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 coverage.
Speaker 3: That is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 3: What do we have, Prystal?
Speaker 4: Indeed we do.
Speaker 1: We got Logan back in house to give us the
Speaker 1: latest update on his model, and also some new polling developments,
Speaker 1: both with regards to the presidential race in Pennsylvania specifically
Speaker 1: and with regard to Senate races. Texas may be more
Speaker 1: interesting than people previously thought, so we'll take a look
Speaker 1: at all of that. Also, Kamala Harris yesterday announcing her
Speaker 1: policy plan for black men, and it is really something
Speaker 1: apparently I don't know. Well, allow to save all of
Speaker 1: my commentary on that for that involves week involves we
Speaker 1: involve giving and mail mentors and most neoliberal thing I've
Speaker 1: literally ever seen, so we'll dig into that. Also might
Speaker 1: be going on Joe Rogan Kamala Harris yesterday we covered,
Speaker 1: but Trump may be going on with Joe Rogan and today,
Speaker 1: so we felt the need to get this into the
Speaker 1: show today.
Speaker 4: But apparently her people are in talks, so it'll be interesting.
Speaker 3: I'm hoping. I think it'd be fun.
Speaker 1: Clearly we're trying to make a pitch for the mail
Speaker 1: vote bro vote with all this crypto and Rogan doings,
Speaker 1: so we'll dig into that. We also Trump making some
Speaker 1: truly wild comments that we wanted to make sure and
Speaker 1: cover and what that could pretend in terms of election
Speaker 1: day in a future Trump possible administration. We're also going
Speaker 1: to take a look at this supposed third assassination attempt
Speaker 1: on Trump, which appears to be nothing of the sort.
Speaker 4: We'll bring you all of the details there.
Speaker 1: We also wanted to take some time out to take
Speaker 1: a look at the real estate market in Florida. You know,
Speaker 1: Florida experienced this massive during COVID. Post COVID boom, many
Speaker 1: people move to the state. You know, Ronda Standis and
Speaker 1: other politicians really really bragging about that, very proud of that.
Speaker 1: Some of that may be reversing now, so we're going
Speaker 1: to dig into the real estate market there, especially exacerbated
Speaker 1: now by the state being hit by two very severe hurricanes.
Speaker 1: We've got some once again horrific updates for you out
Speaker 1: of Israel as well, including a New York Times report
Speaker 1: about how Israel has been systematically using Palestinians as human
Speaker 1: shield well documented sourced actually to the soldiers themselves who
Speaker 1: are engaged in this practice.
Speaker 4: So will break all of that down for you as well.
Speaker 2: That's right, before we get to any of that, make
Speaker 2: sure you go ahead subscribe Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 3: You get access to our exclusive.
Speaker 2: Election content, including one of our segments today with Logan,
Speaker 2: So if you want to be able to watch that
Speaker 2: and everything the show uncut AMAS, you can take advantage
Speaker 2: Breakingpoints dot Com become premubscriber. Let's get to Logan joining
Speaker 2: us now, Logan Phillips, our exclusive election forecaster, Logan.
Speaker 3: We love seeing you here at the desk.
Speaker 5: Welcome back, man, I love to be here.
Speaker 3: Awesome. All right, let's dig into it.
Speaker 2: You've got your forecast to the White House is going
Speaker 2: to put that up there on the screen. We've only
Speaker 2: got twenty days until the presidential election. You currently have it, Actually,
Speaker 2: it's narrowed a little bit since we talked last time.
Speaker 2: You have it fifty five forty five for Kamala Harris. Effectively,
Speaker 2: in my head, that's like a toss up, right, you know,
Speaker 2: with only five percent margin or so. So talk to
Speaker 2: us about some of the movement within that why things
Speaker 2: have maybe tightened with a little bit with less time
Speaker 2: to go now before the rate.
Speaker 6: Yeah, there's two reasons. Donal Trump skins a little bit
Speaker 6: in the national polls. We seem to more movement in
Speaker 6: the national polls as we do in some of these
Speaker 6: swing states. Yeah, but you know, Harris's lead is crept
Speaker 6: a little bit under three percent nationally. And the other
Speaker 6: thing is we had to rush the poles showing Trump
Speaker 6: aheaded Michigan in Wisconsin. Now, right, some of these were
Speaker 6: lower quality polls, but they were enough for them that
Speaker 6: they at least for me and I think everyone else,
Speaker 6: they kind of pulled it a little closer. So, either
Speaker 6: that's true or not. We're gonna get a better sense
Speaker 6: in the next few days. But it's certainly a canary
Speaker 6: in the coal mine for Harris.
Speaker 3: Got it all right, Well, let's let's sorry, go ahead, Crysal, Yeah,
Speaker 3: all right, well let's continue.
Speaker 2: Let's continue then on the electoral college, because this is
Speaker 2: where what you were just talking about with the swing states,
Speaker 2: this stuff really matters. So A two please if we
Speaker 2: can put that up on the screen. Here, you have
Speaker 2: in the overall seven key swing states, you actually have
Speaker 2: Trump up by point five. They're in the state of
Speaker 2: Pennsylvania arguably the most important one Wisconsin, though you have
Speaker 2: Harris up by one in Nevada. I want to come
Speaker 2: back to this because you have Harris up by one
Speaker 2: point six. It's a little bit different than what I've
Speaker 2: seen elsewhere. Trump up in North Carolina, and then you
Speaker 2: also have Wisconsin pretty well close there. So maybe explain
Speaker 2: a little bit of where things are here in the forecast.
Speaker 2: Also I misspoke, I apologize. Pennsylvania, you have Hairs up
Speaker 2: by one point three. Just explain a little bit here
Speaker 2: this margin some of the movement again that we've seen here,
Speaker 2: and your theory of whether they'll all move together or
Speaker 2: they won't.
Speaker 6: Yeah, to some Pomey, they definitely will move together. But
Speaker 6: to quiet, there still can be that gap. And if
Speaker 6: the election is as close as the pole suggest and
Speaker 6: there is a big pulling miss. You could absolutely see division, right,
Speaker 6: but if either canon overperforms even by like one and
Speaker 6: a half points, they could sweep all of them potentially. Yeah,
Speaker 6: And I think there's something really interesting going on right because,
Speaker 6: like the honestly, like at least since twenty twelve, we've
Speaker 6: seen Midwestern states that are a little bit more white
Speaker 6: like shift very very fast towards Republicans. Yeah, and Democrats
Speaker 6: start to zoom forward in the Sun Belt so fast.
Speaker 6: The states like Jordia that weren't even close in play,
Speaker 6: you know, are going for them if they win the
Speaker 6: popular vote by enough. This year, it seems like the
Speaker 6: breaks have been stopped on both of those trends and
Speaker 6: maybe even reversed. And I'm wondering if you have something
Speaker 6: to do with the strategic objectives for both parties. The
Speaker 6: iceberg for the GOP is their low performance with non
Speaker 6: white voters that will kill them as the country becomes
Speaker 6: majority minority. And for Democrats, the short term iceberg, the
Speaker 6: one that almost cost them in twenty twenty and did
Speaker 6: cost them election in sixteen, is their poor performance with
Speaker 6: white voters. And so perhaps these as both parties achieving
Speaker 6: their goals to some degree, which has caused the map
Speaker 6: to kind of shift a little bit in the other direction,
Speaker 6: where Democrats are doing better than they did in the
Speaker 6: Midwest last time relative to the national vote, and actually
Speaker 6: maybe even worse than Georgian Arizona.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So sticking with that point, you're specifically talking about Democratic
Speaker 2: gains with white voters, probably white college educated voters, and
Speaker 2: then Trump and get Republican performance with black and Latino votes,
Speaker 2: specifically men, which we're about to get to.
Speaker 3: In a little bit.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, yeah, and mostly how much it doug goes
Speaker 6: in reality. I mean, there's a constant trend of polls
Speaker 6: underrating Democratic support of black voters, and you know, New
Speaker 6: York Times Nate Cohen went into this recently as one
Speaker 6: of the possibilities, right, is that some of the supporters
Speaker 6: that are some black voters that say they're going to
Speaker 6: support Republicans don't often vote necessarily their low propensity voters. Yeah,
Speaker 6: so it hasn't always shown up. Part of that's due habits,
Speaker 6: some of that is due to the GOT efforts in
Speaker 6: the black commun You're often targeted more towards Democratic groups, right,
Speaker 6: and Republicans haven't really put much effort or resources in
Speaker 6: they're just starting to where they're not going to catch
Speaker 6: up in one cycle.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we're going to cover in the next blocks on
Speaker 1: the Kamala Harris's effort to reach men in general, black
Speaker 1: men specifically. And I've had the same question in my
Speaker 1: mind because back in twenty twenty, there were also a
Speaker 1: lot of polls that showed like, oh, Joe Biden might
Speaker 1: underperform with black men, but then when it came to
Speaker 1: election day, he had the same performances Democrats typically have.
Speaker 1: So I think that's a big question mark.
Speaker 4: We wanted you to.
Speaker 1: Dig into a little bit of Pennsylvania because I imagine
Speaker 1: your assessment is the same as ours, the same with
Speaker 1: a lot of other people, that Pennsylvania may be effectively the.
Speaker 4: Whole ball game.
Speaker 1: There's some interesting early voting data that I wanted you
Speaker 1: to take a look at and tell us what, if anything,
Speaker 1: we should make of it. Tom Bonnier, who's with Target Smart,
Speaker 1: which is a Democratic aligned firm.
Speaker 4: But you know, I mean, their data is just data.
Speaker 4: She's taking a look at it.
Speaker 1: So let's put this thread up on the screen. Let
Speaker 1: me show you a few pieces of this. So he says,
Speaker 1: if you look at the vote report in Pennsylvania. So
Speaker 1: far Democrats have a solid advantage in terms of party registration.
Speaker 1: That the gap is smaller than it was in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty at the same point, but that doesn't tell the
Speaker 1: whole story. Go ahead to the next one. Here we
Speaker 1: can take a look, he says. Let's look at the
Speaker 1: early vote by modeled partisanship, so not just what people
Speaker 1: self identify, but what their target. Smart modeling suggests their
Speaker 1: vote will be. It shows a wider dem lead than
Speaker 1: at this point in twenty twenty.
Speaker 4: Why is that.
Speaker 1: The answer as simple, the model believes that the unaffiliate
Speaker 1: voters are more Democratic than they were in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: If we could go to the next one as well,
Speaker 1: He's been pointing out that there appears to have been
Speaker 1: in multiple states a huge surge in Black women registering
Speaker 1: to vote and so far also turning out to vote.
Speaker 1: He says, looking at the racial breakdown of women early
Speaker 1: voters in PA, we see the biggest increases among women
Speaker 1: of color, especially Black women, whose turnout is two hundred
Speaker 1: and forty eight percent of their turnout at this point
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty, compared to one hundred and forty six
Speaker 1: percent for white women, so women in general turning out
Speaker 1: at higher rates than they do in twenty twenty. What,
Speaker 1: if anything, do you make of these numbers? How should
Speaker 1: we think about these things?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I don't know if it can tell us too
Speaker 6: much about who's going to win, because it's so hard
Speaker 6: to interpret early vote accurately, especially getting how much the
Speaker 6: electorate is changing with the early voting habits post COVID.
Speaker 6: That being said, it does tell us a story of
Speaker 6: what the parties you're trying to do and whether they're
Speaker 6: being successful. Republicans were trying really hard to reverse some
Speaker 6: of the fears about early voting and voting by mail, Jess.
Speaker 6: Maybe they've made some ground on that front. That doesn't
Speaker 6: mean they're going to win the election. Some of these
Speaker 6: guys would have voted on election day. But it's a
Speaker 6: lot easier when you have a GOTV operation to get
Speaker 6: people to vote early because you don't have to then
Speaker 6: worry about them in the final stretch, and you can
Speaker 6: focus your resource.
Speaker 1: You can kind of check them off and focus on
Speaker 1: the people who you're still working to persuade to.
Speaker 6: Turn out exactly, and then on the democratic front, right
Speaker 6: as we're just talking about the fear is, how are
Speaker 6: they going to have the same level of turnouf with
Speaker 6: black voters, especially in Philadelphia and Milwaukee. And so we're
Speaker 6: seeing some good signs in Pennsylvania Wisconsin on that front
Speaker 6: for Dems. And you know, turnout was high across the board.
Speaker 6: It was a little lower in some of these cities.
Speaker 6: And twenty twenty relative to the rest of the state,
Speaker 6: Democrats managed to win anyway, and you know they're hoping
Speaker 6: that that doesn't happen in twenty twenty four. And this
Speaker 6: is a sign that they're planned to change. This is working.
Speaker 6: And you know, the Harris campaign, everyone says has a
Speaker 6: pretty great GEOTV operation. I think there's a question mark
Speaker 6: on Trump's because he has had his super packs take
Speaker 6: the lead on that they're using some new stratus jeez,
Speaker 6: and could work out. It could also kind of blow
Speaker 6: up in their face. And a lot of GOP operatives
Speaker 6: are worried about that.
Speaker 5: That.
Speaker 1: Well, Elon is a big part of the turn on
Speaker 1: operation of Pennsylvania.
Speaker 3: Yes, the America Pack.
Speaker 6: Yes, yeah, So sometimes innovation in politics is very important
Speaker 6: can work.
Speaker 5: And Elon himself is kind of interesting because.
Speaker 6: The guy either kills it or it fails it's a
Speaker 6: good way for that's a very good way for you.
Speaker 3: Can we put the New York Times pull up on screen?
Speaker 2: I want to talk to you about this A four
Speaker 2: please mystery repeats Harris up by four and Pa, according
Speaker 2: to the New York Times, Trump up by six in Arizona.
Speaker 2: So there was a previous theory that all seven swing
Speaker 2: states would either go one way or the other way
Speaker 2: kind of how they did in twenty twenty. This time,
Speaker 2: like you just said, we see a rid of a
Speaker 2: reversal in that trend. This both of the parties are
Speaker 2: fighting to accomplish the two things that cost them previous elections.
Speaker 2: Is that what you see going on here? What are
Speaker 2: the key characteristics of why and how there could be
Speaker 2: a ten point spread between these two critical swing states.
Speaker 6: So I think it's unlikely it's that big, but it's possible. Right,
Speaker 6: it's probably the spread of Polsters have it, or at
Speaker 6: least anything I can think of off the cuff. But
Speaker 6: the New York Times theory of the case, and they're smart,
Speaker 6: so maybe they're right. Yeah, is that Democrats are genuinely
Speaker 6: doing better with white voters, especially white college educated voters,
Speaker 6: and that is enabling them to do better in the Midwest,
Speaker 6: but they are losing ground with non white voters and
Speaker 6: therefront and performing in the sun Belt. So they see
Speaker 6: the national vote being worse for Democrats and a lot
Speaker 6: closer than everyone else's showing right now, and they show
Speaker 6: but they still have Democrats winning for that Midwest path.
Speaker 2: And that would be a twenty twenty two scenario, right
Speaker 2: because that's what we talked a lot about yesterday. Times
Speaker 2: both budding on this political realignment. In this scenario, would
Speaker 2: you expect Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada to all move similarly?
Speaker 2: Because I saw it in your forecast. You have Nevada
Speaker 2: Harris up, but you know I've seen Trump up there
Speaker 2: almost by six points in some places, which is a
Speaker 2: crazy reversal. When's the last time Republicans one, I want
Speaker 2: to say two thousand and four.
Speaker 3: Yes, it's a long time.
Speaker 6: I saw the same pole, and I think that one
Speaker 6: was an ally. I'd be shocked if you one. I
Speaker 6: want to be shocked to be one about it, but
Speaker 6: I'd be shocked be one by six. I think that
Speaker 6: Nevada is probably a little easier for Dems than maybe
Speaker 6: even the other three Midwest states. Based off the current polling.
Speaker 6: But it's a hard state to poll, and the GOP
Speaker 6: it's been their white whale, and it's not because it's
Speaker 6: an uncatchable one.
Speaker 5: They're barely losing.
Speaker 3: Yet every time it's like this close, so they could win.
Speaker 6: And in twenty fourteen they just had Democrats went completely
Speaker 6: a wall in the state and PLP won the House
Speaker 6: seats by combined eighteen percent. I think they won the
Speaker 6: governor race by forty. So like there's the you can't
Speaker 6: roll out of. It is a reason it's on the
Speaker 6: swing state list.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean it's such a unique state demographically, and
Speaker 1: also just with the union density and the nature of
Speaker 1: the i mean the culinary workers union and how much
Speaker 1: the service sector are dominated. So it's not like you know,
Speaker 1: hardcat construction unions which have really shifted towards Trump.
Speaker 4: It's the service.
Speaker 1: Sector unions which have stayed more in the Democratic camp.
Speaker 1: But you know, still you have a state where there
Speaker 1: was hit very hard by COVID, where economic concerns are
Speaker 1: really paramount, where the demographics may not at this point
Speaker 1: in time, particularly favor Democrats in terms of you know,
Speaker 1: some of the realignments and some of the ships. But
Speaker 1: you know, to go back to your point about if
Speaker 1: the New York Times theory is correct about the shifts
Speaker 1: in the electorate, if Kamala Harris wins those quote unquote
Speaker 1: blue Wall states but loses all the other ones, she
Speaker 1: wins two seventy to sixty eight, Like I mean, right,
Speaker 1: am I doing that math right as close as it
Speaker 1: could effectively possibly with Nebraska, with which kind of terrifies me,
Speaker 1: just given the way that the post election last time went,
Speaker 1: with all the conspiracy theories and all of the ink
Speaker 1: January six and all of the chaos. Like, if it
Speaker 1: is that razor thin, I think we're in. I won't
Speaker 1: ask you to a pine on that piece, but I
Speaker 1: think we're in for some very troubled times post election day.
Speaker 1: If it is truly that narrow of a margin.
Speaker 5: I know what you're talking about, Chris. So I think
Speaker 5: everyone in the country will handle that very piece.
Speaker 1: Somewhere's gonna be like, Okay, we're so great, we congratulate
Speaker 1: our new presidential victor.
Speaker 4: We'll I'll move forward.
Speaker 1: I wanted to add I did want you to have
Speaker 1: pine though on this phenomena of quote unquote trash polls
Speaker 1: and whether you think this is a real thing. We
Speaker 1: could put the real clear politics average up here. These
Speaker 1: are all of the pencil recent Pennsylvania polls, and many
Speaker 1: of them are favoring Trump, but also many of them.
Speaker 4: Are partisan polls.
Speaker 1: A few of them are ones that I think you
Speaker 1: could you could classify in that junk poll or trash
Speaker 1: pole status. So talk to us about the rise of
Speaker 1: some of these new pollsters and how we should be
Speaker 1: thinking about that in terms of these these states and
Speaker 1: these numbers.
Speaker 6: Yeah, well, you know, I don't really like to talk
Speaker 6: about this, and my fellow you know, polster pull averagers
Speaker 6: out there, but RCB does have a bit of a
Speaker 6: tendency to include some of the GOP internal polls and
Speaker 6: managed to take off some of the high quality polls
Speaker 6: that might show that Democrats ahead sometimes.
Speaker 5: So yeah, it might be a little skewed.
Speaker 6: I think there is some concerns, especially for as Musen Trafalgar,
Speaker 6: you know as Muson in particular. They had a poll
Speaker 6: a year ago that they put out that they said
Speaker 6: proved that doctor Fauci had killed more people than anyone
Speaker 6: since the Holocaust.
Speaker 5: And so there's five thirty eight.
Speaker 4: Then I'd exactly like straight shooting.
Speaker 6: With that, I don't bet almost anyone, right, Like I
Speaker 6: might lower the rating, but like it's a high standard
Speaker 6: for me.
Speaker 5: But Resnution just kind of met that and vaulted over it.
Speaker 5: So some of these are a little less reputable than Okay.
Speaker 2: Well, My question though, is and the reason why I'm
Speaker 2: focusing on it, is that this was such a key
Speaker 2: part of the twenty twenty two story. Is that if
Speaker 2: you had and I put this out like a couple
Speaker 2: of days ago, and one of the common responses I
Speaker 2: got is, look, you know, even by Republicans, they're like, look,
Speaker 2: liberals are not wrong. But there were a lot of
Speaker 2: crappy stuff in the overall polling averages leading up to
Speaker 2: twenty twenty two, which led to a false picture where
Speaker 2: if you scroll down and you look at Maris, New
Speaker 2: York Times, Sienna, they all mostly had Fetterman up by
Speaker 2: a couple of points, and they were right right. And
Speaker 2: so if we want to for the viewer out there
Speaker 2: who doesn't just want who wants to look for themselves
Speaker 2: and try and figure this out not necessarily rely on
Speaker 2: a waiting measure, how should they think about it? Like,
Speaker 2: how do you think about it when you're rating different people.
Speaker 2: Is it just accuracy?
Speaker 3: Is it?
Speaker 2: You know, like samples, just talk to us about that,
Speaker 2: because I think we have an audience that really wants
Speaker 2: to get in the ways here.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, I think. I think. I guess she's a
Speaker 5: big part of it.
Speaker 6: And you know, it does just because you got to
Speaker 6: right one cycle doesn't mean you get it right the
Speaker 6: next cycle.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 6: And a lot of these posters have a tendency to
Speaker 6: miss a little to the left, a little to the right,
Speaker 6: and it makes it harder. Sometimes they change their approach.
Speaker 6: Emerson used to miss to the left. Now they appear
Speaker 6: to be to the right of most polsters change their strategy,
Speaker 6: so that makes it a little harder.
Speaker 5: I would say, I think one.
Speaker 1: Of the ones that's shifted to the self identification of
Speaker 1: like you know how you voted last time.
Speaker 6: I believe that Emerson uses that, but I'm not absolutely
Speaker 6: sure they definitely include that in all of their polls. Yeah,
Speaker 6: and that's also that's a really good point, right, Like
Speaker 6: that's the gamble polsters. Some posters are taking some of
Speaker 6: like the Maybe they're not like New York Times or
Speaker 6: Maris like the top ones, but ones that are still rapputable.
Speaker 5: It's sort of like a shortcut.
Speaker 6: They're saying, Okay, if the electric's like e's actually like
Speaker 6: twenty twenty, how are these voters going to vote? But
Speaker 6: we know for in fact the electric's not going to
Speaker 6: be like twenty twenty. Yeah, right, because that was the
Speaker 6: highest turnout election in American history, if we unless we
Speaker 6: go back before women had the right to vote, and
Speaker 6: which I don't think we should.
Speaker 2: You said previously, you talked about how you think turnout
Speaker 2: will be a little bit less this time around. So
Speaker 2: where do you think things was around twenty sixteen twenty twenty, Like,
Speaker 2: what are our benchmarks here?
Speaker 5: You're making to hire for me? It's lolasier to be
Speaker 5: right if I just take less than.
Speaker 3: The highest turnout. Yeah, yeah, I.
Speaker 5: Don't really know to answer that question.
Speaker 6: That's such a hard one to estimate, And that is
Speaker 6: why Poster's job is so hard, because you have to
Speaker 6: get a sample of the electorate with people who aren't
Speaker 6: responding to phone calls as much to get an idea
Speaker 6: of both how likely they are to vote and who
Speaker 6: are they going to vote for instead. Honestly, the best
Speaker 6: approach are ones like selzer uses in Iowa, where you
Speaker 6: just call people on voter registration files and you ask
Speaker 6: you figure out how likely they are to vote by
Speaker 6: asking them some questions, then you can project turnout. But
Speaker 6: even then you get that's part of why polls are
Speaker 6: a lot more accurate at the last second, because it's
Speaker 6: not just that people change their mind, is that people
Speaker 6: might commit to voting or not voting.
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, that's such a key point.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that is a great point.
Speaker 1: Let's kind of move on to the Senate forecast, and
Speaker 1: for those of you who are premium subscribers, we're gonna
Speaker 1: have this posted early exclusively for you. We're gonna have
Speaker 1: a posted later in the week for all. But if
Speaker 1: you want to get this heads up straight from Logan
Speaker 1: as soon as possible, which we know you all do,
Speaker 1: go and subscribe Breakingpoints dot com. All right, let's go
Speaker 1: and put up this.
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris is out with some new policy proposals. She
Speaker 2: needs to win over black voters, specifically black mail voter,
Speaker 2: so she appeared on the Shade Room Predominantly black podcast.
Speaker 3: We're going to talk about that. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 7: President Barack Obama, he was campaigning for you in Pittsburgh
Speaker 7: before some students at the University of Pittsburgh, which is
Speaker 7: my alma mater, and he said some things that really
Speaker 7: ruffled some feathers.
Speaker 5: In the news.
Speaker 7: He said, it makes me think you aren't just feeling
Speaker 7: the idea of having a woman as a president. You're
Speaker 7: coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that.
Speaker 7: We have not seen the same kind of energy and
Speaker 7: turnout in all corners of our neighborhoods and community as
Speaker 7: we saw when I was running. So when you hear
Speaker 7: those words, I'm sure you were briefed on the situation.
Speaker 7: You know, a former Ohio State Senator Nina Turner, she
Speaker 7: came out on CNN and said, why are you, you know,
Speaker 7: putting black men up against the wall and pressuring them
Speaker 7: into something that possibly, you know, they don't want to
Speaker 7: do if they want to vote for you or not.
Speaker 7: So my question to you is do you think that
Speaker 7: what President Obama said was the right thing to say.
Speaker 8: Let me tell you, I am very proud to have
Speaker 8: the support of President Obama and that he is out
Speaker 8: traveling to talk with voters about what is at stake
Speaker 8: in this election.
Speaker 4: I'm very proud.
Speaker 3: To have his support.
Speaker 8: What is also important is one to understand, like, as
Speaker 8: I said, I intend to earn the vote of everyone,
Speaker 8: including black men. Two, pay attention to everything that President
Speaker 8: Obama talked about, because he talked about at length.
Speaker 3: The danger of Donald Trump.
Speaker 8: The danger I think is really important to focus on
Speaker 8: the stakes of this election. And there are two choices,
Speaker 8: two choices. And I ask everyone to look at the background,
Speaker 8: look at the work, look at the words.
Speaker 2: Hmm, all right, so pretty clearly she is she may
Speaker 2: not be too so happy with Barack Obama. He's put
Speaker 2: her in a little bit of a bind. I mean, look,
Speaker 2: anybody running for office as opposed to Obama, in his
Speaker 2: masterly sinecure just lecturing all of us mere mortals, actually
Speaker 2: has to grapple with like he no longer has to
Speaker 2: get himself elected. And also I would say he never
Speaker 2: did that when he was trying to get himself elected.
Speaker 2: It's only now that he's influencer Netflix, Obomba, his.
Speaker 1: Era, the whole like my Brother's Keeper thing. It's pretty
Speaker 1: consistent with his politics of you know, black respectability.
Speaker 3: I think you're not wrong.
Speaker 2: I guess I would just put it as like this
Speaker 2: nakedness of I mean, he literally was like I want
Speaker 2: to speak to the brothers out there, I'd be like,
Speaker 2: some of y'all ain't voting for women, and you're making
Speaker 2: things up. I'm like, dude, you are literally trying to
Speaker 2: tell people not only what to think, but if what
Speaker 2: they think.
Speaker 3: Is not going along with you, that you're a straight
Speaker 3: up sexist.
Speaker 2: That is an insane thing to do for any group,
Speaker 2: not just black people. I mean, if some Indian person
Speaker 2: was to my Indian brothers out there.
Speaker 3: Like, who the fuck are you.
Speaker 4: To be talking?
Speaker 1: I have to think, yeah, well, I mean I think
Speaker 1: so two things are possible. One is that he actually
Speaker 1: got crosswise with the way Kamala wanted to message this.
Speaker 1: And that's actually my guess because she has been very
Speaker 1: careful to not fall into the Hillary Clinton trap of
Speaker 1: being you know, actively contemptfual of voters or messaging like
Speaker 1: she doesn't have to earn their vote, she's just entitled
Speaker 1: to it.
Speaker 4: Also, she's really.
Speaker 1: Of thank god this messaging around like what's important about
Speaker 1: this election is my trailblazing status, Like she has dodged.
Speaker 4: All of that, even you'll recall, And she.
Speaker 1: Got asked that question on CNN by Dana Pash of
Speaker 1: like like teed her up to trash Trump over his
Speaker 1: comments about she's not really black or whatever, She's just
Speaker 1: like same old playbook, Let's move on, And so I
Speaker 1: think it's likely that she's actually not happy about this
Speaker 1: messaging from Obama. It's also possible, though, that they feel
Speaker 1: like he has the.
Speaker 4: Cred to lecture black He doesn't. Nobody does.
Speaker 1: No one should right to lecture blackmail voters. Whereas obviously
Speaker 1: if it was her trying to pull that off, it
Speaker 1: would go even more poorly than it did with Obama.
Speaker 4: But I don't know.
Speaker 1: I thought with her pivot there, it seemed to me
Speaker 1: like she was actively unhappy about this direction. When we
Speaker 1: were talking to Logan previously, you mentioned that there is
Speaker 1: a lot of discussion online of like, oh, Kamala is
Speaker 1: doing this media blitz now because their internals must be
Speaker 1: really poor, and by and large, I think Logan analysis
Speaker 1: of like, also, it's almost election day, and like, of
Speaker 1: course the candidates are likely to be doing media appearances.
Speaker 1: I think that's largely true, but it does seem like
Speaker 1: there is a particular nervousness around black mail voters.
Speaker 3: Specifically, that is true, she's doing Charlemagne today.
Speaker 1: As evidenced by this podcast Charlemagne the you know, the
Speaker 1: policy proposals we're about to talk about and rip apart
Speaker 1: the Obama comments, et cetera. There does seem to be
Speaker 1: some nervousness about that specific demographic group that they're kind
Speaker 1: of telegraphing in some of these moves.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, because I mean, look, it's a game of margins,
Speaker 2: and it's one of those where I guess just stick
Speaker 2: on this point. You know, everyone's like, oh, the internals
Speaker 2: must be bad if she's going on Fox News, I rogan,
Speaker 2: I'm like, what if the internal show that it's a
Speaker 2: fifty to fifty race, and if I had only a
Speaker 2: fifty percent shot of accomplishing the single most important thing
Speaker 2: I'll ever do in my life, I would be doing
Speaker 2: some crazy shit to make sure that that got from
Speaker 2: fifty to fifty one to fifty two. Even fifty point
Speaker 2: five is better than fifty. So maybe that's just me.
Speaker 2: But let's put B two up on the screen just
Speaker 2: to set up again why this policy propose is coming
Speaker 2: from Harry anton Over at CNN. No matter how you
Speaker 2: splice the data, Trump seems to be the strongest Republican
Speaker 2: with black voters since nineteen sixty. Young black men in
Speaker 2: particular have trended right towards Trump runs, cutting the DEM
Speaker 2: margin by forty points from twenty twelve. But Trump is
Speaker 2: doing historically well with black women too, So that is
Speaker 2: the key point is that this is the biggest realignment
Speaker 2: of black voters, at least poised to be since the
Speaker 2: Civil rights era.
Speaker 1: I want to say though that I I'm reserving judgment
Speaker 1: until it actually happens. Sure, because we did see these
Speaker 1: same trends heading into the Biden twenty twenty run, where
Speaker 1: you know, he was trailing how Hillary Clinton did, and
Speaker 1: there was a big discussion about this, and on an
Speaker 1: election day, black voters overall showed up for him and
Speaker 1: basically the same numbers as previously. So and there has
Speaker 1: been some polling that's been contradictory. And I put a
Speaker 1: lot of stock in the New York Times pool because
Speaker 1: they did a super sample of black voters. That means
Speaker 1: they had a larger groups that were able to look more,
Speaker 1: you know, in detail at this data. But there have
Speaker 1: been other polls that have show Kamala performing just as
Speaker 1: well with black voters as Biden did last time around.
Speaker 1: So to me, it's not definitive that this is going
Speaker 1: to manifest, but there's certainly been a significant amount of
Speaker 1: polling data that suggests it could. And as I said before,
Speaker 1: the Kamala Harris team seems to be projecting some nervousness
Speaker 1: that this trend with black men in particular could be
Speaker 1: the case. I'm fairly persuaded with the numbers on how
Speaker 1: many new black women registered to vote and are showing
Speaker 1: up in the early voting periods and the states that
Speaker 1: we have data to say, I don't think that she
Speaker 1: probably is going to have an issue there with black women.
Speaker 1: We also see women in general this large gender gap
Speaker 1: in you know, with women favoring Kamala and a large
Speaker 1: gender gap with men more favorable towards Trump. So I'm
Speaker 1: definitely more skeptical about the black women piece of this,
Speaker 1: but I think it's definitely possible with black men.
Speaker 3: Yeah, definitely.
Speaker 2: And well, again to underscore I guess the policy proposal,
Speaker 2: whether they whether it's true or not, they seem to
Speaker 2: believe it and they're acting in that way.
Speaker 3: So let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 2: Kamala now has some new opportunity agenda for black men.
Speaker 2: Let me just go through it. Provide one million loan
Speaker 2: dollar loans one million loans that are fully forgivable up
Speaker 2: to twenty thousand dollars for black entrepreneurs and others to
Speaker 2: start a business. Support education, training and mentorship programs that
Speaker 2: lead to good paying jobs for black men, including pathways
Speaker 2: to become teachers. Protect cryptocurrency investments so black men who
Speaker 2: make them know that their money is safe. Launch a
Speaker 2: national health initiative focused on illnesses that disproportionately impact black men.
Speaker 2: And legalize recreational marijuana to create opportunities for Black Americans
Speaker 2: to succeed in this new industry. You called it peak neoliberalism,
Speaker 2: and I genuinely do think that is so accurate because
Speaker 2: I mean, let's just fix cite.
Speaker 3: On this a little bit. So we're going to provide
Speaker 3: a million dollars in loans.
Speaker 2: To specifically people for the their skin. M Okay, so
Speaker 2: we're going to affirmatively it doesn't.
Speaker 4: Mean to say it says black entrepreneurs and others. Oh yeah,
Speaker 4: so it's not even really clear.
Speaker 2: It's just okay, Well, I guess then we're just cherry
Speaker 2: picking what exactly that means. Some of it will go
Speaker 2: to black people. Cool, we're going to support mentorship programs.
Speaker 2: I want everyone out there in your life to ask
Speaker 2: yourself if you want a mentor provided to you by
Speaker 2: the government. That's an insane thing to do. We're going
Speaker 2: to provide government mentor. Here is your government issued mentor
Speaker 2: to make sure that you live a better life.
Speaker 1: And that is some pure Obama eraship.
Speaker 4: Yeah, definitely, it really is.
Speaker 1: I mean that was like his My Brother's Keeper program
Speaker 1: and all of that. But yeah, I mean I saw
Speaker 1: Perry Bacon Jr. Who's I think he's still the Washington Post, right,
Speaker 1: the Washing Post previously at NBC, himself a black man, saying, like,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't really love the idea being put
Speaker 1: out there that black men specifically need mentors. The other
Speaker 1: one that really gets me is, okay, crypto, let's just
Speaker 1: put a pin in that, because I have a lot
Speaker 1: to say about that one.
Speaker 4: The health one.
Speaker 1: So they describe this in you know, in the greater
Speaker 1: detailed part as a National Equity Health Initiative focused from
Speaker 1: the like National Institute of Health on illnesses that disproportionately
Speaker 1: impact black men. And this is where I really can
Speaker 1: dig into how what I mean by like this is
Speaker 1: the peak of neoliberalism, Why can't you just run on
Speaker 1: universal health care so that we don't have to pick
Speaker 1: and choose, Like, oh, if you got prostate cancer, maybe
Speaker 1: we'll care about that and do a health equity initiative,
Speaker 1: not even giving you care, but some study at the NIH,
Speaker 1: thank you very much, Or like oh, if you need.
Speaker 4: IVF, maybe we'll pay for that.
Speaker 1: How about we just have healthcare that would, yes, actually
Speaker 1: disproportunately benefit black men and other marginalized group, but would
Speaker 1: help everybody and you know, not be like pathetically inadequate
Speaker 1: and patronizing as many of these things are. And that's
Speaker 1: what drives crazy about this is We've talked about this
Speaker 1: a nauseum, but it's just worth reminding people the policies.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that it is never the case that
Speaker 1: it makes sense to have policies that are specific to
Speaker 1: a demographic group. I'm not saying that like blanket across
Speaker 1: the board, but we know from history that the policies
Speaker 1: that have most improved the lives and economic status of
Speaker 1: Black Americans have been universal policies like lifting the minimum wage,
Speaker 1: like increasing rates of unionization.
Speaker 4: Like you know, in a.
Speaker 1: Theoretical world where democrats still cared about and talked about healthcare,
Speaker 1: universal health care. And so that's why this sort of
Speaker 1: like let me do some niche, little bullshit programs for
Speaker 1: some targeted demographic group drives me so crazy.
Speaker 2: And I mean again, you know, just to stick with
Speaker 2: And this is part of why the whole equity mindset
Speaker 2: is so stupid. When they're like health initiatives on prostate cancer,
Speaker 2: it's like, you know, prostate cancer is a cancer that
Speaker 2: affects most men generally, specifically people.
Speaker 3: Who are poor and unhealthy. Well, you know, if we.
Speaker 2: Talk about diseases that are the worst, most impactful on
Speaker 2: black communities, it's the same statistically for people who are
Speaker 2: poor and who don't have access to healthcare, eat a
Speaker 2: shitty diet. So it's like, it's not complicated to think
Speaker 2: about it that way. And also if you if you
Speaker 2: put it that way, it sounds a lot better, right, Hey,
Speaker 2: all these diseases that disgrationally impact you know, men who
Speaker 2: are old, obese, diabetic, We're going to try and fix that.
Speaker 2: That will help black people, help white people, it'll help everybody.
Speaker 2: You know, there's a lot of poor white people out
Speaker 2: there too, also suffer from prostate cancer. From diabetes and
Speaker 2: from a lot of this stuff. So that's nonsense. Look
Speaker 2: on the weed thing, you can keep everybody here knows
Speaker 2: that I'm against weed, all right, I think it's bad.
Speaker 2: But how if I was black and I was, like, man,
Speaker 2: I would be so insulted that one of the key
Speaker 2: pillars is let's legalize weed. They're like, oh, let's give
Speaker 2: you people drugs?
Speaker 3: Is that?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 3: How is that not so insulting to these people to
Speaker 3: be like, oh, they really like to smoke weed? Right, Like,
Speaker 3: what the fuck this? We're going to.
Speaker 2: Legalize drugs specifically for a specific demographic if you want to.
Speaker 2: But she didn't even mention, you know, that's one of
Speaker 2: those really, Look, I don't agree with it. People are like, oh,
Speaker 2: black people just portually get arrested for it or whatever
Speaker 2: or have in the past, so it needs to be
Speaker 2: you know, redistributed with some criminal justice bullshit. Fine, doesn't
Speaker 2: make a lot of sense to me still with the
Speaker 2: current data, but I could.
Speaker 3: Understand that on this one.
Speaker 2: It's literally like, we need to legalize weed, and we
Speaker 2: need to legalize it so that you can sell it
Speaker 2: and you can do a better job of being a
Speaker 2: fucking legal drug dealer. I'm like, how is that not
Speaker 2: so insulting to people that it's like, that is the
Speaker 2: epitome in my head of handoutism, and it's like and
Speaker 2: it doesn't get called racist or anything by the media,
Speaker 2: and that's that's the pinnacle of racism.
Speaker 3: Yeah, to me, legalize drugs for you.
Speaker 1: What, I support the policy, right, I support both the
Speaker 1: legalizing and I support the you know, the idea of
Speaker 1: this is the community. It's been most impact, is it
Speaker 1: We're opening up this new business opportunity, like, let's do
Speaker 1: things in there.
Speaker 4: I'm good with all of that. But you're so right to.
Speaker 1: Put it as a specific plank framed in life. This
Speaker 1: is our blackmail agenda is really something. Yeah, here's weak
Speaker 1: for Let's talk about crypto though, because there is so
Speaker 1: much going on with the fact again that they put
Speaker 1: the crypto plank in this particular policy proposal, and it's
Speaker 1: no secret why. There's actually, you know, significant pulling that
Speaker 1: suggests that black men are you know, disproportionately actually holders
Speaker 1: of crypto. So that's part of why they include this plank.
Speaker 1: That's that's their logic. But there also has been Crypto
Speaker 1: has already won this election. Let me just say that,
Speaker 1: right the Biden administration, through Gary Gensler at the SEC,
Speaker 1: they have aggressively enforced the laws that are on the
Speaker 1: books against crypto, against scams, and against you know things,
Speaker 1: people getting scammed in the financial world in general, and
Speaker 1: Crypto has been subject to that enforcement. And there has
Speaker 1: been over years now a large and concerted effort that
Speaker 1: was very visible when it's Sam Bankman freed, but has
Speaker 1: very much continued at large scale after that. And Crypto
Speaker 1: is now one of the largest corporate contributors that industry
Speaker 1: to the presidential campaign and down ballot campaigns in this
Speaker 1: whole cycle. This is one of the areas whe Kamala
Speaker 1: has really pretty consistently signaled that she will actually be
Speaker 1: different from Joe Biden. She will be more lax on enforcement.
Speaker 1: And I was just reading this morning soccer. I didn't
Speaker 1: know all of his backstory, but they've really made an
Speaker 1: example of Katie Porter in particular, where in the weeks
Speaker 1: before her election, a crypto affiliated pack dump ten million
Speaker 1: dollars into ads against her. They didn't have anything to
Speaker 1: do with cryptocurrency these ads, but into ads against her.
Speaker 1: She loses, and that ended up being like a warning
Speaker 1: shot at all Democrats and Republicans that hey, you better
Speaker 1: not get crosswise here. And they've wrapped it all in
Speaker 1: this language of like, oh, entrepreneurship and innovation, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And Trump completely flipped on crypto Kamala versus Biden.
Speaker 1: She's completely you know, signaled that she's got to be
Speaker 1: different on crypto too. And so you know that manifests
Speaker 1: and things like saying that part of your blackmail agenda
Speaker 1: is quote unquote protecting crypto assets. It's you know, it's
Speaker 1: extraordinary to see the influence of money and politics.
Speaker 4: In real time.
Speaker 2: I have a conflict of interest on this one. I
Speaker 2: like crypto. I'm a hodler myself. Yeah, you don't really
Speaker 2: get scammed. H No, I actually did get scammed. Yeah,
Speaker 2: as people here. No, I lost five thousand dollars on
Speaker 2: a block flight by the way, actually finally got my
Speaker 2: money back. I don't know how exactly that happened, but
Speaker 2: one day I got an email and they're like, here,
Speaker 2: you know, somehow the bankruptcy clawback stuff worked. So you know,
Speaker 2: it only took a couple of years and being in
Speaker 2: the in the weeds. But they're as what they point
Speaker 2: out is that there are a lot I mean men
Speaker 2: in particular from Robinhood, Crypto and all, especially back in
Speaker 2: the twenty twenty one twenty twenty two era, probably did
Speaker 2: buy a decent amount of crypto.
Speaker 3: I bought a lot before that.
Speaker 2: The point is is that what they are trying to
Speaker 2: do is in This is just hand out shit.
Speaker 3: This is not anything that has.
Speaker 2: To do with what is the way that we should
Speaker 2: have a well regulated like commerce and exchange. What should
Speaker 2: the future of American monetary you know, policy look like, like,
Speaker 2: how should we think about banking? How should we make
Speaker 2: sure that people are protected? This is just pure like
Speaker 2: trying to get into the weeds of quote unquote like
Speaker 2: appealing to people by talking about some tiny, little specific thing,
Speaker 2: which ends up, in my opinion, being very very patronizing.
Speaker 2: So this entire thing, you know, I'm really hoping Charlemagne
Speaker 2: has an interview with her today around like five pm.
Speaker 2: It's gonna be live. I'm gonna be watching it, and
Speaker 2: he does a good job of cutting to the core
Speaker 2: of this stuff.
Speaker 3: So I saw him recently.
Speaker 2: He was just talking with Andrew Schaltz talking about young
Speaker 2: black men and their appeal with Trump and I'm really
Speaker 2: hoping he focuses in on that with her and just
Speaker 2: just tries to get to the crux of like, what's
Speaker 2: actually happening happening here and is it not very patronizing
Speaker 2: the way that you were talking, both Obama and her
Speaker 2: in the way that this being put for. And of
Speaker 2: course you've got Bacari Sellers and all these other black
Speaker 2: congressmen out there, like, look at Kamalo's incredible plan for
Speaker 2: black men. I'm like, again, I cannot imagine how it's
Speaker 2: still that would be if my leaders and I supported
Speaker 2: Elders and all these other people.
Speaker 3: This is what they were saying, is so good for you, you.
Speaker 2: Know, It's just I don't know's there's so much lack
Speaker 2: of individualism in the way that you even look at
Speaker 2: any of this.
Speaker 1: You know, Nina, we had Nina Turners and her Nina
Speaker 1: Turner on yesterday. I encourage you to watch her her comments.
Speaker 1: Her first reaction when she before she really read through
Speaker 1: the plan details, was like, Okay, well, at least they're
Speaker 1: trying to appeal to people through policy, and I think
Speaker 1: that's fair. But it's also fair to look at the
Speaker 1: policy and say this patronizing that and bad. Just to
Speaker 1: dig one layer deeper on the crypto thing, because I've
Speaker 1: been thinking a lot about this, the reason that so
Speaker 1: many black part of the reason so many black men
Speaker 1: have crypto investments is because they've been locked down on
Speaker 1: so many other forms of wealth accumulation and wealth building,
Speaker 1: lower home ownership rates, you know, discriminated against in terms
Speaker 1: of banks and the mortgage rates that's their charge, or
Speaker 1: whether they even approved for a loan, And so crypto
Speaker 1: really offered this, you know, this utopian vision of like, well,
Speaker 1: this is the new financials, this is how you're gonna
Speaker 1: make it, This is how you're going to be able.
Speaker 4: To build wealth.
Speaker 1: And you know, some of that is genuine and some
Speaker 1: of it has just been completely fraudulent in scams. So,
Speaker 1: you know, again to get to like the neoliberal point
Speaker 1: of this, rather than really doing anything that's going to
Speaker 1: fundamentally address that lack of wealth accumulation, it's like, well,
Speaker 1: we're just going to like keep enabling the scammers and
Speaker 1: make sure that they're regulated more lightly so that they
Speaker 1: can so that the people who have lots of crypto
Speaker 1: or because crypto is also rife with massive inequality in
Speaker 1: terms of who's benefiting and who's on the other end
Speaker 1: sometimes getting screwed.
Speaker 4: So we're going to make sure that.
Speaker 1: Those people at the top can continue to get theirs
Speaker 1: and continue to, like you know, in certain instances, screw
Speaker 1: you over.
Speaker 4: That's part of what's so disturbing her.
Speaker 1: And just you know, the specific fight is really around
Speaker 1: which agency is going to regulate crypto and do the enforcement,
Speaker 1: and the SEC tends to be more aggressive. There's another body,
Speaker 1: the CFTC that the crypto industry wants to be the
Speaker 1: regulator because they think that they just basically won't really
Speaker 1: conduct any oversight there. And like I said, at this point,
Speaker 1: I think it's it doesn't really matter which of these
Speaker 1: candidates wins because both of them have already signaled that
Speaker 1: they're going to do what the crypto industry once.
Speaker 4: So anyway, that's where we are.
Speaker 1: We do have an axios ters you can just show
Speaker 1: put up on the screen there B five just to
Speaker 1: you know, back up what I was saying before about
Speaker 1: the amount of money that this sector has donated, and
Speaker 1: they've launched this whole campaign aimed at elites, at political
Speaker 1: elites to convince them. There as a quote unquote crypto
Speaker 1: voter who is going to be basing their vote on
Speaker 1: whether crypto is regulated at the SEC or the CFTC,
Speaker 1: that this is like the primary thing that they're going
Speaker 1: to be voting on. There's no evidence that that's really
Speaker 1: the case outside of you know, the Mark Cubans of
Speaker 1: the world and like the people who kind of at.
Speaker 4: The top of that industry.
Speaker 1: But I think the politicians are buying that that's the case,
Speaker 1: and they're certainly buying that they don't want to get
Speaker 1: crosswise of this industry because of the amount of money
Speaker 1: they had to spend against you if you if you
Speaker 1: undercut them or if you piss them off.
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris is now apparently in talks with Joe Rogan
Speaker 2: to appear on the.
Speaker 3: Joe Rogan podcast.
Speaker 4: Not see this one coming.
Speaker 3: I did not see it coming as well.
Speaker 2: I think it's a welcome development and so just a
Speaker 2: little bit more behind the scenes. Obviously, this just broke
Speaker 2: and they didn't have much detail on it.
Speaker 3: But what they say is that and I was actually
Speaker 3: kind of curious about this.
Speaker 2: They're like, Kamala's representatives met with Rogan's representatives, and I'm like,
Speaker 2: which represents exactly maybe his agent? I mean as far
Speaker 2: as I know, Yeah, like Amy's Jami meeting with I
Speaker 2: would I would pay to see money of Jamie meeting with.
Speaker 4: Somebody from Anita Dunn or whoever.
Speaker 3: That would be hilariously.
Speaker 2: Uh yeah, I think I mean Joe's again, I have
Speaker 2: no insie knowledge, but I mean he has talked previously.
Speaker 2: He's like as one booker and one manager, so maybe
Speaker 2: as one of those people that has done it. But regardless,
Speaker 2: this comes on the heels of Trump saying that he
Speaker 2: would be he would be going on rogue and we
Speaker 2: don't know if that's true, whether he had confirmed it
Speaker 2: or any of not. Maybe it's the case that Joe
Speaker 2: was trying to say, well, if I'm going to have
Speaker 2: Trump and I want to have both one and extended
Speaker 2: the offer.
Speaker 3: That's what most people have done who.
Speaker 2: Have interviewed both candidates, They've put in offers with both,
Speaker 2: and usually it's either Trump or Comma or whatever who
Speaker 2: will accept that. In this case, though, this actually now
Speaker 2: has the chance of happening, and that would be kind
Speaker 2: of amazing and it's funny again.
Speaker 3: I want to come back to this.
Speaker 2: There's so many people out there who are like, oh,
Speaker 2: the internals must be bad. And I'm like, again, if
Speaker 2: you are in a fifty fifty race and you want
Speaker 2: to go and reach millions of people who may not
Speaker 2: be engaging with the mainstream media, why would you not
Speaker 2: go on this podcast? And look, I mean, I guess
Speaker 2: the answer is you're not confident in what you believe
Speaker 2: or in what say. The thing is, though Joe is
Speaker 2: not is a curious interviewer. He doesn't usually get into
Speaker 2: some prolonged back and forth or something him mostly just
Speaker 2: asking questions, did back and listen. So if you want
Speaker 2: to explain your actual thought process, which is what Joe Rogan, oh,
Speaker 2: which is what Bernie Sanders did when he went on,
Speaker 2: which is what Andrey Yang did when he went on,
Speaker 2: which is what RFK Junior did whenever he went on,
Speaker 2: I can't think of a better format to go in.
Speaker 2: And also, if you have somebody, so Joe is probably
Speaker 2: going to challenge her a little bit on some of
Speaker 2: the things that he disagrees with her on. But he
Speaker 2: is one of those people who said consistently he's like, look,
Speaker 2: I'm mostly like liberal in many things. You know, I'm
Speaker 2: very liberal on the issue of abortion. I'm very conservative
Speaker 2: on the issue of guns traditionally, like was a Democrat
Speaker 2: and all that, but I moved to Texas because of
Speaker 2: my disagreement. I mean, that would give her a format
Speaker 2: to talk to people out there who ness who might
Speaker 2: align with his view. So I can't think of a
Speaker 2: better place to go, not just Rogan, but any like
Speaker 2: Manosphere era stuff where you think you could get at
Speaker 2: least somewhat of an honest convo, Go for it, Like
Speaker 2: if you're in a fifty to fifty election, you should
Speaker 2: be doing it. Everyone was dunking on Kama for going
Speaker 2: on call her daddy. I think Trump should go and
Speaker 2: call her daddy.
Speaker 3: I'm absolutely I think you should do it. He would
Speaker 3: do well, That's what I don't understand the caution.
Speaker 2: He's grew up on Howard Stern and in the New
Speaker 2: York tabloids. You think he can't handle freaking Alex Cooper.
Speaker 2: Of course he can. I mean, what are some of
Speaker 2: his best moments in these mainstream media interviews with CNN
Speaker 2: or with MSNBC, either when he spars or whatever, you know,
Speaker 2: disarms them with a joke. So anyway, that's my opinion.
Speaker 2: I think Kamas should go on then nelk boys Uh,
Speaker 2: Trump should go on call her dad with absolutely, yeah
Speaker 2: she should. Hey, she wants to talk about crypto crypto gambling.
Speaker 2: She could be read a Steak dot com and.
Speaker 1: You're getting the uh, you're getting the King of the Bros. Here,
Speaker 1: she's going straight to the top show with White Brogan.
Speaker 3: Good.
Speaker 1: But I mean, okay, So there's a few things to
Speaker 1: say about this. First of all, it's not without risk
Speaker 1: for sure, because yeah, I mean, Joe is not a journalist.
Speaker 1: He's not gonna do the like, you know, super adversary,
Speaker 1: we're going to ask you five times whatever. But he
Speaker 1: has made people look stupid on his show, just kind
Speaker 1: of casually like humiliated a variety of people on his show,
Speaker 1: and that is not on the question because he's a
Speaker 1: good listener and he's just he's a good question asker.
Speaker 4: So that's a risk for her. And we all know.
Speaker 1: How she is like on her feet in these interviews,
Speaker 1: even like on the view with softball questions.
Speaker 4: She can definitely screw it up. There's no doubt about it.
Speaker 4: So it's risky. I hope she does it.
Speaker 1: I think it'd be very interesting to see. I think
Speaker 1: it would be smart if she pulls it off. I
Speaker 1: think it would be intelligent. If she doesn't pull it off,
Speaker 1: then it will obviously be a mistake. The other thing
Speaker 1: I just have to comment on though, is Sager, you
Speaker 1: remember the way liberals smeared Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 3: Yes, I do, Yes, I do.
Speaker 1: Not so much, but just going on the podcast, but
Speaker 1: Joe made this comment like, oh, I'll probably vote for
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders. They were like cool, the number one podcast
Speaker 1: in the world said he would vote for me. Like,
Speaker 1: let me make a thing of that, as a politician
Speaker 1: would the number of liberals who absolutely smear how dare
Speaker 1: you platform this racist sac is blah blah blah blah blah,
Speaker 1: who are now going to be out there like, oh,
Speaker 1: it's so great that christ Kamala was going on with
Speaker 1: Joe Rogue and like, I just you know, I'm here
Speaker 1: for it. I'm absolutely here for the way that these
Speaker 1: people have zero principles or values and we'll just turn
Speaker 1: on a dime when it suits them with their their
Speaker 1: favorite candidates.
Speaker 4: So looking forward, looking forward to Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well you can stick with that theme actually, because what
Speaker 2: also was announced is that she will be doing a
Speaker 2: sit down interview with Brett Bayer over at Fox News
Speaker 2: for a prolonged period of time. But I think it airs.
Speaker 2: It either is today or at airsmorrow, I forget. Yeah,
Speaker 2: But the point is is that previously, remember Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 2: tried to get everybody on the DNC stage to raise
Speaker 2: their hand.
Speaker 3: In boycott Fox News.
Speaker 2: But now whenever its election time, like, yeah, well you
Speaker 2: should go on Fox.
Speaker 1: They've been loving Pete budaju Jeh on Fox News. That's
Speaker 1: like one of their favorite things because I mean he
Speaker 1: does he handles himself very well in the format, and
Speaker 1: so yeah, they really love when he goes on there.
Speaker 3: And Birthing went on Fox. He did a whole town
Speaker 3: home that was.
Speaker 1: One of the watch the best moments he did fantastic.
Speaker 1: He had a Fox News audi cheering for them, and
Speaker 1: so yeah, I mean Brett Baer, you know, he's going
Speaker 1: to frame things from kind of like a center right perspective,
Speaker 1: but he's not going to be like wildly unfair right there.
Speaker 3: He's like a sixty minute style journalist.
Speaker 2: He's just gonna sit there and be like, he used
Speaker 2: to say this about illegal immigrants, and now you say this,
Speaker 2: How do you square that he used to say this
Speaker 2: and now you say this?
Speaker 3: How it'll be it will be.
Speaker 2: Frankly, I think better than Dana Basher any of these
Speaker 2: other people who've interviewed her. I actually got the sixty
Speaker 2: minutes guys. Credit to them outside of the whole editing fiasco.
Speaker 2: But the actual journalist journalist. That's not the journalists at
Speaker 2: least I assume so. But the actual guy you interviewed her,
Speaker 2: he did a pretty good job, right, He has a decent.
Speaker 3: Amount follow ups.
Speaker 2: That's probably what we should expect here, And in general,
Speaker 2: you should be doing more of these things. So I
Speaker 2: keep seeing this like, oh, she must be losing and
Speaker 2: all that. I'm like, well, first of all, if you
Speaker 2: think you're losing, the best way to do is do
Speaker 2: something drastic. So I think that's good, even though I
Speaker 2: don't think it's all that drastic to go on any
Speaker 2: of the things. But you should always just be doing
Speaker 2: everything you possibly can to reach as many people that
Speaker 2: you can. Before an election, a lot people make up
Speaker 2: their minds right around right now on.
Speaker 3: Whether they're going to vote who they're going to vote for.
Speaker 3: So this is it, This is what you should be doing.
Speaker 2: Trump is doing a ton of podcasts in the lead up,
Speaker 2: and Kamalas should be doing more.
Speaker 1: Fox News has a large viewership and not News Channel.
Speaker 1: Not all of them are diehard Trump supporters. You know,
Speaker 1: they've got their Kamala's doing this whole whether I like
Speaker 1: it or not, She's doing this whole, Nikki Aley, Liz
Speaker 1: Cheney voter strategy, and there will be some of those
Speaker 1: people watching Fox News. So you know, again, it all
Speaker 1: depends is it a smart strategy. It all depends on
Speaker 1: how she does. I can't say that the last week's
Speaker 1: media strategy worked out particularly well for her.
Speaker 4: The sixty minutes interview not great. The view interview not great.
Speaker 1: But you know, apparently they have enough confidence that they
Speaker 1: think that these additional media appearances can help to clean
Speaker 1: things up.
Speaker 2: Definitely, all right, And oh, I said Jessee Trump was
Speaker 2: on Bustin' Busting with the Boys, which is a barstool podcast.
Speaker 3: Oh really incredible. I mean, Josie, he's doing.
Speaker 4: Many more podcasts than these rallies. This thing, this is
Speaker 4: really his.
Speaker 2: He seems to doing like one in one yeah, I mean, look,
Speaker 2: it doesn't take that long in film, right, So it's
Speaker 2: like one of those where why not you know, you
Speaker 2: can set it up and you can actually make it
Speaker 2: and reach a bunch of people who were talking about
Speaker 2: otherwise about college football. I wonder what the crossover is
Speaker 2: when college football and South and Trump. I mean, it
Speaker 2: doesn't take a genius to see these things. If anything,
Speaker 2: is crazy that it took so long for politicians to
Speaker 2: embrace charcass It's more of a lagging thing than it
Speaker 2: is something in the former