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.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 2: Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have an amazing show
Speaker 2: for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal, indeed we do.
Speaker 1: Tomorrow is the big debate Donald Trump versus Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: much again anticipated I'm excited about it.
Speaker 4: We're gonna be here.
Speaker 1: I'll give you the whole schedule, rundown, whatever. But in
Speaker 1: the show today we are going to be previewing that debate,
Speaker 1: their strategy, what we know about their prep go through
Speaker 1: some of the best and worst moments from their debates
Speaker 1: and interviews of the past, so we can do our
Speaker 1: best to predict how this might all go down.
Speaker 4: We've also got a new New York Times pull out.
Speaker 1: As of yesterday that is causing quite a bit of consternation.
Speaker 1: A lot of interesting numbers there, so we'll dig into
Speaker 1: that as well.
Speaker 4: Some big endorsements coming in for.
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris, Liz Cheney and her father Dick Cheney. So
Speaker 1: war criminals for Harris, let's go. Tim Poole is telling
Speaker 1: his side of the story about this whole getting accidentally
Speaker 1: paid by Russians, so that's kind of interesting. As he's speaking,
Speaker 1: He's also he was on Bet Shapiro's program interrupted by
Speaker 1: an ad for Israel, so a lot to say about
Speaker 1: that one speaking of Israel, some horrific news coming out
Speaker 1: of that region. Israel's now murdered an American citizen in
Speaker 1: the West Bank.
Speaker 4: Of course, the way that the US.
Speaker 1: Biden administration has responded to that versus the American hostage
Speaker 1: she was killed, you know, wildly different reactions there. We
Speaker 1: also have more reporting about how the Hannibal directive was
Speaker 1: initiated on October seventh, and specifically the scope of that
Speaker 1: directive and how many people may have been killed Israeli
Speaker 1: citizens killed themselves by the IDF. We're also going to
Speaker 1: have Rocana in studio also helping to preview the debate,
Speaker 1: his sense of where the horse race is and want
Speaker 1: to get his reaction to the failures of the Biden
Speaker 1: Harris administration with regard to Israel. So a lot to
Speaker 1: get into this morning.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's exciting. Now before we get to that, just
Speaker 2: a little bit of a preview of tomorrow. We will
Speaker 2: be live all four of us with the Counterpoints team
Speaker 2: here at the desk before and after the debate. We
Speaker 2: also will be continuing what we did in Chicago, where
Speaker 2: will be taking questions live from our premium subscribers on
Speaker 2: locals during the stream. So if you want to become
Speaker 2: a premium subscriber, you can become Breakingpoints dot com and
Speaker 2: that is part of the exclusive AMAS that we offer
Speaker 2: to our premium subscribers, So make sure that you go
Speaker 2: ahead and subscribe so you get access to that, otherwise
Speaker 2: you're going to miss out. And genuinely was one of
Speaker 2: the most fun parts of our show in Chicago. So
Speaker 2: that was really Oh yeah, for sure.
Speaker 1: No, this is I mean, we'll get into it a
Speaker 1: little bit more in this block. But this debate could
Speaker 1: be extremely consequential. Yes, this race could not be.
Speaker 2: This being more consequential than the last one. Is that
Speaker 2: even humanly, I don't think that's possible. I need more
Speaker 2: stakes here to get me hyped up. Yes, indeed, But
Speaker 2: with all of that, there you go Breakingpoints dot Com.
Speaker 2: Become a subscriber, participate in our exclusive AMAS.
Speaker 3: Okay, let's go.
Speaker 2: Ahead with the debate and preview a little bit of
Speaker 2: what we can possibly expect from tomorrow night. So there's
Speaker 2: a lot that Kamala Harris wants to recreate. There's a
Speaker 2: lot that she perhaps wants to avoid. First and foremost,
Speaker 2: for Kamala, arguably her best debate moment of all time
Speaker 2: was funnily enough against her current president Joe Biden, who
Speaker 2: she serves as the Vice president too, with the classic
Speaker 2: that Little Girl Was Me.
Speaker 3: It had all the hallmarks of a good Kamala moment.
Speaker 2: It was highly scripted, it was prepared, but it did
Speaker 2: land and it certainly it took off at the time.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 5: We've also heard and I'm going to now direct this
Speaker 5: at Vice President Biden. I do not believe you are
Speaker 5: a racist, and I agree with you when you commit
Speaker 5: yourself to the importance of finding common ground. But I
Speaker 5: also believe and it's personal and it was actually very
Speaker 5: it was hurtful to hear you talk about the repute
Speaker 5: of two United States senators who built their reputations and
Speaker 5: career on the segregation of race in this country. And
Speaker 5: it was not only that, but you also worked with
Speaker 5: them to a post bussing And you know, there was
Speaker 5: a little girl in California who was part of the
Speaker 5: second class to integrate her public schools, and she was
Speaker 5: bussed to school every day. And that little girl was me.
Speaker 3: So that was by far her best debate moment.
Speaker 2: And look, you know, you can look back with different
Speaker 2: colored glasses. At the time, it actually did hit Biden.
Speaker 3: It was a huge media moment. Number one.
Speaker 2: She sold a ton of merchandise with that little girl
Speaker 2: was me. They had it all planned out, t shirts, mugs, etc.
Speaker 2: And she had a temporary polling bump. Now you know,
Speaker 2: obviously all collapsed after the Tulsi Gabbert moment only a
Speaker 2: single debate later. But we should remember that she can
Speaker 2: be effective when she wants to be, which at being
Speaker 2: highly script This is another where the rules of this
Speaker 2: debate may benefit her, even though she fought against that,
Speaker 2: because Trump's mike will be muted while Kamala is speaking,
Speaker 2: meaning that a scripted moment hit and or answer. Maybe
Speaker 2: one that she'll be able to deliver effectively.
Speaker 3: That's her best case scenario for her.
Speaker 1: This that's a good point. That's a good point. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's worth recalling. You know, she shot up to her
Speaker 1: highest numbers that she hit in the primary after that debate.
Speaker 1: And it actually wasn't just that moment. I remember doing
Speaker 1: the analysis with you. I was actually down in Atlanta
Speaker 1: that debate feels like it was maybe Atlanta.
Speaker 4: Anyway, lifetime, like four love times ago.
Speaker 1: Anyway, she was really good that debate, you know, the
Speaker 1: whole debate, she was on it. That was by far
Speaker 1: her best performance. I remember afterwards saying she won the debate,
Speaker 1: she was the most effective. And part of the reason
Speaker 1: why is because she at that point going into it,
Speaker 1: she wasn't one of the frontwers. She was a media favorite,
Speaker 1: but she wasn't one of the front runners, and so
Speaker 1: most of the fire from the other candidates was trained
Speaker 1: at other campaigns, at Bernie and Biden in particular, so
Speaker 1: she really sort of escaped a lot of scrutiny. So
Speaker 1: she was able to control her moments and pick her spots.
Speaker 1: That's what made her so effective. And you know that
Speaker 1: did land at the time and she was able to
Speaker 1: make something of it. You know, there's a little bit
Speaker 1: of deja vous here because we're right now living through
Speaker 1: and we'll talk more about this pulling section Kamala being
Speaker 1: gifted a lot of momentum and kind of squandering it,
Speaker 1: and that's kind of what happened out of that little
Speaker 1: Girl was Me moment debate moment. She got a lot
Speaker 1: of momentum. The media loved her, and I remember watching
Speaker 1: her the very next morning on maybe the Today Show,
Speaker 1: one of the morning shows, and it felt like a
Speaker 1: different person. She was not able to follow up that
Speaker 1: moment with a compelling narrative about herself with a sort
Speaker 1: of energetic response. It felt like she retreated after that
Speaker 1: moment back into her shell, which again is sort of
Speaker 1: what we're living through right now in terms of how
Speaker 1: she she's approaching this campaign. But it is a reminder
Speaker 1: that you know, when she is prepared, and all indications
Speaker 1: are that, you know, the reporting from New York Times,
Speaker 1: She's been holed up in a Pittsburgh hotel. They actually
Speaker 1: brought in someone to like wear a Trumpian suit and
Speaker 1: do method acting to be to really try to capture
Speaker 1: Trump's persona and how he might approach this debate. So
Speaker 1: it certainly seems like she's taking this seriously, like she's
Speaker 1: doing a lot of prep and when she does that,
Speaker 1: she can be affected.
Speaker 3: She can be that's right.
Speaker 2: We are going to give you the other side of
Speaker 2: the coin, where she had basically a month as a
Speaker 2: candidate to prepare, and in that classic CNN interview, even
Speaker 2: with frankly the most layup question of all time, like
Speaker 2: many people don't know why you've changed your mind? Why
Speaker 2: have you changed your mind on some things, she still
Speaker 2: has not given a good response now currently really the
Speaker 2: only interview that she's even participated in, and why she
Speaker 2: has flip flopped on so many of the positions that
Speaker 2: she's taken in the past. Here she was in the
Speaker 2: recent Sienna interview with Dana Bash nineteen.
Speaker 6: You said, quote, there is no question I'm in favor
Speaker 6: of banning fracking. Fracking, as you know, is a pretty
Speaker 6: big issue, particularly in your must win state of Pennsylvania.
Speaker 4: Do you still want to ban fracking?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 5: And I made that clear on the debate station in
Speaker 5: twenty twenty.
Speaker 6: In twenty nineteen, I believe at a town hall you
Speaker 6: said you were asked, would you commit to implementing a
Speaker 6: federal ban on fracking on your first day in office,
Speaker 6: and you said, there's no question I'm in favor of
Speaker 6: banning fracking. So yes, So it changed in that campaign.
Speaker 5: In twenty twenty I may very clear where I stand.
Speaker 5: We are in twenty twenty four, and I've not changed
Speaker 5: that position, nor will I going forward. I kept my
Speaker 5: word and I will keep my word.
Speaker 6: What made you change that position at the time.
Speaker 5: Well, let's be clear, my values have not changed. I
Speaker 5: believe it is very important that we take seriously what
Speaker 5: we must do to guard against what is a clear
Speaker 5: crisis in terms of the climate.
Speaker 6: Was there some policy or scientific data that you saw
Speaker 6: that you said, oh, okay, I get it now.
Speaker 5: What I have seen is that we can we can grow,
Speaker 5: and we can increase a thriving clean energy economy without
Speaker 5: banning fracking.
Speaker 2: What it's like, My values have not changed, and I
Speaker 2: think we might hear well, it depends on Trump. It
Speaker 2: really depends on the tactic Key is going to take.
Speaker 2: And we're going to talk a lot about this. On
Speaker 2: the polling part of the problem. On the flip flopping
Speaker 2: for Kamala is I think it has sunk in on
Speaker 2: two levels. One is people either believe, as we saw
Speaker 2: in our word clouds, that she is incompetent or worse,
Speaker 2: they just have no idea what she believes. And if
Speaker 2: you planting the seed with Trump, if he can just
Speaker 2: bring up several instances of changing their mind. On top
Speaker 2: of if the moderators do a decent enough job of
Speaker 2: bringing up some past positions America, which will really pay
Speaker 2: attention very closely to Kamala for the first time tomorrow night.
Speaker 2: It's a high stakes moment where she needs to have
Speaker 2: a way better answer and quote just repeating my values
Speaker 2: have not changed on a loop, it's not going to
Speaker 2: satisfy them in public at this time.
Speaker 1: So I read that interview question a little bit different
Speaker 1: from you.
Speaker 4: I don't I think her answer is about as good,
Speaker 4: Like what are you going to say?
Speaker 3: Oh, yeah, but that's true, that's not problem.
Speaker 4: It's like, yeah, you have she's got a reality issue.
Speaker 4: What the honest answer is?
Speaker 1: Well, then I was running in a dumb prout, a primery,
Speaker 1: and I thought that was the best thing for me
Speaker 1: to say, was that. And now I'm in a different position,
Speaker 1: and so I mean, you can't say that, right that,
Speaker 1: So you can't be honest, So what's the best thing
Speaker 1: you can say. When I was covering her this interview
Speaker 1: with Ryan, he was like, yeah, her values haven't changed.
Speaker 1: She wanted to be president then and she wants to
Speaker 1: be president now. You can't exactly say that, so so yeah,
Speaker 1: this is this is a problem for her now. On
Speaker 1: the other hand, obviously Trump changes position like eighty five
Speaker 1: times on abortion in the past two weeks. So it's
Speaker 1: not like he's been consistent. But for some reason, I
Speaker 1: think because of his style, because he says all these
Speaker 1: wild things that are like, you know, weird and crazy
Speaker 1: and unpopular or whatever. The wishy wash you flip flop
Speaker 1: brand just doesn't stick to him in quite the same way.
Speaker 4: And this is a legitimate hit on Kama, like she
Speaker 4: doesn't really believe anything.
Speaker 1: She never has demonstrated that she has a consistent principle.
Speaker 1: And it's the problem that so many Democrats get into
Speaker 1: where they're so overly cautious and focused tested that rather
Speaker 1: than illustrating to Americans that they're going to like, you know,
Speaker 1: compromise and do things that are broadly popular, instead it
Speaker 1: demonstrates to Americans that, like, they don't really have a core.
Speaker 1: They're not going to fight for anything. They're sort of
Speaker 1: unprincipled and you can't rely on them. And that's that's
Speaker 1: the hole that Kama has fallen into, I think at
Speaker 1: this point. So, yeah, it was a she came in,
Speaker 1: she prepared for that interview, she knew she was going
Speaker 1: to get that question. That was the answer she planned
Speaker 1: to give. It's not that great an answer, but what
Speaker 1: else are you going to say?
Speaker 3: I think that's all.
Speaker 2: She's a really good point, you know, But the problem is,
Speaker 2: I come back to one of the things I loved
Speaker 2: most about the Trump twenty sixteen campaign is when they
Speaker 2: were like, why did you demo? Donate to Demo? He's like,
Speaker 2: I was playing the system. They're like, why didn't you
Speaker 2: pay my taxess? Like, you're an idiot if you're rich
Speaker 2: and you pay your taxes. There was a level of
Speaker 2: honesty to that where for some reason that really resonated
Speaker 2: with a lot of people.
Speaker 4: She should just be like, I'm telling people what they
Speaker 4: want to hear.
Speaker 2: In a certain sense, I think she should be like, look,
Speaker 2: it was twenty nineteen. We had a lot of beliefs.
Speaker 2: A lot has changed. The person next to me is
Speaker 2: a fundamental threat to my country. I'm doing everything possible
Speaker 2: in order to win. I for real, Like in the
Speaker 2: way that Quentin Tarantino just said, sometimes it's just about
Speaker 2: winning some sort of cold calculus like that and a
Speaker 2: genuine honesty from a politician who we know to just
Speaker 2: be changing her answers based upon the moment, that might
Speaker 2: be enough to actually satisfy and to quell it, because
Speaker 2: it's not like Trump is not guilty of the exact
Speaker 2: same thing.
Speaker 1: Well, I think so my suggestion for perhaps what would
Speaker 1: be closer to the truth, because that's I mean, that's
Speaker 1: what you're getting at, is like, you know, an answer
Speaker 1: that was.
Speaker 4: Closer to the truth would probably land better.
Speaker 1: And there's a way you can frame pandering as a positive,
Speaker 1: like listen, I'm responsive to where the American people are
Speaker 1: on their issue and so yes, when I was running then,
Speaker 1: you know, the American people were in a different place,
Speaker 1: and I've as Vice president, I've listened to them, I've
Speaker 1: heard their concerns. I've been in those rooms where the
Speaker 1: decisions have made. And as a result of that and
Speaker 1: as a result of you know, the American people shifting
Speaker 1: on what they would like to see, I have also
Speaker 1: shifted because I'm responsive to the people.
Speaker 4: Blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: That's a way to like put a positive spin on pandering.
Speaker 1: I guess that perhaps would be I don't think it's
Speaker 1: a bad things there.
Speaker 2: You're running it against Trump. Trump, so he wants a
Speaker 2: band bitcoin nice pro bitcoin? Why because the big point
Speaker 2: people gave him a lot of money. Yeah, that's basically
Speaker 2: what he said.
Speaker 3: He goes, Yeah, these people have a hell of a
Speaker 3: lot of money. It's interesting, you know. That's listen.
Speaker 2: That's firstly, one of the things I appreciate about Trump
Speaker 2: because at the very least, when he's telling you the
Speaker 2: truth genuinely is sometimes about his own motivations. Let's get
Speaker 2: to Donald Trump then, in terms of his best and
Speaker 2: worst debate moments, he has had several variations of debate
Speaker 2: and one of the positives around Trump is we have
Speaker 2: seen him not lately in a debate, but over the
Speaker 2: years participate in many GOP presidential debates. Now, what is
Speaker 2: it five presidential debates, three against Hillary Clinton, two against
Speaker 2: Joe Biden. Arguably some of his best debate performance has
Speaker 2: happened in twenty sixteen against Hillary, the most famous one
Speaker 2: being you'd be in jail when litigating the email scandal.
Speaker 7: Let's take a listen, can fact check him, fact check,
Speaker 7: fact check him in real time. Last time, at the
Speaker 7: first debate, we had millions of people fact checking, so
Speaker 7: I expect we'll have millions more fact checking because you
Speaker 7: know it is it's just awfully good that someone with
Speaker 7: the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of
Speaker 7: the law in our country.
Speaker 2: Because you'd be in jail.
Speaker 4: Secretary Clinton.
Speaker 8: We want to remind the audience to please not.
Speaker 3: Talk out loud. Please do not applaud You're just wasting.
Speaker 2: Time God Anderson sports circuiting.
Speaker 3: I mean, look, it was a great moment. It was
Speaker 3: what it lived on. It was everywhere virality.
Speaker 2: Clearly she didn't know what to do, and in a
Speaker 2: certain sense, like that's really.
Speaker 3: What you want out of a presidential debate.
Speaker 2: I mean, like I've said it before, and you know,
Speaker 2: very famously before the most consequential debate of American history.
Speaker 3: Debates generally don't matter. This one.
Speaker 2: I am going to change my tune on this just
Speaker 2: because Kama is unknown and the more recent polling from
Speaker 2: the New York Times was actually very validating in a
Speaker 2: sense that I always have to put my faith in people.
Speaker 3: You know, sometimes you shouldn't.
Speaker 2: But when you look at that and you say, you know,
Speaker 2: the twenty five percent or whatever of undecided voters or like,
Speaker 2: I don't know what this lady stands for, they are
Speaker 2: paying attention. These are people who are typically engaged. They're
Speaker 2: not rotting their brains all the time. They actually are
Speaker 2: thinking about things, and they're saying, Okay, what does this
Speaker 2: lady believe? That is very important for Donald Trump in
Speaker 2: that moment. What he revealed about Hillary is he hit
Speaker 2: her with both the fundamental one of this woman corrupt,
Speaker 2: this woman believes nothing. That was a core feeling to Americans.
Speaker 2: So what he was going to try and capture in
Speaker 2: this debate, I think looking at all of this would
Speaker 2: be instead of talking about himself, his biggest problem is
Speaker 2: look at this woman, she believes absolutely nothing and putting
Speaker 2: that on her and possibly shorting her, having her short circuit.
Speaker 2: That would be his best possible outcome from tomorrow night.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Trump's best moments, really, they all are from twenty sixteens,
Speaker 1: which raises the question of whether he still has that
Speaker 1: in him or not, Because we honestly haven't haven't seen
Speaker 1: I mean he Look, he has far more debate experience.
Speaker 4: Than Kamala does.
Speaker 1: He did you know he did all those twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: Republican primary debates, he did all those debates with Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: he did the one debate with Joe Biden. He's had
Speaker 1: more reps with regards to debates. He's better on his feet,
Speaker 1: you know. I mean that moment there with Hillary is
Speaker 1: not something you can prepare for. You just have to
Speaker 1: be like reactive in the moment. And he is a showman.
Speaker 1: He is on his feet, or at least he was.
Speaker 1: And you know, we focused a lot, understandably on Biden's decline,
Speaker 1: and by the way, we about to show you some
Speaker 1: clips from Biden, like not that long ago and Biden
Speaker 1: in that most recent debate that are just shocking in
Speaker 1: terms of his level of decline.
Speaker 3: But we were.
Speaker 1: Watching we'll probably break play this in our debate preview tomorrow.
Speaker 1: We're watching him getting this basic question about childcare last
Speaker 1: week and it just was a disaster. There wasn't a
Speaker 1: single coherent sentence that he was able to articulate. And
Speaker 1: so I listen, this is an older guy too, who
Speaker 1: you know, doesn't.
Speaker 4: Exactly have a healthy lifestyle.
Speaker 1: And it's worth asking too whether he still has that
Speaker 1: level of twenty sixteen performance in him as well. So
Speaker 1: to me, that's one of the big questions is whether
Speaker 1: there's always high expectations for Trump coming into a debate,
Speaker 1: because that's was his thing, right, that was how everybody
Speaker 1: came to you know, the Republicans came to fall in
Speaker 1: love with him. That was how he's able to defeat
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton was these dominant debates moments, and we just
Speaker 1: haven't really seen any of those in quite a long time.
Speaker 1: So he goes in with very high expectations, and you know,
Speaker 1: it's a real question whether he can meet the moment.
Speaker 1: And it's also he may have his advisors wanted the
Speaker 1: mics to be muted. I you know, I'm sort of
Speaker 1: annoyed with fixating on these rules, but it does matter.
Speaker 4: They wanted the mics to be muted.
Speaker 1: That is a safe strategy for him because it kind
Speaker 1: of keeps him on the rails. However, his best moment
Speaker 1: like that, no one would have heard it if the
Speaker 1: mic had been muted in between answers because she was
Speaker 1: still speaking.
Speaker 3: That was my point the first time around.
Speaker 2: It ended up being incredibly consequential only because it kept
Speaker 2: him out of the conversation while Biden hung himself.
Speaker 3: But my assumption going into that.
Speaker 2: Was Biden was going to deliver some sort of C
Speaker 2: plus performance, and in a C plus world where look,
Speaker 2: I mean, what's the best possible expectation for Kamala like
Speaker 2: a bee right, something like that, we're realistically given what
Speaker 2: we know about her, especially in live unscripted moments. Well,
Speaker 2: for Trump, the inability to butt in, I do think
Speaker 2: really does hurt him now. And I mean the reason
Speaker 2: why is because of his worst debate performance, which was
Speaker 2: the very first one, arguably you know, his most consequential,
Speaker 2: because that ended up being the defining image of Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: Going into the twenty twenty election, we.
Speaker 2: Had all of the COVID craziness going on, including him
Speaker 2: in self contracting COVID, possibly having COVID the first time around,
Speaker 2: where he'd be constantly interrupted Joe Biden multiple times in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty. Also, for those who are watching, just watch
Speaker 2: how different Joe Biden was even in twenty twenty when
Speaker 2: he was arguably showing many signs of decline already.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen to Trump.
Speaker 9: You should go out and vote.
Speaker 8: You're in voting.
Speaker 9: Now vote and let your senators know how on.
Speaker 8: How you feel.
Speaker 9: Let vote now. In fact, make sure you in fact
Speaker 9: let people know is a senator. I'm not going to
Speaker 9: answer the question because answer that because the question, the
Speaker 9: question was just rational.
Speaker 8: Left you shut upson who is on your list?
Speaker 1: Joe?
Speaker 8: This is your gentlemen.
Speaker 10: I think.
Speaker 8: We have ended the segment.
Speaker 9: We're going to move on to the second segment. That
Speaker 9: was really a productive segment, wasn't it?
Speaker 3: Keep happen?
Speaker 2: Man?
Speaker 8: The people understand Joe.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, that was by far his worst debate performance.
Speaker 2: The worst debate performance was just the interruption, the uh,
Speaker 2: the chaos, and ultimately that's I think what cost him
Speaker 2: the election. If you look at the swing that happened
Speaker 2: of voters which had been up for grabs, a lot
Speaker 2: of white suburban voters. Many of the people wanted stasis,
Speaker 2: they wanted control. That's why they voted for Joe Biden
Speaker 2: because they did not like Donald Trump. It was not
Speaker 2: an affirmative vote for Joe Biden. So if Trump comes
Speaker 2: a cost as quote unquote unlikable, then I think that's
Speaker 2: going to be his worst one. In fact, because both
Speaker 2: candidates are relatively unpopular with their favorability ratings compared to history,
Speaker 2: not necessarily compared to modern day. You kind of want
Speaker 2: to be the negative choice in some cases in terms
Speaker 2: of being not the other person and whoever the other
Speaker 2: person does not like more considering where we are today,
Speaker 2: especially with the with who these two candidates and like
Speaker 2: who they are, that is not who Donald Trump wants
Speaker 2: to be. And in that sense, that's where the muting
Speaker 2: of the mics probably will help him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely, Yeah, absolutely, it prohibits their you know, being
Speaker 1: a performance like that, which was objectively his worst performance, right,
Speaker 1: and you know, and was judged to be so at
Speaker 1: the time. And you know, it wasn't just us saying
Speaker 1: and it was overwhelming.
Speaker 3: That watched it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you have to remember too, I mean, at
Speaker 1: that moment, there was just such fatigue from dealing with
Speaker 1: this dude for he was the president. And you remember
Speaker 1: all those crazy COVID press conferences.
Speaker 2: Just continued actually for several months leading up to that.
Speaker 2: I don't know, people remember, right around what was it, July,
Speaker 2: there was a discontinuation of those daily pressers because it became.
Speaker 3: Such a political liability.
Speaker 2: And it is funny to think back I mean basically
Speaker 2: nobody cared about what the briefing room or press conferences,
Speaker 2: you know, for almost all time and afterwards. But the
Speaker 2: ratings for those I remember planning my whole day around them.
Speaker 3: I mean, we're covering obviously, but I wasn't the only one.
Speaker 2: It was tens of millions of people had nothing better
Speaker 2: to do but to watch television.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and so there was massive Trump fatigue, and then
Speaker 1: you have that performance that just reminded people.
Speaker 4: It just emphasized for people the things they hate the
Speaker 4: most about this guy and was like.
Speaker 1: Oh, former years of this, And that's a real risk
Speaker 1: for him right now because at the moment, you know,
Speaker 1: there's some rose colored glasses going on about what his
Speaker 1: term in office was like and what the vibes were
Speaker 1: like and what that felt like for people. So to
Speaker 1: have an in your face reminder of just how exhausting
Speaker 1: having Donald Trump as president was, it could help, you know,
Speaker 1: it could help remove some of those rose color glasses.
Speaker 1: It could really help people remember why they felt like, oh,
Speaker 1: I just can't, I just can't with this guy. I
Speaker 1: just can't do another four years with him. So, you know,
Speaker 1: the mic being muted will certainly help him in that regard.
Speaker 1: But you know that's a risk for him is the
Speaker 1: more time he's in front of the public, the more
Speaker 1: they recall some of the less favorable aspects of him
Speaker 1: and why he's such a divisive figure. And why is
Speaker 1: favorability rating which is you know, I think towards its
Speaker 1: high end right now, Why it historically has remained relatively
Speaker 1: low is because he does have these personality traits that
Speaker 1: people just are not super psyched about.
Speaker 2: Yeah, his favorability rating is you know, relatively I roughly
Speaker 2: like forty six percent or so in the last gallop.
Speaker 3: Look at who he was. I mean, it's not great.
Speaker 2: It's also not bad compared to where he's been. I've
Speaker 2: seen him dip into the low thirties. As I have
Speaker 2: said multiple times, the most unpopular thing he ever did
Speaker 2: as president was past the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Speaker 2: It was the day that Tax Cuts and Jobsack passed,
Speaker 2: which was the single lowest day for the Trump presidency.
Speaker 2: Let's also though, relive, you know why Biden is no
Speaker 2: longer in the race because as we famous I famously said,
Speaker 2: I was like debate still really little mad at that match.
Speaker 2: Probably won't be that problem. Last words, it's fun being
Speaker 2: proven wrong at least makes things interesting. By the moment
Speaker 2: that we all truly understood that he was cooked, roughly
Speaker 2: ten minutes into the debate, the moment that cost him
Speaker 2: the presidency, Let's take a listen, make.
Speaker 11: Sure that all those things we need to do, childcare,
Speaker 11: elder care, making sure that we continue to suppent stems
Speaker 11: in our healthcare system, making sure that we're able to
Speaker 11: make every single solitary person eligible for what I've been
Speaker 11: able to do with the with the COVID, I just
Speaker 11: could be with dealing with everything we have to do
Speaker 11: with Look, if we finally beat medicare.
Speaker 3: Thank you President Biden.
Speaker 10: President Trump, Well, he's right, he did beat medicare, beat
Speaker 10: it to death.
Speaker 2: And it was also followed by what Trump's you know,
Speaker 2: that was another thing Trump was. He was disciplined in
Speaker 2: a way where the only time even really acknowledge how
Speaker 2: cook Biden was is he said something along the lines
Speaker 2: of He's like, I don't even know what he said.
Speaker 3: He doesn't even know what he said.
Speaker 2: But Trump was not the focus of that debate, you know,
Speaker 2: because you watched Biden.
Speaker 3: That was it.
Speaker 2: That was I think roughly five to ten minutes into
Speaker 2: the open we beat Medicare. I mean, it became probably
Speaker 2: the most famous moment, and that part of the crazy
Speaker 2: part was you go into it and you see, it
Speaker 2: was from the beginning.
Speaker 3: It wasn't that it tailed off, you know.
Speaker 2: And previously, as you and I have watched I think,
Speaker 2: you know, the State of the Union and others, he
Speaker 2: would have a strong thirty forty five things start to
Speaker 2: go down.
Speaker 3: Hour fifteen, things are bad.
Speaker 2: But with Biden, you know, sundowning started at the very beginning.
Speaker 2: He blamed a jet lag, you know, even though he'd
Speaker 2: been in the country for seven days, and we can
Speaker 2: I don't have to litigate it all roughly ancient history,
Speaker 2: but it was nuts litigated.
Speaker 3: It was truly nuts.
Speaker 2: And it does show you that when these things matter,
Speaker 2: they matter a lot, and for Comma, it definitely matters
Speaker 2: a lot more than the average presidential candidate.
Speaker 1: The other thing is that because the focus was all
Speaker 1: on Biden, because we were all just like watching this
Speaker 1: train wreck in real time, shocked and horrified by you know,
Speaker 1: even we'd been very realistic about the level of decline
Speaker 1: that Biden had experienced, but they'd hidden him so much
Speaker 1: that actually seeing it it truly was a shocking That
Speaker 1: was a shocking moment, and that was not the only
Speaker 1: one either, where you're just like Jesus Christ, what is
Speaker 1: going on here? What are we doing? And so there
Speaker 1: was no scrutiny on Trump, And if you go back
Speaker 1: and look at his it's not like he was, you know,
Speaker 1: really fantastic in this debate. He just had to like
Speaker 1: stand there and let Joe hang himself. In fact, it
Speaker 1: went too well for Trump in the end, because I'm
Speaker 1: sure he'd much rather be running against Joe Biden still
Speaker 1: at this point, which has been quite evident. So now
Speaker 1: he's going to have an opponent who is you know,
Speaker 1: much younger and much more with it than that guy was,
Speaker 1: and he will have to, you know, face some scrutiny,
Speaker 1: and he will have to deal with things that are
Speaker 1: uncomfortable for him, that are challenging for him as well
Speaker 1: thinking on his feet in real time.
Speaker 4: And you know, the bar is quite high for him.
Speaker 1: So I do think mostly people are feel about Donald
Speaker 1: Trump the way they're going to feel about Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: like a lot of he's been not just in the
Speaker 1: public eye since he was running for president. This is
Speaker 1: a man who's been a fixture of American media and
Speaker 1: television for my entire life. So it's very unlikely you're
Speaker 1: going to have a major shift in how people feel
Speaker 1: about him. The best you can hope for if you're
Speaker 1: the Democrats is like, Okay, remind people some of his
Speaker 1: less favorable traits. But it is all on the line
Speaker 1: for Kamala Harris because people are and the polling numbers
Speaker 1: we'll show you here in a minute that we've teased
Speaker 1: a few times. This really underscores people really are trying
Speaker 1: to figure out, like, Okay, who is this lady?
Speaker 4: How do I feel about her?
Speaker 1: The impressions of her, both positive and negative, they're very soft,
Speaker 1: and she could you know, she could have a stellar
Speaker 1: night where people feel like, Okay, I can see this,
Speaker 1: I feel good about it, like she's up to the task.
Speaker 1: Let's go, I like the agenda, et cetera. She could
Speaker 1: be really really knocked off, knocked off guard, knocked off balance,
Speaker 1: where it raises a lot more questions about can I
Speaker 1: see this person as commander in chief? Do I really
Speaker 1: think she's ready to elevate into the position of president
Speaker 1: of the United States? So for her, it's extraordinarily consequential
Speaker 1: and you know, it's no surprise that she's taking it
Speaker 1: as seriously as she appears to with the debate prep sessions. Trump,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, he doesn't really do traditional debate
Speaker 1: prep I guess in the way that most candidates do.
Speaker 1: Most candidates do the whole like we're going to be
Speaker 1: on stage, someone's going to play the role of my
Speaker 1: opponent or opponents. We're going to like go through it
Speaker 1: like this is the real event. Trump does more of
Speaker 1: it reportedly informal, like people are just sitting around the
Speaker 1: table kind of throwing questions at him. Kind of a
Speaker 1: deal that obviously has worked for him in the past.
Speaker 1: So it's his process, and it's not that he's not
Speaker 1: taken seriously necessarily, it's just that's.
Speaker 4: The way he approaches.
Speaker 2: If anything, I mean, the old the traditional process with
Speaker 2: Kamala is indicative of a traditional politician, where you want
Speaker 2: to be highly prepared, you want to feel comfortable. Trump
Speaker 2: is somebody who's very used In fact, probably the most
Speaker 2: comfortable when the camera is on. He's most comfortable when
Speaker 2: he's performing. So he just needs more help from the
Speaker 2: con where as opposed to Kamala and others and a
Speaker 2: lot of them are not natural performers in the same
Speaker 2: way that Donald Trump is. They need to feel immersed in.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, it's a weird thing. Being on camera
Speaker 2: is weird. Being on a stage against another person is
Speaker 2: also weird. If anybody's ever participated in a high school
Speaker 2: debate or any of these other things, it takes a
Speaker 2: couple of reps to even get use to what it's like.
Speaker 2: And even then, you know, practice is very, very different
Speaker 2: from what the real thing feels like. So for Kamala,
Speaker 2: it makes sense. Now, who's she taking advice from. Let's
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 3: Caught my eye.
Speaker 2: Hillary is offering Kamala some debate performance. She claims that
Speaker 2: she won all three debates against Donald Trump and says,
Speaker 2: quote he be rattled.
Speaker 12: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well it's like, does it matter if you quote unquote
Speaker 2: win a debate and you lose the election?
Speaker 5: Hm.
Speaker 3: Some people may wonder one of.
Speaker 1: Her quotes here, she said, when I said he was
Speaker 1: a Russian puppet, he just sputtered on stage. I think
Speaker 1: that's an example of how you get out of fact
Speaker 1: about him.
Speaker 4: That really unnerves him. Yeah, that really well, yeah, that's
Speaker 4: definitely an issue.
Speaker 2: And here's the reason why it actually is an issue.
Speaker 2: Is Philippe Rains, who was one of her closest advice, yes,
Speaker 2: who also was the person playing Trump in the debate.
Speaker 2: He is in the Kamala room prepping and helping and
Speaker 2: playing Donald Trump. So she is actually undergoing a traditional
Speaker 2: like Clintonian camp. Look, I'll tell you this on Rains,
Speaker 2: I don't know. I wouldn't take any advice from him.
Speaker 2: I'll just put it that way.
Speaker 1: Here's the thing, too, is she has she is the
Speaker 1: person responsible for making this debate as consequential as it is,
Speaker 1: because if she had done more, been less cautious, done
Speaker 1: more interviews, been out there more, then there wouldn't be
Speaker 1: so much writing on each one of these interactions. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's why the interview with Dana Bash felt like so
Speaker 1: such a big deal that you know, we had to
Speaker 1: drop a breaking to the segment and cover the whole
Speaker 1: thing and every word that she said, because she just
Speaker 1: isn't doing a lot of you know, there's no press conferences.
Speaker 1: There's been one interview, and you know, now we get
Speaker 1: to analyze this debate. But the scarcity of Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: extemporaneous discussion makes it so that every part of it
Speaker 1: is extra scrutinized and extra impactful because it's all people
Speaker 1: have to go on in terms of her ability to
Speaker 1: perform what she believes, etc. So she has herself raised
Speaker 1: the stakes here in terms of the import of this debate,
Speaker 1: which is you know, and that in the fact that
Speaker 1: this race could not possibly be closer. So even if
Speaker 1: the debate moves the needle like half a point, it
Speaker 1: could be determinated. That's where we are right.
Speaker 4: Now in this race.
Speaker 1: The other thing that was interesting just in terms of
Speaker 1: getting inside of Trump's brain and how he thinks about
Speaker 1: these things. Let's put this truth Social he put up
Speaker 1: on the screen. He's obviously thinking a lot about the
Speaker 1: optics he posted on True Social.
Speaker 4: No boxes or artificial.
Speaker 1: Lifts will be allowed to stand on during my upcoming
Speaker 1: debate with Comrade Kamala Harris. We had this out previously
Speaker 1: with former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg when he
Speaker 1: was in anit and he was not allowed a quote lift.
Speaker 1: It would be a form of cheating. The Democrats cheat enough.
Speaker 1: You are who you are, it was determined. So Kamala
Speaker 1: is relatively sure. I think she's like five foot four.
Speaker 1: Trump is what six.
Speaker 3: Two, like six' three. He's big. He's a big guy,
Speaker 3: six two and he's taller than me.
Speaker 4: So there will be quite a high disparity there.
Speaker 1: And again he's saying about the optics. I mean it
Speaker 1: is true, like, what's our shortest president ever? Look, come on,
Speaker 1: saga history buff brids.
Speaker 4: You don't know this one.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, well, it's also a difference in like
Speaker 1: the historic era versus the TV era.
Speaker 2: But in the shortest president James Madison, he was five
Speaker 2: to four. Let's see the height score Hoial Candida. The
Speaker 2: tallest president ever is Abraham Lincoln. I remember talking about
Speaker 2: this under rohnd de Sandis because I was like, oh,
Speaker 2: he's five eleven.
Speaker 4: There is where this lifts.
Speaker 3: Look if you look at the modern era we have.
Speaker 2: Let's see, in terms of the modern era, I don't
Speaker 2: believe a president has been elected since like the nineteen
Speaker 2: forties who was shorter than five ten. Now, to be fair,
Speaker 2: let's see what's average US male height.
Speaker 4: This is why women can break the glasses. We need
Speaker 4: to get like WNBA average.
Speaker 3: No, okay, but here's what's interesting.
Speaker 2: The average US male height today is five feet nine inches,
Speaker 2: whereas every president. Yeah, it looks like in the modern
Speaker 2: era has been over some five feet ten so above average.
Speaker 2: The average US female height today is five feet four inches,
Speaker 2: which is what kamma is average height.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it does feel short. I mean, that's what That's
Speaker 3: what I'm getting.
Speaker 2: I have not looked at the what like the Lancet
Speaker 2: study or any of that, but that's what's showing up from.
Speaker 1: From a little Google, little AI a little bit of answer.
Speaker 3: Oh no, that's from the CDC. Okay, so that's from
Speaker 3: the CDC.
Speaker 1: Point is he's thinking about these optics, and he's not
Speaker 1: crazy to be thinking about these because I mean, he
Speaker 1: will tower over her. And that was one of the
Speaker 1: other dynamics in that Hillary Clinton debate, as he was
Speaker 1: like looming over her in what was sort of menacing way,
Speaker 1: but it was also very like commanding, dominating kind of
Speaker 1: a way. And they're not going to it's not a
Speaker 1: town hall, so they're not gonna be wandering around in
Speaker 1: that weird way that I actually hate.
Speaker 4: With town halls.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I hate it too.
Speaker 1: But you know, he'll be a visually arresting presence certainly,
Speaker 1: And do these things matter, I don't know, but he
Speaker 1: seems to think that they do, and he does have
Speaker 1: a sense of like you know the show, that's his
Speaker 1: greatest gift.
Speaker 4: So anyway, that's some of what was not apparently.
Speaker 3: Falst president right now.
Speaker 2: Third tallest president really wow, Abraham Lincoln was an Abraham
Speaker 2: Lincoln was six feet four.
Speaker 4: So that's not that much taller than Bean Trump.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and Trump is six feet People are ready for
Speaker 1: a change candidate I want. They want a short a
Speaker 1: short woman or I guess an average height woman.
Speaker 2: Shortest president James Madison's second shortest, Benjamin Harrison, Martin van Buren,
Speaker 2: William McKinley, John Adams, John Quincy Adams. So maybe people
Speaker 2: are noticing a trend.
Speaker 3: It's been a lot.
Speaker 2: Basically when the only image you have of a president
Speaker 2: was a literal drawing portrait, that's when I didn't matter.
Speaker 2: In the photographic age, it looked like it mattered a lot.
Speaker 2: And the only way to get around it is to
Speaker 2: be one of the greatest fighting generals of all time.
Speaker 2: You listiess grant and to prove your manliness. So look,
Speaker 2: let nobody say that it doesn't matter. I will say
Speaker 2: on a personal level, you know, when you meet Bill
Speaker 2: Clinton or Donald Trump or even Obama and all this.
Speaker 3: They feel big. I mean Trump in.
Speaker 2: Particular, he's huge, like he actually gigantic and feels that way.
Speaker 2: I remember Clinton feeling very similarly, and actually Clinton's sixty
Speaker 2: two and a half, but he's large like kind of
Speaker 2: in stature, and so there is look, don't like.
Speaker 3: Anybody anyway, there's nothing mean.
Speaker 2: Yeah, true, a very very very good point. He's McDonald's
Speaker 2: to be alive.
Speaker 1: One thing that I do think is my last last lot.
Speaker 1: And then we can move on to the poles and
Speaker 1: again why this is so consequential because the poles are
Speaker 1: so tight. I do think that in terms of the
Speaker 1: expectations setting game, Kamala Harris benefits from relatively low expectations
Speaker 1: for her. I think for Trump, there's you know, perpetually
Speaker 1: very high expectations for him because he did so make
Speaker 1: his name in the political arena in those twenty sixteen debates.
Speaker 1: So I do think that that's an asset she has
Speaker 1: going into this.
Speaker 4: And then there's also the.
Speaker 1: Fact that you know that, like most of the media
Speaker 1: outside of the Fox News and the conservative ecosystem, they're
Speaker 1: going to want to see a positive from her, and
Speaker 1: perhaps people are also going to be somewhat measuring her
Speaker 1: versus the last.
Speaker 4: Guy who literally had to drop out of the race.
Speaker 1: Because the debate performance was so poor last time around.
Speaker 1: So I think that's a you know, that's a benefit
Speaker 1: for her going in that she kind of has won
Speaker 1: the expectations game going into this debate.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think, I don't know if i'd have to
Speaker 2: think because if we think about expectations, though, yeah, we're
Speaker 2: about to get polls, isn't it a lot higher because
Speaker 2: Americans do feel like, especially undecided voters, feel like they
Speaker 2: don't know a lot about her, so the expectations are
Speaker 2: actually quite high and that they want some clarity.
Speaker 3: That would be my only like kind of.
Speaker 1: And the narrative, my thought is the narrative about her
Speaker 1: is like that she is this very cautious, nervous politician
Speaker 1: who's kind of bad in this in these situations versus
Speaker 1: so the bar I'm talking about the bar being relatively
Speaker 1: low for her in terms of if she's able to
Speaker 1: deliver a relatively confident, commanding performance against a guy who
Speaker 1: you know, is deemed one of the best political debaters
Speaker 1: we've seen, then she will have significantly outperformed expectations.
Speaker 2: For that's fair, and you know, with Trump, I think
Speaker 2: what the risk is is that he just hasn't done
Speaker 2: a lot of these in a long time. And his
Speaker 2: as you said, he's one of the best political debaters
Speaker 2: that we've seen in the modern era.
Speaker 3: His ability to capture the spotlight.
Speaker 2: So he's measured up against himself from almost eight years ago.
Speaker 2: Actually I think literally eight years ago right at this point.
Speaker 2: I mean, think about that on the first as well.
Speaker 2: Do you want to be measured against who you were
Speaker 2: eight years ago?
Speaker 1: That's a long time well, especially when you're at that
Speaker 1: point in her life, you know, on that particular trajectory.
Speaker 3: So all r why don't.
Speaker 1: We'll see just a reminder, we are going to do
Speaker 1: live debate coverage with Ryan and Emily will jump on
Speaker 1: the stream about an hour beforehand to do a little
Speaker 1: preview and mix it up there, do our expectations, et cetera,
Speaker 1: and then we'll cover the debate afterwards as well, So
Speaker 1: make sure to join us here.
Speaker 4: We'll be taking questions from.
Speaker 1: Premium subscribers, so subscribe so you can ask this questions
Speaker 1: or whatever.
Speaker 4: Let's go ahead and get to the polls.
Speaker 1: This was big names from the New York Times put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen. This is considered like an
Speaker 1: A plus poster. When this pole comes down, Washington really reacts,
Speaker 1: and boy did they react to this one. Understandably so
Speaker 1: because it showed significant backsliding for Kamal Harris. She is
Speaker 1: now losing to Donald Trump by a single point forty
Speaker 1: seven to forty eight. That is within the margin of
Speaker 1: error of three percentage points, but obviously not the kind
Speaker 1: of numbers that Democrats want to see right now. Their
Speaker 1: commentary here, they say, mister Trump may have had a
Speaker 1: rough month following the president's President Biden's departure and amid
Speaker 1: the burst of excitement that Miss Harris brought Democrats, but
Speaker 1: the polls suggest his support remains remarkably resilient. Let's put
Speaker 1: the next piece up on the screen. This is what
Speaker 1: we alluded to like eighty five times in the last segment,
Speaker 1: which is they asked this question, very good question to ask,
Speaker 1: do you feel like you still need to learn more
Speaker 1: about Kamala Harris or do you pretty much already know
Speaker 1: what you need to know? Twenty eight percent, so nearly
Speaker 1: a third of the electorate says I feel like I
Speaker 1: need to learn more about Kamala Harris. Versus seventy one
Speaker 1: percent who say they pretty much already know what they
Speaker 1: need to know. The numbers were much lower for Trump
Speaker 1: in terms of like feeling like they needed to learn more.
Speaker 1: And if you look at these cross stabs, which let
Speaker 1: me just keep it up on the screen here for
Speaker 1: a moment, just caution you with the cross stabs. Because
Speaker 1: it's a smaller sample, it's a much broader margin of error,
Speaker 1: So you always take these with even more grains of
Speaker 1: the salt than the overall poll numbers. But the age
Speaker 1: demographic and the demographic that really stands out in terms
Speaker 1: of needing to know more is young Americans eighteen to
Speaker 1: twenty nine, a majority fifty three percent say they need
Speaker 1: to learn more. And then if you look at minority demographics,
Speaker 1: forty one percent of Black Americans, forty three percent of
Speaker 1: Hispanic Americans, and forty four percent of non white, non
Speaker 1: college educated voters say they need to know more. This
Speaker 1: underscores the danger of the strategy that they have been pursuing,
Speaker 1: which has been we'll call it the generic Democrat strategy
Speaker 1: of like we're going to say as little as possible,
Speaker 1: We're not even they just put the issues page up
Speaker 1: on their website. Under pressure, she did give you a
Speaker 1: speech about some of the things she wanted to do,
Speaker 1: but she has been very cautious in terms of, you know,
Speaker 1: going putting herself out in front of the media. They
Speaker 1: haven't been leaning in hard to specifics in terms of
Speaker 1: an agenda, and so you end up in this situation
Speaker 1: where instead of being Barack Obama, where everybody projects on
Speaker 1: you whatever they want to see, instead they're looking at
Speaker 1: her and going, I don't really know who you are
Speaker 1: what you want to do, So you know, this is
Speaker 1: this is the risk of the strategy she's pursuing. And
Speaker 1: the last number I'll note here and then Saga gets
Speaker 1: your take, about two thirds of those who want to
Speaker 1: know more said they were eager to learn about her
Speaker 1: policies specifically, which is someone who cares a lot about
Speaker 1: those policies and thinks, by the way that the things
Speaker 1: that she's announced are by and large good and very
Speaker 1: popular policies. You know, to me, it is very validating
Speaker 1: of she should be leaning into these populous economic pieces
Speaker 1: that she you know that Tim Wallas is really fantastic
Speaker 1: about talking about. And then she sort of lashed onto
Speaker 1: here in the early days of this campaign, Well, she.
Speaker 2: Has a big problem of people don't know who she is,
Speaker 2: and people, I mean in a certain sense, like who
Speaker 2: is she to her own self?
Speaker 3: It's just a survivor, it's a politician.
Speaker 2: So when you don't believe a lot of these things,
Speaker 2: or even if you don't believe anything, it's very difficult
Speaker 2: to project that onto people, which is where her past
Speaker 2: flip flops matter a lot. We talked about some of
Speaker 2: the strategy where it looks let's also put B three
Speaker 2: pleas up on the screen because this also, to me,
Speaker 2: really underscores I mean, I've said this, America's an incredibly
Speaker 2: divided place, and we are divided, especially on certain issues.
Speaker 2: If you look at where people fall on those and
Speaker 2: what they're feeling the most important about at the time
Speaker 2: of the ballot, it will likely determine who they vote for.
Speaker 3: I said likely. It doesn't always work them.
Speaker 2: It says, regardless of how you might vote, do you
Speaker 2: trust Kama or Trump to do a better job on
Speaker 2: each of the following issues? Abortion thirty nine percent, Trump
Speaker 2: fifty four percent Kamala, massive spread. Her best possible issue
Speaker 2: two is democracy forty five Trump fifty Kamala.
Speaker 3: That doesn't mean anything, but whatever.
Speaker 2: The economy forty two Harris fifty five Trump, I.
Speaker 3: Mean, look at that. That's a thirteen point spread.
Speaker 2: It's nearly as big as the spread between Trump and
Speaker 2: Kamala on abortion, and it shows the huge strength for
Speaker 2: Donald Trump and one that has historically been a major
Speaker 2: predictor of success. Finally, on immigration, there's a ten point
Speaker 2: spread fifty three percent Trump, forty three percent Kamala Harris.
Speaker 2: So if it is an economy immigration electionist I've said
Speaker 2: Trump is going to win. If it's an abortion democracy election,
Speaker 2: it looks like Kamala is going to win. And on
Speaker 2: those issues specifically, it's not only where they're the most divided.
Speaker 2: I think it's also where there is the most genuine contrast,
Speaker 2: and so leaning into that on the debate stage, I
Speaker 2: think you will see quite a bit also whenever we
Speaker 2: see looking at a lot of democratic messaging. Returning though
Speaker 2: to the beginning of this Trump and Harris neck and
Speaker 2: neck after summer upheaval, there is quite a lot to
Speaker 2: think about it. I mean, first and foremost is forty
Speaker 2: eight percent amongst likely voters versus Akamo's forty seven is
Speaker 2: kind of extraordinary because it shows a Trump narrow lead,
Speaker 2: and if you have a narrow lead in a likely
Speaker 2: voter screen for a national level.
Speaker 3: You're cooked.
Speaker 2: If this is accurate, because Kamala could win up to
Speaker 2: two percent of the popular vote and lose the electoral
Speaker 2: college in a massive landslide. She needs some three point
Speaker 2: five percent advantage in the national popular vote to be
Speaker 2: very very competitive. So if we look at that and
Speaker 2: then we consider how type things are in the swing states,
Speaker 2: I don't think we have had. I mean, we'll talk
Speaker 2: to about this with Harry Enton clip. But this is
Speaker 2: genuinely one of the closest presidential elections of all time,
Speaker 2: and people then need to say that the stakes for
Speaker 2: every individual decision is just titanic.
Speaker 1: That's so true. Yeah, that's so true. Another part of
Speaker 1: this poll that was interesting. And by the way, the
Speaker 1: economy number is some other polls have shown her being
Speaker 1: very close with Trump on the economy.
Speaker 4: So, you know, which is accurate? Has she had.
Speaker 1: Those sentiments shifted away from her as she has failed
Speaker 1: to really, you know, clearly and consistently articulate what her
Speaker 1: economic vision is because again the things like if you
Speaker 1: pull the things she's talking about, the price cap on
Speaker 1: you know, on groceries and the assistance for homeowners, all
Speaker 1: these things that cap you know, reducing prescription drug costs.
Speaker 1: All of these things are very popular, talking like seventy
Speaker 1: five eighty percent popular. But you know, it's not enough
Speaker 1: to do one speech and that's it. You have to
Speaker 1: be leaning into that really persuade people that know, this
Speaker 1: is my agenda, this is what I'm going to fight for.
Speaker 1: To me, we played some of that Dana Bash interviewed previously.
Speaker 1: Her biggest with in that interview, in my opinion, is
Speaker 1: when the very first question is what is your day
Speaker 1: one agenda, and you don't have a.
Speaker 4: List of three things ready to go right there now.
Speaker 1: When Dana asks her again, then she comes up with
Speaker 1: a few child tax cred and a few other things. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's great, but you should know top three. Hammer those
Speaker 1: home every single day so that people feel like, Okay,
Speaker 1: this is your agenda. I know what you stand for,
Speaker 1: I know what you're going to fight for, and I
Speaker 1: can I can plan accordingly or just accordingly, or vote accordingly.
Speaker 1: The other piece that was a big problem for her here,
Speaker 1: which again is a shift from some of the other
Speaker 1: polling that we've seen, is first of all, they asked,
Speaker 1: do you want to see a lot of change, a
Speaker 1: little change, or no real change from the Biden administration,
Speaker 1: And overwhelmingly voters were.
Speaker 4: Like a lot of change.
Speaker 1: Then they asked, do you think that Kamala Harris represents
Speaker 1: a lot of change, a little change, homage change at
Speaker 1: all from the Biden administration? And people are much more
Speaker 1: likely to say that Donald Trump represents a major change
Speaker 1: and so and Kamala Harris does not. So again, now
Speaker 1: that may seem, you know, straightforward, because she's as vice president,
Speaker 1: but that is not what the polls were reflecting previously.
Speaker 1: Because she came in and she's this, you know, relatively
Speaker 1: fresh face and younger and different identity and came in
Speaker 1: with all this energy, et cetera. They're actually she was
Speaker 1: winning that this is the change candidate sentiment. And I
Speaker 1: do think this is a change election. So, you know,
Speaker 1: that also emphasizes the fact that she needs to find
Speaker 1: some ways to really more clearly distance herself from Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: I might suggest her approach approach to the genocide in
Speaker 1: Gaza personally would be a great place to create some
Speaker 1: arms length distance between yourself and the incredibly unpopular and
Speaker 1: disastrous policy of.
Speaker 4: The current administration.
Speaker 1: But if she wants and she needs to reclaim that
Speaker 1: mantle as the change candidate, she's got to do some
Speaker 1: work to convince voters that she is going to deliver
Speaker 1: for them in a way that they do not feel
Speaker 1: to Joe.
Speaker 2: Biden, there's a lot of noisiness. So previously she'd looked
Speaker 2: at his change. But it's also possible that that may
Speaker 2: never have actually, that may have been incorrect, And then
Speaker 2: if you look at a high quality poll afterwards, people
Speaker 2: are like, no, I never felt that way.
Speaker 4: I mean.
Speaker 2: The other problem is, and I agree completely about distancing
Speaker 2: from Biden. I mean, I'm seeing here, you know, lead
Speaker 2: story in the New York Times this morning they say
Speaker 2: Harris's debate challenge pushing ahead without leaving Biden behind.
Speaker 3: The problem is that not leave him behind exactly, And
Speaker 3: I'm like, no, you should leave him behind.
Speaker 2: And in fact, know, if we look at previous vice
Speaker 2: presidents who have run while the current person isn't while
Speaker 2: their current president is in office, all of them confront
Speaker 2: this challenge. Al Gore had a massive problem with am
Speaker 2: I Bill Clinton's successor or not? He ended up leaving
Speaker 2: Clinton behind, which was a mistake if you look in retrospect, Yes,
Speaker 2: Clinton had some sixty five percent approval rating. Clinton took
Speaker 2: it very personally, but al Gore was like, no, I've
Speaker 2: been your number two for eight years.
Speaker 3: It's about me now.
Speaker 2: Didn't end up working out, obviously, Then let's think about
Speaker 2: if we look at previous ones. Obviously LBJ was a
Speaker 2: little bit different because JFK was assassinated while he was
Speaker 2: in office, but a big part of that was I'm
Speaker 2: continuing the candidate legacy. The lesson, though, is that in
Speaker 2: those instances where a vice president is running like George H. W.
Speaker 2: Bush as well, where Reagan was relatively popular as he
Speaker 2: was coming out, it's about continuing their legacy. This is
Speaker 2: a very very different election where the current president is
Speaker 2: massively unpopular, and in fact, the best possible thing she
Speaker 2: could do for herself electorally is to say we are
Speaker 2: moving on. I respect Joe Biden, but I am my
Speaker 2: own person and there are many different things that I
Speaker 2: would have done differently in office, and I would have
Speaker 2: no problem saying this to his face. Well that's sure
Speaker 2: or not, you know whatever. But the point is that
Speaker 2: it's very clear if only twenty what was it twenty
Speaker 2: five percent, we're saying that they saw her as a
Speaker 2: change candidate, whereas they said some fifty three percent said
Speaker 2: Trump is a change candidate. Then when Americans want change,
Speaker 2: as they very often do, as they did with Biden
Speaker 2: from Trump, as they did from Trump to Obama, as
Speaker 2: they did from Obama to Bush, as they did with
Speaker 2: Bush to Clinton, and then previously from Clinton to Bush,
Speaker 2: there's clearly a lesson about what that looks like. So
Speaker 2: she needs to run as far away from him as possible.
Speaker 2: But that's very difficult when the Biden staff is running
Speaker 2: your campaign, right when the Biden staff, when you have
Speaker 2: to live here in Washington next to Joe Biden, when
Speaker 2: you know, the Biden people are so angry that they
Speaker 2: were pushed out, as we saw with Anita Dunn, you know,
Speaker 2: the advisor. And so this is very very difficult position
Speaker 2: for her to be in, and in fact, it may
Speaker 2: end up costing her the election.
Speaker 1: The Biden team part, I think is really critical because
Speaker 1: I mean they were running a disastrous, delusional campaign with
Speaker 1: Joe Biden at the helm and it was kind of
Speaker 1: incredible to watch when Kamala comes in and is, you know,
Speaker 1: the new nominee. Their initial rollout I think anyone have
Speaker 1: to say was fantastic. The level of excitement, enthusiasm, which
Speaker 1: she still benefits fromwing, the number of new donors and
Speaker 1: volunteers and all that stuff was through the roof. And
Speaker 1: now they're falling back into this very very cautious, you know,
Speaker 1: head in the sand, you know, like complacent Biden esque strategy.
Speaker 1: And she can't afford that. You know, this isn't you
Speaker 1: aren't in a position where you can just or sort
Speaker 1: of play prevent defense and hope for the best. So
Speaker 1: you know, when you see some head scratching decision making
Speaker 1: out of them, it is worth remembering that these are
Speaker 1: the same people who were up until the bitter end,
Speaker 1: claiming that Biden was on track to win and delusional
Speaker 1: about the polling and making poor decisions there as well.
Speaker 1: So I think that's a very important point. Let's go
Speaker 1: and put the next polls up on the screen that
Speaker 1: we have some battleground pulling from CBS News and you Gov.
Speaker 4: I think this is also you know, highly rated Polster.
Speaker 1: It's tied basically, I mean in Michigan, she has a
Speaker 1: one point lead. In Pennsylvania, they're literally tied. In Wisconsin,
Speaker 1: she's got a two point lead, but all within the
Speaker 1: margin of error. So you can look at the industrial
Speaker 1: Midwestern these three states, and according to this poll.
Speaker 4: It's tied. You know, it really is.
Speaker 1: If these poles are accurate, it is as close a
Speaker 1: race as it literally possibly could be. And Harry anton
Speaker 1: Over at CNN made this point in a pretty pretty
Speaker 1: like it landed the way.
Speaker 3: He made this voint.
Speaker 1: Yes, a historic way. It really landed the way he
Speaker 1: made this point. Let's ahead and take a listen to
Speaker 1: what Harry anton had to say.
Speaker 12: Most of the time, there's at least some stretch where
Speaker 12: one of the candidates is had by at least five points,
Speaker 12: at least three weeks in which one candidate led by
Speaker 12: at least five points. That happened in every single campaign
Speaker 12: from nineteen sixty four to twenty twenty. How many days
Speaker 12: have we had this campaign where one candidate was ahead
Speaker 12: by at least five points nationally? Look at this zero
Speaker 12: zero days.
Speaker 3: Zero days.
Speaker 12: The fact that this race has been consistently tight in
Speaker 12: a way that we have never seen before. Mister Burma,
Speaker 12: look at the twenty twenty final margin an average across
Speaker 12: these seven states. It was Biden plus nine zero point
Speaker 12: nine points. You don't think that could get any closer.
Speaker 12: We can, in fact get closer. Look right now, Kamala
Speaker 12: Harris up. But get this by just zero point six
Speaker 12: points on average, only about half a point six tenths
Speaker 12: of a point. My goodness, gracious, Let's just say we
Speaker 12: move the current polls and let's say the result difference
Speaker 12: by them by a single percentage point, and Donald Trump
Speaker 12: is the beneficiary of it.
Speaker 3: Look at this.
Speaker 12: If Trump outperforms his current polls by just a single point,
Speaker 12: you take that Kamala Harris win, and look at this,
Speaker 12: Donald Trump gets two hundred and eighty seven electoral votes.
Speaker 12: Because the bottom line is Pennsylvania would flip up pier
Speaker 12: and you would also get this flip out in Nevada
Speaker 12: over here. And that, my friends, is what we're talking about.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Oh, and that's like a red wave scenario.
Speaker 1: A single point you shift the polls a single point,
Speaker 1: and you were looking at a totally different map. Because yeah,
Speaker 1: if you look at Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, effectively
Speaker 1: a Nevada, every single one of them is right there
Speaker 1: in the margin of error. So one point neither direction,
Speaker 1: totally different amount.
Speaker 2: And I mean look to consider Nate Silver right now
Speaker 2: with a big picture. This was his last forecast that
Speaker 2: just came out I think two days ago. He has
Speaker 2: trumpet a sixty three percent chance of winning the electoral College,
Speaker 2: which is extraordinary.
Speaker 3: And a lot of that is because of polling.
Speaker 2: This was prior to the New York Times poll, by
Speaker 2: the way, but already, as he said after it came out,
Speaker 2: he goes, I actually factored a lot of this in
Speaker 2: because post convention, the tie scenario and increasingly the point
Speaker 2: six margin, that is not going to be enough. But
Speaker 2: as you just said, if it's off by just one,
Speaker 2: that means that Harris currently with a thirty six percent
Speaker 2: roughly in the same scenario that Trump was going into
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen.
Speaker 3: So you need to think about that as well.
Speaker 2: Where a polling miss can deliver you the presidency. I'm
Speaker 2: just in my head, I'm just purely a fifty to fifty,
Speaker 2: pure pure coin toss. Yeah, I think that the major
Speaker 2: flagship stuff is going to matter so much the debates.
Speaker 2: We are only going to have to the short, short
Speaker 2: presidential run. Whether Kama continues to do interviews and then
Speaker 2: unforced errors has always happened on top of major news events,
Speaker 2: and actually things are so close that a major news
Speaker 2: event could swing the entire election quite literally, a war.
Speaker 4: Or classic October supportsic octo seration.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, no, I think that's where especially because we
Speaker 1: really there's not much we could say about the polls
Speaker 1: and whether they're right, wrong, which direction, whatever it really is.
Speaker 1: That's also a coin flip, whether you know the Okay,
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty they understated Trump support, in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: they overstated Republican support. Did they fix the problems from
Speaker 1: those years? Did they need to fix the point response biased?
Speaker 3: You?
Speaker 1: Literally no one knows. It's a total guessing game. So
Speaker 1: what we can say is, if the polls are truly accurate,
Speaker 1: it is as close as it could possibly be. And
Speaker 1: that's where we are headed into what is you know,
Speaker 1: I think by any definition historically consequential debate. Could it
Speaker 1: be as consequential as actually pushing the Cannon out of
Speaker 1: the race. I don't know about that, but it could
Speaker 1: end up being quite determinative, even if the shift is
Speaker 1: only by a tiny margin, because those the margins we're
Speaker 1: talking about.
Speaker 2: At the same time, there's been a major endorsement in
Speaker 2: American politics. The Cheney family is decided to come out
Speaker 2: and to support Kamala Harris. Here's Liz Cheney, the scion
Speaker 2: on which one was this ABC's This Week, talking about
Speaker 2: why she's decided to endorse Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3: Let's take a.
Speaker 13: Listen, bottom one, Why did you make this decision to
Speaker 13: support Harris?
Speaker 8: And why did you do it now?
Speaker 14: Yeah, you know, I've been voting for forty years. My
Speaker 14: first vote I ever cast was for Ronald Reagan in
Speaker 14: nineteen eighty four. I've never voted for a Democrat. Wow,
Speaker 14: And it tells you I think the stakes in this election.
Speaker 14: You know, Donald Trump presents a challenge and a threat
Speaker 14: fundamentally to the Republic. We see it on a daily basis,
Speaker 14: somebody who was willing to use violence in order to
Speaker 14: attempt to seize power, to stay in power. If you
Speaker 14: have many Republicans out there who are saying, well, you know,
Speaker 14: we're not going to vote for him, but we will
Speaker 14: we will write someone else in. And I think that
Speaker 14: this time around that's not enough, that it's important to
Speaker 14: actually cast a vote for Vice President Harris.
Speaker 2: That's right, It is not enough, and in fact, that
Speaker 2: was followed up by her father a statement from him.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there on the screen. Former Vice
Speaker 2: President Cheney issued the following statement. In our nation's two
Speaker 2: hundred and forty eight year history, there has never been
Speaker 2: an individual who is a greater threat to our republic
Speaker 2: than Donald Trump. He tried to steal the last election
Speaker 2: using lies and violence to keep himself in power after
Speaker 2: the voter's rejected him. He can never be trusted with
Speaker 2: power again. Citizens, we have a duty to put our
Speaker 2: country above partisanship to defend our constitution. That is why
Speaker 2: I'll be casting my vote for Vice President Kamala Harris. So,
Speaker 2: the Cheney family is in Crystal and has been met
Speaker 2: overwhelmingly positively by many people.
Speaker 3: We will preview one of those.
Speaker 2: But yeah, what's your reaction here to to the Cheney family,
Speaker 2: As you said, war criminals discuss. Yeah, there are white
Speaker 2: dudes for Harris, there were black women for Harris, and
Speaker 2: now there are works.
Speaker 4: Were criminals for Harris.
Speaker 1: I guess the problem that Dick Cheney had with Trump's
Speaker 1: attempted coup is that, unlike Cheney's own efforts to steal
Speaker 1: the election, which were successful, in two thousand, Trump was
Speaker 1: unable to get the job done, So you know, he's
Speaker 1: a loser in their regard. He can't even successfully steal
Speaker 1: an election as they did.
Speaker 3: It's so cartoon the most cynical, disgusting people.
Speaker 1: Well, I do think that there's something to like to
Speaker 1: what I just said, which is Dick Cheney has no
Speaker 1: problem with stealing an election, but they need it done
Speaker 1: in like the more decorous way, the.
Speaker 2: Service of what they believe in, you know, in service
Speaker 2: stuff like Trump VI is it.
Speaker 1: Trump believes a lot of the same things they believe,
Speaker 1: if we're being honest about it. But you know, it
Speaker 1: has a lot to do also with some of the
Speaker 1: operators in the Republican Party, Like it's not the Cheney
Speaker 1: Bush Republican Party anymore, even though again the ideology is
Speaker 1: not that different. Like Trump's biggest accomplishment was this big
Speaker 1: tax cupt for the rich. Guess what, that's what you know?
Speaker 1: That was one of Bush's hallmarks as well. But the
Speaker 1: personnel have changed and so he no longer has that like,
Speaker 1: you know, power within the party that he once did.
Speaker 1: I think it's grotesque that Democrats accept this that they
Speaker 1: I think it's foolish that they think it's a benefit
Speaker 1: to them like this. Even now, even after George W.
Speaker 1: Bush's reputation has wrongly been significantly rehabbed, Dick Cheney's really
Speaker 1: hasn't been. Like people don't like this guy. I don't
Speaker 1: know why you think that this is a benefit. I
Speaker 1: think Liz Chenie's like a little bit different because she's
Speaker 1: not her father, and you know, so you can't hang
Speaker 1: all the crimes of him on her, even though I
Speaker 1: find her foreign policy and worldview to be also extremely odious.
Speaker 4: But I can.
Speaker 1: Imagine some people who are college educated former Republicans who
Speaker 1: might look at that as kind of an indicator, like, okay,
Speaker 1: you know, even list Cheney is saying, I listen, guys,
Speaker 1: we got to vote for Kamala Harris. But even that,
Speaker 1: it's not like she's that powerful of a national figure.
Speaker 1: It's not like there's a big Liz Cheney constituency out there.
Speaker 4: So I don't know.
Speaker 1: In the same way, it was perplexing to me that
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign thought it was like some and I'm
Speaker 1: not putting them on the same level, but that it
Speaker 1: was some great cup to get RFK Junior. When I'm
Speaker 1: looking going this is not a popular person. I feel
Speaker 1: the same thing about Dick Cheney, just on a political level.
Speaker 1: Not only is it morally grotesque that you would want
Speaker 1: the support of this man, but I don't know what
Speaker 1: he brings to the table other than, you know, an
Speaker 1: unwanted news cycle about how horrific he was. Your association
Speaker 1: with him is not negative?
Speaker 3: Face people forgotten? I mean, I don't know. I mean
Speaker 3: that's another problem too for me.
Speaker 2: It's like I could recite the crimes of Cheney and Bush,
Speaker 2: you know, off the top of my head easily. You
Speaker 2: could wake me up at two am in the morning
Speaker 2: and I could do that. But maybe people have moved on.
Speaker 2: It's been quite a long time. But if I think
Speaker 2: about what it philosophically all and this is another important point.
Speaker 2: In that same interview, John Carl was like, have you
Speaker 2: changed any of the things that you believe? And she
Speaker 2: was like no, So like, her positions have not changed,
Speaker 2: her ideology has not changed. I'm absolutely willing about that
Speaker 2: about Dick Cheney as well. They support Kamala Heart is
Speaker 2: that you know something that you can distinguish not really
Speaker 2: Now does Trump support some of the same things, yes,
Speaker 2: but on foreign policy, especially previously on the Iraq war,
Speaker 2: which both of them still support. Let's be very clear
Speaker 2: about that. There was a major break and it was
Speaker 2: actually funny because I think what it all comes back
Speaker 2: to is Trump's destruction of the Jeb Bush campaign and
Speaker 2: ultimately destruction of the Bush political dynasty, which what you
Speaker 2: were just saying was there was a machinery involved where
Speaker 2: the Bush mafia in Texas was still incredibly powerful up
Speaker 2: until twenty sixteen.
Speaker 3: But with both George P.
Speaker 2: Bush, Jeb Bush's son, losing in Texas, as well as
Speaker 2: Jeb Bush and eventually his entire political ouster, all of
Speaker 2: the people who backed him, none of them eventually succeeded
Speaker 2: in a dysantis administration that is fundamentally maybe one of
Speaker 2: the best.
Speaker 3: Things Trump ever did for this country.
Speaker 2: So for Cheney, you know, for them, that was something
Speaker 2: that they are deeply attached to on an ideological level.
Speaker 2: But also if you look at what these people worship
Speaker 2: more than anything, neo conservatism and the quote unquote rules
Speaker 2: based international order, I mean, Kamala is not far away
Speaker 2: from them on the issue that they probably care the
Speaker 2: absolute most about, which is Ukraine. So there is a
Speaker 2: lot of ideological consistency on their core objective, on their worldview,
Speaker 2: and then on Israel too. If we think about it,
Speaker 2: and if we put those together on top of this
Speaker 2: like quote unquote democracy worship, and it's not a lot
Speaker 2: of difference.
Speaker 1: I think it's much more personal than ideologically. Michael Tracy
Speaker 1: I think made the case really well. I'll just read
Speaker 1: from some of what he said. He is like neocons
Speaker 1: have in no way been purged from the Trump rap.
Speaker 1: The term neocon is not even coherent descriptor of anything anymore.
Speaker 1: It's only ever used as a term of derision that
Speaker 1: means anyone with interventionist views I happened to dislike. And
Speaker 1: he says half the people who would have been called
Speaker 1: neocons a decade ago, they've just rebranded as maggot. Gives
Speaker 1: Marco Rubio as an example. Tom Cotton is an absolute,
Speaker 1: you know, dying in the wold neocon, probably the most
Speaker 1: aggressive Hawkish person. He was considered as Trump's vice president.
Speaker 1: Trump had John Bolton in his administration. Tracy goes on
Speaker 1: and says Trump's extreme pro Israel positions and extreme belicosity
Speaker 1: toward Iran exceeds what even most of the actual neocons
Speaker 1: traditionally advocated during the Bush years. Go ask Miriam Adilson
Speaker 1: whether she prefers the Trump ara goop or the Bush
Speaker 1: era gop. Maybe her spending habits will answer the question.
Speaker 1: So I don't see an ideological break. You know, it
Speaker 1: was easy to oppose the Iraq War after it was
Speaker 1: all done and dusted.
Speaker 4: Many people did.
Speaker 1: Many people who you know, supported the Iraq War for
Speaker 1: years and years and years. By the time Trump got
Speaker 1: around to saying he opposed it, they also opposed it. It
Speaker 1: was an easy position to take. So yeah, I think
Speaker 1: it's much more personal. The Jeb Bush point is a
Speaker 1: good one, you know, like they embarrassed and humiliated him,
Speaker 1: and that creates his personal beef. I think the Liz
Speaker 1: Cheney endorsement is more defensible because I think it is
Speaker 1: a defensible position to say, Listen, I disagree with Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris on any number of things, but Donald Trump literally
Speaker 1: tried to steal the election January sixth, Like, we just
Speaker 1: can't have this, so we got to vote for Kamala Harrison.
Speaker 1: Try to move past the Trump era the Dictioneney one though,
Speaker 1: again because he actually like did steal an election. It's
Speaker 1: hard to see this man as any sort of beacon
Speaker 1: or scion of as democracy. It just seems like it's
Speaker 1: more about being pissed off about it not being his
Speaker 1: party anymore, him not being the one who's behind the
Speaker 1: scenes holding the levers or having the ends, and his
Speaker 1: cadre of people around them.
Speaker 2: So, I don't know, it just bugs me too. With Cheney,
Speaker 2: it's like who did more? Listen, like, be real, who
Speaker 2: did the most damage to this country? Definitely in my
Speaker 2: lifetime are from the post let's say, the post Vietnam era.
Speaker 3: It's not even a question about Bush and Cheney. It
Speaker 3: is not a question.
Speaker 2: All of the ills that we face today have their
Speaker 2: genesis in the Bush Cheney presidency. They cost us more dollars,
Speaker 2: lives wise, international prestige, the financial crisis. I could go
Speaker 2: on forever, like they are absolutely. Bush is absolutely the
Speaker 2: worst president since FDR and in my opinion probably like
Speaker 2: second worst president of all time, only because James Buchanan
Speaker 2: was worse. And so the rehabbing of these people, especially
Speaker 2: within their own lifetimes is maddening only because they you know,
Speaker 2: it's it's one thing to rehab Nicole Wallace, although she
Speaker 2: you know should not. It is one thing to rehab
Speaker 2: Ari Fleischer. It is a whole for the Cheney, for
Speaker 2: Cheney and Dick Cheney specifically, and for George W.
Speaker 14: Bush.
Speaker 3: I just I cannot count them.
Speaker 4: So Kama is excited about it.
Speaker 1: Though apparently she got asked about this endorsement and how
Speaker 1: she feels about it.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to what she had to say,
Speaker 4: or what.
Speaker 2: Do you think.
Speaker 5: I'm actually I'm honored to have their endorsement. And I
Speaker 5: think that what they both as leaders who are well respected,
Speaker 5: are making an important statement that it's okay and it's
Speaker 5: not important to put country above party.
Speaker 4: And I'm honored to have their.
Speaker 5: Support, and I think it's an important statement right now.
Speaker 5: A lot of what I think is happening, and I
Speaker 5: was just talking with some folks here in Pittsburgh about it,
Speaker 5: is that people are exhausted about the division and the
Speaker 5: attempts to kind of divide us as Americans.
Speaker 1: She's honored heart of these respected leaders that are talk
Speaker 1: a little bit about it, because I think you're an
Speaker 1: analysis of the electoral impacts a little different. I think
Speaker 1: this is nothing but bad that look toxic, Like I
Speaker 1: just see no benefits.
Speaker 3: Okay, I would challenge it on the same RFK grounds.
Speaker 2: A lot of people who hate RFK we're not going
Speaker 2: to vote for com or for Trump or sorry, a
Speaker 2: lot of people who hate RFK, We're not going to
Speaker 2: vote for Trump anywhere. They're called Democrats. So then if
Speaker 2: you look at the only slice who's going to help
Speaker 2: him potential RFK voters, on balance, it's a net positive. Now,
Speaker 2: are there more people who are going to vote against
Speaker 2: Trump because of the RFK endorsement than who will vote
Speaker 2: for him? I don't believe so. Now same here for
Speaker 2: the Liz Cheney. Unfortunately, I live amongst these people. I
Speaker 2: was just showing you a sign for one of my neighbors.
Speaker 3: They worship them. They like Dick Cheney. A lot of
Speaker 3: these people serve in the Bush administration. Dick Cheney. If
Speaker 3: you noticed, what did that say about where the issues?
Speaker 10: It was?
Speaker 2: The statement was from McClain Virginia. These are died in
Speaker 2: the wool, filthy rich people net worth of ten million
Speaker 2: dollars or above, or aspiring members of the military industrial complex. Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: that white swing suburban demographic.
Speaker 3: They love Liz Cheney.
Speaker 2: They're obsessed with January sixth they are obsessed with the
Speaker 2: New York Times. Those people actually did or were a
Speaker 2: swing demographic in twenty twenty. So I very unfortunately do
Speaker 2: think that there's this rehabbing image and all of that
Speaker 2: that I just talked about. They view the Bush years
Speaker 2: very differently than I think you or I would, or
Speaker 2: any frankly you know thinking person would. But if you're
Speaker 2: let's also think about the experience of these folks. They
Speaker 2: became very rich over the last twenty years. Most people
Speaker 2: were my age became very poor over the last twenty years.
Speaker 2: If you are poor, you became much poorer. If you
Speaker 2: were rich, you became much richer. So your kind of
Speaker 2: heuristic on that past is very different as opposed for
Speaker 2: the actual like personal stakes of this. I think on
Speaker 2: net unfortunately is very likely a positive. There's a lot
Speaker 2: of suburban people like her.
Speaker 1: I just can't see anyone being swayed by a chance.
Speaker 1: So I just can't see anyone positive. I mean, listen,
Speaker 1: the people that you're describing in like, you know, this
Speaker 1: narrow slice of northern Virginia. I mean, they're already know
Speaker 1: who they're going to vote for. That's done. So I
Speaker 1: don't know I think that both these Chinese very much
Speaker 1: overestimate their ability to move a single vote. I just
Speaker 1: don't think anyone cares that much. And listen, there've already
Speaker 1: been so many Republicans, former Republicans who have come out
Speaker 1: against Trump. His own, I mean, his own previous cabinet
Speaker 1: members have overwhelmingly come out against him and said he
Speaker 1: shouldn't be in the White House again. And it doesn't
Speaker 1: really seem to move the needle. So I don't really
Speaker 1: expect it to change much. And I just think it's
Speaker 1: morally grotesque to rehab these people.
Speaker 4: So that's where I am with them on that one.
Speaker 2: Let's go over to the Tenant Media and the continuation
Speaker 2: of all of this. We finally, if you will recall
Speaker 2: the details which brought you all the news Thursday of
Speaker 2: this massive scandal, which basically was a shell company called
Speaker 2: Tenant Media, which was run by the YouTuber and right
Speaker 2: wing personality Lauren Chen and her husband Liam Donovan, who
Speaker 2: according allegedly according to the Department of Justice, accepted some
Speaker 2: ten million dollars on behalf of the Russian government and
Speaker 2: then deceived multiple other commentators, including Timpoole, Benny Johnson, and
Speaker 2: Dave Rubin and paying the exorbitant rates for videos to
Speaker 2: then appear on the tenant media channel. So that's kind
Speaker 2: of the general overview of that. Again, to reiterate, those
Speaker 2: commentators were deceived, according to the Department of Justice. Now
Speaker 2: since then multiple of them spoke out, it brought you
Speaker 2: their statements. One of them, Timpoole, appeared on the Ben
Speaker 2: Shapiro Show, to answer questions about this.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen to his explanation.
Speaker 15: You and I disagree, I think on some of the
Speaker 15: elements around the Ukraine War. But the idea that that's
Speaker 15: been put forth by the media is that somehow you
Speaker 15: were being paid directly by Vladimir Putin in order to
Speaker 15: express those views, and that therefore anybody who disagrees with
Speaker 15: sort of the democratic take or even the sort of
Speaker 15: moderate Republican take on this must be paid by Russia. That,
Speaker 15: of course, is an absurdity, and I think it is
Speaker 15: wrapped into a broader narrative that seems to be ramping
Speaker 15: up just in time for the election, which is that
Speaker 15: Russia's going to interfere in the election on behalf of
Speaker 15: Donald Trump.
Speaker 16: I barely even talk to Lauren, and it's kind of crazy.
Speaker 16: I've known her for a long time, so when she
Speaker 16: said that she was launching a company she had investors,
Speaker 16: I'm like, okay, I mean I hear that fifty times
Speaker 16: a year. And in the podcast space, we just heard that.
Speaker 16: I think Travis Kelsey is getting a one hundred million
Speaker 16: dollar contract. So these numbers are that's where they're at.
Speaker 16: I think people don't realize how big the podcasting space
Speaker 16: is and the revenue you generate from sponsorships and membership.
Speaker 16: And for all I knew, this was Lauren Chin. She
Speaker 16: works the Blaze. She wanted to start a company, she
Speaker 16: found investors. That was seemingly the gist of it. We
Speaker 16: only ever took money from an American corporation. The amount
Speaker 16: of money that we were offered for the show around
Speaker 16: market value for offers we had already received. We have
Speaker 16: people tweeting at me like give the money back or
Speaker 16: whatever it is, Like, dude, let me put this way.
Speaker 16: We're talking to our legal team. I can say that
Speaker 16: I just announced I've been contacted by the FBI as
Speaker 16: a victim of a potential victim in a crime. They
Speaker 16: have stated that I may have information relevant to their
Speaker 16: ongoing investigation and requested a voluntary interview.
Speaker 2: Okay, all right, there's actually we need to parse a
Speaker 2: couple of things. And that's why everybody was like everybody
Speaker 2: who was saying, this is an unbelievable amount. The reason
Speaker 2: it was an unbelievable amount is because it was an
Speaker 2: unbelievable amount per video, per the amount of work, and
Speaker 2: per the amount of views that it was getting. Now,
Speaker 2: I have no doubt that the Tempool Show, even the
Speaker 2: Culture War and all that, genuinely is a multimillion dollar property.
Speaker 2: If if and this is the big one, ads are
Speaker 2: being placed on it, and it is getting the amount
Speaker 2: of views that it is on his channel, It's very
Speaker 2: different when you're getting some eight thousand views on another channel.
Speaker 2: Also had to look at the monetization, the monetization of
Speaker 2: tenant media and all that clearly did not align with
Speaker 2: the numbers that he's talking about. So, for example, on
Speaker 2: the Travis Kelce thing, one hundred million, Yeah, that makes
Speaker 2: a lot of sense because it's an exclusive advertising deal
Speaker 2: over a long length of time and they own the
Speaker 2: exclusive right to place ads on that. That's why the
Speaker 2: Joe Rogan deal made sense. That's why they call her
Speaker 2: daddy makes sense.
Speaker 3: As well.
Speaker 2: Now if call her Daddy were to retain the rights
Speaker 2: to it, and then every once in a while Alex
Speaker 2: Cooper did some shitty video for another channel and she
Speaker 2: was getting paid one hundred million. That's actually a whole
Speaker 2: different story, right, And I think you know, anybody involved,
Speaker 2: especially I understand people were listening.
Speaker 3: They don't know all this.
Speaker 2: Obviously, we're deeply immersed in it because this is our livelihood.
Speaker 2: That is why folks like me, Crystal jank Yuger and
Speaker 2: others saw the numbers and were like, this is bullshit.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and we knew it.
Speaker 1: Immediately, the utterly proposers. Again, we looked up the numbers.
Speaker 4: Last what is it?
Speaker 1: These videos are getting like eight thousand views on matsstery.
Speaker 3: Some of them are only like twelve hundred.
Speaker 2: Now, that's pretty fair. Tim's show actually was doing some
Speaker 2: hundred k. But again, one hundred k is not a lot.
Speaker 2: Actually when it comes to the one hundred thousand, very different.
Speaker 2: If he's monetizing directly. There's premious descriptions and all that. Sure,
Speaker 2: we could maybe get to that number annually, yeah, but.
Speaker 1: That's not what Yeah, that's not what we're talking about.
Speaker 1: So even in the indictment. If you read the indictment,
Speaker 1: there's a part where I think it was Lauren chen
Speaker 1: or her husband goes to you know, Tim Poole and
Speaker 1: Dave Rubin and Benny Johnson and it's like, okay, well,
Speaker 1: what do you need to get in order to make
Speaker 1: this worth your while?
Speaker 4: And they give their number and she goes back to the.
Speaker 1: Russians and it's like, I don't think this is going
Speaker 1: to work, Like there's no way that it's worth paying
Speaker 1: this much money, and they're like, nope, we'll do it.
Speaker 1: So even in the indictment, it's like they knew that
Speaker 1: this is not economic. And then it's also you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know what Tim's specific interactions were with regard
Speaker 1: to this fake businessman and whatever, but he's also acting like, oh,
Speaker 1: we were just dealing with Lauren.
Speaker 4: We had no idea. Well, we know that there were
Speaker 4: Russians in.
Speaker 1: The producer discord, and we know that the course of
Speaker 1: the money was quite a bit of discussion. So I
Speaker 1: guess part of, you know, part of what this illustrates is, yeah,
Speaker 1: they think this kind of money floating around is no
Speaker 1: big deal because they're taking all kinds of like shady cash.
Speaker 1: There's a reason why Ben Shapiro defends him because of
Speaker 1: the amount of you know, shady ads he does, an
Speaker 1: amount of.
Speaker 4: Dollars that he gets in.
Speaker 1: Like they think that's fine and good and okay whatever,
Speaker 1: But don't call yourself independent media. You know, call yourself
Speaker 1: like it's just another version of corporate media. When you're
Speaker 1: willing to take money from any shady source that shows
Speaker 1: up and says, hey, I'll pay you a ridiculous rate,
Speaker 1: and you don't ask any questions. You just take the
Speaker 1: cash and do it. Okay, that's your prerogative. But don't
Speaker 1: go out and talk about the corruption of mainstream media.
Speaker 1: Don't pretend you're any freakin' different, because ultimately you're not.
Speaker 1: If anything, your incentives are worse because when you're the
Speaker 1: one that's actually reading the ads, like, what a ConfL
Speaker 1: of interest that is. So, yeah, we talked about the
Speaker 1: Russia Gate angle. That's definitely true that the whole reason
Speaker 1: this is coming up now is because they're like trying
Speaker 1: to revive Russiagate and whatever.
Speaker 4: But also this whole.
Speaker 1: Scheme with the you know, these two individuals using pseudonyms,
Speaker 1: inventing a fake businessman, laundering money, deceiving talent, et cetera,
Speaker 1: deceiving the audiences too, Like that should be illegal, it
Speaker 1: should be prosecuted. And then on on a like moral level,
Speaker 1: I don't really care whether it was shady Russians or
Speaker 1: shady Ukrainians, are shady random American businessman. All of it
Speaker 1: compromises your ethics and your principle if you want to
Speaker 1: hold yourself out as independent media, and this.
Speaker 4: Like uncorruptible force.
Speaker 1: So to me, that's more like, okay, I could believe
Speaker 1: you that you know you didn't know it was coming. Okay, fine,
Speaker 1: but that this is the way you do business, like
Speaker 1: you'll just take these cash and you don't really care
Speaker 1: about what it is, what they want you to do,
Speaker 1: what the strings attached star.
Speaker 4: It's not independent media.
Speaker 2: I think it's a failure of due diligence more than anything,
Speaker 2: which is again I mean I put this out on Twitter,
Speaker 2: and my immediate reaction was I said, ethics and independence
Speaker 2: actually matter more.
Speaker 3: Whenever ethics integrity matters more.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, you know their response is pharma cash
Speaker 2: goes to big business or to a corporate media, and
Speaker 2: then thus they don't you know, quote unquote tell you
Speaker 2: the truth I'm like, yeah, that's true. But if you're
Speaker 2: going to call that out, you have to hold yourself
Speaker 2: up to a higher standing, higher.
Speaker 4: Standard, right to a higher stand they hold themselves lower
Speaker 4: stand So now you're.
Speaker 2: At exactly like with the farm of People and all that,
Speaker 2: at least there's probably a negotiation between CNN's team and
Speaker 2: you know, the journalists, Like in this case, when you're
Speaker 2: an owner operator, the way that you are, you and
Speaker 2: I are, the way that Ben Shapiro is, the way
Speaker 2: the Tempool is, the way that all Dave Rubin is
Speaker 2: and all these others you are directly you know, have
Speaker 2: a both a financial stake and are and are actually
Speaker 2: negotiating the very parameters of everything that you are doing.
Speaker 2: Thus setting standards like we do here where we just
Speaker 2: say no, we don't do any ad reads keeps you
Speaker 2: from all companies. I mean, if you listen to the
Speaker 2: Ben Shapiro Show, part of the reason that they make
Speaker 2: so much money is because they will read advertising both
Speaker 2: for their own in actually think it's better to read
Speaker 2: for your own in house products as opposed to like
Speaker 2: buying gold or you know, some sketchy security system or
Speaker 2: like some fake technology or some fake like Prepper Guide,
Speaker 2: like the amount of vetting.
Speaker 3: I mean, how many times have we seen this too?
Speaker 2: I even know people like they're like, I have this
Speaker 2: great product, you can have you can know them, But
Speaker 2: then it will come out five years later it's like,
Speaker 2: oh the business was a bus or quality control was bad.
Speaker 2: You know, putting your name and your inpromtur on something
Speaker 2: is very important, and you know, especially whenever somebody is
Speaker 2: genuinely trying to bring you the news. So I just
Speaker 2: think it's a big problem that in general that this
Speaker 2: amount that for the due diligence based on this, it
Speaker 2: creates very perverse incentives. And it is clear that this
Speaker 2: did not happen in a vacuum. It happens in a
Speaker 2: bigger system, and that system it's self is a problem.
Speaker 2: So let's get to the next part, which is highlights
Speaker 2: exactly what I'm saying, because it's not about Timpoole. It
Speaker 2: is about the incentives of what all of this looks like.
Speaker 2: And here we have a commercial break during the Timpoole
Speaker 2: Show with Ben Shapiro that you will find interesting.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 16: It's frustrating to get entangled and whatever whatever it is.
Speaker 16: She's accused of being.
Speaker 15: Involved in Folks, Our friends in Israel need our help
Speaker 15: now more than ever. If you're looking for a tangible
Speaker 15: way to support the Holy Land, you need to check
Speaker 15: out artsa Box.
Speaker 3: Arta brings the essence of Israel rights your doorstep.
Speaker 15: Every three months, you receive a carefully curated collection of
Speaker 15: authentic Israeli products, a treasure trovee of handcrafted gives, beautiful artwork,
Speaker 15: delicious foods and aromatic spices and more. It's like taking
Speaker 15: a journey through the land of the Bible without even
Speaker 15: leaving your home.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I've been probably watched that Oh my god, undred times.
Speaker 1: She's in the middle his offense for like accidentally taking
Speaker 1: this money from Russians and they break for an israel assam.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, out of what you want.
Speaker 4: That's the ecosystem. But your point is spot on.
Speaker 1: That your point is absolutely spot on, and the same
Speaker 1: reason it's gross that mainstream outlets take money from pharma
Speaker 1: or from banks or whatever, and there's you know, a
Speaker 1: sense and probably a reality that impacts their coverage. And
Speaker 1: those are reasonable questions to ask and problems to raise
Speaker 1: if you're taking money from gold bugs or health supplement
Speaker 1: companies or whatever, and there's not even an illusion of
Speaker 1: an arms light distance. You're out there shilling for it directly.
Speaker 1: That's not a conflict of interest, like, of course it is.
Speaker 1: Of course, it's reasonable for people to think that that's
Speaker 1: going to impact the way you talk about these things.
Speaker 1: So to me, this just illustrates, you know, a much
Speaker 1: deeper problem in quote unquote independent media.
Speaker 4: And we really needed a new word for.
Speaker 1: It, because if you are going about your business model
Speaker 1: this way and you're just replicating and actually amplifying all
Speaker 1: of the bad incentives and conflicts of interest and corruption
Speaker 1: of mainstream media, you don't get to call yourself independent media,
Speaker 1: and you certainly don't get to like virtue signal and
Speaker 1: moralize about how superior you are and how much more
Speaker 1: noble and what are truth teller you are when you
Speaker 1: have sold out so hard for whoever whatever random shady,
Speaker 1: fake businessman happens to show up and say here's one
Speaker 1: hundred grand to do a single video that gets like
Speaker 1: ten thousand views or any advertising.
Speaker 2: I mean, just just like, how is that going to
Speaker 2: impact you? Just in the same way that CNN may
Speaker 2: feel uncomfortable criticizing an advertiser, I think that probably is
Speaker 2: is probably manifested ten times more. Whenever you're directly at
Speaker 2: reading ads for at an industry, like, for example, if
Speaker 2: you're reading ads for gold, what do you think your
Speaker 2: incentive is when you're talking about the Federal Reserve. Maybe
Speaker 2: I'm wrong, Okay, maybe, but I'm just saying, having worked
Speaker 2: in larger companies and all that, I think we've talked
Speaker 2: quite a bit about leaving the Hill and part of
Speaker 2: the financial reasons why we did so. Ethically, it is
Speaker 2: very difficult to try and tell the truth in this
Speaker 2: business whenever you are getting major pressure from different areas
Speaker 2: where money is flowing in and that will impact your
Speaker 2: overall coverage, your mindset whenever it comes into it. The
Speaker 2: only way to go above that is to have a
Speaker 2: direct premium subscription program the way that we do, and
Speaker 2: to have programmatic advertising that you are not tied to. Thus,
Speaker 2: when you criticize somebody and they happen to, you know,
Speaker 2: programmatically buy ads or something, you have no interfaces and
Speaker 2: if they pull out, you know, go ahead, There's a
Speaker 2: ten million mores that YouTube or Spotify, iHeartRadio or whatever
Speaker 2: will sell to somebody else and you have no input
Speaker 2: into that.
Speaker 3: Overall transaction.
Speaker 2: But yeah, it does mean you're going to make a
Speaker 2: lot less money, and so then you need to decide
Speaker 2: what you are in this to do.
Speaker 3: That's the last thing I'll say on that.
Speaker 1: Yes, indeed, once again we have some horrific news coming
Speaker 1: out of the Middle East.
Speaker 4: We can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: An American citizen now fatally shot murdered by the IDF
Speaker 1: in the West Bank at a protest reading from this
Speaker 1: AP article. Israeli soldiers killed an American woman demon's trading
Speaker 1: against settlements in the West Bank on Friday, according to
Speaker 1: witness who said she was shot while posing no threat
Speaker 1: to Israeli forces and during a moment of calm after
Speaker 1: clashes earlier in the afternoon. Two Palestinian doctors said twenty
Speaker 1: six year old asnore zgi Aggy of Seattle was shot
Speaker 1: in the head.
Speaker 4: The US government confirmed.
Speaker 1: Her death, did not say whether the recent graduate of
Speaker 1: the University of Washington, who was also a Turket citizen,
Speaker 1: had been shot by Israeli true so they have not
Speaker 1: accepted the many eyewitness accounts of what actually unfolded. The
Speaker 1: White House said it was quote deeply disturbed by the
Speaker 1: killing of a US citizen and called on Israel to
Speaker 1: investigate what happened. Yeah, I'm sure we all should have
Speaker 1: a lot of confidence in what's going to come out
Speaker 1: of that investigation. Also worth keeping in mind, as noted
Speaker 1: in this article, that Israel has now invaded the West Bank.
Speaker 1: They are effectively starting to turn the West Bank into Gaza,
Speaker 1: and more than six hundred and ninety Palestinians have been killed.
Speaker 1: Let's put this next piece up on the screen. A
Speaker 1: little bit about this young woman. She went to to
Speaker 1: protect Palestinian farmers from settler violence. According to a professor
Speaker 1: of hers, I know exactly what she would say right
Speaker 1: now if she were alive. She'd say, the only reason
Speaker 1: I'm in the headlines is because I have American citizenship,
Speaker 1: which I think is sadly true. We have become numb
Speaker 1: to Palestinian law. She goes on to describe her as
Speaker 1: an exceptional student and person, calling her one of the
Speaker 1: most brilliant students.
Speaker 4: That he has ever worked with.
Speaker 1: Cauld put this next piece up on the screen, just
Speaker 1: about what went down here. We've got how Retz recording that.
Speaker 1: According to three different eyewitnesses present at that protest, which
Speaker 1: is a recurring ongoing protest by the way, in the
Speaker 1: West Bank town of Beta against settlements in the area.
Speaker 1: The Israeli troops shot her for no reason and there
Speaker 1: were no.
Speaker 4: Clashes at the time.
Speaker 1: The Israeli government is trying to claim that she was
Speaker 1: throwing rocks, posing some sort of.
Speaker 4: Risk to soldiers.
Speaker 1: Multiple eyewitnesses on the scene say that is absolutely false.
Speaker 4: Quote.
Speaker 1: We thought that the demonstration was pretty much over because
Speaker 1: nothing was happening. First we heard a shot and it
Speaker 1: hit a dumpster that two volunteers were sitting behind, and
Speaker 1: then there was a shot that hit Asner in the head.
Speaker 1: The activist said she was not confronting the troops and
Speaker 1: had not been throwing stones at any point during the protest,
Speaker 1: and that at the time of the shooting it was calm.
Speaker 1: Obviously a horrific attack on an American citizen and also
Speaker 1: has shown a bright light on the disparate reaction between
Speaker 1: when Israel kills an American citizen has happened in this
Speaker 1: instance versus when Hamas kills an American citizen, as what
Speaker 1: happened horrifically with Herscheldberg Poland recently, who was an American
Speaker 1: Israeli hostage. Let's take a listen to how Tony Blinken
Speaker 1: responded to a question about this.
Speaker 13: What's your message for Americans who are concerned that you
Speaker 13: are providing military aid to a country that is killing
Speaker 13: US citizens and is there ever a point at which
Speaker 13: killing up Americans in in that region could lead to
Speaker 13: a change in US policy of weapons provision?
Speaker 10: Michael, thank you. First, I just want to understand my
Speaker 10: deepest condolences, condolences of the United States government to the
Speaker 10: family of ears Kiyaga. We deplore this tragic laws. Now,
Speaker 10: the most important thing to do is to gather the facts,
Speaker 10: and that's exactly what we're in the process of doing.
Speaker 10: And we are intensely focused on getting those facts, and
Speaker 10: any actions that we take are driven by the facts.
Speaker 10: So first things first, let's find out exactly what happened,
Speaker 10: and we will draw the necessary conclusions consequences from that.
Speaker 13: As you've heard me say many.
Speaker 10: Times before, I have no higher priority than the safety
Speaker 10: and protection of American citizens around the world.
Speaker 1: So yeah, obviously depends very much on who those people
Speaker 1: are and who they are injured by or killed by.
Speaker 1: And you know, I mean, it's a common script at
Speaker 1: this point, totally predictable, the length which is completely passive.
Speaker 1: We extend condolences, generally, we deplore this tragic loss, but
Speaker 1: there's no assignment of blame. We don't really know and
Speaker 1: then playing dumb, right, this is the thing you hear
Speaker 1: Matt Miller do at the podium every day. Well, we
Speaker 1: don't really know what happened to hint, the little girl
Speaker 1: who was murdered. We don't really know what happened to
Speaker 1: those aid workers who were killed.
Speaker 4: We're going to gather for the.
Speaker 1: Facts and we'll get back to you, or we're asking
Speaker 1: Israel to do an investigation. And that's exactly what Tony
Speaker 1: Blinkn does here. Let's gather the facts, let's not rush
Speaker 1: to judgment when obviously you already have multiple eyewitness accounts.
Speaker 1: And who else would it be that was firing on
Speaker 1: this group of protesters in the West Bank.
Speaker 2: And to be clear, the people who were there, including
Speaker 2: another Western protester, said that the shooting took place thirty
Speaker 2: minutes after protesters had dispersed, where there were no active clashes.
Speaker 2: Foreign volunteers were observing two hundred yards from the Israeli
Speaker 2: military quote, there was no justification for taking that shot.
Speaker 2: The only statement right now from the NSC is there
Speaker 2: quote deeply disturbed by their death and to ask Israel
Speaker 2: for more in and request an investigation.
Speaker 3: Into the incident.
Speaker 2: This is a citizen of the United States who was
Speaker 2: there protesting Jewish settlement, allegedly aligned with US foreign policy
Speaker 2: and the State Department, not only US foreign policy of
Speaker 2: this administration, the US foreign policy of every administration since
Speaker 2: what at.
Speaker 3: Very least George W. Bush. So what does that tell us?
Speaker 2: It's very clear that there is a massive exception here
Speaker 2: when a US citizen is killed by the IDF. Would
Speaker 2: we accept this of any other peer nation? That's all
Speaker 2: I want to know. And I would have just as
Speaker 2: much outry if France or the UK or any of these.
Speaker 3: I mean in Turkey. There's a massive.
Speaker 2: Outrage right now because a US service member was like
Speaker 2: kidnapped on the streets and beaten up. Yes, there should be.
Speaker 2: Why is the same level of consternation not there? Well,
Speaker 2: we know why, because there is always an Israel exception
Speaker 2: to US foreign policy.
Speaker 3: And it's maddening.
Speaker 1: And Aisner was a Turkish American citizen. And actually the
Speaker 1: government of Turkey put on a far moar forceful statement
Speaker 1: and we're far more outraged at the murder of one
Speaker 1: of their citizens. Put D four up on the screen
Speaker 1: so we can see side by side the difference in reaction,
Speaker 1: because you're so right. Immediately after Hirsch Goldberg Poland is murdered,
Speaker 1: there was statements from every politicians. Joe Biden puts out
Speaker 1: a state mccambala Harris puts down a statement. You know,
Speaker 1: everybody felt the need to react, and they should because
Speaker 1: it's a horror.
Speaker 4: All I'm asking is.
Speaker 1: That all people be treated with the same level of
Speaker 1: care and attention. So State Department spokes versus Matthew Miller
Speaker 1: on this protester Aisner, who was murdered by the AIDF.
Speaker 4: He says, we are aware of the tragic death. Just death.
Speaker 1: She wasn't killed, just death of an American citizen today
Speaker 1: in the West Bank. We offer our deepest condolences to
Speaker 1: your family and loved ones. We're urgently gathering more information
Speaker 1: about the circumstances of her death since she apparently just
Speaker 1: magically collapsed, and we'll have more to say as we
Speaker 1: learn more.
Speaker 4: We have no high priority than the safety and security
Speaker 4: of American citizens. Bullshit.
Speaker 1: Then, on the other side, you can see Biden reacting
Speaker 1: to the murder of Hirsh. He says, I'm devastating in outrage.
Speaker 1: Hirsh was among the innocence brutally attacked while attending a
Speaker 1: music festival for peace in Israel in October seventh. Make
Speaker 1: no mistake, Hamas leaders will pay for these crimes, and
Speaker 1: we will keep working around the clock for a deal
Speaker 1: to secure the release of the remaining hostages. You can
Speaker 1: see the outrage, you can see the visceral language, you
Speaker 1: can see the assignment of responsibility and a call for justice.
Speaker 4: All of that is present when it was.
Speaker 1: Hirsh, a hostage who was murdered apparently by Hamas, versus
Speaker 1: in this situation, when you have an American citizen murdered
Speaker 1: by the IDF. I mean again, I'm sure no one
Speaker 1: listening to this is surprised, but it still is absolutely
Speaker 1: galling to see the way that different lives are counted
Speaker 1: and treated completely differently, even when both of those lives
Speaker 1: are Americans.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's personally what just bothers me the most
Speaker 2: about it is I just think I was, like, we
Speaker 2: just treat them like any other country in the world.
Speaker 3: That's it. I don't know why that's so much to ask.
Speaker 2: If any allied nation murdered a US citizen, then we
Speaker 2: would immediately ask and demand a real investigation, and there
Speaker 2: would be outcry here in America.
Speaker 3: Uh and you know.
Speaker 2: Hers Goldberg Poland. Again, his murder is not just a tragedy,
Speaker 2: it is a crime. It is horrible, and that Americans
Speaker 2: rightfully resonate whenever he is murdered. But then on this
Speaker 2: are they even told by anyone that this happened? Yeah, no,
Speaker 2: I mean, and that is that is why it is
Speaker 2: an outrage about that, that double standard. Yes here, and
Speaker 2: you know, by the way, in both cases, they're both
Speaker 2: I even saw people were attacking her.
Speaker 3: They're like, well, she was a dual citizen.
Speaker 2: You want some news about mister Goldberg Poland, he was
Speaker 2: a du citizen too.
Speaker 3: That doesn't diminish his an American citizenship.
Speaker 4: Humanity, yeah, or he's humanity. Yeah, that's that's exactly right.
Speaker 1: And look and and there's also a deeper level here,
Speaker 1: which is the reason that Hirsh is dead and the
Speaker 1: reason that Asner is dead is because of a failure
Speaker 1: of Biden administration policy. Like, yes, the people who fired
Speaker 1: the bullets, of course they bear responsibility, Yes, bb NA, Yahoo, Yes, yeah, yes,
Speaker 1: and WIR. However, the only reason we are still in
Speaker 1: this place is because the American procedt has failed to
Speaker 1: change course, has failed to act, has failed to secure
Speaker 1: the end of this horror. Both of these individuals could
Speaker 1: be live. And don't ask me, Ask the family of
Speaker 1: hirsh Ye, Ask the hostage families, Ask the former hostages
Speaker 1: who were released, who are all out there protesting the
Speaker 1: streets saying this has to end. The only way we
Speaker 1: bring any of the remaining hostages home safe and sound
Speaker 1: is if we actually end this war. And right now,
Speaker 1: there's this reportedly debate going on in the Biden administration
Speaker 1: over whether they're even going to continue to try their
Speaker 1: like weak, pathetic, impotent attempts to gain a ceasefire deal.
Speaker 1: And it's just crazy making to me because I'm looking
Speaker 1: Apparently Biden is like, no, we're still gonna try. We're
Speaker 1: gonna put forward another ceasefire proposal, We're gonna keep negotiating.
Speaker 1: Other aids are like, bb doesn't want a deal, so
Speaker 1: it's not gonna happen. They're correct about that, but both
Speaker 1: of them miss the bigger point. All you have to
Speaker 1: do is stop shipping the bombs. All you have to
Speaker 1: do is actually force that, like, no, we're done negotiating.
Speaker 1: This is ending now today. We're making it happen. And
Speaker 1: if you don't believe the United States of America has
Speaker 1: the ability to do that, look at usraelly military analysts
Speaker 1: who say Israel will be nowhere in this war without
Speaker 1: the massive, multiple, repeated shipments of weapons that we have
Speaker 1: provided to enable this slaughter to continue. So it's very
Speaker 1: this is not hard to figure out, just stop shipping
Speaker 1: the bombs, but that apparently is just too out there,
Speaker 1: too far off the table. They would rather risk, you know,
Speaker 1: the lives of American citizens. They would rather risk, certainly
Speaker 1: the lives of every Palestinian in Gaza and now the
Speaker 1: West Bank as well. They would rather risk Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: getting elected President of the United States and or Donald
Speaker 1: Trump getting back in the White House than actually following
Speaker 1: international law, following our own law, and securing an end
Speaker 1: to this immediate horror.
Speaker 4: So just just another it's just an utter tragedy.
Speaker 2: The same you know, we just keep on going in
Speaker 2: the same direction. That's right, there's no change anyway.
Speaker 3: Whatever. We got a.
Speaker 2: Congressman standing by Rocanna talk about some of this in
Speaker 2: a little bit more.
Speaker 3: Let's get to it.
Speaker 4: I were very fortunate he joined in studio this morning
Speaker 4: by Conerson Rocanna of California.
Speaker 8: Great to see you, Sir, was great coming in.
Speaker 1: So we now have an issues page on the Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris for President website, and we took particular note of
Speaker 1: her language with regard to Israel and Gazilla's go and
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen so I can get
Speaker 1: your reaction to it, she writes here, and this is
Speaker 1: the entirety of it. By the way, Vice President Harris
Speaker 1: will never hesitate to take whatever action is necessary to
Speaker 1: protect US forces and interests from Iran and Iran backed
Speaker 1: terrorist groups. Vice President Harris will we stand up for
Speaker 1: Israel's right to defend itself, and she will always ensure
Speaker 1: Israel has.
Speaker 4: The ability to defend itself.
Speaker 1: She and President Biden are working to end the war
Speaker 1: in Gaza such that Israel is secure, the hostages are released,
Speaker 1: the suffering in Gaza ends, and the pal stating people
Speaker 1: can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom.
Speaker 4: And self determination.
Speaker 1: She and President Biden are working around the clock to
Speaker 1: get a hostage deal and a ceasefire deal.
Speaker 4: Done your thoughts on her language here.
Speaker 8: That's basically what she said at the convention. But the
Speaker 8: question is how I mean everyone wants the violence to end,
Speaker 8: the suffering to hand, the hostages to be released. The
Speaker 8: reality is you not only have to pressure Hamas obviously
Speaker 8: you have to pressure them to release hostages. You also
Speaker 8: have to hold net Yahuo accountable because they say, oh,
Speaker 8: we're making progress. Every two weeks, we're close to a
Speaker 8: ceasefire deal, and Netya who the next morning, goes in
Speaker 8: Fox and Friends and says, no, this is all a lie.
Speaker 8: There's no deal. We're not making progress. And until you
Speaker 8: have net Nyahuo knowing that it's at some point he's
Speaker 8: going to be held accountable, just like Amas is, you're
Speaker 8: not going to get any deal. And by the way,
Speaker 8: these really people want that. So many of the hostage
Speaker 8: families want that. Delant wants that.
Speaker 1: So let me let me ask you a little bit
Speaker 1: more about this. I don't know if you've seen these reports,
Speaker 1: and I don't know if they're true or not, but
Speaker 1: there's apparently a debate going on in the White House
Speaker 1: right now between President Biden and some of his top
Speaker 1: advisors about whether they even continue trying to get a
Speaker 1: ceasefire deal.
Speaker 4: And I just look at it.
Speaker 1: They keep doing the same thing over and over again,
Speaker 1: of come on, guys, let's get a deal, but being
Speaker 1: completely unwilling to use the incredible leverage that the American
Speaker 1: government has. If we stop shipping the bombs, then Netnahu
Speaker 1: is going to be not only under pressure, he's going
Speaker 1: to be forced to end the incredible horrific onslaught in Gaza.
Speaker 1: So you know, why is this just considered so completely
Speaker 1: off the table? And also one of the lines that
Speaker 1: I've heard to rationalize Kama Harris's response here, unless you
Speaker 1: can't really distance herself from President Biden, I don't know
Speaker 1: if I agree with that, because, if anything, right now
Speaker 1: now she needs a little armlength separation from him. Can't
Speaker 1: she stake down a different position here and indicate how
Speaker 1: she would have approached this in a different way that
Speaker 1: would have ended with a less disastrous result than what
Speaker 1: we've seen.
Speaker 8: Of course she can distance. I mean, Hubert Humphrey's distanced
Speaker 8: himself from Linda Johnson with the Vietnam War, and Humphrey,
Speaker 8: had he done it earlier, probably would have won that election.
Speaker 8: He waited too long. The other thing is if Harris
Speaker 8: were at a distance in any way, it would actually
Speaker 8: drive administration policy because she has right now, in my view,
Speaker 8: more power than Biden. I mean, she's the nominee. She
Speaker 8: has more say on the direction of the party, and
Speaker 8: so I think she would actually influence it. The reality is, Look,
Speaker 8: there were thirty seven Democrats, and we got so much
Speaker 8: criticism when we said, don't give a blank check to
Speaker 8: Neetnyah who We're not going to vote for this offensive
Speaker 8: weapon ade. And all the United States has to do
Speaker 8: as a starter is to enforce her own laws, to
Speaker 8: enforce the security assistance laws, to enforce Leahy. President Reagan
Speaker 8: did this in nineteen eighty two when there was the
Speaker 8: bombing in Lebanon, and he called Bannock and began and
Speaker 8: he said enough and they listened. So this is his
Speaker 8: historical president with Republican and Democratic presidents, and it has
Speaker 8: nothing to do with being pro Israel or not. This
Speaker 8: is actually good for the security of Israel, as many
Speaker 8: people in Israel themselves are saying, and for the release
Speaker 8: of the hostages.
Speaker 2: Let me ask you then about that distancing from Biden.
Speaker 2: We talked a lot here on the show this New
Speaker 2: York Times poll obviously causing a lot of consternation amongst Democrats.
Speaker 3: I would like your reaction to that, and.
Speaker 2: Also how you would give her advice to perform on
Speaker 2: the debate stage tomorrow.
Speaker 8: Well, I think we've got to be out there more.
Speaker 8: Go on podcasts. I mean, I'd love the Vice president
Speaker 8: come on this show, or have Kim Waltz here or
Speaker 8: other surrogates go on all of the different media. Make
Speaker 8: your case. You know, the presidency is the most important
Speaker 8: job in the world and the hardest job to get.
Speaker 8: I don't think you get it playing are being cautious.
Speaker 8: You've got to go out and fight for it, and
Speaker 8: that I'm hopeful after the debate the Vice President will
Speaker 8: do that because she's very capable. I've known her for
Speaker 8: twenty years. She's very, very intelligent, and for some reason
Speaker 8: she's surrounded herself with people who said, don't be out there.
Speaker 8: I don't think that's the right advice.
Speaker 2: Do you think that's because she's inherit A lot of
Speaker 2: President Biden's staff like what do As you said, clearly,
Speaker 2: I would hope she's asking people who are you know,
Speaker 2: have different opinions. Is she largely listening to the Biden staff?
Speaker 2: Is she soliciting newer voices, opinions and others? How what's
Speaker 2: your experience been like that with that?
Speaker 8: Well, giving her the benefit of down, maybe they were
Speaker 8: trying to figure out where she pivots and where she
Speaker 8: keeps the policies, and maybe it took about a month
Speaker 8: to figure that out. And I understand it's not easy
Speaker 8: running a presidential campaign from ground zero, but she's now
Speaker 8: done that, she has a policy page, she's going to debate.
Speaker 8: So now's the time I think to make it clear.
Speaker 8: Here's where I stand. Here's where I would be different
Speaker 8: from President Biden on the economy, on immigration, on foreign policy.
Speaker 8: Here's where I want to continue what he's doing. And
Speaker 8: it should be very clear to folks. I mean, she
Speaker 8: was to be the change candidate, and she is changed
Speaker 8: in many ways in terms of her life story, in
Speaker 8: terms of who she is. But people also want to
Speaker 8: change in policy, and that's where she needs to be clear.
Speaker 8: Here are the changes that we're going to have on
Speaker 8: economic and foreign policy.
Speaker 1: So I understand you are a bit opposed to the
Speaker 1: weird language, a weird attack on Trump and vance I
Speaker 1: personally have been a supporter of the weird attack because
Speaker 1: I feel like some of the previous attempts to define him,
Speaker 1: like the Biden style is very grandiose, it's very moralizing,
Speaker 1: threat to democracy, et cetera, et cetera, and it almost
Speaker 1: makes him bigger than he really is, whereas the weird
Speaker 1: like these guys are just kind of a bunch of
Speaker 1: weird freaks, is very diminishing in a way that has
Speaker 1: clearly driven both him and Jane Vance crazy. But tell
Speaker 1: me about your analysis of this, both from like a
Speaker 1: moral and a political perspective. Why you don't think that
Speaker 1: that language and that framing the right direction.
Speaker 8: Sure well, look I like the framing that best President
Speaker 8: Harrison had of He's unserious, he's frivolous, He's not taking
Speaker 8: the weight of what it means to be president seriously.
Speaker 8: When you call someone where the risk is that voters
Speaker 8: may hear that, not just that, oh you're saying that
Speaker 8: about Donald Trump or jd Evans, that you're saying that
Speaker 8: about their supporters. And that's forty five, forty six, forty
Speaker 8: seven percent of the country. Now, I don't think it's
Speaker 8: like deplorables, but there's a fine line. And what we
Speaker 8: need to do, in my view, is respect the people
Speaker 8: who are voting for Donald Trump or Jdvans and say
Speaker 8: we've got a better vision. We've got a better vision
Speaker 8: of how to get new factories. We've got a better
Speaker 8: vision of how to help the working class with a
Speaker 8: living wage. We've got a better vision of had a
Speaker 8: lower prescription drug cost. We've got a better vision of
Speaker 8: how to strengthen America in a modern economy and in
Speaker 8: a modern world. And I guess I'm old fashioned that way.
Speaker 8: I still think you can persuade people and win, and
Speaker 8: you can attack them for not being serious, but don't
Speaker 8: convey the voters that somehow they're not part of the
Speaker 8: American story.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Interesting, we were talking a little bit about men, David Hogg.
Speaker 2: We were saying put out an interesting tweet today about
Speaker 2: how young men specifically, but males both Latino black largely
Speaker 2: are the margins that are driving both towards Trump or
Speaker 2: at the very least away from Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3: Number one, why do you think that is? And then
Speaker 3: what would your general.
Speaker 2: Advice be outside of just do podcasts or something in
Speaker 2: order to actually reach some of these people.
Speaker 8: Yeah, well, there are a lot of reasons that I
Speaker 8: certainly don't have the definitive answer. As a start, I
Speaker 8: would have Bernie out there more. I mean, Bernie did
Speaker 8: very very well with young men. I mean unfairly he
Speaker 8: was called the bro candidate, but he had a lot
Speaker 8: of young men who were supporting him. And I think
Speaker 8: that there's an anger at the system in a sense
Speaker 8: of wanting some bold ideas and if we can convey
Speaker 8: that we have a way of reforming the system that
Speaker 8: people need more opportunities for wealth generation. I don't think
Speaker 8: we should be against bitcoin or crypto. That's an issue
Speaker 8: for a lot of young people. I think we need
Speaker 8: to show we're a party for free speech, but we're
Speaker 8: a party that's listening to them and as a place
Speaker 8: for them. I do think going on these podcasts and
Speaker 8: trying to reach them is important.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we would like her to do that as well.
Speaker 3: Makes you put in a word.
Speaker 1: You know, many Democrats believe that Donald Trump is not
Speaker 1: only a great threat to the country, which I agree with,
Speaker 1: that he's one of the worst presidents in history. And
Speaker 1: yet you know, you look at the New York Times
Speaker 1: poll and it's tied Collyer's actually in that poll, within
Speaker 1: the margin of Er losing by a point. Why, in
Speaker 1: your assessment is it so so close?
Speaker 8: Because the American dream has slipped away for so many people.
Speaker 8: They've seen their healthcare costs rise, childcare costs rise, college
Speaker 8: costs rise, vocational education rise, jobs no longer paying thirty
Speaker 8: five dollars an hour, massive de industrialization. This has been
Speaker 8: going on for fifty years. And to think that three
Speaker 8: and a half years of Biden was going to reverse
Speaker 8: that was impossible. No one could have reversed it. But
Speaker 8: people are still frustrated. They're angry, and they see the
Speaker 8: role of big money in politics, of lobbyists, and they
Speaker 8: see an establishment that has let them down, in an
Speaker 8: establishment that has gotten us in too many wars. So
Speaker 8: they want change. They've been voting for change since Barack
Speaker 8: Obama and they haven't been getting the change they want.
Speaker 8: And I don't think people are thinking of it with
Speaker 8: more depth than that, other than this system isn't working
Speaker 8: for us, our kids aren't going to have a great future.
Speaker 8: Let's try something else.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think you're absolutely right on that. Anything else, Crystal,
Speaker 3: I think that's that comes.
Speaker 4: We're always so grateful for your thank you, thank you
Speaker 4: for coming.
Speaker 2: Sure joyed it all right, guys, thank you so much
Speaker 2: for watching. Reminder, we will be live tomorrow for the debates,
Speaker 2: so there won't beach any show in the morning AMA
Speaker 2: during that debate. Stream from premio subscribers Breakingpoints dot com
Speaker 2: if you want to sign up and join us.