Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of this show.
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 3: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 3: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 3: dot com.
Speaker 2: All right, let's go ahead and move on to this
Speaker 2: whistleblower who spoke to George Sheridan over at Status Kou
Speaker 2: who used to work at United Healthcare for the CEO
Speaker 2: of United Healthcare, was shot and killed in New York City,
Speaker 2: sparking a whole national conversation about the health insurance industry
Speaker 2: and healthcare and this vigil ante killing, etc. So I
Speaker 2: want to be careful about characterizing her claims, and you
Speaker 2: can listen here. She worked there, She did not work
Speaker 2: directly in the process of denying claims.
Speaker 4: But she claims that.
Speaker 2: She knew multiples, she worked closely with MULTIP employees who did,
Speaker 2: and that they felt like they had come under pressure
Speaker 2: to deny a certain number of claims. So denying people
Speaker 2: care that you know, their doctors are saying that they
Speaker 2: need in order to meet some sort of effectively like
Speaker 2: monthly quota system. So let's take a listen to what
Speaker 2: she had to say.
Speaker 5: I would hear people, you know, on break time or whatever,
Speaker 5: when we would all kind of come together in this
Speaker 5: kitchen clutch, and people would be talking about what they
Speaker 5: were told to do their job. It wasn't my job.
Speaker 5: So I can't say one hundred percent, yes, we have
Speaker 5: to deny so many claims per month to meet our shareholders' expectations.
Speaker 5: But I do know that people were complaining because you know,
Speaker 5: they had to meet a certain amount of claim denials.
Speaker 6: So people were telling you that there was a quota
Speaker 6: for how many denials yep, which is kind of like
Speaker 6: less deadly. But you know, cops, towards the end of
Speaker 6: the month, do you have a quota how many tickets
Speaker 6: you have to give out?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 2: So you know this is a claim that needs more reporting,
Speaker 2: more verification, but I think worth putting out there because
Speaker 2: this is someone who used to work at the company
Speaker 2: has no reason we know of, at least to lie
Speaker 2: about what she heard that was going on there. There
Speaker 2: was also let's put this up on the screen. There
Speaker 2: was someone online who said, listen, I've heard the same thing.
Speaker 2: My mom used to work for a different insurance company.
Speaker 2: I remember her coming home crying because she got in
Speaker 2: trouble for not denying enough claims. She got fired for
Speaker 2: not meeting quota after a couple of months. I would
Speaker 2: also say Wendell Potter, who was a former health insurance
Speaker 2: executive who left the industry has become a whistleblower, has
Speaker 2: also spoken to these type of behavior, and just you
Speaker 2: know the pressure that exists throughout these companies where if
Speaker 2: you're going to make as much profit as possible, you
Speaker 2: are inherently incentivized to deny as many claims as possible,
Speaker 2: so you're having to pay out less, but of course
Speaker 2: still taking in the same amount in terms of premiums.
Speaker 2: We also know Sager based on the data that's been
Speaker 2: reported out the United Health Group. United Healthcare was particularly
Speaker 2: bad about the number of claims that they would deny.
Speaker 2: They had the highest rate among the major insurers. We
Speaker 2: also know they were being sued for implementing this AI
Speaker 2: algorithm to deny claims that had, according to the claims
Speaker 2: in the lawsuit, a ninety percent error rate. So, like
Speaker 2: I said, this is a claim that needs more reporting
Speaker 2: and more verification. But it would not be shocking to
Speaker 2: learn that there was some either official or unofficial quota
Speaker 2: type system within this insurance No.
Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely not. And look, I don't know.
Speaker 3: I mean, in terms of the insurance industry, things are
Speaker 3: very much up in the air right now, just because
Speaker 3: of the Trump administration that's coming in in which direction
Speaker 3: that they decide to take things, And you know, you
Speaker 3: could see, you could foresee a situation where they try
Speaker 3: to mess with pre existing conditions.
Speaker 1: Or the healthcare marketplace.
Speaker 3: The individual mandate is already gone, so that's not the
Speaker 3: big change that they might want to do, But there's
Speaker 3: a lot of things on the edge is that they
Speaker 3: could change in terms of how the insurance marketplace themselves
Speaker 3: would work.
Speaker 1: Literally going through this right now.
Speaker 3: Shout out to open enrollment, it's a pain in the ass,
Speaker 3: you know, it's like every American, it's justlievable, unbelievable.
Speaker 1: I remember I had a.
Speaker 3: Deductible of like eight thousand dollars. I think it was
Speaker 3: like eight years ago, and everyone thought it was crazy.
Speaker 1: And I was like, I'm a young guy.
Speaker 3: So now when you go in you shop for insurance,
Speaker 3: you see deductibles that are fifteen grand, like fifteen thousand dollars,
Speaker 3: and you're still paying hundreds of dollars per month, you know,
Speaker 3: and add kids onto that. Good luck man, and you
Speaker 3: can just see how nightmarish it is. And this is
Speaker 3: what I was talking about with the healthcare system. Most
Speaker 3: people like their healthcare in terms of employer based. They
Speaker 3: don't like the health insurance companies, but they like their
Speaker 3: healthcare like employee provided healthcare.
Speaker 1: But there are thirty to forty million.
Speaker 3: People including the self employed like yours, yours truly and
Speaker 3: you where we have to go out there and shop
Speaker 3: in the marketplace, and that is where the nightmare situation
Speaker 3: really starts to happen. Yes, you don't get the benefit
Speaker 3: of themmployer subsidies or usually get a lower deductible plan
Speaker 3: in those situations like that too, and that's when people
Speaker 3: really get screwed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, it's also been you know, the political response
Speaker 2: here has also been really interesting. We mentioned with Joss
Speaker 2: Stin I just want to repeat this again that in
Speaker 2: the CR there actually is one good provision that it's
Speaker 2: not going to solve our healthcare woes, but it would
Speaker 2: modestly improve them, which is to rain in these pharmacy
Speaker 2: benefit managers, which they are these totally, as far as
Speaker 2: I can tell, totally unnecessary middlemen that control what prescription
Speaker 2: drugs are covered by health insurance agencies. And so they
Speaker 2: strike these deals in between the pharmacies and the health
Speaker 2: insurers and they take a cut of these rebates for themselves. Again,
Speaker 2: it's just a sort of unnecessary middleman that helps to
Speaker 2: drive up the cost of your prescription drugs. And so
Speaker 2: there is a provision in the CR that would rain
Speaker 2: them in. This is something that has bipartisan support, something
Speaker 2: Josh Holly and Elizabeth Warren have worked together on in
Speaker 2: the context of the Senate. So there are some small
Speaker 2: reforms that have the potential to move forward. The other
Speaker 2: thing Soccer that's in here that is funny and telling
Speaker 2: is that the previously members of Congress were they are
Speaker 2: right now required by law to shop for their health
Speaker 2: insurance on the same health insurance exchanges though Bombcare exchanges.
Speaker 4: That you and I have to shout for out insurance on.
Speaker 1: Right and have no other options.
Speaker 2: By the way, they stuck a little provision into the
Speaker 2: CR to get them out of having to do that
Speaker 2: and be able to participate in whatever the federal government
Speaker 2: employee system is, et cetera. So you know, they are
Speaker 2: well aware of some of the problems in the current system,
Speaker 2: in spite of the fact that they apparently don't want to.
Speaker 4: Fix that for everyone, just for themselves.
Speaker 2: They want to better their own situation here, but not
Speaker 2: necessarily yours or ours.
Speaker 1: You don't need Congress enough, you know, and everyone.
Speaker 3: I mean, there's been a lot of discourse right now
Speaker 3: because they tried to put a pay raise in there,
Speaker 3: the cost of living pay raise. We're like, well, we
Speaker 3: got to pay our members of Congress enough, and like theoretically,
Speaker 3: like maybe I could get there, but you know, in
Speaker 3: the in the current introim, no, like no, not in
Speaker 3: a time when you guys are multimos vast majority of
Speaker 3: you what ninety percent they're making.
Speaker 4: Most of their money on the insider trading, That's.
Speaker 3: What I mean, over ninety percent of these people are
Speaker 3: net worth over one million. You know, a lot of
Speaker 3: them are extraordinarily wealthy in their own right.
Speaker 1: It's like, no, we shouldn't pay you more.
Speaker 4: Well, here's my thing.
Speaker 3: You're trying to exhibit yourself from Obamacare and all this
Speaker 3: other stuff.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, no, and not happen here.
Speaker 2: Here's my thing is I am totally willing to strike
Speaker 2: a deal with Congress. You ban stock training trading, and
Speaker 2: we will give you a giant, a big race, not
Speaker 2: just this was going to be like a.
Speaker 4: Few thousand dollars or whatever.
Speaker 2: We'll give you a big race if you just ban
Speaker 2: inside of your insider stock drink you're stock trading at all.
Speaker 2: But I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.
Speaker 2: The other political response you put this up on the
Speaker 2: screen Ken Klippenstein, who continues to do great work on
Speaker 2: reporting out the story. Kavy Hogel, Governor of New York,
Speaker 2: and incredibly like she's like the definition of you know, middling.
Speaker 2: This woman she wants to create a crisis hotline for CEOs.
Speaker 2: So her response isn't hey, you know, clearly there's a
Speaker 2: problem with the health insurance industry based on the way
Speaker 2: that people are reacting to this cold blooded murder in
Speaker 2: the streets of New York City. No, no, no, let
Speaker 2: me make sure that CEOs have a special hotline exclusively
Speaker 2: for them to report perceived threats. This is the same
Speaker 2: woman that Ken report it on, and we brought you
Speaker 2: this information here as well, who convened one hundred and
Speaker 2: seventy five CEOs and other corporate representatives as well as
Speaker 2: homeland security and counter terror officials discuss how to share
Speaker 2: intelligence with corporate security. So you know her, you see
Speaker 2: whose priority, who she prioritizes in terms of making sure
Speaker 2: their lives are smooth and that they feel total comfort
Speaker 2: and you know, are fully protected by the state. And
Speaker 2: then you know the other thing that Ken notes here
Speaker 2: and Ryan and Emily covered the fact that they they
Speaker 2: charged Luigi Mangioni with terrorism, which was not unexpected. And listen,
Speaker 2: I mean, I think he did intend to cause terror,
Speaker 2: so on that. From that perspective, I understand the charge.
Speaker 2: But I'm also concerned because between that between the arrest
Speaker 2: of this woman in Florida for just like saying something
Speaker 2: mean to health insurance representative and Seb Gorka, who's the
Speaker 2: incoming terrors are is out now comparing people who have been,
Speaker 2: you know, expressing their upset at the health insurance industry,
Speaker 2: and some going so far as to sort of lionized
Speaker 2: Luigi Mangioti as some sort of folk hero, characterizing them
Speaker 2: as a sort of domestic terrorist akin to the Weather
Speaker 2: Underground in comments that he made to Newsmax. So, you know,
Speaker 2: the concern is that this is one more justification for
Speaker 2: the US government to use to surveil and violate civil liberties,
Speaker 2: and you know, have a whole new group of quote
Speaker 2: unquote anti corporate extremists that they are using to quash
Speaker 2: free speech and censor and surveill, et cetera.
Speaker 4: So that's something to keep an eye on.
Speaker 3: Terrorism laws are mostly unnecessary. They're like hate crime statues.
Speaker 3: It's they're just like socially acceptable ways to smack even
Speaker 3: more years onto people when we have perfectly good.
Speaker 1: Laws on the books already.
Speaker 4: Like they're political and arbitrary.
Speaker 1: No, that's what I mean. Yeah, And then also you
Speaker 1: get to enforcement.
Speaker 3: It's like, well, if you kills somebody because they're white
Speaker 3: and not because they're black, it's like, what do you
Speaker 3: still hit them with the hate crime statue? That's literally
Speaker 3: happened before, by the way, and of course there's always
Speaker 3: a big debate.
Speaker 1: It's a prosecutorial discretion, et cetera.
Speaker 3: That's why I just think it's stupid, because it becomes
Speaker 3: political and we just use them as as enhancements instead
Speaker 3: of we have perfectly good laws on the books in
Speaker 3: every state against murder. Yeah, that's that's all you need,
Speaker 3: you know, to lock somebody up. If you want to
Speaker 3: consider all that other stuff, you can take it in
Speaker 3: for sentencing or for you know, probation or whatever. But yeah,
Speaker 3: I just think it's crazy because they do this to
Speaker 3: circumvent going around a normal murder charge gets somebody with
Speaker 3: even more mandatory time or I don't know the exact
Speaker 3: in and ounce, but this was all passed usually in
Speaker 3: the post nine to eleven hysteria era, and we have
Speaker 3: enough now to know that this stuff is just grossly
Speaker 3: like unconstitutional, deprives people of civil liberties, and it's just
Speaker 3: a socially acceptable way of just hitting people with political charges,
Speaker 3: none of which you even need. And this is not
Speaker 3: a defense of Louisian man gionn prosecute him for murder, Okay,
Speaker 3: first degree murder you can easily do that money.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, we'll probably still spend life in prison. So
Speaker 1: what's the point.
Speaker 2: Because you could because here's the thing, you could make
Speaker 2: the case that basically any murder is terrorism. And you know,
Speaker 2: they have really stretched these definitions in the past, So
Speaker 2: you're absolutely correct, it's unnecessary to have these laws on
Speaker 2: the books whatsoever. And you know, we've seen the way
Speaker 2: that these panics over quote unquote domestic extremism have been
Speaker 2: used again the American public and to gravely violate people's
Speaker 2: civil liberties. We certainly saw it during the War on Terror.
Speaker 2: We've covered some of those cases here where you know, basically,
Speaker 2: if you didn't have the FBI, the deep state in
Speaker 2: there actively radicalizing people leading them up to that, Hey,
Speaker 2: let's let's do this plot together.
Speaker 4: Here's the money to be able to affect.
Speaker 2: Why don't you buy a ticket to you know, go
Speaker 2: fight fight the jihads here and then then so they
Speaker 2: radicalize these people, they set them up, and then they
Speaker 2: swoop in, Oh, look we've disrupted this grand plot. So
Speaker 2: you saw that during the War on Terror, and then
Speaker 2: we saw some really crazy stuff like with that Gretchen
Speaker 2: Whitmer kidnapping quote unquote kidnapping plot, which also you know, similarly,
Speaker 2: the FEDS were deeply involved in trying to facilitate and
Speaker 2: radicalize and set up these these individuals.
Speaker 1: Oh, you know the jan six people got hit with terrorism,
Speaker 1: remember that.
Speaker 2: No, No, that's actually one of the things people have
Speaker 2: been pointing out is none of them have been hit
Speaker 2: with terrorism, whereas these you know, where's luij Mangione is.
Speaker 2: So again it just shows you it's very you can
Speaker 2: just sort of pick and choose who and what you
Speaker 2: consider to be quote unquote terrorism versus you know, the
Speaker 2: January six people were charged with other things that were
Speaker 2: laws on them.
Speaker 1: It was illegal that shealt with that's legal entry.
Speaker 3: That's why there was a debate, I just because I
Speaker 3: thought that they had Yeah, it had been.
Speaker 2: Some because that's one of the things people are pointing out.
Speaker 2: It's like, oh, you're going to charge Luigi, but you
Speaker 2: didn't charge any of the January six ers, And you know, clearly,
Speaker 2: like whatever you think of them, that was clearly their
Speaker 2: political aims. That were very clear in their in their
Speaker 2: goals of what they were doing that day. So in
Speaker 2: any case, that's a little bit of what's going on there.
Speaker 2: The last thing that people were taking note of and
Speaker 2: I don't want to overstate this, but I think it's interesting.
Speaker 2: So the Economist has a running tracker of what Americans
Speaker 2: say their top issues are. And in the wake of
Speaker 2: this debate, after Luigian Mangioni allegedly shot and killed Brian Thompson,
Speaker 2: though you know, Mac and Ryan say, actually he was
Speaker 2: here in the studio during those hours, so and actually
Speaker 2: said that while he was back in the control room,
Speaker 2: he told him that he's allergic to McDonald's.
Speaker 4: So there's a lot of pieces here that don't have it.
Speaker 2: But in any case, in the wake of that murder,
Speaker 2: healthcare has shot up to be the number two issue,
Speaker 2: surpassing immigration in the Economists ongoing tracker. Inflation still number one.
Speaker 2: I don't want to overstate the case because it actually
Speaker 2: already was a pretty significant issue, so it only spiked
Speaker 2: up a little bit.
Speaker 4: We could put the chart up on the screen. You
Speaker 4: can see for yourself.
Speaker 2: This is the three month tracking, and this is a
Speaker 2: little bit difficult to see. The top line is inflation. Okay,
Speaker 2: inflation and prices. Twenty three point five percent say this
Speaker 2: is my most important issue. And this is the type
Speaker 2: of poll where you could only pick one. Some poles
Speaker 2: are like, you can pick multiple. Okay, So twenty three
Speaker 2: point five percent of people say that is my number
Speaker 2: one issue. You now have healthcare jumping up. It's that
Speaker 2: purple line to be just above immigration and jobs in
Speaker 2: the economy as the second most important issue. So clearly
Speaker 2: the conversation around this has, you know, has sparked a
Speaker 2: lot of interest in American people in some reform, and
Speaker 2: this is a ball that the Democratic Party has completely dropped.
Speaker 2: There was almost no talk of significant health care reform
Speaker 2: in this last presidential election really from either side. But
Speaker 2: you know, historically it's been Democrats who have been trying
Speaker 2: to push this issue forward far far, fall from back
Speaker 2: when Bernie Sanders put Medicare for all on the table
Speaker 2: and made it a national debate and where this was
Speaker 2: an ongoing conversation. Kamala Harris back to medicare for all
Speaker 2: allegedly back in the twenty twenty primary before donors got
Speaker 2: mad at her and she ran away from that position
Speaker 2: full steam, never to be embraced again. So in any case,
Speaker 2: that's where the political debate is there.
Speaker 1: It is all right.
Speaker 2: So at the same time, this was an interesting story. Yeah,
Speaker 2: both of us were interested in this one. So obviously
Speaker 2: Supreme Court struck down firmative action. We've got new numbers.
Speaker 2: I'll show you that in a minute. Of minority enrollment,
Speaker 2: especially into elite law schools like Harvard Law. But some
Speaker 2: of these ellege universities have been embroiled in a lawsuit
Speaker 2: alleging that they have basically ripped off their students the
Speaker 2: tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and that they
Speaker 2: have violated an agreement that they had with the federal
Speaker 2: government that allowed them to legally violate antitrust law. And
Speaker 2: without getting too deep in the weeds of this, effectively,
Speaker 2: they had to agree that their admissions would be one
Speaker 2: hundred percent need blind, meaning that they would not factor
Speaker 2: in a student's wealth income family wealth income at all
Speaker 2: in their admissions, and in exchange for that agreement, they
Speaker 2: would then not be subject to federal antitrust regulation. So
Speaker 2: this has been an ongoing lawsuit as part of this
Speaker 2: discovery process, and in one of the new filings, we
Speaker 2: are learning some very interesting details about how not need
Speaker 2: blind these universities were and how much they privileged the
Speaker 2: admissions of high net worth families. The students, you know,
Speaker 2: coming from high net worth families who were well connected
Speaker 2: to let's say the president of the university or other
Speaker 2: influential people, or given massive gifts to the school. And
Speaker 2: let me just go ahead and put this article up
Speaker 2: on the screen, and I want to read you some
Speaker 2: of this because the details here. Listen, this is not
Speaker 2: a shock to any of us, but seeing the details
Speaker 2: out it really is something else. So the headline is
Speaker 2: Suite accuses Georgetown penn An Mit of admissions based on wealth.
Speaker 2: The schools were accused of giving special treatment to wealthy
Speaker 2: students who might not otherwise have been admitted, so they say,
Speaker 2: for years, Georgetown University's longtime president flagged eighty students to
Speaker 2: be added to a special admissions list, but not apparently
Speaker 2: for their academic or athletic prowess. Documents in a new
Speaker 2: lawsuit claim those on the president's list were virtually assured
Speaker 2: of admissions simply because of their family's wealth and donation potential.
Speaker 2: According to a filed on Money Monday. In this long
Speaker 2: running lawsuit at MIT, two children recommended by a wealthy
Speaker 2: banker with ties to a university board member got special treatment,
Speaker 2: according to the documents, and a deposition, the school's director
Speaker 2: of admissions that the two children who appeared on a
Speaker 2: quote cases of interest list were among those who quote,
Speaker 2: we would really have not otherwise admitted. At the University
Speaker 2: of Pennsylvania, some students designated BSI or bonafide special interest
Speaker 2: have a dramatically higher rate of admission than other applicants,
Speaker 2: according to expert testimony. Penn's former Associate Dean of Admissions,
Speaker 2: Sarah Harberson, testified last year in a deposition that a
Speaker 2: BSI tag meant the student's family was a big donor
Speaker 2: or had connection to the board. Those students quote, were
Speaker 2: untouchable and they would get in almost one hundred percent
Speaker 2: of the time, according to this former Associate dean of admissions.
Speaker 2: She also said the admissions office was powerless to deny
Speaker 2: the student even if the student was incredibly weak, even
Speaker 2: if the student had.
Speaker 4: A major issue in the application.
Speaker 2: So this is the affirmative action that has undoubtedly continued
Speaker 2: even in the wake of race based affirmative action being
Speaker 2: overturned at the Supreme Court. Where if you come from money,
Speaker 2: if your parents are well connected to the board, well
Speaker 2: connected to the president, if they've made big donations to
Speaker 2: the school or the school even thinks that they can
Speaker 2: make big donations in the future. You are put on
Speaker 2: one of these special lists in some instances, and you
Speaker 2: are on a glide path to get into these elite
Speaker 2: institutions that helped you set you up for life, regardless
Speaker 2: of whether or not you actually merit being there and
Speaker 2: seeing it put plane like this is really quite a strong.
Speaker 1: It's amazing. I love it.
Speaker 3: It's just like the original affirmative action lawsuit. I'm so
Speaker 3: happy to actually And by the way, I met plenty
Speaker 3: of these folks in school, or remember them, well, some
Speaker 3: of them the daughters of kings and queen. We won't
Speaker 3: mention any exact countries, shall we, But let's just say
Speaker 3: their academic prowess was never particularly provative or impressive when
Speaker 3: they did show up to class. What's funny is that
Speaker 3: when you pair it, you can see a complete freak
Speaker 3: out now of modern academia because these people they don't
Speaker 3: bring in a million two million, We're talking hundreds of millions.
Speaker 3: Like one of the things that you learn from the
Speaker 3: Varsity Blues case is that being worth a cool twenty
Speaker 3: thirty fifty million.
Speaker 1: They're like, that's a joke. That's nothing. You can't buy
Speaker 1: your way into Harvard with that.
Speaker 3: That's why they needed the varsity coach to get them
Speaker 3: and the way you buy your way in and the
Speaker 3: kids that they're talking about here, we're talking about ten fifty,
Speaker 3: twenty fifty, you know, one hundred million dollar donations to
Speaker 3: some of these universities.
Speaker 1: That's why they do it now.
Speaker 3: It's an existential threat to the universities, which is why
Speaker 3: they've been protecting this stuff for all time. Because we're
Speaker 3: talking about millions per year in annim that many, you know,
Speaker 3: alumni will donate just to increase their chance of admission
Speaker 3: by for their kids by what five percent, six percent
Speaker 3: something like that. So you see that together, combined with
Speaker 3: now the affirmative action hit that these places are taking already,
Speaker 3: of which the DEI freak out on, this is huge.
Speaker 1: So let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 3: This is the new admissions data from Harvard Law, but
Speaker 3: it includes MIT, Pennsylvania and a few others and says
Speaker 3: black student enrollment and Harvard Law drops by more than
Speaker 3: half to the number not seen since the nineteen sixties.
Speaker 3: Not just so happens when affirmative action was invented. By
Speaker 3: the way, just three point four percent of the class.
Speaker 3: But what's astonishing is lo and behold the Asian number skyrockets,
Speaker 3: which is exactly what the people for the Students for
Speaker 3: Fair Admission lawsuits were able to prove at the time,
Speaker 3: which is this was a systematic racial discrimination campaign in
Speaker 3: the face of all of this talk about DEI and others. So,
Speaker 3: and of course the fairest critique was, well what about
Speaker 3: you know, what was.
Speaker 1: It, legacy admissions. It's like, well, great, let's get rid
Speaker 1: of them both.
Speaker 3: So now, if we have a five year time span
Speaker 3: to get rid of a racial based affirmative action and
Speaker 3: legacy admissions, we will have one of the most meritocratic
Speaker 3: higher education systems that probably in the history of the
Speaker 3: United States, because even in the early sixties you had
Speaker 3: all that crazy stuff with anti semitism and racism, etc.
Speaker 1: So this is a very very positive outcome.
Speaker 3: Another reason why it matters is because as this starts
Speaker 3: to trickle down and already we have race based admissions
Speaker 3: that's been nuked on the on the admissions level for universities.
Speaker 3: Is as we have this filter down to state and
Speaker 3: state colleges that are publicly funded, it becomes even more important.
Speaker 3: And you have it so that the actual public funded
Speaker 3: universities the best single way to go from middle class
Speaker 3: upper middle class, or from lower class to middle class,
Speaker 3: and you remove some of these admissions practices, then we
Speaker 3: actually can really set things set things straight. Next we
Speaker 3: have to do tuition, but we'll get there.
Speaker 2: I mean, my feelings about this a little more complicated
Speaker 2: than yours, because when I say, like, oh, the number
Speaker 2: of black students and Harvard dropped to levels of the sixties,
Speaker 2: I'm not like, yay. But but my opposition, my opposition
Speaker 2: to affirmative action has been that this is it's fundamentally
Speaker 2: a neoliberal policy that says we're not going to change
Speaker 2: the distribution of wealth.
Speaker 4: And by the way, if you look within.
Speaker 2: Racial groups, you have a very similar level of like
Speaker 2: mass inequality within those groups, and primarily affirmative action that
Speaker 2: has benefited like upper middle class or wealthier individuals within
Speaker 2: those minority groups. So we're not going to change the
Speaker 2: distribution of wealth. We're just going to diversify this rarefied
Speaker 2: few and not deal with these larger structural issues and
Speaker 2: make it so that you know, even if you don't
Speaker 2: go to Harvard and you don't go to the top school.
Speaker 2: Even if you don't go to college at all, you're
Speaker 2: going to be able to have a stable middle class
Speaker 2: or working class life. You're going to be able to
Speaker 2: have a home, You're going to be able to car,
Speaker 2: You're going to be able to afford to, you know,
Speaker 2: a family, You're going to have health insurance or health
Speaker 2: care and not have to have health insurance, but actually
Speaker 2: just get the care that you need. And so rather
Speaker 2: than dealing with this this is sort of like you know,
Speaker 2: a band aid on white liberals concerns that about the
Speaker 2: racial inequity that genuinely exists that they see in the world. So,
Speaker 2: you know, that's why I've been I haven't been a
Speaker 2: supporter of affirmative action, but I think it does underscore.
Speaker 2: You know, our education system starting at pre K is
Speaker 2: wildly unequal, very much dependent in spite of it being
Speaker 2: a public school system, very much dependent on what zip
Speaker 2: code you happen to be born into. What is the
Speaker 2: wealth of that zip code. It determines how much funding
Speaker 2: goes into that education system. We have some really great
Speaker 2: public schools. In fact, there's one, you know, just a
Speaker 2: few miles down the road here in Alexandria. That's one
Speaker 2: of the top high schools in the entire country where
Speaker 2: you're sure to get a fantastic education, and you have
Speaker 2: some that are completely and utterly failing. Not to mention,
Speaker 2: you know, the more that we have this mass class inequality,
Speaker 2: and I think we truly are in a second Gilded
Speaker 2: Age now. Even if you look at you know, Elon
Speaker 2: Musk and him basically taking over the government, and the
Speaker 2: way that the rewards are just constantly rigged to flow
Speaker 2: to the top, you you know, you have to deal
Speaker 2: with that structure in order to You can't jerry rig
Speaker 2: it at the end and say all right, well, we
Speaker 2: screwed you all the way up here, but we're going
Speaker 2: to give you a few token goodies here once you
Speaker 2: get to the top of the food chain and make
Speaker 2: us all feel better about the fact that you have
Speaker 2: more black first year law students at Harvard. The one
Speaker 2: other thing I wanted to note is, you know, this
Speaker 2: didn't just look at Harvard Law. It did look at
Speaker 2: other law schools. It was not a universal trend across
Speaker 2: the board. There were a few schools where black first
Speaker 2: year law students actually did increase. I think Stanford maybe
Speaker 2: was one of those, but most of them saw some
Speaker 2: of a decline. Harvard and un C were two that
Speaker 2: saw the most severe decline because they were specifically named
Speaker 2: in the lawsuits.
Speaker 4: Yes, so I think they felt.
Speaker 2: Particularly like, you know, they needed to really aggressively go
Speaker 2: in the opposite direction. So you know, the differences in
Speaker 2: the data here are also worth noting.
Speaker 3: Right, So I mean, look, I'm not saying ya, I'm
Speaker 3: saying ya to the idea they have more merit based admission.
Speaker 3: That's what I would say is good. And so if
Speaker 3: things drop dramatically, that tells you something about how things
Speaker 3: used to operate there, and it gives Look, there was
Speaker 3: also lack of trust.
Speaker 2: It was unfair to discriminate against asiancudents in particular, you know,
Speaker 2: is another piece of them.
Speaker 3: They're literally penalized for being like for having higher test
Speaker 3: scores and for having higher GPAs. That's insane in the
Speaker 3: profession of law, especially in medicine or at MIT any
Speaker 3: of these other places which there was also significant problems
Speaker 3: that are there.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 3: The other thing that you see here is actually black
Speaker 3: student and Hispanic enrollment went up at the state college level,
Speaker 3: which tells you what which is that's a very good thing,
Speaker 3: isn't it, Because you can see that having access and
Speaker 3: having a merit based administry, merit based admission system to
Speaker 3: more accessible quote unquote colleges and others, means that everybody
Speaker 3: can have a fair shot, which is which is allegedly
Speaker 3: you know what the country is founded on and what
Speaker 3: we want. So it's very important for what you just
Speaker 3: said to understand about the wealth gap and return it.
Speaker 3: We've talked a lot about this a lot, but everyone
Speaker 3: talks about, Oh, if you look at the white black
Speaker 3: wealth gap, those statistics are bullshit and completely fake. The
Speaker 3: vast majority of the quote unquote wealth gap between whites
Speaker 3: and blacks is in the top ten percent of whites,
Speaker 3: in the top ten percent of blacks because there are
Speaker 3: way more one hundred billionaires people like Elon and others
Speaker 3: as opposed to you know, I don't even know Oprah
Speaker 3: and a few others. If you take the median, the
Speaker 3: wealth gap is not nearly as pronounced as what it is.
Speaker 1: People use the aggregate data.
Speaker 3: This is something what's Matt Bruneg has talked quite a
Speaker 3: bit about this. He has some decent charts from a
Speaker 3: few years ago that I remember cribbing a lot of
Speaker 3: these stats. From a point on this is that if
Speaker 3: you focus on median and middle class equality, then you
Speaker 3: actually come much better or much closer to restoring the
Speaker 3: quote unquote wealth gap that actually matters, and that's the
Speaker 3: one of between rich and between poor. But of course
Speaker 3: that's very inconvenient, and it's much easier, as you said,
Speaker 3: is to diversify the top echelons. I mean, my favorite
Speaker 3: example is the Nasdaq, where you're not allowed to go
Speaker 3: public unless you have a person of color on your board.
Speaker 3: Nothing to do with your business practices or any of
Speaker 3: these others. You literally have to have a woman and
Speaker 3: a person of color. It's like, that's what we've decided
Speaker 3: to change at the highest echelons.
Speaker 2: So the white families on average hold around eight times
Speaker 2: more wealth than black families, so if you are comparing
Speaker 2: on a racial basis, there is a significant difference. My
Speaker 2: point is that what we really need to do is
Speaker 2: there needs to be a better sharing of the pie.
Speaker 2: You should not have it be so concentrated at the top,
Speaker 2: where the only goal is to just diversify the highest
Speaker 2: heights and keep everybody scrapping amongst themselves for who can
Speaker 2: make it into the upper middle class, the wealthy, and
Speaker 2: the top. That is my point, because I don't want
Speaker 2: to deny that there continues to be discrimination, that historic discrimination,
Speaker 2: especially housing, which is such a key building block of wealth,
Speaker 2: continues to you know, haunt this country and continue to
Speaker 2: drive a significant wealth gap between black and white. So
Speaker 2: it's not my goal to deny that. What I was
Speaker 2: pointing out is if you look within any particular racial group,
Speaker 2: you see a similar distribution of wealth in terms of
Speaker 2: the gap between the haves and the haves. Now that's
Speaker 2: what I want to close. That's what I'm committed to.
Speaker 2: And you know, there is no there is no indication
Speaker 2: that affirmative action was a part of helping to close
Speaker 2: that wealth gap between you know, the top one percent,
Speaker 2: the top point one percent, and everyone else.
Speaker 4: And those are the policies that I'm interested in.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, I don't disagree with that. I just say the average.
Speaker 3: Remember that average includes people like Elon. You have to
Speaker 3: look at income quintile of the medium.
Speaker 4: Should they just be thrown out?
Speaker 3: Yeah, well yes, actually, because it's ridiculous, you know, to
Speaker 3: skew things by including people who are worth hundreds of
Speaker 3: millions or hundreds of billions of dollars in the overall things.
Speaker 2: Well, but I mean, that's kind of a core part
Speaker 2: of the problem. Though I agree with a lot people
Speaker 2: that have hundreds of billions of dollars.
Speaker 3: When that are separate out the top ten percent, it's
Speaker 3: not even close to eight times. It's it's complicated in
Speaker 3: terms of what it actually isn't I'm not going to
Speaker 3: deny that the gap isn't there, but it's not eight
Speaker 3: times for what it is. I'm trying to find the
Speaker 3: Matt Brunneck statistics that I was criving this from from
Speaker 3: a few years ago. But the point stands that that's
Speaker 3: part of the reason why average is actually not a
Speaker 3: good statistic.
Speaker 2: The median wealth for a white family was two hundred
Speaker 2: and eighty five and twenty twenty two, the median wealth
Speaker 2: for a black family was forty five thousand dollars.
Speaker 3: So that's what five domes, right, It's a large gap. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: that's true. That's definitely true. A lot of that also
Speaker 3: comes back to housing, like you just said. But the
Speaker 3: part of the problem too is even in terms of housing,
Speaker 3: is there is that big skew for working class, for
Speaker 3: within whites in terms of generational access to housing. Yeah,
Speaker 3: obviously that was a big problem with redlining, et cetera.
Speaker 3: That's one thing I will give them. It's true in
Speaker 3: terms of denying wealth. There's also though, there was a
Speaker 3: big problem after two thousand and eight. Matt Stoler has
Speaker 3: talked a lot about this in terms of where bailout
Speaker 3: disparity happened with a lot of people's access to housing
Speaker 3: because it was specifically Black and Hispanic households who lost
Speaker 3: access to a lot of those loans were most susceptible
Speaker 3: to the subprime crisis lost access to their houses, and
Speaker 3: then after the real estate explosion of twenty ten forward,
Speaker 3: that increased the widening of the gap as well. So
Speaker 3: that gets to a lot of Barack Obama discourse, et cetera,
Speaker 3: which I know that he's been excellent on. So anyway,
Speaker 3: it's an interesting conversation in terms of how he actually
Speaker 3: moved forward in the country. And it's one where a
Speaker 3: lot of the people who were posting about affirmative action
Speaker 3: always were very conveniently ignoring. I was always one of
Speaker 3: those who was like, yeah, let's ban it, get rid
Speaker 3: of it, you know, I think getting rid of legacy
Speaker 3: admissions is extraordinarily important to make sure that there's not
Speaker 3: a continued aristocracy in the country, because everybody knows that
Speaker 3: if you just have somebody write your letter or whatever
Speaker 3: at one of these universities, you go from a five
Speaker 3: percent admissions rate to fifty and then if you donate
Speaker 3: some money, you go up to like seventy five.
Speaker 1: Yeah, which is as sweet as it gets.
Speaker 2: The details here of like, oh, if you're on this list,
Speaker 2: you just get in period.
Speaker 4: Whether you deserve to be there or not, must be nice.
Speaker 2: Let's really focus on ending that type of affirmative action
Speaker 2: after Timothy Shallomey recently went on the Theovon podcast and
Speaker 2: they both were had fawning praise for Senator Bernie Sanders, which,
Speaker 2: of course I love to see.
Speaker 4: Let's go and take a listen to that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we had Bernie Sanders on him. He was saying
Speaker 1: that he said Pete Seeger was one of his favorite.
Speaker 7: Scouet McNay could play Bernie Sanders in a biopic, right, Yeah,
Speaker 7: totally could. Bernie has an aged.
Speaker 1: Now, Bernie still looks at same.
Speaker 7: He's the best he's in the last Yeah, he's like
Speaker 7: a real folk hero.
Speaker 1: Great point.
Speaker 7: Yeah, Bernie is is he is a folk hero. Yeah,
Speaker 7: he's folk music. Mitchell Lama. You know about Mitchell Lama.
Speaker 7: Mitchell Yeah, the Five the Restaurant Stars or no, no, no, no no.
Speaker 7: Mitchellama is like, uh, there's like two vert to my
Speaker 7: understated is two versions of like good arts housing. Here
Speaker 7: you got section eight that means you're paying like under
Speaker 7: eight hundred bucks. Mitchell Lama.
Speaker 1: Yeah, oh that damn Mitchell Lama.
Speaker 7: Brother absolutely, Oh that's me baby moderate Mitchellama. Program FRIDS,
Speaker 7: Affordable Rental and cooperative housing and motterate and middle income families.
Speaker 2: Also give you a little taste there of them busting
Speaker 2: out the housing policy discourse.
Speaker 3: Yes, Mitchell Lama, which apparently Shala May I think he
Speaker 3: was raised in.
Speaker 1: That's what he talked about. They're on the podcast. I
Speaker 1: don't know.
Speaker 3: I've seen this passed around this whole like, oh, so
Speaker 3: I saw somebody respond to this and like this shows
Speaker 3: that Bernie Sanders would have won.
Speaker 1: And I was like, because.
Speaker 3: Shallow May likes Bernie Sanders. I mean, Kamala had plenty
Speaker 3: of uh of celebrity endorsements last time I checked. Also,
Speaker 3: if I remember, there were a bunch of celebrit who
Speaker 3: backed Bernie in twenty twenty or even in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: What what's her name?
Speaker 3: Uh, the supermodel Radakowski Emi, Emily Radakowski, if I recall,
Speaker 3: there were definitely a few others.
Speaker 1: I think Cardi b I think it was it.
Speaker 4: Wasn't so much about Shada.
Speaker 3: Obviously it's simplistic to be like this bruise, but I'm
Speaker 3: just saying very viral.
Speaker 2: But no, no, I think it's about shallow May Backingham.
Speaker 2: I think it's about Bernie was capable of going on
Speaker 2: the Theovon podcast and Theovon being like, I love this guy.
Speaker 4: Yeah, guy's great, he's.
Speaker 1: A phone here team too. He still didn't win.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he got screwed.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it was but the only reason.
Speaker 2: But we're also talking about, you know, a general election
Speaker 2: versus a primary election. Obviously, one of the big learnings
Speaker 2: out of this election was, oh that like bro podcast comedy,
Speaker 2: that whole sphere out to be really important, and you know,
Speaker 2: there's a whole I think important conversation about number one
Speaker 2: KMA even Okay, I never bought that she should have
Speaker 2: gone on Brogan because I just don't think she would
Speaker 2: have done well there. So there's number one, the problem
Speaker 2: of just like having a candidate that you would want
Speaker 2: to see in any one of these venues. But it
Speaker 2: recalls the fact that back in twenty sixteen and in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty. But I think especially in twenty sixteen, Bernie
Speaker 2: had huge support among the bros, among the Latinos, among
Speaker 2: the working class, all the groups that have fled the
Speaker 2: Democratic Party the fastest were his strongest basis of support.
Speaker 4: And he was smeared for that.
Speaker 2: You know, he was the whole Bernie brow was meant
Speaker 2: as a smear, and they were derided as being toxic,
Speaker 2: et cetera, et cetera. Now it was always inaccurate to
Speaker 2: paint his support as being completely male.
Speaker 4: In fact, there were, you know.
Speaker 2: Young women, young men overwhelmingly supported Bernie Sanders both in
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen and twenty twenty. But I think it was
Speaker 2: more The point here was that he's someone who Joe
Speaker 2: Rogan did support, that this ecosystem did support.
Speaker 4: Even though his.
Speaker 2: Politics are obviously very different from Trump, he taps into
Speaker 2: that similar desire for something different and a challenge to
Speaker 2: the establishment.
Speaker 4: I think Trump's challenge the stablishment was fake.
Speaker 2: Blah blah blah, but there's no doubt that that is
Speaker 2: how he is perceived and has successfully per positioned himself
Speaker 2: as being the sort of anti system politician. And Bernie
Speaker 2: Sanders fits that same model. And you know, if Democrats
Speaker 2: are losing the bros here, you got a couple of bros.
Speaker 4: They're like, oh my god, I love that guy. He's
Speaker 4: a folk hero.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm just I still am not so sure I
Speaker 3: buy that analysis, just because with Bernie it was fundamentally
Speaker 3: irreconcilable to the Democratic coalition, Like you had rich white
Speaker 3: people who are was obsessed with race in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 3: who yes, you know smeared ber Look, I agree the
Speaker 3: Bernie Sanders bro thing was bullshit, but people ate it
Speaker 3: up right. Well, that was kind in the midst of
Speaker 3: Russia Gate and all this other crap. I mean, he
Speaker 3: was them out of the coalition because they hate.
Speaker 2: Them, No, they so if you looked at the polling
Speaker 2: twenty twenty, we covered this extensively in every primary, including
Speaker 2: the ones that he lost got blown out by Joe Biden,
Speaker 2: like in Mississippi. If you ask people about his policy
Speaker 2: platform and about their personal feelings about him, he won
Speaker 2: on the policies he won on his approval rating. People
Speaker 2: were convinced he couldn't beat Trump. They're convinced about that
Speaker 2: in twenty sixteen, they're convinced about that in twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: You know, we saw have seen how that ultimately worked out.
Speaker 2: But they bought into the narrative that was fed to
Speaker 2: them about by MSNBC and other places that you can't vote.
Speaker 2: You may like this guy, you can't vote for him
Speaker 2: because he's not the right person to go up against
Speaker 2: Donald Trump. Now, listen, Ultimately we'll never know what would
Speaker 2: have happened if he had been the nominee and he
Speaker 2: you know, in twenty sixteen or in twenty twenty, and
Speaker 2: how that ultimately would have gone. But I would submit
Speaker 2: based on history, based on you know the fact that
Speaker 2: that he sort of has a modern version of the
Speaker 2: New Deal left populist approach to combating what you wouldn't
Speaker 2: but I would characterize as a fascist appeal. That is
Speaker 2: what has been successful in the past. And I think
Speaker 2: given the groups that he had the most traction with,
Speaker 2: there's certainly a good case to be made that he
Speaker 2: would have been a much better candidate to go up
Speaker 2: directly against trump Ism than this like lukewarm dover milk
Speaker 2: toast neoliberalism that just promises to protect a system that
Speaker 2: people hate and is fundamentally unjust.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the problem with that is that Bernie himself then
Speaker 3: decides to go along with it. He goes into Russiagate,
Speaker 3: he goes into the wocism he runs on, adopts a
Speaker 3: lot of the stuff into his campaign in twenty twenty.
Speaker 3: He shifts a lot of his own positions, moves away
Speaker 3: from what made him so independent on war, on so
Speaker 3: much stuff. Right, He's been a huge disappointment, if anything,
Speaker 3: to a lot of the people who originally joined his
Speaker 3: movement in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: And so I just think.
Speaker 3: That that shows where the power or lies in the
Speaker 3: Democratic Party. It's with these DEI academics, not now. Maybe
Speaker 3: it's broken now. I don't think so, though, because what
Speaker 3: I think is that now the only people who remain
Speaker 3: committed Democrats in this country are rich white people. That's
Speaker 3: basically it. The good news for I guess for you
Speaker 3: is that you can convince these people of anything as
Speaker 3: long as they think they'll win.
Speaker 1: That's all they really care about.
Speaker 3: But which direction of all of that will come from
Speaker 3: the pages of the New York Times, the pages of
Speaker 3: you know, like people like Jon Favreau and others for
Speaker 3: what they think and continue to be told you got
Speaker 3: to give people some agency. You know, Sure, it's MSNBC's fault,
Speaker 3: but they trusted them in the first place, right, Like
Speaker 3: they're the ones who bought their stuff and decided to
Speaker 3: vote against them. So at a certain point, like, it's
Speaker 3: not MSNBC's fault. They have a bunch of people who
Speaker 3: are brainwashed enough or whatever to be able to want
Speaker 3: to listen to them.
Speaker 4: But who's doing the brainwashing here?
Speaker 2: I mean, I think you had a lot of earnest
Speaker 2: people who were deeply troubled by the threat that Trump
Speaker 2: POWs and you know, we're looking for answers, and this
Speaker 2: was the network that they, you know, had been had
Speaker 2: been sort of primed to trust and think that was
Speaker 2: not going to lead them astray. And you know, I
Speaker 2: do think that there's a moment now of reckoning among
Speaker 2: that liberal base, which is fleeing MSNBC in droves, which
Speaker 2: has lost a lot of trust in The Washington Post
Speaker 2: is another place that saw a huge subscriber exodus. You
Speaker 2: see a huge search in a lot of like left
Speaker 2: populace and my husband's in particular online where I think
Speaker 2: there are a lot of liberal refugees who were like
Speaker 2: this did not work, Like this line that we were
Speaker 2: fed about how we had to abandon caring about any
Speaker 2: issues in order to defeat Trump, Like this was bullshit.
Speaker 4: This failed, and.
Speaker 2: We were led astray, and we were lied to when
Speaker 2: we were manipulated. So there is an opening there. Now
Speaker 2: I have been very upfront about I think it's much
Speaker 2: more likely the Democratic Party just does like a trum
Speaker 2: trump Ism light, that they pull a Bill Clinton that
Speaker 2: they you know, sort of rather than having a direct
Speaker 2: rebuttal to trump Ism. Instead they go in the direction
Speaker 2: of will just like be a a kinder, gentler version
Speaker 2: of that. I think that's the most likely outcome, But
Speaker 2: there is a possibility here that didn't exist before.
Speaker 4: Another thing that.
Speaker 2: I would say is, you know, it would be a
Speaker 2: mistake to think that these political coalitions, and this is
Speaker 2: the mistake Democrats made in the past, are immovable and
Speaker 2: unchangeable and locked into place. There is a lot of
Speaker 2: I think one thing we've learned is people are continually adjusting, evaluating,
Speaker 2: shifting loyalties, even in this election, Like you know, it's
Speaker 2: not like Trump. Trump didn't even get fifty percent of
Speaker 2: the vote, and plenty of swing state Democrats did win.
Speaker 2: You saw candidates who outperformed like Cherry Brown. He loses,
Speaker 2: but he outperformed the top that take it by twelve points.
Speaker 2: You see candidates who are able to stitch together a
Speaker 2: somewhat different coalition hold on to more of that historic
Speaker 2: Democratic working class base. So well, I wouldn't treat people
Speaker 2: as like, well, they're just this is how they are
Speaker 2: now and that's it, and the coalitions are never going
Speaker 2: to change again, because that obviously over some period of
Speaker 2: time is not.
Speaker 4: Going to be the case.
Speaker 3: My theory is that if Democrats win, it will have
Speaker 3: nothing to do with Democrats in the next two to
Speaker 3: four years because of what's.
Speaker 1: What's the shit that's happening right now?
Speaker 3: A governments shut down, you try and cut social Security?
Speaker 1: Okay, okay.
Speaker 3: In twenty eighteen, do you think that the twenty eighteen
Speaker 3: Democratic victories were because of Democrats or because of Trump's
Speaker 3: trying to repeal Obamacare.
Speaker 1: I think it's because of Obamacare.
Speaker 3: I don't think I had a damn thing to do
Speaker 3: with the Democratic Party, And I think here.
Speaker 2: I think twenty twenty, I would say the same thing.
Speaker 2: I don't think that Joe Biden's victory had anything to
Speaker 2: do with you. It was look at it, it was
Speaker 2: because people didn't hate him. Then they felt fondly towards him.
Speaker 2: Even now I think they feel more fondly towards him
Speaker 2: than it's.
Speaker 1: Really justify, which is the lowest of all time.
Speaker 2: But he you know, I think he is able to
Speaker 2: barely egan a win because of Trump's faults. I think
Speaker 2: you're one hundred percent correct about that. But yeah, look,
Speaker 2: Elon is like running the government now. He's in a
Speaker 2: already minded like you know, iin Randy and hobbyer Malay
Speaker 2: type who wants to slash social services. So they go
Speaker 2: in that direction. And there's tons of ambient chaos, and
Speaker 2: the Middle East is still a disaster, all of these
Speaker 2: things going on in the world, and you know, you
Speaker 2: could imagine Democrats running like a union leader, like a
Speaker 2: Sean Fain. And if Trump has sort of abandoned his
Speaker 2: pledges on leaving social Security in place, leaving me to
Speaker 2: karaen place, he has not created the you know, the
Speaker 2: utopia that he promised to people. Yeah, you could see
Speaker 2: those coalitions shifting again. It's not impossible to imagine again.
Speaker 2: I think it's an uphill climb, and I think you're right.
Speaker 2: Probably a Democratic success is most likely to come just
Speaker 2: because Trump is a disaster.
Speaker 4: But nothing is written in stone. You never know that.
Speaker 2: You have seen some interesting people like David Brooks and
Speaker 2: others be like, you know, maybe Bernie Sanders had a boy.
Speaker 3: I just think it's too late at this point, but
Speaker 3: I listen, you know it could be wrong. What do
Speaker 3: you mean it's to though it's too late, you can't
Speaker 3: abandon and all of that. Like, these people are just
Speaker 3: Republicans in terms, not even Republicans.
Speaker 2: But anti lest That just is like, that's just to
Speaker 2: me as foolhardy a statement, as when Democrats said, these
Speaker 2: people are just they voted for baracka problem, They're just Democrats. Now,
Speaker 2: young people are always going to be Democrats. Latinos are
Speaker 2: just going to continue to fall more and more into
Speaker 2: the Democratic camp. Black people are always going to vote
Speaker 2: like close to one hundred percent for Democrats.
Speaker 4: People change their minds.
Speaker 1: No, I'm talking about time.
Speaker 4: And Trump is a very unique figure too.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: What I mean by that is a time horizon picture.
Speaker 3: So I think are we talking about twelve years or
Speaker 3: talking about four years? I would say in the next
Speaker 3: four years, I would say they're pretty solidly Republicans. So
Speaker 3: the so called Reagan Democrats, right, the Reagan Democrats who
Speaker 3: eventually then voted for Bill Clinton twelve years ago. Yeah,
Speaker 3: it takes a while, but you know, with the Obama people.
Speaker 1: It took eight years.
Speaker 3: It took twelve years actually for some of these people
Speaker 3: to flip around. I'm not saying they're set in stone,
Speaker 3: but I don't think they're rapidly going to shift right
Speaker 3: back esthetically, especially with where the Democratic Party is today.
Speaker 3: So do I think that all of them are going
Speaker 3: to rapidly shift their vote in four years. No, I
Speaker 3: don't think so, especially the so called ro Coalition and
Speaker 3: all of that. They have too much, there's too much appeal,
Speaker 3: there's too much lack of institutional trust that just doesn't
Speaker 3: mesh with where Democrats are. I mean, there's still the Institute,
Speaker 3: the Party of Institutions, still the Party of the New
Speaker 3: York Times and all those others. Yes, they can turn
Speaker 3: off MSNBC. I think they'll be back. They always are.
Speaker 3: I think that they'll come back to some bullshit Russia
Speaker 3: Gate or whatever. Immigration will be a great test. Will
Speaker 3: Wilson will right back to AOC crying at the gates
Speaker 3: and all these other things. So I predict that actually
Speaker 3: that will make people more hardened, especially when the next
Speaker 3: media reaction is But I could be totally wrong. You know,
Speaker 3: you could have the other so called asteroid austerity and
Speaker 3: all these other folks. But you know THEO Vaughn. Look,
Speaker 3: he may say he likes Bernie, he loves RFK Junior.
Speaker 3: You know, he's the first person who has.
Speaker 2: Rump on anti system, yes politicians, right, yeah, And I
Speaker 2: mean the other thing is Trump is assuming that they
Speaker 2: don't try to pull some whatever, is not going to
Speaker 2: be running again.
Speaker 4: And I do think he is this sort.
Speaker 2: Of very unique figure and there is no proven ability
Speaker 2: in this way.
Speaker 4: He is like Obama.
Speaker 2: There is no proven track record of another Republican really
Speaker 2: being able to position themselves the way that he has.
Speaker 2: So you know, whoever runs next, very likely JD is
Speaker 2: going to be coming off of this sort of who
Speaker 2: knows how the next four years is going to go,
Speaker 2: but probably people are going to be dissatisfied because people
Speaker 2: are really dissatisfied, and you're going to have to own
Speaker 2: that you're going to be in the position of having
Speaker 2: to defend an unpopular four years of administration. Now you are
Speaker 2: going to be the system pro system politician. And so yeah,
Speaker 2: if Democrats want to not just be able to coast
Speaker 2: off of Okay, those guys are unpopular now, if they
Speaker 2: want to be able to actually win and hold on
Speaker 2: to power and build durable and sustainable majorities, they're going
Speaker 2: to have to do something different.
Speaker 4: Am I particularly hopeful they're going to do that.
Speaker 2: No, but there is an opening, there's a possibility, and
Speaker 2: at least some people in the party are grappled with that.
Speaker 2: And I think most importantly, large chunks of the Democratic
Speaker 2: base have been shaken out of this view that they've
Speaker 2: just got to line up behind Pete or Kamala or
Speaker 2: Gavin or whoever the hell they line up and tell
Speaker 2: them next is like, you must vote for this person
Speaker 2: because that's.
Speaker 4: The only way to win.
Speaker 2: I don't think the most hopeful thing is that the
Speaker 2: MSNBC's of the world are never going to have the
Speaker 2: power over the Democratic base that they did in twenty
Speaker 2: sixteen and in twenty twenty. And that's the only thing
Speaker 2: that really creates like a different possibility, a different outcome.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I still think the Pete syop is strong.
Speaker 3: I don't like saying that, but I think that the
Speaker 3: Pete the Buddhaje edge sy op. Imagine his Senate run
Speaker 3: in two years. You could see it, you know. Can
Speaker 3: you see in Michigan he's already working. Him and Chastin
Speaker 3: have moved there, allegedly for childcare purposes. I think we
Speaker 3: all know that that's fake. It's a nice swing state.
Speaker 3: He can get the veneer of a swing state politician.
Speaker 3: He's got what was that place where he raised money
Speaker 3: in California, Cave.
Speaker 1: Wine Cave Pete he never left.
Speaker 2: Oh, it's very like, don't get me wrong, very possible.
Speaker 2: I love like him, We love on Fox News and whatever.
Speaker 4: So maybe, and he's making the rounds.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure if you've seen this breakfast club. He's
Speaker 3: everywhere right now. Yeah, tell you're talking about Actually, here's
Speaker 3: why he was the greatest transportation secretary in history. As
Speaker 3: we all have sky high airfare and all this other
Speaker 3: bullshit that we have to deal with.
Speaker 2: Listen, I think that is most the most likely outcome.
Speaker 2: I don't deny that some Pete Gavin whoever is the
Speaker 2: next Democratic nominee, that is the most likely outcome. But
Speaker 2: but the fact that you don't have that iron grip
Speaker 2: of the liberal institutions helps create a little bit of possibility.
Speaker 3: Hopefully in Shalla as they were saying, Okay, everybody, thank
Speaker 3: you so much for watching our last show of the year.
Speaker 3: We love you guys so much. Merry Christmas, Happy holidays.
Speaker 3: I guess, well, maybe we'll be around if there's something crazy.
Speaker 1: Crazy breaking, and I'm going to keep my eye out.
Speaker 2: We'll keep our eyes with the government shutdown, in particular,
Speaker 2: I'll be around more so than you so I can
Speaker 2: some updates.
Speaker 4: You guys will have to put up with me.
Speaker 1: I'm on strict orders. I'm on strict orders.
Speaker 2: We also don't want to give our producers and our team,
Speaker 2: you know, break, and so we're going to try to,
Speaker 2: you know, just lay off the concept. But that doesn't
Speaker 2: mean there's gotten not going to be anything that is posting.
Speaker 2: I'm actually gonna have a conversation with Matt Burning today
Speaker 2: that's going to go up on the channel about healthcare
Speaker 2: that should be was name checked in this very show.
Speaker 3: About that well thing will tell me to send me
Speaker 3: that post because I can't, okay.
Speaker 4: So we'll have that up.
Speaker 2: But then also we've put together some of the segments
Speaker 2: and crazy moments throughound the year that you guys responded
Speaker 2: most to, and we've done a little you know, some
Speaker 2: introductions to those, and it's just a crazy When we
Speaker 2: were recording, it was a crazy trip down memory lane,
Speaker 2: like the Biden drop down and the RFK brainworms and
Speaker 2: all of these wild things that unfolded. So that will
Speaker 2: also be going up on the channel, so you can
Speaker 2: do a little trip down memory lane.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 3: Well, have best of segments and a few others. Special
Speaker 3: thank you to our crew, to Mac, to Griffin, to
Speaker 3: everybody back there control room.
Speaker 1: It makes just all this stuff work.
Speaker 3: Steve, our audio man genius who baked these cookies, to
Speaker 3: the graphics team, to all of the other people who
Speaker 3: work on this show, but perhaps most importantly to our
Speaker 3: premium subscribers, who literally we could not do any of
Speaker 3: this stuff without. We love you guys so much. You
Speaker 3: guys have helped us build this incredible thing. It's gonna
Speaker 3: be a great year. I'm really excited already. Today we
Speaker 3: get to the whole show about CRS and policy, I mean,
Speaker 3: this is this is really what I think makes this
Speaker 3: show tick and gives it a lot of strength in
Speaker 3: the next couple of years, which I think will be
Speaker 3: really interesting.
Speaker 1: So we will see you all in the new year.
Speaker 3: Maybe some interim updates or whatever in the future, but
Speaker 3: excited for this, and please enjoy your time with families
Speaker 3: and off and others, and we'll see you later.
Speaker 4: Indeed, happy holidays everybody, see you in the new year.