Speaker 1: Well, why don't we start there with our good friend
Speaker 1: political uh analyst Gary Dietrich, who has long been part
Speaker 1: of the Armstrong and Getty show. Gary. Welcome, How are
Speaker 1: you hey? Proud to be part of the long legacy
Speaker 1: of angie people. Yeah, so, Gary, let's start with the
Speaker 1: incredibly overheated rhetoric. Have you ever seen anything like it?
Speaker 1: I'll tell you what, guys, I've been talking with people
Speaker 1: about this for months as this has been building, and
Speaker 1: and the numbers sort of proved the overheated rad quotem
Speaker 1: aim by that, Uh Joe, it's that the people who
Speaker 1: are saying I'm destinely going to vote you know, I'm
Speaker 1: really paying attention to selection. Those numbers are off the charts.
Speaker 1: They're like at se guy just evened up this week,
Speaker 1: Democrats kind of pulled even with Republicans in the so
Speaker 1: called passion quotients. So yeah, i'd say, yes, you have
Speaker 1: seen And of course, guys, it goes without saying almost
Speaker 1: that in the aftermath of the last election cycle, that's
Speaker 1: heightened even further. Well, the reason I'm only want to
Speaker 1: have you honest because I heard you're talking about how
Speaker 1: California's got the two most expensive initiatives they've ever had.
Speaker 1: But before we get to that, UM, I hit everybody
Speaker 1: with this because I think it's the most amazing poll
Speaker 1: number I've seen this entire cycle. It's an NBC poll
Speaker 1: from a couple of weeks ago. Eighty percent of Republicans
Speaker 1: eight percent of Democrats believe that if the other believe
Speaker 1: the other part party is out to destroy America, of
Speaker 1: each side believes the other side's out to destroy America,
Speaker 1: how do you function with that number? Well, Jack, that
Speaker 1: that is probably you know, that's the million dollar question
Speaker 1: that gets buried a lot because of course, beneath that number, Jack,
Speaker 1: is the fact that both sides, I think the other
Speaker 1: side is prepared to quote unquote steal the election, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's the problem. You know, it's well,
Speaker 1: they're blocking poles, they got armed guys that they're not
Speaker 1: voting machines. We're gonna be having, you know, poll watchers.
Speaker 1: I mean, it is absolutely crazy. And of course that
Speaker 1: narrative is already that narrative is already getting prepared for
Speaker 1: the Well, the problem with that, you know, it's a
Speaker 1: race to the bottom. It's Ah, I don't know what
Speaker 1: what would be the right in metaphor or whatever. But
Speaker 1: if if you believe the other side is going to
Speaker 1: destroy the country, you probably should rig the election. Okay,
Speaker 1: I want to make sure that was not me saying
Speaker 1: you want if you're historian Michael bes bech Loss and
Speaker 1: you believe children are going to be executed if the
Speaker 1: other side wins, you probably should do whatever you can
Speaker 1: to make sure you win. Well, yeah, there's that, But
Speaker 1: I think I think the important thing, guys, is what's
Speaker 1: going on, what's being put in jeopardy really from a
Speaker 1: governance standpoint is we've always had a date certain and
Speaker 1: president of politics in January, right, we have the inauguration,
Speaker 1: We're done, we move on. Everybody's still screams. Everybody screams
Speaker 1: and yells, we're all still upset. But you have a date.
Speaker 1: When you don't have a date, and if you're going
Speaker 1: to be continually throwing this into the courts at various
Speaker 1: level from Scotus on down, that becomes exceptionally problematic, just
Speaker 1: in terms of not only doing our own governance business
Speaker 1: internally but externally when external countries, external forces. You want
Speaker 1: to know, okay on January or at least gonna who's
Speaker 1: geting you run in the place over there. You gotta
Speaker 1: have that. You have to have that. Well, do you
Speaker 1: think the lengthening of the the voting process. I feel
Speaker 1: like that's hurting our belief in the vote. I people
Speaker 1: with I'll take people at their best intentions and not
Speaker 1: their worst intentions. That just wanted to more access for
Speaker 1: more people. More voting is always good that idea. So
Speaker 1: will lengthen the hours and the days and make mail
Speaker 1: in battle, But I feel like it's leading to less
Speaker 1: belief in the outcome. Well, I think the only thing
Speaker 1: I like about the biggest I think plus to having
Speaker 1: you know, longer voting times and can vote in person
Speaker 1: or you can do it by mail at all, is
Speaker 1: that people at least get to choose what they believe
Speaker 1: to be the most authentic, most reliable means to cast
Speaker 1: their vote, so, you know, and lest people have options,
Speaker 1: and you know, apart from that, does it does it
Speaker 1: increase people's confidence in the process. At this junct, you're
Speaker 1: probably not well. Yeah, And honestly, Gary, I uh, you know,
Speaker 1: I hate to quipal with you because you know, you're
Speaker 1: terrific and everything, but you said, people choose the you know,
Speaker 1: the best most trustworthy. No, people choose the most convenient
Speaker 1: way to vote, the easiest way to vote. And to
Speaker 1: my mind, the stretching out of the period of voting
Speaker 1: and the many means of voting now have made it
Speaker 1: has made it much much more difficult to watch the
Speaker 1: Henhouse to ensure the fidelity of the ballot, and I'm
Speaker 1: I'm for some compromises. It need not just be paper
Speaker 1: ballots in person on election day. We can, we can
Speaker 1: expand it a bit beyond that. But every step you
Speaker 1: go making it long are and longer, and more and
Speaker 1: more means of voting, the less you can assure people
Speaker 1: the vote is one hundred percent valid. We're sure of it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I hear what you're saying. Hey, here's what. Here's what.
Speaker 1: To me, the challenges is that there is absolutely, as
Speaker 1: you know, zero maybe sub zero standard for what is
Speaker 1: their reliable means. In other words, in the past, there's
Speaker 1: a great deal of debate of all electronic voting water.
Speaker 1: We can't have those kind of machines. You gotta go
Speaker 1: with people, pencils, paper on election date. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of questions about that now. So the problem is we
Speaker 1: don't have any kind of an acceptable standard that any
Speaker 1: you know, two parties can agree on that this is
Speaker 1: the one we're gonna go with. Let's put the other
Speaker 1: ones aside. Well, that's why we have to appoint a
Speaker 1: bipartisan commission, give them two years and fifty million dollars,
Speaker 1: and then have everybody completely ignore the results. That's our
Speaker 1: only have we got. We gotta move on Gary, just
Speaker 1: because I don't want to round a time, because I
Speaker 1: really want to ask about this. I don't know if
Speaker 1: everybody around the country knows California and some other states,
Speaker 1: I guess you probably know how many have these initiative systems,
Speaker 1: these ballot systems where you kind of in propositions propositions.
Speaker 1: In theory, it was supposed to, you know, take the
Speaker 1: big money out of it and just directly let the
Speaker 1: people decide the big issues. Well, it didn't take the
Speaker 1: money out of it. This time. In California. You've got
Speaker 1: the two most expensive ballot propositions in state history. And
Speaker 1: what are they? Yeah, well there, what a surprise there?
Speaker 1: Over money have to sell a gambling, most notably sports gambling,
Speaker 1: sports betting. Some states, people, what are you talking about
Speaker 1: sports betting? We've been doing that for a long time
Speaker 1: and too and to the back stories really quick. Two
Speaker 1: thousand and eighteen, Scotus said, you could the states can
Speaker 1: legalized sports betting. Thirty five of those, including and and
Speaker 1: the District of Columbia have done that. But the biggest
Speaker 1: prize of all California White because twelve percent of the
Speaker 1: population lives there, so there's a lot of money reside
Speaker 1: there does not currently have legalized sports betting. And yet
Speaker 1: you know, that's what this battle is about. Really, it's
Speaker 1: pitting two sides. In California. You have legal gaming on
Speaker 1: Indian tribe lands or in casinos owned and operated by
Speaker 1: Indian tribes. That's Prop twenty six. They want to now
Speaker 1: legalize sports betting there. That would have to be in person.
Speaker 1: Prop twenty seven the big competing measure or a lot
Speaker 1: of the big boys, the MGMs, the draft Kings, the
Speaker 1: fan duels, blah blah blah to have you know, I
Speaker 1: would tronic sports betting on your Sino cell phone computer wherever.
Speaker 1: That's what the battleground is. Four million dollars, Why would
Speaker 1: people spend that much? Get this in one The total
Speaker 1: handle for sports betting fifty seven billion with a B
Speaker 1: dollars that's why this is going on right now the polls.
Speaker 1: To see the most recent numbers, I pulled them up
Speaker 1: to share them with you guys today. Just got these
Speaker 1: this morning. They're both going down in flames. Yes, fifty
Speaker 1: three for only twenty two. Yes, sixties, I mean yes,
Speaker 1: that's right, sixty four note for Prop twenty seven. So
Speaker 1: you know the ads have been mainly negative, knocking the
Speaker 1: other guy down. But here's the deal end with this.
Speaker 1: If both of these fail, will look like they're going
Speaker 1: to this is not going to be the end of it.
Speaker 1: They will come back that they're already our plans for
Speaker 1: another round next cycle, and the next cycle this thing
Speaker 1: knocked down, drag out to the end's gonna win this.
Speaker 1: A couple of questions about this one. I'm kind of surprised,
Speaker 1: so like California all of a sudden, is what fundamentalist
Speaker 1: about gambling? They don't think it's it's just surprising to
Speaker 1: me where they anything goes state? Um and but uh,
Speaker 1: I don't understand it at all because I can gamble
Speaker 1: on anything anywhere, anytime with my phone. What's what's allowing
Speaker 1: it in the state? Even mean, well some I don't
Speaker 1: know how all the mechanism happened, Jack, But you're not
Speaker 1: supposed to be able to gamble on your phone within California.
Speaker 1: And by the way, everybody's laughing here in the studio.
Speaker 1: By the way, everybody's throwing back their head and laughter
Speaker 1: at the idea that you can't gamble on your phone
Speaker 1: in California. Jack. By the way, Hey, Jack, by the way,
Speaker 1: here's the mechan is about what you kind of were wondering,
Speaker 1: pondering why we don't have it yet here the legislature
Speaker 1: and all exquisdom tried to arbitrate this fight in our legislature.
Speaker 1: And as you guys know, almost all these statewide propertitions
Speaker 1: or at least a big dollwins come about because you
Speaker 1: can't get a resolution in the legislature. They tried a
Speaker 1: couple of years ago, couldn't for obvious reasons. Even though
Speaker 1: they banged heads together, couldn't get people to agree. And
Speaker 1: that's why they're on the ballot. The two most expensive
Speaker 1: props in California history are this interesting. Yeah, very strange
Speaker 1: and still a little mystifying to me. And I know
Speaker 1: the tribes right, big giant checks too. They do some
Speaker 1: aggressive lobbying to keep gambling on their side. But again,
Speaker 1: I can bet on every single NFL game, next Major
Speaker 1: League Baseball season, the upcoming golf tournament, and probably two
Speaker 1: kids in a foot race and an elementary school on
Speaker 1: my smartphone right now if I want to. So you're
Speaker 1: not supposed to, Joe, Well, thank you, Gearty. I don't
Speaker 1: know if you've seen this breaking news. There are reports
Speaker 1: people inside Trump circles say he's going to announce tonight
Speaker 1: j d Vance's event that he's running for president. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: she's not even wait till the till the poles are
Speaker 1: closed down. Well, well, no surprise. I pretty much expected it. Guys.
Speaker 1: Right after the mid term he's jumping in and that
Speaker 1: will be a discussion for nodcase. That's going to raise
Speaker 1: all kinds of new uh shall we say question? Many
Speaker 1: yes or no? Audio? Biden on the ticket for an
Speaker 1: absolute decided I intend to, But of course it's just
Speaker 1: an intention. Okay does that name? Does that sound for me?
Speaker 1: That's what Biden's official, Lindes, But guys, all the indicators
Speaker 1: are inside the White House. He's going for it. Oh
Speaker 1: my god, stop, it's gonna be Trump again. I will
Speaker 1: wager any figure anybody can come to California. If Elon
Speaker 1: Musk texts and said Joe I got a billion dollars,
Speaker 1: says Biden runs, I would take that action. Well if
Speaker 1: if Joe, if Joe makes that gamble in California, I
Speaker 1: will call the police. So so, if you want some good,
Speaker 1: nonpartisan political analysis, to follow Gary on Twitter at Gary Dietrich. Gary,
Speaker 1: It's always great to talk. Thanks. Okay, yes, Art stro