Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show.
Speaker 3: Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have an amazing show
Speaker 3: for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal.
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do lots going on here and abroad.
Speaker 4: So some big political news.
Speaker 1: President Biden actually hitting the campaign trail, unusual for him,
Speaker 1: speaking to a labor audience and claiming once again with
Speaker 1: some disputed facts there, that he's the most pro union
Speaker 1: president in history.
Speaker 4: We'll get into all of that. We also have some
Speaker 4: interesting word.
Speaker 1: Clouds how people feel about all of these men who
Speaker 1: are running for the presidency. We got some new polls
Speaker 1: out that show where DeSantis and Trump and all the
Speaker 1: rest stand within the Republican Party and how that is going.
Speaker 1: We have Tony Blinken overseas in China. We will tell
Speaker 1: you the results of that big meaning, much anticipated, long
Speaker 1: awaited Fox News and Tucker Carlson War kicking up to
Speaker 1: the next level or whatever. We'll break that down for you.
Speaker 1: And this is really interesting. So biggest streamer in the world, xQc,
Speaker 1: is making a big move away from Twitch. We'll tell
Speaker 1: you what that means for the entire video streaming landscape.
Speaker 1: And we have a guest on from No Labels. They
Speaker 1: are planning a third party bid, much of the consternation
Speaker 1: of a lot of Democrats who are concerned that this
Speaker 1: might take away from Joe Biden's prospects of re election.
Speaker 1: So we're going to talk to them about exactly what
Speaker 1: it is that they are up to. But before we
Speaker 1: get to any of that, guys, we are getting extremely close,
Speaker 1: dangerous to a million subs on YouTube, very very close.
Speaker 1: And I also have to let you in on the
Speaker 1: fact that Sager is planning to go away and actually
Speaker 1: get married.
Speaker 2: That's right, I'm going to India in a couple of
Speaker 2: week or it's actually two weeks. Wow, it actually keeps
Speaker 2: saying a couple of weeks. So if you could help
Speaker 2: us hit a million while I'm still in the country,
Speaker 2: that would be great.
Speaker 3: I don't want to wake up, you.
Speaker 2: Know, jet lagged at three am in the middle of
Speaker 2: an Indian hotel room and just be like, oh gosh,
Speaker 2: we finally hit a million.
Speaker 1: Be a little anti climatic, right, subs If you're not here,
Speaker 1: so it would be great if you got us there beforehand.
Speaker 1: Nice little wedding gifts for Sager and billion as well,
Speaker 1: So anyway, we're pushing for that. Also news in terms
Speaker 1: of thank you guys for your excitement around the merchandise,
Speaker 1: we got a lot of requests from our neighbors up
Speaker 1: north when they would be able to order merchandise as well.
Speaker 4: Well, good news guys.
Speaker 1: You can order your new Breaking Points logo merchandise if
Speaker 1: you are in Canada too.
Speaker 3: Now that's right.
Speaker 2: It's everything down on the shelf below. It's also on
Speaker 2: our website, breakingpoints dot com. You can also become a
Speaker 2: premium member there if you are so inclined. But why
Speaker 2: don't we start with the most pro union president in
Speaker 2: American history?
Speaker 1: Oh you know this one really or it takes me Okay,
Speaker 1: So Joe Biden has not done much of anything since
Speaker 1: officially launching his re election campaign, but he decided to
Speaker 1: truck to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to speak to a union audience
Speaker 1: and to tout his economic and labor record.
Speaker 4: There, let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: And I'm more excuse me being a little emotion, I'm
Speaker 5: more honored by your endorsement than than you can imagine
Speaker 5: coming this earlier. It's going to make a gigantic difference
Speaker 5: in this campaign. You know a lot of politicians in
Speaker 5: this country you can't say the word union because you
Speaker 5: know I'm not one of them. I'm proud to say
Speaker 5: the word. I'm proud to be the most pro union
Speaker 5: president in American history.
Speaker 3: I promised to you I would be.
Speaker 5: But what I'm really proud about, what I'm really proud
Speaker 5: about is I mean re elected the most pro union
Speaker 5: president history.
Speaker 1: Obviously, this makes me want a puke for a whole
Speaker 1: variety of reasons. Yes, he can say the word union,
Speaker 1: but I apparently can't do a whole lot to bolster
Speaker 1: union membership outside of listen things that I've given him
Speaker 1: credit for. His NLRB has been genuinely useful in terms
Speaker 1: of the burgeoning grassroots movement. But as we'll get to
Speaker 1: in a moment, obviously there have been many failures and
Speaker 1: broken promises with regards to unions, and at this point
Speaker 1: to claim he's the most pro union president in history
Speaker 1: is just like, I mean, that's just an outright, live
Speaker 1: factual inaccuracy, et cetera. What he's referring to there in
Speaker 1: terms of the endorsement. Put this next piece up on
Speaker 1: the screen is the afl CIO did officially vote to
Speaker 1: endorse President Biden for re election. Now important to note
Speaker 1: this isn't the membership, the rank and file of the
Speaker 1: afl CIO. This was the general board, the head haunchos
Speaker 1: of the afl Ciole me read you a little bit
Speaker 1: of this. They say, representing sixty unions, more than twelve
Speaker 1: point five million workers voted today to endorse Biden and
Speaker 1: Harris for reelection.
Speaker 4: The endorsement vote marks.
Speaker 1: The earliest the AFLCIO has ever voted to endorsement presidential election,
Speaker 1: triggering an unprecedented mobilization that will engage millions of working people,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. Let me give you a little
Speaker 1: bit of the quote here from new AFLCIO president Liz Schuler.
Speaker 1: She says, there's absolutely no question that Joe Biden's the
Speaker 1: most pro union president in our lifetimes, from bringing manufacturing
Speaker 1: jobs home to protecting our pensions, making historic investments in infrastructure,
Speaker 1: clean energy, at education.
Speaker 4: We've never seen a president.
Speaker 1: Work so tirelessly to rebuild our economy from the bottom
Speaker 1: up and middle out. We've never seen a president were
Speaker 1: forcefully advocate for workers' fundamental right to join a union.
Speaker 1: Now it's time to finish the job. The largest labor
Speaker 1: mobilization in history begins today. And I actually have to say, Sager, sadly,
Speaker 1: it is probably correct that Biden is the most pro
Speaker 1: union president in my lifetime, in history. No ridiculous, absurd, disgraceful.
Speaker 1: But given the fact that Democrats and republic have joined
Speaker 1: in many instances with Republicans to crush union or at
Speaker 1: least let them watch them as they wither on the
Speaker 1: vine for my entire lifetime, the fact that he says union,
Speaker 1: the fact that he you know, has passed a few
Speaker 1: things that may be useful to that and included some
Speaker 1: provisions and like the Inflation Reduction Act to try to
Speaker 1: boot bolster union membership. Those small, you know, peanuts that
Speaker 1: he threw at the union movement probably pathetically does constitute
Speaker 1: the best labor president in history. But it is woefully
Speaker 1: less than what is needed and woefully less than what
Speaker 1: he promised when he was campaigning last time around.
Speaker 2: Right, So we're comparing Biden to the neoliberal era, but
Speaker 2: you know, comparing him to previous presidents like FDR One
Speaker 2: of the books behind Us Freedom from Fear, or even
Speaker 2: Harry Truman. Well, Truman, I guess is more complicated in
Speaker 2: terms of breaking and all that. But anyway, at the time,
Speaker 2: union membership was, you know, sky high. It was something
Speaker 2: that was dramatically encouraged by the Roosevelt administration, even in
Speaker 2: the Johnson administration as well.
Speaker 3: Really, when union.
Speaker 2: Membership combined with the nineteen fifties kind of middle class dream,
Speaker 2: President Biden does not in any way to that. And actually,
Speaker 2: I think the decline in overall union membership with the
Speaker 2: lowest level in over a century, combined actually with the
Speaker 2: fact that when you look at the way that the
Speaker 2: union vote has begun to split dramatically away from where
Speaker 2: it used to be almost monoloith towards Democrats, that in
Speaker 2: and of itself, crystal is part of the realignment that
Speaker 2: we've talked about here now Since the very inception of
Speaker 2: even our past show Rising, we were constantly looking at
Speaker 2: the way that membership union membership specifically broke in twenty
Speaker 2: sixteen and continued really to break in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right, And let's talk about the most blatant
Speaker 1: betrayal here in terms of Joe Biden and the labor movement.
Speaker 4: Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: He had rail workers who really weren't asking for a lot.
Speaker 1: I mean, this had to do with their own health
Speaker 1: and safety, has to do with all our of our
Speaker 1: health and safety, wanting just the basics of paid sick
Speaker 1: lot leave.
Speaker 4: And what did Joe Biden do.
Speaker 1: He sided with capital, He sided with the rail bosses.
Speaker 1: He made it, he imposed a deal through Fiat, through
Speaker 1: Congress on these rail members and the rail unions were
Speaker 1: furious with him, as they should be, and anybody I
Speaker 1: think who supports labor was furious with him. Here's one
Speaker 1: of the quotes from Hugh Sawyer, treasurer of Railroad Workers United.
Speaker 1: He said, Joe Biden blew it. He had the opportunity
Speaker 1: to prove his labor friendly pedigree to millions of workers
Speaker 1: by simply asking Congress for legislation to end the threat
Speaker 1: of a national strike on terms more favorable to workers. Sadly,
Speaker 1: he could not bring himself to advocate for a lousy
Speaker 1: handf handful of sick days. The Democrats and Republicans are
Speaker 1: both pawns of big business and the corporations. But that's
Speaker 1: far from the only failure or broken promise from Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: When it comes to unions, he famously, you know, he
Speaker 1: ran on the pro Act, which would be significant in
Speaker 1: terms of helping to bolster union membership and helping to
Speaker 1: reverse this decline that we have seen over decades in
Speaker 1: union density and union membership.
Speaker 4: He sort of floated it and then immediately backed off
Speaker 4: of it.
Speaker 1: We haven't heard anything about the pro Act in months
Speaker 1: and months, and labor unions, especially AFLCIO, which again this
Speaker 1: endorsement comes from the top, not from the rank and file.
Speaker 1: These unions used to pretend like this was really important
Speaker 1: to them and that they were going to really hold
Speaker 1: politicians to account if they didn't get the Proact pass.
Speaker 1: But now they're, you know, they're just pretending like none
Speaker 1: of that ever happened. Apparently, And then you also had
Speaker 1: when Biden was running for President Sager, he pledged that
Speaker 1: he would end every contract to union busting companies.
Speaker 4: Well, it seems to me.
Speaker 1: Like the federal government is still doing billions and billions
Speaker 1: of dollars in business with Amazon, which has aggressively looked
Speaker 1: to union bust, you know, the workers who were organizing
Speaker 1: at their at their warehouses across the country. So yet
Speaker 1: another failure there. So it's really sad on a lot
Speaker 1: of levels. I mean, listen, is Joe Biden, no question,
Speaker 1: he's better than Trump and better than DeSantis would be
Speaker 1: in terms of unions, just in terms of who he
Speaker 1: would put on the National Labor Relations Sports that I
Speaker 1: want to make a false equivalency here, but for the
Speaker 1: AFLCIO to come in early in this way and by
Speaker 1: the way also and this was real, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: really sad for the last to see the National Nurses United,
Speaker 1: who have backed Burning before because of his support for
Speaker 1: Medicare for all, they also endorsed Biden, a man who
Speaker 1: has said he would.
Speaker 4: Veto Medicare for all.
Speaker 1: It just shows you that, you know, it's not enough
Speaker 1: just to have unions. You have to have unions with
Speaker 1: democratic representation so that rank and file workers actually get
Speaker 1: to have their voices heard.
Speaker 2: In terms of union leadership and the lack of representation,
Speaker 2: at least democratic representation within the unions has always caused
Speaker 2: a lot of consternation within their membership. A lot of
Speaker 2: them also have been upset in the past about the
Speaker 2: way that they've inserted themselves, like you said, almost on
Speaker 2: the side of the establishment Democrats, and that manifested, you know,
Speaker 2: in a Trump vote last time around. Let's put this
Speaker 2: up there on the screen. This is the exit polls
Speaker 2: that actually show union membership. Households with a union member
Speaker 2: forty some percent voted for Trump in the twenty twenty election.
Speaker 2: It was actually a little bit higher in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 2: only fifty fifty seven percent. If you compare that to
Speaker 2: households without union members, of course Trump won dramatically more
Speaker 2: of the vote, but we are comparing this to monoliths
Speaker 2: like Democrats. John Kerry, I was just looking at the
Speaker 2: results of the two thousand election of al Gore. Al
Speaker 2: Gore only you know, sorry, George W. Bushlany won some
Speaker 2: twenty something percent of union households in two thousand. So
Speaker 2: compare the doubling effectively in just sixteen years over that
Speaker 2: time period, and that's insane. It also explains how huge
Speaker 2: portions of the industrial Midwest felt left behind by establishment Democrats,
Speaker 2: especially Hillary Clinton, around issues like tpp dre deals, NAFTA, USMCA.
Speaker 3: Trump also culturally is.
Speaker 2: At least in touch with you know, a decent portion
Speaker 2: of some of these people. And so, you know, we
Speaker 2: talk a lot here about when you strip away some
Speaker 2: of the economic message, you only leave culture. Well, then
Speaker 2: people who are union members and they say, well, now
Speaker 2: of these guys are really going to do a damn
Speaker 2: thing for me, or at least very much on the margins,
Speaker 2: I might as well vote for the guy who agrees
Speaker 2: with me on the second amend cultural Yeah, exactly so,
Speaker 2: And a lot of people vote that way, and I'm
Speaker 2: not going to tell them not to.
Speaker 1: That's the death of material politics, is what you're speaking to.
Speaker 1: Where it's like, all right, well, both of you are
Speaker 1: going to be a disappointment. I don't expect either one
Speaker 1: of you to actually materially improve my life life. So yeah,
Speaker 1: why shouldn't I vote on the cultural issues that I
Speaker 1: care about? I mean, I think it is important to
Speaker 1: note looking at those numbers that whether or not you're
Speaker 1: in a union, or whether or not your family members
Speaker 1: a union in a union is still one of the
Speaker 1: primary determinants of which direction you're going to vote. But
Speaker 1: there's no doubt that over years, over the neoliberal era,
Speaker 1: and especially with the realignment that's occurred under Trump, you
Speaker 1: have much less strength among union households for Democrats. And
Speaker 1: I think Biden's pitch here is a case in point
Speaker 1: of why, because it's not like he's even running on
Speaker 1: any affirmative agenda.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: All the talk of like I'm going to increase the
Speaker 1: minimum wage, I'm going to pass the Proact, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: cancel union busting contracts, that's all gone. Now what he's
Speaker 1: running on is haven't I done a great job on
Speaker 1: the economy?
Speaker 4: Good luck? Good luck?
Speaker 1: Because yeah, you've got your talking points about job creation
Speaker 1: and no doubt the mix the economy is a mixed picture.
Speaker 1: You do have a tight labor market. But you ask workers,
Speaker 1: You asked the American people, are you on the right
Speaker 1: track or the wrong track? Overwhelmingly wrong track. You ask
Speaker 1: them how they feel about the economy and wait and
Speaker 1: see how they actually because it is not matching up
Speaker 1: with your rhetoric here about mission accomplished and we're doing
Speaker 1: so great. So this shows you why you have that
Speaker 1: erosion in Union support for Democrats because ultimately he doesn't
Speaker 1: even feel like he needs to run on anything. And
Speaker 1: you know what, it might be the right bet because
Speaker 1: it's not like they ran on anything in the midterms,
Speaker 1: and with Trump being out there and very likely to
Speaker 1: be the Republican nominee, you have, you know, people have
Speaker 1: very hardened the very negative feelings about him, and god knows,
Speaker 1: there's good reason there. They're disgusted with extremism on you know, abortion,
Speaker 1: on stop the steal, et cetera. In fact, in the midterms, Soger,
Speaker 1: part of why Democrats did better in the industrial Midwest
Speaker 1: than they had been is actually on the issue of abortion,
Speaker 1: not a lot to do with economics. There were some,
Speaker 1: you know, some factors there that may have made the
Speaker 1: Midwest stronger for Democrats in terms of economics, but most
Speaker 1: of the movement had to do with abortion and not
Speaker 1: anything that he's talking about here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think unfortunately, I'm ping my home monologue
Speaker 2: on this day about the rise of the new culture
Speaker 2: war kind of what indicates and where the culture is
Speaker 2: headed and all of that in the direction. But the
Speaker 2: point being stilled is that that is the reason why
Speaker 2: the Democrats won in twenty twenty.
Speaker 3: It wasn't because of anything that they delivered.
Speaker 2: If they did have an economic message, it was mostly
Speaker 2: I will not take away your Social Security ACTA yeah,
Speaker 2: your Medicare. But it's like not taking away something is
Speaker 2: not a I mean, yeah, I guess like it's a
Speaker 2: fine reason to vote for somebody, but you know, if
Speaker 2: you look at the grand scheme, it's not the best
Speaker 2: reason to come in and say, well, that person is
Speaker 2: not going to do this terrible thing that I don't like.
Speaker 2: It's almost like a negative orientation of politics rather than
Speaker 2: a positive orientation. We haven't had a positive orientation actually
Speaker 2: for quite some time.
Speaker 4: That's right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So let's get to how the American people are
Speaker 1: feeling ahead of this election and what they think about
Speaker 1: these general various gentlemen that are running. Put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen from the Wall Street Journal. They're calling
Speaker 1: this the election of dread, and they say, no, no
Speaker 1: one is looking forward to the twenty twenty four presidential election.
Speaker 1: Trump's indictment and a low approve rating for Biden are
Speaker 1: leading to voter dread with sixteen months to election day.
Speaker 4: They've got a lot.
Speaker 1: Of you know, great quotes here from actual voters about
Speaker 1: how they all feel about this. None of this will
Speaker 1: surprise you all because you probably feel exactly the same,
Speaker 1: which is looking at the choice of if it's going
Speaker 1: to be Biden versus Trump, just pure discuss disillusionment, disappointment.
Speaker 1: There's nothing hopeful about a rematch between these two elderly gentlemen.
Speaker 4: I mean, neither one.
Speaker 1: Is going to run on a really affirmative agenda. It's
Speaker 1: all just existential politics, all be a bulwark against the
Speaker 1: other side. And there's you know, these are aged individuals.
Speaker 1: You already know what you're going to get with both
Speaker 1: of them. So any of that sort of excitement, hope,
Speaker 1: optimism that frequently does exist in American politics as you
Speaker 1: head into a presidential election season.
Speaker 4: Has just been robbed from people.
Speaker 1: Here's what they say in this piece say the two
Speaker 1: men are universally known robbing the electure to the potential
Speaker 1: to fall in love with someone new. We know, based
Speaker 1: on past performance what you're going to bring to the table.
Speaker 1: There is nothing more to learn. Said Patrick grayat Democrat
Speaker 1: in Base Cady, Michigan. I'm tired of it already. Within
Speaker 1: their own parties, they say Biden and Trump stoke plenty
Speaker 1: of anxiety to match whatever enthusiasm they can generate from
Speaker 1: the faithful. Polling suggests a stantial majority of Democrats do
Speaker 1: not want Biden to run for office again. Trump remains
Speaker 1: the dominant force in the Republican Party, but many say
Speaker 1: they are open to someone who knew, who does not
Speaker 1: bring the President's combative divisiveness or the distraction of a
Speaker 1: grueling court battle. And no one can claim with the
Speaker 1: straight face that Biden at eighty or Trump at seventy
Speaker 1: seven represents the youthful vigor or embodiment of America's bright
Speaker 1: future that many have found appealing in past presidential candidates.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think for Trump, there's still plenty of
Speaker 1: enthusiasm for him within the Republican pape There's.
Speaker 4: No doubt about it.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know that it's like the level
Speaker 1: of rock stardom and just you know, over the moon
Speaker 1: excitement that he had in twenty sixteen with the base,
Speaker 1: or even in twenty twenty, but they still are psyched
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump with Biden. His big problem is with
Speaker 1: the Democratic base that are just like, really, dude, you're.
Speaker 4: Not going to hang it up.
Speaker 1: Trump's bigger issue is in the general election where you
Speaker 1: have more than a majority of the country. That is
Speaker 1: just like, we want nothing to do with you, Like
Speaker 1: the chaos were exhausted. You're a criminal, you're indicted, Like
Speaker 1: why are you even running. You've got a majority of
Speaker 1: the American people who say it should drop out of
Speaker 1: the race because of the indictments. So that's the landscape
Speaker 1: that we're looking for.
Speaker 2: My favorite quote was actually this from a voter in Michigan.
Speaker 2: He says, quote, we know, based on past performance you're
Speaker 2: going to bring to the table. There is nothing more
Speaker 2: to learn. I am tired of it already. He's talking
Speaker 2: there about Biden and about Trump, saying about both, And
Speaker 2: I actually loved that quote because it's with Trump. There's
Speaker 2: how many people in this country are undecided about how
Speaker 2: they feel about Donald Trump. He's dominated our lives for
Speaker 2: almost seven years. Yes, Biden too has been on this
Speaker 2: has been our vice president. I mean, if you think
Speaker 2: somebody like me, I saw Joe Biden when I was
Speaker 2: in high school.
Speaker 3: I'm thirty one years old.
Speaker 2: He's been literally at the forefront of our politics since then.
Speaker 3: Amost Yeah, basically half of my life and then.
Speaker 4: You're my entire life is yours. He's been a.
Speaker 2: Vice president or at the center or the president. And
Speaker 2: when you consider Washington, I mean that is actually, I believe,
Speaker 2: the vast majority of the lives of the entire American electorate.
Speaker 2: So when you consider it that way, like, look, it's
Speaker 2: been in office since nineteen seventy something. He has obviously,
Speaker 2: you know, he ran for president before I was even born.
Speaker 3: In the eighties. He had his own you know, scandal.
Speaker 2: He has had several moments at the very fourth like
Speaker 2: how can you possibly at this point not know how
Speaker 2: you feel about President Biden? And same about Trump? And
Speaker 2: that's part of what I think leads to the doom
Speaker 2: loop is you are not going to change how you feel.
Speaker 2: Mostly you're going to get to the election. You're going
Speaker 2: to get to the box, and you're just gonna be like,
Speaker 2: which one can I stand? The le you know, can
Speaker 2: I which one can I least stand? And then not
Speaker 2: for that person. Yeah, that's unfortunately, it's.
Speaker 1: Just really depressing because it speaks to a country in decline. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean that's what it is. You look at this
Speaker 1: in your life, I guess this is where we're at.
Speaker 1: I guess is this is the election that our country
Speaker 1: deserves at this point, is you know, kind of the
Speaker 1: overarching sense. And there's another focus group that sort of
Speaker 1: echoes what a lot of other focus groups who covered
Speaker 1: here have to say about this matchup. Put this up
Speaker 1: on the screen. Axios covered this. This was with swing
Speaker 1: voters in North Carolina who voted for Biden, that they
Speaker 1: voted for Trump previously, they voted for Biden this time around.
Speaker 1: And all of them are say that they are concerned
Speaker 1: about Biden, that he looks exhausted, that they lack confidence
Speaker 1: in them whenever they watch him trip over his words
Speaker 1: or over a sandbag. They say, there's really nothing that
Speaker 1: he could even do at this point to ease their
Speaker 1: age worries. But although they are hyper focused on his
Speaker 1: older age, nine of the eleven said they would still
Speaker 1: vote for Biden in a rematch against Trump, who turned
Speaker 1: seventy seven on Wednesday. Now, Biden did not win North
Speaker 1: Carolina and it is unlikely that it will be a
Speaker 1: top target for Democrats this time around. So and if
Speaker 1: they held on to all eleven of the focus group participants,
Speaker 1: they're probably coming up short in North Carolina. But yeah,
Speaker 1: none of this speaks to an election where people are
Speaker 1: affirmatively voting for their candidate of choice. It's all just
Speaker 1: lesser of two evils, and which one can I which one.
Speaker 4: Do I hate the least, basically is what people are
Speaker 4: looking at.
Speaker 1: And we've seen the same dynamic play out in multiple
Speaker 1: focus groups all over the country, where people have all
Speaker 1: kinds of concerns about Biden, but then when it comes
Speaker 1: down to it, they're like, well, on go, see's better
Speaker 1: than Trump.
Speaker 4: So I guess I'll suck it up here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's really pathetic, Crystal.
Speaker 2: And also, I mean, you found this phenomenal graphic of
Speaker 2: word clouds showing how voters feel about the focus groups
Speaker 2: and voters and how they feel about our various candidates.
Speaker 2: Put the first one up there on the screen about
Speaker 2: how people view Biden. What's that word cloud of when
Speaker 2: they're asked to describe him in a single word?
Speaker 3: Oh, old number two, incompetent. I also love all of
Speaker 3: the other ones surrounding it.
Speaker 2: Corrupt, bad, failure, idiot, puppet, smaller type, trustworthy, helpful, adequate,
Speaker 2: but also I mean effective kind of small pedophile I
Speaker 2: guess is on there.
Speaker 3: That's interesting? What else do we have that I could see? Weak? Useless.
Speaker 2: I mean, clearly people are not that happy. Now, you know,
Speaker 2: I don't want to just cherry pick. There are some honest,
Speaker 2: some competence, some leaders, some presidentials that do make it.
Speaker 2: But overwhelmingly, what's the word that comes through old and
Speaker 2: then second incompetent. That's why I think the word cloud
Speaker 2: and the averages of how these people responded in this
Speaker 2: poll are so important.
Speaker 1: You know, what was funny with Biden and we'll get
Speaker 1: to they did ones with DeSantis and Trump as well,
Speaker 1: and they broke it out by So the word cloud
Speaker 1: you're looking at here was among all voters, and the
Speaker 1: number one word is old.
Speaker 4: Even if you.
Speaker 1: Break it out by just Democratic voters, that's still the
Speaker 1: number one word. Whereas yeah, whereas actually guys put the
Speaker 1: Trump one up on the screen, that's the third one
Speaker 1: in the list. So with Trump, amongst all voters, the
Speaker 1: number one word is criminal. I can certainly, I certainly
Speaker 1: sympathize with that take. You also have liar, evil, dangerous, crazy, asshole,
Speaker 1: and then the smaller type.
Speaker 4: The positive words you have here.
Speaker 1: Are leader, patriot, strong, awesome, businessman. And so what's different
Speaker 1: here is actually if you look at independent voters with Trump.
Speaker 1: It's a very similar word cloud cloud, You've got criminal, liar, evil,
Speaker 1: et cetera.
Speaker 4: If you look at Republican voters, though, they.
Speaker 1: Have very positive associations with him still so they I
Speaker 1: think some of the top for them were like patriot leader, businessman,
Speaker 1: awesome were some of the strong the strongest ones for
Speaker 1: Republican voters of Donald Trump, whereas again with Biden, even
Speaker 1: with Democrats, the number one word was old. And what
Speaker 1: that shows me is not that, oh, that means Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's in stronger position than Joe Biden. It just is
Speaker 1: again reflective of the fact that Trump has much more
Speaker 1: enthusiasm among his base and his core group of supporters
Speaker 1: than Joe Biden does. If Biden wins this general election
Speaker 1: coming up, which I think there's a good chance that
Speaker 1: he will, I still think that he is likely the favorite,
Speaker 1: just because of incumbency and because people are so done
Speaker 1: with Donald Trump and he's under multiple indictments and all
Speaker 1: that stuff. But it won't be because people are super
Speaker 1: psyched about.
Speaker 4: Another term with Biden.
Speaker 1: It will be basically a vote against Trump.
Speaker 4: I mean.
Speaker 1: And that's what is so obnoxious about our politics is
Speaker 1: everything is just about how do you feel about the
Speaker 1: human being named Donald Trump. It really is not much
Speaker 1: about the issues, not about what anybody's going to.
Speaker 4: Deliver for your lives.
Speaker 1: As we discussed earlier with the union messaging and all
Speaker 1: of that, it's just literally a referendum.
Speaker 4: How do you feel about Donald Trump?
Speaker 2: Yeah, unfortunately, and that's the Trump effect really on our politics.
Speaker 3: But it's also the most likely speaking of the.
Speaker 2: Trump effect and how it is all manifesting in our polling, well, guys,
Speaker 2: let's gohe and put this up there on screen, almost
Speaker 2: a little bit of a counter what you were just
Speaker 2: talking about.
Speaker 3: Crystal from Newsweek.
Speaker 2: A new poll showing that former President Trump holds a
Speaker 2: sizable lead over Democratic President Joe Biden actually in a
Speaker 2: hypothetical twenty twenty four election mashup, so that actually was
Speaker 2: carried out after Trump wasn't dieted specifically. That's part of
Speaker 2: why the poll is so important. This is a Harvard
Speaker 2: Harris Pole, pretty reputable pollster. From June fourteenth to June fifteenth,
Speaker 2: of the forty five percent said that they would vote
Speaker 2: for Trump, only thirty nine percent that they would vote
Speaker 2: for Biden in the race if it were held right
Speaker 2: now now. Importantly, of course, fifteen percent of the people
Speaker 2: in the poll said that they were not sure which
Speaker 2: candidate that they would vote for. Currently, the voter support
Speaker 2: for Biden and Trump actually decreased from the overall poll
Speaker 2: in May.
Speaker 3: I found that pretty interesting that people.
Speaker 2: Who had supported Trump before in May had gone down
Speaker 2: slightly that.
Speaker 3: That last poll.
Speaker 2: It was forty percent of responding saying they would back
Speaker 2: Biden forty seven Trump. So you can say that this
Speaker 2: pop pole may have a bias towards Trump.
Speaker 3: It's certainly possible. Not going to say that it is representative.
Speaker 2: But as you look at it, it does show the
Speaker 2: tremendous weakness where yes, the country may be sick of Biden,
Speaker 2: but also everybody is not sick of sorry, sick of Trump.
Speaker 2: The country may be like fed up with Biden. I
Speaker 2: think he's old. They are willing to vote for him
Speaker 2: because they are annoyed so much by Trump and the chaos.
Speaker 2: But you're only one event away from people also holding
Speaker 2: their nose and voting for Trump as well, or the
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen effects.
Speaker 4: We're staying home or staying home voting third party exactly.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's a lot of options when you get
Speaker 1: to that ballot box, you know, if you even decide
Speaker 1: that it's worth you showing up. And I think it's
Speaker 1: always important to remember yes. In these focus groups, over
Speaker 1: and over again, you have voters, the majority of the
Speaker 1: ones that voted for Biden last time saying I probably
Speaker 1: as that could up and vote for him again.
Speaker 4: This was a really narrow election.
Speaker 1: He really can't afford to lose anybody from those focus groups.
Speaker 1: So this poll, you know, this is maybe a bit
Speaker 1: of an outlier, but it accords. We've seen other polls
Speaker 1: that have Trump up as well. Basically, if you look
Speaker 1: at the over we're all polling, if you look at
Speaker 1: the averages, it's effectively a jump ball right now. And
Speaker 1: that's embarrassing for Democrats because we had four years of Trump.
Speaker 4: We know what that looked like. It wasn't fun.
Speaker 1: And this is a man who again is under multiple indictments.
Speaker 1: And you know, even if you have some principal position
Speaker 1: about like you know, former president shouldn't be indicet or
Speaker 1: should be handled by the political process or whatever, no
Speaker 1: one can really defend the actions that he was taking
Speaker 1: with regard to the documents and lying about it and
Speaker 1: covering it up et cetera. So the fact that it's
Speaker 1: at best a jump ball for Joe Biden at this
Speaker 1: point is really pretty pathetic.
Speaker 3: Oh, it is pathetic.
Speaker 2: And also, I mean, here's the other reason why we
Speaker 2: have to spend so much time talking about this. All
Speaker 2: of our current indications so far are that Trump is
Speaker 2: doing better in the Republican primary. Let's put this up there,
Speaker 2: because in the same poll they also tested Republican voters
Speaker 2: and they show DeSantis at or below fifteen percent with
Speaker 2: Republicans in the twenty twenty four race. That's actually worse
Speaker 2: than RFK Junior is going against Joe, they say. The
Speaker 2: new pole shows him actually with his weakest support yet,
Speaker 2: Trump boasting fifty nine percent, DeSantis staggering forty five percent
Speaker 2: points back at fourteen actually losing two percent. In the
Speaker 2: same one behind DeSantis is Mike Pence at eight percent.
Speaker 2: He shows his he actually showed his doubling from four
Speaker 2: percent that he was last time the poll was taken.
Speaker 2: And then Nicky Haley at four percent leading the rest.
Speaker 3: Of the field.
Speaker 2: Look, I mean, how can you possibly look at this
Speaker 2: and say that this is the best. Also, Crystal, in
Speaker 2: terms of their second choice, one of the problems for
Speaker 2: DeSantis is while he remains at forty one percent, the
Speaker 2: majority second choice, Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, and Vike Ramaswami
Speaker 2: are also nipping away.
Speaker 3: He doesn't even have the majority.
Speaker 2: Second choice amongst Trump voters that are there right now.
Speaker 2: Again actually showing you the diluting effect of Mike Pence,
Speaker 2: of Nicki Haley, and all of these other candidates in
Speaker 2: the field. They're not taking away from Trump overwhelmingly, they
Speaker 2: are taking away from Ron DeSantis. Sandas was unable to
Speaker 2: make enough of a case to say I am the
Speaker 2: only in the clear alternative.
Speaker 3: With all of these other people jumping.
Speaker 2: In, they're nipping away at his potential support, his donor base,
Speaker 2: and just making it even more likely that Trump is
Speaker 2: probably going to win the nomination.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean this poll, it's an outlier, Will, let's
Speaker 1: be clear, but it's not that much of an outlier.
Speaker 1: I have the real clear politics averages in front of me.
Speaker 1: The poll before this was from the Message Jor and
Speaker 1: Harris X, and it has Trump at fifty three and
Speaker 1: Desanta's at seventeen. The poll we just showed you had
Speaker 1: Desanta's at fourteen. So it's not that much of an outlier,
Speaker 1: and the one before that was Quinnipiac and it had
Speaker 1: DeSantis at twenty three and Trump at fifty three. There
Speaker 1: has been certainly no bump for Desanta since he launched,
Speaker 1: if anything, you know, post launched, and especially post indictment.
Speaker 1: It seems to be eating into his standing here with that.
Speaker 4: Harvard Harris poll that we just showed.
Speaker 1: I mean, not only is he at fourteen, he's not
Speaker 1: even that much an out of my funt hence who's
Speaker 1: at eight. So I just think this is a very
Speaker 1: difficult landscape for DeSantis or anyone to be able to
Speaker 1: overcome because you've still got the guy who defines all
Speaker 1: of our politics. He's still there. Republican base still loves him.
Speaker 1: He can get away with, you know, all sorts of
Speaker 1: things that other candidates can't get away with. He's able
Speaker 1: to position himself on abortion and other issues in a
Speaker 1: way that Ron DeSantis, for example, is unable to sort
Speaker 1: of finesse and get away with. And with more indictments
Speaker 1: likely on the horizon, this is just the dynamic between
Speaker 1: now and when people actually start voting in the primary,
Speaker 1: so very difficult at this point. It is not in
Speaker 1: Ron DeSantis or anyone else's hands. If Trump is going
Speaker 1: to be knocked off, it's going to be some external
Speaker 1: factor that we can't even think about or can't even
Speaker 1: predict right now.
Speaker 4: It have to be something like that.
Speaker 1: Otherwise there is no like messaging path to defeating this man.
Speaker 4: I just don't see it.
Speaker 2: And let's just say that's not a terrible thing to
Speaker 2: you know. Trump has a lot of risks, got the
Speaker 2: DOJ on his back, He's got to all of these
Speaker 2: potential indictments, like, he's obviously facing serious legal challenges. He's old, Like,
Speaker 2: you can't write these things off. It's still not a
Speaker 2: bad bet for Ron DeSantis, but it is still a
Speaker 2: bet where the odds are severely stacked against him, and
Speaker 2: I always think it's important to.
Speaker 3: Take that away.
Speaker 2: DeSantis, though, is trying his best right now in terms
Speaker 2: of his attacks against Donald Trump. One of the ones
Speaker 2: he's really pursuing is kind of a Ted Cruz strategy.
Speaker 2: Don't forget Ted Cruz did come in second in the
Speaker 2: GOP primary in twenty sixteen. DeSantis is effectively running to
Speaker 2: Trump's from the right, saying that Trump is not a
Speaker 2: true conservative, He's not with the real movement. DeSantis actually
Speaker 2: just came out in a new interview with an evangelical
Speaker 2: channel to call out Trump on the issue of abortion.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 6: You know, right to life. We were able to deliver
Speaker 6: the heartbeat bill, which was a big, big deal. And
Speaker 6: you know, while I appreciate what the former president has
Speaker 6: done in a variety of realms, he opposes that bill.
Speaker 6: He said it was quote harsh to protect an unborn
Speaker 6: child when there's a detectable heartbeat. I think that's humane
Speaker 6: to do. I think pro lifers have been wanting to see,
Speaker 6: you know, good pro life protections, whether it's Florida or
Speaker 6: IOW under Kim Reynolds, very important that you're able to
Speaker 6: get this stuff done.
Speaker 7: You mentioned abortion.
Speaker 6: Do you feel the former presidence going soft then on
Speaker 6: abortion a little bit, especially in this area that you mentioned, Well,
Speaker 6: I think so. I mean, I was really surprised because
Speaker 6: he's a Florida resident, and I thought he would he
Speaker 6: would compliment the fact, you know that we were able
Speaker 6: to do the heartbeat bill, which I pro lifers have
Speaker 6: wanted for a long time. He never complimented, never said
Speaker 6: anything about it. Then he was asked about it and
Speaker 6: he said it was quote harsh, but you know, these
Speaker 6: are children with detectable heartbeats, and I think to do
Speaker 6: that was very humane and I think it was something
Speaker 6: that every pro lifer appreciates that we were able to
Speaker 6: get that done.
Speaker 3: So what do we take away from that?
Speaker 2: How many times did you say the word pro lifer
Speaker 2: over and over trying to identify himself with the pro
Speaker 2: life movement? Smart play actually because they're so active in
Speaker 2: the GOP primary, but specific in the state called Iowa.
Speaker 2: And that's also why he kept noting that's the same
Speaker 2: build that they have in Iowa where Kim Reynolds, the
Speaker 2: Iowa governor. He's betting the house on Iowa. David Brody,
Speaker 2: the interviewer there from CBN, was actually an interesting figure
Speaker 2: because he's evangelical media, but he's also kind of a
Speaker 2: Trump booster. So for him to give airing to DeSantis
Speaker 2: on this issue of abortion, specifically targeted to the most
Speaker 2: evangelicals who would watch his channel and who consume that content.
Speaker 2: I do see that as significant, at least that the
Speaker 2: peral life for seeing some sort of betrayal by Trump.
Speaker 2: Now at the same time, Trump is on the right
Speaker 2: side of majority public opinion, but not necessarily even GOP
Speaker 2: primary public opinion.
Speaker 3: So I would say this is probably.
Speaker 2: The only real, the only real what would I say, like,
Speaker 2: the only vulnerability that Trump may have. I'm only gonna
Speaker 2: say may because at the same time, he still has
Speaker 2: the ultimate Trump card. What can he say, I'm the
Speaker 2: one who got it done. Yeah, you would never have
Speaker 2: ROVERSUS way destroyed without me, which if you look at
Speaker 2: the polls and the who Evangelicals are supporting, majority of
Speaker 2: them still support Trump in the primary.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And it also because it has been made so clear
Speaker 1: that positions like the one Ron DeSantis has staked out
Speaker 1: with the Heartbeat Bill, that they are wildly unpopular with
Speaker 1: the general electorate.
Speaker 4: It also eats into his electability case. Yes, is true,
Speaker 4: which is part of why.
Speaker 1: You see Republican voters, I mean, Ron DeSantis's strongest pitch
Speaker 1: is like, you know, Trump without the chaos, and I'm
Speaker 1: the guy that can beat Biden.
Speaker 4: Republican voters don't actually see it that way.
Speaker 1: A majority of them still think Donald Trump is their
Speaker 1: most effective candidate to attempt to win back the White House.
Speaker 1: So it's not working out well in that regard. And
Speaker 1: then the other thing that I found really noteworthy that
Speaker 1: we cover last week of the week before is some
Speaker 1: of DeSantis's own internal polling that was leaked showed that yes,
Speaker 1: voters do actually they've taken in the messaging that he
Speaker 1: is very conservative, that he is more conservative than Trump.
Speaker 1: But guess what, even voters that identify self identify as
Speaker 1: very conservative, the majority of them are go for Trump.
Speaker 1: So even though he staked out the ideological ground, which
Speaker 1: is a hit to his electability, even though people have
Speaker 1: taken this in like Okay, yes, we see what you're doing,
Speaker 1: we see that you are to the right of Trump,
Speaker 1: doesn't matter because ultimately the very conservative voters, they're willing
Speaker 1: to give Trump a pass on this issue and a
Speaker 1: variety of other issues and still stick by his side
Speaker 1: even though they feel like ideologically maybe DeSantis more line
Speaker 1: voters just don't frequently vote with like a checklist of
Speaker 1: like let me go through issue by issue and see
Speaker 1: which Canada is closer to my position. It's a much
Speaker 1: more complex process that has a lot more to do
Speaker 1: with vibes and do I like the affleticts of this person.
Speaker 1: Do I get the sense they're a fighter, sense they're
Speaker 1: going to fight for me than it is this sort
Speaker 1: of like issue by issue checklist that a lot of
Speaker 1: politicians DeSantis included.
Speaker 2: Sort of approach it at right. DeSantis is prosecuting like
Speaker 2: a conservative policy case. Let's put the next one up
Speaker 2: there on the screen, please, because it's important as well.
Speaker 2: You can see he says, quote me, LUs repeal the
Speaker 2: jailbreak bill that allowed this to happen. He was linking
Speaker 2: to a Fox articles saying that a terrorist financier released
Speaker 2: under the First Step Act says that he would be
Speaker 2: proud to fund terrorists again. So this is a part
Speaker 2: of a new case that I've been seeing bubbling up
Speaker 2: against Trump. Ryan Gerdusky actually in our panel brought this
Speaker 2: up in terms of Trump's major you know, accomplishments. Was
Speaker 2: one a major tax cut for the RISH too, was
Speaker 2: the First Step Act, a criminal justice reform. What's interesting
Speaker 2: to me, Crystal, is how much they are calling it
Speaker 2: and messaging on using this by tying it actually to
Speaker 2: a rising crime wave, which of course GOP voters are
Speaker 2: very upset about and are not not just GOP voters,
Speaker 2: But you know, I could say more animated about talking
Speaker 2: specifically about the criminal justice reform and actually tying Trump
Speaker 2: to the issue. The problem actually for Trump is that
Speaker 2: he himself has refused to defend the law in the past.
Speaker 2: Anytime he's been asked about it, he said, oh, I
Speaker 2: did that for Jared because that was part of Jared
Speaker 2: Kushner's big push in the White House. Jared Kushner teamed
Speaker 2: up with Tim Scott to go up against that. Interestingly
Speaker 2: to me also is that DeSantis can run both against
Speaker 2: both Tim Scott, who something we haven't noted is that
Speaker 2: while he doesn't have a large amount of support in
Speaker 2: the current polls right now, he has a very high
Speaker 2: favorability rating for Republican politicians.
Speaker 3: Amongst the GOP base.
Speaker 2: He's actually the only politician other than Trump with an
Speaker 2: overall positive trend. It's DeSantis, Trump and Tim Scott. So
Speaker 2: it's a smart play to be able to go against
Speaker 2: the only other two people in the race who have
Speaker 2: a high favorability rating over like forty five percent.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and Tim Scott is kind of hard to hit
Speaker 1: because he just he does have that likability factor. Apparently
Speaker 1: is well liked with his I mean, I listen ideologically,
Speaker 1: I'm obviously like in a very different place than him,
Speaker 1: but voters really like him in South Carolina. His colleagues
Speaker 1: really like him in the Senate, and I did think
Speaker 1: it was interesting. I took note of the fact that
Speaker 1: when we interviewed her name is what Shelby Talcott. She
Speaker 1: is very in touch with, you know, a lot of
Speaker 1: the Republican aids and advisors and campaign out broduce and whatever.
Speaker 1: And at least what the Trump people were telling her,
Speaker 1: whether this is what they accurately believe or not, was
Speaker 1: that they had their eye on Tim Scott as a
Speaker 1: potential threat as well. And so yeah, it makes sense
Speaker 1: for DeSantis to be sort of taken shots both at
Speaker 1: Trump and Tim Scott here just to make sure that
Speaker 1: he remains the top contender should Trump fall control.
Speaker 4: I wonder if we could put the Ron.
Speaker 1: DeSantis word cloud up that would be a seven B
Speaker 1: because I think it also speaks to some of the
Speaker 1: issues that he could have in terms of electability, which
Speaker 1: again is like really the core case here. Yes, he's
Speaker 1: positioning himself to the right of Trump in terms of
Speaker 1: the Republican base, but really the pitch is I am
Speaker 1: a winner.
Speaker 4: I can win.
Speaker 1: Look at the scoreboard, right, he famously said. So the
Speaker 1: views of DeSantis, amongst all voters. Not a pretty picture
Speaker 1: here in terms of if you think this is your
Speaker 1: electability guy number one is unsure. Okay, well, that's maybe
Speaker 1: hopeful because you can fill in the blanks for people
Speaker 1: and maybe you can try a positive message there. But
Speaker 1: some of the other ones that are top are fascist, idiot, racist, terrible, evil, dangerous.
Speaker 1: I like the one that just says nah an a
Speaker 1: just like nah. So listen how we feel about Rondo Santis.
Speaker 1: Whether you think that these adjectives are accurate or the
Speaker 1: way that you would describe him, it certainly paints a
Speaker 1: picture of someone who is not a luck for the presidency,
Speaker 1: not a luck to be more electable than Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: And that's the way the Republican voters view it. They're
Speaker 1: not confident that he actually would be a stronger general
Speaker 1: election candidate, so to the extent that that's something that
Speaker 1: they're weighing in their voting, which I've always been skeptical
Speaker 1: that that would be the top priority for the Republican base,
Speaker 1: But to the extent that this is something that people
Speaker 1: are really looking at and care about, the case is
Speaker 1: far from clearcut that Rondo Santis is the guy.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, I think he's got more vulnerabilities certainly than people
Speaker 2: let on. He's not, you know, the golden ticket I
Speaker 2: think to election, I do still think he would be
Speaker 2: a stronger candidate, just because Trump does have so much baggage.
Speaker 2: But it's important to look at all of them, you know,
Speaker 2: on the merits, and just see what the real case
Speaker 2: and the tests would look like. Let's go to the
Speaker 2: next one here. Secretary Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln is
Speaker 2: currently in Beijing.
Speaker 3: He's meeting with the.
Speaker 2: Chinese president, Sheishingping after hours of meetings with the foreign
Speaker 2: minister in China. Let's go and put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. It was just a preview of what happened.
Speaker 2: This is a fascinating and a big development on the
Speaker 2: global stage, arguably the most important meeting Secretary of Blincoln's
Speaker 2: career so far. After months of the cold shoulder, China
Speaker 2: welcoming Anthony Blincoln to Beijing. It's the first visit by
Speaker 2: a US cabinet official to China since twenty nineteen during
Speaker 2: the pandemic. Chinese officials currently have all played up the
Speaker 2: notion that the US is the most eager to meet,
Speaker 2: but behind the scenes, this meeting is very important because
Speaker 2: Beijing really wants Shishingping to actually be invited to an
Speaker 2: Asia Pacific leaders conference in San Francisco in November, and
Speaker 2: they also want a separate meeting with President Biden himself
Speaker 2: on US soil. Now, in terms of what they are
Speaker 2: talking about, the meeting actually quite literally just broke. So
Speaker 2: we can get a few of the details after they're
Speaker 2: briefing the press.
Speaker 3: Here's what they have been asked so far.
Speaker 2: Secretary Blincoln had a couple of different initiatives that he
Speaker 2: really wanted to establish Crystal.
Speaker 3: We should forget. We shouldn't forget that.
Speaker 2: When the original meeting of Secretary Blincoln and Chinese President
Speaker 2: Shihinping was scheduled in February, during the Chinese balloon incidents,
Speaker 2: we shot the balloon balloon Gate. After we shot down
Speaker 2: the balloon, Secretary Lincoln he had to cancel his trip
Speaker 2: to Beijing.
Speaker 3: It caused international consternation.
Speaker 2: The Beijing and the Chinese called it out, saying that
Speaker 2: we were behaving thuggishly and their words and insults were flying.
Speaker 2: But I guess things are better now. One of the
Speaker 2: important things that actually happened in February was the cutoff
Speaker 2: of military to military deconfliction channels between the US and China.
Speaker 3: Here's why that's important.
Speaker 2: Even currently in the war in Ukraine and more, we
Speaker 2: have seen multiple near misses of by pilots, of Russian
Speaker 2: pilots and of US pilots over the Black Sea that
Speaker 2: result in potentially dangerous incidents. The same thing has happened
Speaker 2: with Chinese overflights. So what we have always long tried
Speaker 2: to have is deconfliction military to military channels where the
Speaker 2: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs can call the head of
Speaker 2: the People's Liberation Army and just say, hey, just so
Speaker 2: you guys know, we're doing drills in this region.
Speaker 3: Don't take it as a threat.
Speaker 2: They have refused to pick up the phone since the
Speaker 2: February shootdown incident. Beijing has still even after this meeting.
Speaker 2: Is a bit of a snub to Secretary of blinkn
Speaker 2: refusing to set up the military to military communication channel.
Speaker 2: We should all want that, just because you don't want
Speaker 2: an accident to incite a major international incident like Hainan
Speaker 2: Island in two thousand and one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I always thought it was a real shame that
Speaker 1: the whole balloon situation derailed that meeting. With Blincoln, and
Speaker 1: it really did lead to a sort of downward spiral
Speaker 1: in terms of relationship and certainly in terms of communication.
Speaker 1: You'll recall also recently we had requested a meeting between
Speaker 1: Sectary of Defense Lloyd Austin and with his counterpart in China,
Speaker 1: and China was like no, yeah, they denied it, and
Speaker 1: so real blatant snub there. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: the Chinese have a few goals here in terms of
Speaker 1: trying to thaw relationships. They really want to be able
Speaker 1: to achieve a meeting between Biden and she. So that's
Speaker 1: one thing. Another thing is they have their economies on
Speaker 1: the rocks.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they're not doing well.
Speaker 4: They're not doing well.
Speaker 1: They have very high youth unemployment, they've got debt issues,
Speaker 1: They've got a lot of problems going on domestically in
Speaker 1: terms of their economy. So they're also very anxious to
Speaker 1: have economic meetings with say Janet Yellen and with Gina Raymondo.
Speaker 1: And so part of why they wanted this thaw is
Speaker 1: to achieve some of their economic objectives, and not just
Speaker 1: with us, because in some ways, you know, Biden has
Speaker 1: already imposed some import controls, there's already an aggressive, more
Speaker 1: hawkish posture with regard to economics, in.
Speaker 4: Particular Visa VI China.
Speaker 1: In some ways, that ship has sailed, and I sort
Speaker 1: of feel like, regardless of other Biden or Trump or
Speaker 1: Stantis or whoever wins the next election, they're going to
Speaker 1: continue in that direction. We saw how vulnerable we were
Speaker 1: during the pandemic, the fact that all of our supply
Speaker 1: lines were overseas so far too slowly, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: we're trying to bring some of that back, and I
Speaker 1: don't see us really reversing course there. However, the Europeans
Speaker 1: have tried to strike a different tone and take a
Speaker 1: different approach. So part of China trying to demonstrate their
Speaker 1: good will here viz. Of the US is also a
Speaker 1: message to the Europeans of like, we're good guys, you
Speaker 1: can work with us. We are actually interested in peace,
Speaker 1: and you know, with regard to Russian and Ukraine, we're
Speaker 1: interested in mutual cooperation that could be both to all
Speaker 1: of our countries benefits. So part of the desire on
Speaker 1: the Chinese side for them to have this meeting was
Speaker 1: not just aimed at us and what they might be
Speaker 1: able to accomplish in terms of our relationship and further communications,
Speaker 1: which I think is extremely important. I'm glad to see
Speaker 1: that this happened, but it's also aimed at the Europeans
Speaker 1: to try to keep a friendly relationship there.
Speaker 3: Exactly right.
Speaker 2: So another update from Secretary Blinking, who's literally speaking live
Speaker 2: with reporters right now, saying that currently the US actually
Speaker 2: pushed not only for better lines of communication, but also
Speaker 2: asked for increased Chinese efforts to stop Chinese fentanyl being
Speaker 2: sent to Mexico for inclusion by the drug cartels into
Speaker 2: obviously making its way across our border and then being
Speaker 2: responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American
Speaker 2: citizens in the last several years. Perhaps most noteworthy Crystal
Speaker 2: right now, as the Secretary, Blincoln came out and said, quote,
Speaker 2: we do not support Taiwan independence. We do not support
Speaker 2: any change to the unilateral status quo, saying that they
Speaker 2: are concerned by some Chinese moves made against Taiwan. Here's
Speaker 2: why that's important. It is a rhetorical gift towards the Taiwanese. Also,
Speaker 2: though without changing in a US government policy, the Taiwan
Speaker 2: Relations Act says that we recognize the current China the
Speaker 2: People's Republic of China as the only China. We do not, however,
Speaker 2: change or want any support for Taiwanese absorption into the
Speaker 2: overall Chinese state, and we still effectively support their sovereignty
Speaker 2: without reckon them as their own nation. So it's a
Speaker 2: very convoluted system, but it is a rhetorical gift by
Speaker 2: Anthony Blincoln in order to try and set engagement by
Speaker 2: not offering up any real policy change but still coming
Speaker 2: out and saying we do not support Taiwan independence. And
Speaker 2: it's one of those where obviously self have to read
Speaker 2: it also in the same move of President Biden's comments
Speaker 2: where he said repeatedly in the past he would actually
Speaker 2: support Taiwan if the Chinese would ever mount a military
Speaker 2: invasion against.
Speaker 4: Them, exactly.
Speaker 1: So the fact that you have a direct answer here,
Speaker 1: no hedge, no dodge coming on Chinese soil is significant,
Speaker 1: and you know, all indications are in terms of lowering
Speaker 1: the temperature here the meanings were successful, that they were
Speaker 1: more successful than the last meetings that happened on the
Speaker 1: sidelines of the munich Security Conference. And there's another piece
Speaker 1: that's a part of why those conversations were considered to
Speaker 1: be not so effective is because that came at the
Speaker 1: very same moment that the US released intelligence leaked it
Speaker 1: to the press that they thought China was considering sending
Speaker 1: lethal aid to Russia, sending weapons to Russia, and the
Speaker 1: Chinese were very angry about that, partly because of what
Speaker 1: I was saying before. They really want to keep the
Speaker 1: Europeans persuaded that they're actually interested in peace, that they're
Speaker 1: not overtly taking Russia aside, even though I think that's
Speaker 1: entirely questionable. So that was part of why those talks
Speaker 1: got derailed. There was a big question mark hanging over
Speaker 1: these talks because there's new intelligence reporting about what exactly
Speaker 1: happened with that whole balloon situation, Like was it just
Speaker 1: an accident, they claimed it was a weather balloon. Was
Speaker 1: there really a weather balloon? I think we already know
Speaker 1: the answer to that. And there was a question of
Speaker 1: whether or not the Biden administration was going to release
Speaker 1: that intelligence. Republicans are very much pushing them to do that,
Speaker 1: and they're painting it, and you know, they're painting what
Speaker 1: is revealed in that report. None of us have seen
Speaker 1: it or know exactly what's in it. Republicans are painting
Speaker 1: it is like this was bad and this was intentional
Speaker 1: on part of the Chinese. The Biden administration, Biden in
Speaker 1: particulars tried to downplay it as this was more of
Speaker 1: an accident than an intentional provocation, and that too helped
Speaker 1: set the stage for lowering the temperature and having more
Speaker 1: successful toxic.
Speaker 3: Whether it's an accident or not.
Speaker 2: The current leaks that actually have come out about the balloon, yeah,
Speaker 2: you know, look value judgment aside.
Speaker 3: Something that drives me crazy.
Speaker 2: Is or like, oh, it's just a balloon, you know,
Speaker 2: what could they possibly get? The current you know, actual
Speaker 2: analysis of the balloon says it was more high tech
Speaker 2: than actually anything the US has, and they were deeply
Speaker 2: impressed at the level of technology.
Speaker 4: Well we gained something grabbing it, right.
Speaker 2: But there is a consistent, in my opinion, under estimation
Speaker 2: of Chinese, like of Chinese.
Speaker 3: Abilities, of their like.
Speaker 2: I people have often, you know, said like, I have
Speaker 2: some sort of bias against the Chinese. I guess it's
Speaker 2: possibly true only in that I respect them. I see
Speaker 2: what they have done and look at it with clear
Speaker 2: eyes and say this is not you know, some backwater
Speaker 2: almost like a racist view of like this rising nation,
Speaker 2: which is you know, operating by and some two bit
Speaker 2: pro This is a highly sophisticated technological society, deeply ideologically
Speaker 2: committed to a vision of supplanting and changing the global order,
Speaker 2: and specifically of reclaiming total sovereignty and hegemony over East
Speaker 2: Asia and.
Speaker 3: Possibly the rest of the world.
Speaker 2: It's a program they've laid out for decades. They write
Speaker 2: it very clearly. They also write it in English so
Speaker 2: that people like us understand exactly what they think. And
Speaker 2: instead we almost look at it as some bumbling balloon
Speaker 2: that was almost it was unsophisticated, whereas our current analysis
Speaker 2: of it, whether it was an accent or not. Obviously,
Speaker 2: you know, technology like this will drift off cross We're
Speaker 2: apparently looking at the spy tech and we're like, wait,
Speaker 2: this is better than anything that even we have, And
Speaker 2: it's like, yeah, guys, you know, while we're spending one
Speaker 2: hundred billion dollars or so over in Ukraine, what we
Speaker 2: are currently seeing with the Chinese is they actually come
Speaker 2: to us and like, why are you predicating our relationship
Speaker 2: on what's going on in Ukraine. They're like, we are
Speaker 2: the two largest economies in the world, our bilateral relations
Speaker 2: should rely on our economic ties and the potential of
Speaker 2: averting military conflict between our two sides.
Speaker 3: So it's an interesting geopolitical question as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I do have questions about like what I mean,
Speaker 1: I have to think it was an act because this
Speaker 1: didn't work out well for the Chinese.
Speaker 2: You know, like Chinese system is very complicated because it's
Speaker 2: it's not like the US government. There are factions within
Speaker 2: the PLA one outright wants war. She Shengping basically is
Speaker 2: like torn between that side and then the previous economic side.
Speaker 2: There were new effectively the neoliberals of China who said,
Speaker 2: look who cares about Taiwan.
Speaker 3: We're all in this for the money.
Speaker 2: We're corrupt it, let's make billions, and they did, I mean,
Speaker 2: they became some of the richest people literally on planet Earth.
Speaker 2: She has effectively calm and nuked many of those people
Speaker 2: from the party, but he still has to satisfy the
Speaker 2: billionaire effectively, like if you think Chinese oligar American oligarchs
Speaker 2: are powerful, the Chinese oligarchs both are always at the
Speaker 2: mercy of literally being killed. But before that, they are
Speaker 2: i mean power center very much in their own right.
Speaker 2: So they're they're torn in very different directions too many
Speaker 2: in many ways in comparison to the US state. It's
Speaker 2: just non democratic in the way that they operate.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So, anyway, whatever happened with the balloon, they're trying
Speaker 1: to smooth the waters now seem to have had successful talks,
Speaker 1: and I genuinely think that's a good thing in terms
Speaker 1: of averting any sort of near term conflict.
Speaker 2: Very much hope, so, especially we're bogged down in Eastern Europe.
Speaker 2: Right now, Let's go to the next part here Fox
Speaker 2: News and Tucker Carlson at War. This is a very
Speaker 2: actually interesting one.
Speaker 3: It came in Chiron War.
Speaker 2: So now that we have our own chirons, I guess
Speaker 2: I could sympathize. Although I've always shot this entire clapback
Speaker 2: Chiron thing going on in primetime is deeply silly. For example, see, yeah,
Speaker 2: you know, when we do our chirons, we just want
Speaker 2: it straight so that somebody who's watching it on their
Speaker 2: phone or their TV can just look up and have
Speaker 2: a very you know, content knowledge of like, Okay, that's
Speaker 2: what the se.
Speaker 3: What's going on is about.
Speaker 1: By the way, guys, in case you don't know, the
Speaker 1: Chiron is just like the banner. Yeah, you put on
Speaker 1: that says whatever you're talking.
Speaker 3: There you go control room.
Speaker 2: That's yeah, there's no editorial judgment in this room like Tucker. Okay,
Speaker 2: but we are being descriptive in our editorial judgment where
Speaker 2: not just we're not saying, like Tucker declares war on
Speaker 2: Fox News falsely. That's something that CNN used to do
Speaker 2: during the Trump era. They would live fact check him
Speaker 2: in the chiron or fact check you know, fake fact
Speaker 2: checks in the chiron. And then secondarily though, there was
Speaker 2: a chiron that appeared on the Fox News program while
Speaker 2: President Biden was speaking while President Trump was also speaking
Speaker 2: after his indictment, in which they called Biden a quote
Speaker 2: wanna be dictator. That Fox News producer who made that
Speaker 2: chiron was later fired from Fox News after they had
Speaker 2: to issue an apology, and it turns out he actually
Speaker 2: used to work for the Tucker Carlson Show. Tucker of
Speaker 2: course coming to the defense of his former staff and
Speaker 2: also viewing it as a contrast in a way to
Speaker 2: show that Fox News says gone woke and his no
Speaker 2: longer can be trusted.
Speaker 8: Here's what he had to say beneath those videos at
Speaker 8: the bottom of the screen, Fox's banner read this way
Speaker 8: quote wannab dictator speaks at the White House after having
Speaker 8: his political rival arrested.
Speaker 3: Those words are up for less.
Speaker 8: Than thirty seconds, but the effect was immediate. Inside Fox,
Speaker 8: the women who run the network panicked. First, they scolded
Speaker 8: the producer who put the banner on the screen. Less
Speaker 8: than twenty four hours after that, he resigned. He'd been
Speaker 8: at Fox for more than a decade. He was considered
Speaker 8: one of the most capable people in the building. He
Speaker 8: offered to stay for the customary two weeks, but Fox
Speaker 8: told him to clear out his desk and leave immediately.
Speaker 8: Then the company issued a public apology for the twenty
Speaker 8: seven second long Wannabe Dictator line quote. The chiron was
Speaker 8: taken down immediately, Fox's PR department said, and then added
Speaker 8: ominously it was quote addressed. That was all true, but
Speaker 8: it was not enough to save Fox News from the
Speaker 8: ensuing scandal.
Speaker 3: So why does that matter?
Speaker 2: Because it shows you that Tucker obviously still very upset
Speaker 2: at Fox for firing him using his position, especially whenever
Speaker 2: they are issuing cease and desist letters, and there's an
Speaker 2: ongoing legal war as to whether he's literally allowed to
Speaker 2: do that show at all. But the reason why it's important,
Speaker 2: I think is it shows a growing alliance of the
Speaker 2: online right, Tucker Carlson and also Trump against the pre
Speaker 2: eminent conservative program that's out there right now. Let's put
Speaker 2: this up there, because Trump also joining the fray going
Speaker 2: ahead and saying that he's joining actually Fox News or
Speaker 2: started joining Tucker Carlson in going after Fox News as disgraceful,
Speaker 2: says that Tucker Carlson is right and twisting the knife
Speaker 2: after MSNBC actually beat Fox News, he quote called himself
Speaker 2: the King and demanded they bring back Trump Allies and MAGA.
Speaker 2: So the reason why again is that he says it
Speaker 2: happened as I predicted. The golden goose that has been
Speaker 2: so beautiful is being slaughtered by fools. MAGA has left
Speaker 2: Fox for more promising prairies, love prairies and quotes.
Speaker 3: Don't ask me why that one was in quotes, Long
Speaker 3: live the King.
Speaker 2: The only for Foxes to bring back Trump Allies and
Speaker 2: MAGA backing no personality Rond sanctimonious has been a disaster. Also,
Speaker 2: do not broadcast negative ads against Republicans and Conservative candidates
Speaker 2: by perverts misfits like the failing Lincoln project.
Speaker 3: Roger Ayles never allowed that. Man.
Speaker 2: The character limit really was a blessing for Trump, these
Speaker 2: long tweets and also long treat for it. Really you
Speaker 2: know it. It requires a live editing and an economy
Speaker 2: of words, which I find very important. But I think
Speaker 2: that the main point remains that Fox News is increasingly
Speaker 2: losing its cachet amongst hardcore GOP primary boyah who have
Speaker 2: access online down to the Tucker Carlson Show, also to
Speaker 2: Trump on truth social I'm not saying that this is
Speaker 2: going to be some great revolution, but it has brought
Speaker 2: down Fox, so they are no longer the kings of
Speaker 2: cable of which they were claimed the mantle for decades
Speaker 2: of our politics.
Speaker 4: Crystal, I mean the irony.
Speaker 1: I don't know that it's an irony, but the truth
Speaker 1: is Trump, right, Yeah, you know, Trump is the most
Speaker 1: singular force in American politics. I think that's terrible. I
Speaker 1: think it's bad for the country. I think it's bad
Speaker 1: for politics. I think it makes it so our politics
Speaker 1: end up being about nothing and about you know, it's
Speaker 1: just like existential lesser too evils. There's no policy. No
Speaker 1: one feels the need to run on anything affirmative.
Speaker 4: I think that sucks, but I think it's also reality.
Speaker 1: And you see it with CNN when they tried to
Speaker 1: pull back from you know what they had cultivated over
Speaker 1: years of this resistance focused, very Trump focused audience. When
Speaker 1: they tried to counter program that, it's been a disaster
Speaker 1: for them. And so the one channel that has stayed
Speaker 1: in the like all Trump, all the time lane is
Speaker 1: MSNBC and they have been benefiting from it. Put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen. They actually dethroned Fox News after
Speaker 1: years long ratings dominance. MSNBC turned in a few performances
Speaker 1: that were actually higher than Fox News.
Speaker 4: This is nearly un heard of.
Speaker 1: Nielsen dat are regarding the weekending this past Sunday showed
Speaker 1: that Fox's primetime eight to eleven PM viewership average about
Speaker 1: one point five zero four, and the average viewership for
Speaker 1: the more left leaning MSNBC over that same primetime hours
Speaker 1: was one point five two oh so narrowly beating out
Speaker 1: the conservative network. But that's a huge deal. Fox normally
Speaker 1: dwarfs AMSNBC. It's not even close.
Speaker 4: But guess what.
Speaker 1: Guess why MSNBC is doing so well. It's all about
Speaker 1: Trump got indicted.
Speaker 4: And they went all in, and you know.
Speaker 1: CNN has sort of like broken the trust with their
Speaker 1: liberal faithful and so they migrated over to MSNBC and
Speaker 1: know they're going to get the like Trump centric coverage
Speaker 1: that they want and desire and have been trained to expect.
Speaker 1: And so you know, MSNBC ends up on top because
Speaker 1: over at Fox, I mean, listen, Fox is still very conservative.
Speaker 1: There's still in certain ways very pro Trump. But there
Speaker 1: was an overt attempt to make a break and push
Speaker 1: Ron de Santis and that, you know, and then all
Speaker 1: the text messages that came out during the dominion lawsuit
Speaker 1: about the way they really felt about Trump and what
Speaker 1: was going on behind the scenes, the way they were
Speaker 1: manipulating their viewers. And then you've got competitors now in
Speaker 1: Newsmax and One America and also in online independent creators
Speaker 1: who so people have choices as well. I think it sucks,
Speaker 1: But in terms of a cable news audience, if you're
Speaker 1: just looking at ratings, there's simply no doubt that all Trump,
Speaker 1: all the time, either pro or against, is the way
Speaker 1: to go.
Speaker 3: Yeah, sad, it's very funny.
Speaker 4: It's sad.
Speaker 2: It also shows you that you know, Fox the biggest
Speaker 2: reason why I think that they made a big mistake
Speaker 2: is they were trying to do what they had the
Speaker 2: ability to do in two thousand and eight today. So
Speaker 2: for people who don't know, back in two thousand and eight,
Speaker 2: Fox and Roger Ale specifically said, we have one mission.
Speaker 2: We're going to take down President Obama, and we are
Speaker 2: going to guide the move against Obama and re elect
Speaker 2: the next republic or elect the next Republican president. What
Speaker 2: they did is they effectively created the Tea Party by
Speaker 2: featuring their guests on all of the time and giving
Speaker 2: them a central platform to be the organizing face and
Speaker 2: force of the actual GOP. They also did that in
Speaker 2: two thousand and four for George W. Bush and then
Speaker 2: famously beat the war drum in Iraq that time, where
Speaker 2: they effectively had a monopoly on conservative messaging. It's just over, yeah,
Speaker 2: and I see signs of it everywhere. I see Republican
Speaker 2: politicians going on the Tim Poole Show. I see them
Speaker 2: going on the War Room podcast with Steve Bannon. Matt Gates,
Speaker 2: sure he goes on Fox News, but he goes on
Speaker 2: a lot of other stuff too. And watching that happen
Speaker 2: really in real time has been fascinating because they don't
Speaker 2: need Fox in the same way. And then when Fox
Speaker 2: could not really stand to lose some of its people
Speaker 2: or did not have the monopoly, it also went in
Speaker 2: for Ronda Sandys, who just simply is not the same
Speaker 2: force as Donald Trump. It doesn't have that level of support,
Speaker 2: So they tried to act as if they were still
Speaker 2: king makers for those who walked succession. There was a
Speaker 2: scene where they're like, let's go pick the next president,
Speaker 2: and I just remember thinking like, this is such an
Speaker 2: outdated model.
Speaker 3: Of how it works.
Speaker 2: Like cable presidents Rubert Murdoch and them, they don't pick
Speaker 2: the president anymore, and they haven't in a long time.
Speaker 2: So they're still just not waking up to reality. Maybe
Speaker 2: they're just so old that they literally have forgotten, certainly.
Speaker 1: On the Republican side, unfortunately, I think on the Democratic side.
Speaker 4: There still is just a lot of trust.
Speaker 3: You might like.
Speaker 1: Cable news, the mainstream press and whatever. I mean, we're
Speaker 1: talking about a multi decade long project to divorce the
Speaker 1: conservative base from mainstream networks, and so for Fox that
Speaker 1: makes you vulnerable to when the new upstarts come along,
Speaker 1: you being painted as the mainstream dinosaur. That your base
Speaker 1: already has a lot of skepticism and antipathy towards So yeah,
Speaker 1: it creates a real vulnerability for them. Now, what they
Speaker 1: argue publicly, I think sometimes and definitely privately is basically,
Speaker 1: our viewership is really old and they don't even know
Speaker 1: how to find these other platforms, and so they're stuck
Speaker 1: with us. Like that may have some truth to it,
Speaker 1: but you really want to bet on that. The bottom
Speaker 1: line is there monopoly on the conservative base and on
Speaker 1: conservative viewership is over. It's a new era, it's a
Speaker 1: new ecosystem. Are they still a force.
Speaker 4: No doubt about it.
Speaker 1: Do politicians still want to go on there and make
Speaker 1: their case, no doubt about it. Do they still have
Speaker 1: personalities that you know, Garner views and have trust all.
Speaker 4: That good stuff.
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 4: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: But you know, just like these other cable news giants,
Speaker 1: they're suffering from the same sort of managed decline and
Speaker 1: end of an era where they are just not going
Speaker 1: to be as dominant a force as they used to
Speaker 1: be in terms of American politics.
Speaker 4: That's probably a good thing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, No, I think that's very well said. Whistle.
Speaker 1: All right, so we have some other really interesting media news,
Speaker 1: But now returning to the alternative media space. So this
Speaker 1: massive streamer previously on Twitch, execuc put this up.
Speaker 4: On the screen.
Speaker 1: He just landed a massive streaming contract worth seventy millions. Also,
Speaker 1: it's actually over the two years close to one hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars to move over from Twitch, which is right
Speaker 1: now the dominant video streaming platform, over to upstart Kick,
Speaker 1: which just officially launched a few months ago. So over
Speaker 1: on Twitch he had twelve million followers. Now he's moved
Speaker 1: over to Kick. I took a look last night he
Speaker 1: was at like two hundred and twenty four thousand followers.
Speaker 1: So there are many, many fewer people on Kick. But
Speaker 1: Sager clearly this new platform, which is owned by like
Speaker 1: Australian bitcoin gambling concern and had originally positioned itself as
Speaker 1: like we're gonna be the free speech alternative kind of
Speaker 1: the way that Rumble positioned itself visa the YouTube, they
Speaker 1: are clearly making a big, big money play here to
Speaker 1: become a mainstream alternative.
Speaker 4: To Twitch and not just a sort of like side project.
Speaker 1: And part of what I read into here put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen from Fortune is they think that
Speaker 1: there's a real vulnerability to exploit because Twitch pissed off
Speaker 1: a lot of their creators. The article here from Fortune
Speaker 1: says video game streamers are rebelling against Twitch's a lower
Speaker 1: revenue split and moving to a four month old platform
Speaker 1: run by a crypto casino operator in Australian upstart platform
Speaker 1: called Kick is emerging as a threat to Amazon streaming
Speaker 1: Crown Jewel. I think that we're a long way from
Speaker 1: it being a real full rival, just based on the numbers.
Speaker 1: I was looking at who's on the platform, how many
Speaker 1: people are on the platform, how much they're actually watching.
Speaker 1: But part of why they think there's a vulnerability here
Speaker 1: is because Twitch changed the revenue share with their creators,
Speaker 1: basically being like, well, where else are you going to go?
Speaker 4: You're stuck with us. Pissed everybody off.
Speaker 1: And they also have had like aggressive content moderation quote
Speaker 1: unquote or censorship approaches that have created some tension with
Speaker 1: some of their creators as well. So they've moved to
Speaker 1: try to smooth things over. They've made it so they
Speaker 1: put the old revenue split.
Speaker 4: Back, but just on the very top creators.
Speaker 1: It doesn't seem to have done a lot to calm
Speaker 1: the waters and execuc trying to capitalize.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think it's actually fascinating.
Speaker 2: One of the reasons we wanted to cover it too
Speaker 2: are so we're lucky to have gamers on staff who
Speaker 2: keep us updated.
Speaker 3: I will confess I do not game.
Speaker 2: I don't I'm not part of the live streaming Twitch culture,
Speaker 2: but I'm not an idiot, and I'm up enough with
Speaker 2: the times to know that this is obviously a dominant sector,
Speaker 2: specifically of people who are under the age of twenty five,
Speaker 2: and actually even people who are under the age of eighteen,
Speaker 2: who live and die with Twitch streaming and are willing
Speaker 2: to watch like ten twelve hours a day. What's fascinating
Speaker 2: to me about the development here is the way that
Speaker 2: their content moderation standards has not reached the same scrutiny
Speaker 2: that YouTube and other, I guess more established forces people
Speaker 2: like us or the other political YouTubers who.
Speaker 3: We all want to know.
Speaker 2: Like we're long and most of our audience at this
Speaker 2: point is familiar with the content moderation issues. But I
Speaker 2: have seen people like Hassan get taken off for some
Speaker 2: ludicrous reason in the past.
Speaker 3: I've seen other.
Speaker 2: Political you know, people who I don't even necessarily know them,
Speaker 2: but I'll see it bubble up in my feed about
Speaker 2: you know, oh, they were taken down for next reason.
Speaker 3: It's totally ridiculous, capricious.
Speaker 2: Their content moderation standards are ludicrous, and of course, you know,
Speaker 2: we need to pay attention to that. If the newer
Speaker 2: generation is watching their stuff on Twitch, on this platform,
Speaker 2: then obviously how political discourse on that platform is moderated
Speaker 2: makes and is going to be very important for the future,
Speaker 2: especially as these people come to vote, but also as
Speaker 2: a source of entertainment as well. I mean, this is
Speaker 2: the new source of entertainment for a huge portion of
Speaker 2: not just our youth, but really global youth. I find
Speaker 2: that interesting too in gaming media, that part of the
Speaker 2: reason they're able to command such high such high like dollars,
Speaker 2: is that it's not just like American teenagers or wat
Speaker 2: just like Indian teenagers, Filipino teenagers, really like anybody who
Speaker 2: speaks English across the entire world, who are also playing
Speaker 2: the same games on the same platforms, and then watching
Speaker 2: people kind of talk both play those games, talk about
Speaker 2: those games, and then also see some of it bleed
Speaker 2: in to political commentary. So the fact that this is
Speaker 2: happening is very interesting and also our producer Griffin was
Speaker 2: telling you, Crystal about what it also may mean in
Speaker 2: terms of Amazon and it's bet for the future why
Speaker 2: they may not be as upset as they might as
Speaker 2: you might think about this deal.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So on the business side of this, Number one,
Speaker 1: I think the mainstream press is going to start taking
Speaker 1: a lot more note because of the dollar fit. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you have to when you're talking about one hundred million dollars.
Speaker 1: I mean, just to put in context, this is the
Speaker 1: why New York Times described it. This is like the
Speaker 1: type of money that Lebron James gets, you know, this
Speaker 1: is like top tier, superstar athlete type of money. So
Speaker 1: one hundred million dollars is real money that's being thrown
Speaker 1: here at a top creator. So I do think they'll
Speaker 1: start to pay attention a bit more because you know,
Speaker 1: they pay attention to money. The other piece that's interesting
Speaker 1: here though, is Twitch is owned by Amazon. Okay, now
Speaker 1: it appears we don't have Twitch's revenue stream and their
Speaker 1: net profits or whatever broken out to know for sure,
Speaker 1: but appears that Twitch is not even profitable. So for Amazon,
Speaker 1: this global behemoth, Twitch is not even all of that important.
Speaker 4: What they care a.
Speaker 1: Lot more about are like the cloud computing services that
Speaker 1: they sell and the technology that they sell also that
Speaker 1: enables video streaming. And interestingly, put this next piece up
Speaker 1: on the screen. And again thanks to our producer Griffin
Speaker 1: for flagging this Kick is actually built on the Amazon
Speaker 1: Web Services video streaming platform. This individual, Blake Robbins on Twitter,
Speaker 1: goes on to say Kick is quite literally subsidizing Twitch
Speaker 1: by paying to use the Twitch video system via Amazon
Speaker 1: Web Services. It also explains how and why Kick has
Speaker 1: been so stable relative to their growth and scale. So
Speaker 1: basically the point here is Amazon. If Amazon wants to
Speaker 1: kill Kick, it can at any time by just pulling
Speaker 1: the cloud computing services, pulling the video streaming services. But
Speaker 1: why don't they want to do that? Well, because they're
Speaker 1: much more interested in having an overall monopoly over these
Speaker 1: services and growing out this highly profitable business. And then
Speaker 1: they are in really investing in Twitch and caring what
Speaker 1: happens there. Put this next piece up on the screen
Speaker 1: from Rich Cabrera, He says, here for here you are
Speaker 1: for all those that think AWS is the only crowud
Speaker 1: service provider at least nine percent more than as your
Speaker 1: and by the way, YouTube and all Google services.
Speaker 4: Run on Google Cloud. But the big thing.
Speaker 1: Here is you have a chart that shows you cloud
Speaker 1: market AWS dominates, then comes as your then comes Google Cloud.
Speaker 1: So this is the much bigger business for Amazon. And
Speaker 1: they're much more committed to being the monopolistic player in
Speaker 1: this sphere as they are in other spheres than they
Speaker 1: are ultimately to protecting their asset.
Speaker 4: In terms of twitch video streaming.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's fascinating to see it from that perspective and
Speaker 2: just be like, oh, well, maybe they don't care because
Speaker 2: as long as they own basically the pipes of the
Speaker 2: Internet and all of live streaming, they're like, okay, whatever,
Speaker 2: I'm curious to see how this plays out. I had
Speaker 2: been looking into a lot with YouTube gaming. I obviously
Speaker 2: we care a lot about YouTube is the platform that
Speaker 2: we were born on, even though exists on several others,
Speaker 2: including the especially the podcast platform.
Speaker 3: We've seen a lot of success with YouTube.
Speaker 2: They are investing many of their tools in terms of gaming,
Speaker 2: in terms of live gaming reaction, the chat features, the
Speaker 2: bot features, your ability to do super chat. All of
Speaker 2: that is not built for people like us. It's built
Speaker 2: for gamers. And that I didn't know is that gaming
Speaker 2: has actually been multiplying by YouTube almost by like one
Speaker 2: and two hundred percent per year in terms of the traction.
Speaker 2: So it's a growing, massively growing audience. As people, especially
Speaker 2: younger kids, get onto YouTube and are watching and consuming
Speaker 2: that content. It may feel saturated, but it's really not.
Speaker 2: It's actually still skyrocketing. It may actually be as seeing
Speaker 2: with the dollars here the next multi hundred billion dollar
Speaker 2: industry that people in the mainstream really don't pay a
Speaker 2: lot of attention to. And that's what we're trying to
Speaker 2: do here.
Speaker 1: I mean, my ten year old son who loves all
Speaker 1: this stuff. He and his bestie got together this weekend
Speaker 1: and they were talking about their favorite streamers and YouTube creators.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's well, it's a whole other world. This
Speaker 4: is the other part.
Speaker 1: Is just like the fragmentation of media and how XCUC
Speaker 1: can be the biggest dreamer in the world and like
Speaker 1: many many millions of people have never heard of him,
Speaker 1: and he can command this type of money. So anyway,
Speaker 1: it's a fascinating development for a lot of reasons, and
Speaker 1: something to keep an eye on and to see whether
Speaker 1: pick is able to you know, put any sort of
Speaker 1: challenge up to Twitch I'm sure other creators will be
Speaker 1: looking very carefully at what happens here with XCUC getting
Speaker 1: this many millions of.
Speaker 3: Dollars Chrystal, what you take a look at?
Speaker 4: Last week?
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity hosted California Governor Gavin Newsom for a lengthy debate.
Speaker 4: And look, not a big fan of.
Speaker 1: Either one of these guys, but this was far more
Speaker 1: productive than ninety nine percent of cable news. Both functioned
Speaker 1: as respectful and effective spokespeople for their partisan teams. Here's
Speaker 1: one of Newsom's strong permoments, take a listen.
Speaker 4: Honest way to be the first larger economy in the world.
Speaker 3: What are you arguing for Mississippi's economic policy? Is that?
Speaker 7: I mean literally, that's what you're asking me.
Speaker 9: If I want a great if I want X, the
Speaker 9: Tensis policy, I mean it was.
Speaker 4: A debacle, you know, economic growth.
Speaker 10: Seventy one percent the gd there in America are blue counties.
Speaker 10: I would take it there one percent of the GDP
Speaker 10: in America, popular loop studies, progressive policies, Okay, that are
Speaker 10: paying high taxes.
Speaker 8: And the country or seven of the top ten dependent state.
Speaker 10: Let's say you're right, Let's say you know we're subsidizing
Speaker 10: your states, not because of your policy in New York,
Speaker 10: You're not subsidizing anything for your philosophy.
Speaker 4: I'm getting the.
Speaker 9: Hell out of New York though, Mississippi, Alabama. I'm all
Speaker 9: for it over over New York or California.
Speaker 7: I love Missus. I mean, I'm sure.
Speaker 3: Look, it just not personal.
Speaker 1: Well done there from the governor, But the context for
Speaker 1: why Newsom is doing this interview and everything he can
Speaker 1: to grab the spotlight.
Speaker 4: Is actually extremely dark.
Speaker 1: You might have noticed the California governor has been going
Speaker 1: on his way to cert himself on the national stage.
Speaker 1: In particular, he's made a point of fomenting a big
Speaker 1: national rivalry with Florida governor and twenty twenty four contender
Speaker 1: Ron DeSantis. In the run up to the midterms, Newsom
Speaker 1: spent some his campaign war chest running ads in red states.
Speaker 1: He targeted Florida in particular, where he went after DeSantis
Speaker 1: laws on abortion, on voting rights, and on book banning.
Speaker 1: In recent weeks, Newsom and DeSantis have returned to this
Speaker 1: feud after DeSantis pulled one of a stunts flying migrants
Speaker 1: to Sacramento, California. In response, Newsom threatened his rival with
Speaker 1: kidnapping charges and called him a quote small pathetic man.
Speaker 1: Pretty clear what's going on here. With all the positioning
Speaker 1: and media seeking. Newsom is trying to create a national
Speaker 1: fight between a man arondasantis trying to be the future
Speaker 1: of the Republican Party and himself a man who clearly
Speaker 1: desires to be the future of the Democratic Party. It
Speaker 1: is the proxy fight that Newsom is allowed to wage
Speaker 1: as he reviews the actuarial tables and watches Biden decline.
Speaker 4: Basically, Newsom is.
Speaker 1: Circling Biden like a vulture, ready to swoop in the
Speaker 1: moment that there is an opportunity. He's trying to grab
Speaker 1: the lead in the shadow primary of candidates, ready to
Speaker 1: pounce if Biden dies or is otherwise incapacitated. Like I said,
Speaker 1: it's really dark. Hannity is clearly aware of this subtext.
Speaker 1: So in his debate, the Fox News host press Newsom
Speaker 1: on his own presentdential ambitions.
Speaker 4: Here's how that exchange went.
Speaker 9: I don't think Joe Biden is mentally physically capable of
Speaker 9: being the President of the United States. Hang on, I
Speaker 9: suspect if I took your phone and I took a
Speaker 9: look at it, not that I believe in privacy.
Speaker 10: I would never do that. I would bet on a
Speaker 10: daily basis that there.
Speaker 9: Are people urging you to run for president and primary him.
Speaker 10: Am I wrong in my assumption? Well, my phone's been
Speaker 10: lighting up. How well he did with the UK Prime Minister?
Speaker 10: My phone lit up? And how he's not like that's
Speaker 10: a nice Doc McCarthy on the debts, your phone light on?
Speaker 10: The phone lights up with Republican friends saying, you know what,
Speaker 10: despite all of the rhetoric, these bipartisan bills he keeps
Speaker 10: passing on infrastructure and the Chips and Science Act, the
Speaker 10: bipartisan work he did on gun legislation reform and around
Speaker 10: the debt ceiling make me feel maybe he's done a
Speaker 10: little bit better job.
Speaker 9: Than So that wasn't my question. Are does your phone
Speaker 9: light up with Gavin? You need to get in this primary.
Speaker 9: He's not able to run. He's not up to the job.
Speaker 10: Look, everybody has their quiet chatter and everybody's out there
Speaker 10: rooting for America. I'm rooting for our president. I have
Speaker 10: great confidence in his auto shop.
Speaker 1: Newsome as a slick one and he seems to know it,
Speaker 1: insisting his phone is lighting up with praise and admiration
Speaker 1: for the president. Okay, sure, dude, we can all see
Speaker 1: the game that you're playing, play acting unfailing loyalty to
Speaker 1: dear leader while privately licking your chops and praying for
Speaker 1: the grim Reaper. It is quite something behold this level
Speaker 1: of brazenly mucky Velli imposturing, and it's as cynical as
Speaker 1: it is ultimately cowardly. I personally cannot stand this type
Speaker 1: of slimy gameplaying politician. If you think Biden is too
Speaker 1: old to do the job, come out and say it.
Speaker 1: If you think you'd be a better president, which clearly
Speaker 1: you do, tell us why get specific, actually get in
Speaker 1: the arena rather than pretending that you're the loyal soldier
Speaker 1: while you scheme and plot behind the scenes. Now we've
Speaker 1: made a lot of fun here of Ron Sandez, Nikki
Speaker 1: Haale and all all the rass were being too afraid
Speaker 1: to really go after Trump, bending the need to him
Speaker 1: on his indictments and completely indefensible conduct kicking forwards not
Speaker 1: sideways or whatever nicky Haley is doing.
Speaker 4: But hey, at least they.
Speaker 1: Got the stones to actually run in the primary against Trump.
Speaker 1: Newsom is too afraid of risking his good standing with
Speaker 1: the establishment powers that be to actually do what he
Speaker 1: desperately clearly wants to do and actually jump in the race.
Speaker 1: DeSantis started selling shirts mocking Newsom that read, stop pussy
Speaker 1: footing around, and you gotta say the man has a point.
Speaker 1: It's got to be killing Newsom and pen Gretchen Whitmer
Speaker 1: and a whole bunch of other ladder climbing Democratic politicians.
Speaker 4: They can smell the blood in the water.
Speaker 1: Biden's terrible approval numbers his feeble public persona the overwhelming
Speaker 1: majority of Democratic voters crying out for alternatives. They seek
Speaker 1: the weakness and his pulling even against two contenders that
Speaker 1: they all consider to be un serious gad flies. They
Speaker 1: see the historic blunder Biden made by trying to put
Speaker 1: South Carolina first in the process, pissing off Iowa and
Speaker 1: New Hampshire and all but guaranteeing two early state losses.
Speaker 1: But Newsom and all the rest they cannot escape the
Speaker 1: prison that is entirely of their own making. These are
Speaker 1: people who built brands and careers by playing for the
Speaker 1: establishment team and winning plottits from the corporate media and
Speaker 1: Democratic Party elites and their media allies have fully committed
Speaker 1: themselves to a democracy free coronation this year. The minute
Speaker 1: you dissent from that core commitment to a Biden anointment,
Speaker 1: you will be as dead to them as Marian Williamson
Speaker 1: and RFK Junior. So the best that these people can
Speaker 1: do is to thrust themselves into the limelne and secretly
Speaker 1: harbor their morbid fantasies about the commander in chief.
Speaker 4: Frankly, it's pretty gross.
Speaker 1: And for all his silver talgue of skill, Newsom may
Speaker 1: find that ultimately voters are instinctively repulsed by a serpentine
Speaker 1: maneuvering his intense lust for the crowd, ironically serving as
Speaker 1: the biggest impediment to.
Speaker 4: The title that he really seeks.
Speaker 1: Newsom might think he's being quite clever here, but his
Speaker 1: plotting is naked for everyone to see.
Speaker 4: And I enjoy the ex change with Nasimon And if you.
Speaker 2: Want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a
Speaker 2: premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 4: All right, sorry, were you're looking at?
Speaker 7: Well.
Speaker 2: Something bewildering about our culture war today is how much
Speaker 2: of it is a mix of old and new.
Speaker 3: When I was growing up in the nineties. It is
Speaker 3: actually pretty simple.
Speaker 2: It was gay marriage, guns and abortion. Now, obviously, the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court end of the gay marriage to eight in
Speaker 2: twenty fifteen, but guns and abortion are still with us.
Speaker 2: The crazy thing, though, in twenty twenty three, is that
Speaker 2: the issues of guns and abortion, they didn't go away,
Speaker 2: but we still have had new entrance to the discourse,
Speaker 2: mostly transgenderism, rights, racial identity, politics, authoritarian political correctness. The
Speaker 2: political valance of each of these topics is actually fascinating.
Speaker 2: Many liberals rightfully point out that they mostly won the
Speaker 2: original cultural wars of the seventies through the nineties. As
Speaker 2: evidenced by our most recent midterm elections, the vast majority
Speaker 2: of Americans are pro choice. The majority of Americans, including Republicans,
Speaker 2: have no issue with gay marriage. The public has basically
Speaker 2: remained the same, if not slightly more liberal in favor
Speaker 2: of gun control. On the new fights, though, it's a
Speaker 2: very different question, and it highlights what I have long
Speaker 2: identified as the new culture War, a new strain of
Speaker 2: conservatism I believe is untapped, largely unrepresented in the Republican
Speaker 2: elected base. I laid it out a few years back
Speaker 2: on the Joe Rogan podcast borrowing Matthew Walter's term barstool conservatism,
Speaker 2: It's a very simple concept. A new strain of people
Speaker 2: who call themselves or feel right wing, are fairly liberal
Speaker 2: on gay marriage and abortion, but are resolutely opposed to transgenderism,
Speaker 2: to racial identity politics, and are pretty libertarian whenever it
Speaker 2: does come to guns. The new strain of conservative is
Speaker 2: largely secular and is probably best described as socially libertarian
Speaker 2: combined with a deep hostility to liberal political correctness. The
Speaker 2: name barstool conservative is derived from Dave Portnoy, the founder
Speaker 2: of Barstool, but it represents just a male audience largely
Speaker 2: that gravitates towards his content and those like him in
Speaker 2: our political zeitgeist. Laying this all out because its important
Speaker 2: to the chart, I'm about to show you, how do
Speaker 2: you interpret it? New data released by Gallup shocked a
Speaker 2: lot of liberals. It shows in twenty twenty three, Americans
Speaker 2: find themselves more socially conservative than ever before. Thirty eight
Speaker 2: percent of Americans, for the first time in years, say
Speaker 2: they are quote very conservative or conservative on social issues,
Speaker 2: five percent more than in twenty twenty two, eight percent
Speaker 2: more than twenty twenty one Meanwhile, a corresponding drop in
Speaker 2: socially liberal has occurred. Those who identify as very liberal
Speaker 2: or even liberal on social issues has dropped in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty one from thirty four percent to twenty nine percent.
Speaker 2: The important thing to understand here is that it's not
Speaker 2: Republicans getting more socially conservative. It is actually an overall
Speaker 2: swing amongst every single political and demographic subgroup, from men
Speaker 2: to women to every racial identity. Those that have gotten
Speaker 2: the most conservative, however, are very interesting. It's older millennials
Speaker 2: and Gen X, those who are aged between thirty and
Speaker 2: sixty four, who identify as socially conservative now by double
Speaker 2: digit margins more than they previously did.
Speaker 3: The question is important, what the hell does that mean?
Speaker 2: Because in the very same poll, Americans, by a seventy
Speaker 2: one percent margin, as I said, they support gay marriage.
Speaker 2: A large majority of Americans say they identify as pro choice.
Speaker 2: So how can it be possible that Americans find themselves
Speaker 2: more socially conservative ever while also being more liberal than
Speaker 2: ever on abortion or gay marriage? And the answer, as
Speaker 2: I said, is that social conservative today now is a
Speaker 2: very different meaning to a lot of people.
Speaker 3: Than in the nineteen nineties.
Speaker 2: It has to do with the emerging fights about gender
Speaker 2: and about race than does have anything to do written
Speaker 2: in the Bible. Church membership in the US is actually
Speaker 2: at an all time low. More importantly, the trend is
Speaker 2: clear even those who grew up religious are not attending
Speaker 2: religious institutions anymore. Only twenty percent of Americans attend a
Speaker 2: religious service weekly. The vast majority of Americans say they
Speaker 2: only attend seldom or never, with numbering at a full
Speaker 2: one third of the entire public who don't attend at all.
Speaker 2: US Christian identification is an all time low. US non
Speaker 2: religious identification is only a full twenty percent. We are
Speaker 2: still a more secular country right now than ever before,
Speaker 2: and it happened incredibly rapidly. My biggest problem with our
Speaker 2: current culture war is how captured that I find most
Speaker 2: organizations and institutions who are actually engaged deeply in it
Speaker 2: by the people whose actually beliefs are deeply unpopular. For example,
Speaker 2: if you're like me and transgender ideology for targeted towards
Speaker 2: children drives you crazy, how often do you find yourself
Speaker 2: agreeing with someone who is talking about it, only to
Speaker 2: then discover that in reality they're a religious zealot who
Speaker 2: you completely disagree with on almost all other fundamental issues,
Speaker 2: or maybe you're sympathetic to adult trans rise. You think
Speaker 2: the discussion around the issue is a moral panic, and
Speaker 2: then you find someone engaged in the fight who insists
Speaker 2: it is moral and righteous for a naked drag performer
Speaker 2: to shake their genitals in a child's face. To me,
Speaker 2: the most interesting thing about all the data is how
Speaker 2: clear the recent push, mostly by the college educated elite,
Speaker 2: to police speech around gender and race while pushing their
Speaker 2: views on it from all of our higher institutions is
Speaker 2: very clearly backfiring. Americans on old culture war issues are
Speaker 2: more liberal than ever, but their embrace of the socially
Speaker 2: conservative life shows that they find our current moment far
Speaker 2: too liberal for their liking. So what to do with
Speaker 2: this data? For me, it's actually a roadmap to settlement
Speaker 2: and a very happy medium. Whichever side wants to emphasize
Speaker 2: individual liberty for adults will win. That is why Democrats
Speaker 2: win the abortion message. Secular Americans in particular are repulsed
Speaker 2: at having their behavior policed largely by a religious ideology
Speaker 2: that they don't agree with.
Speaker 3: It is also why cultural.
Speaker 2: Leftists are increasingly losing the broader public. The new culture
Speaker 2: War relies mostly on authoritarian control speech, whether it be
Speaker 2: abound race or gender, and it relies on that control
Speaker 2: and propaganda from the commanding heights of cultural power. The
Speaker 2: more people silently will get fed up if someone does
Speaker 2: not give soon, we are going to be truly doomed, though.
Speaker 3: Because we will have a seesaw oft power.
Speaker 2: Republicans could win on temporarily on a popular issue, but
Speaker 2: then they'll enact unpopular legislation, and then the Democrats will
Speaker 2: do the exact same thing. And the longer that that
Speaker 2: goes on, the more split that we all become. And
Speaker 2: maybe it's actually designed that way from the very beginning.
Speaker 2: So anyway, I'm curious what you think.
Speaker 1: Of the day, and if you want to hear my
Speaker 1: reaction to Sager's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at
Speaker 1: breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 2: Joining us now is Ryan Clancy. He is the chief
Speaker 2: strategist of No Labels Group. Brian, it's great to see you, thanks.
Speaker 3: For joining us, Thanks for having me all right.
Speaker 2: Ryan, So why don't we just get to the specifics here?
Speaker 2: What are your group's plans for the twenty twenty four election?
Speaker 2: Lots of consternation around it, so get specific with us.
Speaker 7: Yeah. So we've been working for over a year to
Speaker 7: get bat allin exos in states across the country to
Speaker 7: create the opening to nominate a unity ticket potentially next year.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of concern from the Democratic side that
Speaker 1: your group, if you run a third party candidate, could
Speaker 1: serve as a spoiler. The idea being here that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump supporters are largely locked in that it's the Biden
Speaker 1: pro Biden anti Trump coalition that could potentially be split
Speaker 1: by your effort. Now, your Democratic co chair, doctor Ben
Speaker 1: and Chavis recently addressed this. He said No Labels is
Speaker 1: not and will not be a spoiler in favor of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, going on to say, if we find the
Speaker 1: polls are changed and Joe Biden is way way out ahead,
Speaker 1: then No Labels will stand down. So can you explain
Speaker 1: that because that was a little confusing to me because
Speaker 1: it seems to me like the spoiler potential would be
Speaker 1: greater if the polls are closer versus if the polls
Speaker 1: are far apart.
Speaker 7: Sure. So, from the beginning, there's been two bars that
Speaker 7: we have to clear to nominate a ticket. One is
Speaker 7: the two major party nominees need to be considered bad
Speaker 7: enough in the view of the public, and a potential
Speaker 7: alternative ticket needs to be considered good enough that it
Speaker 7: could win outright in the electoral college. Obviously, if Biden
Speaker 7: were holding a big lead, that would probably close off
Speaker 7: the path for an independent ticket. And this is where
Speaker 7: a lot of what we've done has been so mischaracterized.
Speaker 7: You see comparisons to Jill Stein or Nator or something
Speaker 7: like that. We will never nominate a ticket like that.
Speaker 7: Nobody wants to fuel a protei candidacy.
Speaker 2: So if it's not a protest candidacy, let's go and
Speaker 2: put this up there on screen, guys. Please New York
Speaker 2: Times tearsheet the alarm by Democrats that we have seen
Speaker 2: Joe Manchin being held up as a potential at the
Speaker 2: top of the list here for a ticket. Why do
Speaker 2: you see this as as you called it, a unity ticket.
Speaker 2: Why is the country crying out for a Joe Mansion
Speaker 2: presidency if you will or a like minded politician.
Speaker 7: Sure, I mean, I don't know that they're crying out
Speaker 7: for Mansion or anybody else. What I know they're crying
Speaker 7: out for in which you both know they're crying out
Speaker 7: for is something different than what they're almost certainly going
Speaker 7: to get. So you've all seen the polls. Two thirds
Speaker 7: or more people do not want to rematch the twenty
Speaker 7: twenty election, and yet our system has absolutely no way
Speaker 7: to adjust to that. So we're in this position now
Speaker 7: where the major forces into both parties are basically saying,
Speaker 7: at two thirds of the country, tough luck. You're you're
Speaker 7: gonna have this election even if you don't like it
Speaker 7: in the and in the end, we don't even care
Speaker 7: if you like our candidate as long as you hate
Speaker 7: the candidate on the other side. More we know you'll
Speaker 7: come home to us, And we just feel like the
Speaker 7: country can do a lot better than that.
Speaker 1: Sure, I mean, we certainly do agree with that. However,
Speaker 1: the specifics really matter because a lot of the people
Speaker 1: that are frustrated with Joe Biden, for example, they are
Speaker 1: more of the Cornell West or Mary and Williamson or
Speaker 1: Jill Stein view where they're disappointed that Biden hasn't done
Speaker 1: war on climate. They're disappointed that Biden has broken his
Speaker 1: promises with regard to the Proact or regard to the
Speaker 1: minimum wage. They would like for him to have moved
Speaker 1: further to the left on a variety of issues. So
Speaker 1: can you get specific about what your complaints specifically with
Speaker 1: Joe Biden are and how your theoretical candidate would reflect
Speaker 1: a different policy valance than what the Biden administration, which
Speaker 1: I view is very centrist and very moderate, which is
Speaker 1: you guys's brand what they've put forward.
Speaker 7: So this is something that we've been very clear about
Speaker 7: since the beginning, which is we are not doing this
Speaker 7: because of subjective judgment about how good or bad Biden
Speaker 7: is or a judgment about Trump. What we're doing is
Speaker 7: something that nobody else in the political system seems to
Speaker 7: be doing, which is actually just responding to what the
Speaker 7: public clearly wants. Now. They have obviously different reasons for
Speaker 7: not liking Trump right now or not liking Biden, but
Speaker 7: the one thing we can anchor in is that they
Speaker 7: want a better choice and in our view, having the
Speaker 7: ballot and in July we're actually going to be putting
Speaker 7: out some ideas. What that's going to finally do for
Speaker 7: the first time in a long time is there's this
Speaker 7: huge common sense majority in this country that gets ignored
Speaker 7: that both parties don't feel like they have to be
Speaker 7: accountable to this is actually going to force them to
Speaker 7: be accountable to them. And if in the end they
Speaker 7: put forward candidates or platforms that make it so there's
Speaker 7: no room for a No Label's ticket because they're appealing
Speaker 7: to the vast majority. Great, We'll stand down and double
Speaker 7: down on the work we've been doing in Congress for
Speaker 7: over a decade.
Speaker 2: So, Ryan, something I'm interested in is why not any
Speaker 2: of the current people in the field, as Chryssel mentioned,
Speaker 2: Cornell West, Mariyan Williamson, RFK Junior. He's mounting a very
Speaker 2: serious threat right now to the Biden White House, enough
Speaker 2: so that they've gotten the same Times coverage that you
Speaker 2: guys have over there. So why not back somebody who
Speaker 2: is in the race and is actually primary Joe Biden
Speaker 2: actively as we speak.
Speaker 7: Because we're not working to undermine Biden. We're not working
Speaker 7: to intervene in the Republican primary. That's the problem. No
Speaker 7: Label's ability to influence either party primary is very limited.
Speaker 7: As you know, turn up there is pretty narrow. It's
Speaker 7: often controlled by a lot of party officials. In the States,
Speaker 7: we're just going to buy bypass the primary is entirely
Speaker 7: and here's why that's so important and I know we
Speaker 7: haven't talked about issues much, but all these issues that
Speaker 7: we know the public wants solved, and we even know
Speaker 7: that outlines of what that could look like. You look
Speaker 7: at issues like immigration or education, we know why those
Speaker 7: issues can't be solved. It's because people on both sides,
Speaker 7: the leaders in both parties, are deathly afraid of crossing
Speaker 7: their primary and the interest groups that have the most
Speaker 7: power in the primaries. So if you start to look
Speaker 7: at issues and you wonder, why can't we have sensible
Speaker 7: gun safety legislation even though eighty percent of the country
Speaker 7: wants it, it's because of the influence in the gun
Speaker 7: lobby on the right. Why can't we have school choice,
Speaker 7: Why do we force kids into failing schools year after year?
Speaker 7: It's because of the influence of the teachers' unions on
Speaker 7: the left.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, so let's talk a little bit more policy specifics,
Speaker 1: because I think that's important. I mean, first of all,
Speaker 1: public education, traditional public education, public schools, is very broadly
Speaker 1: supported by the public. So I would dispute the fact
Speaker 1: that that's some sort of common sense majority and that
Speaker 1: that's not you know that that's entirely driven by union support.
Speaker 1: But put guys up on the screen G four, which
Speaker 1: shows the views of Americans with regard to taxation. So
Speaker 1: you have huge majorities, I'm talking eighty three percent of
Speaker 1: Americans who say corporations they're worried corporations don't pay their
Speaker 1: fair share of taxes. Similar, vast majorities eighty two percent
Speaker 1: say that they're concerned the wealthy do not pay their
Speaker 1: fair share of taxes. So is taxing the wealthy part
Speaker 1: of your mainstream agenda given that it has eighty percent
Speaker 1: plus support among the American people, both Republicans and Democrats.
Speaker 7: So we've got a huge section on the budget, which
Speaker 7: of course is completely out of control right now. And
Speaker 7: in our policy agenda that we're putting out shortly after
Speaker 7: July fourth, we make very clear that for any progress
Speaker 7: to be made on the budget, everything has to be
Speaker 7: on the table, and that includes taxes and that includes spending.
Speaker 7: There is no way to cut your way out of this,
Speaker 7: to tax your way out of this. Both parties are
Speaker 7: going to have to come to the table and give
Speaker 7: things that they haven't wanted to give up until now,
Speaker 7: or we're just going to keep having these deficits which
Speaker 7: are completely unsustainable.
Speaker 1: So your Party would commit to increasing taxes is on
Speaker 1: the wealthy, because there have been other instances where No
Speaker 1: Labels has teamed up with Kerson Cinema to make sure,
Speaker 1: for example, the carried interest loophole doesn't get closed, to
Speaker 1: make sure that pharmaceutical companies don't have to negotiate with
Speaker 1: the federal government in terms.
Speaker 4: Of prescription drug prices.
Speaker 1: So do you all commit to the idea, based on
Speaker 1: this common sense majority of eighty three percent, that the
Speaker 1: wealthy should pay more in taxes?
Speaker 7: Well, wait, christ I want to correct the record there.
Speaker 7: So we never teamed up with Kirston Cinema to knock
Speaker 7: down the carried interest loophole or get rid of prescription
Speaker 7: drug negotiations. In fact, one of the things you'll see
Speaker 7: again in our agenda coming out in July is we
Speaker 7: call for more prescription drug negotiations because that's what the
Speaker 7: public told us they wanted in this megapol we did
Speaker 7: of twenty six thousand people. I think what you're referring
Speaker 7: to with Senator Cinema, if you go back to a
Speaker 7: couple of years, Yes, No Labels did not support the
Speaker 7: partisan passage of the full Build Back Bendor Bill in
Speaker 7: the same way, we didn't worth the passage of the
Speaker 7: Trump tax cuts.
Speaker 1: Well, let me ask you about that, because the individual
Speaker 1: elements of the Build Back Better Bill were extremely popular,
Speaker 1: including closing the carried interest loophole, including affordable childcare, including
Speaker 1: universal pre K. Each of these things was supported by
Speaker 1: an overwhelming majority of Americans, So it very much seemed
Speaker 1: like there was a common sense majority in favor of
Speaker 1: each of those elements.
Speaker 4: So then why would you oppose that?
Speaker 7: Well, there's two things. First of all, it's very easy
Speaker 7: to pull individual ideas in isolation. So if you ask people,
Speaker 7: do you want universal childcare? Sure sounds good. Do you
Speaker 7: want prescription drug pricing? Sure sounds good? Do you want
Speaker 7: climate subsidies? Sure sounds good. The problem is if you
Speaker 7: look at those things in their totality and what that
Speaker 7: would cost, then you can also ask the public, how
Speaker 7: do you feel about our fiscal situation? Do you think
Speaker 7: Washington needs to be doing less spending? Do you think
Speaker 7: they need to be bringing our budget under control? And
Speaker 7: they'll tell you yes, that's a huge priority for them.
Speaker 7: So it's not something you can sort of look at
Speaker 7: in isolation. Yeah, they like some of these ideas, But
Speaker 7: when you pulled it all together. What you saw is
Speaker 7: a five trillion dollar package that was going to be
Speaker 7: passed with one party support. And it's the same reason
Speaker 7: as I said, we didn't support the Trump tax cuts,
Speaker 7: because when you do huge policy like that, it doesn't
Speaker 7: last until two four years later the other party comes
Speaker 7: in they try to undo it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So it's more it's a political case I understand
Speaker 3: that you're making here.
Speaker 2: So why do you think that your third party candidacy
Speaker 2: would be able to solve that? Like, let's say, even
Speaker 2: if you do win the presidency, you're still going to
Speaker 2: have a heart parties in Congress, of which that you
Speaker 2: best described as.
Speaker 3: In why is this run?
Speaker 2: It kind of the band aid that you think it
Speaker 2: is to the major structural problems that you're laying out.
Speaker 7: Because it all comes back to who do politicians think
Speaker 7: they're accountable to? And the problem is is whether you're
Speaker 7: talking about the press, whether you're talking about House or
Speaker 7: Senate leaders, they only really care about what their primary
Speaker 7: voters think. That's all. They worry about, the narrow slice
Speaker 7: of voters who are going to put them over the
Speaker 7: top in their elections. And then they get to the
Speaker 7: general and they don't really have to worry about that anymore.
Speaker 7: So here's how that manifests on an issue like immigration.
Speaker 7: You look at our polling, eighty percent of people would
Speaker 7: get behind a compromise that one made significant investments in
Speaker 7: border security, but two provided a path to citizenship for
Speaker 7: the dreamers. Why can't we have that? Well, here's why.
Speaker 7: Because if you're in the Democratic Party today and you're
Speaker 7: for any kind of border security, you get accused by
Speaker 7: your base of wanting to put kids in cages. And
Speaker 7: if you're a Republican who's for anything other than deporting everybody,
Speaker 7: then well you're for amnesty. And that's why we can
Speaker 7: never get anything done on these issues.
Speaker 1: Let me ask let me ask you about because AOC
Speaker 1: is not president and ilan oh and Bernie Sanders, they're
Speaker 1: not president. Joe Biden as president, and he has maintained
Speaker 1: actually a lot of the Trump immigration policies. And by
Speaker 1: the way, Democrats have put forward legislation which does basically
Speaker 1: what you suggest, pathway to citizenship, increase dollars for border security.
Speaker 1: So I'm just confused, frankly, why Joe Biden isn't your guy. Look,
Speaker 1: he's not my guy. I'm ideologically to the left of him.
Speaker 1: I think he's failed on any number of promises to
Speaker 1: the working class, but not only you know, put on immigration.
Speaker 1: As I laid out, he passed an infrastructure bill with
Speaker 1: bipartisan support. He passed the Chips Act with bipartisan support.
Speaker 1: He passed the Inflation Reduction Act.
Speaker 4: He got that through.
Speaker 1: He was able to do the Packed Act to help
Speaker 1: toxic burn pick victims from our men and women serving overseas.
Speaker 1: So he's like fetishizes bipartisanships.
Speaker 4: It's his whole thing.
Speaker 1: So do you see him what is your specific events
Speaker 1: with him? Number one and number two? Do you see
Speaker 1: him as equally sort of extreme in your language as
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is?
Speaker 7: No so, and we've our co chairs put out a
Speaker 7: statement to this effect, Doctor Benchetas Joe Lieberman headline was
Speaker 7: Donald Trump should never again be president. So we don't
Speaker 7: have any illusions about an equivalency between two of them.
Speaker 7: But again the crystal I come back to this. If
Speaker 7: you look at where the public is at, why is
Speaker 7: President Biden's approval rating is under thirty percent among independents.
Speaker 7: It was over sixty when he was inaugurated, So obviously
Speaker 7: something has happened between then and now, and in our
Speaker 7: view when we look at our polling, some of that
Speaker 7: is he probably hasn't governed as the unifier that the
Speaker 7: public expected.
Speaker 1: Well actually, actually, I mean when his approval ratings were
Speaker 1: the highest we're at the beginning of his administration, when
Speaker 1: he was doing the most and taking them you know,
Speaker 1: with the stimulus at the beginning, dealing with the end
Speaker 1: of the pandemic, you know, cutting checks to American citizens,
Speaker 1: That's when.
Speaker 4: His approval rating was the highest.
Speaker 1: When he has you know, sort of taken a step
Speaker 1: back and obsessed over bipartisanship and dougness Hea and not
Speaker 1: done a whole lot, that's when his approval rating falls
Speaker 1: off a cliff. So the idea that the move is
Speaker 1: to the center, that there needs to be more like
Speaker 1: the bipartisan infrastructure deal type of stuff, well, they already
Speaker 1: did that.
Speaker 4: It clearly didn't give Biden much of a bump in
Speaker 4: the polls. So I would just dispute.
Speaker 1: I think we have a very large difference of opinion
Speaker 1: about the frustrations that the American people have with Joe
Speaker 1: Biden in particular. But the other piece, you know, you've
Speaker 1: talked a lot about, you know, the American people and
Speaker 1: what they support and what they're looking for and who
Speaker 1: politicians are responsive to. Your group reportedly has a lot
Speaker 1: of very large donors. A number of billionaires including Harlan
Speaker 1: Crowe have been reported and Steven Schwarzman have been reported
Speaker 1: as giving big money to your group. But you all
Speaker 1: want to close your donors so that people know what
Speaker 1: interest you might have at stake and what they might
Speaker 1: be signing up for if they do affiliate with your group.
Speaker 1: So will you commit to revealing your donors so that
Speaker 1: the American people can have transparency around what this third
Speaker 1: party effort is about and who it is backed by.
Speaker 7: So first Crystal, a lot of the donors that have
Speaker 7: been reported that support no labels, they don't. I mean,
Speaker 7: I really don't know where they're getting the NIMS from, including.
Speaker 1: Well Harlan, I mean we can can you just confirm
Speaker 1: or deny, you know, the two of them so that
Speaker 1: we can have some more information, because again, this is
Speaker 1: all based on what people are able to report out,
Speaker 1: rather than it would clear up the record if you
Speaker 1: just made all the donors public.
Speaker 7: Now here's why we don't do that, and we never have.
Speaker 7: So we've been around for thirteen years. We're not a
Speaker 7: political party. We're a C four like AARP or legal
Speaker 7: women voters, and they don't support their donors either. Because
Speaker 7: the way this works today is a lot of the
Speaker 7: people that are attacking us, they sort of get behind
Speaker 7: the mantle of transparency and good government. They say, oh,
Speaker 7: just you know, just reveal all your donors. Of course,
Speaker 7: they don't reveal any of theirs. What they want to
Speaker 7: do is go through a donor list and just attack
Speaker 7: those people, all the people that support us on both sides,
Speaker 7: and then try to intimidate them to leave no labels.
Speaker 7: That's how the game works. We're not going to play it.
Speaker 7: If in the end we nominate a ticket, that ticket
Speaker 7: will have to disclose everything to the FEC, just as
Speaker 7: any ticket would. So if you want to know what
Speaker 7: does no labels stand for, I'd say look at two things.
Speaker 7: One what we've done the last thirteen years, and two,
Speaker 7: as I mentioned in July, will be out with common sense.
Speaker 7: That's going to be our policy agenda, and I think
Speaker 7: you'll see in there a broadly appealing agenda that has
Speaker 7: nothing to do with pushing special interests, corporate interests. We
Speaker 7: do not take corporate money, so we feel very good
Speaker 7: about how we handle our donors.
Speaker 2: All right, Ryan, Well, we appreciate you joining us, talking
Speaker 2: to us little bit. Whenever it comes out in July,
Speaker 2: make sure you send it our way. Maybe we'll have
Speaker 2: a fun discussion again. I will say, though, I feel
Speaker 2: like all of you should have to disclose your donors,
Speaker 2: not just you but everybody else.
Speaker 4: Hunter.
Speaker 2: Maybe we could talk about that a little bit later. Anyway,
Speaker 2: appreciate you joining us.
Speaker 7: Thank you, thanks so much.
Speaker 2: All right, guys, hope you enjoyed it with enjoy having
Speaker 2: people there up on the big screen, having fun conversation
Speaker 2: and all that.
Speaker 3: We will have a great show for everybody tomorrow.
Speaker 2: And support us at Breakingpoints dot com