Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody,
Speaker 2: Happy Thursday. Have an amazing show for everybody today. What
Speaker 2: do we have, Crystal.
Speaker 1: Indeed, we do a lot of interesting things that are happening.
Speaker 1: So Kamala went on Fox News yesterday for a very
Speaker 1: contentious interview. We'll show you all the highlights of that.
Speaker 1: And Trump also was on Fox News for like a
Speaker 1: women's focus town hall. Very different vibes, i would say,
Speaker 1: between the two of them. So we'll share some of
Speaker 1: that with you as well. Also have some new pulling
Speaker 1: for you and Harry Unton taking a close look at
Speaker 1: how well Kamala is doing with white women. Will they
Speaker 1: ultimately allow her to cruise into the White House? We
Speaker 1: will see Biden's still very mad at Nancy Pelow's apparently
Speaker 1: they still have not spoken since he dropped on of
Speaker 1: the race. Interesting revelations there and some reported tension between
Speaker 1: the Kamala Harris and Joe Biden camps as well. We
Speaker 1: are finally, I think, going to take a look at
Speaker 1: the Florida real estate market today. We teased it the
Speaker 1: other day and then we talked too much and some
Speaker 1: other segments, so we just pushed it to today. So we
Speaker 1: wanted to make sure we had time to do that
Speaker 1: one justice because it is a very interesting story. We
Speaker 1: also have our eyes of course on Israel in the
Speaker 1: Middle East, former Israeli IDF. Actually someone who's high up
Speaker 1: in the IDF issued a dire warning about the future
Speaker 1: of the state of Israel. Who want to bring you
Speaker 1: that as well as some other developments and a couple
Speaker 1: of noteworthy CNN moments that we wanted to react to
Speaker 1: for you. So that one's always.
Speaker 2: Yes, exactly, always fun to get that into the show.
Speaker 2: Before we get to that, just thank you to everybody
Speaker 2: who has been signing up premium subscription. So we're getting
Speaker 2: down to the wire here. As a reminder, you will
Speaker 2: get our exclusive election map and prediction before election day.
Speaker 2: If you are a premium subscriber all of our content
Speaker 2: with Logan, which is our election forecaster, as well as
Speaker 2: stuff that we're going to tease on election nights. You're
Speaker 2: going to take advantage of that Breakingpoints dot Com and
Speaker 2: you can become a premium sub now. As Crystal said,
Speaker 2: we had a very contentious, certainly interview with Fox News.
Speaker 2: Brett Bayer sat with Kamala Harris roughly twenty eight minutes.
Speaker 2: A couple of different sections we wanted to go through
Speaker 2: here for everybody. That shows some of the highlights for
Speaker 2: what you think you could get out of it and
Speaker 2: more importantly, what maybe some swing people could have gotten
Speaker 2: out of it. First was on the section of immigration.
Speaker 2: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of people that look back at what
Speaker 3: you said at twenty nineteen when you first ran for president,
Speaker 3: and there have been changes, and you've talked about some
Speaker 3: of them. When it comes to immigration, you supported allowing
Speaker 3: immigrants in the country illegally to apply for driver's license,
Speaker 3: to qualify for free tuition at universities, to be enrolled
Speaker 3: in free healthcare.
Speaker 4: Do you still support those things?
Speaker 5: Listen, that was five years ago, and I'm very clear
Speaker 5: that I will follow the law. I make that statement
Speaker 5: over and over again, and as Vice President of the
Speaker 5: United States, that's exactly what I've done.
Speaker 2: Not to mention before you.
Speaker 3: If that's the case, you chose a running mate, Tim Walls,
Speaker 3: governor of Minnesota, who signed those very things into state law.
Speaker 3: So do you support that?
Speaker 5: We are very clear, and I'm very clear as is
Speaker 5: Tim Walls, that we must support and enforce federal law,
Speaker 5: and that is exactly what we will do.
Speaker 2: That capped about what I would say ten minutes or
Speaker 2: so on immigration.
Speaker 1: He started with immigration and stayed there for a long time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was I would say it was about half
Speaker 2: maybe you know, roughly yef something like that worth of
Speaker 2: the interview. So anyway, I mean, it's one of those
Speaker 2: where it was obvious that they were going into that
Speaker 2: that's about the best that she's going to get this whole.
Speaker 2: I what did she say? It was like, Well, that
Speaker 2: was five years ago, so that was certainly something I
Speaker 2: picked up on. I don't know. I mean, you and
Speaker 2: I have very I usually I think we come into
Speaker 2: this with the same frame, but I don't this one.
Speaker 2: I'm mystified. You think she did very well, so.
Speaker 1: I should be so let me say, first of all,
Speaker 1: to set up like the totality of the inner Brett bhare,
Speaker 1: I don't think you would disagree. Very aggressive in a
Speaker 1: way that he would never be with Trump. Not that
Speaker 1: he wouldn't ask Trump tough questions. I think he would.
Speaker 1: But from the very first question, he's cutting her off,
Speaker 1: doesn't even let her finish a sentence. You know, they're
Speaker 1: really going back and forth. We'll show you a moment
Speaker 1: later on where he really deceptively edited this Trump comments
Speaker 1: about enmy from within. So he clearly came into this
Speaker 1: thinking like Trump had called out Fox News for even
Speaker 1: doing this interview and put pressure on obviously Brett Baer
Speaker 1: in advance of like you better really hold her feet
Speaker 1: to the fire. He's feeling the pressure of the Fox
Speaker 1: News audience. And it was very clear that his goal was,
Speaker 1: like I'm going to be aggressive and I'm going to
Speaker 1: try to really get her off balance. So you know,
Speaker 1: on like this question, there is no good answer here
Speaker 1: for her because she has changed her positions so dramatically
Speaker 1: on any number of things, and this is always going
Speaker 1: to be you know, the best she's come up with
Speaker 1: is like my values haven't changed here. I think she
Speaker 1: handles what is again effectively an impossible question for her
Speaker 1: to really be honest about, which the real answer is,
Speaker 1: you know, politically, in twenty twenty, I was trying to
Speaker 1: run to the left of Bernie Sanders. Now politically I'm
Speaker 1: trying to like pivot and appeal to a general election audience,
Speaker 1: So my pandering strategies have changed. Like, that's the honest answer.
Speaker 1: She obviously can't give that answer, so to just be like, listen,
Speaker 1: have I done any of that as Vice President of
Speaker 1: the United States. No, I've enforced the law. That's what
Speaker 1: I'll do it going forward. I think that's about the
Speaker 1: best you could do. My assessment of the overall interview
Speaker 1: is not that I like love every answer, because obviously
Speaker 1: I have many significant policy differences with Kamala Harris, in
Speaker 1: particular on immigration, and also they touched on Israel and
Speaker 1: Iran later on. Of course, the framing, yeah, the framing
Speaker 1: of that from Bett Brett Baerr is basically like, you know,
Speaker 1: why aren't you at war with Iran already? That's the
Speaker 1: framing of you know, that's not unique to Fox News.
Speaker 1: That was also the framing the debate. So it's not
Speaker 1: that I love the substance of her answers on a
Speaker 1: number of these. But she handled an adversarial interview that
Speaker 1: was very aggressive and at times actively dishonest better than
Speaker 1: she handled the view ladies. Which is kind of interesting,
Speaker 1: right with Kamala. It's all about does she take it
Speaker 1: seriously and did she prepare. That's why she did so
Speaker 1: well in the first debate against Joe Biden, That's why
Speaker 1: she did so well in the debate against Trump. She
Speaker 1: clearly took this interview very seriously and came prepared. And
Speaker 1: you know, I don't think there was I know that
Speaker 1: this is a little bit of a rorshack test that
Speaker 1: the Trump people think she did terrible or whatever. But
Speaker 1: she never got thrown off balance. She never spluttered, she
Speaker 1: never got angry, she did not take the bait when
Speaker 1: multiple times Brett Baer was trying to get her to
Speaker 1: like trash Trump supporters, and so yeah, I think in
Speaker 1: what was a difficult adversarial situation, overall, she handled herself
Speaker 1: quite well.
Speaker 2: I'm trying. Look, I'm trying hard to color my bias
Speaker 2: on this one, but I don't see that at all.
Speaker 2: I mean, on the immigration answer again, like look, if
Speaker 2: you're a and again I'm trying to put on the
Speaker 2: mind of a swing state voter, of somebody who is
Speaker 2: genuinely independent. So I'll start with what I thought she
Speaker 2: did well, And actually the Fox people agreed she got
Speaker 2: her licks in against Trump. Basically every pivot was but Trump,
Speaker 2: but Trump, but Trump. And we're going to show people
Speaker 2: some of the clips in a bit about Biden and
Speaker 2: the inability to address the mental acuity. But that's where
Speaker 2: she did kind of sput her right on, Well, when
Speaker 2: did you first notice that Joe Biden's mental faculties had declined? Zero?
Speaker 2: Answer in terms of immigration. I mean, I thought what
Speaker 2: was so weak about it was actually just not only
Speaker 2: the flip flop of the dishonesty around the position, but
Speaker 2: in the beginning too, there was a lot of trying
Speaker 2: to basically turn it around as if her administration had
Speaker 2: no power in this situation. So Brett had asked her
Speaker 2: a question something on along the lines of like, why
Speaker 2: have there been X million people illegally led into the
Speaker 2: country while you were under the while you a vice president?
Speaker 2: And she dishonestly is like, well, in the first week
Speaker 2: of Congress, we presented a bill and they didn't pass
Speaker 2: the bill. And that's why it's the Republican's fault. It's like,
Speaker 2: hold on a second, as Ryan laid out yesterday, that's
Speaker 2: an amnesty bill. But second, this is it ignores like
Speaker 2: all the executive action over that three and a half years.
Speaker 2: So he kept trying to interrupt her to get at that. Now,
Speaker 2: I agree it was aggressive, but I mean I don't
Speaker 2: have an issue with people interrupting politicians. People should interrupt
Speaker 2: people more. But the point is that on that in particular,
Speaker 2: for those first ten minutes, the command and the spin
Speaker 2: just leaped out at me dramatically. Again, if you if
Speaker 2: you don't have a deep familiarity with amnesty bills and
Speaker 2: all that, like, maybe that came across differently. She certainly
Speaker 2: stood her ground, I think for what liberals could take
Speaker 2: away as like, yeah, she stood up to Brett Baer
Speaker 2: and to Fox News. There's no question it was aggressive
Speaker 2: as hell. Right, it really was like the lions Den.
Speaker 2: We should give politicians props, they should do more of that.
Speaker 2: So I don't want to totally discourage you, but I
Speaker 2: don't know how we could classify that as good as
Speaker 2: a good performance.
Speaker 1: Here's what I would say. I mean, Trump is reportedly
Speaker 1: literally calling her retarded. So you can't look at this
Speaker 1: interview and be like this person. She really held her
Speaker 1: own and was able to pivot. I thought Brett asked
Speaker 1: her a, you know, really challenging question, played the clip
Speaker 1: of her talking about the transgender surgeries in prison, and
Speaker 1: she actually had a great response. She was like, number one,
Speaker 1: this happened under Trump, So when did you ask him
Speaker 1: about that? And number two, he's spending two hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty million dollars on these ads. Do you really think
Speaker 1: this issue is like top of mind for Americans to
Speaker 1: try and pay their bills, et cetera. And again, that's
Speaker 1: a very very challenging question for her to have to
Speaker 1: deal with, given how she's trying to like buck the
Speaker 1: two liberal label et cetera, et cetera in her campaign strategy,
Speaker 1: which is to shift to the right. That's a very
Speaker 1: challenging question, and I thought that was about as good
Speaker 1: an answer as you could possibly give. Also, another highlight
Speaker 1: in my opinion from her was he was asking her like, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: if Trump is so bad, why is half the country
Speaker 1: set to vowarm? She was like, it's a presidential election,
Speaker 1: it's not supposed to be easy. And I also thought
Speaker 1: that was a fantastic answer, because you know, he again
Speaker 1: challenging question. He wanted her to give him some clippable moment,
Speaker 1: like basically calling the Trump based deplorable or whatever. And
Speaker 1: yet he tried to get her to go down that path,
Speaker 1: and she just wouldn't do it at all. As you said,
Speaker 1: she kept pivoting back to Trump and her position on that.
Speaker 1: So no, overall, I thought, in a very challenging circumstance,
Speaker 1: she handled herself quite well and certainly exceeded my expectations
Speaker 1: of what she was even really capable of in the circumstances.
Speaker 1: And so that's kind of my point is, like, you know,
Speaker 1: the caricature, which has been at times really justly deserved
Speaker 1: of Kamala Harris is that she can't think on her feet.
Speaker 1: If she's off the teleprompter, it's just a hot mess.
Speaker 1: You know that she's word salad and all over the place,
Speaker 1: And we didn't see that in this In this exchange,
Speaker 1: she was quite capable and competent, and you know, proved
Speaker 1: that she deserved to be in that slot. And so
Speaker 1: when I think about swing voters and how they might
Speaker 1: process this, Number One I don't really think swing voters
Speaker 1: really are processing this. To be honest with you, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure not. I mean, I don't know what's going
Speaker 1: to move people at this point. I have no idea.
Speaker 1: But it's probably more likely to be you know, the
Speaker 1: podcast appearance with or the appearance with Charlemagne or some
Speaker 1: of the more cultural figures than it is a Fox
Speaker 1: News interview. But some of this might break through. But
Speaker 1: if you're just looking at that in the vibe, you're like, oh,
Speaker 1: this is a capable person, Like this is a strong person.
Speaker 1: This is a tough person. She's able to hold her
Speaker 1: own and push back. And so that's why I think
Speaker 1: that she did herself some favors in this interview, not
Speaker 1: just with Democrats who were very happy with her performance,
Speaker 1: but with those potential swing.
Speaker 2: Voters as well. See I didn't get the competent part. Again,
Speaker 2: I'm trying hard to color my bias here, but I
Speaker 2: didn't see it. It's let's let's play a wrong track answer.
Speaker 2: For example, we need to play more of this for people.
Speaker 4: Of people.
Speaker 5: That is about turning the page on rhetoric that people
Speaker 5: are frankly exhausted of bread more than to.
Speaker 3: Tell the country is on the wrong track. They say
Speaker 3: the country is on the wrong track. If it's on
Speaker 3: the wrong track, that track follows three and a half
Speaker 3: years of you being vice president and President Biden being president.
Speaker 3: That is what they're saying, seventy nine percent of them.
Speaker 3: Why are they saying that? If you're turning the page,
Speaker 3: You've been in office for three and a half years.
Speaker 5: And Donald Trump has been running for office.
Speaker 4: But you've been the person home on some what you.
Speaker 6: And I both know what I'm talking about. You and
Speaker 6: I both know what.
Speaker 4: I'm actually do. What are you talking about?
Speaker 5: What I'm talking about is that over the last decade,
Speaker 5: people have the cower. But listen, over the last decade,
Speaker 5: it is clear to me and certainly the Republicans who
Speaker 5: are on stage with me, the former chief of staff
Speaker 5: to the President Donald Trump, the former defense secretaries, national
Speaker 5: security advisor, and his vice president one that he is
Speaker 5: unfit to serve, that he is unstable, that he is dangerous,
Speaker 5: and that.
Speaker 6: People are exhausted.
Speaker 3: Well, people aren't tired of that, that's the case. Why
Speaker 3: is half the country supporting him? Why is he beating
Speaker 3: you in a lot of swing states? Why if he's
Speaker 3: as bad as you say that half of this country
Speaker 3: is now supporting this person who could be the forty
Speaker 3: seventh president of the United States.
Speaker 4: Why is that happening.
Speaker 5: This is an election for president of the United States.
Speaker 5: It's not supposed to be easy.
Speaker 4: I know, but it's not supposed.
Speaker 6: To be It is not supposed.
Speaker 3: To be a misguided, stupid what God.
Speaker 6: I would never say that about the American people.
Speaker 5: And in fact, if you listen to Donald Trump, if
Speaker 5: you watch any of his rallies, he's the one who
Speaker 5: tends to demean and belittle and diminish the American people.
Speaker 6: He's the one who talks about an enemy within, an.
Speaker 5: Enemy within, talking about the American people, suggesting he would
Speaker 5: turn the American military on the American people.
Speaker 2: So I don't disagree to that last part, But on
Speaker 2: that wrong track, that was a skillful thing, right, But
Speaker 2: on the wrong track. She was like, listen, you know
Speaker 2: Trump has been around for ten years. That's a terrible
Speaker 2: Like when I watched that live, I actually cringed at
Speaker 2: the She was like, oh, well, Trump has been around,
Speaker 2: you know what I'm talking about. He's like, I don't
Speaker 2: know what you're talking about, actually, And honestly, I don't
Speaker 2: know what she's talking about, like the idea that because
Speaker 2: Trump has been in politics for a decade, that you're
Speaker 2: not responsible for the direction of the country. And look,
Speaker 2: if we're being honest, was she running the country? Like
Speaker 2: obviously no, right, she's the freaking vice president. But she's
Speaker 2: also the one who doesn't want to put any real
Speaker 2: distance between herself and Joe Biden, which we're about to
Speaker 2: get into in a little bit. And so that answer,
Speaker 2: I thought it was her worst because the seventy nine
Speaker 2: percent on wrong track, the perfect idea of like, well,
Speaker 2: don't you bear some responsibility for this? There's no answer
Speaker 2: but Trump, Now, I want to be clear, you might
Speaker 2: win based on that. As we see, Trump is a
Speaker 2: very polarizing figure, and he's certainly they are running the
Speaker 2: same case that Hillary and Biden did, Biden obviously a
Speaker 2: little bit more effectively. That Trump is a unique threat
Speaker 2: and all of that, and the Trump specter is bad.
Speaker 2: And you know, she basically at every turn pivoted towards
Speaker 2: don Trump. But if you look at those swing state
Speaker 2: polls and you see the number one reasons that people
Speaker 2: are not supporting her, it's number one. I don't know
Speaker 2: what you're actually gonna do. But two is I'm really
Speaker 2: unsatisfied with the direction of the country right now, and
Speaker 2: so for me, but Trump, I mean, that's not a
Speaker 2: competent answer, Like, that's not one that is well thought out.
Speaker 2: It is not one of a new vision. What is it.
Speaker 2: The closest that she got was just my presidency won't
Speaker 2: be a continuation of Joe Biden. That is not a
Speaker 2: strong declaration of change. And what is empirically a change
Speaker 2: election now, change is interpreted very differently by very many people.
Speaker 2: So that's why I was like, if you're watching this,
Speaker 2: you're a swing state person, I don't know how you couldn't,
Speaker 2: like feel how you could feel satisfied with an answer
Speaker 2: like that. Put the policy aside, just appear like, hey,
Speaker 2: I want something to change wrong track. And she's like,
Speaker 2: but Donald Trump, that that doesn't seem to cut it. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I disagree.
Speaker 1: So here's what I would say, first of all, on
Speaker 1: the on the latter part that we more or less
Speaker 1: agree on, Yeah, you should never fallow continuinely continually they're
Speaker 1: trying to be her into trashing Trump support evens oh,
Speaker 1: what would you call them?
Speaker 2: This guide?
Speaker 1: And she's like no, and then she skillfully pivots to
Speaker 1: but the other guy. He's doing that all day long.
Speaker 1: And by the way, you don't have a whole lot
Speaker 1: to say about that, and we'll get to the very
Speaker 1: dishonest framing of the enemy within commas that he does
Speaker 1: in a moment. But what she's referring to, I think
Speaker 1: we all know, like this is the Trump era, and
Speaker 1: the dissatisfaction with the state of the country certainly predates
Speaker 1: their time when offic was. In fact, I went back
Speaker 1: and looked it up after January sixth, the right Track
Speaker 1: number was at eleven percent. I remember that eleven percent.
Speaker 1: So listen, do Joe Biden, Kama Harris bear plenty of
Speaker 1: responsibility for people being dissatisfied? Of course they do. And
Speaker 1: given the fact that she has decided she is not
Speaker 1: really going to break with Biden on anything, including a
Speaker 1: disastrous policy in the Middle East, where she one hundred
Speaker 1: percent should break with Joe Biden, given that that's the
Speaker 1: landscape that she's showed in the political strategy that she's chosen. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think this is about as good as you can give.
Speaker 1: And it's not without some merit, because again, let's all
Speaker 1: be honest, this is not the Joe Biden era of
Speaker 1: politics that we're living in. It's the Donald Trump era
Speaker 1: of politics. He has defined all of the fault lines
Speaker 1: in American politics since he wrote down that Golden Escalator.
Speaker 1: And that's how you end up with you know, Liz
Speaker 1: Cheney on one side and you know RFK Junior on
Speaker 1: the other. It's all just about it's not about issues.
Speaker 1: It's just all about how you feel about this particular person.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: It gets to like what Tim Walls talks about this
Speaker 1: just very normally, like wouldn't you like to go back
Speaker 1: to the Thanksgiving dinner table and not have it be
Speaker 1: ugly and vitriolic and just be able to have like
Speaker 1: normal discussions. Again, it's really Donald Trump who has defined
Speaker 1: the contours of this era. And so yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: is it kind of like politician easily to get out
Speaker 1: of any responsibility for of course it is, like, of course,
Speaker 1: I would be dishonest if I didn't say that. But
Speaker 1: she's also not without a point that he really has
Speaker 1: has been the central character defining the tenor tone and
Speaker 1: direction of politics. And it's part of what to me
Speaker 1: is so frustrating about this era because it does make
Speaker 1: it impossible to really have policy discussions about the future
Speaker 1: of the country and you know, really be able to
Speaker 1: vote based on those things. Because he everything just becomes
Speaker 1: this dividing line about your personal opinion in the person
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump, and it kind of shuts down all
Speaker 1: other forms of politics. So, you know, is it one
Speaker 1: hundred percent honest, No, of course, But does she have
Speaker 1: a point that he is the defining character of this
Speaker 1: era and that there are millions upon millions of people,
Speaker 1: including plenty of swing voters. And we'll get to this
Speaker 1: in the poll section, especially like you know, suburban women,
Speaker 1: of abortion, all kinds of other things. Are there millions
Speaker 1: of voters who have put aside all kinds of other
Speaker 1: concerns or policy priorities to just like vote against Donald
Speaker 1: Trump because they want this era to be over and
Speaker 1: they don't want to quote unquote go back as KMin
Speaker 1: has been framed me. Yeah, there are. And so I
Speaker 1: do say think that that speaks to a central concern
Speaker 1: that a lot of people have in the sense that
Speaker 1: this era has been exhausting and they want to turn
Speaker 1: the page from it.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 2: On a vibe level, I totally understand what you're saying,
Speaker 2: But I mean, and I think a lot of the
Speaker 2: people who agree with that frame are already voting for her.
Speaker 2: So all the people who are on the fence about
Speaker 2: where to go, a lot of them do remember the
Speaker 2: Trump era fondly, and they don't remember the Biden years
Speaker 2: as good, in particular on inflation and elsewhere. Now to
Speaker 2: your point about the whole enemy within thing, this is
Speaker 2: I agree, this was a pretty egregious mistake. Or I
Speaker 2: don't know, but maybe possibly it was the way that
Speaker 2: they wanted to frame it. But she kept bringing up
Speaker 2: the enemy within comments. We covered them on our show
Speaker 2: on Tuesday previously. People can go back and watch it.
Speaker 2: But she brought that up repeatedly in the interview. Just
Speaker 2: at the end there, as you saw, they decided to
Speaker 2: play a clip of Trump responding on that topic at
Speaker 2: a Fox News town hall, but not actually the comments themselves,
Speaker 2: and that was, in my opinion, this is the one
Speaker 2: that's going the most viral. Yeah, from what I've seen
Speaker 2: amongst the left, ye go.
Speaker 1: And just a minor correction on that. So it's not
Speaker 1: just that they played his response in a town hall.
Speaker 1: They edited out the first part of his response where
Speaker 1: he doubled down in these comments and also said what
Speaker 1: I mean by that is, you know Pelosi, ship, et cetera.
Speaker 1: So they took the one portion of his comments that
Speaker 1: they could use to spin it as see, he doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that, he's being totally reasonable and left out the
Speaker 1: part from their own event where he was like, no,
Speaker 1: I mean the left.
Speaker 2: I mean, in my opinion, that's stupid, because you should
Speaker 2: just play the damn comment if you're going to play anything,
Speaker 2: and it might be I wouldn't played anything. I just
Speaker 2: left the lady to talk because I think that that's
Speaker 2: one of those But if you're going to play something,
Speaker 2: you shouldn't be editing this stuff down anyway. So let's
Speaker 2: take a listen to.
Speaker 4: That question to the former president.
Speaker 3: Today, Harris Faulkner had a town hall and this is
Speaker 3: how he responded.
Speaker 8: I heard about that they were saying. I was like threatening,
Speaker 8: I'm not threatening anybody. They're the ones doing the threatening.
Speaker 8: They do phony investigations. I've been investigated more than Alphonse Capon.
Speaker 4: He was the greatest nection. Know it's true, we don't
Speaker 4: but think of it.
Speaker 8: It's called weaponization of government. It's a terrible there.
Speaker 5: So I'm sorry, and with all due respect, that clip
Speaker 5: was not what he has been saying about the enemy
Speaker 5: within that he has repeated when he's speaking about the
Speaker 5: American people.
Speaker 6: That's not what you just showed.
Speaker 4: He was asking.
Speaker 5: No, no, no, that's not what you just showed. In
Speaker 5: all fairness and respect.
Speaker 4: To you, the question that we asked him.
Speaker 6: He didn't show that. And here's the bottom line.
Speaker 5: He has repeated it many times, and you and I
Speaker 5: both know that. And you and I both know that
Speaker 5: he has talked about turning the American military on the
Speaker 5: American people.
Speaker 6: He has talked about going.
Speaker 5: After people who are engaged in peaceful protest. He has
Speaker 5: talked about locking people up because they disagree with him.
Speaker 5: This is a democracy, and in a democracy, the president
Speaker 5: of the United States, in the United States of America
Speaker 5: should be willing to be able to handle criticism without
Speaker 5: saying he'd lock people up doing it. And this is
Speaker 5: what is at stake, which is why you have someone
Speaker 5: like the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Speaker 5: saying what Mark Milly has said about Donald Trump being
Speaker 5: a threat to the United States of America.
Speaker 2: So yeah, there you go, Like, I agree, it wasn't good,
Speaker 2: but you know that's where you were saying previously she
Speaker 2: didn't get angry. She actually did kind of get angry.
Speaker 2: I mean, maybe it's effective or not, but it was
Speaker 2: clear like she was really roaring to go at it.
Speaker 2: Now from what Brett said, Brett was like, I think
Speaker 2: she came into this she wanted to score some good
Speaker 2: hits against Trump on Fox News. And He's like, I
Speaker 2: think she accomplished that. He was like, I also think
Speaker 2: that she came into this one to score some good
Speaker 2: hits against us, and like that clearly was the moment
Speaker 2: that they were looking for. From what I've seen, like
Speaker 2: on the liberal side, that's the one that's probably gone
Speaker 2: the most viral.
Speaker 4: I agree.
Speaker 2: It means I do on think it's a good look
Speaker 2: for Fox. They should just play the damn comments. I
Speaker 2: don't know why they did that.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 1: It also just makes it like it takes it on
Speaker 1: of the realm of debatable whether it was like a
Speaker 1: fair and just tough interview or whether it was dishonest Partison,
Speaker 1: because we can show you what he actually said. So
Speaker 1: what they did is they took out, they clipped out
Speaker 1: the peace of his answer that they thought best served
Speaker 1: their ends to be like, hey, it doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: come on, you know, Donald Trump, he's just joking around
Speaker 1: when literally they're same event. When he was actually asked
Speaker 1: that question, his first response was to double down and say, no,
Speaker 1: I do mean my political opponents. So let's take a
Speaker 1: listen in contrast to what he actually said in response,
Speaker 1: so you can see just how dishonest it was.
Speaker 9: They're using your words to say that you are not
Speaker 9: for crime and keeping particularly women safe in ads. I
Speaker 9: want to take a look at what you said and
Speaker 9: just tell me.
Speaker 6: Let's let's watch it if we have to.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we have two enemies.
Speaker 8: We have the outside enemy and then we have the
Speaker 8: enemy from within. And the enemy from within, in my opinion,
Speaker 8: is more dangerous in China, Russia and all these countries
Speaker 8: because if you have a smart president can handle them
Speaker 8: pretty easily. But the thing that's tougher to handle these
Speaker 8: lunatics that we have inside, like Adam Schiff, I call
Speaker 8: him the enemy from within.
Speaker 9: Mister President. Kamala Harris said, you sounded unhinged and unchecked
Speaker 9: power is in our future.
Speaker 4: What I thought it was a nice presentation.
Speaker 6: I wasn't.
Speaker 4: I wasn't an unhinged you.
Speaker 8: Know they are. They're a party of sound bites there.
Speaker 8: Somebody asked me, can they be brought together? You know,
Speaker 8: it's very I never thought, really, I wasn't thinking like
Speaker 8: they could because they are they're very different, and it
Speaker 8: is the enemy from within and they're very dangerous.
Speaker 1: So anyway, there you go. It's like that's what he
Speaker 1: actually said. And so clearly they knew she was going
Speaker 1: to bring that up, right because this has been, you
Speaker 1: know me, for good reason, a major point they've been
Speaker 1: bringing up on the trail in recent days, and so
Speaker 1: in order to rebutt it, they picked out this incredibly
Speaker 1: like just decept version of what he's been saying about this,
Speaker 1: so they can see, you know, he's fine, what are
Speaker 1: you talking about? There's nothing, no problem there. And you
Speaker 1: know that's where, like I said, it gave her an opportunity. Now,
Speaker 1: the thing is that Kamala Harris doesn't always rise to
Speaker 1: those opportunities like this gave her a chance both to
Speaker 1: go against Donald Trump, to really articulate in a forceful
Speaker 1: way how disturbing and disgraceful she thinks those comments and
Speaker 1: others are right in a way that Look, we saw
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty two, these sorts of concerns about Donald
Speaker 1: Trump do animate a lot of voters and have been
Speaker 1: successful for Democrats in terms of electoral performance. And she
Speaker 1: gets a chance to push back on Fox News and
Speaker 1: you know, call out Brett for not showing the full
Speaker 1: context here and not actually showing the comments that Trump made.
Speaker 1: So it's a good moment for her with the basse.
Speaker 1: I also think it's a good moment for her with
Speaker 1: any potential swing voters. Again, as I said before, how
Speaker 1: much does this any of this matter? I don't know really,
Speaker 1: but anyway, I thought that was, like you said, soccer,
Speaker 1: probably her strongest moment, Oh, definitely in this interview.
Speaker 2: Now to the weakest think Actually maybe I don't know,
Speaker 2: most journalistically, the most consequential electorally, I'm not so sure.
Speaker 2: This is on Biden's mental acuity. I thought this was
Speaker 2: absolutely her worst answer of the night. Let's take a.
Speaker 3: Lesson called Donald Trump, He's misguided. You say, now, he's unstable,
Speaker 3: he is unstable, he's not well, you say, he's mentally
Speaker 3: not stable.
Speaker 4: Ask you this, and.
Speaker 3: You told interviewers that Joe Biden was on his game
Speaker 3: that ran around circles on his staff. When did you
Speaker 3: first notice that President Biden's mental faculties appeared diminished.
Speaker 6: Joe Biden.
Speaker 5: I have watched in from the Oval office to the
Speaker 5: situation room, and he has the judgment and the experiment
Speaker 5: and experienced to do exactly what he has done and
Speaker 5: making very important decisions on behalf of the American people.
Speaker 6: Joe Biden is not on ballot, understand Donald Trump.
Speaker 5: Donald Trump, he talked about it and Donald George Cloon.
Speaker 3: Within a few minutes of talking to Biden a fundraiser,
Speaker 3: that he thought this was not the same Joe Biden
Speaker 3: that we saw on the debate.
Speaker 10: Stay.
Speaker 6: Trump is on the ballot.
Speaker 3: I understand you met with him at least once a
Speaker 3: week for three and a half years.
Speaker 4: You didn't have any concerns.
Speaker 5: I think the American people have a concern about Donald Trump,
Speaker 5: which is why the people who know him best, including
Speaker 5: leaders of our national security community, have all spoken out,
Speaker 5: even people who worked for him.
Speaker 2: All right, Yeah, I mean I thought that was wild.
Speaker 2: It was like, Joe Biden, what did he say? He
Speaker 2: has done what he has done for the American people,
Speaker 2: And then it was Joe Biden is not on the ballot, which, frankly,
Speaker 2: you should be saying that a lot more. But there
Speaker 2: is no real distance. The only other line, I guess
Speaker 2: we didn't have it in there was maybe park What
Speaker 2: do you think.
Speaker 1: Would be the best answer for her here?
Speaker 2: That's a little bit. Did any amount of gaslighting that
Speaker 2: these people did? It's like, I don't really know because
Speaker 2: he hasn't dead to right.
Speaker 1: If yeah, that's that's the problem, is like there is
Speaker 1: no good answer really to this question, because if you admit,
Speaker 1: like I've been seeing this dude going downhill for a while,
Speaker 1: which is probably the honest answer, Like, you can't really
Speaker 1: say that, right, So I think I think it's going
Speaker 1: to be very important question for history. Who knew what when?
Speaker 1: With regard to Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: Oh, I've been reading Bob Woodward's more recent book, and
Speaker 2: there's some wild stuff in that.
Speaker 1: And I think, you know this, this tape will be
Speaker 1: entered into the annals of history in terms of, you know,
Speaker 1: the level of spin and the level of gas lighting
Speaker 1: of the American people that occurred at the time. As
Speaker 1: a political matter, I don't know that there's really a
Speaker 1: better answer that she could give than listen, it's not
Speaker 1: him on the ballot. He's fine, well and good, and
Speaker 1: I saw make great decisions and it was all fine.
Speaker 1: And you know, I'm not admitting any wrongdoing here on
Speaker 1: my behalf because I was covering anything up and Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is really where the focus is. And frankly, you know,
Speaker 1: I actually thought that these questions would be more of
Speaker 1: a sticking point for the American people after the you know,
Speaker 1: switch from Biden to Kamala. But I actually think most
Speaker 1: people do feel the way she articulated, like, all right,
Speaker 1: he's that's the past. We're moving forward. It's me versus
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. So let's talk about that. So yeah, is
Speaker 1: it like, is it dishonest? Yes, it's dishonest. Is a
Speaker 1: great look for her to a tough Gordon? Of course not.
Speaker 1: But I'm not sure that there was really a better
Speaker 1: answer on the table for her to give, at least
Speaker 1: I'm not smart enough to really come up with one.
Speaker 1: Given like the position she's taked down.
Speaker 2: I was gonna say, I just you know the answers.
Speaker 2: Don't put yourself in that position. It's an insane one.
Speaker 2: I don't disagree. Actually, Americans have an amazing capacity for
Speaker 2: temporary amnesia. But from the assassination attempt.
Speaker 1: They were just so relieved he stepped aside. I think
Speaker 1: they were like, all right, he stepped aside.
Speaker 5: He did.
Speaker 1: At the end of the day, he did the thing
Speaker 1: he was supposed to do. Now, I would say it's
Speaker 1: unconscionable he's still even occupying the White House, given the
Speaker 1: fact that, I mean, we really were on the brink
Speaker 1: of a massive war in the Middle East. We really
Speaker 1: have no sense of who's actually making these decisions. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure whether it's better or worse for him to
Speaker 1: be making the decisions or Bret McGirk or these other,
Speaker 1: you know, genocidal terrorists that apparently are cool with what
Speaker 1: we're doing in the Middle East. So, you know, I
Speaker 1: think it's unconscionable that we're in that place. But I
Speaker 1: also have to acknowledge the political reality that most people
Speaker 1: are like, hell, he stepped aside, so we're moving forward.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's certainly possible. So there you go. That was
Speaker 2: the review of everything there Trump. Let's move to him.
Speaker 2: He participated in two town halls yesterday. One was with
Speaker 2: Fox News. It was a Fox News women town hall.
Speaker 2: It does appear, by the way, from Michael Tracy's reporting
Speaker 2: that a lot of these ladies were like pro Trump
Speaker 2: already Republican activists. You know, this has been a real issue.
Speaker 2: I just want to say this at the top, because
Speaker 2: all of these town halls. So Univision did a town
Speaker 2: hall with Kamala a couple of days ago. There was
Speaker 2: actually not that much that came out of it. I
Speaker 2: listened to most of it, and I realized why from
Speaker 2: what Tracy said, because he was in attendance. Yeah, is
Speaker 2: that most of those people were basically like organized by
Speaker 2: some Democrat cutout group. Same thing on this one. And then,
Speaker 2: by the way, there was another Univision town hall just
Speaker 2: last night with Donald Trump where apparently it was the
Speaker 2: same thing where a lot of these people were actually
Speaker 2: paid to attend, and so.
Speaker 1: They went a modeling. This is on Michael Tracy. The
Speaker 1: audience numbers were paid by a modeling agency that contracted me.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So anyways, the point is, like, you know, even these
Speaker 2: town halls are becoming a total farce. But regardless, we
Speaker 2: got some things that are out of it. Here is
Speaker 2: Donald Trump answering a question on immigration.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to your President Trump.
Speaker 11: Thank you so much for everything you have done for
Speaker 11: this country. You fight first in the past, you fight
Speaker 11: first right now, and I know you will fight for
Speaker 11: us in the future. My name is Stream England and
Speaker 11: my family escaped the communist Vietnam thirty years ago. And
Speaker 11: this is my question for you. America is a land
Speaker 11: of opportunity and it's policy welcome immigrants legally. How different
Speaker 11: is your policy versus Harris when it comes to securing
Speaker 11: our borders and only accepting people to us without causing
Speaker 11: any issue to our country.
Speaker 2: On the borders, Well, people coming legally.
Speaker 8: Yeah, we want to have as many people come in
Speaker 8: as possible, but they have to come in legally. We
Speaker 8: don't want murderers, we don't want drug dealers, we don't
Speaker 8: want human traffickers, we don't want people from prison that
Speaker 8: are being let out after murdering somebody.
Speaker 2: All right, just took a lot of shots at Commas.
Speaker 2: Now it's Trump's turn. This is basically in total violation
Speaker 2: of everything Trump has previously said ever on immigration, including
Speaker 2: all of the people who work for them. Why do
Speaker 2: I know this because I literally cover the White House
Speaker 2: and I also know a lot of these people, so
Speaker 2: I know that if any Democrats said this that they
Speaker 2: would freak out. But this is pure If you want
Speaker 2: to really look at elon Musk's like major contribution to
Speaker 2: Donald Trump. I would put this all the way up
Speaker 2: at the top for the all in and elon Silicon
Speaker 2: Valley support because this is a classic Silicon Valley talking point.
Speaker 2: We have to have as many people who come in
Speaker 2: as possible. We just have to secure our border. I mean,
Speaker 2: that is like the previous that's like a twenty twenty Democratic,
Speaker 2: a twenty twenty Democratic Party position on immigration. And part
Speaker 2: of the problem for a lot of Republicans is there
Speaker 2: are not people who have any like credibility on the
Speaker 2: issue with the base or frankly on anything to be
Speaker 2: able to call Trump out. There's no internal policing on
Speaker 2: this literally that exists. The money is behind it, and
Speaker 2: a lot of the immigration people just I mean, look,
Speaker 2: I get it to a certain extent because they're like
Speaker 2: I think the Democrats be worse, so they just don't
Speaker 2: say anything. But you know you're gonna if you're going
Speaker 2: to police like like, for example, I know Jade Vans
Speaker 2: doesn't agree with this, I know for sure he's never
Speaker 2: said anything like this in the past. But a lot
Speaker 2: of the people who are on the Republican side, they
Speaker 2: just let a lot of the stuff slide. I think
Speaker 2: it's nuts.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, look, if his position is genuinely like
Speaker 1: let us he said, what let as many people as possible.
Speaker 2: That's an insane thing to say. As a Republican who's
Speaker 2: an immigration restriction, that is literally an insane thing to say.
Speaker 2: And for everybody out there is we support high skilled
Speaker 2: immigration and all that. Even people who support high skilled
Speaker 2: immigration support caps and numbers of what that should look like.
Speaker 2: First of all, Trump has not even said anything about
Speaker 2: high skilled immigration a lot in the past except what
Speaker 2: did you say, staple of THESA to every PhD in
Speaker 2: the country. Sounds like a real genius money laundering operation
Speaker 2: for every university. But okay, move past.
Speaker 6: I support the.
Speaker 1: I support the let as many people in as possible,
Speaker 1: That's my point.
Speaker 2: But it's crazy if you really believe in immigration restriction.
Speaker 2: This is a horrible thing for the country. Especially this
Speaker 2: is the basic position of comprehensive immigration reform, which is
Speaker 2: legalize everybody here and then just throw it all wide open.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but he's still wants to do the like, you know, uh,
Speaker 1: mass deportation. You know, round everybody up in every town,
Speaker 1: including some of the people who are here legally like
Speaker 1: the Haitian migrants in Springfield, o Hioive.
Speaker 2: So let's go back.
Speaker 1: So in any case, he's it's not like he's gone
Speaker 1: soft on these things. It's just, you know, after his
Speaker 1: what do you call it, like very bloody, very bloody
Speaker 1: immigration roundup that then I guess, at least an answer
Speaker 1: to this woman who's herself an immigrant, he says we
Speaker 1: should let his man this. Who the fuck knows what
Speaker 1: this man wants to do or what he really means.
Speaker 1: It's just, you know, it is I think your point
Speaker 1: is the most important one, which is the people who
Speaker 1: claim their whole politics around immigration restriction. I am not
Speaker 1: one the people who are on that side. They will
Speaker 1: hear this and they will say not yeah.
Speaker 2: And that's word. Well, that's what bothers me is that Trump.
Speaker 1: It's the culture personality. Ultimately, that's what it is.
Speaker 2: It has to be called out, no matter and especially allegedly,
Speaker 2: you know, by the so called like leader of the party,
Speaker 2: because these things do matter. Look, I get we're in
Speaker 2: a nothing matters era, but you know that actually is
Speaker 2: the default position of the old school GOP, of which
Speaker 2: Trump has always claimed to move past. So which is it?
Speaker 2: And I do know that Trump, in particular this time around,
Speaker 2: is much more amenable to whatever the highest bidder wants
Speaker 2: him to do and a huge amount of his new
Speaker 2: Silicon Valley money, like this is the position that they have.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I think the main point is that on
Speaker 2: the act, amongst like actual immigration people, I see very
Speaker 2: very few who are actually attacking Donald Trump. I get it. Yeah,
Speaker 2: maybe you'd be better or whatever, but that doesn't mean
Speaker 2: that you want to let standard bearer to have this position.
Speaker 2: Let's move on to IVF. This Trump has stold this
Speaker 2: story before. I've heard this, but it is one of
Speaker 2: the most wild like twist and turns and actually great
Speaker 2: insight into how he makes decisions. So I just talked
Speaker 2: about how he's impressionable. It depends on who he's talking to,
Speaker 2: regardless of how he arrives. So here is the backstory
Speaker 2: on how Trump arrived at being pro IVF. Let's take
Speaker 2: a list.
Speaker 8: I got a call from Katie Britt, a young, just
Speaker 8: a fantastically attractive person from Alabama. She's a senator, and
Speaker 8: she called me up like emergency emergency, because an Alabama
Speaker 8: judge had ruled that the IVF clinics were illegal and
Speaker 8: they have to be closed down. A judge ruled, and
Speaker 8: she said, friends of mine came up to me and
Speaker 8: they were, Oh, they were so angry. I didn't even
Speaker 8: know they were going, you know, she they were it's fertilization.
Speaker 8: I didn't know they were even involved. And nobody talks
Speaker 8: about it, don't talk about it. But now that they
Speaker 8: can't do it, she said, I was attacked in a
Speaker 8: certain way. I was attacked and I said, explain IVS
Speaker 8: very IVF very quickly, and within about two minutes I
Speaker 8: understood it. I said, no, no, we're totally in favor
Speaker 8: of IVF.
Speaker 2: Right. So Katie Britt, the attractive senator, called him and
Speaker 2: talked about how women came up to her in church
Speaker 2: and told them about how they were using IVF, and
Speaker 2: they based on that is the only reason they decided
Speaker 2: to change on this object. I mean, look, I'll take
Speaker 2: it right. I think it's a good thing. But it's
Speaker 2: one of those where the incoherence of a lot of
Speaker 2: the GOP's like ability to handle this issue comes to light,
Speaker 2: where you know, they get stumbled into things where you
Speaker 2: have this like evangelical based part of the party who look,
Speaker 2: I guess to their credit. They really do believe in
Speaker 2: banning IVF and and at least some of them in
Speaker 2: banning IVF or in making sure that abortion is completely
Speaker 2: illegal like in all cases. And then they are stuck
Speaker 2: with the political consequences of what has been a disaster
Speaker 2: for the GOP electorally. I mean, you know, we're going
Speaker 2: to talk in a bit about what the new electorate
Speaker 2: may look like based on some initial projections of early vote,
Speaker 2: et cetera. And it's like, I can't even begin to
Speaker 2: describe how much abortion dramatically changed the landscape. It's so remarkable.
Speaker 2: Never I mean, I knew it was going to be something,
Speaker 2: but to think it would realign almost everything and be
Speaker 2: the primary reason that a lot of women are going
Speaker 2: to vote, I would never have predicted that, and yet
Speaker 2: it has. So this is a good view into they
Speaker 2: really don't know how to handle it. Like it's like
Speaker 2: everybody wanted Row versus Way to be gone. It's like
Speaker 2: not really, and then now it is gone. It's like
Speaker 2: and actually it's a good thing, you know, for this day.
Speaker 2: It's just it's just all over the map, Like, yeah,
Speaker 2: it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, is the main thing? Well, I would saying with
Speaker 1: Kamlin Harris like in certain questions, there just isn't really
Speaker 1: a good answer for her. And this is a question
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump, like there is no good answer because also,
Speaker 1: I mean, he has the reality contend with that his
Speaker 1: justices that he hand picked and put on the court
Speaker 1: with the you know, direct intention of overturning Roe versus Wade,
Speaker 1: like this was the logical consequence consequence of the actions
Speaker 1: that he himself took number one and number two when
Speaker 1: Democrats have brought up let's protect IVF bills at the
Speaker 1: federal level. You know, last time that this happened, all
Speaker 1: but two Republicans voted against it, and Jade Vance just
Speaker 1: didn't come so he didn't have to take a vote
Speaker 1: either way. So you know, he wants to position republicanss
Speaker 1: like the Party of IVF and himself is what do
Speaker 1: you call himself, like the King of IVF or.
Speaker 2: Something, a father, a fertilization father. Listening, he's got what
Speaker 2: he's got children with three different women's So in some ways.
Speaker 1: People are just not really going to buy like he's
Speaker 1: the one to protect women's rights. And as I said,
Speaker 1: I can't really get him. I can't really coach him
Speaker 1: on a better answer, because I don't really think there
Speaker 1: is one, given the actions that he's already taken, given
Speaker 1: his coalition, And you know, he's very fortunate that there
Speaker 1: aren't more pro life leaders and voters who are as
Speaker 1: critical of him as like Lyla Rose was when she
Speaker 1: talked to us on our show. You know, they've largely
Speaker 1: given him a pass on this too, so that gives
Speaker 1: him the freedom to go out there and be like, oh,
Speaker 1: IVF is wonderful, and of course I love IVF, and
Speaker 1: of course it should all be left to the states
Speaker 1: and all of these things. But yeah, it's just a
Speaker 1: losing issue for them, period, you know, bottom line out
Speaker 1: of story, because it's not really a political framing issue
Speaker 1: at this point. It's a reality issue, and people are
Speaker 1: very set on how upset they are about the changed
Speaker 1: landscape of rights that they previously enjoyed.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, all right, let's move on to the polls.
Speaker 1: So some interesting pulling data to get to this morning,
Speaker 1: but I also wanted to take a look at that
Speaker 1: analysis from Harry Enton. He did a great job breaking
Speaker 1: down some of Kamala Harris's issues with non white voters,
Speaker 1: especially among men. This segment. He looks at the flip
Speaker 1: side of that, which is her historically good performance with
Speaker 1: a key demographic group. That would be white women, my people,
Speaker 1: apparently with jigalism.
Speaker 12: Let's take a look here the GOP's margin among white women.
Speaker 12: Look Romney one and by nine. All right, Trump in
Speaker 12: twenty sixteen one and by six. You go back four
Speaker 12: years ago, Trump won and by seven.
Speaker 4: Look.
Speaker 12: Now, look how much lower Trump's margin is among white women. Look,
Speaker 12: he still leads, but it's well within the margin, or
Speaker 12: it's just a point. He's doing six points worse than
Speaker 12: he did four years ago. In fact, he's doing the
Speaker 12: worst if this holds for a GOP candidate this century
Speaker 12: among white women.
Speaker 2: John Well, how much do white women matter in the electric.
Speaker 12: So this is the whole thing, right, how much do
Speaker 12: they matter? If you were to break it down, white women,
Speaker 12: white men, women of color, men of color, white women
Speaker 12: make up the plurality of the electorate thirty six percent.
Speaker 12: So you know, yesterday we were talking about those massive
Speaker 12: gains that Donald Trump was making among black men, black women,
Speaker 12: But the bottom line is they actually make up a
Speaker 12: considerably smaller portion of the electorate than white women do.
Speaker 12: So when we're talking about five six point shifts, seven
Speaker 12: point shifts in Kamala Harris's direction. We're talking about that
Speaker 12: among a major part of the electorate, and that can
Speaker 12: actually move the overall electorate more than ginormous shifts among
Speaker 12: a considerably smaller part of the electric If she wins,
Speaker 12: it could ultimately be because she did so well with
Speaker 12: white women.
Speaker 1: John and what he was showing there at the end
Speaker 1: is the difference the gender gap between who is prioritizing
Speaker 1: abortion and saying that's their top issue for women. Twenty
Speaker 1: seven percent of women are saying that is my number
Speaker 1: one issue. So this is effectively I mean, if you
Speaker 1: want to understand, I don't agree with all of the
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris campaign strategy. I think they should be focusing
Speaker 1: a lot more and foregrounding a lot more economic plans,
Speaker 1: bread and butter plans. I think they should be hitting
Speaker 1: Trump on the economy. I think they would be doing
Speaker 1: much better in the polls right now than the absolute
Speaker 1: fifty to fifty toss up at best that it is
Speaker 1: at this point. But this is effectively their strategy. Soccers
Speaker 1: they see those like Nicky Haley voters and they they're
Speaker 1: looking at these numbers and say, hey, that's the largest
Speaker 1: demographic group that we could improve them. So if we
Speaker 1: up that by you know, a few points, then hey,
Speaker 1: we're we're in good position. And that's what all of
Speaker 1: the that's what a lot of their campaign strategy has
Speaker 1: been geared towards. And of course a lot of their
Speaker 1: you know, AD dollars have been spent, a lot of
Speaker 1: their vocal energy and campaign rallies and debate stage time,
Speaker 1: and all of that is also spent on the issue
Speaker 1: of abortion because it's the most uniting issue among this
Speaker 1: particular coalition.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, And you know, this is a point often made
Speaker 2: by others about the GEOP. You know, Trump is obsessed
Speaker 2: with the idea of winning more Latino and black men.
Speaker 2: And look, that's great, you know, I think it's objectively
Speaker 2: like a good thing for the country and certainly should
Speaker 2: always be trying to win everybody. But you know, seventy
Speaker 2: five percent of the people in the country vote are
Speaker 2: white five percent, So when you have a nine percent
Speaker 2: margin problem from Romney to today or eight percent, that's
Speaker 2: actually bad because even though it's a smaller margin, then
Speaker 2: let's say other groups like Latino man, there's a ton
Speaker 2: more white women who are out there. Well, some more
Speaker 2: white people who are out there who actually vote, So
Speaker 2: by the numbers, that actually matters a lot. It matters
Speaker 2: the most in the actual states that are the most
Speaker 2: critical in this election, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, which are
Speaker 2: way more white than the Sun Belt. And in fact,
Speaker 2: if we consider a scenario where what what is Trump
Speaker 2: upbeyed in the New York Times in Arizona like four
Speaker 2: maybe six?
Speaker 1: I think six.
Speaker 2: That's a ton, right, What does that explain? So Hispanics,
Speaker 2: it's a very diverse state. There's way less white people
Speaker 2: who live in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, wisconsinly ever been there,
Speaker 2: Like it's they're pretty white places, and you know, the
Speaker 2: minorities that they have is like usually black people who
Speaker 2: are in like urban areas and especially in the rural counties,
Speaker 2: places that Trump used to dominate. If he is going
Speaker 2: to only win white women there by some fifty to
Speaker 2: fifty margin, massive problem for him, especially when you consider
Speaker 2: what all of those people proportionally coming for the Democrats
Speaker 2: could mean. Even with higher voter registration and even with
Speaker 2: higher turnout amongst men, it wouldn't even matter numbers wise, I've.
Speaker 1: Seen a number of Trump supporting Republicans who are like,
Speaker 1: he really needs to do some female focused podcasts, you know.
Speaker 2: And you can see like Riley Gain say that that's why,
Speaker 2: that's why I saw. Yeah, they're not wrong. I think
Speaker 2: they're right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And you see, you know, Tommy Laren has also
Speaker 1: been critical at times of his strategy of or lack thereof,
Speaker 1: to outreach to women, because this is such an important
Speaker 1: demographic group like all the rest, and you do see
Speaker 1: on the hair side, they realize we got a little
Speaker 1: bit of a problem the manisphere. I'm going to go
Speaker 1: I'm going to try to go on Joe Rogan, I'm
Speaker 1: going to go on with Charlemagne, like I'm going to
Speaker 1: go on these various places to try to shore up
Speaker 1: our support. There you can see they recognize that there's
Speaker 1: a bit of an issue and they're trying to shore
Speaker 1: things up. You know, Trump to do this like news
Speaker 1: town Hall with pre selected audience members. But in terms
Speaker 1: of the similar podcast strategy that he's used to reach
Speaker 1: young men, there doesn't seem to be a similar level
Speaker 1: of effort to try to improve his margins with women,
Speaker 1: as you see on the Hair side, and again you know,
Speaker 1: part of this cake is like already baked. I think
Speaker 1: it is difficult. At this point, there's probably only a
Speaker 1: few percentage points of undecided voters who could truly go
Speaker 1: either way. So you know, your best bet probably is
Speaker 1: these non traditional platforms. These were cultural figures to call
Speaker 1: her daddies of the world, et cetera. And it's hard
Speaker 1: to it's hard to imagine Trump in those spaces, but
Speaker 1: it would also be very interesting to.
Speaker 2: See Trump and keeps saying it would be crange. I
Speaker 2: totally disagree. Trump is funny. He's a pop culture person.
Speaker 2: Howard Stern. You think he doesn't know how to handle
Speaker 2: like somebody like call her daddy, Like come on.
Speaker 1: The problem is he gets especially I haven't seen him do.
Speaker 1: Maybe maybe it can remind me of if I'm not
Speaker 1: remembering one. I've not seen him do a contentious interview
Speaker 1: this cycle where he hasn't just gotten angry. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm thinking of the last contentious interview that comes to
Speaker 1: my mind as the National Associations last journalist, where he
Speaker 1: just completely lost it and started, you know, ranting about
Speaker 1: how Kamala hair is not really black and attacking the
Speaker 1: moderators or whatever. And I don't think if you're trying
Speaker 1: to appeal to women voters, like if you go in
Speaker 1: a majority female space and that's the way you treat
Speaker 1: the host, I don't think that's going to go well.
Speaker 1: So we'd have to bring more of the like it's
Speaker 1: going to be a more adversarial questioning. And can he
Speaker 1: handle that without just like blowing his top as he
Speaker 1: has in previous boundings this cycle, I do I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean, I know he has it in him for sure.
Speaker 2: You know, I've seen him do it many times in
Speaker 2: the past. He's like you frequent Oprah guest, right, Like,
Speaker 2: it's not somebody who doesn't have this in their repertoire.
Speaker 1: So I think it's been a minute.
Speaker 2: I think he should do it. I think you're right,
Speaker 2: and there's no reason especially not to do Like honestly,
Speaker 2: I think if I were him, I would do Oprah
Speaker 2: or I would do uh.
Speaker 1: Otra has actively Kamala Harris and spoke of the DNC, so.
Speaker 2: I'm strong, be strong. Yeah, so his call her daddy.
Speaker 2: She's basically come out as like pro Kamala. Who else
Speaker 2: I'm trying to think of, like vaguely women Podcast.
Speaker 1: Women's maybe there's like somebody big in the true crime
Speaker 1: space is not all that political that he did, that
Speaker 1: he can vibe with it.
Speaker 2: That's actually a good idea. I'm not really sure. I
Speaker 2: don't listen to a lot of these true crime things, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, they're some of the top biggest female shows
Speaker 2: in the entire country. Yeah, so that wouldn't be you know,
Speaker 2: that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
Speaker 13: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Anyway, so that's Trump with the ladies. Let's take a
Speaker 1: look at YouGov has just launched their MRP projections. Let's
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. So this is a
Speaker 1: little different than a poll and soccer. Maybe you can
Speaker 1: explain this better than I can. But effectively, they're doing
Speaker 1: interviews with something like one hundred thousand voters across the country,
Speaker 1: and they are continually reaching out to these voters to
Speaker 1: see how they're shifting, and they're asking him a range
Speaker 1: of questions not just about who they're supporting, but critically
Speaker 1: because this is the hardest thing to determine how likely
Speaker 1: they are to actually show.
Speaker 2: Up and vote.
Speaker 1: So this is the launch of their of this MRP model.
Speaker 1: Based on this technique that they're using. You can see
Speaker 1: that Kamala Harris has a little bit of an edge
Speaker 1: fifty to forty seven in terms of the national popular vote.
Speaker 1: That would probably be enough, although it would be quite
Speaker 1: razor fin for her to be able to secure a
Speaker 1: win using those industrial Midwestern like the blue Wall state path.
Speaker 1: You can see in this model they have her winning
Speaker 1: Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania basically a toss up. If
Speaker 1: you do click over Pennsylvania, they do have her with
Speaker 1: a slight edge there as well, but you know, too
Speaker 1: close for them to actually put it in her column.
Speaker 1: Let's go ahead to the next piece. You can see
Speaker 1: three the more details about the MRP projections, and what
Speaker 1: this person notes that's really fascinating is the fact that
Speaker 1: if they're right, then it looks a lot. It's very
Speaker 1: validating of the New York Times theory that twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four looks more like twenty twenty two than it does
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. These results imply this person rights that on average,
Speaker 1: the swing states will do almost a half a point
Speaker 1: better than the twenty twenty margin in those core seven battlegrounds,
Speaker 1: but they'll do worse basically everywhere else, and so the
Speaker 1: national popular vote they'll do more poorly in even as
Speaker 1: they're holding up and even doing better than twenty twenty
Speaker 1: in those swing states. And like I said, that's somewhat
Speaker 1: consistent with how things turned down in the mid term
Speaker 1: elections and would again indicate that there's a shrinking of
Speaker 1: the gap between the electoral college advantage that Republicans have
Speaker 1: and the national popular vote. So who knows, right, it's
Speaker 1: just more pieces of data to throw into the mix.
Speaker 1: But I do sort of think there's a logic to
Speaker 1: that New York Times theory that based on the reshaping
Speaker 1: of the electorate post COVID, post row versus way, that
Speaker 1: it makes some sense that it would look more like
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, where you have some places that continue
Speaker 1: to move to the right, but in the key states,
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris is holding up pretty well here. So what
Speaker 1: did you make of this saga?
Speaker 2: Same as you. I mean, it's a key piece of data.
Speaker 2: The UGUV model is not bad. Apparently I checked some
Speaker 2: of his track record back in the day. It's pioneered.
Speaker 2: Actually in the UK they call it the what is
Speaker 2: it the MRP model, the technique to project it. The
Speaker 2: point is is that this the heuristic that everybody needs
Speaker 2: is are we in a twenty twenty scenario or are
Speaker 2: we in a twenty twenty two scenario. So right now,
Speaker 2: a lot of poles are assuming a twenty twenty scenario
Speaker 2: the exact same makeup of the electorate. Because we consider
Speaker 2: what I said previously about abortion. Abortion fundamentally changed the
Speaker 2: way that Americans interact with the political system, millions and
Speaker 2: millions of people changing the way that they do on
Speaker 2: top of major demographic and dynamic changes which we actually
Speaker 2: can see, like if we want to move into some
Speaker 2: of the polls, like let's go to be four, please
Speaker 2: and put that up on the screen. So if you
Speaker 2: look at these poles, and you look specifically at the
Speaker 2: Harris and Yugov and economists, they have a forty nine
Speaker 2: forty five for Harris, that's within four points. For the
Speaker 2: Tip people, they have a fifty forty six for Harris,
Speaker 2: and Harris at fifty to forty seven, and the overall
Speaker 2: average she's roughly around three percent in the national popular vote.
Speaker 2: But the thing is is that the national popular vote
Speaker 2: that's a little bit less than where things had looked
Speaker 2: previously for a lot of Democrats. So with the less
Speaker 2: popular vote, you still have to then look at those
Speaker 2: micro demographics, and if you see where you had in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty two, you had an electorate which was Republican
Speaker 2: plus two in its preference, but you had so many
Speaker 2: independents that came over and voted in the swing states
Speaker 2: in particular, that it still looked like a major blowout.
Speaker 2: And this is like with the major areas of the
Speaker 2: country are changing very differently. New York and the outer
Speaker 2: boroughs are becoming a lot more red. Obviously Florida has
Speaker 2: become a lot more red. That's kind of interesting. But
Speaker 2: you also have North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona really fundamentally changing.
Speaker 2: I mean, North Carolina may be the one which has
Speaker 2: changed the most. You've got a way more wealthy and white,
Speaker 2: affluent number of net migrants coming into the state from
Speaker 2: the last four years. You've got all this stuff right
Speaker 2: now with the hurricane damage, and particularly western North Carolina
Speaker 2: where it's already a Republican stronghold. So I could see
Speaker 2: an upset there probably more than anywhere else.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's very possible, really interesting if she
Speaker 1: won North Carolina lost Georgia. I mean, it's just you know,
Speaker 1: there's there's a lot of potential dynamics that could play
Speaker 1: out to your point about like, you know, the polls
Speaker 1: and how we think about these things. You know, we
Speaker 1: covered that poll and that data that showed that Republican
Speaker 1: self identification had edged out above Democratic health identification, and
Speaker 1: then that same polster released a poll like the next
Speaker 1: week that had it flipped back the other ways. I
Speaker 1: was like, all right, well, who the hell knows what
Speaker 1: do we know about any of this? But one thing
Speaker 1: I wanted to flag is in that last tweet they
Speaker 1: had the tipp I don't know if people just say
Speaker 1: tip or they say tippe, but whatever. Anyway, they had
Speaker 1: that now Daily Tracker, and that poll ended up last
Speaker 1: time around being the most accurate polster. So people are
Speaker 1: paying a little bit special attention to this. But to
Speaker 1: break down why any of this matters, because it seems
Speaker 1: like we're really parsing here. When you're looking at the
Speaker 1: national polls, if you see a lot of people are
Speaker 1: see Kamala Harris with like a two or three point lead,
Speaker 1: and they're like, well, with the electoral college advantage that
Speaker 1: Republicans had in twenty twenty and twenty sixteen, that may
Speaker 1: not be enough. That's really the key question here, because
Speaker 1: if it's more of a twenty twenty two electorate, then
Speaker 1: a three or even potentially a two point maybe one
Speaker 1: point lead for her in the popular vote could be
Speaker 1: sufficient depending on what happens in these battlegrounds. So that's
Speaker 1: kind of the key point is you're trying to analyze
Speaker 1: all of these things. We wanted to update you on
Speaker 1: some good news with regard to election night. Let's go
Speaker 1: and put this up on the screen. So Georgia had
Speaker 1: issued their election board, which is very you know, pro
Speaker 1: Trump sort of mega election board, different than Brian Kemp,
Speaker 1: who obviously as governor in the state. They had ruled
Speaker 1: that every ballot in the state was going to have
Speaker 1: to be hand counted. Now you can understand how long
Speaker 1: that would take, especially given how close they are to
Speaker 1: election day, how little time they'd have to adjust to
Speaker 1: this new rule. And as of now, a county judge
Speaker 1: in Georgia blocked that new rule mandating a handcount of
Speaker 1: election ballots across the state. He said that enacting that
Speaker 1: sweeping change right now, so close to the Novumber election
Speaker 1: would be quote too much, too late. He didn't knock
Speaker 1: it down outright leaving the door open the potentially in
Speaker 1: the future they could implement this rule change, but just
Speaker 1: saying listen, it's too close to election day, and this
Speaker 1: would potentially create a lot of chaos. And you know,
Speaker 1: I'm relieved, because number one, I want to be able
Speaker 1: to get the election results and actually know who wins
Speaker 1: at some point in time, and this was definitely going
Speaker 1: to delay that being able to occur, and it was
Speaker 1: going to create more of that red mirage of fact
Speaker 1: where because the largest cities and largest suburban areas tend
Speaker 1: to be more democratic, those are also the places with
Speaker 1: a lot of votes, and if you're trying to hand count,
Speaker 1: those will be the places that came in last. So
Speaker 1: it creates that opening that Trump used last time around
Speaker 1: to say, look, the results were all coming in Republican
Speaker 1: and then all of a sudden, in the middle of
Speaker 1: the night, you know, they get in these secret ballots
Speaker 1: and suddenly the Democrats take the lead. So this helps
Speaker 1: to mitigate some of that dynamic and leave less of
Speaker 1: an opening for his shenanigans. In this particular stace, we.
Speaker 2: Also just take I mean, the main point is just
Speaker 2: takes freaking forever, and it's one of those where everyone
Speaker 2: always like, oh, we need better elections and all this
Speaker 2: is like, how is hand counting not way worse? It's
Speaker 2: one of those where you know, you put your trust
Speaker 2: in Look, no offense to the poll workers out there,
Speaker 2: but it's like, you know, have you ever met some
Speaker 2: of these folks about who they are? And then don't
Speaker 2: even forget about the whole hanging Chad nightmare from Florida
Speaker 2: in the year two thousand where you had those two
Speaker 2: individual people they're examining the ballots as another person people. Really,
Speaker 2: you know, I wasn't truly cognizant like at that time,
Speaker 2: but the more I read about it, I'm like, what
Speaker 2: an insane It was wild?
Speaker 1: It was really wild. I was barely politically cognizant, to
Speaker 1: be honest with you, because I just wasn't that political
Speaker 1: at that ase. But yeah, I remember being like, what
Speaker 1: the hell is going on? Listen? Maybe it's controversial. I
Speaker 1: personally think, yes, it's fine for individual states to run
Speaker 1: their elections. I think that's good, and I think that
Speaker 1: prevents fraud whatever, because we have all these different systems
Speaker 1: to penetrate. I think there should be federal standards for elections.
Speaker 1: I think everybody should have the same in terms of
Speaker 1: is voter ide required or not? What is the early
Speaker 1: voting process? Is there mail in voting? What's the early
Speaker 1: voting period?
Speaker 6: Is it hand?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 2: How do Fellon's vote? That's actually the craziest one if
Speaker 2: you think about it. Some states are felling to vote
Speaker 2: some station.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. So what's the most eligible to vote?
Speaker 1: In different states? It's different and it is outrageous. So
Speaker 1: I don't know. I think it should be one federal
Speaker 1: standard because I think it's crazy that voters in some
Speaker 1: states have way more acts, is way easier to vote
Speaker 1: than in other states. But I'll that's neither here nor there.
Speaker 1: I'm glad that they struck down this handing.
Speaker 2: Oregon they can only do vote by mail. It's craazy.
Speaker 2: They don't even do in person voting. You're like, wow, like,
Speaker 2: but actually they have a pretty high voter participation.
Speaker 4: Kind of interesting.
Speaker 2: But then yeah, and then some places, like we live
Speaker 2: in Virginia, and Virginia, what is it? Vote by mail
Speaker 2: is a lot harder, but we have a ton of
Speaker 2: early voting. Early voting is actually very nice.
Speaker 1: I like to vote early in person as my personal preference.
Speaker 2: It's the easiest way to do it, so you can
Speaker 2: you can get it done quickly. But then there are
Speaker 2: there are like weird questions around the election and like
Speaker 2: voting all the way up until September. So I don't necessary,
Speaker 2: I don't really disagree in terms of like what the
Speaker 2: standards and all of that should look like. There you go,
Speaker 2: that's that's the picture. That's all we know, and we
Speaker 2: don't know much. We have little little things that could
Speaker 2: show us something and be indicators of what's coming in
Speaker 2: the in the future, and after the outcome, we'll be
Speaker 2: able to look back and really see what was correct,
Speaker 2: what wasn't, and what we should have looked at.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, so let's go ahead and move on to
Speaker 1: the current president Joe Biden. He still exists. That's still
Speaker 1: a person who exists, was supposedly running our country. He
Speaker 1: is hitting the campaign trail in some limited fashion on
Speaker 1: behalf of Kamala Harris. Let's take a listen to a
Speaker 1: little bit of how that went.
Speaker 13: Let me tell you something. You can't be pro insurrection
Speaker 13: and pro American if you can't announce Sanuary sixth, you
Speaker 13: have no business being present. He look, Trump hasn't changed.
Speaker 13: I would argue he's gotten worse. Clearly he lost the
Speaker 13: election of twenty twenty. He snapped, no, I mean it.
Speaker 13: He become unhinge. Look at his rallies last night. Last night,
Speaker 13: his rallies stopped taking questions because someone got hurt. And
Speaker 13: guess what, he stood on the stage for thirty minutes
Speaker 13: and danced. I'm serious, what's wrong with this guy?
Speaker 1: So there you go. That's some of his messaging out
Speaker 1: on the trail, consistent with a lot of what you
Speaker 1: hear from Will Harris and Tim Walls. At the same time,
Speaker 1: he and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. We're all actually
Speaker 1: at the funeral of Ethel Kennedy and interesting to see
Speaker 1: them all together. We can take a look at a
Speaker 1: little bit of this. You know, Sager, what did you
Speaker 1: what did you make of this movie? You can see
Speaker 1: them all three that had seated together for They all
Speaker 1: look old.
Speaker 2: But this is one where everyone.
Speaker 1: Was Obama aged focused so much in office.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, Obama gives a little bit of a
Speaker 2: side eye, looks a little frustrated. You know, they're not
Speaker 2: really like making eye contact. Now you can see the
Speaker 2: power dynamic in play here about who is really the
Speaker 2: one in charge, although maybe I'm just reading way too
Speaker 2: much into it, which is most likely. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Crazy that Bill Clinton is younger than Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: I know it's great.
Speaker 1: It is imagine I'm running for office again.
Speaker 2: I mean we've talked about that before. But if there
Speaker 2: was no Amendment twenty second Amendment, I think Clinton this
Speaker 2: would be Clinton's last term in office. He would have
Speaker 2: obviously would have run for like five straight terms. He
Speaker 2: would have stayed in office the entire time. Sixty percent
Speaker 2: approval rating on the day that he left. Though, that's great.
Speaker 2: I was just looking at the nineteen ninety six.
Speaker 1: See, that's my I always think about wild I always
Speaker 1: think about if there were no term limits, I think
Speaker 1: we still have Obama. But it wouldn't have even gotten there.
Speaker 2: He would Bill Lees. He'd still be a skinny kid
Speaker 2: with a funny name who was the elector. He probably
Speaker 2: would have left the Senate because he was bored. I
Speaker 2: mean Clinton, I'm.
Speaker 1: Looking at or something.
Speaker 2: Electoral map. Clinton won, uh Louisiana, Arkansas, like Missouri, World, Iowa.
Speaker 2: This crazy stuff. He won three hundred and seventy nine
Speaker 2: electoral votes. Man Bob Doly won one hundred and fifty nine,
Speaker 2: the guy was like a king. It's kind of crazy,
Speaker 2: you know what happened to him in retrospect, And then
Speaker 2: just four years later in two thousand, Gore only puts
Speaker 2: up two hundred and sixty six electoral votes, even if
Speaker 2: you look discount Florida within that. I mean, gosh, consider
Speaker 2: just how much things had changed just in his last
Speaker 2: four years. So it's actually pretty interesting just to think
Speaker 2: about what it all looked like in retrospect. But with Biden,
Speaker 2: and what we definitely wanted to focus on here was
Speaker 2: Nancy Pelosi and Biden apparently have not spoken since they
Speaker 2: dropped out, and there's still quite a lot of salt
Speaker 2: behind the scenes between the two.
Speaker 14: Let's take a lesson with Joe Biden since that happened.
Speaker 14: That's a couple of months have passed since. Have you
Speaker 14: had a conversation too.
Speaker 15: Nuts since THENO so, But I'm prayerful about it. I
Speaker 15: have the greatest respect for him. I think he's one
Speaker 15: of the great consequential presidents of our country. I think
Speaker 15: his legacy had to be protected. I didn't see that
Speaker 15: happening in the course that it was on the election,
Speaker 15: was on my call was just to let's get on
Speaker 15: a better course. He will make the decision as to
Speaker 15: what that is, and he made that decision. But I
Speaker 15: think he has some unease with because we've been friends
Speaker 15: for decks. Look, let me just say this. Elections are
Speaker 15: decisions you decide to win. I decided a while ago
Speaker 15: that Donald Trump will never set foot in the White
Speaker 15: House again as President of the United States or in
Speaker 15: any other capacity, but as I can't keep them there
Speaker 15: for going for tea, but as president of the United States.
Speaker 15: So when you make a decision, you have to make
Speaker 15: every decision in favor of winning.
Speaker 14: And you just felt he couldn't win.
Speaker 15: No, I thought his campaign that they were on couldn't win.
Speaker 15: He might win, but they had to change what was happening,
Speaker 15: and he decided that change would be his stepping aside.
Speaker 14: As you said you had been close for so long
Speaker 14: and on Capitol College for decades.
Speaker 15: Before I was even in Congress.
Speaker 14: Yeah, and now you've told us that you haven't spoken
Speaker 14: to him since then. Do you think he's not forgiven
Speaker 14: you for your role?
Speaker 15: There may be some people around him who haven't forgiven
Speaker 15: me for my role.
Speaker 2: There may be some people around him who haven't forgiven him.
Speaker 2: So god a spicy she talks.
Speaker 1: Is so funny to me because she really talks like
Speaker 1: I'm running the show, you know. She's like, she's like,
Speaker 1: winning is a decision, and I decided that we were
Speaker 1: going to win and Donald Trump wasn't going to be
Speaker 1: in the White House. And she's very delicate, of course
Speaker 1: about oh, maybe Biden could have won, but that campaign
Speaker 1: was not going to win. And I think that's an
Speaker 1: effort like she didn't really care if the campaign staffers
Speaker 1: no matter or like whatever. She didn't give a shit, right,
Speaker 1: But she's trying to preserve some sort of you know,
Speaker 1: possibility of relationship with him and the public niceties, et cetera.
Speaker 1: But obviously the big reveal there that they have not
Speaker 1: spoken since he dropped out of the race, and that's
Speaker 1: pretty wild. I mean, that definitely reveals that he's still
Speaker 1: salty about her role, probably Obama's role as well. And
Speaker 1: there's also a lot of reporting about makes sense so
Speaker 1: interest staff conflict between the Biden camps and the Harris camps.
Speaker 1: We can put this up on the screen from Axios.
Speaker 1: Tensions rise between Harris and Biden teams as election nears
Speaker 1: and you know, on the one hand, you got the
Speaker 1: Biden people close Harris ally said they're too much in
Speaker 1: their feelings. They say he wants Harris to win, Yes,
Speaker 1: but many senior Biden aids are still wounded by the
Speaker 1: President being pushed out of his reelection like he was
Speaker 1: gonna lose, and also you were doing him no favors
Speaker 1: in terms of like this mean, can't serve another four
Speaker 1: years anyway. They're too much in their feelings, according to
Speaker 1: one close Harris ally. But there's also some of the
Speaker 1: Harris teams who are bitter over the fact that a
Speaker 1: bunch of Biden aids were out there suggesting that she
Speaker 1: was unelectable. So there continues to be some hurt feelings
Speaker 1: between the camp. We've also seen some we'll say disconnected
Speaker 1: messaging coming from the Biden side. He gave a press
Speaker 1: conference in the White House Briefing Room just as Harris
Speaker 1: was about to do an event in Michigan, so kind
Speaker 1: of undercutting her TV coverage. Also, there was that whole
Speaker 1: flat between Kamala and Ron de Santis were kind of
Speaker 1: engaged in this like back and forth where he wasn't
Speaker 1: taking her call whatever, and Biden got asked about it
Speaker 1: and said that Desanta's had been quote gracious and cooperative,
Speaker 1: so again kind of undercutting her there. But you know,
Speaker 1: my guest saga is that if they lose, if Kamala loses,
Speaker 1: you're gonna hear a lot more of this, and the
Speaker 1: Biden people will preposterously claim that he would have been
Speaker 1: a better candidate to win, which is absurd given what
Speaker 1: we saw in terms of the movement of the polls.
Speaker 2: And he's been saying it behind the scenes. He's been like,
Speaker 2: I actually look at her, I could have one. It's
Speaker 2: crossously crazy, preposteros. Yeah, there will be two, like vibe
Speaker 2: checks afterwards if Kamala loses. One will be Biden saying
Speaker 2: he never should have dropped out. That will be the
Speaker 2: revision's history. And two will be they should have picked
Speaker 2: John if she loses Pennsylvania. Oh my god, Josh Shapiro
Speaker 2: propaganda that we're going to hear for the next four
Speaker 2: years is going to be.
Speaker 1: Why when the correct take is that they should have
Speaker 1: had an actual democratic primary so that these candidates might
Speaker 1: have been stress tested and voters have an actual democratic
Speaker 1: opportunity to choose the candidate they thought would be best
Speaker 1: to go up against Donald Trump. That will be the
Speaker 1: correct take if she loses. But I have a feeling
Speaker 1: if she does pull off a win, all of this
Speaker 1: unhappiness it will be fine, swept under the rug. Joe
Speaker 1: Biden will go back. You know, he's a hero, thinks
Speaker 1: brown eyes and him off the Wilmington.
Speaker 2: Yeah, look at you wish that you should do.
Speaker 1: Right now, But forget about the genocide. Don't worry about that.
Speaker 1: He is noble and great and wonderful and honorable and
Speaker 1: all of these things. And he's noble, and his brain
Speaker 1: is still perfectly fine. Even though his brain was still
Speaker 1: not fine that we had to push him out of
Speaker 1: the race. Whatever. If they win, then that will be
Speaker 1: the all of this will be smoothed over. If they lose.
Speaker 1: These are the some of the contours of the knives
Speaker 1: that will come out post loss.
Speaker 2: I think you are certainly correct, Florida. We've been teasing
Speaker 2: it for long enough, right.
Speaker 1: Yes, indeed, so you know this is significant just in
Speaker 1: terms of the broader sort of conversation about where we
Speaker 1: are in terms of our economy, in terms of home ownership,
Speaker 1: in terms of some of the political contours. Even Rhonda
Speaker 1: Santisen Republicans have been really proud of how many people
Speaker 1: have moved to the state of Florida and how vibrantthotic
Speaker 1: economy has been. There are some signs that some of
Speaker 1: that could be reversing for a range of reasons. Number One,
Speaker 1: housing prices have just gone up in the state of
Speaker 1: Florida because a lot of people move there and housing
Speaker 1: prices are kind of going up everywhere, So that's number one. Obviously,
Speaker 1: the mortgage interest rate situation, again, that's a national issue.
Speaker 1: You also have had this problem with home property owners insurance,
Speaker 1: which is a total disaster, which I'll get into the
Speaker 1: specifics of a little bit more in a moment. And
Speaker 1: then you have a situation after remember that condo building
Speaker 1: that collapsed and killed a bunch of people was horrifying. Well,
Speaker 1: in response to that, there's they're imposing these levees so
Speaker 1: that these older condo buildings can be brought up to
Speaker 1: the codes. You don't see that again, but that's causing
Speaker 1: issues too with the in the level of those assessments,
Speaker 1: which sometimes can reach into like hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 1: dollars for individual condo owners. So that and then most
Speaker 1: obviously recently you had these two back to back massive
Speaker 1: storms hit almost the entire state of Florida, which is
Speaker 1: making a lot of people go like, ugh, I why
Speaker 1: do I want to move into a place that's just
Speaker 1: going to be routinely hit by massive storms and flooded.
Speaker 1: And I can't even get property owner's insurance. So it
Speaker 1: is really putting a chill on that on that whole market.
Speaker 1: We can put this up on the screen. This first
Speaker 1: element here from the Wall Street Journal. They say the
Speaker 1: Great Florida Migration is coming undone. A surplus of housing
Speaker 1: inventory and dwindling buyer interests are slowing sales. Hurricanes and
Speaker 1: extreme weather are making it worse. They profile at the
Speaker 1: beginning this man, Anthony Holmes, who was part of that
Speaker 1: Florida migration. He moved from a Virginia to a gated
Speaker 1: suburban community in Tampa. Now that he's had to leave,
Speaker 1: he's a victim of a glutted housing market where buyers
Speaker 1: are increasing hard to find. He paid five hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty thousand dollars for his five bedroom home, spent another
Speaker 1: fifty thousand dollars on solar panels and interior improvements, but
Speaker 1: now he's having to move back to Virginia for work.
Speaker 1: He thought he'd be able to sell his house right away.
Speaker 1: He listed it in February. He has had no luck.
Speaker 1: He's dropped the price five different times. He's just trying
Speaker 1: to break even. And he says, quote, I can't unload
Speaker 1: the thing in eight months. I've had zero offers.
Speaker 4: Jeez.
Speaker 1: No one even showed up to the open houses. Nobody,
Speaker 1: so they said. Another sign that we should all pay
Speaker 1: attention to here that the housing market is approaching a
Speaker 1: potential inflection point, is that institutional investors are starting to
Speaker 1: sell and pull back. Many are eager to cash in
Speaker 1: on the huge increase in prices that many of these
Speaker 1: homes have seen since twenty ten and are now pruning
Speaker 1: their Florida housing exposure. Just to give you a few
Speaker 1: more numbers than on get your reaction to all of
Speaker 1: this saga, they say. Tampa, Orlando and much of the
Speaker 1: Space Coasts are also experiencing this Florida housing reversal. Inventory
Speaker 1: for single family homes and condos in these areas was
Speaker 1: up more than fifty percent in August versus the last year.
Speaker 1: At the same time, demand has decreased ten percent or more.
Speaker 1: In these areas. About half of the homes listed for
Speaker 1: sale in Tambo, which is where the individual is talking about,
Speaker 1: was struggling to sell his home, about half of them
Speaker 1: have experienced price reductions. As of September ninth, that's the
Speaker 1: third highest share of all US major metro areas. So
Speaker 1: it does seem like something is going on.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, can we put the next one please up on
Speaker 2: the screen, because this is probably one of the most
Speaker 2: important parts, is about all of these properties that are
Speaker 2: for sale of skyrocketed. The guy was speculating, what are
Speaker 2: the odds he's or airbnbs with owners who are about
Speaker 2: to declare bankruptcy. But what you actually see inside all
Speaker 2: the data is that it's a flat housing market from
Speaker 2: March twenty twenty three onward. Two huge hurricanes that have
Speaker 2: now come through in the last year, skyrocketing insurance of
Speaker 2: four hundred percent, and then on top of that you
Speaker 2: have a lot there's not a lot of faith inside
Speaker 2: of the actual state that the current coluge of insurance
Speaker 2: system that's been put together after a lot of the
Speaker 2: insurance companies pulled out will even hold up. And this
Speaker 2: was the most interesting part to me. Let's put the
Speaker 2: next one please on the screen. What we saw is
Speaker 2: that the insurer of last resort is actually already in
Speaker 2: trouble and that Milton may be a big part of it.
Speaker 2: It's called the Citizens Property Insurance Group. It's the state
Speaker 2: and nonprofit home insurance that was set up as the
Speaker 2: last resort. One point three million policies are enforced in
Speaker 2: the last month, three times as many compared to five
Speaker 2: years ago. It's the largest provider in the entire state.
Speaker 2: The problem is that the governor already warned that Citizens
Speaker 2: was not solvent and that quote it can't function with
Speaker 2: millions of people on that because if a storm hits,
Speaker 2: it's going to cause problems for the state.
Speaker 4: Vote.
Speaker 2: Thankfully that they've avoided the worst case scenario for Milton,
Speaker 2: but that doesn't change that Citizens is one catastrophic storm
Speaker 2: away from complete and total insolvency, which means what that
Speaker 2: they're either going to get bailed out by the federal
Speaker 2: government or those insurance premiums are about to go from
Speaker 2: four hundred percent of five years ago to like a
Speaker 2: thousand percent five years ago. So you can't even imagine
Speaker 2: what that would do, especially in a high interest rate environment.
Speaker 2: Think about what your mortgage payment is going to look
Speaker 2: like from interest and insurance. Honestly, could even it could
Speaker 2: go way over principle. Maybe start to think about what
Speaker 2: the cost of living there would be.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's crazy, that's absolutely true. No, I mean, if
Speaker 1: you think about four hundred percent increase in those costs
Speaker 1: over just a few years, that's mind blowing. And so
Speaker 1: what's happened is a bunch of the local private insurers
Speaker 1: just cancel palls or out or not. Yeah, they're say
Speaker 1: more there now. And so people were forced to, you know,
Speaker 1: into this property owner's insurance of last resort, which is
Speaker 1: you know, federal and state back Citizens Property Insurance Corporation.
Speaker 1: And you have politicians here in DC raising alarms that
Speaker 1: they're on the brink of insolvency if they get hit
Speaker 1: with another catastrophic event. You know, they're already probably going
Speaker 1: to have to pay out billions of dollars in claims
Speaker 1: after these two storms. And so while this outfit has
Speaker 1: a mechanism in order to be able to make sure
Speaker 1: it remain solvent, that mechanism is basically just jacking up
Speaker 1: the prices like crazy, not only on homes but also
Speaker 1: on you know, other forms of bright like cars and
Speaker 1: boats and whatever. And how politically feasible is that really
Speaker 1: going to be for whoever is governor, whether it's Rondo
Speaker 1: Santas or whoever's governor of the state at the time.
Speaker 1: And so Sheldon white House was saying, should claims exceed
Speaker 1: the insuran's ability to pay citizens does have a mechanism
Speaker 1: to pass those losses onto Florida families are already paying
Speaker 1: sky high premiums. Recouping billions of dollars in losses from
Speaker 1: Floridians is unlikely to be feasible economically or politically, let
Speaker 1: alone in time to pay massive claims. Hence the Budget
Speaker 1: Committee concern about possible requests for a federal bailout. So
Speaker 1: whether or not you live in Florida very possible. This
Speaker 1: could be a question that the whole country is faced
Speaker 1: with here shortly. But you know, it's an irony that
Speaker 1: the very things that some of the things that make
Speaker 1: Florida so incredibly appealing obviously is a little bit of
Speaker 1: the great weather, But all of this beachfront property may be,
Speaker 1: you know, the thing that is also causing a lot
Speaker 1: of people to be reluctant to relocate there because you're
Speaker 1: facing these storms, You're facing this property insurance, you know,
Speaker 1: skyrocketing property insurance impossibility in certain instances of even getting
Speaker 1: property insurance, and so you are already starting to see
Speaker 1: a reversal of some of those trends.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm going to watch. Look, there's a lot of
Speaker 2: stuff going on. The point is is that if you
Speaker 2: really look at the lot of the demographics, like we're
Speaker 2: watching Florida now go red, I'm watching with great interest
Speaker 2: how North Carolina is going to go and what the
Speaker 2: margins of that will look like, disproportionately a lot wider
Speaker 2: than the more economically dinamic swing of the Sun Belt states.
Speaker 2: I really am also watching Nevada. Nevada's had a ton
Speaker 2: of economic development in the last couple of years. They've
Speaker 2: also had big changes in terms of like their political
Speaker 2: outlook and who they may vote for. America is changing
Speaker 2: a lot. America is changing a lot. I think it's
Speaker 2: part of the most exciting things about covering this stuff.
Speaker 2: And you know, a lot of the bowl case for
Speaker 2: Florida is now becoming a little bit of a bear case.
Speaker 2: So you should definitely think about that when you are
Speaker 2: making decisions.
Speaker 1: So we have a stunning potential development out of Israel
Speaker 1: and Gaza strip. We could go ahead and put this
Speaker 1: tear sheet up on the screen from Axios. Israel is
Speaker 1: apparently investigating the possible death of hamas leader Yeah Yeah
Speaker 1: Sinwar Sinwar credative of course, with some of the architecting
Speaker 1: of October seventh. He has been probably the primary target
Speaker 1: for assassination by Israel post October seventh. There are some
Speaker 1: gruesome images floating around social media of the individuals purported
Speaker 1: to be Yeah Yeah Sinwar after this strike that potentially
Speaker 1: killed him. That has not been firmly confirmed at all yet.
Speaker 1: The IDEAF is still investigating it, so we wanted to
Speaker 1: bring you everything we know. You know, just looking at him, Sager,
Speaker 1: it does look like it could be him.
Speaker 2: Looking at the pot. We're not going to put the
Speaker 2: photos up there. They're pretty gruesome and some of the
Speaker 2: details are a bit odd. So from what we know,
Speaker 2: what is it right now? It looks like it was
Speaker 2: as a result of a drone strike, and it was
Speaker 2: a drone strike on three individuals who were walking, I think,
Speaker 2: And it was after they discovered the remains that they
Speaker 2: were like, oh man, this could be Sinwar. So they're
Speaker 2: doing genetic testing, like they said, right now, to confirm
Speaker 2: with one hundred percent certainty, and apparently they still have
Speaker 2: to clear explosive devices from the scene. But I mean
Speaker 2: just purely like looking at him, it definitely looks it
Speaker 2: looks more like him than it did when they caught Saddam,
Speaker 2: I'll put it that way.
Speaker 1: That's true.
Speaker 2: Well they got Saddam. I was like, I don't know
Speaker 2: if that really I mean, cameras were different.
Speaker 1: Than but so they said. Israeli officials claim the incident
Speaker 1: was coincidental, not based on intelligence. They say that during
Speaker 1: a routine patrol by the ID after soldiers encounter three
Speaker 1: arm bending, changed fire and killed them. And then it
Speaker 1: was after the fact that one of the soldiers saw
Speaker 1: the face of one of the bodies and thought that
Speaker 1: he resembled Sinwar, but his identity could not be immediately confirmed.
Speaker 1: You know, obviously if Sinware, if this was indeed Sinwar
Speaker 1: and he is now dead, that is an extraordinarily significant development.
Speaker 1: As I mentioned before, it was probably the top target
Speaker 1: of Israel in terms of him being the architect of
Speaker 1: October seventh. And you know, if you had a different administration,
Speaker 1: they might look at this. Both the US and Israeli administration.
Speaker 1: They might look at this and say, hey, let's take
Speaker 1: the w here I was going, we got our man.
Speaker 2: There's actually two ways that we could go, you know,
Speaker 2: and in some ways it's not a bad development because
Speaker 2: sin War is one of the I mean, we were
Speaker 2: reading reporting he wanted to renew suicide bombers. He was
Speaker 2: the guy who what is it who greenlit and planned
Speaker 2: a lot of the October seventh attacks, and cynically, you know,
Speaker 2: there'd been obviously an analysis that maybe Israel had put
Speaker 2: itself in a position to elevate sin War so he
Speaker 2: could be like that radical wing of the party. So,
Speaker 2: like you just said, it's one of those where look,
Speaker 2: imagine if a year into the war on Terror we
Speaker 2: got bin Laden. That would be a great argument for
Speaker 2: let's wrap it. Yeah, it's like we're good, Yeah, congratulations,
Speaker 2: now let's go. One could go that way. The other
Speaker 2: unfortunate way that they're more likely to do it is
Speaker 2: just be like yes, but now about what about his loop?
Speaker 2: This is what they did with Hesbola immediately went from
Speaker 2: Nostrella to number the guy who replaced Nostralita, and then
Speaker 2: the guy who replaced the replacement of Nasralla. And it's
Speaker 2: not like anything has changed all that much. So that's
Speaker 2: what we did. Fortunate reality, that's exactly. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, we already know the answer is going to
Speaker 1: be there, not going to take the w and say, okay,
Speaker 1: we did it, let's move on. But you know, this
Speaker 1: is something I'd love to talk to Jeremy Scahill more
Speaker 1: about because he's interviewed right some of you know HAMAS
Speaker 1: members and members of Palestinian Islamic Jihad as well. But
Speaker 1: you know, my general understanding is that Ismael Haniah, who
Speaker 1: was the head of the political wing of HAMAS, who
Speaker 1: was previously assassinated by Israel In while he was in Tehran,
Speaker 1: actually in Iran, that he was more you know, I
Speaker 1: know it seems preposterous to talk about a modern wing
Speaker 1: of Hamas, but he was more interested in a diplomatic solution.
Speaker 1: He was less enamored with some of the more sort
Speaker 1: of like you know, terrorists or violent activities that Hamas
Speaker 1: has in particular engaged in, not only in October seventh
Speaker 1: fees of the civilians, but in the past with regard
Speaker 1: to suicide bombings, and so he was someone knew that
Speaker 1: you could more easily work with and imagine coming in
Speaker 1: a diplomatic solution Sinwar more of the hardliner And there
Speaker 1: had been some reporting, I don't know whether it's true
Speaker 1: or not, but that he was thinking again of hey,
Speaker 1: we need to you know, get back into the suicide
Speaker 1: bombing business. And so if he is now taken out
Speaker 1: as head of Hamas, who knows who fills that vacuum
Speaker 1: and what the ideology is coming next, you know what
Speaker 1: version of their ideology it is. In any case, we'll
Speaker 1: keep an eye on it and you know, see if
Speaker 1: this is ultimately confirmed right now continues to be a
Speaker 1: big question mark. What is not a big question mark
Speaker 1: is that Israel continues with their offensive, both in Gaza,
Speaker 1: also in other parts of the region, but most specifically
Speaker 1: in Leben. We can put this images up on the screen.
Speaker 1: This is a video of just the detonation of an
Speaker 1: entire residential neighborhood in a southern Lebanon town. You know,
Speaker 1: hard to imagine this being really like a precision strike
Speaker 1: to get the baddies and Hesbala when you just you know,
Speaker 1: wantonly destroy an entire village. So that's what you're looking
Speaker 1: at there. We also have some domestic news, some new
Speaker 1: revelations about you guys. Recall there was that effectively pro
Speaker 1: rape riot at a torture facility they call it a
Speaker 1: detention center for Palestinian detainees, where soldiers who were accused
Speaker 1: and I mean the evidence is all there. I think
Speaker 1: to even give them the benefit of the doubt at
Speaker 1: this point is very generous. Who are accused of raping
Speaker 1: a Palestinian detainee. The military police came in to arrest
Speaker 1: these suspects and there was a massive revolt among his
Speaker 1: fellow soldiers, but also among a bunch of right wing
Speaker 1: groups including LACUD party members and ministers that's Benjamin net
Speaker 1: Yahoo's party. Ultimately, you know they're after a huge backlash.
Speaker 1: They you know, they had to take them to different facilities.
Speaker 1: It was a wild scene and now we're learning new details.
Speaker 1: We can put this up on the screen that those
Speaker 1: soldiers not only did they protest, there are fellow soldiers
Speaker 1: who were again accused of raping a palaes Didnian detainee.
Speaker 1: Not only did they protest, but they also attacked those
Speaker 1: military police investigators. They also used held them at gunpoint
Speaker 1: and barricaded themselves with the suspects to try to keep
Speaker 1: them from getting arrested. Military police has witness testimonies to
Speaker 1: the assault. It has not, though, been investigated, on the
Speaker 1: grounds that the assaulted soldiers are afraid to officially complain,
Speaker 1: even though and it's after mass some of the investigators
Speaker 1: involved stop fulfilling operational roles and one stop showing up
Speaker 1: for duty. So these are also you know, people are
Speaker 1: in the military. The military police who came to arrest
Speaker 1: these individuals accused of grave crimes with quite a lot
Speaker 1: of evidence, and the fellow soldiers take out their weapons,
Speaker 1: barricade them in rooms, assault them directly, and there's been
Speaker 1: zero investigation into any of this because effectively, you know,
Speaker 1: the government, certainly a significant part of Israeli society supported
Speaker 1: the side that was like, we don't think that, we
Speaker 1: think it should be fine for soldiers to rape Palestinians
Speaker 1: and there should be no consequences. Oh yeah, just a
Speaker 1: wild sign of where the society is.
Speaker 2: The inside of it is totally crazy, especially with that
Speaker 2: riot that would happened, and then now the the what
Speaker 2: is it the actual internal efforts to police it is crazy.
Speaker 2: They literally attack the military police for arrested them. You
Speaker 2: can't even imagine what this would look like in the
Speaker 2: US military or for our discipline. I mean, it would
Speaker 2: be a total destruction of like chain of command, of justice,
Speaker 2: of everything that they pride themselves on, the professionalization, professionalization
Speaker 2: of the force. From my lie on, it's just absolute madness,
Speaker 2: like and think even look, Abu Grad was shameful, right,
Speaker 2: but there was a lot done to make sure that
Speaker 2: something like that never ever happened again. This is the
Speaker 2: opposite reaction. This would be like if they got away
Speaker 2: with it, and worse that when they were arrested, that
Speaker 2: the people there actually turned and cited with those who
Speaker 2: were at Abu Gra.
Speaker 1: That's exactly right. Yeah, it's it's wild to comprent. And
Speaker 1: then the fact that they're you know, basically the government's like, oh,
Speaker 1: we're on the side of the people who you know,
Speaker 1: took out their weapons and assaulted the military police trying
Speaker 1: to do their job and invest in you know, investigate
Speaker 1: these people and bring them into detention. Yeah, it tells
Speaker 1: you a lot. Let's go and put this next piece
Speaker 1: up on the screen. This was quite an interesting opinion
Speaker 1: piece published in an Israeli newspaper Haretz. The author here
Speaker 1: Yatak Brink, Major General Yatak Brick served in the Armor
Speaker 1: Corps as a brigade divisioning troop commander, as commander of
Speaker 1: the IDF military colleges for ten years. He was the
Speaker 1: i ombudsman. So this is no You know, anti Zionists,
Speaker 1: pink care lefty on a college campus and the headline
Speaker 1: is Israel will collapse within a year if the war
Speaker 1: of attrition against Hamas and has Blood continues. So you
Speaker 1: know this person who is very invested in the future
Speaker 1: of the Israeli state, who is founding the warning, he says,
Speaker 1: I assume Defense Minister Golan already understands the war has
Speaker 1: lost its purpose. Israel's thinking deeper into the gosen mud,
Speaker 1: losing war and more soldiers as they get killed or
Speaker 1: wounded without any chance of achieving the war's main goal
Speaker 1: bringing down Hamas. The country really is galloping towards the
Speaker 1: edge of an abyss. If the war of a attrition continues,
Speaker 1: Israel will collapse within no more than a year. Terror
Speaker 1: attacks are intensifying the West Bank and inside the country.
Speaker 1: The reserved army is voting with its feet following recurring
Speaker 1: mobilizations of combat soldiers, and the economy is crashing. Israel's
Speaker 1: also become a pariah state, prompting economic boycotts and an
Speaker 1: embargo on arms shipment. So you know, we've seen some
Speaker 1: ezy right, I don't know, but we've seen some signs that,
Speaker 1: you know, they've got real problems. There are more more
Speaker 1: countries who are saying we're not going to ship you
Speaker 1: weapons anymore. You have the US doing I don't have.
Speaker 1: I don't feel like it has much credibility. But this
Speaker 1: letter from the State Department saying basically like you got
Speaker 1: to shape up with regard to eight or you know,
Speaker 1: there may be consequences. They're already sending signals that like, no,
Speaker 1: actually there won't be consequences. But the US sending that letter,
Speaker 1: I mean, it is something. And certainly the NETNYA who
Speaker 1: is government is fearful that if Kamala Harris were elected
Speaker 1: or even post election, that bide my feely as a
Speaker 1: freer hand to take some sort of actions against them.
Speaker 1: But more to the point, we've seen businesses pulling out.
Speaker 1: We've seen Intel was supposed to go forward with some
Speaker 1: significant investment in the state that they back down of.
Speaker 1: You have an incredible burden on society from these multiple
Speaker 1: wars that they're fighting and constantly trying to escalate. And
Speaker 1: you even had a letter from some one hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty IDF members who said, no, if you don't go
Speaker 1: and get a hostage deal and bring home the hostages
Speaker 1: and have a sea spy, like, we're not doing this anymore,
Speaker 1: We're going to refuse to serve. So the cracks are
Speaker 1: certainly showing, and so it's not preposterous this assessment from
Speaker 1: this individual, especially when you consider the numbers of Israelis
Speaker 1: who have said, yeah, I've thought about leaving, and I've
Speaker 1: taken some steps to investigate what that could look like.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I just don't know what to make
Speaker 2: of all of these developments and what the Biden administration
Speaker 2: really will do after the election. They have multiple different
Speaker 2: opportunities about what to do and which policy. You know,
Speaker 2: for example, the Obama administration allowed some anti or not
Speaker 2: critical resolutions against Israel to go through the UN Security
Speaker 2: Council after the election when Trump was coming into office
Speaker 2: during the transition, so they could take them. But I mean,
Speaker 2: all signs don't currently indicate that.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Right now, I just I really don't know why which
Speaker 2: way it's going to go. Astra stinwhar while you were talking,
Speaker 2: I was just making sure. Still don't see anything right
Speaker 2: now for me? Barak Revid says. Three Israeli officials say
Speaker 2: one of the bodies is most likely Sinwar. They will
Speaker 2: have to wait for DNA and fingerprint analysis. They say
Speaker 2: that Israel has both his DNA and his finger friends
Speaker 2: from the time that he is in prison, so they'll
Speaker 2: be able to know relatively short.
Speaker 1: So be crazy for him to just be like out
Speaker 1: and about.
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, it's kind of mad to be not tracked,
Speaker 2: to be out and about with two bodyguards. I mean
Speaker 2: it also, frankly, I mean in terms of the Israeli
Speaker 2: intelligence machine, what does it say about them? They've been
Speaker 2: telling us like he's underground.
Speaker 1: I know exactly, you know exactly where it is.
Speaker 2: He's surrounded by hostages at all times. You know this
Speaker 2: is like, so which one is it? I mean, frankly,
Speaker 2: what he was doing is probably the smart thing. You
Speaker 2: actually want to keep a low profile. You don't want
Speaker 2: a bunch of guys around you. They're probably looking for
Speaker 2: the hostages more so you don't necessarily want to be
Speaker 2: around them. And the fact that he got caught on
Speaker 2: the ground like walking out in the open is kind
Speaker 2: of insane for it to be the literal leader of Hamas.
Speaker 2: But maybe we'll learn a little bit more about it.
Speaker 2: They basically got it by accident. It looks like this
Speaker 2: was no bin laden style operations. Yeah, if it is
Speaker 2: one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: So one quick update on that letter that I referenced
Speaker 1: before from the Biden administration to the Israelis was trying
Speaker 1: to put pressure on them with regard to be her
Speaker 1: lack of aid in Gaza in general, but Northern Gaza
Speaker 1: in particular, where no aid had gone in in the
Speaker 1: month of October whatsoever. We could put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. So the idea in the State Department, this
Speaker 1: is per our own Ryan Graham are both claiming fifty
Speaker 1: AID trucks have entered North Gaza, but reporters on the
Speaker 1: ground say this is false. We have a Palestinian journalist
Speaker 1: who elaborated on this. We could put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen as well. They say, the images and videos
Speaker 1: you're seeing that claim to show aid reaching Northern Gaza
Speaker 1: are highly misleading, part of a larger narrative being pushed
Speaker 1: by the Israeli military. I can confidently assert no aid
Speaker 1: trucks have entered the besieged areas. The AID that is
Speaker 1: entered has only gone to the southern parts of Gaza,
Speaker 1: was intended primarily for media and propaganda purposes. Not a
Speaker 1: single truck has reached the northern areas since the start
Speaker 1: of the military operation there. And you know this is
Speaker 1: because the US sent this letter. The very likely game
Speaker 1: that's going to be played here is they'll do this
Speaker 1: photo op with some more AID trucks. You els, will
Speaker 1: use it to be able to see they're doing their job,
Speaker 1: and we put pressure on them, and look how great
Speaker 1: we are and it's amazing. Problem solved. We're moving on
Speaker 1: and not take any sort of you know, not to
Speaker 1: change course whatsoever. That seems like the likely direction that
Speaker 1: we're ultimately going in here, based on the evidence we
Speaker 1: have and the track record we have as of today.
Speaker 4: That's right.
Speaker 2: All right, let's get to CNN. Wanted to make sure
Speaker 2: we covered there are two wild things that happened on CNN.
Speaker 2: Both it appears on the topic of race. So let's
Speaker 2: start with the first. There was a segment in which
Speaker 2: you had a pro Trump, pro Trump supporter who was
Speaker 2: black against a Kamala supporter and a host and some
Speaker 2: wild language was used. Let's take a lesson.
Speaker 7: If you're an African American man. Look, let me boil
Speaker 7: this election down in the African American community to a
Speaker 7: very simple I'll reference to Great Malcolm X. This race
Speaker 7: is between house African Americans and field African Americans.
Speaker 4: And the field.
Speaker 7: African Americans are going for Donald Trump. I'm talking about
Speaker 7: your men who I'm talking about, Your men who build,
Speaker 7: your men who put things together, your men who work
Speaker 7: with their hands, your men who do things, not the
Speaker 7: men who push paper, and the men who are connected
Speaker 7: the power and want to continue to be connected to power.
Speaker 7: Are you derating me?
Speaker 9: Are you denigrating or debating African American men who are
Speaker 9: professionals who work in white collar jobs?
Speaker 1: Is that what I'm hearing from you or No.
Speaker 10: I'm not trying to understand, Shelley the house, what I'm
Speaker 10: doing the field. I'm just trying to understand that point.
Speaker 10: I'm just trying to understand. We have someone who's spitting
Speaker 10: I'm just trying understand the one that's spitting talking points
Speaker 10: right now. Are you Are you the house negro of
Speaker 10: the field negbro that you're referring to so I just
Speaker 10: want to make sure your question was about denigrating black people.
Speaker 10: That literally was your question.
Speaker 6: You have a.
Speaker 10: Republican right who was talking right now about you literally
Speaker 10: just said that black men. You just you actually just said,
Speaker 10: this is an election about house or field. This is
Speaker 10: the nonsense that we are listening to right now by
Speaker 10: those that are supporting Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: All right, So that was wild Shelley Winter is his name.
Speaker 2: He's a pro Trump radio host. I just I'm like, man, man,
Speaker 2: you know, why, why what do you want to use
Speaker 2: that terminology? There are probably ten million better ways to
Speaker 2: make that point. I mean, in a certain sense, you're like,
Speaker 2: I get what you're trying to say. You're talking about
Speaker 2: highly educated, like elite black.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but we versus like people remember.
Speaker 2: A blue collar But you're like, dude, this is that
Speaker 2: appropriate analogy.
Speaker 1: Eighty percent, roughly perhaps more of black people in this
Speaker 1: country are going to overcome one.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's right.
Speaker 1: So you are insulting eighty percent of black merits not
Speaker 1: to mention. Not to mention, there are plenty of professional
Speaker 1: black men and women who will also be pulling the
Speaker 1: lever for it. I mean, it's just a Barack Obama's
Speaker 1: lecturing a black man got nothing on this guy, and
Speaker 1: just absolute slander against a vast swath of the country.
Speaker 2: The funny thing too, is I remember, because I was
Speaker 2: reading this about Malcolm X, the whole point of this,
Speaker 2: the whole tirade that he gave was actulutely to speak
Speaker 2: against civil rights activists at the time, like Martin Luther
Speaker 2: King Junior, because he described them that way for trying
Speaker 2: to work within the political system right and to quote
Speaker 2: please the white master, whereas I mean eventually completely changed
Speaker 2: his entire ideology. But in the nineteen sixties, whenever, in
Speaker 2: nineteen sixty three, when he gave this speech and he
Speaker 2: was still part of the Nation of Islam, it was
Speaker 2: about black nationalism and an ideology of actually, there's nothing
Speaker 2: that the white man can do for this, which he
Speaker 2: then later denounced. So that's why it's part of the
Speaker 2: other reason why you really shouldn't be using that analogy,
Speaker 2: and especially looking at well, who was a little bit
Speaker 2: more successful at the end the long run by working
Speaker 2: within that and who ended up actually denouncing his own
Speaker 2: framework that he puts forward. So there you go. That
Speaker 2: was wild. Second, and I guess on the other side
Speaker 2: of that was another wild moment where our friend Ryan Gurdusky,
Speaker 2: who's been on CNN a little bit more, had a
Speaker 2: moment where he revealed a lot I think about CNN,
Speaker 2: and he mentioned the Ferguson and the Floyd effect. Now,
Speaker 2: I guess I have to explain this. I thought any
Speaker 2: reasonable person who reads the news would know what it is.
Speaker 2: That is an idea which came about after Ferguson and
Speaker 2: specifically a lot of the BLM movement from twenty fifteen,
Speaker 2: where there was a rise in crime as a result
Speaker 2: of the BLM riots and or demonstrations. The idea being
Speaker 2: that police were more afraid to pull over people. Basically,
Speaker 2: police were quiet quitting, which led to an increase in crime.
Speaker 2: It is not a difficult concept. If you are I'm
Speaker 2: going to say ten percent familiar with debates about criminal
Speaker 2: justice and about crime, you're going to know what these
Speaker 2: two things is. Two things are Watch what happens when
Speaker 2: he uses this term on CNN, specifically with some people
Speaker 2: who are still called black activists, and they've never even
Speaker 2: heard of it before. Let's take a.
Speaker 16: Listen yesterday Ryan about how, in the context of riots
Speaker 16: he was saying, let's just bring the military into it
Speaker 16: to deal with American citizens.
Speaker 4: I mean that happened yesterday.
Speaker 17: Right, But there are the post George Floyd riots resulted
Speaker 17: in excess of over fifteen thousand black male deaths in
Speaker 17: this country.
Speaker 4: How the surge of violent crime.
Speaker 17: It was like Ferguson, the ferus effect, the Florida fact.
Speaker 10: You can explain to me how George Floyd's death any causation. Yes,
Speaker 10: it really is.
Speaker 17: What happens is after the Ferguson riot and after the
Speaker 17: Floyd riot, policemen, in fear of their jobs many times
Speaker 17: and political coverage pull back from their jobs, resulting in
Speaker 17: an increasing.
Speaker 2: Listen, I got to stop there at the country. Hold
Speaker 2: you can look at the was We.
Speaker 16: Got to stop you there because you're literally making a
Speaker 16: connection out of your own conjecture.
Speaker 2: Cannot, it's a real thing.
Speaker 17: Look up, look up the Ferguson effect, look up the
Speaker 17: Floyd effect.
Speaker 4: It is a real term.
Speaker 6: You cannot, you can.
Speaker 16: It's a I didn't just invent a connection between two
Speaker 16: things just because you want that to be there.
Speaker 1: It's I mean little, it's a real thing.
Speaker 16: Because reading this, we're talking about things that happened when
Speaker 16: Donald Trump was president.
Speaker 2: He was the president.
Speaker 17: So how is he not responsible for Well, the presidents
Speaker 17: controlled local police deport.
Speaker 16: Okay, but you're trying to blame crime on Joe Biden
Speaker 16: and you don't blame Republicans have blamed crime on Joe Biden,
Speaker 16: but you cannot. But you're saying that that people who
Speaker 16: died when Donald Trump was president, that's not his fault.
Speaker 4: I don't.
Speaker 16: I don't agree with either blame being assigned to either president.
Speaker 4: I think presidents blame.
Speaker 16: You don't have a magic want.
Speaker 2: Okay, I think that is so what you tell me
Speaker 2: what you think? I I just can't get over it.
Speaker 2: It's like, do you not read the news? But car
Speaker 2: E Sellers, you don't know what the freaking Floyd or
Speaker 2: Ferguson effect is. By the way I looked it up,
Speaker 2: Abby Phillips, that host you don't want to know who
Speaker 2: covered Ferguson for the Washington Post. Turns out it was
Speaker 2: Abby Phillips. You don't know what freaking Ferguson effect is
Speaker 2: her own paper while she worked there under that guy
Speaker 2: was at Wesley Lowry. They did a million pieces trying
Speaker 2: to disprove the Ferguson effects. So look, whether you agree
Speaker 2: or not, how can you possibly not know what it is?
Speaker 2: I just don't get it. And then she kept cutting
Speaker 2: them off the whole time, saying it was totally invented.
Speaker 2: This is an FBI addressed terminology. Just ludicrous. So you
Speaker 2: give me a reaction, I can't get over it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I think it's a very clear evidence
Speaker 1: of what bubbles these okay people live in, you know,
Speaker 1: because like as someone on the left, like I'm very
Speaker 1: familiar with this, I personally think it's sort of outrageous
Speaker 1: for cops like quite quit after because they faced grew
Speaker 1: me for you know, killing unarmed black citizens. But I'm
Speaker 1: definitely familiar with the term to be able to argue
Speaker 1: about it and talk about it. And so the fact
Speaker 1: that yeah, they all seemed like what are you even
Speaker 1: talking about?
Speaker 2: Was it was kind of wild, that's what But car
Speaker 2: and Macary was like, you made that up? I looked
Speaker 2: at it. It was reaction on Twitter too, because a
Speaker 2: lot of conservatives were looking at this, and I mean
Speaker 2: the reason why I'm not sure it's a bubble thing
Speaker 2: and I'm actually like, are you just stupid? Is for
Speaker 2: you to have a conviction you should I would hope,
Speaker 2: like do a little bit of reading about Like you
Speaker 2: just said, I have met a cab BLM people. They'll
Speaker 2: tell you all about how whether FERG is in effect
Speaker 2: and how it's bullshit, or about the Floyd effect well
Speaker 2: and why that's wrong.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's don't.
Speaker 2: Read about it, you don't investigate.
Speaker 1: Maybe listen, I don't. I'm not going to like a
Speaker 1: fine on their IQ levels, but I can say I
Speaker 1: think it demonstrates a lack of seriousness about their concern
Speaker 1: for the problem.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's what I'm talking.
Speaker 1: That's that I think is fair to say. And yeah,
Speaker 1: and it is partly a bubble problem because they're never
Speaker 1: in whatever their social media news consumption habits were, they
Speaker 1: were never confronted with this never term and have to
Speaker 1: deal with it and think about what it means and
Speaker 1: whether you know, whether the conservatives have a point about it,
Speaker 1: or what the push back on the left is or
Speaker 1: any of that. So to me, it displays not so
Speaker 1: much lack of intelligence, but lack of seriousness about the issue.
Speaker 1: And you know, a sort of like surface level relationship
Speaker 1: to the you know, the protests that they cover.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Ryan and I were talking about it yesterday and
Speaker 2: I'm like, you know, you know, we have both of
Speaker 2: us combined. How many hours a day do we just
Speaker 2: spend reading the news like and everything? I mean every
Speaker 2: you know things, even I strongly believe I read so
Speaker 2: many countercases, either to be familiar or to try and
Speaker 2: change my own mind. Who the hell knows, And I
Speaker 2: still obviously have biased problem. I know you do the
Speaker 2: same thing just to prepare for every single day of
Speaker 2: being here. So to watch that, I was just like,
Speaker 2: oh my god, that one of thing do you even
Speaker 2: prepare for when you go on your like to talk
Speaker 2: with confidence on cable television. My rule was always I thought,
Speaker 2: you need about thirty minutes of reading too for every
Speaker 2: like one minute of speaking, And like what I meant
Speaker 2: by that is to distill an idea into a concise
Speaker 2: and thing to be able to address an argument. It
Speaker 2: takes time. You need to be familiar with the things
Speaker 2: that are going on with the news, with all the facts,
Speaker 2: and then you can try and break down into a
Speaker 2: single thing. And even then, you know, here on our
Speaker 2: show we talk for almost two hours, they're talking for
Speaker 2: forty five yeah minute with each other, So maybe that's
Speaker 2: part of it.
Speaker 1: That's what I was gonna I think that is part
Speaker 1: of it because anytime i've you know, I don't often
Speaker 1: I mean, they don't invite me on these shows any more,
Speaker 1: number one, But even when I engage in anything that's
Speaker 1: like even remotely like this format, it's a reminder to
Speaker 1: me of yeah, there's like six or eight minute segments. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you don't have to know a lot because if you
Speaker 1: just fill abuster through one answer or you know, stick
Speaker 1: your talking points, then that's it. So you can get
Speaker 1: away with having a pretty surface level understanding. And also
Speaker 1: because you aren't oftentimes faced with people who have a
Speaker 1: different perspective or have facts or you know, it's to
Speaker 1: taste or whatever that's like uncomfortable for you've never had
Speaker 1: to grapple with that really, or don't have to grapple
Speaker 1: with it very often outside of the realm of just
Speaker 1: like is Trump good or Trump bad? Then you know
Speaker 1: it can lead to some major.
Speaker 2: US Yeah, definitely that. Okay, guys, thank you guys so
Speaker 2: much for watching. We really appreciate you. If there's any
Speaker 2: breaking news, obviously we'll see you over the weekend. Otherwise
Speaker 2: we're going to see you all on Monday. Thanks so
Speaker 2: much for our premium subscribers,