris one voters earning over one hundred k and Trump
Speaker 1: one those earning under one hundred k Kamala lost ground
Speaker 1: among voters of color of all education levels. And what's more,
Speaker 1: there is absolutely no reason to think that any of
Speaker 1: these shifts and realignments are complete or that Democrats have
Speaker 1: found their actual floor. It is entirely possible that the
Speaker 1: four hundred electoral college defeat is where the presently constituted
Speaker 1: Democrats are headed and fast. Just think about it pretty simply.
Speaker 1: Roughly speaking, only about a thirty adult population has college degrees.
Speaker 1: Massachusetts actually has the highest percent of college guards in
Speaker 1: the country, and even there, college graduates do not comprise
Speaker 1: a majority of the adult population. This leads to a
Speaker 1: pretty simple conclusion. If non college educated voters continue fleeing
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party, that party is cooked, relegated to a powerless,
Speaker 1: permanent minority party status. There is nothing written in law
Speaker 1: or nature that requires the country to be an evenly
Speaker 1: divided roughly fifty to fifty split. In our own country's history,
Speaker 1: we can see periods of disproportionate one party dominance, and
Speaker 1: no one shouldool themselves either about the measures fully empowered
Speaker 1: Republicans with a stack Supreme Court would take to ensure
Speaker 1: that the Democratic Party could never meaningfully fully compete again.
Speaker 1: Trump just won on a genuinely anti democratic message. After all,
Speaker 1: he literally called for abolish in the Constitution, acting as
Speaker 1: a dictator on day one. Supreme Court has granted him
Speaker 1: immunity for all official actions, and Republicans have a clear
Speaker 1: roadmap to follow in the program of Hungary's Victor or Bond,
Speaker 1: where he has used the veneer of democracy to successfully
Speaker 1: permanently entrench his own regime before a stunning landslide victory.
Speaker 1: Or Bond described how to effectively gain permanent control of
Speaker 1: a so called democracy, saying quote, it was enough to
Speaker 1: win just once, but.
Speaker 4: Decisively, that was the way.
Speaker 1: Now Republicans may be one more cycle with this level
Speaker 1: of realignment away from winning just such a crushing victory.
Speaker 1: Now it's the initial shock of Kamala's lost weares off.
Speaker 1: Don't be surprised if the democratic consultant, establishment and donor
Speaker 1: classes begin to quickly reassert themselves and claim there's no
Speaker 1: real need for a course correction, let alone a dramatic overhaul.
Speaker 1: It's already happening. In fact, that's what the Bernie versus
Speaker 1: Pelosi fight we covered earlier.
Speaker 4: Is all about.
Speaker 1: Just listen to Jim Clyburn, the man most responsible for
Speaker 1: propping up Biden and putting Kama on the ticket, saying
Speaker 1: there's no point playing the blame game.
Speaker 4: Right guys.
Speaker 10: I just think that as we take an assessment of
Speaker 10: all of this, we all to just chill out for
Speaker 10: a while, get in touch with each other, don't worry
Speaker 10: about blaming anybody. You know what they say, success has
Speaker 10: a thousand parents, Failure is an offer, and so when
Speaker 10: you really successful, everybody claims credit. When you come up short,
Speaker 10: everybody seems to scatter and assign blame. I think that
Speaker 10: all of us will be taking stock of exactly where
Speaker 10: we are as a party, what happened in this election,
Speaker 10: and then go from there. I don't want this election
Speaker 10: to define how we go about treating candidates of color
Speaker 10: or candidates who maybe women. I think we'll just take
Speaker 10: the stop of who and what we are and not
Speaker 10: get caught up and pointed fingers and sign and blame.
Speaker 1: Yes, I I'm quite sure that Jim Cliburn does not
Speaker 1: want finger pointing, because a good number of those fingers
Speaker 1: would be pointed right at him. Absolutely incredible. You're going
Speaker 1: to hear a lot of it. Though, you're going to
Speaker 1: hear it wasn't really so bad. Look at the three
Speaker 1: battleground states. Trump only won by a narrow margin, and
Speaker 1: almost all of the swing state Democrats kept their seats.
Speaker 4: These types will.
Speaker 1: Point to the losses suffer by incumbent parties globally and
Speaker 1: they'll say, see, we've just were facing really tough headwinds, guys,
Speaker 1: wasn't really our fault. They'll offer some limited critiques of
Speaker 1: some small ball tactics.
Speaker 4: Hey, Kamala should have gone on with Joe Rogan.
Speaker 1: They'll invent things completely, like claiming Kama was too woke
Speaker 1: when she spent the entire campaign studiously avoiding wokeness. Or
Speaker 1: they'll blame a singular individual like Biden or Pelosi Kama herself,
Speaker 1: not depending on merit, but depending on their own intra
Speaker 1: party tribal affiliations. Now, in a sense, this criticus have merit.
Speaker 1: It was close in the industrial Midwest, after all, I
Speaker 1: think it is plausible to imagine maybe a Gavin Newso,
Speaker 1: maybe mayor Pete or even big Gretch could have pulled
Speaker 1: off the election victory. The exact place where Dums find
Speaker 1: themselves today is still in the ball game enough that
Speaker 1: it is conceivable some small adjustment could have been sufficient
Speaker 1: to win this particular election. The current status of the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party isn't a complete catastrophe, but make no mistake,
Speaker 1: the long term trajectory is death. If the trends that
Speaker 1: the party saw between twenty sixteen and now continue unmitigated,
Speaker 1: it will be utterly catastrophic in a way that is
Speaker 1: probably unrecoverable.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 1: After Hillary lost in twenty sixteen, Democrats had a chance
Speaker 1: to actually learn some real lessons about their abandment of
Speaker 1: working people, to see the writing on the wall about
Speaker 1: their future electoral prospects. Instead, they chose denial. It was sexism,
Speaker 1: it was comy, it was Russia. Hillary herself, self interested
Speaker 1: in blame shifting, of course, led the charge. Biden's extremely
Speaker 1: narrow victory was taken as vindication, but once again the
Speaker 1: alarm bells were ringing. The continued shift of Latinos towards Trump,
Speaker 1: the widening of the education divide, the fact that Biden
Speaker 1: was barely able to win while Trump was literally getting
Speaker 1: people killed in the middle of a pandemic. It wasn't
Speaker 1: exactly a ringing endorsement for the Democratic Party. Do not
Speaker 1: underestimate that party's desire and self interest in once again
Speaker 1: learning nothing and changing nothing.
Speaker 4: Just think about it.
Speaker 1: Kamma's campaign was a multi billion dollar industry. Consultants received
Speaker 1: multi million dollar contracts, the checks cash whether those ads
Speaker 1: worked or not. The DNC it's a cartel for Texas
Speaker 1: chosen consultants and allied politicians. CNN and MSNBC exist to
Speaker 1: carry the establishment party line.
Speaker 4: It's a racket, and it won't be disrupted.
Speaker 1: By a few establishment types meekly whispering.
Speaker 4: You know what, guys, maybe Bernie was right.
Speaker 1: So for anyone who's left of MAGA, for my Libs
Speaker 1: and my lefties alike, we gotta be crystal clear about
Speaker 1: a few critical things. Number One, third parties are a
Speaker 1: waste of fricking time and energy. I'm sorry, I wish
Speaker 1: it wasn't that way, but it is right. Choice voting
Speaker 1: just got beaten even more badly than the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: and state referendums. I wish it wasn't true. The most
Speaker 1: credible third party candidate, doctor Joe Stein. She got less
Speaker 1: than one percent of the vote. It wasn't even enough
Speaker 1: votes for Demps to try to blame her and call
Speaker 1: her a spoiler. The only electoral vehicle for opposing trump
Speaker 1: Ism is the Democratic Party number two. The Democratic Party
Speaker 1: itself is in danger of extinction as meaningful opposition. Everyone
Speaker 1: who's been steering the ship over the past eight years,
Speaker 1: they should all be fired, every brain done, consultant contract terminated,
Speaker 1: and crucially crucially, the working class must be put ahead
Speaker 1: of the party's donors. Senator Chris Murphy, to my surprise,
Speaker 1: actually got a lot right in a recent tweet thread,
Speaker 1: where he wrote, in part, when progressives like Bernie aggressively
Speaker 1: go after or the elites that hold people down, they
Speaker 1: are shunned as dangerous populous. Why maybe because true economic
Speaker 1: populism is bad for our high income base. Yeah you
Speaker 1: think now, Look, Trump is done in four years time.
Speaker 1: His successors don't have nearly the juice that he does,
Speaker 1: as evidenced by the fact that he outperformed nearly every
Speaker 1: Republican in the country. Democrats may have kept the margins
Speaker 1: close enough in the House and the Senate to stay
Speaker 1: in the game for now, but it is time for
Speaker 1: a dramatic turnaround or that four hundred electoral college wipeout
Speaker 1: that Joe Biden was heading for could be just around
Speaker 1: the next four year corner. So yeah, it's pretty dire
Speaker 1: for them, and I'm not sure that And if.
Speaker 2: You want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become
Speaker 2: a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com. Thank you
Speaker 2: guys so much for watching. We appreciate you. Obviously, you
Speaker 2: got me a lot of big policy show today. I
Speaker 2: loved it. It was a lot of fun to talk
Speaker 2: about and we'll continue to have that going so at
Speaker 2: Breaking Points dot com. Otherwise, we'll see you all tomorrow.
Speaker 8: Speak beca