Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show.
Speaker 1: All right, Let's go and move on to this Epstein story,
Speaker 1: of which there has been notably no commentary in the
Speaker 1: Republican media, which is previously very interested in any Epstein
Speaker 1: type story. So Michael Wolfe will call him controversial.
Speaker 3: I think the journalist part of the reason why is
Speaker 3: because it's Michael.
Speaker 1: No, it's because it's about Trump and not about a Democrat.
Speaker 1: But anyway, Michael wolf who wrote Fire and Fury, released
Speaker 1: a bunch of audio recordings that he had with the
Speaker 1: late Jeffrey Epstein, specifically talking about his relationship with Donald Trump. Notably,
Speaker 1: in one he talks about how close friends he was
Speaker 1: with Donald Trump four ten years, and he also seems
Speaker 1: to have some inside information about the Trump White House.
Speaker 1: After Trump wins in twenty sixteen, which would also indicate,
Speaker 1: you know, he had not been excised from Trump's circle
Speaker 1: to the extent that Trump had previously claimed. Let's take
Speaker 1: a listen to that.
Speaker 4: So how do you notice that's closes right?
Speaker 5: I think we have a snippet from one of the
Speaker 5: conversations that I recorded with Epstein, and I think this
Speaker 5: was in a restaurant in twenty seventeen.
Speaker 4: His people fight each other, right, and then outside is
Speaker 4: he sort of poisons the well? Outside he will tell
Speaker 4: ten people bands of scumbag and priest is not doing
Speaker 4: a good job. And Kelly has a big mouth. What
Speaker 4: do you think? Jamie diamond says a year of proud
Speaker 4: and I shouldn't keep you, and I spoke to Paul
Speaker 4: and call things. I need a new spokespression. So Kelly,
Speaker 4: even though I hired Kelly as Kelly and is just
Speaker 4: too much about wild worker and that he tells bat
Speaker 4: and here, I really want to keep you, but Kelly
Speaker 4: and hates you.
Speaker 5: I have more than dozens. I probably have one hundred
Speaker 5: hours of Epstein talking about the inner workings of the
Speaker 5: Trump White House and about his long standing, deep relationship
Speaker 5: with Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: We can put the tear sheet up on the screen here.
Speaker 1: This is from the Daily Beast that recorded reported on
Speaker 1: the contents of this audio. They say they did an
Speaker 1: audio analysis and matched Epstein's voice to you know, previous
Speaker 1: depositions that he had given. In addition to the comments
Speaker 1: we played, he also claimed lots of intimate knowledge of
Speaker 1: Trump's sexual preferences, including liking to cuck other married men,
Speaker 1: claimed that he had sex with Millennia for the first
Speaker 1: time on the Lolita Express.
Speaker 6: Make of it whatever you will.
Speaker 1: I'll just say that, you know, if this was about
Speaker 1: any Democrat, if it was about Bill Clinton, joh Biden, whoever,
Speaker 1: you would endlessly hear about it from Republicans. And you know,
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein, the king of like global elite pedophilia, having
Speaker 1: a close relationship with Donald Trump, which again some of
Speaker 1: this is already in the public, and they just completely
Speaker 1: ignore it.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 1: It says a lot about their consistency and their principle
Speaker 1: when it comes to this and literally anything else.
Speaker 3: I get.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, yeah, obviously, I don't know. It's just
Speaker 2: one of those like, oh, you're telling me that people
Speaker 2: who are obsessed with pedophilia on the internet or weird
Speaker 2: partisan and don't have consistent standards.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I don't know what else to say.
Speaker 2: Definitely true in terms of the Fire and Fury author
Speaker 2: Michael wall The weird thing about Michael.
Speaker 3: Wolfe is it had these tapes for like years.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because I remembered I think I did a whole
Speaker 2: mologue about it back in twenty twenty. If I recall
Speaker 2: also Wolf, I mean, if he didn't have the audio, I.
Speaker 3: Straight up just wouldn't believe it.
Speaker 2: Basically, if it's not on tape, I don't believe it
Speaker 2: because wolf made up so much stuff, particularly in his
Speaker 2: second book, the one that came out after Fire and Fury,
Speaker 2: which he was paid like millions of dollars for, So
Speaker 2: you know, it's a certain extent unless you literally have
Speaker 2: it basically on tape, I don't believe it. In terms
Speaker 2: of whether Epstein's telling the truth, I mean, you know,
Speaker 2: in terms of like he lied a lot about a
Speaker 2: lot of different people.
Speaker 3: This is running for cover for Trump. This is basically
Speaker 3: for all.
Speaker 2: The people who are around him, and most of the
Speaker 2: people who had connections with him are definitely sketchy. In
Speaker 2: terms of Trump's own comments, the one you can nail
Speaker 2: him dead to rights?
Speaker 3: Was that comedy made in like nineteen ninety two where he's.
Speaker 2: Like Jeffrey, he likes him young, where you're like, oh,
Speaker 2: it's like, well, what knowledge exactly.
Speaker 3: Did we have here in terms of the other.
Speaker 6: Man again, and we know he was on the plane
Speaker 6: a bunch of times.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he was on the plane. I mean, you know,
Speaker 2: I'm not running cover Donald Trump or whatever. If you
Speaker 2: want to call out the pedophilia people online, sure, but
Speaker 2: you know they have a whole world view well in
Speaker 2: terms of the pedophilia.
Speaker 6: This has been a big.
Speaker 1: Narrative on the right sure for years, and it's just
Speaker 1: very convenient that when you have Jeffrey Epstein on tape
Speaker 1: being like, yeah, he was my bestie, and you know
Speaker 1: plenty of documentary evidence that suggest that that was in
Speaker 1: fact the case. Nothing total signs Well.
Speaker 2: They can quan on themselves into I mean, I remember
Speaker 2: during Q times there was a manage to throwback. But
Speaker 2: there's this whole theory about how he was actually in
Speaker 2: with him so he could get inside knowledge to imprison
Speaker 2: them all. So you know, Christ, you just haven't been
Speaker 2: exposed enough to the conspiratorial mind. I guess not how
Speaker 2: they can justify.
Speaker 1: It's also funny too, whenever Trump gets asked about Epstein
Speaker 1: or Gallaine Maxwell or whatever gets very case. I remember
Speaker 1: when he got asked about Gallaine Maxwell and he was.
Speaker 3: Like, I wish it best.
Speaker 6: Well, yeah, he got asked again recently.
Speaker 1: I think during this campaign, will you release you know,
Speaker 1: the JFK files and the UFO files and the Epstein
Speaker 1: files and basically the JFK and the UFO Once he
Speaker 1: was like, yeah, no problem.
Speaker 3: He was like.
Speaker 1: Epstein, I don't know, I don't want you know, personal
Speaker 1: people and their reputations.
Speaker 6: Like he was very.
Speaker 1: Hedging around the release of the Epstein files, which again
Speaker 1: would be you know, used as an indictment if it
Speaker 1: was against any Democrat that's out there. But you know,
Speaker 1: for Republicans who are just interested in the story if
Speaker 1: it happens to go against their own political adversaries, not
Speaker 1: a word. They're busy running with the like you know,
Speaker 1: the Diddy List now with regards to Democrats, so you
Speaker 1: know they've shifted their attention also ignoring you know, plenty
Speaker 1: of photos out there too.
Speaker 6: Domald Trump picture.
Speaker 2: With one of my great life regrets is I sat
Speaker 2: next to Alex Acosta on a plane and I did
Speaker 2: not accost him about the Epstein stuff.
Speaker 3: It was late. It was we were coming from Miami.
Speaker 3: It was like a midnight flight.
Speaker 6: But remind people who he was the.
Speaker 2: Secretary of Labor under Donald Trump. He was the prosecutor
Speaker 2: who gave Epstein's sweetheart deal. They cut him loose in
Speaker 2: Florida and allowed him to go to the Palm Beach
Speaker 2: County jail and continue to victimize people. But I still
Speaker 2: am angry at myself for not having the courage to
Speaker 2: cause a scene on the plane and to stick a camera
Speaker 2: in his face and be like, why did you do it,
Speaker 2: mister Acosta.
Speaker 3: But you and I was the only person who obviously
Speaker 3: even knew who he was. The funny thing. But there
Speaker 3: you go.
Speaker 2: Our identity politics over. It's a big question being asked
Speaker 2: by the New York Times. Thought we would talk about it.
Speaker 2: I don't know something our audience cares a lot about.
Speaker 2: Let's put it up there on the screen. From Jeremy
Speaker 2: Peters in a shift from twenty twenty quote, identity politics
Speaker 2: loses its grip on the country. He says, the last
Speaker 2: time Kamala Harris ran for president, people were losing jobs
Speaker 2: or friends because of something they said or posted online
Speaker 2: came off as insensitive.
Speaker 3: Not sure much has changed.
Speaker 2: There, he goes, but a new, unfamiliar, new language around
Speaker 2: an identity was catching on. Terms like LATINX and bipock.
Speaker 2: The homeless were now unhoused. There were pregnant people not women.
Speaker 2: Back then, the progressive movement tried to establish itself as
Speaker 2: a bulwark to the Trump White House on considerations of race, gender,
Speaker 2: and sexual orientation. But now, what he notes is that
Speaker 2: there has been a reversion to the mean amongst the
Speaker 2: Harris campaign, amongst a lot of people like Reuben Diego,
Speaker 2: who has mounted like his own personal crusade against LATINX,
Speaker 2: which is funny because the data backs him up hundred
Speaker 2: percent on why there's been such a big shift with that.
Speaker 2: And then in general what was clearly an electoral backlash
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty against BLM and anti racism style rhetoric. Now,
Speaker 2: I guess the big question inside of this thing is
Speaker 2: we were just talking before. It's kind of confused in
Speaker 2: the way that it tries to shoehorn its conclusions, But
Speaker 2: in general, if you put the stuff he's putting.
Speaker 3: Out of Hollywood and all that shit Aside is not wrong
Speaker 3: about a basic fact.
Speaker 2: Racial depolarization has been the story of the twenty twenties,
Speaker 2: as in, people are not voting more along with their
Speaker 2: other racial groups as they had before. They are much
Speaker 2: more likely to vote along educational lines, which break down
Speaker 2: amongst culture. Now, that's not always a case specifically in
Speaker 2: the black community. There's still very lot of you know,
Speaker 2: black people who still vote for the Democratic Party, but it's
Speaker 2: not less than ever before. Latinos big splits that have
Speaker 2: happened there, But the big splits I think, you know,
Speaker 2: if it's twenty thirty and someone will be like, what
Speaker 2: are the biggest changes that happen, I'd be like, education
Speaker 2: and gender gap. Those are like the two things which
Speaker 2: have nothing to do with race. And I mean I
Speaker 2: think that's a you know, a nice story.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: It's a little confused though, because to say identity politic
Speaker 2: is over, it's like there's actually a lot of gender politics,
Speaker 2: which is a problem. So anyways, it was an interesting
Speaker 2: theory I thought we would discuss.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's something there, but also I mean, okay, a
Speaker 1: few things to say about it. First of all, Matt
Speaker 1: carp tweeted this morning that the New York Times put
Speaker 1: the oh bit for progressive identity politics on a one
Speaker 1: while literally the article next door he describes as committing
Speaker 1: top tier racecraft, which says the headline for that one
Speaker 1: is white women ask their own.
Speaker 6: To back hair. That is true, identity politics is not
Speaker 6: totally dead.
Speaker 2: Identity politics for whites has actually come back on the
Speaker 2: left side. I think I credit the white dudes for
Speaker 2: white straight white dude.
Speaker 3: Look at this entire Twitter feed. The dude is like
Speaker 3: straight white guys for Harris. I'm like, okay, I mean,
Speaker 3: you know, I don't love this language, but okay.
Speaker 1: One of the things that I always get irritated with
Speaker 1: in this these types of analyzes is I think it
Speaker 1: misplaces where the identity politics moment, Like I'm talking about
Speaker 1: the like very hollow representation only identity politics came from.
Speaker 1: And it really did come from the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Speaker 1: Back in twenty sixteen. You had Bernie Sanders running this
Speaker 1: very class first type of campaign that was about universal values,
Speaker 1: universal programs, and Hillary Clinton came out and framed him
Speaker 1: as a racist because he wasn't using this type of
Speaker 1: language and catering specifically to slicing and dicing every different
Speaker 1: demographic group in twenty twenty, he actually embraced some of
Speaker 1: that terminology to try to robut this allegation from Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton and her acolytes and the you know, mainstream of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party that he was racist and sexist because
Speaker 1: he didn't talk about LATINX or you know, use bipoc
Speaker 1: or use whatever you know, stupid academic language is completely
Speaker 1: off putting to literally every normal voter out there that
Speaker 1: he talked in this class first, universalist type of language. So,
Speaker 1: first of all, I just want to point out that
Speaker 1: that's where this moment specifically came from. And second of all,
Speaker 1: I guess I would say that I do think there's
Speaker 1: something to the fact that, you know, the sort of
Speaker 1: like peak of the cancel culture, PC word policing, all
Speaker 1: that bullshit. I think the peak of that has subsided,
Speaker 1: but it has also in some ways just been relocated.
Speaker 1: Like now there's an attempt on the right and among
Speaker 1: you know, Zionist Democrats to do just as extensive, if
Speaker 1: not more aggressive cancelation, shaming, word policing around anyone who
Speaker 1: would oppose, you know, Israel's genocidal assault on Palestine. So
Speaker 1: it's sort of just shifted this location in terms of
Speaker 1: where the cancelation, where all of the like word policing
Speaker 1: is located. And there's been a huge uptick in terms
Speaker 1: of policing around ZI in particular.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean that's Look, they like trotting out.
Speaker 1: College students to talk about their microaggressions and how they
Speaker 1: feel unsafe.
Speaker 3: Blah blah blah blaha.
Speaker 2: It is very interesting to track the rise of people
Speaker 2: who rose up literally preaching against identity politics the way
Speaker 2: that they use them, and there definitely is a Zionist
Speaker 2: exception I think to all of that. I mean, look,
Speaker 2: it tracks air interesting theory and actually white women for
Speaker 2: Harris is the apotheosis of this. There's a whole theory
Speaker 2: called the Great Awokening, which is that there was a
Speaker 2: divergent shift on racial attitude starting in twenty fourteen. We
Speaker 2: had a nice little debate about it about Tanahasi Coats,
Speaker 2: who I still blame for his essay is igniting a
Speaker 2: lot of that that was igniting right around the same
Speaker 2: time as Michael Brown. Trayvon Martin actually was the original
Speaker 2: that was like the first time that this became like
Speaker 2: a big thing. Ferguson poured gasoline on the fire white
Speaker 2: women in particular, shifted attitudes on race dramatically divergent from
Speaker 2: the left, are diverging on the left, even more so
Speaker 2: away from black voters. And that is exactly the time
Speaker 2: of the twenty fourteen I think twenty fourteen, late twenty
Speaker 2: fourteen is when Hillary announces, and that's where it crests
Speaker 2: in twenty sixteen for her campaign. Then Trump wins the
Speaker 2: presidency and it goes wild. This is where you get
Speaker 2: the ACLU abandoning all their foreign principles. They raise a
Speaker 2: billion dollars. Then you've you know, everything comes to head
Speaker 2: at BLM. It gets tested, you know, electorally, some of
Speaker 2: it has died down, the whole Dei machine and all
Speaker 2: that has definitely been dealt significant number of blows, and
Speaker 2: a lot of Democrats have moved past it. But institutionally,
Speaker 2: I feel think it is there and the whole whit
Speaker 2: white women for Harris or even this is whole like
Speaker 2: who gets most offended over what which. Jeremy Peters tries
Speaker 2: to tries to get at it in his article.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't say we're.
Speaker 2: Anywhere like near away from it yet, and so and
Speaker 2: the fights have also changed, you know now it's a
Speaker 2: lost about race. Gender is the big one, like I said,
Speaker 2: right now, and it really got.
Speaker 6: A lot of bro identity politics.
Speaker 3: Sure, you know, why not?
Speaker 6: Actually why shouldn't we To be honest with me, I
Speaker 6: actually think the.
Speaker 1: Trump campaign has been more identity politics than Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: has because she is very sensitive. First of all, Democrats
Speaker 1: learned that like just talking in language about specific racial
Speaker 1: grievances will not to diminish those you know, those racial
Speaker 1: issues like that was not the key to unlocking massive
Speaker 1: performance among black voters or massive performance among brown voters.
Speaker 1: So just from like a cynical political calculation, they realized, like, Okay,
Speaker 1: this really isn't it. And number two, I think, as
Speaker 1: she's very sensitive to the failures of the Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: campaign and the fact that she leaned so much into
Speaker 1: her personal trailblazing identity, that Kamala has really tried to
Speaker 1: distance herself from that approach and has also really tried to,
Speaker 1: you know, consistently put out there at the message, sometimes
Speaker 1: undercut by some of her most prominent surrogates, that she
Speaker 1: is not taking any voter for granted, regardless of their demographics.
Speaker 1: So I actually think, like I said that that Trump
Speaker 1: has leaned more into the identity politics. We were joking
Speaker 1: about how some staffer is going through like the list
Speaker 1: of every every like different racial and ethnic group in
Speaker 1: America and putting specific message to them, having the you know,
Speaker 1: the Muslim American endorsers on stage with them and they're
Speaker 1: like religious guards.
Speaker 2: He put out a statement for Indians. He was like,
Speaker 2: he's like Indian American Hindus, we will stop the violence
Speaker 2: against Hindus in Bangladesh. I was like, wow, man, this
Speaker 2: guy's going deep in terms of what the Hindu community,
Speaker 2: not even the Hindu community I'm talking about, like Hindus
Speaker 2: in India, what they're all jazzed.
Speaker 1: But yeah, the vibe to me of that is like
Speaker 1: what Democrats were doing in twenty sixty.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean maybe it'll work, right.
Speaker 2: So I look, it's one of those where I don't
Speaker 2: like this type of stuff. I don't even think it
Speaker 2: matters that much, to be honest with you, I think
Speaker 2: almost all of it is just comes down to education.
Speaker 2: Education specifically, attitudes around race, gender, and sex are all
Speaker 2: baked in as to whether you have a four year
Speaker 2: college degree or not. I'm talking about on average, that
Speaker 2: means and manifests very differently in terms of racial politics.
Speaker 2: For because the vast majority right of working class photos,
Speaker 2: you're gonna have a lot more people of color quote
Speaker 2: unquote you know in that and are going to have
Speaker 2: very different attitudes on this. And there's women in different ecosism, stuff,
Speaker 2: their media, their jokes, they like, where they go to
Speaker 2: eat everything, where go on vacation. Your whole life is
Speaker 2: totally different, how much money you make, and so that
Speaker 2: determines almost all of how it plays out for the election.
Speaker 2: But yeah, if anything, I think that there has been
Speaker 2: a new identity politics.
Speaker 3: You're not wrong about Zionism. I think the gender politics of.
Speaker 2: It of all, especially if the podcast thing plays out,
Speaker 2: or even if it doesn't. Let's say that the Iowa
Speaker 2: Seltzer poll is correct and you have this crazy split
Speaker 2: of women and men. It's like, okay, we're not talking
Speaker 2: to each other right, Like there's been a full on
Speaker 2: different ecosystem about how we all understand what's really going
Speaker 2: on here.
Speaker 3: And I would love to see poem. But who do
Speaker 3: you listen to?
Speaker 1: You?
Speaker 3: What do you what are you listening to all day?
Speaker 6: Like?
Speaker 3: What's your media diet?
Speaker 2: What are you you know what type of news are
Speaker 2: you reading, Like what exactly has caused this master divergence
Speaker 2: from you and your husband?
Speaker 3: Like how's that working out?
Speaker 4: You know?
Speaker 3: In terms of also like what's he doing?
Speaker 2: You know, how is he not picking up on this
Speaker 2: for what's happening inside of his house or you know,
Speaker 2: it's like what is going on for what that split
Speaker 2: would look like? And then same with the podcast bro stuff.
Speaker 2: I mean a lot of that. I've talked about this
Speaker 2: in terms of the whole like forgotten mail theory. A
Speaker 2: lot of this also stems from the twenty fourteen Great
Speaker 2: Awakening and the whole like gender pay gap freak out,
Speaker 2: which is totally reversed by the way since twenty fourteen,
Speaker 2: and that has also left a lot of men very
Speaker 2: angry online, and that itself would also play out for
Speaker 2: identity politics if they do come through for Trump and
Speaker 2: vote for him in a big way, which I hope
Speaker 2: would cause actually media to say same thing of like
Speaker 2: oh my god, like what's going on here?
Speaker 3: Are all our prior is wrong?
Speaker 2: Regardless of what happens that that is going to have
Speaker 2: to cost some reassessment.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, Well, with all of that being said Sager, Okay,
Speaker 1: let's see your map.
Speaker 6: What do you got? My friends?
Speaker 2: All right, everybody, it is my time for the prediction
Speaker 2: of the electoral map. I want to start very at
Speaker 2: the top and just say this, I have much less
Speaker 2: confidence in this one that I did the last one.
Speaker 2: The last one where I correctly called every state in
Speaker 2: the electoral college. So with the caveats out there, let's
Speaker 2: put it up there on the screen. So this is
Speaker 2: going to be a little bit of a contrarian map,
Speaker 2: and I'm going to walk you through all of my thinking.
Speaker 2: So in terms of the swing states, and let's keep
Speaker 2: it up there so I can just read from it.
Speaker 2: I've got at the top line, Donald Trump winning the
Speaker 2: election with two hundred and seventy one electoral votes, literally
Speaker 2: just one over what he needs to win two hundred
Speaker 2: and sixty seven there for Kamala Harris. In terms of
Speaker 2: the swings, I've got Wisconsin and Michigan going blue for Kamala.
Speaker 2: I've got Pennsylvania going red. I've got North Carolina glowing blue,
Speaker 2: and then I've got Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada all going red,
Speaker 2: which gives him exactly two hundred and seventy one electoral
Speaker 2: votes So let's get to some of my thinking and why.
Speaker 3: First.
Speaker 2: The Iowa Seltzer poll had a big impact on my thinking,
Speaker 2: but not necessarily in a Kamala landslide way. It made
Speaker 2: me check my assumptions in terms of the blue wall.
Speaker 2: Can we put the next tear sheet up please on
Speaker 2: the screen? Here's a key line from Nate Silver and
Speaker 2: how you should think about the Iowa poll for the
Speaker 2: rest of the states who Iowa is far better than
Speaker 2: the other bluewell states in our forty thousand simulations, in
Speaker 2: cases where Harris won Iowa, her average margin of victory
Speaker 2: or defeat in Wisconsin was six point seven, in Michigan was
Speaker 2: five point nine, and in Pennsylvania was three point eight.
Speaker 2: If the Seltzer pole is right, she'd be heavily favored
Speaker 2: in all of them. In other words, but Pennsylvania is
Speaker 2: the least safe of the trio, in part because about
Speaker 2: two thirds of its population is what we consider the Northeast,
Speaker 2: not the Midwest, like Iowa. So the reason why I
Speaker 2: used the Seltzer pole to push those two states of
Speaker 2: Michigan in Wisconsin blue was because the Seltzer pole showed
Speaker 2: what I think will show somewhat movement towards Kamala Harris
Speaker 2: amongst that critical senior women demographic and amongst women who
Speaker 2: are worried about abortion. But because Pennsylvania is so distinct
Speaker 2: in its population, it's got more people of color and
Speaker 2: other places in the northeastern population that have different concerns
Speaker 2: and are culturally pretty distinct from those other two states.
Speaker 2: I thought that was enough considering where things lie right now.
Speaker 2: Let's go to the next element, police, and this will
Speaker 2: explain a little bit more. The other thing is that
Speaker 2: in Nate Cone in the New York Times Siena poll analysis,
Speaker 2: they talked specifically about non response polling bias, as in
Speaker 2: Democratic response rates ticked up in their survey, White Democratic
Speaker 2: responses outpaced Republicans by some fifteen percent. That was more
Speaker 2: than twenty twenty. So what that means is that the
Speaker 2: response rate amongst Democrats, and this was a whole theory
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty as to why the polls were wrong
Speaker 2: for the Democrats in their direction was because of polling
Speaker 2: response biased and there was overperformance amongst Ems. So if
Speaker 2: Nate Cone is flagging that in a poll of Pennsylvania
Speaker 2: which they have tied again, tiede that they have a
Speaker 2: non response bias there for Democrats. I think that underestimates
Speaker 2: Donald Trump's strength and that means he could win that state.
Speaker 3: Now we'll continue in the map.
Speaker 2: Let's put the next one, please up on the screen
Speaker 2: that shows you exactly what I was talking about, where
Speaker 2: they have. If you factor in a non response bias,
Speaker 2: you have basically Harris and Trump tied in Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Speaker 2: I'm giving Harris Michigan just be because of that Iowa poll.
Speaker 2: But in Pennsylvania, I think with a distinct enough population,
Speaker 2: Trump can pull it out, either thin or frankly, it
Speaker 2: could even win a little bit bigger than the rest.
Speaker 2: And if we continue down, let's go to the next element, please,
Speaker 2: what we'll find is Arizona has had a pretty significant
Speaker 2: response in terms of early ballot returns for Republicans, significantly
Speaker 2: more than they had last time around. From everything I
Speaker 2: have seen, both in terms of the polling and in
Speaker 2: terms of the early vote, there has been enough of
Speaker 2: a Republican surge that I feel pretty confident calling Arizona
Speaker 2: for Donald Trump. Another reason is that there was recently
Speaker 2: a migration analysis that showed that a lot of the
Speaker 2: inflow that's coming into Arizona are Republican Californians who are
Speaker 2: fed up with governance from there, and the state has
Speaker 2: become a little bit more red from last time around.
Speaker 2: If I'm wrong here, the main reason will be because
Speaker 2: of the Arizona abortion ballot referendum, and that will be
Speaker 2: one that was just simply not caught at all.
Speaker 3: So let me get that caveat for right there. Let's
Speaker 3: move to the next one. Please.
Speaker 2: This also shows another some of my calls is that
Speaker 2: is racking with his rally is going every single day
Speaker 2: in North Carolina. Now, the reason why that I'm paying
Speaker 2: attention to this and where the candidates are spending their time,
Speaker 2: is that spending all this time in North Carolina, a
Speaker 2: state that you won twice, is not good and it
Speaker 2: tells us that that's time that you should be spending.
Speaker 2: Theoretically in the blue wall that they are seeing internally
Speaker 2: that they have a problem. I think that problem is
Speaker 2: called Mark Robinson, and he is a major reason why
Speaker 2: I think Kamala is going to win. Let's go to
Speaker 2: the next one. Next slide, please for the real clear politics.
Speaker 2: If you take a look at this, even New York
Speaker 2: Times Sienna. All the quote unquote garbage Republican polls. Every
Speaker 2: single poll out of the state of North Carolina and
Speaker 2: their gubernatorial race has Mark Robinson down by a minimum
Speaker 2: of nine The average the spread is Mark Robinson down
Speaker 2: by fourteen point three points. Some of them have Mark
Speaker 2: Robinson losing by twenty points. So the reason that I
Speaker 2: think Kamala's going to win in North Carolina is I
Speaker 2: just simply don't believe in an electorate that has some
Speaker 2: between nineteen to ten points split tickets swing that is
Speaker 2: going to vote for the gubernatorial candidate as a Democrat
Speaker 2: and then split their ticket for Donald Trump. I think
Speaker 2: Trump had a good chance of winning North Carolina, and
Speaker 2: I think Mark Robinson absolutely sunk it for him the
Speaker 2: amount of time that he's spending there in the state.
Speaker 2: I think that's what it is. Let's go to the
Speaker 2: next part and I can continue here. This is from
Speaker 2: John Rawlston from his early voting blog.
Speaker 3: This one. I'm a little bit less confident about.
Speaker 2: I'll be honest, but there has been significant overperformance for
Speaker 2: Republicans in Clark County, sorry in Nevada. Unless there's some
Speaker 2: major movement in Clark County in Nevada, which does not
Speaker 2: see huge Democratic performance on election day tomorrow. Specifically, John
Speaker 2: Rawlston and other watchers of Nevada are pretty confident that
Speaker 2: there's a major GOP upset happening there. The only way
Speaker 2: that I'm wrong here is again because of abortion, and
Speaker 2: also because of the independent vote specifically, which is categorized
Speaker 2: as other disportionately skews younger. And if that all goes
Speaker 2: disportionately Democrat, then the Republicans are going to have a problem.
Speaker 2: But right now they're up by I think it's like
Speaker 2: forty thousand votes or so in terms of the last
Speaker 2: time that I looked at it, and people in Nevada,
Speaker 2: Republicans and others pretty confident that they're going to win
Speaker 2: that state. It would make sense to in terms of
Speaker 2: the Latino realignment and others. So that's Do I have
Speaker 2: any other other elements? Let's see here one more. Let's
Speaker 2: put that last one up there on freestyling. This is George,
Speaker 2: That's right, I forgot. So this is from my friend Edisante.
Speaker 2: He says, quote, I honestly don't see how you can
Speaker 2: get to Harris plus two in Georgia based on the
Speaker 2: early vote. It feels mathematically impossible currently at fifty five
Speaker 2: percent turnout of registered voters. It was sixty six percent
Speaker 2: turnout in twenty twenty, and it was sixty percent turnout
Speaker 2: in two thousand and sixteen.
Speaker 3: So because you.
Speaker 2: Have lower turnout and you've seen blowout turnout for the
Speaker 2: rural counties for Donald Trump, you have Republicans there that
Speaker 2: are pretty confident. Biden only won it by some ten
Speaker 2: thousand votes or so last time around, which was a
Speaker 2: major upset. Even with the demographic turn you see major
Speaker 2: Republican enthusiasm. You don't have the same beef that they
Speaker 2: had last time with Brian Kemp. Kemp is out there
Speaker 2: stumping for Donald Trump. They seem relatively confident of victory,
Speaker 2: and the math looks like it could be correct. The
Speaker 2: only way again I'm wrong here is if you see
Speaker 2: major white female overperformance, just like you said in Iowa
Speaker 2: abortion style upset, and if you see black turnout that
Speaker 2: skyrockets on election day. So I have lower confidence in
Speaker 2: this map, But in the scenario Donald Trump wins, it'll
Speaker 2: be narrow two seventy one to sixty seven.
Speaker 3: But that's what I've got, crystal.
Speaker 1: Very interesting, I mean, and if you want to hear
Speaker 1: my reaction to Sager's monologue become a premium subscriber today
Speaker 1: at breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 6: Well, that's probably a good Bristol. What do you got
Speaker 6: good place to queue up mine?
Speaker 1: Let's go and put my map up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Minus a little simpler to explain, because I do have
Speaker 1: the Kamala landslide scenario, and by landslide, I mean that
Speaker 1: she wins some level of victory in all seven of
Speaker 1: the swing states. I'm not giving her Iowa, no, Ann
Speaker 1: Selzer says, but potentially that is in play because I'm
Speaker 1: just not that bold. But my meta narrative you know,
Speaker 1: of the world that would lead to this map is
Speaker 1: effectively that the combination of January sixth, and in particular,
Speaker 1: the overturning of Roe versus Wade, has represented a political
Speaker 1: earthquake in American politics that pollsters have consistently failed to
Speaker 1: capture this newly shifted electorate and have openly rigged their results.
Speaker 1: I mean, they admit to this to effectively closely match
Speaker 1: the outcome of twenty twenty, just out of terror that
Speaker 1: they will once again underestimate Donald Trump, and in doing
Speaker 1: so they have fundamentally missed a significant shift among women.
Speaker 1: On top of that, Kamala Harris is a fairly ideal
Speaker 1: candidate to champion this new pro choice, anti chaos majority.
Speaker 1: She has built her campaign around appealing to this heavily
Speaker 1: female coalition. And Donald Trump, on the other side, has
Speaker 1: leaned into some of his most toxic traits here down
Speaker 1: the home stretch and is in some ways an ideal
Speaker 1: foil to motivate this coalition, especially since he is the
Speaker 1: individual who is responsible for putting the justices on the
Speaker 1: court to overturn Roe versus wad Okay. So now let
Speaker 1: me give you the data that backs up this theory
Speaker 1: of the world that would result in this map where
Speaker 1: every battleground state ultimately goes to Kamala Harris could put
Speaker 1: this first up on the screen. So this is all
Speaker 1: under the category of pollsters are missing the post Row electorate.
Speaker 1: So even before the Sealser poll, you had when Biden
Speaker 1: was still the top of the ticket, Democrats in almost
Speaker 1: every instance outperforming their polls during special elections. So not
Speaker 1: only that, you also had, if we could put the
Speaker 1: next one up on the screen, polls consistently overestimating Trump.
Speaker 1: Actually after Roe versus Wade and after January sixth, so
Speaker 1: when he was running in the Republican primary, surveys overestimated
Speaker 1: Trump's actual vote share in eight of the ten states
Speaker 1: where there was enough polling for five point thirty eight
Speaker 1: two produce in average. What's more, if we put the
Speaker 1: next one up on the screen, Nicki Haley his most
Speaker 1: significant adversary. Even after she dropped out of the race,
Speaker 1: she continued to rack up significant vote totals, and in
Speaker 1: particular in some of those key suburban counties. So this
Speaker 1: is from a Politico article they write in late April,
Speaker 1: staffers at Joe Biden's headquarters fixated on votes for Nikki
Speaker 1: Haley rolling in during the Pennsylvania primary, as she pulled
Speaker 1: twenty to twenty five percent support in the largely upscale,
Speaker 1: suburban Coller counties around Philadelphia. Most remarkable, Haley had dropped
Speaker 1: out more than six weeks earlier, and this was not
Speaker 1: the only time when this occurred. She continued to perform
Speaker 1: and rack up significant vote totals in states like Florida.
Speaker 1: I think she got seventeen percent of the vote even
Speaker 1: though she'd been out of the race for some significant
Speaker 1: amount of time. And again those votes came largely from
Speaker 1: women in suburban counties. In addition, Trump has done basically
Speaker 1: nothing to reach out to those voters who are at
Speaker 1: least disaffected with him enough to give their vote to
Speaker 1: his primary opponent, even after she had exited the race. Now,
Speaker 1: Nikki Hilly herself has endorsed Trump, but he hasn't used
Speaker 1: her on the campaign trail. He has done very little
Speaker 1: to attempt to reach out to disaffected suburban women who
Speaker 1: may have been part of his coalition and may have
Speaker 1: voted for him in the past, leaving them open to
Speaker 1: what has been, you know, an overwhelming effort. This has
Speaker 1: been a key focus from the Kamala Harris campaign to
Speaker 1: try to persuade some percentage of those voters and try
Speaker 1: to pull them into the Kamala Harris coalition. The next
Speaker 1: piece of evidence here that the pollsters are missing a
Speaker 1: new post Row electorate is the Anne Selzer poll. I mean,
Speaker 1: this has to be the most key piece of data.
Speaker 1: She finds in a shocking upset Kamala Harris beating Trump
Speaker 1: among likely Iowa voters forty seven to forty four. If
Speaker 1: you dig into these numbers, put the next one up
Speaker 1: on the screen. She finds independent women going to Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris by twenty eight points. She finds senior women going
Speaker 1: to Kamala Harris by thirty five points. Now, on the
Speaker 1: one hand, you can say Selzer may be missing a
Speaker 1: lot of what's going on.
Speaker 6: Clearly, this is a.
Speaker 1: Very different portrait than you're seeing from effectively any other polster.
Speaker 1: Of all, tell you some other ones that somewhat line
Speaker 1: up with her in the same region. Unlike other posters,
Speaker 1: she does a lot less waiting, meaning she does a
Speaker 1: lot less going in and applying her own judgment about
Speaker 1: I think the electorate's going to be this, I think
Speaker 1: the electorate is going to be that. Instead, she calls
Speaker 1: up registered voters and talks to them and asks them
Speaker 1: how likely they are to vote, and of course who
Speaker 1: they're going to vote for.
Speaker 6: And so there's a lot less of her.
Speaker 1: Own judgment and her own terror overestimating or underestimating this
Speaker 1: candidate or that candidate.
Speaker 6: It's more directly what the voters say.
Speaker 1: Now that comes with huge risks because in the past,
Speaker 1: of course, there has been a non response bias in
Speaker 1: terms of Trump's supporters, and that could be playing into
Speaker 1: the results that she is seeing here if they end
Speaker 1: up being wildly off. But my bet, based on the
Speaker 1: fact that an Selzer has a better track record that
Speaker 1: basically literally any other Polster in the state of Iore
Speaker 1: or anywhere else, my bet is that she is directionally correct,
Speaker 1: that she is picking up on this post Row shift
Speaker 1: that other Polsters, out of terror and out of the
Speaker 1: fact that they are basically pegging their results to match
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election because they don't want to be
Speaker 1: on over their skis and they don't want to get
Speaker 1: it too wrong, have completely missed. I mean, for me, logically,
Speaker 1: it makes sense that if you are just trying to
Speaker 1: peg the results to twenty twenty, you are going to
Speaker 1: be missing something because the world is so different from
Speaker 1: how it was in twenty twenty. So I mentioned before,
Speaker 1: we had January sixth, we're out of COVID, we had
Speaker 1: Row being overturned, we had some of the population significant
Speaker 1: population shifts that Sagre talked about across the country. And
Speaker 1: so if you are just trying to clude your result
Speaker 1: to match the way things were back in twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: it is undeniable to me that you're going to be
Speaker 1: missing some significant shifts. And to me, Anne Sellzer gives
Speaker 1: a window into what some of those shifts may have been.
Speaker 1: This is backed up by some other data. We could
Speaker 1: put the next piece up on the screen. Gear from Politico.
Speaker 1: You know, the issue she finds with seniors. Sorry, we
Speaker 1: should have a Politico terachute, but issues she finds with
Speaker 1: seniors also appears to be showing up in other early
Speaker 1: voting data where Republicans are really worried that seniors are
Speaker 1: not turning.
Speaker 6: Up for them.
Speaker 1: And if we leave this one up on the screen,
Speaker 1: we also find that there are some other polls that
Speaker 1: look a little bit like what the Ann Sellzer poll
Speaker 1: looks like. So a Kansas poster that has a good
Speaker 1: reputation just last week found Trump up only by five
Speaker 1: in the state of Kansas. Now that would be an earthquake,
Speaker 1: only five in the state of Kansas. We've seen multiple
Speaker 1: polls of that Nebraska second congressional district, which is a
Speaker 1: swing district meaning it should be close, that has found
Speaker 1: Kamin Harris.
Speaker 6: With a double digit lead.
Speaker 1: That would represent a significant improvement over Biden's performance there.
Speaker 1: I believe Biden won that congressional district by somewhere around
Speaker 1: five points. We also saw a poll of Ohio that
Speaker 1: had Trump up by only three points. Again, that would
Speaker 1: be a significant shift away from Trump visa VI twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: So this person opines, and I think this is true.
Speaker 1: Taken together, Iowa looks like less of an outlier and
Speaker 1: more like something real is happening here. So when you
Speaker 1: piece it together with all these poles and the saleser pole,
Speaker 1: which has so much credibility in such a track record
Speaker 1: behind it, I have to feel like the polsters are
Speaker 1: missing something that is truly happening with women here. In addition,
Speaker 1: we've seen a number of poles. I'll just highlight the
Speaker 1: New York Times one here, Guys, put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen. So the New York Times Sienna Pole, for example,
Speaker 1: found that Kamala Harris was winning these late breaking voters
Speaker 1: by margin of fifty eight to forty two. That's not
Speaker 1: the only poll that has found similar results where those
Speaker 1: who were deciding late in the game are going for
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris's kind of the reverse of what we found
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen, when after Comy and all of that happened,
Speaker 1: the late breakers significantly broke for Donald Trump and end
Speaker 1: up handing him victory. We also found that early voters
Speaker 1: have been going for Kamala and this is noteworthy as
Speaker 1: well as go and put this up on the screen
Speaker 1: in terms of the numbers with early voters. So recent
Speaker 1: national ABC News IPSOS, New York Times, Santa College and
Speaker 1: CNN polls show Harris with an advantage of nineteen to
Speaker 1: twenty nine points among voters who say they've already cast ballots.
Speaker 1: Those margins range from a fifty nine to forty edge
Speaker 1: in the Times Ciena pulled to a sixty two to
Speaker 1: thirty three edge in the ABC IPSOS one. This cuts
Speaker 1: against the grain of some of the early vote analysis
Speaker 1: that you've seen on the Republican side, where they look
Speaker 1: at the partisan breakdown and they say, okay, well, Republicans
Speaker 1: are holding up pretty well in the early vote, and
Speaker 1: in some places even have a lead in the early vote.
Speaker 6: What this could reflect is the fact that.
Speaker 1: The Harris campaign may be eating into a few percentage
Speaker 1: points of the Republican electorate, where some of those Republicans
Speaker 1: who are turning up are actually voting for Kamala Harris,
Speaker 1: but more significantly, that they are winning a significant number
Speaker 1: of the independent votes who are not registered with any
Speaker 1: particular political party. This in particular is important in the
Speaker 1: state of Nevada, where Republicans have felt the best about
Speaker 1: their early vote. And understandably so you've got John Rawlston
Speaker 1: out they're crunching the numbers, saying, hey, Republicans are.
Speaker 6: Doing something really different here.
Speaker 1: But if you look at this time Siena polling, they
Speaker 1: find okay, yeah, among those people in Nevada who have
Speaker 1: already voted, yes, the Republicans have a two point edge
Speaker 1: by party registration. However, they still found even among that
Speaker 1: two points edge Republican party registration electorate, they still found
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris up by five points because she has a
Speaker 1: wide lead among unaffiliated voters who cast early ballots. So
Speaker 1: the New York Times Siena backing up here some of
Speaker 1: the analysis of what could be going on underneath the
Speaker 1: surface of even in that Nevada early vote, which, as
Speaker 1: I said before, is the area where Republicans have had
Speaker 1: the best numbers and have felt the best about their
Speaker 1: early vote game. Finally, and this may end up being
Speaker 1: one of the key things that we look back on
Speaker 1: as we know, if my map comes to fruition, this
Speaker 1: may be one of the key early indicators that we
Speaker 1: look at in addition to the sales or poll.
Speaker 6: Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: There's a massive gender gap in terms of the early vote.
Speaker 1: You've got seventeen point two million people who've voted early
Speaker 1: in the seven swing states. You have one point six
Speaker 1: million more men who have voted women who have voted
Speaker 1: than men. The gender turnout gap is plus thirteen for
Speaker 1: women in Pennsylvania, plus twelve in Georgia, plus eleven in
Speaker 1: North Carolina, plus ten in Michigan, plus eight in Wisconsin,
Speaker 1: plus five in Arizona. And the best result for Republicans
Speaker 1: is in Nevada, where it is only plus one. The
Speaker 1: whole Republican theory of the case is that the bros
Speaker 1: Are going to turn out. They have really bet the
Speaker 1: farm on the group of voters that, frankly, are the
Speaker 1: least likely to turn out, which is young men. And
Speaker 1: these early vote numbers with this large of a gender gap,
Speaker 1: indicate that it is not the men that are turning
Speaker 1: out for this election, that are excited to vote in
Speaker 1: this election, It is women. And you know, the one
Speaker 1: thing that has really been consistent throughout this election, no
Speaker 1: matter what you look at, is the massive gender gap
Speaker 1: with women disproportionately going to Kamala Harris and men disproportionally
Speaker 1: going to Donald Trump. So when you look at which
Speaker 1: gender is showing up at this point, I think that
Speaker 1: has to be a positive indicator for Kamala Harris. And so,
Speaker 1: you know, obviously, if I'm right, Saga very clear what
Speaker 1: happened to her polsters missed the post role electorate. If
Speaker 1: I'm wrong, I also think the reason is pretty simple,
Speaker 1: which is just Biden's really unpopular.
Speaker 6: The economy is, people aren't happy with the economy. Right track,
Speaker 6: wrong track is a disaster.
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris, you know, really obsessed over winning these Nikki
Speaker 1: Hayley voters who potentially were you know, a fantasy and
Speaker 1: you know, didn't show up, didn't end up moving towards
Speaker 1: her whatsoever. They were locked in for Donald Trump. They're
Speaker 1: just partisans at this point. And that's that.
Speaker 6: And you know, I think that is also a very
Speaker 6: possible scenario.
Speaker 2: And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue,
Speaker 2: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 3: All right, so tomorrow we're going to have a morning show.
Speaker 2: Guys, We're gonna be morning show is going to drop
Speaker 2: for everybody in the morning, and then we will also
Speaker 2: be live six thirty pm Eastern time here on the channel.
Speaker 3: All four of us will be here at the desk.
Speaker 2: We've got logan, we've got the software, and we will
Speaker 2: start making calls. We'll have live calls and all that.
Speaker 2: We'll have maps, graphics, et cetera. Everything is totally ready
Speaker 2: to go and we will be with you all week
Speaker 2: as long as we need to until this damn thing
Speaker 2: is over.
Speaker 3: So there you go.
Speaker 6: Buggle up.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be into one way or another. Whatever happens
Speaker 1: gonna be vary.
Speaker 3: It can't wait, can't wait to cover it. I love it.
Speaker 3: I love learning little things. There's always surprises.
Speaker 2: The Latino surprise is one of my favorite moments from
Speaker 2: twenty twenty, just because I love the fact that you
Speaker 2: cannot take anything for granted in this country. Iowa blue state,
Speaker 2: red state now possibly up for grabs. Florida in my
Speaker 2: lifetime went from swing state to red state.
Speaker 3: Ohio went from blue to red.
Speaker 2: I mean, there's been so many of these where people
Speaker 2: are you know, you can't take people for granted. They
Speaker 2: shift all the time, that people move different state. North
Speaker 2: Carolina's up for grabs today. You told me that ten
Speaker 2: years agog. What the hell are you talking about. You know,
Speaker 2: it's like in this country people change their mind all
Speaker 2: the time, and I think that's a great, great thing.
Speaker 2: So we can all witness that in real time together,
Speaker 2: and we'll see you all tomorrow.