Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of this show.
Speaker 1: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 1: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 1: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 1: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 1: dot com.
Speaker 2: Hi, Ryan Grim, how's it going?
Speaker 3: It goes? Got my earbuds figured out?
Speaker 4: Nice.
Speaker 3: The phone kept insisting that it was going to take
Speaker 3: the earbuds, So yeah, I told the phone, guess what,
Speaker 3: no bluetooth for you.
Speaker 2: So yeah, that's it.
Speaker 3: You cut off now that earbuds have no choice.
Speaker 2: When you learn your lesson, they can get a bluetooth back. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that's well, I was just recounting the travails of my face.
Speaker 2: That's all you missed so far.
Speaker 3: I know that story.
Speaker 2: So anyway, there's a lot to get to you this morning.
Speaker 2: I think what we're probably going to do. We're going
Speaker 2: to go through the LEAs with the terraces, which are
Speaker 2: like on and off again, and who knows what's going
Speaker 2: to happen there. Ryan, have you just give it exactly exactly.
Speaker 2: We'll have Ryan give us big updates on Israel and
Speaker 2: ceasefire negotiations and what's going on there. We've got some
Speaker 2: new Zorah and Mondani pulling out of New York that
Speaker 2: is looking interesting. I'm starting to I'm starting to believe
Speaker 2: he could pull it off. What do you guys think.
Speaker 3: I'll never believe it until it happens.
Speaker 5: I believe it.
Speaker 3: And then and Cuomo will run like buffalo style in
Speaker 3: the general election against him, So he's gonna have to
Speaker 3: beat him twice.
Speaker 2: If what's the name of the woman, what's the name
Speaker 2: of the woman? Forgetting her name?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a buffalo mayor, that's right.
Speaker 2: I covered that so closely too. But in any case,
Speaker 2: she beats the like corrupt incumbent, major underdog victory, grassroots
Speaker 2: like people powered victory, and then they just turn around
Speaker 2: and run this dude in the general elect Did he
Speaker 2: run as a Republican or an independent, I don't remember.
Speaker 3: I think even a Republican.
Speaker 2: I think he did, and he's able to win in
Speaker 2: the general. So I could see Quomo Pole in the
Speaker 2: same and I think there's a good possibility it would work.
Speaker 2: There's no laws in New York City that would prevent that.
Speaker 3: Well, he already has a ballot line because New York
Speaker 3: has like a hundred different parties and the Constitution Party
Speaker 3: in this party, so he actually he doesn't even have
Speaker 3: to do anything. He's and he's already on the ballot
Speaker 3: for the general if he wants it.
Speaker 2: Damn, that's correct.
Speaker 6: Way a star is born was so wrong. But yes,
Speaker 6: he's been launched.
Speaker 3: Yeah, his first campaign when he ran for.
Speaker 2: Oh did you really? He was on my radar.
Speaker 3: He was part of this wave of DSA candidates who
Speaker 3: won in the cycle after like AOC and the squad
Speaker 3: one in twenty eighteen, and then this whole wave of
Speaker 3: DSA candidates won state, Senate and state.
Speaker 2: I remember that council seats in twenty Yeah, I remember that,
Speaker 2: and he was.
Speaker 3: One of them.
Speaker 2: DSA and also I'm sure Working Families Party back they had. Yeah,
Speaker 2: they had a great a great eight track record, a
Speaker 2: great like election season right in that in that era.
Speaker 2: So we'll do all that, I think probably then for
Speaker 2: premiums we're going to do You've got the polster who
Speaker 2: did the like Abundance Versus Populism poll. Yeah, we're going
Speaker 2: to talk to you, which I'm excited about. I need
Speaker 2: to take a look. Have you guys seen the Abundance
Speaker 2: world criticisms of this poll, because I do want to
Speaker 2: ask him about some of those, so I've got to
Speaker 2: take a look.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so smart. Basically the criticisms are hilarious. One is that, well,
Speaker 3: this is not electoral, it's not supposed to poll.
Speaker 2: Well, but they explicitly say like a political project. I mean,
Speaker 2: we've all I've asked Eric about that. I mean they're
Speaker 2: you know, say that quite explicitly. So that's fine.
Speaker 3: And then they say whenever a somebody with an agenda
Speaker 3: designs a poll, you can't trust it. And so what
Speaker 3: they have the people who organized the poll said, okay,
Speaker 3: you like, look at the wording, like it's your wording.
Speaker 3: Tell us precisely how you'd like to do it, and
Speaker 3: we'll redo it so we can talk to tell and
Speaker 3: the polster about that, because they said, give us your words,
Speaker 3: you write another poll that is the most lopsided pro
Speaker 3: abundance poll that you can think of, and we'll test it.
Speaker 3: Let's see.
Speaker 2: I feel that confident, Yeah, in the results, I mean,
Speaker 2: I think fairly so. And then this I've I've been
Speaker 2: excited to have this conversation with the two of you guys,
Speaker 2: Ben Shapiro taking shots at the OVONN, I mean, listen,
Speaker 2: obviously it's because he's not happy with the OVONN being like,
Speaker 2: this is a genocide in Kaza and I have a
Speaker 2: problem with it. But I do think some of the content,
Speaker 2: like putting that aside, some of the content of what
Speaker 2: Shapiro said about the number of grown adults who aren't
Speaker 2: acting their age, I thought that was kind of interesting,
Speaker 2: and I wanted to get your thoughts on if there's
Speaker 2: any there there putting aside the like, you know, the
Speaker 2: Israel bias, like that piece of it. So wanted to
Speaker 2: get to that as well. But let's go ahead and
Speaker 2: start with what's going on with the tariffs. So last
Speaker 2: week left off, the tariffs were off because the court
Speaker 2: ruled this this what is it Court of International Trade
Speaker 2: rule that the tariffs exceeded the powers of AIPA the
Speaker 2: authority they were using to do the across the board
Speaker 2: Liberation Day tariffs. Now we have another court that has
Speaker 2: weighed that has said, listen, there's an appeal process that
Speaker 2: is going to play out, and in the meantime, we
Speaker 2: are going to reinstate those tariffs for now. So they say.
Speaker 2: A federal appeals court on Thursday granted the Trump administration's
Speaker 2: request to temporarily pause a lower court ruling that struck
Speaker 2: down most of President Trump's terariffs. Trump administration and early
Speaker 2: told the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Speaker 2: it would seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court as
Speaker 2: soon as Friday if the tariff ruling was not quickly
Speaker 2: put on pause. So they are headed to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: There's one other piece of this I want to put
Speaker 2: up before I get to start with Emily's reaction, because
Speaker 2: I'm very interested in what you have to say about this.
Speaker 2: So Trump, in response to this starts tearing into the
Speaker 2: Federalist Society, which is involved in vetting all of these judges,
Speaker 2: and specifically tears into Leonard Leo, the head of the
Speaker 2: Federal Society, who is so influential in conservative circles and Emily,
Speaker 2: I know you'll be able to speak to that better
Speaker 2: than anyone. Here's Snania's like commentary on this, which I
Speaker 2: also think is sort of a stude. He says, Trump
Speaker 2: now denouncing the Federalist Society, saying he doesn't want their
Speaker 2: judges anymore, pretty much the last tie to conservatism as
Speaker 2: an ideology. We're getting judges from now on who act
Speaker 2: like sickophants in the administration. But anyway, I won't read
Speaker 2: this whole thing, but this is just him like really
Speaker 2: going after Leonard Leo and calling them back room hustlers
Speaker 2: and all these sorts of things. So Emily, tell us,
Speaker 2: you know, how is this being received in conservative world
Speaker 2: and what is your view of the import here?
Speaker 6: This is how a lot of conservatives actually feel about
Speaker 6: Leonard leon now and I shall, oh, really maga conservatives.
Speaker 6: There's a difference between the sort of old conservative movement
Speaker 6: that is still really loyal to the Reagan crew and
Speaker 6: the Reagan years and the Reagan legacy, and then there's
Speaker 6: Maga world, which has been frustrated, particularly by Amy Coney Barrett,
Speaker 6: sometimes by Brett Kavanaugh, and then also by some of
Speaker 6: these lower judges, these lower court judges, and so it's
Speaker 6: not really surprising that Donald Trump has had that planted
Speaker 6: in his ear and that he would even like kind
Speaker 6: of organically feel frustrated by that. It's just a matter
Speaker 6: of time before that, you know, even boils over further.
Speaker 6: But it was interesting in that true Social Post because
Speaker 6: he also says he doesn't even really think it's Leonard Leo's.
Speaker 4: Fault, So like he spends the first half of the
Speaker 4: truth Social Post.
Speaker 6: Unloading on Leonard Leo and then being like, but actually,
Speaker 6: like these judges, it's these these judges are just a
Speaker 6: complete and total disaster.
Speaker 4: So it was weird because.
Speaker 2: Nilla says they're communist judges.
Speaker 6: Communist judges, right, which certainly would have nothing to do
Speaker 6: with Leonard Leo. So anyway, all that is say, it's
Speaker 6: pretty like, I wonder where this goes from here in
Speaker 6: conservative world because the Supreme Court all day the White
Speaker 6: House yesterday was saying we're going to take this up
Speaker 6: to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court we are utterly confident
Speaker 6: will decide in our favor.
Speaker 4: Well, the Supreme Court.
Speaker 6: Donald Trump, when he says Leonard Leo helped him pick judges,
Speaker 6: he's talking about dozens and dozens of people in lower courts,
Speaker 6: but also the Supreme Court. Right, every single person on
Speaker 6: the Supreme Court that is a Trump appointee or Trump
Speaker 6: nominee was picked from the list that Leonard Leo gave
Speaker 6: him in twenty sixteen in order to get conservative votes.
Speaker 6: That's the lore we go back to twenty sixteen. Trump
Speaker 6: needs to get the support of the conservative movement before
Speaker 6: the election, and so Leonard Leo gives him a list
Speaker 6: of judges that he will pick, and Trump picks every
Speaker 6: single judge and justice from that list. And so now
Speaker 6: most of the Conservative majority is Leonard Leo Trump picked,
Speaker 6: and the White House is saying they have every bit
Speaker 6: of confidence in them.
Speaker 4: So it's contradict it's a self contradiction.
Speaker 2: Of course, it's wild to think too. So first of all,
Speaker 2: I mean, I certainly would not surprise me it's a
Speaker 2: Supreme Court upholds the decision that the tariffs exceed the
Speaker 2: statutory authority. Because part of the federalist society was cultural
Speaker 2: issues and part of it is being very pro business
Speaker 2: and business is not excited about this terror regime. Would
Speaker 2: not surprise me at all if that was the finding.
Speaker 2: I don't know. And also I just I mean, I
Speaker 2: think on its face, it is a preposterate. It is
Speaker 2: preposterous to imagine that you can as a executive claim
Speaker 2: this much unilateral power for yourself when the power of
Speaker 2: the person is so clearly busted in the Constitution with
Speaker 2: the UH with the Congress. So putting that aside, it's
Speaker 2: also ironic that, you know, back in twenty sixteen, right
Speaker 2: after the grabber by the pussy fallout is happening, and
Speaker 2: he's at risk of losing the evangelical right and there's
Speaker 2: like a real, you know, potential split in the foundation
Speaker 2: of his coalition. The way he shorees that up is
Speaker 2: by putting out this list of like federalist society, like
Speaker 2: here are the Supreme Court justices I will consider, like
Speaker 2: I'm locking it in now. These are the people, and
Speaker 2: they're your people. And that's a important part of how
Speaker 2: he's able to keep his coalition together and secure victory.
Speaker 2: So it's wild to now fast forward to now and
Speaker 2: see him going after them because they're not just doing
Speaker 2: everything he wants them to do, you know. To Hanania's
Speaker 2: commentary there, I agree and I disagree, because obviously Trump
Speaker 2: is his own animal and is just like the cult
Speaker 2: of Trump. But when you look at the primary accomplishments
Speaker 2: that he has you know, effectuated an office, it's like
Speaker 2: destroying the administrative state. That is a big you know,
Speaker 2: traditional Reagan type conservative goal.
Speaker 4: It was a big Leonard Leo goal.
Speaker 2: Actually, yeah, absolutely, you know russ vote is deeply steeped
Speaker 2: in the conservative movement. Like this is not some rando
Speaker 2: who hasn't been in Washington before.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 2: And then the tax cut from the first administration, which
Speaker 2: is the number one priority right now of the second administration.
Speaker 2: It was literally written by like Paul Ryan and the
Speaker 2: Heritage Foundation, so it's always with him. It's like, well,
Speaker 2: there is there are differences, but also I don't want
Speaker 2: to overstay the amount of break that Trump is that
Speaker 2: Trump's administration in practice has represented from Republican administrations of
Speaker 2: the past. Ryan, what do you think about that sort
Speaker 2: of thing?
Speaker 3: Yeah, this, like Trump is really going for a basically
Speaker 3: a clean break, not a clean break from, but complete
Speaker 3: domination over you know, all factions of Conservatism.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's the way to put it. So it's not
Speaker 2: before necessarily an ideological break, but he wants complete domination over.
Speaker 2: I think that's the way the way to put it right, it's.
Speaker 3: Like, Okay, you evangelicals have this these politics, You fed
Speaker 3: SoC people have these politics. You Chamber of Commerce people
Speaker 3: have these politics. You America First or Jendie Vance types
Speaker 3: have this going on. It's like you all serve me.
Speaker 3: And this is and trump Ism is what I say
Speaker 3: it is, and that's that's how it's going to be.
Speaker 3: And so yeah, this because if if he gets his
Speaker 3: tariffs shut down by the Supreme Court, that's a pretty
Speaker 3: radical rebuke to him his policy and his domination over
Speaker 3: the entire coalition. So he seems to be you really going.
Speaker 2: For it here, Emily.
Speaker 6: Oh sorry, I was just gonna say, I forget who
Speaker 6: posted this this week, but someone posted like this is
Speaker 6: Auderborough mob shit. And it's a really good way to
Speaker 6: put it, because I think a lot of people try
Speaker 6: to shoehorn what Trump is doing into an ideology, but
Speaker 6: it's actually Trump is trying to sort of shoehorn. Trump
Speaker 6: is trying to force the ideology of the right to
Speaker 6: be deference to Trump and there are times where it
Speaker 6: overlaps with the goal of russ vote or the goal
Speaker 6: of lear Lee or whatever, but particularly Russ and you know,
Speaker 6: creating the unitary executive and restoring executive power and all
Speaker 6: of that. But there are times when it's also just
Speaker 6: like Donald Trump isn't overlapping with the ideological goal. Donald
Speaker 6: Trump is just Roy Kohane as president of the United States.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right, Emily. You had pool duty yesterday and
Speaker 2: so you were there for all of you know, everything
Speaker 2: there was to get out of this administration in terms
Speaker 2: of the response to this court decision. Let me go
Speaker 2: ahead and play a little bit here of Peter Navarro saying, listen,
Speaker 2: this pause and terrorists doesn't really change anything at all.
Speaker 7: These will not affect the negotiations in any way. You
Speaker 7: have people out there in the world. Since we look
Speaker 7: at the court decisions, the court was clear, as I said,
Speaker 7: that President has brought it forward the post hariffs. They
Speaker 7: took issue with the particular statues be used.
Speaker 2: So there have been other indications too that they're going
Speaker 2: to try to move forward in some way. You know,
Speaker 2: what did you make of those comments from Navarro and
Speaker 2: from other administration officials as well.
Speaker 5: Well?
Speaker 6: And that last part there about the particulars of the
Speaker 6: statute from Peter Navarro is why the administration is projecting
Speaker 6: utter confidence going into the Supreme Court. They feel like
Speaker 6: they can, they feel like they're coitutional argument will be
Speaker 6: like met with agreement from conservative Supreme Court justices, because
Speaker 6: it's not quite as simple as just oh, you know,
Speaker 6: President doesn't have the ability to do this. But the
Speaker 6: question that I kept trying to get in both at
Speaker 6: the briefing and to Navarro, and it's just some kind
Speaker 6: of luck thing. Some people are very skilled at getting
Speaker 6: their questions asked, like their hands super loud, or they
Speaker 6: if you talk to White House reporters about their tricks,
Speaker 6: it comes down to like how they smile and make.
Speaker 3: Real craft trying to get a drink.
Speaker 6: Yeah, exactly, Yeah, Ingram knows what's up. So anyway, it
Speaker 6: was the question is just if part of the problem
Speaker 6: from this kicking through the court system is that it
Speaker 6: creates complete uncertainty. Again, you can kill two birds with
Speaker 6: one stone here and go through Congress, why would the
Speaker 6: administration not pass the slate of tariffs or even like
Speaker 6: a slightly reduced slate of tariffs through Congress, because then
Speaker 6: that brings certainty to investors and it removes the problem
Speaker 6: of the courts. But of course they know that they
Speaker 6: can't pass these through Congress, they have no confidence that
Speaker 6: they would be able to get you know, Ron Johnson
Speaker 6: and the Susan Collins, they sort of hardcore fiscal conservatives,
Speaker 6: but also moderate conservatives.
Speaker 4: Even this is a perfect continuation what we were just
Speaker 4: talking about.
Speaker 6: Even in the kind of cult of Trump era of
Speaker 6: the Republican Party, tariffs are aligned too far for a
Speaker 6: lot of traditional Republicans and moderate Republicans. So they're stuck
Speaker 6: with having to as you have pointed out many times, Crystal,
Speaker 6: rely on Trump kind of waving his magic wand which
Speaker 6: he definitely enjoys. But that's because it's actually this is
Speaker 6: why Congress, why the founders delegated the power to Congress,
Speaker 6: because it's not supported by the representatives of the public.
Speaker 6: It's just supported by the president. And so it's a
Speaker 6: huge problem.
Speaker 2: And the other reason why this is delegated to Congress
Speaker 2: is the exact reason Trump doesn't want to have to
Speaker 2: go through Congress, which is he wants people to have
Speaker 2: to go and petition the king. And so if you
Speaker 2: have some stable regime that has to be subject to
Speaker 2: legislative branch scrutiny, then you take all the fun of it.
Speaker 2: In terms of what he actually wants to achieve or
Speaker 2: not to mention, you know, all the like, oh, potential
Speaker 2: development deals that can be thrown his way, or if
Speaker 2: he wants to do a favor for Elon and make
Speaker 2: sure they get Starlink or they're partnering with Palenteer or
Speaker 2: whatever it is that's in his basket, you know, of
Speaker 2: Goodie's wish list, then that becomes more much more difficult
Speaker 2: to effectuate. If you're actually going through the legislative branch.
Speaker 6: And just ran you can respond to this, because I
Speaker 6: think you might have thought. It's one of the questions
Speaker 6: people were asking throughout the day is doesn't this destroy
Speaker 6: your leverage? I mean, doesn't going through the courts destroy
Speaker 6: your leverage when you're going to other countries. I mean,
Speaker 6: just yesterday Kevin Hassett was saying, they expect many, many
Speaker 6: deals to be coming in the next few weeks. But
Speaker 6: who's going to make a deal with you when they
Speaker 6: don't even know whether the courts are going to block
Speaker 6: your tariffs from being imp Absolutely so, right, I feel
Speaker 6: like what leverage India?
Speaker 3: I don't. I don't actually think that that's that's significant,
Speaker 3: that plays that significant of a role, because I think
Speaker 3: the US has leverage because it's it's an economic superpower.
Speaker 3: At the same time, countries that were already reluctant to
Speaker 3: strike deals with US because we just Trump just renegotiated
Speaker 3: US MCA with Canada and Mexico just a couple of years.
Speaker 2: Ago, right, and then just already tearing it up and.
Speaker 3: Completely abrogates it. The United States cuts an around deal,
Speaker 3: they abrogate it, then they're talking about going back into it.
Speaker 3: Like so the idea.
Speaker 2: Ties into Israel and Moss as well, Yeah, make some
Speaker 2: you know, claims with a mass and then totally turns around,
Speaker 2: does something different when they talk to Israel.
Speaker 3: So the courts are like the seventieth wild card thrown
Speaker 3: into a deal with the United States, which is just
Speaker 3: becoming like a completely arbitrary and capricious country, and other
Speaker 3: countries are trying to move move away from it, you know,
Speaker 3: just real quickly on the Yeah, my take on the founders,
Speaker 3: it's like they never really even thought of the president
Speaker 3: as making policy at all, Like that was supposed to
Speaker 3: come from Congress, and tariffs for the first hundred plus
Speaker 3: years of the US were a were major policy. It's
Speaker 3: like where huge portions of our federal revenue came from
Speaker 3: once we once we kicked in an income tax, and
Speaker 3: we had a federal reserve, like the economy and the
Speaker 3: and the treasury were run, you know, with tariffs as
Speaker 3: a real kind of side show. And so that's why
Speaker 3: Congress then delegated, you know, the kind of moving of
Speaker 3: the dial to the executive because the policy was already
Speaker 3: set in place. What Trump's doing is a brand new policy.
Speaker 3: It's like, it's like bringing tariffs back to a central
Speaker 3: place in our economic policy making like they were in
Speaker 3: the nineteenth century, and that you can't do unless Congress
Speaker 3: allows you to do it, would be the argument. It's
Speaker 3: just all power though, So.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, that's right. I wanted to highlight this just
Speaker 2: to kind of put it on all of our radar.
Speaker 2: Arnot Bertrand was highlighting these deals that are being struck
Speaker 2: outside of the US to your point, Ryan about how
Speaker 2: we're just like this rogue nation at this point and
Speaker 2: every other country is just figuring out how to adapt.
Speaker 2: And he says, this is bizarrely received almost zero coverage
Speaker 2: in Western media, but it is actually massive deal. China,
Speaker 2: the countries of Southeast Asia, assion and the Arab States.
Speaker 2: GCC just held a summit in Kuala Lumpur to forge
Speaker 2: what could become the world's largest economic block, covering everything
Speaker 2: from free trade agreements and dedollarrization to Belton Road connectivity. Together,
Speaker 2: these countries have over two billion people, thirty percent of
Speaker 2: the world's GDP, and crucially about fifty five percent of
Speaker 2: world GDP growth in PPP terms. Here's their joint statement.
Speaker 2: They agree to massively develop free trade bypass the dollar.
Speaker 2: That's an important one. Belton Road expansion, develop across region
Speaker 2: digital economy framework including an AI and energy markets coordination.
Speaker 2: So one more sign that the rest of the world
Speaker 2: is trying to adapt to you know, the US ye
Speaker 2: rogue actions.
Speaker 3: And like I would saying maybe this is a good
Speaker 3: thing for everybody. It in a world where the US
Speaker 3: is still the loan superpower and also sees the rapid
Speaker 3: development of AI, Like we know how that world ends,
Speaker 3: like with a like just plutocracy of like a few
Speaker 3: trillionaires controlling everything. That's yeah, that like i'd love to
Speaker 3: say that DSA and and the remnants of Bernie are
Speaker 3: going to like put the brakes on that I don't.
Speaker 3: I don't see it happening. And so it has to
Speaker 3: be the US like committing suicide and handing over power
Speaker 3: to these other countries who who at least they might
Speaker 3: have a better shot at making a slightly more egalitarian
Speaker 3: world out of this, out of on the other side
Speaker 3: of this, whatever this AI development is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we need to have Janis fair Faucus back on
Speaker 2: because he also is tracking both, you know, the de
Speaker 2: dollarization that ties into this, the deals that are being
Speaker 2: struck here that Arno is high landing along with the
Speaker 2: US's embrace of quote unquote stable coins, and so he
Speaker 2: sees a world in which you have two competing monetary systems.
Speaker 2: One that is sort of more you know, traditionally im
Speaker 2: backed by governmental central banks like public you know, currencies
Speaker 2: that would be emblematic of like the bricks arrangements and
Speaker 2: what's happening with Asian and China and the Arab nations.
Speaker 2: And then one that is this private digital currency, you know,
Speaker 2: and with the quote unquote Genius Act and these stable
Speaker 2: coins which are not stable. Actually, then the trick the
Speaker 2: dollar as the alternative.
Speaker 3: The trick there if people aren't connecting the dots, is
Speaker 3: it buys you say, another ten or twenty years of
Speaker 3: being able to kind of float endless amounts of treasuries
Speaker 3: into into circulation because that the bitcoin people, the crypto people,
Speaker 3: will have to buy the treasuries as the collateral for
Speaker 3: their stable coin. So it's it's basically a way to
Speaker 3: it's it's a it's kind of a pump and dump
Speaker 3: for like the entire United States.
Speaker 2: That's cool. Yeah, that sounds like it's going to work
Speaker 2: out really great.
Speaker 3: It'll be good for ten or twenty years and that
Speaker 3: that's that that's longer term thinking than our economic planners
Speaker 3: are usually getting into. So let's give them at least
Speaker 3: credit for that.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, Trump and the other gerontocracy people
Speaker 2: will be dead I guess by the time it collapses,
Speaker 2: So what do they care.
Speaker 6: Yes, this was a good piece from from you honest
Speaker 6: that people should check out that he wrote on this recently.
Speaker 4: We should definitely have it. Just closed it.
Speaker 6: Sorry, it was called Trump wants a big tech to
Speaker 6: own the dollar.
Speaker 4: It was really perfect.
Speaker 3: Yep, that sounds right.
Speaker 2: One more one more piece on this, again highlighted by
Speaker 2: r no So Marco Ruby announce they're going to start
Speaker 2: revoking visas of Chinese students, including those with connections the
Speaker 2: Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields any place
Speaker 2: as rip American AI industry. According to recent study by
Speaker 2: the Paulson Institute, thirty eight percent of the top tier
Speaker 2: AI talent work in the US are Chinese, more than
Speaker 2: Americans themselves. So again, I guess right, that's for those
Speaker 2: they were very concerned by a development. We should be like, yeah,
Speaker 2: I guess good work.
Speaker 3: Crazy times.
Speaker 4: This is Trump's real plan. We didn't even see it coming.
Speaker 4: This is the five D chess. Be right, I see
Speaker 4: it coming. This is all a plan to topple.
Speaker 6: The Empire's ability to thrust us into AI, into the
Speaker 6: dystopia of AI.
Speaker 4: So well done, mister president.
Speaker 2: It is it is wild. It is wild to see
Speaker 2: the very obvious consequences of these actions. In any case,
Speaker 2: anything else there, guys, Are you ready to move on
Speaker 2: to Israel?
Speaker 5: Yep?
Speaker 2: So, Ryan, you guys have been doing the best reporting
Speaker 2: on what is going on with the ceasefire deal negotiations.
Speaker 2: So I'll pull up here the framework, the text that
Speaker 2: you guys published of the term sheet delivered to Hamas
Speaker 2: by Steve Whitcoff, and you can talk us through some
Speaker 2: of the details here and also the larger context Yeah.
Speaker 3: So the original deal understanding, as Hamas kind of described it,
Speaker 3: that Jeremy reported on last week into early this week,
Speaker 3: was that there would be a sixty day ceasefire. The
Speaker 3: Israeli forces would withdraw to their March second positions. There
Speaker 3: would be five captaves released on day one and then
Speaker 3: five hostages released on day sixty And the idea there
Speaker 3: was that breaking them in half and spreading them out
Speaker 3: forces Israel to abide by the ceasefire for that entire
Speaker 3: sixty days, and during that sixty days, the US would
Speaker 3: guarantee the stability of the ceasefire and would pressure Israel
Speaker 3: to negotiate towards a long term truce that the war
Speaker 3: would not start up again on day sixty one. The
Speaker 3: new agreement. Oh, and how that unfolded. Jeremy was able
Speaker 3: to get the details of this and publish that there
Speaker 3: was an understanding between Hamas and Witkough that the Israel
Speaker 3: immediately comes out and they don't want to do this.
Speaker 3: They don't, they say they don't want to do this.
Speaker 3: Witkoff then calls Axios Barack Revide and says, I'm really
Speaker 3: disappointed in Hamas's reaction to this, and so blaming Hamas,
Speaker 3: even though Hamas had had accepted the terms. So then
Speaker 3: Wikoff goes back and he's like, okay, what can I
Speaker 3: what can I tweak in this to get Israel on board,
Speaker 3: which again tells you that Jeremy's reporting was correct because
Speaker 3: the deal would not have gotten more favorable to Israel
Speaker 3: if the original one was okay with Israel but not
Speaker 3: okay with Hamas. So now they have a new deal
Speaker 3: which instead of the five, the second half of the captives,
Speaker 3: and they're believed to be twenty living captives remaining in Gaza,
Speaker 3: so the five, instead of being released on day sixty,
Speaker 3: would be released on day seven. And the language around Israel,
Speaker 3: kind of withdrawing back to March second, is much vaguer,
Speaker 3: and the language about a long term truce is is vague,
Speaker 3: giving Israel the ability to restart the war. Net Yahoo
Speaker 3: met yesterday with hostage families, and audio of it immediately leaked,
Speaker 3: which people in Israel, reporters in Israel were speculating or
Speaker 3: and just guessing like that this was a deliberate Net
Speaker 3: and Yahoo leak. So in his conversation with the hostage families,
Speaker 3: he was telling them we're going we're going to restart
Speaker 3: the war like it's happening, like I'm sorry, like and
Speaker 3: we hope we get the rest of the living captives out,
Speaker 3: but we'll see and just letting you know, we're going
Speaker 3: to break this deal.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And the thinking of Amir ta Bona, a r's columnists
Speaker 3: who's been on our show. His analysis is that Yahoo
Speaker 3: is push is put that out to pressure Hamas to
Speaker 3: reject the deal. Like his preference is that Hamas reject
Speaker 3: the deal rather than accept it, and then nen Yaho
Speaker 3: has to break it because even though he's willing to
Speaker 3: break it, it comes with a political cost, like the
Speaker 3: world has completely lost its patience with nen Yahu and
Speaker 3: his genocide. It's like Europe is, you know, it's twenty
Speaker 3: percent of its trade. Even Germany is telling Israel that
Speaker 3: that this is that this has gone too far. So
Speaker 3: on the one hand, you could imagine why Hamas is
Speaker 3: still debating this internally. You can imagine why they would
Speaker 3: reject this deal because it may be seven days of
Speaker 3: a ceasefire, right and then right back to where they were.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 3: On the other hand, you can imagine why they would
Speaker 3: accept it because if Netton, now, who wants them to
Speaker 3: reject it. You could think, okay, whatever net Ya, who
Speaker 3: wants us to do like, we should do the opposite,
Speaker 3: uh and and and it would further isolate Israel internationally
Speaker 3: if they once again broke another ceasefire. And so the question,
Speaker 3: you know, for Hamas is is you know, what is
Speaker 3: what is a seven day or a sixty day seasefire
Speaker 3: worth to them? If they and if they're because there
Speaker 3: as they say their their remaining leverage is is there
Speaker 3: the twenty hostages that they hold if that's down to
Speaker 3: ten and increasingly maybe shrinking, as as Israel's relentless bombing campaign,
Speaker 3: you know, puts the puts their lives at risk on
Speaker 3: a on a minute by minute basis. So there was
Speaker 3: a lot of hope in Gaza. You saw people, you know,
Speaker 3: almost like pre celebrating the possibility. This was just such
Speaker 3: a just a poignant and painful thing to see because
Speaker 3: the the expressions of joy our reflection of the depth
Speaker 3: of the pain.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 3: But there's what we don't know yet how this will go.
Speaker 3: And it's to me it's pretty hard to hard to predict.
Speaker 2: Ryan, what do you make of like what can we
Speaker 2: read into wit Coough and the Trump administration's role here
Speaker 2: and their preferences, because I mean, you know, as we
Speaker 2: sort through all these details, which are really important, at
Speaker 2: the end of the day, the you know, probably the
Speaker 2: critical factor is what the Trump administration is willing to
Speaker 2: do to compel BB two end the war.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it doesn't seem like they're willing to do
Speaker 3: much because if they had just if they had just
Speaker 3: kept the arrangement something similar to all right, five on
Speaker 3: day one and five on day sixty and net Yahoo
Speaker 3: is publicly saying, screw you, I'm going to restart the
Speaker 3: war as soon as I can. At least at least
Speaker 3: you're then forcing ams to ask the question of is
Speaker 3: a sixty day cease fire and a flood of aid
Speaker 3: worth it to this population that is being pushed into
Speaker 3: total anarchy like at this point, whereas when you say,
Speaker 3: is seven days worth it, it's like, well, you know,
Speaker 3: they might not even let much. They'll barely let any
Speaker 3: aid in for seven days and then start bombing again.
Speaker 3: So Okay, they agreed to sixty but like they're being
Speaker 3: very public in their in their you know, confidence that
Speaker 3: they don't have to abide by it. So yeah, without
Speaker 3: you know, without without witcough pushing it for slightly longer.
Speaker 3: It does suggest that they're not willing to do that much.
Speaker 6: It's interesting that from let's just say, from Netanyahu's perspective,
Speaker 6: he probably feels like he is on the presspoe of
Speaker 6: a generational opportunity for like Mara Gaza.
Speaker 3: Totally.
Speaker 4: But then also the flip side of that is a.
Speaker 6: The alternative is the reconstitution of Hamas with any type
Speaker 6: of again, from his perspective, any type of ceasefire. So
Speaker 6: he thinks that he's on He's walking this like very
Speaker 6: very fine line between getting exactly the like fantasy scenario
Speaker 6: from the Israeli far rights perspective, or losing it and
Speaker 6: having Trump and the United States go into a future
Speaker 6: that is much more skeptical of Israel and has a
Speaker 6: much more skeptical alliance with this.
Speaker 4: And I guess it's sort of.
Speaker 6: Like they they feel like they're on a tight rope
Speaker 6: and I don't know, I mean, I don't think they
Speaker 6: realized that the more skepticism of the alliance future is
Speaker 6: kind of already here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot to that,
Speaker 2: and I think this ties into it as well. They're
Speaker 2: you know, rapidly moving to enable the additional expansion, major
Speaker 2: expansion of settlements in the occupied West Bank. You know,
Speaker 2: they're worried that there will be international, real international pressure
Speaker 2: for some sort of a you know, Palestinian state to
Speaker 2: be recognized in some sort of a two state solution
Speaker 2: to be forced upon them. And so and look like
Speaker 2: BB grew up in the United States, I mean, these
Speaker 2: are people deeply understand American politics. They probably understand it
Speaker 2: better than almost anyone, to be honest with you, and
Speaker 2: where the pressure points are and how to get their
Speaker 2: way and when the clock's ticking and when it's not.
Speaker 2: And so look, they can rit a poll as well
Speaker 2: as anyone else. And see the way that first of all,
Speaker 2: the privilege that they enjoyed of having lockstep unified bipartisan support,
Speaker 2: it is going to come to an end, Like you
Speaker 2: cannot sustain a situation where the base of one party,
Speaker 2: the Democratic Party, is so dramatically at odds with the
Speaker 2: elected leadership of that party. And that's going to come
Speaker 2: to it. I think is going to come to a
Speaker 2: head quickly in twenty twenty eight. I think this will
Speaker 2: be a litmus test and that you will not get
Speaker 2: through a Democratic primary without having a very different position
Speaker 2: on Israel than you know, Joe Biden and every other
Speaker 2: Democratic president has had in modern American history. So they
Speaker 2: know that that bipartisan consensus is going away. And even
Speaker 2: within the Republican Party, you know, older Republicans still have
Speaker 2: very positive views of Israel. Younger Republicans do not. So,
Speaker 2: you know, Ryan, how much of the actions that are
Speaker 2: being taken now, you know, the attempt to actually consolidate
Speaker 2: some sort of like wild Greater Israel project, the dramatic
Speaker 2: expansion and the dramatic escalation and oppression and violence in
Speaker 2: the West Bank, obviously, the attempt to do the final
Speaker 2: solution in Gaza. How much of this is a realization
Speaker 2: of like, this is our moment, and if we don't
Speaker 2: go for everything right now, the landscape is going to
Speaker 2: be different for us in the future.
Speaker 3: Yeah. And I think there's almost a break from reality
Speaker 3: among the political class and a lot of the population
Speaker 3: in that there's a real impulse now of Israeli saying
Speaker 3: we don't need the world. The world has abandoned us,
Speaker 3: And it's a break with reality in the sense that
Speaker 3: for twenty months, the entire world Western world has financed
Speaker 3: and armed their war against this small militia in Gaza
Speaker 3: endlessly like an unlimited capacity in a way that no
Speaker 3: other small country has gotten. Yet they feel like the
Speaker 3: world has abandoned them, that the world has turned against them,
Speaker 3: and so their response to that is, we don't need
Speaker 3: the world. We have a we have this startup nation.
Speaker 3: We've got all these this high tech firms. We make
Speaker 3: a lot of they do make like a non trivial
Speaker 3: amount of their own weapons, like they have their own,
Speaker 3: you know, weapons manufacturing capacity. So they're like, we don't
Speaker 3: need the we don't need the world. We're going to
Speaker 3: go it alone. There are some who are like, we're
Speaker 3: just a couple of million people here and we don't
Speaker 3: ever we don't want to like never leave. And also
Speaker 3: like a dependent on international trade. We're dependent on all
Speaker 3: the favorable terms that we get from the from the US.
Speaker 3: We don't have just the demography to keep up endless
Speaker 3: wars on the north and the northeast and the and
Speaker 3: the south. Like, yeah, there were numbers coming out something
Speaker 3: like seventeen thousand wounded, and then they're talking about tens
Speaker 3: of thousands more with debilitating PTSD. They're recruiting people suffering
Speaker 3: from PTSD back into Gaza, like back into service.
Speaker 2: Well, and they have major long term demographic issues because.
Speaker 3: The Palestinians made up a lot of their labor force.
Speaker 2: That's true too, Yeah, people.
Speaker 3: And you know things like the economy is struggling and
Speaker 3: so people, you know, people can't who can leave or leave,
Speaker 3: Like a lot of them have American passports, European passports
Speaker 3: and so can can leave.
Speaker 2: And the ultra Orthodox don't want to work, serve in
Speaker 2: the military.
Speaker 3: They don't want to work either.
Speaker 2: They have a lot of kids, but they don't want
Speaker 2: to do anything.
Speaker 3: So yeah, it's going to be just them and the
Speaker 3: Palestinians that stay behind. It's like or who who survive.
Speaker 3: It's so the idea of where they're going to take
Speaker 3: this to this like Greater Israel accomplished through endless war
Speaker 3: and the reality of their demography and their economic base
Speaker 3: are very far apart right now, and I think kept
Speaker 3: alive by war.
Speaker 6: Fever, when think of how that's influencing the donor class
Speaker 6: that influences the Trump administration, actually politicians on both sides
Speaker 6: of the aisle. But since they have the keys of
Speaker 6: the car right now, the Trump administration that I don't
Speaker 6: want to say paranoia, because I'm not that would imply
Speaker 6: that it's irrational or unfounded, but that almost desperation you
Speaker 6: can sort of sense it, I think, being pushed to
Speaker 6: the politicians as they're hearing from people who they've taken
Speaker 6: a lot of money from and have seen as great
Speaker 6: allies for a long time. It's sort of been like
Speaker 6: the Republicans, its just sort of been natural and a
Speaker 6: very unquestioned alliance and like a marriage. Really.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And meanwhile, they Notna government announced twenty two new
Speaker 3: settlements in the West Bank yesterday, which the government explicitly
Speaker 3: said the purpose of which was to prevent and make
Speaker 3: impossible the formation of a Palestinian state in the in
Speaker 3: the West Bank. Like they're just saying this out loud. Yeah,
Speaker 3: you know, so the one the path they're choosing that
Speaker 3: they want to they they are desperately hoping to go down,
Speaker 3: is this and this one of endless war when you know,
Speaker 3: the world really, despite their paranoia, does not have any
Speaker 3: sympathy for Palestinians. And if Israel today said we accept
Speaker 3: this term and we accept Hamas's long term truce in Gaza,
Speaker 3: and we accept a technocratic government to run Gaza with
Speaker 3: the support of the you know, Gulf countries, and then
Speaker 3: let Ireland and Spain and some others like recognize that
Speaker 3: little rump as as a Palestinian state and they just
Speaker 3: stopped bombing and starving the Palestinians. The world would be like,
Speaker 3: that's fine, Like, well, we're good, that's that's good enough.
Speaker 3: When it from a perspective of global justice, it would
Speaker 3: not remotely be good enough, but the world would be
Speaker 3: fine with that. The world would just like Israel to stop,
Speaker 3: you know, humiliating the West when it comes to its
Speaker 3: hypocritic values but doesn't really have much concern for the
Speaker 3: actual Palestinian people.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's very apparent. But and to Emily's
Speaker 2: point about the you know, increasing desperation here in the
Speaker 2: US include in particular, we have this new announcement for
Speaker 2: Marco Rubio saying the US is implement vigorous new vies
Speaker 2: of policy to prevent foreign nationals with anti Israel views
Speaker 2: from traveling in the US. This is the job that
Speaker 2: Laura Lumer is auditioning for. And at the same time,
Speaker 2: you know, even given the cost of pro Palestinian protests
Speaker 2: at this point, you had a large You've continued to
Speaker 2: have large protests at graduation ceremonies, in particular, this was
Speaker 2: you had one at Hunter College. I can pull this
Speaker 2: up drop site again shared this rely on you guys
Speaker 2: so much. Students protesting the administration.
Speaker 3: You know, if you listen to this tale Jane is
Speaker 3: great Talia Otg, people should follow that one.
Speaker 2: She's yes, absolutely absolutely, and yeah, so they you know,
Speaker 2: this was a quite significant protest if you watch this
Speaker 2: video and the you know the percentage of students who
Speaker 2: were involved here, so even knowing the incredible consequences that
Speaker 2: student have faced.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the MIT speaker like when you've lost Mi T
Speaker 3: and Israel has to be watching this and and and shuddering.
Speaker 3: These are the these are the future elites of this country,
Speaker 3: that's right, who believe that this is there.
Speaker 2: That's why, I mean, that's part of why there's such
Speaker 2: a panicked authoritarian reaction is because it they can. They
Speaker 2: don't see it as just you know, oh, these like
Speaker 2: college kids and they don't really mean it doesn't really matter,
Speaker 2: and this is so impotent. And you know, sometimes it
Speaker 2: does feel impotent because it's not like it has changed
Speaker 2: the policy. But it is again an indication that the
Speaker 2: writing is on the wall and that even in spite
Speaker 2: of your incredibly authoritarian, anti free speech, illegal unconstitutional crackdown,
Speaker 2: that they're still willing to protest and speak out and
Speaker 2: you know, stand for what they see and what I see.
Speaker 3: And it's the most vil it's the most I r
Speaker 3: L version of the beatings will continue until morale improves
Speaker 3: that I've really ever seen. And the more the beatings
Speaker 3: have continued, the worst morale has gotten. That they're willing
Speaker 3: to continue to do push these protests in the face
Speaker 3: of indefinite detention of protesters people, you know, the n
Speaker 3: YU guy losing his diploma. We have a little petition
Speaker 3: going at drop site for the n YU speaker who
Speaker 3: they are withholding his.
Speaker 2: Diploma degree, something very basic thirty seconds.
Speaker 3: Of like don't don't do terrible things to.
Speaker 2: Civilians, how dare you outrageous?
Speaker 3: And in the face of that, to see all of
Speaker 3: these kids still doing that, Yeah, it's like the beatings
Speaker 3: are going to have to really increase.
Speaker 2: Well, I also meant a lot to hear from Abu
Speaker 2: Baker that you know, he and other Palestinians and Gaza
Speaker 2: have been tracking those protests and found it very hardening
Speaker 2: as well. Let's go ahead and talk a little bit. Oh,
Speaker 2: we've got actually, we've got Dan here, So we go
Speaker 2: ahead and talk to Dan about the polling. Then we
Speaker 2: can we can push zoron off until until after we
Speaker 2: talked to Dan.
Speaker 3: Yeah, let's do that.
Speaker 5: Okay, welcome, Hey, thanks for having.
Speaker 2: Me, Thanks for doing it, appreciate it.
Speaker 5: Ryan.
Speaker 2: You want to set this up?
Speaker 3: Yeah, let's do this. Do I do I let me
Speaker 3: find this, let me find this Axios poll. So yeah, Dan,
Speaker 3: Well I'm looking for this pole. So you you were
Speaker 3: the polster basically who ran this, this viral pole that
Speaker 3: was published first in in Axios that has caused all
Speaker 3: sorts of uh discourse back and forth about polling, about abundance,
Speaker 3: about populism. So just frame up for people kind of
Speaker 3: what the question was that you wanted to get from
Speaker 3: from voters, Like what were you trying? What were you
Speaker 3: trying to figure out? And then I'll pull up some
Speaker 3: of the discourse.
Speaker 5: Yeah. So when I was approached by Demand Progress about this,
Speaker 5: the the idea was.
Speaker 3: To andre there are kind of populists like left right,
Speaker 3: like more on the left, but like they work in
Speaker 3: coalition with the right a lot.
Speaker 5: Yep. So the idea was to just test kind of
Speaker 5: the resonance of all of this, you know, the arguments
Speaker 5: around abundance relative to what we look at as more
Speaker 5: traditional populist ideas and look at, you know, in terms
Speaker 5: of people's understanding of why there are economic struggles that
Speaker 5: you know that working class and middle class people are
Speaker 5: dealing with. You know, what do people think is the
Speaker 5: cause of that? Is the cause more within the abundance
Speaker 5: framework or the populist framework, What do people want to
Speaker 5: hear candidates for office or president for Congress talk about,
Speaker 5: you know, the same kind of split, and what do
Speaker 5: people think is the best way to solve those things
Speaker 5: and address the concerns of middle and working class people.
Speaker 6: And we.
Speaker 5: Put it together to just make sense of it. The
Speaker 5: purpose was not to go public to try to prove anything.
Speaker 5: I was skeptical from the beginning because it's not you know,
Speaker 5: they're not usually exclusive concepts, and I you know, it's
Speaker 5: much easy.
Speaker 3: The ultimate goal of populism would be to have abundance
Speaker 3: for all, right, absolutely, so I.
Speaker 5: Was skeptical going in. But the idea we just wanted
Speaker 5: to get a benchmark since people were arguing about it
Speaker 5: and there didn't seem to be some good data, just
Speaker 5: kind of placing where things fall. The interesting thing that
Speaker 5: happened when we got the results back was over helmingly,
Speaker 5: like across the board, the traditional populist ideas resonate far
Speaker 5: more people's sensibilities about the cause of their economic anxiety
Speaker 5: and challenges for working class people completely fall into a
Speaker 5: thing where a lot of us, you know, have been
Speaker 5: talking about a lot. Now, that doesn't mean to the
Speaker 5: exclusion of some of the abundance ideas, and I think
Speaker 5: it's it's important that there are places where people do
Speaker 5: understand that there can be regulation that has unintended consequences
Speaker 5: to hinder, you know, to artificially shift the supply curve
Speaker 5: and cause problems there. So again they're not exclusive. But
Speaker 5: if we're thinking about how to realign where democrats credibly
Speaker 5: talk to the electorate to win elections and implement stuff,
Speaker 5: there is no question that that populace framing is the
Speaker 5: stronger way to go about it, and that can access
Speaker 5: of abundance.
Speaker 3: Ye give us the top lines on that and then
Speaker 3: we'll get into some of the criticisms of it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, So the most straightforward thing that we did was
Speaker 5: we tested. We laid out the whole framing of what
Speaker 5: the abundance argument is, you know, based on you know,
Speaker 5: the book and the literature, what people are saying. We
Speaker 5: tried to be you know, really good faith capture what
Speaker 5: it is that they're talking about, and we asked the question.
Speaker 2: I pulled it up here at least the first sentence
Speaker 2: of the abundance framing versus the populace framing.
Speaker 5: Yeah, great. So overall, we asked if a candidate for
Speaker 5: Congress or president made that abundance argument, would that make
Speaker 5: you more or less likely to vote for them? Overall?
Speaker 5: Twelve point six percent said much more likely, thirty point
Speaker 5: nine said somewhat more likely. So it's a total of
Speaker 5: forty three point one percent said more likely, almost thirty
Speaker 5: percent said less likely overall, so that's you know, not
Speaker 5: super strong. The populist argument, which focused on you know,
Speaker 5: corporate power primarily. The much more likely to vote for
Speaker 5: a candidate using that rhetoric was twenty six point three percent,
Speaker 5: the somewhat more likely twenty nine point three percent, So
Speaker 5: a total of fifty five point six percent more likely
Speaker 5: and only twenty four point two percent. Now that again,
Speaker 5: like that was primarily among Democrats, but independence very much
Speaker 5: to the extent that there was an appetite for a
Speaker 5: lot of the abundance arguments there it felt not exclusively,
Speaker 5: but disproportionately toward the Republican side, and independents acted more
Speaker 5: like democrats in these frameworks. Interesting, and then one of
Speaker 5: the important things, right, so then we just asked the question, well,
Speaker 5: now that you heard both these perspectives, which one do
Speaker 5: you agree with most, even if neither is exactly right.
Speaker 5: The abundance got twenty nine point two percent, the populace
Speaker 5: got forty two point eight percent. I'm sure got twenty
Speaker 5: eight percent. And that goes back to one of the
Speaker 5: amusing things about how all of this went viral and
Speaker 5: there was all this debate on social media for the
Speaker 5: past couple of days where it's like, this is not
Speaker 5: the end of the story or the end up into
Speaker 5: these issues. This is one poll and they're you know,
Speaker 5: and a lot of the stuff that came up, a
Speaker 5: lot of the critiques people are like, well did you
Speaker 5: try polling this language?
Speaker 8: Like oh, like, we will in the future will continue
Speaker 8: to look at this, and other people will in the
Speaker 8: future as well, but the striking thing is how people
Speaker 8: you know, are are telling us in this.
Speaker 5: They think the cause of their economic anxiety is corporations
Speaker 5: having too much power. They're being too much corruption on
Speaker 5: the levels of government. And then even when we ask
Speaker 5: like later, and this is stuff that hasn't gotten like
Speaker 5: public yet, we asked, to the extent that there's excessive regulation,
Speaker 5: is that the fault of big corporations using their influence
Speaker 5: for their own profit or is that the fault of
Speaker 5: actualist groups? Overwhelmingly more people said it's the fault to
Speaker 5: the big corporations.
Speaker 2: Even interesting into the apportioning the blame for these bottlenecks,
Speaker 2: they're like, corporate power.
Speaker 5: Yeah, right, absolutely, And so that's why we ended up
Speaker 5: going public with this stuff because they're like, actually, these
Speaker 5: results are really striking. Of course, it's not going to
Speaker 5: be the final word on any subject, but it's it's
Speaker 5: a pretty important thing to get out there.
Speaker 2: Ryan, Can you put back up, Yeah, put back up
Speaker 2: the Eric levittz tweet here, and let's just get you
Speaker 2: to respond to.
Speaker 3: This critique thread here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, to this critique. He says, this poll is shamelessly hackish. Yes,
Speaker 2: and populus rhetoric is definitely more resonant the technocratic critiques
Speaker 2: of zoning ANIPA three. The political case for monents is
Speaker 2: that voters will punish you if shit gets expensive, not
Speaker 2: that fight bottle next is a popular message. And this
Speaker 2: is I think consistent with a number of the critiques
Speaker 2: that I saw. You you sort of reference, so there
Speaker 2: were critiques about the language could have been different, or
Speaker 2: you know. Another one we saw is basically like, well,
Speaker 2: this wasn't really meant to be and Eric is kind
Speaker 2: of getting at this like abundance messaging isn't meant to
Speaker 2: be the most politically potent messaging. It's about delivering for people.
Speaker 2: What did you make of some of the points that
Speaker 2: are raised here, though, Well, my favorite is.
Speaker 5: His first point that the poll is, uh, was it
Speaker 5: shames hackish? Yeah? Absolutely, And every single person part of
Speaker 5: this debate on any side is absolutely hackish. This is
Speaker 5: not being discussed in corporate breakrooms, you know, this is
Speaker 5: completely in the realm of hacks. His second point like, okay,
Speaker 5: so then we're in agreement. The populist framings are far
Speaker 5: more resonant than it is rather technical. It's framings, right,
Speaker 5: So like no disagreement there that's what we're saying.
Speaker 2: Right, So then I mean that to me raises the
Speaker 2: question then is the goal to run as a populist
Speaker 2: challenging corporate power, but then to a bate and switch
Speaker 2: where the actual program is like zoning reform, because it
Speaker 2: seems like a recipe for also political disaster of people
Speaker 2: being like you ran on something and you didn't deliver
Speaker 2: on what you promised and the way you positioned yourself.
Speaker 5: When when this poll came out, I had numerous friends
Speaker 5: text me and go, So the solution is to run
Speaker 5: on populism and then do abundance.
Speaker 4: And it's just like.
Speaker 5: I think the reality is. And this is an important
Speaker 5: thing when we talk about what the message should be.
Speaker 5: There's been all this discussion there was during the previous
Speaker 5: presidential race and going to midterms, what should the Democrats
Speaker 5: message be? Message requires that you have credibility, and if
Speaker 5: people don't believe that you're actually going to stand up
Speaker 5: to corporations and fight corporate power do all that, then
Speaker 5: it doesn't matter if you're you know, it might be
Speaker 5: marginally better to say you are, but it doesn't ultimately help.
Speaker 5: You have to be doing it, And I don't know
Speaker 5: anyone who doesn't believe there are some regulatory changes that
Speaker 5: would help in certain industries at certain places to reduce
Speaker 5: the price of things and to create more goods, like
Speaker 5: which is in the abundance wheelhouse. Like I don't know
Speaker 5: anyone who disagrees that there's not places to do that.
Speaker 5: But that has nothing to do with where are you
Speaker 5: insisting taxes come from, you know, relative to the working
Speaker 5: class to you know, the very rich, Like how are
Speaker 5: you dealing with those other policy things? So I think
Speaker 5: the solution is build the confidence of the voters by
Speaker 5: running on populist ideas doing concrete populist things. And also
Speaker 5: when you find that someone who's in the abundance camp goes, hey,
Speaker 5: here's a regulation that's actually like not doing what it
Speaker 5: intended to and is like mucking up some economic system.
Speaker 5: So of course, then take care of that. Yeah.
Speaker 6: Yeah, Here I'm sharing this post from Chris Murphy, Senator
Speaker 6: Chris Murphy, who has dabbled in trying to, I guess,
Speaker 6: make the Democratic Party's message respond to the populist moment.
Speaker 6: He says it's a weird exposition because why not craft
Speaker 6: a message where we aggressively reduce concentrated corporate power and
Speaker 6: we fix bottlenecks and build more stuff. And Dan, this
Speaker 6: brings us to, I think an interesting question as to
Speaker 6: whether sort of mainstream establishment Democrats and I think everyone
Speaker 6: has to include Chris Murphy in that group, are capable
Speaker 6: of adopting the messaging of populism. And you know, we
Speaker 6: could talk about in substance, as you just said, marrying
Speaker 6: it with genuine populism and abundance downstream after being elected
Speaker 6: because voters say, we trust you and that message is.
Speaker 4: Appealing to us. But can they actually pull it off?
Speaker 6: Given the way Democrats tend to approach these questions, do
Speaker 6: you have a take on that, like, what would this
Speaker 6: look like in practice for a mainstream establishment democratic politician
Speaker 6: who's not Bernie Sanders to Kamala Harris tried to do
Speaker 6: this a little bit, to actually embrace that type of messaging.
Speaker 4: It seems pretty hard.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 5: I mean, look, ultimately, when elections are happening, they are
Speaker 5: run by candidates and not parties, So it's really case
Speaker 5: by case who would have credibility kind of carrying that
Speaker 5: populist water. And I think that people who have been
Speaker 5: viewed as part of the larger Democratic establishment to date
Speaker 5: are going to have a hard time doing that because
Speaker 5: the voters clearly and we you know, tested some of
Speaker 5: that in the beginning of this just to get some
Speaker 5: benchmarks that people don't have great confidence in either party
Speaker 5: to really carry that water, you know. I think if
Speaker 5: there's an immediate lesson, it's you need new faces talking
Speaker 5: about you know, some really traditional classic ideas, but highlight
Speaker 5: the success us where that's that's working. And I mean
Speaker 5: that would be my advice, like generally, like if you're
Speaker 5: starting from a point where voters have so little confidence
Speaker 5: in you, but you feel like you've got a winning
Speaker 5: message and a winning agenda, you have to first of
Speaker 5: all mean it. And I'm sure everyone could debate for
Speaker 5: hours whether most of the top level Democrats really give
Speaker 5: a shit about this stuff or.
Speaker 4: The senator from Connecticut Yeah, yeah, But.
Speaker 5: It's like, if you really want to build a populist
Speaker 5: based Democratic party, then you need to uplift leaders who
Speaker 5: are credibly carrying that water to some degree already and
Speaker 5: keep kind of amplifying that. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think that's it's such an important point. Is why
Speaker 2: the Bernie aoc Oligarchy tour has been so effective is
Speaker 2: not only because the message resonates, you know, when it's
Speaker 2: consistent with the populist messaging that you're testing here. But
Speaker 2: they're both people that have, you know, some credibility in
Speaker 2: the space, Bernie Sanders in particular, and so you know,
Speaker 2: I think people sometimes miss that is an important part.
Speaker 2: You can't just you can't just we appreciate posters, appreciate
Speaker 2: the work that you do, but there has to be
Speaker 2: some credibility to back it up. The thing that, you know,
Speaker 2: was the funniest dodge to me was the claim by
Speaker 2: some that abundance in like I said, Eric Levitz and
Speaker 2: his critique, they're kind of gestures at it, that abundance
Speaker 2: isn't really meant to be a political platform.
Speaker 3: Because that's while you're speaking. I'll put up a couple.
Speaker 2: Examples of this. Yeah, because the I mean, I had
Speaker 2: Derek on breaking points. I got to engage with him
Speaker 2: on a bunch of these points. You know, I explicitly
Speaker 2: asked him the question, Okay, well, is this is how
Speaker 2: a policy reforms because that's one thing, or is this
Speaker 2: like a central message and political platform and movement. I've
Speaker 2: read the book, by the way, you know, I read
Speaker 2: the whole book. I've engaged with the critiques, I've engaged
Speaker 2: with the defenses, all of those sorts of things, and
Speaker 2: they're consistent in saying, no, this is yes, it's some
Speaker 2: specific policy ideas, but this is really about how we
Speaker 2: think the National Democratic Party should be oriented. And this is,
Speaker 2: you know, in evidence by the fact that as re
Speaker 2: client is like meeting with the Senate Democratic Caucus. If
Speaker 2: you were most interested in like the you know, local
Speaker 2: level zoning reform, you wouldn't be going to the national
Speaker 2: Political Party. You'd be going, like, you know, to the
Speaker 2: San Francisco board or mayor or you know, other localities
Speaker 2: where you think that this program really needs to be effectuated.
Speaker 2: So that was to me, you know, an interesting almost
Speaker 2: admission that they recognize that well actually as a messaging
Speaker 2: device to organize a political project around there are some
Speaker 2: weaknesses here.
Speaker 5: I think that people were arguing that point from different sides,
Speaker 5: at least in the little firestorm online. Yeah, because there
Speaker 5: was a lot of focus on, oh, if you had
Speaker 5: used this slightly different language, maybe it would have pulled better,
Speaker 5: which was also an amusing criticism because we use the
Speaker 5: exact language that the leading proponents of abundance have been
Speaker 5: putting out there. So if the argument is that that
Speaker 5: language actually sucks, like maybe you should talk.
Speaker 2: About where can you can you just elaborate on that, Dan,
Speaker 2: Where did the language come from?
Speaker 5: So a lot of the frameworks in the book, like,
Speaker 5: for instance, the concern about using bottlenecks and the suggestion
Speaker 5: of using red tape, like a couple things on that
Speaker 5: first off, like sure in future polling, like we'll test
Speaker 5: red tape, like cutting red tape, Like I have no
Speaker 5: problem with that. The language itself came from largely the book,
Speaker 5: which mentions bottlenecks at least a dozen times, and to
Speaker 5: my understanding, does not mention cutting red tape once, and
Speaker 5: we do talk about, you know, reducing regulations. But the
Speaker 5: other point is like in understanding polling, like we're not
Speaker 5: testing words, we're testing a political program that uses those words.
Speaker 5: So if someone reads a full paragraph explaining a policy,
Speaker 5: set up policy ideas and one word is different from
Speaker 5: what you think the ideal word, that's not going to
Speaker 5: substantially change the results because people understand what the concept is.
Speaker 5: So a lot of the focus on that, like one
Speaker 5: word in one term, like sure, we can test things differently,
Speaker 5: But that's really not gonna be like, you know, the
Speaker 5: magic bullet that suddenly makes abundance the thing everyone's clamoring for, because.
Speaker 2: Especially when it wasn't close, you know, if this was
Speaker 2: like a fifty two forty eight kind of a proposition, maybe,
Speaker 2: but it was pretty clear, especially when you're talking about
Speaker 2: a democratic base, which is this is an intrademocratic party
Speaker 2: fight at this point.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, but what's so important and I don't
Speaker 5: think this is like a new addition to the discussion
Speaker 5: about how the Democratic Party should rebuild itself. It's an
Speaker 5: intrademocratic fight right now that requires for ultimate success. That's
Speaker 5: that's credibly resonant with independence along the way right, And
Speaker 5: that's the thing that really stands out, Like the fact
Speaker 5: that the Democrats are falling on like what is like
Speaker 5: a more traditional yet populist liberal. I think that's not surprising,
Speaker 5: but the number among independents are just really clearly falling
Speaker 5: along the populist line as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a great point. That's a great point. Got
Speaker 2: any other questions, guys, you want to throw it Dan, My.
Speaker 3: Last one would be, would you commit to if Jonathan
Speaker 3: Chait or somebody comes to you with a better question, can.
Speaker 5: You Yeah, I mean, if you put it out in
Speaker 5: a poll, I would be more than happy to. I mean,
Speaker 5: I just can't emphasize enough, like my skepticism about this
Speaker 5: initial project from the get go. You know, some people
Speaker 5: were like mocking, like, oh, this is obviously not disinterested.
Speaker 5: I was both disinterested and uninterested. I didn't even want
Speaker 5: to do this whole the perfect combo. So, like, for sure,
Speaker 5: if there's any any subsequent uh, you know, research we
Speaker 5: do on this, like a lot of stuff people have
Speaker 5: brought up, you know, as as suggestions and criticism, like yeah, well, also.
Speaker 3: Can you also pull how many people know the actual
Speaker 3: difference between disinterested and uninterested? Just throw that question in
Speaker 3: I would.
Speaker 5: I think people will get confused answering.
Speaker 3: That though, And for everybody watching, let's do a public
Speaker 3: service here. Disinterests, I mean you're you're like unbiased, You like,
Speaker 3: you don't have an interest. And by interest, it doesn't
Speaker 3: mean you're not excited about the thing, means you don't
Speaker 3: have a financial or personal vested interest in the thing.
Speaker 3: You are disinterested outside as an observers uninterested, which means
Speaker 3: you're bored by it. So just everybody get that.
Speaker 2: We're going to do a special show Jess for Ryan
Speaker 2: where he just spends an hour defining relevant terms.
Speaker 3: Yes, I'll do it. If you do that pole question
Speaker 3: and we'll record on.
Speaker 5: We'll come back and be part of that lesson.
Speaker 2: All right, Thank you, Dan, great chat with you?
Speaker 5: All right?
Speaker 4: He was great?
Speaker 2: Yeah, he was great. Did you know him, Ryan, you've
Speaker 2: talked to him before?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 3: I talked to him about some polling in the past.
Speaker 3: He's done a lot of work with David Siegel in
Speaker 3: the band Progress. But he's he's really good.
Speaker 2: Gotcha nice? Yeah, fun talking to him. We'll have to
Speaker 2: find other excuses to have him back. Should we circle
Speaker 2: back to his arm? Because I actually feel like this.
Speaker 2: All right, guys, thank you so much for watching the
Speaker 2: free portion of the Friday Show. We're going to move
Speaker 2: into some premium bonus content, so if you want to
Speaker 2: watch that as well, make sure to go and subscribe
Speaker 2: at Breakingpoints dot com. And for all of you guys
Speaker 2: who are already premium subscribers, that portion is going to
Speaker 2: start right now.