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 4: But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 1: Let's go and move on to the democratic side of
Speaker 1: the Ledger here and some interesting post mortem that's been
Speaker 1: happening over on MSNBC. So, to my absolute shock, there
Speaker 1: are actually a few mainstream figures who have now come
Speaker 1: out after the fact, after they spent years crushing Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: demonizing him, his movement, anyone associated with it, like burning
Speaker 1: it to the ground, salting the ground, etc. After all
Speaker 1: of that, now suddenly you know that guy Bernie.
Speaker 5: Sanders, maybe he had a point.
Speaker 1: So here's James Carville on MSBC with ari melburalisticalism.
Speaker 6: So you, as mister, it's the economy, stupid?
Speaker 3: Was this an economy election?
Speaker 6: And if so, is Sanders right that on populous working
Speaker 6: class kitchen table issues?
Speaker 3: That dev didn't do enough.
Speaker 7: Well, what he is not right about the Democrats have
Speaker 7: done a number of things for working people. I mean
Speaker 7: Obamacay expanded healthcare for twenty three million more people than
Speaker 7: had it before. A lot of things in President Bids
Speaker 7: built Back Better program, created millions of jobs working people.
Speaker 7: But I think since Senators has some point here, and
Speaker 7: that is there were things we could have run on
Speaker 7: harder that have effected the minimum wage. It passes everywhere
Speaker 7: by seventy percent. I mean, I know that President Biden
Speaker 7: was far height and Harris as far, but we didn't
Speaker 7: put it front and center. What about tax and the
Speaker 7: incomes over four hundred thousand dollars and taking that money
Speaker 7: and put it in the first time home buyers Mortgage
Speaker 7: Relief Fund. I mean, there were things that Senator Sanders
Speaker 7: would favor that we could have put more front and center.
Speaker 7: Now you know that there are a lot of things
Speaker 7: that are just popular that Democrats areport it. They're popular
Speaker 7: with every kind of Democrat in the country. They also
Speaker 7: happened to be popular with independence and even some Republicans.
Speaker 7: And we should run on a popular thing. A popular
Speaker 7: thing was not continuing to buy the administration that was
Speaker 7: clearly not what people wanted. I think he's a great guy,
Speaker 7: but people did want more of that, and that's what
Speaker 7: we gave them.
Speaker 1: Incredible, incredible, and you know, I mean I like, in
Speaker 1: a sense, I guess I should be like, well, better
Speaker 1: late than ever. You know, David Brooks, thanks for coming around,
Speaker 1: like James Carvell. But it's also like, you know, you
Speaker 1: had twenty sixteen was the time to truly offer like
Speaker 1: a post neoliberal vision, and all the energy was that,
Speaker 1: you know, from occupying it builds into Bernie Sanders and
Speaker 1: you have the left alternative to the Trumpian populist direction.
Speaker 1: And they just people like him were when above and beyond.
Speaker 1: I mean they fought Bernie Standers far harder than they
Speaker 1: ever fought Donald Trump.
Speaker 5: And so at this point.
Speaker 1: It's like, you know, I hope it's not too late,
Speaker 1: but I kind of think it is. And there is
Speaker 1: no Bernie Sanders. He's eighty three years old. Like for
Speaker 1: him personally, he's still with us. Actually saw him speak
Speaker 1: last night, and man, he is still sharp as attack,
Speaker 1: hasn't lost a step intellectually whatsoever.
Speaker 5: But he's eighty three years old. Like there has to.
Speaker 1: Be a successor to him, there's no one that's obvious
Speaker 1: that has the same type of of just you know,
Speaker 1: credibility and appeal that he truly did to independance and
Speaker 1: some Republicans. And even as James Carvel says the thing
Speaker 1: about like, yeah, there's things that he said that are popular.
Speaker 5: I think they still don't get that.
Speaker 1: It's not just about like, Okay, these policies are popular
Speaker 1: and like let's check.
Speaker 5: Off the list. Because frankly, commiers did do some of
Speaker 5: that right.
Speaker 1: She did have a good economic program that she ran
Speaker 1: a lot of ads about with you know, anti price
Speaker 1: gouging and child tax credit and these other things. It
Speaker 1: has to be, though, part of a story with villains,
Speaker 1: and that's the part that the Carvills and the David
Speaker 1: Brooks and whoever of the world are uncomfortable with because
Speaker 1: they rely on that the people that would be the
Speaker 1: villains are like the billionaires, the millionaires, the donor class,
Speaker 1: the corrupt elite, the rigged media, And when you get
Speaker 1: to that part, they're like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Speaker 1: We just want to talk about minimum wage and talk
Speaker 1: about generally about maybe income inequality, but we don't want
Speaker 1: to name names about who are the villains here and
Speaker 1: what systems are the villains here because that implicates them directly,
Speaker 1: and that's where that's where the real rub comes in.
Speaker 8: I can't imagine what it's like for you to watch
Speaker 8: that on MSNBC now.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's.
Speaker 8: Sincerely like and it has to be what it was
Speaker 8: like for Pat Buchanan to watch Fox New to suddenly
Speaker 8: start talking differently about trade and foreign policy after Donald
Speaker 8: Trump came along, right like you were having like serious conversations,
Speaker 8: like Sean Hannity is having serious conversations about whether he's
Speaker 8: like a free trade guy, a fair trade guy, and
Speaker 8: like actually platforming some of this stuff that Pat Buchanan
Speaker 8: was called, you know, it's a semitic and awful and
Speaker 8: an extremist for talking about. And then ten years later,
Speaker 8: you know, you're having mainstream conversations about some of these
Speaker 8: ideas and Fox things because of Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: But like, this is not impressive at all.
Speaker 8: It's just that people are getting, you know, plaudits right
Speaker 8: now for being willing to say what James Carvill just said.
Speaker 8: But I can't imagine finding that impressive, Like it would
Speaker 8: have maybe been impressive or brave ten years ago.
Speaker 3: But it's way way too late.
Speaker 8: I mean, they already have a second Trump administration. The
Speaker 8: fascist quote unquote has been re elected.
Speaker 3: Like that's two terms. So well done, guys.
Speaker 8: This is already an abject failure by your own standards.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, it doesn't feel good to be Like I
Speaker 1: told you so, it does not feel good to be
Speaker 1: in that position, because again I'm just sort of like,
Speaker 1: I also know that even as in their despair at
Speaker 1: the moment, they may accidentally admit that Bernie had a point.
Speaker 1: And you know, one thing I've been pointing out is
Speaker 1: if you look at the groups that Bernie was strongest with,
Speaker 1: those are the groups Latinos, working class people, bros.
Speaker 5: You know, Joe Rogan literally himself.
Speaker 1: Those are the groups that are find the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: increasingly repellent and have been fleeing them. And so it's just,
Speaker 1: you know, it's unequivocally the case that those are the
Speaker 1: groups that Bernie Sanders had the greatest traction. And by
Speaker 1: the way that coalition was demonized, it was demonized by them,
Speaker 1: and Bernie himself was demonized as being racist and sexist.
Speaker 1: And you know, for the left getting all the blame
Speaker 1: for identity politics. They're the ones that invented identity politics
Speaker 1: effectively under the Hillary Clinton campaign toothmear Bernie Sanders and
Speaker 1: by extension, his entire movement. And you know, we're going
Speaker 1: to talk to young Democrat about the you know, the
Speaker 1: conversation around young men, but part of that conversation has
Speaker 1: to be the way that the young male supporters of
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders were treated and smeared as you know, toxic
Speaker 1: sexist bros who were only there because they were, like,
Speaker 1: you know, interested in opposing the first historic female president.
Speaker 1: And so yeah, when that's the message that has been
Speaker 1: routinely coming out of the Democratic Party now eight years straight,
Speaker 1: that's going to have an impact too. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that's everything that's going on, but I also don't think
Speaker 1: it's something that you should just completely ignore when you're
Speaker 1: looking at the number of people who did travel along
Speaker 1: that Bernie to Trump pipeline ultimately.
Speaker 8: And I think it is such a good point, just lastly,
Speaker 8: about diagnosing the problem but not being willing to like go.
Speaker 3: Fully with the right treatment.
Speaker 8: If you're using that metaphor and that like finally they're seeing.
Speaker 3: What has been obvious.
Speaker 8: I mean, it's not again, it's not impressive for them
Speaker 8: to come around to this in twenty twenty four, right,
Speaker 8: but at least being willing to admit it and have
Speaker 8: that conversation.
Speaker 3: All right, that's one thing.
Speaker 8: But if you're not willing to admit that your friends
Speaker 8: are the villains in the story, then you can't treat
Speaker 8: the problem because that would require actually undermining their power,
Speaker 8: their influence, their bank accounts like that would require taking
Speaker 8: really tough pills.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and they're not willing to do that.
Speaker 1: Easy to say Bernie is right Now that Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: is eighty three years old and is.
Speaker 3: Completely he won't run again.
Speaker 1: Irrelevant to any sort of future conversation about power.
Speaker 5: This was interesting to me.
Speaker 1: Let's put C two up on the screen, and I
Speaker 1: think indicative of probably the way that Democrats are actually.
Speaker 5: Going to react to this loss. So among Kamala.
Speaker 1: Harris voters, they asked this question, this was Yukov, who
Speaker 1: do you think is more to blame for the outcome
Speaker 1: of the twenty twenty four elections? So twenty four percent
Speaker 1: say Joe Biden makes sense, six percent only say Kamala Harris,
Speaker 1: and I actually think it is fair to blame Joe
Speaker 1: Biden more than Kamala Harris, although obviously both shoulder some
Speaker 1: blame for the decisions that were made here. But the
Speaker 1: majority say it's just a bad year for Democrats, meaning like,
Speaker 1: you know, they'll get them next time, no need for
Speaker 1: any major changes or adjustments. And if you hear people
Speaker 1: like Jim Clyburn out there being like everybody just chill out,
Speaker 1: it's like, by your own lexicon, the country just elected
Speaker 1: a fascist, yep, and you're like, let's just chill out,
Speaker 1: no big deal them next time. So but I think
Speaker 1: if this is the way the base feels, and you know,
Speaker 1: as being sort of primed to feel by people who
Speaker 1: say also like oh look and come and stay bad
Speaker 1: all around the globe and look at inflation. Actually we
Speaker 1: did better than most parties in power around the country,
Speaker 1: And I say, a unique set of circumstances and Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's gonna be done after this, blah blah blah. We
Speaker 1: actually came really close in the background states. There's a
Speaker 1: million reasons they can come up with for looking at
Speaker 1: this and saying like we don't really need to adjust,
Speaker 1: we can keep doing our things and we'll get them
Speaker 1: next time. And I think that's probably going to be
Speaker 1: the primary reaction. You'll have the you know, the signaling
Speaker 1: from Seth Moultens of the world of like, oh, we're
Speaker 1: going to you know, whatever issue was pulling the most poorly,
Speaker 1: like let's just throw that issue under the bus. And
Speaker 1: you know, especially ones that don't harm the donor class whatsoever,
Speaker 1: Like being more oppositional to trans people is not going
Speaker 1: to hurt any donor or base.
Speaker 5: So that's easy to do. Let's just do that.
Speaker 1: In terms of any sort of like dramatic reader, we
Speaker 1: already know because they're re electing the exact same house
Speaker 1: leadership they've had. There's no conversation about any sort of
Speaker 1: like massive purge, and so yeah, I think they're just
Speaker 1: going to keep heading in this direction and this direction.
Speaker 1: If the trends and the realignments continue, like they're screwed,
Speaker 1: because yeah, right now you might be kind of in
Speaker 1: the ballgame, but only a third of the country roughly
Speaker 1: of adults, has a college degree. So if you're effectively
Speaker 1: like only winning college degree holders, you are not a
Speaker 1: contender to be a majority coalition anymore. Like that, if
Speaker 1: that trend continues, you're going to be a permanent minority
Speaker 1: with basically no power outside of certain blue areas.
Speaker 8: I mean, it's for a lot of people on the
Speaker 8: right seeing the numbers among young people of shifts, not
Speaker 8: just in terms of who they voted for by exit polls,
Speaker 8: but public opinion polling on different issues young men.
Speaker 3: I know we're talking about.
Speaker 8: This later, but the point I'm trying to make here
Speaker 8: is that, like, that's shocking to people on the right.
Speaker 8: If you had told people on the right ten years
Speaker 8: ago that young people would have shifted that dramatically on
Speaker 8: different issues, especially young men, it would have been unthinkable.
Speaker 8: That was literally like a fantasy that anyone would have
Speaker 8: ever been able to make those shifts in such quick time.
Speaker 8: And now gen z is seeing a boom in trade
Speaker 8: skills people not going through full college education.
Speaker 5: So yeah, I think college's enrollment has peaked.
Speaker 3: I agree.
Speaker 1: So, like, if your projection is like, ah, but more
Speaker 1: and more people keep getting college degrees, I think that's
Speaker 1: a faulty assumption.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I agree with that, and I think we're seeing
Speaker 8: pretty clear signs that's the case. So you know, this
Speaker 8: is a Republicans I think are poised potentially I agree
Speaker 8: with as a client that they're poised to overinterpret their
Speaker 8: quote unquote mandate and overreach because Kamala Harris is like
Speaker 8: a terrible candidate and still managed to win nearly half
Speaker 8: of the country's vote. I mean, this is probably going
Speaker 8: to be a popular vote that's like a two point difference,
Speaker 8: So I.
Speaker 3: Think it's very possible.
Speaker 8: And even in some of these battleground states that Donald
Speaker 8: Trump ended up sweeping, it was a really thin margin.
Speaker 8: So I think it's possible that Republicans overreach and they
Speaker 8: do over interpret this quote unquote mandate. But even so,
Speaker 8: the long term trends for Democrats there are some really
Speaker 8: worrying signs, just like there are for Republicans. The countries
Speaker 8: not with them on abortion, countries not with them on
Speaker 8: tax cuts for the wealthy, is not with the donor
Speaker 8: class of the GOP on so the social safety net.
Speaker 8: There's some serious foreign policy differences between that donor class
Speaker 8: and the average voter as well. So there are real
Speaker 8: problems for Republicans down the line. But for Democrats, I mean,
Speaker 8: the long term trends with younger voters that was never
Speaker 8: a worry and now it is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, I do think some of what was seen
Speaker 1: this time is not only a shift to the right.
Speaker 1: I think that's real. But there was also fewer young
Speaker 1: people who turned out. You know, there was a depression
Speaker 1: of the sort of like democratic young base, and you know,
Speaker 1: Gaza has to be part of that, has to.
Speaker 5: Be part of that. I don't want to overstate it.
Speaker 1: I think, you know, it would be easy for me,
Speaker 1: given my ideology, to say like, this is the reason
Speaker 1: they lost. I think it is part of the reason
Speaker 1: they lost. Oh, you know, because how can you really
Speaker 1: feel like, oh, I'm standing for the good and the
Speaker 1: righteous when you see in your social media feed every day.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've seen things, horrors that I never imagine
Speaker 1: and will never be able to get out of my head.
Speaker 5: And I know I'm not alone.
Speaker 1: So yeah, that'll depress your base. Feel like, I don't
Speaker 1: want to be complicit in a genocide. I don't want
Speaker 1: to be anywhere near this, and so maybe I don't
Speaker 1: want to vote for Donald Trump.
Speaker 5: But just I can't build the lover for this.
Speaker 8: I mean, it's not surprising, but I feel like the
Speaker 8: lack of conversation about how much that actually affected the
Speaker 8: youth vote, young turnout and potentially in people voting for
Speaker 8: Trump is like an anti establishment Whether or not people.
Speaker 3: Agree with it.
Speaker 8: I mean, I know you and Sager talked about the
Speaker 8: aoc Q and A that she's been doing on her
Speaker 8: Instagram right listen in DC, like, people don't have to
Speaker 8: agree with it, and idelergs don't have to agree with it.
Speaker 8: But there are a lot of normal voters who see
Speaker 8: that issue totally differently, just trying to give a finger
Speaker 8: to the elites, no matter.
Speaker 3: How they do it.
Speaker 8: And for some of them, I think the war and
Speaker 8: gozz is really a part of that, and it's affecting
Speaker 8: voting patterns, and there's just been a total glossing over
Speaker 8: of how that probably shifted the election of Donald Trump's
Speaker 8: favor too.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it is possible. It is possible, given.
Speaker 1: How narrow Lake, Michigan was in particular, that that could
Speaker 1: have actually been decisive there.
Speaker 5: It's possible.
Speaker 1: Like I'm not saying one way or another, but I'd
Speaker 1: find that theory to be plausible.
Speaker 8: College towns in Wisconsin and Georgia and North Carolina.
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: All right, let's go ahead and move to a short story.
Speaker 1: We can certainly find some common ground on here Emily,
Speaker 1: which is bashing the New York Times. So Soger and
Speaker 1: I covered. I don't know if you guys talked about
Speaker 1: the story or not about the whole Hoogan situation in Amsterdam.
Speaker 1: So this was portrayed quite hyperbolically by Joe Biden, Barry
Speaker 1: Richie Tora as all these sorts of people and the
Speaker 1: news media as a jew hunt pogram against these Israeli
Speaker 1: soccer fans. There was indeed quite a bit of violence. However,
Speaker 1: the portrayal of them as just these innocent victims minding
Speaker 1: their own busines, going to attend a soccer game and
Speaker 1: being targeted solely for their religion was wildly misleading. In fact,
Speaker 1: there were quite a number of journalists on the ground there,
Speaker 1: include very young We played some of his Stuf who
Speaker 1: was like fourteen years old, who was out recording before
Speaker 1: there was any sort of retaliatory violence. You know, them
Speaker 1: going through the streets saying, you know, death to Arabs
Speaker 1: and bragging about the number of children who were massacreding gaza, vandalizing,
Speaker 1: assaulting cab driver, you know, vandalizing a taxi cab, burning
Speaker 1: Palestinian flags, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. And so this descends into
Speaker 1: total melee with violence and a number of Israelis who
Speaker 1: were you know, who were beaten in brutal way. So
Speaker 1: news media portrayed this, of course, like I said, as
Speaker 1: completely one sided, just you know, born out of anti
Speaker 1: Semitism period, end of story. So this was an interesting
Speaker 1: coda to the whole portrayal of this, so we could
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen. The New York Times
Speaker 1: had published a video that they said purported to show
Speaker 1: Israeli's being chased.
Speaker 5: Down and beaten.
Speaker 1: Okay, it turns out it was the exact opposite thing
Speaker 1: that happened here. So let me read to you the
Speaker 1: correction that the Times themselves posted about this video. They
Speaker 1: said an earlier version of this article included a video
Speaker 1: distributed by Reuters with a script about Israeli fans being attacked.
Speaker 1: Radar Systems issued a correction saying it is unclear who's
Speaker 1: depicted in the footage. The videos author told The New
Speaker 1: York Times it shows a group of Maccabee fans chasing
Speaker 1: a man on the street, a description of The Times
Speaker 1: independently confirmed with other verified footage from the scene. The
Speaker 1: video has been removed, so keeps us up on the
Speaker 1: screen for a moment. So it turns out they put
Speaker 1: this video out. They thought that it showed Israeli fans
Speaker 1: being assaulted. Turns out it shows Israeli fans doing the assaulting,
Speaker 1: and rather than allowing that to inform their reporting and
Speaker 1: keeping the video up because now they've confirmed okay, actually
Speaker 1: it shows the opposite of what we were reporting. That
Speaker 1: changes the picture that we and others have been portraying
Speaker 1: about what's going on. Instead of doing that, since it
Speaker 1: now doesn't fit the narrative that they've been peddling, they
Speaker 1: just take it down. And I think that that is
Speaker 1: an incredibly revealing little decision that was made here that
Speaker 1: shows you that they had one way they wanted this
Speaker 1: story to be portrayed, and when the things that they
Speaker 1: themselves published did not match up with that story, rather
Speaker 1: than grappling with that as a news organization filled with
Speaker 1: serious journalists, they just took it down and hit it
Speaker 1: all together.
Speaker 8: The New York Times Israel coverage is such a fascinating
Speaker 8: glimpse into how elites are wrestling with Israel, and that
Speaker 8: Ryan makes this point too, about how after twenty fourteen,
Speaker 8: in particular, there was a movement to get Palestinian journalists
Speaker 8: into mainstream media organizations and there was a movement to
Speaker 8: get better coverage obviously of Israel and Gaza into mainstream
Speaker 8: media coverage.
Speaker 3: And so the institutions themselves have this.
Speaker 8: Kind of internal battle between their own staff that is
Speaker 8: very much not of the old school foreign policy establishment
Speaker 8: when it comes to Israel, and then members of the
Speaker 8: staff that are very much like demand of demand.
Speaker 3: That the sort of old school position on Israel is
Speaker 3: the norm is the yeah, exactly is maintained.
Speaker 8: And so for example, I'm looking at a New York
Speaker 8: Times article from it was Monday or Tuesday of this week,
Speaker 8: where they write tensions had risen a day earlier when
Speaker 8: Israeli fans vandalized a taxi, burned a Palestinian flag in
Speaker 8: the city, and enchanted incendiary and racist slogans, according to
Speaker 8: the police. Now I know people who would object to
Speaker 8: that even being in a story about what happened, when
Speaker 8: actually I think that context would have been helpful right
Speaker 8: up front from yeah, obviously, because there was this immediate
Speaker 8: and again I get this, by the way, from you know,
Speaker 8: Jewish people whose grandparents like survived the Holocaust. There's a
Speaker 8: level of sensitivity that is totally understandable that I don't
Speaker 8: have because I'm not Jewish. My grandparents didn't survive the Holocaust,
Speaker 8: and so I understand why that sensitivity exists for many,
Speaker 8: many people. We are still within the lifetimes of people
Speaker 8: who went through the.
Speaker 3: Greatest genocide that the world has ever seen.
Speaker 8: Greatest in the sense of like the most dramatic, most
Speaker 8: tragic and awful genocide the world's ever seen.
Speaker 3: So you understand the sensitivity. But then if you.
Speaker 8: Are a news organization, the context is more important than
Speaker 8: the sensitivity obviously.
Speaker 1: Well and not only that, but I don't think you
Speaker 1: do Jewish people many neighbors either, because now the narrative
Speaker 1: they're getting in the world is Jews are being hunted
Speaker 1: just for no reason other than their religion on the streets.
Speaker 5: Absolutely European city.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, And you know, noteworthy in this whole melee is that,
Speaker 1: you know, Dutch Jews, there's no indication any of them
Speaker 1: were targeted, Like there's no indication that there's been an
Speaker 1: uptick in violence or there's shops ACKed or anything like that.
Speaker 3: It's like targeted for being Jewish.
Speaker 1: Yes, it was, you know, purely, like in the context
Speaker 1: of this soccer game and these fans chanting like you know,
Speaker 1: these hooligans chanting death to Arabs and bragging about killing
Speaker 1: children and burning Palestinian flags and running around with steel
Speaker 1: pipes and being incredibly provogaed I saw a report ones
Speaker 1: like you know, going through up and down a subway
Speaker 1: car looking for a Palestinian to like harass. So so yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's important for everybody that you actually understand what
Speaker 1: is going on, and to your point about the internal
Speaker 1: struggles and like the you know, the struggle sessions that
Speaker 1: are happening there right now. The first article that was
Speaker 1: published about these events went through at least four different
Speaker 1: headline changes.
Speaker 3: At least four that's interesting.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was like, I know, Ryan, I saw this
Speaker 1: from Ryan too, because he was like, hey, if you're
Speaker 1: involved in this, can you go ahead and hit me
Speaker 1: up on signal let me know what was going on here,
Speaker 1: because yeah, it was clearly very tortured the attempt like
Speaker 1: how do we word this and is it anti Semitism?
Speaker 5: And where do we lead with that? And do we
Speaker 5: put in the previously like.
Speaker 1: It was they were clearly there was some sort of
Speaker 1: an internal war going on even about how to headline
Speaker 1: this series of events.
Speaker 8: Yeah, and you know, it actually reminds me, like even
Speaker 8: if someone I have like a more libertarian take on
Speaker 8: the police, but it reminds me of a lot of
Speaker 8: the coverage of police violence against black Americans when you
Speaker 8: public when you do public polling about how many police killings.
Speaker 8: This is obviously like five years ago when we were
Speaker 8: talking about it more and more, But when you do
Speaker 8: polling about how many unarmed people are killed by police
Speaker 8: every year, the public vastly overestimates what the number is. Yeah,
Speaker 8: because the media coverage is so so intense during different
Speaker 8: parts of you know, the last decade. I would say,
Speaker 8: to your point about who this is, like, whether this
Speaker 8: actually helps to even have that heightened sensitivity, I would
Speaker 8: say it doesn't because it doesn't create an accurate picture
Speaker 8: of what actually happened. And I'm sure saying death to
Speaker 8: Arabs elicited death to Jews, like I don't doubt that
Speaker 8: that happened on the streets of Amsterdam. I'm sure that
Speaker 8: there's legitimately anti Semitism, and there was probably some of
Speaker 8: it at play here. But if you were following this
Speaker 8: on my timeline and as somebody who's on the right
Speaker 8: as it was happening, you would be misinformed about what
Speaker 8: actually went down that day. Yeah, and that's I mean, it's.
Speaker 3: Not journalism and it's not doing anyone in any favors.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, there is a similar dynamic, you know,
Speaker 1: from my left perspective of people think that the crime
Speaker 1: rates right now are much higher than they are. Yes,
Speaker 1: they think they're like the highest in history. If you
Speaker 1: go back and look at what was going on in
Speaker 1: the eighties and early nineties, y'all.
Speaker 5: We are nowhere close.
Speaker 1: And in fact, you know, in a lot of places
Speaker 1: violent crime has come down. That's not there was a
Speaker 1: decided uptick during COVID, there's no doubt about those things.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I mean it's Yeah, there's a misimpression that
Speaker 1: is created about the level of crime that's occurring right now.
Speaker 1: And also people are also very unaware of the fact
Speaker 1: that the number of migrants crossing the border has also
Speaker 1: in recent months come down quite significantly from its peak
Speaker 1: as well. So in any case, a lot of inaccurate
Speaker 1: pictures created a far of our world in our country here.
Speaker 8: Yes, and the media is to blame, yes, So that
Speaker 8: is something we can all agree on.
Speaker 1: Indeed, so the Biden administration had a kind of strange
Speaker 1: duality to economic policy that has confounded quite a number
Speaker 1: of analysts now.
Speaker 5: On the one hand, they completely.
Speaker 1: Failed to deliver for working people in the near term
Speaker 1: after the American Rescue Plan, the COVID social safety Net
Speaker 1: was systematically dismantled, the fifteen dollars minimum wage hike completely scuttled,
Speaker 1: and the Build Back Better agenda buried, never to be
Speaker 1: heard from again. As reported by Lever News, the number
Speaker 1: of Americans saying it was difficult to typical expenses skyrocketed,
Speaker 1: Inflation of course would eventually ease, but prices they would
Speaker 1: not come back down, and the child tax credit dead
Speaker 1: for Baron's Red and four Barons, Stimmis and super doll
Speaker 1: none of that was going to come back. On the
Speaker 1: other hand, the Biden admins approach to labor antitrust and
Speaker 1: crypto was actually really great, genuinely provoked the ire of
Speaker 1: the billionaire class. Literally dozens of hate screens against FDC
Speaker 1: chair Linaghan were published to the Wall Street Journal alone.
Speaker 1: The people who had seen a chill descend on their
Speaker 1: deal flow and who now had to grapple with workers
Speaker 1: threatening union drives were one hundred percent read in on
Speaker 1: exactly what the Biden administration was doing and to whom,
Speaker 1: and they were pissed. Just see how even Democratic aligned
Speaker 1: billionaires like Reid Hoffman and Mark Cuban waged a war
Speaker 1: of their on their own nominee to pressure her into
Speaker 1: buckling on the best parts of the Biden administration's economic policy.
Speaker 1: This Biden policy was actually really excellent, best in my lifetime,
Speaker 1: but it did little to deliver significant gains for regular
Speaker 1: people in the short term.
Speaker 5: So he kind of had a worst of all worlds.
Speaker 1: He had a pissed off billionaire class and a pissed
Speaker 1: off electorate. Perhaps if the president was able or willing
Speaker 1: to explain his attacks on these forces, the landscape could
Speaker 1: have been somewhat different. But if a billionaire cries over
Speaker 1: his lost merger in the woods and no one hears,
Speaker 1: it doesn't really make a sound, not as far as
Speaker 1: the mass voting public is concerned. But in fact, quite
Speaker 1: a few of those billionaires did speak loudly with their checkbooks,
Speaker 1: because no president in history has had more unified mega
Speaker 1: donor support than Donald J.
Speaker 5: Trump.
Speaker 1: Now that might seem unlikely, given that Kamala raised so
Speaker 1: much more money than Trump did, but these vast resources
Speaker 1: were largely pulled from the affluent, resistant liberal donor base.
Speaker 1: The Financial Times compiled the numbers, and you could take
Speaker 1: a look.
Speaker 5: It's quite clear.
Speaker 1: Both candidates, of course, enjoyed generous support from wealthy donors,
Speaker 1: but Trump's elite donor hall vastly dwarfed that of Harris
Speaker 1: and her allied packs. So in total, Kamala raised about
Speaker 1: one hundred and twenty seven million dollars, or about six
Speaker 1: percent of her total funding from America's billionaires. Trump, on
Speaker 1: the other hand, vacued up a whopping five hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty eight million dollars, or about a third of his
Speaker 1: total funding from that billionaire class. This level of disparity
Speaker 1: between billionaire giving is actually pretty unique in this election,
Speaker 1: and reflected a clear verdict on how the wealthiest people
Speaker 1: in the world viewed this contest through the lens of
Speaker 1: their own class interest. As Marine Ta Katchik writes for
Speaker 1: The American Prospect, of the top ten mega donors, only
Speaker 1: the bottom two gave to Democrats. Trump's hall from his
Speaker 1: own top ten donors, none of whom both the surname
Speaker 1: Coke Courtil, by the way, amounted to about nine hundred
Speaker 1: and forty five million dollars, Harris's top down a two
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty four million. Now Harris ended up, She
Speaker 1: pointed out, raising more money thanks to resistance giving, but
Speaker 1: Trump got to spend much less time raising it, and
Speaker 1: with Musk he also had the algorithms on his side.
Speaker 1: Marine's Peace posits an interesting and I think correct theory
Speaker 1: that I hadn't considered before, which is that which of
Speaker 1: the billionaire raging over Gaza and campus anti Semitism was
Speaker 1: really a proxy war over the Biden policies that hurt
Speaker 1: their bottom lines. After October seventh, billionaires congregated in group
Speaker 1: chats to organize cancelation campaigns, to defund insufficiently pro Israel
Speaker 1: news outlets, and even raise money to fund a squad
Speaker 1: of goons to assist the NYPD in cracking down on
Speaker 1: college protesters. Warring details the various, very specific agreemances that
Speaker 1: these same billionaires had with the Biden Harris administration when
Speaker 1: it came to their bottom line. She writes, all of
Speaker 1: the whales had self serving a grievances with the Biden
Speaker 1: White House. Elon Musk has been fuming at Biden ever
Speaker 1: since the National Labor Relations Board forced him in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one to delete a twenty eighteen tweet threatening to
Speaker 1: rescind the stock options of Tesla workers who voted to unionize.
Speaker 1: Harvard boycott and do not Hire list coordinator Bill Ackman
Speaker 1: is likely nursing a grudge over some deleted tweets posted
Speaker 1: by a top SEC official about his dubious back. So
Speaker 1: apparently Elon was pissy over the National Labor Relations Board
Speaker 1: checking his union busting. Acman had a two billion dollar
Speaker 1: stake in Google, which was successfully sued by the Biden doj.
Speaker 1: The billionaire who launched a donations boycott against U Penn
Speaker 1: happens to be CEO of the private equity firm that
Speaker 1: owns a grocery store whose merchant Biden merger Biden was blocking,
Speaker 1: and also owns a for profit diploma mill that the
Speaker 1: Biden Department of Education was going after. A Bunch of
Speaker 1: these guys, of course, have big crypto investments that were
Speaker 1: in danger thanks to SEC chair Gary Gensler actually regulating them.
Speaker 1: Now they used Israel to launder their class interests, positioning
Speaker 1: themselves as the defenders of the average Joe against the
Speaker 1: militant college lefty, while simultaneously cloking themselves in the language
Speaker 1: of microaggressions and safe spaces. An incredible jiu jitsu move,
Speaker 1: I guess, and a successful one, because I bet if
Speaker 1: you asked one hundred Americans which candidate raised more from billionaires,
Speaker 1: ninety nine of them would pick Kamala. The reality, however,
Speaker 1: is the polar opposite. And that's to say nothing of
Speaker 1: the billionaires who simply quietly dropped their previous opposition to Trump.
Speaker 1: Jeff Bezos was the most prominent example, with his decision
Speaker 1: to block his non use paper The Washington Post from
Speaker 1: making an endorsement in the race. Warren Buffett stayed on
Speaker 1: this election entirely. Google Sundar Pachai called Trump to make nice,
Speaker 1: as did Apples, Tim Cook and Facebook Smark Zuckerberg. Even
Speaker 1: Kamala's big billionaire story hit Mark Cuban. He didn't actually
Speaker 1: give her any money for her campaign, and he has
Speaker 1: now scrubbed his Twitter account of all previous pro Kamala tweets.
Speaker 5: Kind of incredible.
Speaker 1: Trump himself had become a comfortable choice for many elites
Speaker 1: after dropping his twenty sixteen rhetorical opposition to billionaire donors
Speaker 1: and commitment to drain the swamp. So it's recalling just
Speaker 1: how vitriolic he was back then towards a Republican Party
Speaker 1: donor class.
Speaker 5: You remember this quiet.
Speaker 6: Helped us at the time a lot of times. That's
Speaker 6: all of his donors and special interests out. So that's
Speaker 6: what it is. That's what And by the way, let
Speaker 6: me just tell you we need a tickets. You can't
Speaker 6: get him. You know who has the tickets for the
Speaker 6: I'm talking about to the television audience, donors, specially the
Speaker 6: people that are putting up the money.
Speaker 5: Who it is.
Speaker 6: The RNC told us we have all donors in the audience.
Speaker 6: And the reason they're not loving me, the reason they're
Speaker 6: not excuse me, the reason they're not loving me is
Speaker 6: I don't want their money. I'm going to do the
Speaker 6: right thing for the American public. I don't want their money.
Speaker 6: I don't need their money. And I'm the only one
Speaker 6: up here that can say that.
Speaker 1: A recently resurfaced tweet has Trump castigating Mark or Rubio
Speaker 1: for being Sheldon Adelson's perfect little puppet. Kind of incredible
Speaker 1: given that Trump himself was this time around beneficiarya of
Speaker 1: an eye popping one hundred million dollars from Sheldon's widow, Miriam,
Speaker 1: who already seems to have received for it a bespoke
Speaker 1: Israel First administration, complete with End Times evangelicals running the
Speaker 1: Pentagon and serving as ambassador to that nation.
Speaker 5: But wasn't just Miriam Trump.
Speaker 1: Corted he flipped his position on crypto, blatantly promised a
Speaker 1: room full of billionaires he will cut their taxes, told
Speaker 1: another room of oil and gas executives that he would
Speaker 1: fulfill their wildest deregulatory dreams. If twenty sixteen was dream swamp,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four was suck off the swamp. So outside
Speaker 1: of Miriam, what are the rest of the billionaires getting
Speaker 1: for their dollars? The general contours are cryptoregulation over tax
Speaker 1: cuts for the rich le nakhn in, aggressive anti trust
Speaker 1: enforcement over general deregulation, pro labor natural labor relations Board gutted.
Speaker 1: I've no doubt specific donors will reap their version of
Speaker 1: bespoke government rewards in the same way that Miriam was
Speaker 1: able to get her Israel First administration. Much of that
Speaker 1: we probably won't even see from our vange point. Elon
Speaker 1: Musk may of course, be the biggest winner, and he
Speaker 1: is already clearly reaping the rewards. One source says he's
Speaker 1: been running around with Trump acting like he's go president.
Speaker 1: As we discussed earlier, Elon's officially been awarded his custom
Speaker 1: hole of government gig to crush any sort of legal
Speaker 1: and regulatory hurdles that his business interests are facing and
Speaker 1: keep those massive taxpayer subsidies coming.
Speaker 5: Don't forget, Musk's.
Speaker 1: Companies are some of the largest recipients of government contracts period.
Speaker 1: SpaceX alone received fifteen point four billion dollars from the
Speaker 1: government over the past decade. Your tax dollars have helped
Speaker 1: to make him the richest man on Earth, and so
Speaker 1: it is reasonable to expect that our government would provide
Speaker 1: some oversight of those expenditures. And in fact, Musk's companies
Speaker 1: are increasingly entangled in a web of regulatory disputes and
Speaker 1: investigations over things like workplace safety violations, union busting, environmental abuses,
Speaker 1: and more. Now, look, some of these investigations might have merit,
Speaker 1: some might not. But does anyone think that under a
Speaker 1: Trump administration he will face scrudiny over literally anything, Even
Speaker 1: if Doge is really just a make work project for
Speaker 1: Elon and Favek. These benefits are real, and they are gigantic.
Speaker 1: Our government being run to serve the interests of the
Speaker 1: richest man on the planet. It is a deeply disturbing outcome.
Speaker 1: Even if you love Elon, just to maagine it was
Speaker 1: Bill Gates, Imagine it was George Shores. Then tell me
Speaker 1: how you would feel about one billionaire, any billionaire, having
Speaker 1: this level of immunity and control. Now Musk is also
Speaker 1: apparently meeting with Trump every day to help oversee government staffing,
Speaker 1: even to speak with foreign leaders. No one allowed to
Speaker 1: billionaire should have this kind of control, period. So did
Speaker 1: Democrats deliver for the working class on a material basis
Speaker 1: in the hero now?
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 1: Did they aggravate enough billionaires for them to throw hundreds
Speaker 1: of millions of dollars to get Lena Conenco off their backs?
Speaker 5: Absolutely?
Speaker 1: Now twenty sixteen, the capitol class, they didn't know what
Speaker 1: to make a Trump, whether he might cause trouble for
Speaker 1: them their bottom line, but ultimately in the end he
Speaker 1: delivered for them. His cabinet was the wealthiest in history,
Speaker 1: stocked with CEOs, billionaires and Wall Street executives. His primary
Speaker 1: accomplishment was a tax cut that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy.
Speaker 1: He stopped his National Labor Relations Board with union busters
Speaker 1: who made sure that workers did not stand a shot
Speaker 1: and increasing their labor power. So this time around, there
Speaker 1: was little concern, plenty of enthusiasm actually about getting their
Speaker 1: man back in the White House. They are fully confident
Speaker 1: that any chaos which is unleashed will leave them unscathed.
Speaker 1: And that is one of truly the most impressive accomplishments.
Speaker 2: And if you want to hear my reaction to Chrystal monologue,
Speaker 2: become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 1: So of course there's been a big conversation about the bros,
Speaker 1: the young gen Z men shifting right and backing Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: and some also just staying home, so to try to.
Speaker 5: Understand more of what may be going on there.
Speaker 1: We're lucky to be joined this morning by Sonjay Morley
Speaker 1: there and he is the vice president of the College Democrats,
Speaker 1: hoping to give some advice to his Democratic brothers and sisters.
Speaker 1: Great to see you Sunday, welcome.
Speaker 4: Well, thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's our pleasure.
Speaker 1: So let's go just put the numbers up on the
Speaker 1: screen and get your reaction to some of the shifts
Speaker 1: that we saw. So young women in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: fifty eight percent voted for Kamala Harris. That was a
Speaker 1: decline from twenty twenty one, sixty five percent voted for
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. With young men, you saw an even steeper decline.
Speaker 1: You see only forty two percent of young men voting
Speaker 1: for Kamala Harris, meaning that Trump won fifty six percent,
Speaker 1: And that is a total flip from back in twenty
Speaker 1: two money when Joe Biden won fifty six percent. Of
Speaker 1: this population, we're talking about men under the age of
Speaker 1: twenty nine. So what do you see in these numbers?
Speaker 1: What do you think is going on here?
Speaker 9: Well, I think these are largely unsurprising. To put it simply,
Speaker 9: I think that as Democrats we fail to directly make
Speaker 9: the case two young men, and the right has very
Speaker 9: much successfully exploited I guess the struggles of young men,
Speaker 9: and I guess to truly understand this, we have to
Speaker 9: take a step back and kind of largely contextualize gen
Speaker 9: Z men and just gen Z as a whole. You know,
Speaker 9: gen Z, we're a generation and crisis. Forty two percent
Speaker 9: of us struggle with depression, Our anxiety. Seventy three percent
Speaker 9: of us have indicated that we feel alone sometimes are.
Speaker 4: Always in our most formative years.
Speaker 9: And this mental health epidemic is further exascerbated within you know,
Speaker 9: the male populace, because.
Speaker 4: It just simply isn't socially.
Speaker 9: Acceptable for us to go out and talk to our
Speaker 9: buddies about our feelings. You know, we tend to kind
Speaker 9: of bottle it up quote unquote man up. And the
Speaker 9: result of this is terrible, you know, and I think
Speaker 9: the right is kind of very much successfully tapped into,
Speaker 9: you know, these feelings of these just general like mal
Speaker 9: sentiments and utilize that in a way that's resulted in
Speaker 9: their electoral victory.
Speaker 8: And why do you think, at least us so far,
Speaker 8: it looks like Kamala Harris failed to inspire a big
Speaker 8: turnout among voters under the age of twenty nine. Why
Speaker 8: do you even compare with Joe Biden, who, by the way,
Speaker 8: I mean it's not just Biden's age. Obviously, Bernie Sanders
Speaker 8: was able to mobilize a pretty significant chunk of the
Speaker 8: youth vote. But why do you think the Harris campaign
Speaker 8: And I'm curious what you make of there's the turnout
Speaker 8: question in general, But why do you think that Harris
Speaker 8: campaign struggled to get young people even to come out
Speaker 8: and vote for her.
Speaker 9: Well, I think, I mean, it's hard to ignore the
Speaker 9: elephant in the room of gaza. You know, college democrats
Speaker 9: haven't been afraid to take a stand and you know,
Speaker 9: actually go up against the Biden administration on this consequential issue.
Speaker 9: I think there's this common misconception that a lot of
Speaker 9: these people who are protesting are like, you know, some
Speaker 9: type of fringe left wing radicals, but a lot of
Speaker 9: them are actually call those Democrats who are actually stifically
Speaker 9: engaged and care about you know, elections as a whole.
Speaker 9: And you know, if you're not listening to young people
Speaker 9: across the country who are literally getting beaten, literally getting
Speaker 9: arrested in pepper sprayed for standing up for global justice,
Speaker 9: it shouldn't be surprising that they didn't turn out in
Speaker 9: the numbers that we expected. So I think that's the
Speaker 9: biggest one. But I also think young people in general,
Speaker 9: we just want to know whether or not uh the
Speaker 9: people at the top care about our futures, right, We're
Speaker 9: not this kind of high up elite uh niche group
Speaker 9: that cares about cultural war issues. We want to know,
Speaker 9: are we going to be able to afford a house?
Speaker 9: Are we going to be able to pay for our groceries?
Speaker 9: Are we going to be able to pay off a
Speaker 9: student loans? And while Democrats, you know, we have the
Speaker 9: policies that solve each of these issues, we kind of
Speaker 9: failed to connect what you guys have referred to earlier
Speaker 9: in some of your earlier segments as like the laundry
Speaker 9: list of Democratic policies to our daily lives. And I
Speaker 9: think failing to make that connection, coupled with the fact
Speaker 9: that the concerns of young people on Gaza were largely ignored,
Speaker 9: would be the two most predominant reasons why I crossed
Speaker 9: the board.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we saw it.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I've been thinking Sonjai to about how it's almost like
Speaker 1: an instinct or it's like the typical protocol within the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party to sort of bash their young base post
Speaker 1: Obama two thousand and eight, and even Obama after two
Speaker 1: thousand and eight kind of you know, made a point
Speaker 1: of punching left and you know, like hippie punching, which
Speaker 1: often ends up being the young, idealistic activists who.
Speaker 5: Bear the brunt of that.
Speaker 1: But you know, it's clear for me in particular with
Speaker 1: the response to the Bernie Sanders movement, which was largely
Speaker 1: a youth movement that was eight years ago. So some
Speaker 1: of the people who were big Bernie Sanders supporters aren't
Speaker 1: under that age of thirty anymore. But it's indicative of
Speaker 1: the way that the Democratic Party tends to treat its
Speaker 1: young activist base, it's young, idealistic base. And you know,
Speaker 1: you see the same instinct with regard to the treatment
Speaker 1: of campus protesters, where you have Joe Biden, Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: going out on their way to condemn them, to smear
Speaker 1: them all as you know, blanket anti Semites, and so
Speaker 1: you know, I don't think it should be surprising then
Speaker 1: when if this is the treatment year after year after year,
Speaker 1: people start feeling like, you know, even if they're not
Speaker 1: going to vote for Donald Trump, like why am I
Speaker 1: going to show up in both of these people who
Speaker 1: don't even really seem like they want me or my
Speaker 1: voice in their coalition?
Speaker 4: Exactly.
Speaker 9: It definitely makes our job top as callous Democrats. I
Speaker 9: remember all the way back in May, you know, Ryan
Speaker 9: Grim actually covered this when we put out a statement
Speaker 9: in regards to this issue, I told in New York
Speaker 9: Times that you know, we can do. We can have
Speaker 9: all the manpower, all the organizing capacity, but if we're
Speaker 9: given a broken script that doesn't actually align with the
Speaker 9: best interests of college students, it's very tough for us to.
Speaker 4: Excite these type of voters. And that's why we spoke
Speaker 4: out as early as we did, because to.
Speaker 9: Us, it would be a disservice to the party if
Speaker 9: we didn't tell them that, hey.
Speaker 4: You know, we know that you need youth to win,
Speaker 4: and looking.
Speaker 9: At what we're seeing on the ground, where our own
Speaker 9: members of our organization are getting eaten and arrested, that's
Speaker 9: not going to do well for turnout. And I deeply
Speaker 9: do hope that in future election cycles they learned from this.
Speaker 9: And I guess, you know, you don't need to agree
Speaker 9: with campus protesters and everything, but the very least, you know,
Speaker 9: support something simple as an armsymbargain.
Speaker 4: And I think what's really telling are the numbers like Dearborn.
Speaker 9: Michigan, for example, where Rashida to Leep want sixty percent
Speaker 9: of the vote, but Harris lost to Trump.
Speaker 4: And I think that.
Speaker 9: Should be proof that you know, we're not losing because
Speaker 9: we're failing to outcompete the right at shifting right word.
Speaker 9: We're losing because we're failing to actually tap into issues
Speaker 9: that matter to both young people but just Americans across
Speaker 9: the board.
Speaker 8: Yeah, when we get back to that question of the vibes,
Speaker 8: we can put the next element up on the screen.
Speaker 3: This is e too.
Speaker 8: Some responses to the New York Times questions about this,
Speaker 8: these are all gen Z voters, by.
Speaker 3: The way, who went for Donald Trump.
Speaker 8: And Pierce twenty six from North Carolina says I voted
Speaker 8: for Donald Trump. I decided after Kamalo went on caller
Speaker 8: and Daddy Lillian twenty seven of Virginia's that I've voted
Speaker 8: for Trump and made that decision the same day the
Speaker 8: mainstream media was having a meltdown after the Madison Square
Speaker 8: Garden rally.
Speaker 3: So one of the things I just want to put
Speaker 3: to you, Sanjay, is you.
Speaker 1: Know llewell At the guy who wrote in Mike Blueberg.
Speaker 8: Mike Blueberg, Yeah, that's a weird bo He's really against
Speaker 8: big gulps.
Speaker 3: The that was the factor for him.
Speaker 1: He wanted an overt like Oligarch and then not like
Speaker 1: a subtle one, like a just an overt one in
Speaker 1: the White House.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, but a little bit of a throwback too.
Speaker 8: But you know the question, it seems to me this
Speaker 8: is very unusual for the right, but it seems to
Speaker 8: me like there's something very fashionable among people who listen
Speaker 8: to what they see as alternative kind of dissident podcasts.
Speaker 3: People will like Joe Rogan, people like THEO Vaughn.
Speaker 8: It almost became fashionable to vote for the Republican candidate
Speaker 8: because it's Donald Trump. And now for Republicans that seems
Speaker 8: to be a problem because it won't translate after Donald
Speaker 8: Trump to other Republican candidates like a JD. Vant Just
Speaker 8: people won't see it in quite the same way. But
Speaker 8: could you speak to a little bit maybe what you
Speaker 8: saw among college students, college Republicans and people even recently
Speaker 8: out of college when it came to that question of
Speaker 8: like was there something actually very exciting to them about
Speaker 8: voting for Donald Trump. It's so unusual again just to
Speaker 8: see that for the Republican candidate among young people. But
Speaker 8: I get the sense that actually is what happened.
Speaker 9: No, yeah, I mean it's incredibly unusual to me, you know,
Speaker 9: as like a gen z Man on the left. I
Speaker 9: was shocked when NBC ends up polling showed Trump, you know,
Speaker 9: performing better among young men.
Speaker 4: Than our candidate.
Speaker 9: And I think the reason for this, I want to
Speaker 9: kind of come back to my first point about how
Speaker 9: I think, you know, Donald Trump and his team are
Speaker 9: kind of successfully exploited, you know, the loneliness epidemic that
Speaker 9: young men are facing. So you know, there's a lot
Speaker 9: of different rabbit holes you can fall into kind of
Speaker 9: when you're trying to in this search for a meeting.
Speaker 9: And I kind of narrowed it down to like three
Speaker 9: big ones. The first is kind of the whole self
Speaker 9: help YouTuber or self help influencer whose whole business model
Speaker 9: is predicated on you not getting self help. You know,
Speaker 9: someone like Andrew Tate who pushed out hustlers un as
Speaker 9: this kind of way to escape the matrix, and it
Speaker 9: ended up just being a pyramid scheme where you're incentivius
Speaker 9: to share it with more people and then he gets
Speaker 9: a kind of the revenue. I think the second group
Speaker 9: is kind of these largely a political but slightly light
Speaker 9: reading right word leading kind of like conservative influencers, the
Speaker 9: likes of like Aiden Ross Logan, Paul and I think
Speaker 9: you can throw in, you know, just general conservative influencers
Speaker 9: were also kind of entertainers, the likes of like Charlie Kirk,
Speaker 9: seven Crowder, and then the last group kind of being
Speaker 9: the one who those who kind of defied the system
Speaker 9: as a whole.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: I think your best example.
Speaker 9: Is Joe Rogan, who you know, he can't be canceled
Speaker 9: because his network is bigger than anyone who would try
Speaker 9: to cancel him CNN. They've got twenty literally like one
Speaker 9: twenty eighth of the viewership that he does.
Speaker 8: And even Neil Jung and Johnny like they could Johnny
Speaker 8: Mitchell couldn't cancel him when they got mad at Spotify
Speaker 8: for oh no, yeah.
Speaker 9: You literally can. And I think, honestly, I mean sidetracked.
Speaker 9: But I think as Democrats, he'd accept that and actually
Speaker 9: embrace his viewership. But I think think Donald Trump kind
Speaker 9: of taps into all three of these different I guess
Speaker 9: rabbit holes in such a perfect manner. You know, I
Speaker 9: would argue he's like the self help influencer whose whole
Speaker 9: business models predicated and you not getting self help. We
Speaker 9: saw it with Trump University, which was I it was
Speaker 9: starkly similar to you know, all these like Nie Pyramid
Speaker 9: schemes that we've seen with like the likes of Andrew Tate.
Speaker 9: He's obviously also kind of an entertainer, you know, we've
Speaker 9: seen with The Apprentice, and his whole style is just entertaining,
Speaker 9: and he's.
Speaker 4: Defied the system.
Speaker 9: There is no uh, you know, political precedent for Donald Trump,
Speaker 9: and I think him kind of effectively tapping into these
Speaker 9: three different realms are is what's resulted in him being
Speaker 9: such a successful candidate.
Speaker 1: That's such an insightful that's so insightful about Trump University.
Speaker 1: I don't really in the Andrew Tate model being similar
Speaker 1: in Trump University being version of that insightful those categories too. Yeah,
Speaker 1: go ahead, Sanjay, you can finish a point.
Speaker 9: No, yeah, But I think the point that I'm getting
Speaker 9: at is like he they're successful in this regard, and
Speaker 9: then us as Democrats, the best way that we can
Speaker 9: combat this is to kind of combat traditional masculinity with
Speaker 9: modern masculinity. But I think until we do that, we're
Speaker 9: going to continue seeing young men kind of shift.
Speaker 1: Right word I've been trying to figure out Hassan Piker
Speaker 1: talks about how all of these it's kind of similar
Speaker 1: to what you're saying, but how all of these spaces
Speaker 1: for men have just become like right wing and so like,
Speaker 1: if you want to get fit, the fitness influencers our
Speaker 1: right wing. If you want to like the self help
Speaker 1: like it's Jordan Peterson or Andrew Tait or whatever, like,
Speaker 1: that's become right wing. If you're a gamer like that
Speaker 1: pipeline is also right wing. If you're just like into
Speaker 1: weird history and aliens and shit, it's like Joe Rogan
Speaker 1: and that's also right way, you know. So is that
Speaker 1: I'm just trying to figure out the chicken in the
Speaker 1: egg scenario here, Like.
Speaker 5: Did that I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't know whether that was a response to where
Speaker 1: young men are or whether young men were influenced by
Speaker 1: the fact that all those spaces trended to the right,
Speaker 1: you know what I'm getting at, Like which caused which.
Speaker 9: Well, I think that this is largely oh to the
Speaker 9: fact that his Democrats are always kind of on our
Speaker 9: high horse and we're not willing to kind of go
Speaker 9: into spaces that are somewhat antagonistic to us, and that's
Speaker 9: kind of what's allowed the right to kind of have
Speaker 9: a monopoly on the so called manosphere. So my advice
Speaker 9: to Democrats me to do two things. One to enter
Speaker 9: in these spaces. Get off your high horse and go
Speaker 9: on Joe Rogan. I remember I was sitting in the
Speaker 9: class scrolling through ground News and then when I saw
Speaker 9: Donald Trump going on Joe Rogan, I was like, Oh crap,
Speaker 9: this is not good. He's gonna get like a massive
Speaker 9: viewership base, and that's care is gonna get none of this.
Speaker 9: And it's like, So, I think the first thing is,
Speaker 9: you know, we got to go into these spheres. And
Speaker 9: I think not just Joe Rogan, but I think they
Speaker 9: would break the internet if say, like Kamala Harris or
Speaker 9: Tim Walls for example, did a live stream with like
Speaker 9: Aiden Ross or Logan Paul, you know, because these are
Speaker 9: largely eight political guys who don't really know much. But
Speaker 9: I think if you go in there and make your case,
Speaker 9: they'll hear you out. The second thing that I would,
Speaker 9: you know, advise those that you know who are more
Speaker 9: powerful than me and the party, would be to kind
Speaker 9: of display a strong narrative that actually resonates with young men.
Speaker 9: And I think the narrative that I would push is
Speaker 9: a strong man stands up for himself, and a stronger
Speaker 9: man stands up for others. And what I mean by
Speaker 9: that is a strong man stands up for himself by
Speaker 9: you know, eating healthy, taking care of his body, going
Speaker 9: to the gym, but also taking care of his mind,
Speaker 9: you know, going to therapy and being open with his emotions.
Speaker 9: You know, it isn't weak to take the time to
Speaker 9: grow as a person. It's actually strong to go against
Speaker 9: the social norm of kind of having to man up
Speaker 9: and suffocating your emotions, but also stand up for others
Speaker 9: in the sense of championing LGPDQ rights, championing a woman's
Speaker 9: right to choose for the women that are important in
Speaker 9: your lives, you know, championing a greater minimum wage so
Speaker 9: those who are less fortunate can you know, be able
Speaker 9: to put food in the table. But also you know,
Speaker 9: being able to support your family by or your loved
Speaker 9: ones or whoever, by going out there and being successful
Speaker 9: career wise. And I think we've got to you know,
Speaker 9: make this case of kind of the modern man, but
Speaker 9: also say that you know, we don't we just believe this.
Speaker 4: We're going to help you get there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we have to be about boring. Like that's the
Speaker 1: thing is like Joe Roganen said out to like I'm
Speaker 1: going to riminge doctor. It was just like, you know,
Speaker 1: he's entertaining and people want to listen to it. And
Speaker 1: if you have some like Democrats can be like you said,
Speaker 1: kind of too high minded and stuffy, where it's like
Speaker 1: this is not entertaining.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 8: Well, I mean that's my last question actually say is
Speaker 8: basically like that message.
Speaker 3: I think it makes sense.
Speaker 8: But are there ways that Democrats have to change their
Speaker 8: making of the message. I remember Nina Turner during the
Speaker 8: DNC saying that the Democratic Party feels too feminine for
Speaker 8: black men, that it's it feels like it's been totally feminized,
Speaker 8: and James Carvell has said something similar that for men,
Speaker 8: you know, it's almost like it would be unmanly for
Speaker 8: them to vote for Democrats. Just the way that the
Speaker 8: party messages on some of these issues, it's sort of
Speaker 8: it feels like it's it's undercutting masculinity. So how do
Speaker 8: Democrats make all of those cases about you know, what
Speaker 8: it means needs to be a strong man or for example,
Speaker 8: even on positions I would disagree with on you know,
Speaker 8: whether it's you know, you could take any issue immigration,
Speaker 8: anything like that, like, how do you make that message
Speaker 8: not feel you know, whether or not we agree it's
Speaker 8: it's feminine or feminized right now, how do you make
Speaker 8: it so it doesn't hit the average male voter as feminized.
Speaker 9: Well, I mean, I think it comes down to, like,
Speaker 9: you know, the narrative that I was mentioning just about
Speaker 9: strong man being someone who stands up for others. You know,
Speaker 9: I think for standing for a just and more just
Speaker 9: immigration system shouldn't be seen in feminine. I think, if anything,
Speaker 9: it is incredibly masculine, you know, to stand up for
Speaker 9: kind of the best interest of marginalized groups. And honestly,
Speaker 9: I think it's just a slight messaging issue. I think
Speaker 9: largely we're right on a lot of these issues across
Speaker 9: the board. But I think once Democrats are largely willing
Speaker 9: to kind of go into these mano spirit spheres and
Speaker 9: directly speak.
Speaker 4: To the concerns of young men, they'll be fine.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 9: It's tough for me to kind of talk about like
Speaker 9: the feminization of the party because I feel like, as
Speaker 9: a guy who considers himself a feminist, I don't want
Speaker 9: to you know, tap in too deep and the kind
Speaker 9: of talk about something that I don't know if I
Speaker 9: have the credentials for but I think just at the
Speaker 9: very least, as long as we go into these spaces
Speaker 9: and directly make the case about uh, you know, kind
Speaker 9: of connecting these policies in a way that kind of
Speaker 9: helps us young men kind of go out and live
Speaker 9: kind of like the provider esque lives that we hope to,
Speaker 9: I think we'll be successful.
Speaker 1: Well, I think I think there's models. I mean, Bernie
Speaker 1: is the obvious model. No one felt like Bernie's campaign
Speaker 1: was like too fem. In fact, it was the opposite.
Speaker 1: It was Spears being way too BROI you know, and
Speaker 1: that was like, you know, that was used to tag
Speaker 1: all his supporters like your toxic and you hate women,
Speaker 1: blah blah blah. So he went out a way, that's right.
Speaker 1: He did go on like three, but he went on
Speaker 1: with Joe Rogan. He got Joe Rogan's sort of endorsement,
Speaker 1: and that was very controversial. But I mean I would
Speaker 1: also say Hassan Piker, you know, I mean, Hassan is
Speaker 1: very lefty and no one would code him as being
Speaker 1: like too fem And I would put my husband Kyleculants
Speaker 1: in that bucket too, and I think part of the
Speaker 1: problem is that Democrats, while Republicans are happy to go
Speaker 1: in any of these space you know, many of these
Speaker 1: spaces democrats don't, like, not even on our own, Like
Speaker 1: very few go on with Hassani's gigantic right. The only
Speaker 1: Democrat who basically will come on the show is Rokana,
Speaker 1: which kudos to him, but like there should be more,
Speaker 1: you know, and we're trying, you know, like even now
Speaker 1: after this whole reckoning about new media reach out to
Speaker 1: Senator Chris Murphy's office, crickets really crickets, yeah, and so
Speaker 1: so you know, it's not just they won't go on
Speaker 1: the like right wing coded spaces, they won't even go
Speaker 1: in the left wing coded spaces.
Speaker 5: What do you expect?
Speaker 1: And a lot like, you know, the audience here is
Speaker 1: disproportionally mail All the YouTube audiences are, whether they're on
Speaker 1: the left or the right, Kyle's audience is disproportionally mail
Speaker 1: Yit like all these spaces are disproportionately male. And they
Speaker 1: won't even go on, you know, the people who are
Speaker 1: more ideologically aligned with them because they know they won't
Speaker 1: just get like, you know, a shoulder massage the way
Speaker 1: they will from an MSNBC or a CNN.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think I think you're splot on with that.
Speaker 9: I mean, I think that when you look at the
Speaker 9: future of the party, I look at Rocana, you know,
Speaker 9: I think he's one of advisors of College Democrats of
Speaker 9: America and the fact that he's willing to go on
Speaker 9: breaking points or just new media in general is testament
Speaker 9: to what to the future of the party is. And
Speaker 9: I think, you know, at this point, it's not a
Speaker 9: choice any you know, we saw what happened when we didn't,
Speaker 9: and now we're gonna have no choice but to let
Speaker 9: go of like these easy scripted conversations and actually go
Speaker 9: and you know, talk about what we really think. You know,
Speaker 9: I think I'm not the biggest fan of Joe Rogan's
Speaker 9: antics as a whole, but I do appreciate the medium.
Speaker 9: I think the medium of a three hour unscripted conversation
Speaker 9: is just good for democracy in general. And I would
Speaker 9: strongly hope that you know, those the top of the
Speaker 9: DNC embrace that sentiment and start pushing our candidates to
Speaker 9: be more authentic and be able to survive.
Speaker 1: Through hour long conversations Sunday really insight thoughts and comments
Speaker 1: from you this morning.
Speaker 5: Really grateful for your time.
Speaker 3: It's nice to meet you, to meet you as well.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much our pleasure.
Speaker 1: Sager did text Emily to weigh in on the Matt
Speaker 1: Gates pick. Of course, he said he wanted it to
Speaker 1: be registered that his biggest complaint about Matt Gates is
Speaker 1: that he is pro weed.
Speaker 3: So that sounds right. That sounds right for me.
Speaker 1: We should have just anticipated that take and it included
Speaker 1: it in the show yet anyway, I wanted to get
Speaker 1: that in here at the end.
Speaker 8: Also more inside baseball. Crystal fully took her microphone off.
Speaker 5: That was done.
Speaker 1: Wires hanging out, ready to get out of here.
Speaker 3: Was great though, that was He's really interesting. I liked
Speaker 3: his three buckets of same.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he really had thought like he had organized thoughts
Speaker 1: about this which were helpful. So think is always good
Speaker 1: to see someone from within the party apparatus who you know,
Speaker 1: the college Democrats are kind of a pipeline to bigger
Speaker 1: like party influence, et cetera. So I think we'll be
Speaker 1: seeing more of him.
Speaker 8: And you know we should also will say his friend
Speaker 8: was After we wrapped the interview, he showed us he
Speaker 8: moved his camera his friend was on the couch, So
Speaker 8: shout out to both of them, because they're both big
Speaker 8: fans of the show and have been watching you and
Speaker 8: Soccer all the way back to Rising, so shout out
Speaker 8: to them. It's always so fun when we have like
Speaker 8: very flat young Democrats or like young even people on
Speaker 8: the right. Ryan went to a gathering of young conservatives recently.
Speaker 5: And oh, realate him.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so he went with soccer. Actually, oh that's right.
Speaker 1: That was on election night, yes, yeah, yeah, because yeah,
Speaker 1: which is crazy to me because I was like so exhausted,
Speaker 1: but then I couldn't sleep, so I should have just done.
Speaker 5: Something like that.
Speaker 3: You may have gotten a different reception, Crystal.
Speaker 5: Yeah, among the.
Speaker 3: Right wing bros.
Speaker 8: And they're like, oh, this Ryan guy, he looks like
Speaker 8: he he looks like I got a beer with him.
Speaker 5: He's okay, this one don't know about her? Well sus Yeah, fair,
Speaker 5: fair enough.
Speaker 1: Well anyway, all right, guys, enjoy the weekend. Soccer will
Speaker 1: be back here for part of next week, and then
Speaker 1: we will have a lot more Emily and a lot
Speaker 1: more of them the Ladies.
Speaker 5: Show, So forward to Madam.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 5: It'll be a blast, alright, guys, see you soon, ka