Speaker 1: Welcome back to a numbers game. Happy Monday, everybody. I
Speaker 1: am glad for you to be here with me for
Speaker 1: one more week. So much happened with the New York
Speaker 1: City election. I didn't guys, I didn't get you get
Speaker 1: like to give my listeners the update on the Kansas speech,
Speaker 1: So I gave for those who missed the episode. I
Speaker 1: gave the keynote address the Bob Dolden Or in Kansas,
Speaker 1: which is a very nice thing, usually reserved for a congressman.
Speaker 1: I wasn't really sure why I was invited, but I
Speaker 1: was honored to be there. I flew into Kansas and
Speaker 1: had some barbecue at Joe's Barbecue in Kansas City, Missouri. Delicious, amazing,
Speaker 1: I highly recommend. And then go to the speech and
Speaker 1: I'm very nervous. I really didn't know why I was invited.
Speaker 1: And I meet with the organizers the night before and
Speaker 1: I say, why did you have me over a senator
Speaker 1: or congressman whatever, And they say, oh, because you're so
Speaker 1: edgy and funny. Just be edgy and funny, which is
Speaker 1: not good guidelines for someone like me, because it's like, hey,
Speaker 1: push every boundary you possibly can, like I'm a child
Speaker 1: like you need to give me parameters, Like I work
Speaker 1: very well within the lines, but like if I don't
Speaker 1: see the lines, I you know, it's striving. Like I
Speaker 1: drive like someone like a woman from New Jersey. I'm
Speaker 1: all over the place. So anyway, I I'm very nervous.
Speaker 1: I write my speech and then it dawns on me
Speaker 1: like that right before the speech, nobody is going to
Speaker 1: know who I am, Like, I guess if you're like
Speaker 1: listen to me in my podcast, but I mean that's
Speaker 1: not the whole audience. It's all donors and established from
Speaker 1: people and elected officials. They definitely have no they're not
Speaker 1: listening to my podcasts or not watching me or I'm
Speaker 1: rooting my sub stack. Those are like the people like
Speaker 1: those are not like the electeds. So I walk into
Speaker 1: like the room. First of all, the MIC's not working,
Speaker 1: which is or it's like working like kind of like
Speaker 1: very shoddy. I go into the room. This very well dressed,
Speaker 1: very elegant Asian, older Asian woman walks up to me, goes,
Speaker 1: can we get a picture? And I go, oh, my god,
Speaker 1: you know who I am? And she goes, no, I
Speaker 1: don't know, but I get pictures with everybody and I
Speaker 1: was like, oh my god, this is going to be bad.
Speaker 1: So I meet some of the elected officials, the Senate president,
Speaker 1: people running for governor. It was really nice whatever, but
Speaker 1: once again, no one knew who I am. I'm having
Speaker 1: to be introduced everybody for the first time and then
Speaker 1: make the small talk and then talk about my pack
Speaker 1: and nonprop with education. And I text my one friend
Speaker 1: from who's a political political consultant from Kansas, and I'm like,
Speaker 1: this is going to go horrible. He goes, no, No, it's
Speaker 1: a Kansas audience. They give standing ovations to everybody. It's
Speaker 1: just how they operate. So the state treasurer gets up,
Speaker 1: he gets a standing ovation. The first speaker gets up,
Speaker 1: he gets a standing ovation. The German ambassador's assistant god
Speaker 1: a standing ovation. I'm like, okay, I'm cool. I'm you know,
Speaker 1: it's going to be fine. Everything is gonna work out
Speaker 1: fine for me. I go give the speech, and once
Speaker 1: again I'm looking at the audience. They have no idea
Speaker 1: who I am. So I say I'm the guy who
Speaker 1: made the beeper a joke on CNN, and you hear
Speaker 1: this like collective oh yeah in the audience. I'm like, oh, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: this is going great. So I give the speech, and
Speaker 1: I go on about how Republicans support immigration reduction, and
Speaker 1: it's time that all the Kansas legislators, congressmen, and senators,
Speaker 1: including those who live in Florida, because one Kansas senator
Speaker 1: may have a residence, may spend most of his time
Speaker 1: in Florida instead of Kansas, but all the Kansas congressmen
Speaker 1: and senators should back immigration reduction. We can't let farmers
Speaker 1: have low skilled workers flood our country in the name
Speaker 1: of like picking crops. I just go off and then
Speaker 1: I talk about AI policy and how Kansas needs to
Speaker 1: regulate AI because they're taking jobs. And I said, if
Speaker 1: you want to make sure you turn Trump supporters into
Speaker 1: AOC supporters, make sure that our unemployment numbers reach twenty
Speaker 1: percent in the country, especially why collar workers. And then
Speaker 1: I go into education, how Kansas ranks thirty third in
Speaker 1: the country. I lay it off with like a nice
Speaker 1: thing about Bob Dole and the legacy of Bob Dole.
Speaker 1: I could not over emphasize how few people clapped at
Speaker 1: the end of my speech was so tepid. They absolutely
Speaker 1: did not care. Oh this was the best part. Wait
Speaker 1: one last thing. The only other famous Republican from Kansas.
Speaker 1: I looked at my notes, this came back to me.
Speaker 1: Only other famous Republican from Kansas that I know of
Speaker 1: is Dwight Eisenhower. And I said in my speech, Dwight
Speaker 1: Eisenhower had a much easier legacy to wrap up than
Speaker 1: Bob Doles. He one d Day, he built the highways,
Speaker 1: and he deported the illegal immigrants with Operation Wetback, which
Speaker 1: was a real thing. You can look it up. Operation Wetback,
Speaker 1: I said, Trump Show named Tom Holman the czar of
Speaker 1: Operation wet Back two point zero. They did not like that.
Speaker 1: Apparently that was not cool with them, to which one
Speaker 1: evangelical lady walked up and said, I can't believe you
Speaker 1: said the word wet back. It's like saying retard. I said,
Speaker 1: retard's back. Okay, you could say retard now, okay, it's
Speaker 1: Trump's amarror. So they also did not think that was funny.
Speaker 1: I was. This was not my audience. This was not
Speaker 1: a New York audience. This is not people who deal
Speaker 1: with politically incorrect conversations. I heard that the Speaker of
Speaker 1: the House was biting the inside of his cheeks when
Speaker 1: I was started immigration reduction and slamming farmers for bringing
Speaker 1: in cheap labor taxpayer expenses. So that was that. That
Speaker 1: was Kansas. One woman, and I'm going to apologize for
Speaker 1: my swearing. One state legislator walked up to me at
Speaker 1: the end of my speech and said, so, were you
Speaker 1: born without fox to give or did that come recently?
Speaker 1: And I was just like, nope, born this way, just
Speaker 1: ready for a barn burner anyway. Okay, that was I
Speaker 1: was going to tell you my way more about Kansas,
Speaker 1: but it's not worth it. But that was. It was
Speaker 1: very funny. It was very my life in a nutshell,
Speaker 1: where you end up in a very cool setting but
Speaker 1: no one really knows why you're there. You don't know
Speaker 1: why you're there, and kind of everything goes wrong because
Speaker 1: you can't shut your mouth and just give like a
Speaker 1: normal nice thing. You can't just play by the rules,
Speaker 1: which is very how my life has always been. Okay,
Speaker 1: So two things. One, this episode, the main point of it,
Speaker 1: which I will get to in the second part, was
Speaker 1: requested by more than one email person receiving an email
Speaker 1: listener over email I get always asked me anything. Segment
Speaker 1: emails now, which I love you can email me number
Speaker 1: Ryan at numbers gamepodcast dot com and I try to
Speaker 1: answer every email or get to it on the show.
Speaker 1: Well more than one person asked the same question. So
Speaker 1: this episode, the interview part and the second part will
Speaker 1: be completely about the listener questions, which is about illegal
Speaker 1: immigration when it comes to congressional redistricting and it comes
Speaker 1: to reapportionment and getting and the sense is taking illegal
Speaker 1: immigration information. I will get to that, but first, this
Speaker 1: happened just as I'm about to tape, which is a
Speaker 1: few days before it airs. Pew Research, which is one
Speaker 1: of the premier nonprofits that analyzes elections, especially presidential elections,
Speaker 1: came out with their post twenty twenty four analysis. Now,
Speaker 1: I know we've gotten this from before, and I know
Speaker 1: that we are half a year, more than half a
Speaker 1: year since the twenty twenty four election, and people generally
Speaker 1: don't care. They've moved on. I care, and I am
Speaker 1: fascinated by this, and I want to talk about some
Speaker 1: highlights in the Pew Research data about the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four election. So first, from twenty sixteen to twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: Trump coalition in twenty sixteen, eighty eight percent of all
Speaker 1: people that voted for Donald Trump were white. By twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four, that number had dropped to seventy eight percent.
Speaker 1: His support among the number of voters in his coalition
Speaker 1: that were Hispanic has essentially doubled, and those who are
Speaker 1: black have essentially tripled, which is fascinating. Well, the Democrat
Speaker 1: coalition from Clinton to kamalaw has actually gotten whiter, and
Speaker 1: they've lost a significant portion of both their black and
Speaker 1: Hispanic voter base, which isn't shocking. Of the people who
Speaker 1: voted in the twenty twenty election right that voted for Trump,
Speaker 1: eleven percent did not vote for Trump in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: They didn't vote at all. Three percent voted for Kamala,
Speaker 1: so it was a fourteen point drop off. Among people
Speaker 1: who voted for Biden, five percent voted for Trump, number
Speaker 1: three for Kamala. From Trump's Trump had a neck game
Speaker 1: of two from Biden people, and fifteen percent of people
Speaker 1: who voted for Biden in twenty twenty did not go
Speaker 1: and vote for Kamala. Of the people who didn't vote
Speaker 1: at all in twenty twentyteen percent of vote sorry didn't
Speaker 1: vote in twenty twenty, but voted in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: fourteen percent voted for Trump, twelve voted for Kamala, So
Speaker 1: Trump got an advantage of boost and the raw vote
Speaker 1: total of not only people who had voted for Biden
Speaker 1: and then voted for Trump, but also people who didn't
Speaker 1: vote at all and voted for Trump, which is part
Speaker 1: of the reason why he won the popular vote among
Speaker 1: those voters. Building on that, voters who didn't vote in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen but voted in twenty twenty favored Biden by
Speaker 1: five points over Trump. People who didn't vote in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty but voted in twenty twenty four have favored Trump
Speaker 1: over Kama by twelve points. It's an immense group of
Speaker 1: people who are inactive voters, in frequent voters, people who
Speaker 1: are all of a sudden becoming very new and fresh
Speaker 1: to the political scene. Very interesting, Okay. Trump's support among
Speaker 1: his percentage of the vote that he received among certain
Speaker 1: demographics from twenty sixteen to twenty twenty to twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: This is fascinating. Among men, Trump's growth of the male
Speaker 1: vote has increased three points from twenty sixteen and went
Speaker 1: from fifty two percent of the overall mail vote to
Speaker 1: fifty five percent. Among the female vote, it is increased
Speaker 1: by seven points from thirty nine to forty six. This
Speaker 1: is what I'm about to say about the male female thing.
Speaker 1: Just take it. I know there's a lot of numbers
Speaker 1: coming at you, but take it in for a second.
Speaker 1: White men, his numbers actually declined by three points among
Speaker 1: white women. His numbers increased by four points among black men. Now,
Speaker 1: that was from twenty sixteen to twenty twenty four. The
Speaker 1: numbers from minorities are from twenty twenty to twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: Just asterisk. It's not that important, but it's worth analyzing.
Speaker 1: From twenty twenty to twenty twenty four. Among black men,
Speaker 1: his numbers increased by nine points among Black women, by
Speaker 1: five among Hispanic men, eleven points among Hispanic women, thirteen points.
Speaker 1: Trump's gain in the popular vote, and Trump's win of
Speaker 1: the popular vote, was because women, especially non white women,
Speaker 1: voted for him. That is the headline. Right. Of course,
Speaker 1: the male vote counted, but Trump's growth among females with
Speaker 1: white women and Latino women was larger than his gains
Speaker 1: among Latino men and white men, and only black men's
Speaker 1: were passed black women, which is not that surprising at
Speaker 1: all anything else. Now, the white vote overall, Trump's numbers
Speaker 1: improved by one point from twenty sixteen fifty four to
Speaker 1: fifty five. Among Blacks, it went from six to fifteen.
Speaker 1: That's a nine point gain. Among Latinos it went from
Speaker 1: twenty eight to forty eight. That's a plus twenty point swing. Huge,
Speaker 1: And among Asians it went from thirty to forty, so
Speaker 1: that's plus ten pretty significant. It was. The Latino vote
Speaker 1: is very signcoriing. He won Latino men by two points.
Speaker 1: He went from losing them fifty seven to thirty nine,
Speaker 1: losing them by eighteen points in twenty twenty to winning
Speaker 1: them by two points fifty to forty eight and twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four. Okay, Trump's base also became younger, which we
Speaker 1: all knew, but it's fascinating to see the numbers among
Speaker 1: all eighteen to twenty nine year olds. Trump went from
Speaker 1: getting twenty eight percent of their support in twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: to thirty nine percent in twenty twenty four. He went
Speaker 1: from losing that by thirty points to gaining that, so
Speaker 1: losing that by nineteen points. So he wasn't he wasn't
Speaker 1: he wasn't, you know, losing them by huge numbers. The
Speaker 1: same is true among thirty to forty nine year olds,
Speaker 1: my demographic millennials. This is the group that builds Obama's coalition.
Speaker 1: These are Obama voters. People forget he went from losing
Speaker 1: them by eleven points to fifty one to forty in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen to losing them by two points. Millennials basically
Speaker 1: broke even Trump, Harris, the Obama coalition is a solidly
Speaker 1: mixed back now. The biggest group to sit there and
Speaker 1: support Trump, we're gen xers. Fifty to sixty four year olds.
Speaker 1: He went from winning them by six points to winning
Speaker 1: them by fourteen points. And among people sixty five and
Speaker 1: old older, he went from winning them by nine to
Speaker 1: winning them by three. There was a move towards Democrats
Speaker 1: with them. But remember I've said this to people before.
Speaker 1: I'm kind of blue in the facement. People kind of
Speaker 1: have a frozen time of when what a senior citizen
Speaker 1: is like. They think, oh, I'm thinking of my grandma
Speaker 1: from when I was a childhood, or my neighbor from
Speaker 1: when I was a kid who was eighty twenty years ago. Well,
Speaker 1: there's likely that person doesn't exist anymore. The person's probably
Speaker 1: gone to their eternal rest. They're not alonger with us.
Speaker 1: Remember Henry Fonda, who was very conservative, is not a
Speaker 1: senior citizen. Jane Fonda is right. People who were anti
Speaker 1: war activists in the sixties and seventies are now in
Speaker 1: their seventies and eighties. Those are the people who are
Speaker 1: Archie Bunker is dead, but Meathead is a senior citizen.
Speaker 1: Think of it like that. People are wondering, how did
Speaker 1: like the seniors become so left wing. They didn't just
Speaker 1: become so left wing. Left wing people have aged into
Speaker 1: being senior citizens, and that's what's important. Trump won men
Speaker 1: under Trump won all men, but Trump won men under fifty,
Speaker 1: which he had lost in twenty twenty. And his growth
Speaker 1: among women between the ages of eighteen to forty nine,
Speaker 1: a group that he lost by thirty six points in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, he only lost by fourteen points in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four. This is the women who were supposed to
Speaker 1: win for Kamala because of abortion. All they cared about
Speaker 1: is abortion. Cared about abortion. Trump made eighteen point swing
Speaker 1: among that demographic, people who were supposed to care about
Speaker 1: abortion more than anything else in the world, all right,
Speaker 1: which groups. When it comes to education, Trump made games
Speaker 1: with college educated whites. He went from thirty eight to
Speaker 1: forty three. The only demographic, though, to give Trump a
Speaker 1: majority of support were non college educated white people. Trump
Speaker 1: won sixty four percent of non college educated white people.
Speaker 1: Oh sorry, he also won non college educated Hispanic people
Speaker 1: as well. He won them by a single point, so
Speaker 1: non college educated Hispanics and young college educated whites. Without
Speaker 1: those two groups, Kamala Harris would have won. And I
Speaker 1: think it's important to say those things out loud because
Speaker 1: I have to hear and this will be in the
Speaker 1: email from the listener later in the last segment of
Speaker 1: the show, and no shame to them, but this is
Speaker 1: what I hear all the time is how do we
Speaker 1: win back white college educated women, or not white, just
Speaker 1: college educated women in the suburbs. We hear this at nauseum.
Speaker 1: What we should be talking about is how do we
Speaker 1: deliver for the only people that make sure Republicans win
Speaker 1: the White House? How do we deliver policy gains for
Speaker 1: people who are delivering the White House and Congress and
Speaker 1: Senate for Republicans, that is, non college educated whites and
Speaker 1: non college educated Hispanics. If the policies we are advocating
Speaker 1: do not fight for our voters. Why are we doing them?
Speaker 1: And there's a lot of policies we do which hurt them,
Speaker 1: hurt them. A lot high school voters without a high
Speaker 1: school degree, which have backed Trump in twenty sixteen by
Speaker 1: seven points, back Trump by twenty points this time, twenty
Speaker 1: points this time. Huge swings by religion. Trump gained with
Speaker 1: basically every religious group. Protestants he gained by six points
Speaker 1: since twenty sixteen, Evangelical white Evangelicals by six points, Catholics
Speaker 1: by three points, unaffiliated by four points, Black Protestants by
Speaker 1: six points, Latino Catholics by ten points, non white Protestants
Speaker 1: by fifteen points. They're all reflective in the other stuff. Okay,
Speaker 1: last part of this entire autistic rambling that I've just
Speaker 1: had on the twenty twenty four election. I promise this
Speaker 1: is the probably the last time I reflect on it
Speaker 1: and have a whole segment on it. Immigrants among people
Speaker 1: who were born in the USA, Trump lost the American
Speaker 1: native born American vote in the twenty twenty election by
Speaker 1: three points, which is lower than the overall average. Because
Speaker 1: the immigrant vote voted for Joe Biden by twenty one points.
Speaker 1: The immigrant vote voted for Hillary Clinton by huge margins
Speaker 1: in the CNN exit poll, which is different than Pew.
Speaker 1: But immigrants delivered Democrats the popular vote and delivered Democrats
Speaker 1: a lot of swing states. That is why you will
Speaker 1: never hear the Democrats back away from it. They need
Speaker 1: these voters. In the twenty twenty four election, Trump won
Speaker 1: Americans people who were born in America, American born, natural
Speaker 1: born Americans. He won them by two points fifty to
Speaker 1: forty eight, which is about what he got in the
Speaker 1: overall popular vote. Among naturalized citizens immigrants, Trump lost them
Speaker 1: only by four. There was a seventeen point swing among
Speaker 1: immigrants in this country, which is kray Z. I never
Speaker 1: thought we would see this. I mean still, they voted
Speaker 1: for Joe Biden. Other sorry, they voted for Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: So it's not like they were you know, Magahar right,
Speaker 1: Trump free people. But the fact that they voted that
Speaker 1: close and it wasn't a twenty point loss. So where
Speaker 1: did this come from? Which immigrants made this swing? This
Speaker 1: is going to surprise you. In twenty twenty, fifty six
Speaker 1: percent of white immigrants i e. Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders,
Speaker 1: Kiwis and Europeans voted for Joe Biden by a fifteen
Speaker 1: point margin. White immigrants voted for Donald Trump by a
Speaker 1: sixteen point margin. In twenty twenty four. There was a
Speaker 1: thirty one point swing. It is the largest single swing
Speaker 1: of any immigrant group, and actually of any group that
Speaker 1: it's even larger swing than Hispanics. Thirty one point swing
Speaker 1: among white immigrants from Canada Europe. I guess there's some
Speaker 1: whites from South Africa, Canada, Europe, Eweis, and Australians wild.
Speaker 1: Among Hispanic immigrants, Trump won. According to Pew Research, Trump
Speaker 1: won Hispanic immigrants by three points. He lost them by nineteen,
Speaker 1: so it was a twenty two point swing among Hispanic immigrants,
Speaker 1: and among Asian immigrants he lost them only by five
Speaker 1: after losing them by thirty last time, twenty five point
Speaker 1: swing for Asian immigrants. There's no information on black immigrants.
Speaker 1: I guess they don't have enough sample size to make
Speaker 1: a accurate telling. Okay, why why did immigrants all of
Speaker 1: a sudden become Republican? Obviously the economy plays a big
Speaker 1: part of that, right, There's no rhyme or Reasoners say
Speaker 1: that otherwise the economy was sour and they paid back
Speaker 1: from it. But Trump campaign on mass deportations. There was
Speaker 1: no hidden agenda that, oh Trump didn't really campaign immigration.
Speaker 1: He came pade hard on immigration. I think, and this
Speaker 1: is my belief, and there's a little bit of data
Speaker 1: to back this up, but it's more my belief than
Speaker 1: it is the data. And if there is, I can
Speaker 1: go into this at a different time. I believe that
Speaker 1: the Black Lives Matter riots in twenty twenty one and
Speaker 1: the end of twenty twenty really change people's opinion on
Speaker 1: a lot of things when it came to how the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party governs, and then the COVID lockdowns that absolutely
Speaker 1: affected people into sitting there and reanalyzing how Democrats act.
Speaker 1: The education policies, not only of the transgender stuff in schools,
Speaker 1: but closing specialized schools which so many Asian immigrants and
Speaker 1: European immigrants benefit from. And then also the insane stuff
Speaker 1: when it comes to the transgender thing. This is not
Speaker 1: just for not just for Latino immigrants and Asian immigrants,
Speaker 1: but also europeam Grants member. It's Europe which is at
Speaker 1: the forefront at stopping transgender surgery. For minors. It's Sweden,
Speaker 1: it's Norway, it's England. These are not you know, right wing,
Speaker 1: hardcore countries. These are countries that Bernie Sanders wants the
Speaker 1: model America after. They are at the forefront of all
Speaker 1: these fights. So I think that that is fascinating and
Speaker 1: I think it's worth telling, and I don't know if
Speaker 1: it means something bigger going forward. If this was a
Speaker 1: blip in the map, but a thirty one point swing
Speaker 1: vote change among European immigrant white immigrants and a twelve
Speaker 1: point change among Hispanic immigrants and an eleven point change
Speaker 1: among Asian immigrants from twenty twenty twenty twenty four is
Speaker 1: why that number among immigrants overall has changed significantly. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to talk about that anymore. That's the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four election. That's the best data that there
Speaker 1: is out there. We put a pin in this, we
Speaker 1: put a bow in it. I'm landing the plane. That
Speaker 1: is fascinating. It's the kind of the gold star. As
Speaker 1: post election analysis goes, what the Democrats and Republicans campaign
Speaker 1: on in the future will be based off of what
Speaker 1: that information says. All right, So now go to the question,
Speaker 1: the question that I received from listeners was about the
Speaker 1: census in twenty thirty and the question was looking forward
Speaker 1: into how the census is coming out and how congressional
Speaker 1: districts are being up reapportion based on population. How is
Speaker 1: the illegal immigrants affecting the number of seats different states
Speaker 1: are receiving, different congressional districts are receiving. This matter is
Speaker 1: not only for the House, but for the electoral college.
Speaker 1: Right do you get the number of electoral College votes
Speaker 1: that you get is based off of how many House
Speaker 1: seats you have in any given state. Right after COVID
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty two, a left wing organization called the
Speaker 1: Brennan Center and they have this image of float on
Speaker 1: social media. They show that based on current trends, states
Speaker 1: like Tennessee, Arizona, and Georgia were all expected to gain
Speaker 1: one seat. Florida and Texas we're supposed to gain four
Speaker 1: seats each, while California, New York, and Illinois lost the
Speaker 1: combined ten seats. Right this massive reshuffling, This came out
Speaker 1: of Michael Lee, by the way, the Brennan Center, and
Speaker 1: it was basically sitting there and saying COVID had so
Speaker 1: affected the amount of blue state voters, leaving that in
Speaker 1: dark blue states Illinois, California, Rhode Island, in Minnesota, and
Speaker 1: New York and Oregon were slated to lose total of
Speaker 1: twelve seats. The soul swing state Pennsylvania was supposed to
Speaker 1: lose one, while red states like Idaho, Utah, Tennessee, Texas,
Speaker 1: and Florida were supposed to gain ten. In swing states
Speaker 1: North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona, we're supposed to gain one apiece. Okay,
Speaker 1: so you might have seen that kind of floating around.
Speaker 1: There was another one, but another graph, another map given
Speaker 1: by Michael Lee Year an updated map since COVID, showing
Speaker 1: the population changes because obviously we do every decade, so
Speaker 1: he's just updating it year by year. The Brennan Center
Speaker 1: found that instead of losing two seats, Illinois was slated
Speaker 1: to lose one, instead of losing three, New York was
Speaker 1: going to lose two, and instead of losing five, California
Speaker 1: was going to lose three. Tennessee and Georgia, which was
Speaker 1: supposed to gain seats, are not going to gain seats anymore.
Speaker 1: Red states are going to be losing more and more
Speaker 1: leverage During the reshuffling. Why is that? Why are these
Speaker 1: states not gaining as many seats? Answers immigration, immigration, and
Speaker 1: the Obviously, the number of people leaving states has slowed
Speaker 1: since COVID, though it has continued, but immigration is padding
Speaker 1: the numbers for failed blue state governance. Let's take New
Speaker 1: York City for example, between twenty twenty three and twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four, d eighty one hundred and fifty eight Americans
Speaker 1: left the Borough of Brooklyn for greener pastures. There was
Speaker 1: a natural increase, which is birth's minus deaths, of fifteen thousand,
Speaker 1: so that means that Brooklyn should have had a population
Speaker 1: trunk of twelve thousand, seven hundred, but thirty seven thousand
Speaker 1: immigrants moved to the borough in the meantime, so that
Speaker 1: means they actually grew by twenty five thousand, despite the
Speaker 1: fact that nearly thirty thousand New Yorkers said New York
Speaker 1: camp be governed. We got to get out of here,
Speaker 1: We got to leave. We gotta go to Florida and
Speaker 1: North Carolina, Georgia, Connecticut, long, you know wherever. If you
Speaker 1: look at New York City as a whole, in one
Speaker 1: year time, ninety one thousand people left New York City,
Speaker 1: there was a natural growth of thirty four thousand, six hundred.
Speaker 1: That means there should have been a loss of fifty
Speaker 1: six thousand over the course of a decade. That means
Speaker 1: New York City should have lost one congressional seat. But
Speaker 1: the number of people who immigrated to New York from
Speaker 1: mostly the Third World, but across the globe was one
Speaker 1: hundred and forty four thousand. So despite lockdowns and rising
Speaker 1: crime in sky high taxi is, New York grew by
Speaker 1: eighty seven thousand people because of immigration. That means New
Speaker 1: York is on track not to not only not to
Speaker 1: lose three seats, but they may not even lose two seats.
Speaker 1: The same is true for Illinois and California. Now some
Speaker 1: Red states experiences kind of boomed to Florida and Texas
Speaker 1: have loads of immigrants, lots of illegals, but there's also
Speaker 1: a lot of Americans moving there, which is why they're
Speaker 1: going to gain four seats each. Immigration rewards failing Blue
Speaker 1: states and robs red states of seats that they should
Speaker 1: have gained. Tennessee and Georgia should gain a house seat each,
Speaker 1: but they're not probably not going to. This is why
Speaker 1: big Blue states fight so hard against deporting illegal immigrants,
Speaker 1: their numbers are dependent on who's being counted by mass immigration.
Speaker 1: There was researchers that went back to nineteen eighty to
Speaker 1: see how congressional districts have been affected by illegal immigration.
Speaker 1: They said this, under the hypothetical scenario of not counting
Speaker 1: people who were not in the country illegally, two seats
Speaker 1: would have switched. In nineteen eighty, California and New York
Speaker 1: would have lost a seat, Indiana and Georgia would have
Speaker 1: each gained one. To ninety, California would have lost two, seats,
Speaker 1: Texas would have lost one, while Kentucky and Montana would
Speaker 1: have gained one. In two thousand, California would have lost
Speaker 1: three seats, Texas would have lost one, Indiana, Michigan, miss
Speaker 1: it Being, Montana would all gain one. In twenty ten, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio,
Speaker 1: North Carolina to all gained a seat, California would have
Speaker 1: lost three, Texas and Florida would have lost one. And
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty, California and Texas would have each lost
Speaker 1: a seat, and Ohio and New York would have each
Speaker 1: gained one. So put that know those numbers together. Since
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty, California has ten extra congressional seats that they
Speaker 1: would have not had had it not been for illegal immigration.
Speaker 2: Ten.
Speaker 1: Think of what the California delegation has voted on since
Speaker 1: the last I don't know, forty five years. I'm a
Speaker 1: care femnisties, cash for clunkers, green new deals, all of them,
Speaker 1: not that all of them were benefited from illegal immigration.
Speaker 1: Illegal immigrants absolutely padded it. While you know, states like Ohio, Montana, Georgia, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Louisiana,
Speaker 1: they all lost representation and you could see it in
Speaker 1: how it how many votes it takes to win some
Speaker 1: House seats some states, In some seats it takes. There's
Speaker 1: three hundred and fifty three hundred and seventy five thousand
Speaker 1: people who vote in Ohio's ninth congressional district, which is
Speaker 1: I think Warren Davidson seat. There are three hundred and
Speaker 1: seventy five thousandople who vote in that last presidential election
Speaker 1: go to Nidia Vasquez. The seat in New York seventh District,
Speaker 1: only two hundred and twenty one thousand people vote because
Speaker 1: a lot of the people are illegal. One hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty thousand extra people vote in this one district in
Speaker 1: ad distrition with more Americans than a district with not
Speaker 1: more Americans. So yeah, it's unfair representation. People are being robbed.
Speaker 1: Your vote counts a lot more if you live in
Speaker 1: Media at Native of Asquaz is Brooklyn based district. Then
Speaker 1: if you live in the middle of Ohio because you're
Speaker 1: around American citizens versus illegal immigration. What's the solution of that?
Speaker 1: You know, how do we get forward on this? Well,
Speaker 1: my guest this week has been writing about this and
Speaker 1: talking with this for a very long time. He's an
Speaker 1: expert on the issue. We're going to have him up
Speaker 1: next with me today is RJ Holm, and he is
Speaker 1: the president of the National Immigration Center for Enforcement. RJ
Speaker 1: thanks for being here. You wrote a great article on
Speaker 1: Fox News saying that illegal immigrants should no longer be
Speaker 1: counted in the census data that counts congressional districts. Right first,
Speaker 1: discussed with me how how desperate some Democrats are to
Speaker 1: make sure illegals are counted. You brought up a needia
Speaker 1: vat Native Asquez saying that she needs immigrants in her
Speaker 1: district to keep her district.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, first things for having me on Ryan, and
Speaker 2: you pronounce my last name as Homan, which I love
Speaker 2: every time. Was vinal great guy. But you know, let's
Speaker 2: get something straight here. I mean, you know, congressional seats
Speaker 2: and electoral College votes are supposed to represent the American
Speaker 2: people citizens, you know, voters, not everybody who's physically present
Speaker 2: on our soil. But you know right now, that's not
Speaker 2: what's happening under current law. The census counts all persons,
Speaker 2: so you're talking non citizens, even illegal aliens. I mean,
Speaker 2: for the purpose of you know, abortioning congressional districts, and
Speaker 2: it was very important too, is determining presidential electors. So
Speaker 2: with this massive illegal alien population that Biden brought in
Speaker 2: the country purposely, that party's effectively rewarded with more political power,
Speaker 2: while states who actually enforced the law they're being punished.
Speaker 2: I mean, and that is upside down, and it's happening
Speaker 2: in plain sight. Back in twenty twenty, President Trump, you know,
Speaker 2: tried to fix this. He issued an order that would
Speaker 2: have excluded illegal aliens from the apportionment count. But on
Speaker 2: day one, guess what happened. Buying reversed it, ensuring all
Speaker 2: non citizens, regardless of their immigration status. So illegal aliens
Speaker 2: and the mass migration he does through legal pathways are
Speaker 2: counted the same as citizens when it comes to distributing power.
Speaker 2: And I mean in practice, like states like California where
Speaker 2: you have sanctuary policies under new some okay, you have
Speaker 2: millions of non citizens, you'd get more seats in Congress
Speaker 2: and more sway in electoral college than they otherwise would.
Speaker 2: And say you follow the law, You're Ohio, you're Alabama,
Speaker 2: what do you do? You lose that? This is a
Speaker 2: corrosive matter, dilutes the votes of American citizens and warps
Speaker 2: our entire representative system, and it creates a massive incentive
Speaker 2: I think for open border states to keep flouting federal
Speaker 2: immigration law California can't always be offset by people fleeing
Speaker 2: when illegal aliens come in mass.
Speaker 1: Right, So are there any bills in Congress that take
Speaker 1: to take this on.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm sound done here so consumed with reconciliation. But
Speaker 2: last Congress I think it is still introduced. There is
Speaker 2: a great solution. It's called the Equal Representation Act. That
Speaker 2: was I think it was Warren Davidson and Bill Haggerty.
Speaker 2: What they would do is two basic things. They'd add
Speaker 2: a citizenship question to the census and require that only
Speaker 2: citizens be counted for purposes of racial apportionment and electoral
Speaker 2: vote allocation. I mean, that's it. There's no games, there's
Speaker 2: no guess work for an approach like that. It's a
Speaker 2: straightforward fix to restore fairness to our entire political system
Speaker 2: because you know, let's be honest representation, Ryan, that's power,
Speaker 2: and right now we're handing that power to people who
Speaker 2: ain't even supposed to be here that they're making communities unsafe,
Speaker 2: they're corrupting our system. And at the same time, we're
Speaker 2: telling the American voter their vote means less. That's not democracy, man,
Speaker 2: that's distortion.
Speaker 1: Well, as have you ever pulled this issue? Because I
Speaker 1: started looking at for polls on this and there were
Speaker 1: not many. There was like a few in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: and the America and the public were favoring idea of
Speaker 1: citizenship being asked on the census. Was that if you
Speaker 1: ever poll this question, just curious.
Speaker 2: Well, first you got to make sure you pull the
Speaker 2: right people, because will we have a very big poll
Speaker 2: the presidential election and stuff, you know, illegal aliens are
Speaker 2: impact again. But no, I think the American people. I
Speaker 2: mean on both parties. I mean I can't. I don't
Speaker 2: have data in front of me that would be a
Speaker 2: great thing to kind of capture. I mean, if you
Speaker 2: ask an American citizen, do you want your vote to
Speaker 2: be diluted both for Congress, your congressional representation, and your
Speaker 2: Electoral College votes, Everybody's going to say, hell no, that's
Speaker 2: not what the founding fathers a tenant.
Speaker 1: That's a good leading question. Have you written a little differently?
Speaker 1: But yeah, so you mentioned resolution sorry ecleation in Congress.
Speaker 1: We'll tell my listeners what is going on with Congress
Speaker 1: right now over the right. First of all, reconciliation bill
Speaker 1: is part of the big beautiful bill. It's the vote
Speaker 1: that they need for fifty one votes in order to pass.
Speaker 1: It's not the sixty voth threshold. Explain what is going
Speaker 1: on with immigration specifically in reconciliation right now on the
Speaker 1: Republican side.
Speaker 2: Well, aside from being in Texas. That's part of why
Speaker 2: I'm sweating right now, being engaged on Capitol Hill from
Speaker 2: down here as well. Listen, you know Republicans did send
Speaker 2: a decently strong bill to the Senate. But one thing
Speaker 2: that pisses us off and rightfully so. President Trump was
Speaker 2: elected on a key electoral mandate. It was loud and clear,
Speaker 2: it's mass deportation, not the worst of the worst, not
Speaker 2: just the worst. Everybody should be eligible for deportation, and
Speaker 2: I should get the resources to do so. Congress passed
Speaker 2: a resolution which gave the amounts of money for each function. Arey,
Speaker 2: Homeland Security was a ninety billion judiciary, which is ice
Speaker 2: was one hundred and ten. You know what, I Scott
Speaker 2: seventy four billion in that House version. Okay, so they
Speaker 2: treated a number that was a floor like a ceiling.
Speaker 2: And now what's over in the Senate. You're starting to
Speaker 2: see a scrub. It's called the bird bath. A lot
Speaker 2: of the paid for mechanisms of medicare me eligibility, getting
Speaker 2: rid of both immigrants and illegal aliens from any eligibility
Speaker 2: that would help pay for enforcement. That stuff's getting scrobbed.
Speaker 1: I want you before you go in further.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: What he says the bird bath is is that there's
Speaker 1: something called the Senate parliamentarian, who is supposed to be
Speaker 1: a nonpartisan figure who goes to the reconciliation bill and
Speaker 1: says there and says, if anything is not to do
Speaker 1: with budgetary items, it cannot be in the bill. So,
Speaker 1: for instance, and I'm just making something up, an abortion
Speaker 1: ban could not be in a reconciliation bill because it
Speaker 1: has nothing to do with the budget. And the Senate
Speaker 1: Parliamentarian's roles to go through and take things out that
Speaker 1: have nothing to do with the budget. A number of
Speaker 1: key Republican items have have been iced out by the
Speaker 1: Senate Parliamentarian because of the Bird rule, named after Senator Bird,
Speaker 1: who's been dead for quite a while now. The but
Speaker 1: so you're saying is that a lot of immigration enforcement
Speaker 1: has not made it through the Senate Parliamentarian.
Speaker 2: Well, we don't. In terms of the immigration enforcement stuff. Listen,
Speaker 2: I just had a lot of pay for is there
Speaker 2: was a lot of fee increases, Okay. You know when
Speaker 2: you put asylum at about two grand or something, you
Speaker 2: use it to deter forms of you know, I call
Speaker 2: it a legal legal juries under the guise of legality.
Speaker 2: But the biggest thing here that's very irritating the parliamentarian
Speaker 2: is an unelected, smoke filled back room figure. Senator Thune,
Speaker 2: the Majority leader, kept her on as a show of
Speaker 2: a good faith. She serves. Elizabeth MacDonald serves at the
Speaker 2: pleasure of Senate Republicans. If she scrubs this whole damn thing,
Speaker 2: it's on their plate. But what we're seeing though, in
Speaker 2: terms of Medicare Medicaid tax credit eligibility, where they're allowing
Speaker 2: legal aliens. Tell me why. I mean, it is still
Speaker 2: budgetarian nature when you're getting rid of eligibility of someone
Speaker 2: who shouldn't even freaking be here. Okay, that's going to
Speaker 2: save the American taxpayer money, that's going to give the
Speaker 2: program more integrity. How is that not compliant with the
Speaker 2: Bird rule? And the birder will keep in mind the
Speaker 2: reason they're doing reconciliation. You only need fifty one votes,
Speaker 2: simple majority. If it is not compliant with Bird just
Speaker 2: like everything else in the Senate, you need sixty votes,
Speaker 2: which is as always a lost cost.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's why I think partly why I think
Speaker 1: the AI policy, which I talked about a different podcast,
Speaker 1: that didn't make it through the Bird rule either on
Speaker 1: AI technology. So is there anything making it through this
Speaker 1: immigrat I mean you mentioned ice is so is border
Speaker 1: wall funding getting through any of this other stuff?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I mean, well, first, you know, President Trump wasn't
Speaker 2: elected on building the border wall to port sub not all. Okay,
Speaker 2: the border wall funding is fully there. It's forty five billion,
Speaker 2: but the border is secure. A lot of that money
Speaker 2: needs to go to ice. But let me tell you something.
Speaker 2: The most egregious thing that's happening kind of in the
Speaker 2: shadows of reconciliation is the DHS Appropriations Bill. Okay, the
Speaker 2: traditional funding mechanism for fiscal year twenty six was marked
Speaker 2: up and left the House Appropriations Committee the day before yesterday.
Speaker 2: There were two amendments that were included in it by
Speaker 2: Republicans allowed it, and they were the most egregious things
Speaker 2: I've ever seen. First. One of them essentially reputs Biorcus's
Speaker 2: enforcement priorities back. Is like a sense in the text
Speaker 2: where it's only criminals terrorist threats to public safety. Hell,
Speaker 2: it's even weaker than my works, because my orcists said
Speaker 2: recent illegal entries also our priorities for removal.
Speaker 1: Maorcist was President Biden's DHS secretary who let let immigration
Speaker 1: flood the country. Just engage anyone who didn't know what
Speaker 1: we're talking about. That's what we're talking about.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, Yeah, invasion architect Okay, and his memos were
Speaker 2: guided it all civil guidelines to enforcement. They called it
Speaker 2: it essentially handcuffed Ice. So they kind of mimic that
Speaker 2: as we're seeing, you know, as Ice is just getting
Speaker 2: directed essentially by like TV flips about hey, worst of
Speaker 2: the worst criminals. No, we got to go after freaking everybody,
Speaker 2: especially where that money comes in. And second, what they
Speaker 2: did too is is told Ice. They gave a directive
Speaker 2: President Trump in that EO too said I can enforce
Speaker 2: the law anywhere, whether it's a school, a church, anywhere.
Speaker 2: ICE has to go arrest the person that they're going
Speaker 2: to go after. What they did in this language that
Speaker 2: they put in there is they said ICE has to
Speaker 2: do a sensitivity assessment of wherever they're going to go raid.
Speaker 2: So I still has to sit back and check their
Speaker 2: feelings about is this a good place that we should
Speaker 2: go to. It forced the damn rule of law and
Speaker 2: act in accordance to the EO. Republicans are going to
Speaker 2: pay for that, and that stuff better be stripped in rules.
Speaker 1: Who what Republican proposed that amendment?
Speaker 2: Mark Amma Day is a House Approached subcommittee chair who
Speaker 2: did influenced it with Juan Siscamoni from Arizona.
Speaker 1: Both from Arizona and Mark and Madi from from Mark,
Speaker 1: Amadi from Nevada and Jan Sescimoni from Arizona. Yeah, that
Speaker 1: sounds about right. Juan Siscimony is terrible in immigration and
Speaker 1: Emodi has always been squished, so that is not surprised.
Speaker 1: But Emodi, I was this Coney has a border district.
Speaker 1: You think that he would care more?
Speaker 2: Is there? Okay?
Speaker 1: I have was one question I want to ask you.
Speaker 1: This wasn't even my topics. I want to ask you.
Speaker 1: I keep hearing that deportations are not that is that true?
Speaker 1: I hear arrests are high. I hear I hear people
Speaker 1: are more, there are more people in in sorry detention centers,
Speaker 1: but the actual deportations are not happening. Is that true?
Speaker 2: They're on the help percent true. I mean they're trying
Speaker 2: to count to some extent the beginning a coast guard
Speaker 2: at sea, repatriation, stuff like that. Listen, the American people.
Speaker 1: Why the way, why why a deportation is it?
Speaker 2: Is it because it's a budget issue? Well, yeah, it
Speaker 2: is a budget issue. Listen. Ice is in the red,
Speaker 2: Ice is struggling. But here's my point, the American people,
Speaker 2: your listeners, I mean, we all understand that ICE is
Speaker 2: operating on a very low budget, that the Biden administration,
Speaker 2: you know, they kept them constrained for a reason. They're
Speaker 2: abolishing it from within.
Speaker 3: You don't need to pretend that if you're arresting, detaining
Speaker 3: and deporting and mass you need to go to Congress
Speaker 3: and say, guys, listen, the American people spoke loud and clear,
Speaker 3: we're freaking struggling.
Speaker 2: Give us the full one hundred and ten billion authorise
Speaker 2: and then we could do it. Stop playing games. The
Speaker 2: American people will see if mass deportation is either water
Speaker 2: down or.
Speaker 1: This abb So the Big betfl bill needs to pass
Speaker 1: so we can get the deportation. Okayah, important, we want
Speaker 1: to RJ. Where can people go to follow your work?
Speaker 2: Yep, it's nice enforcement with one E dot org. I'm
Speaker 2: also a fellow at the Heritage Foundation's Border Security and
Speaker 2: Immigration Center. We'll lead the charge up there, also operate
Speaker 2: the Mass Deportation and Border Security Coalition up on Capitol
Speaker 2: Hill that drove passes to HR two. But nice enforcement,
Speaker 2: the National Immigration Center for Enforcement ICE is nice. They
Speaker 2: shouldn't be the line President Trump is'mpowered.
Speaker 1: That is great, great branding RJ. Thank you for coming
Speaker 1: on this podcast. I appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Of course.
Speaker 1: Thanks Ryan, Hey, we'll be right back after this. Yes,
Speaker 1: and now for the ask Me Anything segment of the show.
Speaker 1: I love getting these emails. They're very helpful. I'm trying
Speaker 1: to build a show around your interest and what you
Speaker 1: guys are talking about, So please email me Ryan at
Speaker 1: Numbers Game podcast dot com, Ryan at numbers Plural gamepodcast
Speaker 1: dot com. I'll take a question on basically anything and
Speaker 1: we can go through it and I can try to
Speaker 1: find the best, most accurate information about political questions you
Speaker 1: always wanted to know about. This question comes from Patrick. Hey, Ryan,
Speaker 1: do you agree with the belief that a major deciding
Speaker 1: factor in Trump losing a lot of the suburban white
Speaker 1: and older white voters was because Trump and his supporters
Speaker 1: were coded as a low class and they didn't want
Speaker 1: to be associated with him, even if they agree with
Speaker 1: his policies. If so, is it possibly someone like JDA,
Speaker 1: well spoken conservative populist that isn't always an attack mode
Speaker 1: to win back some of the white suburbs that were
Speaker 1: scared away from being seen as trashies for supporting Trump.
Speaker 1: In short, does JD scare the hose. Thank you Patrick,
Speaker 1: I have the listeners. Thank you Badrick for that question. Okay,
Speaker 1: so I don't think it's all about scaring the hoes, right,
Speaker 1: And I worked for JD. I know him, I'm a
Speaker 1: fan of him politically, so this is not a criticism
Speaker 1: of him. First and foremost, I think part of why
Speaker 1: the suburbs have shifted is changing demographics. Look at the
Speaker 1: suburbs of Atlanta. When George Bush won them in two
Speaker 1: thousand and four, they were sixty six percent white. They
Speaker 1: are now thirty three percent white. As we said in
Speaker 1: earlier in the podcast, the only group of people voting
Speaker 1: for a majority nationwide. But this is true in Georgia.
Speaker 1: It's also true that white college voters, you know, vote
Speaker 1: Republican in Georgia as well. But white voters are the
Speaker 1: ones who actually give Trump his majorities Republican. They are majorities, right.
Speaker 1: Those being going from sixty six to thirty three is
Speaker 1: why the Georgia suburbs have moved so far to the left.
Speaker 1: But that's so, that's that's a big part of it. Secondly,
Speaker 1: when we're talking about the female votes, specifically the college
Speaker 1: educated female vote, let's look at the examination the numbers
Speaker 1: from Catalyst Right. Catalyst is the Democratic firm that also
Speaker 1: looked at the twenty twenty four elections. There was a
Speaker 1: six point difference amongst college educated women from Mitt Romney
Speaker 1: in twenty twelve to Trump in twenty twenty four. That's it,
Speaker 1: it was the six points, and six points means a lot.
Speaker 1: Six points among an fifty percent of the population will
Speaker 1: swing suburbs for sure, right, especially in certain regions of
Speaker 1: the country, But that six points is reflective of other
Speaker 1: college educated women around the world. We saw similar ships
Speaker 1: in Canada, in Britain, in Europe. I think that I
Speaker 1: don't know if I mean, maybe there's a one or
Speaker 1: two points that would sit there and swing back because
Speaker 1: JD is different. I think JD has a lot of
Speaker 1: advantages that Trump doesn't have. I think that being young,
Speaker 1: having a young family. I think his wife, Usha Vance
Speaker 1: is a major asset to him that has not been
Speaker 1: talked enough about. I think him being more into like
Speaker 1: Su'll absolutely would not scare as many people. But I
Speaker 1: think that the media apparatus and the social media apparatus
Speaker 1: will make him scary. Right, They're going to make him
Speaker 1: too divisive about a million different issues and he speaks,
Speaker 1: He's spoken a lot, He's spoken very thoughtfully, and unfortunately,
Speaker 1: we don't live in a society that rewards thoughtfulness. So
Speaker 1: when those things are boiled down to talking points for
Speaker 1: thirty second TikTok videos or thirty second Instagram videos, they
Speaker 1: will probably be viewed as negative. Can he win some
Speaker 1: of them back? Yeah, maybe, Kenny get back to Mitt
Speaker 1: Romney numbers. I don't think so. But you don't have
Speaker 1: to get back to Mitt Romney numbers in order to
Speaker 1: win them. That's my take on that. I think the
Speaker 1: Trump the JD. Trump coalition, whoever the nomini is in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight, is built on the backs of the
Speaker 1: working class, especially working class minorities that I've moved to
Speaker 1: the right, but also more working class white voters as well.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of ground to still gain. Consider a
Speaker 1: lot of them. I think twenty five or about twenty
Speaker 1: five to thirty percent of all Kamala Harris voters were
Speaker 1: whites without a college degree. There is a lot more
Speaker 1: of that fruit to squeeze juice out of. Anyway, that's
Speaker 1: my opinion. Hope you guys like it. I hope you
Speaker 1: guys like this podcast. Please like and subscribe on the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your podcast. I
Speaker 1: promise that every episode is can be this autistic. But
Speaker 1: if you like the numbers and you like the data,
Speaker 1: please give me a five star review. I really appreciate
Speaker 1: it helps boost this podcast. Take five seconds of your time.
Speaker 1: It's the Christiana skiff you guys didn't give me. I'm
Speaker 1: just joking. Thank you guys so much. I will see
Speaker 1: you guys on Thursday.