Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do
Speaker 2: we have, Crystal, Indeed we do.
Speaker 1: We got a lot of post debate reaction to bring you,
Speaker 1: including from former President Trump kind of having a bit
Speaker 1: of a meltdown on Fox and Friends and also indicating
Speaker 1: he may not be interested in another debate, even when
Speaker 1: hosted by Fox News hosts, So we'll bring you all
Speaker 1: of that. We also have some voter reaction after the debate,
Speaker 1: the post debate polls, and RFK Junior being a little
Speaker 1: surprisingly honest about some of Trump's shortcomings during the debates.
Speaker 1: So we've got all of that where You've also got
Speaker 1: a panel we're excited to talk to you about the
Speaker 1: Taylor Swift endorsement, whether or not it won't matter. And
Speaker 1: also a conversation we have been wanting to have for
Speaker 1: a while about the massive gen Z gender gap, So
Speaker 1: we got two young folks to come on.
Speaker 3: Two gen zs.
Speaker 1: It's right a Democrat or Republican to talk about what
Speaker 1: they think is going on there, So that should be
Speaker 1: an interesting conversation. We also wanted to take a look
Speaker 1: at this massive case against Google, another anti trust case
Speaker 1: against Google, what it could mean for the tech giant.
Speaker 1: And also a really disturbing conflict of interest between the
Speaker 1: lead lawyer for Google is actually a top advisor, So
Speaker 1: a lawyer for Google against the government, the DOJ, the
Speaker 1: federal government is also a top advisor to Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: So some deep concerns there about just that reality and
Speaker 1: what it might mean for her and her approach to
Speaker 1: anti trust cases were she to win the presidency.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how that comes out.
Speaker 2: Now, before we get to that, thank you to all
Speaker 2: of our premium subscribers and those who signed up during
Speaker 2: the debate stream to ask some questions.
Speaker 3: That was a lot of fun.
Speaker 2: So we want to participate in future AMA which are
Speaker 2: weekly and they drop exclusively for premiums on locals. You
Speaker 2: can go ahead and sign up at breakingpoints dot com
Speaker 2: to get.
Speaker 3: Access to those exclusive ams.
Speaker 2: But as Crystal said, let's go ahead and start with
Speaker 2: Donald Trump and his post debate reaction kind of been
Speaker 2: all over the place and what he's acquiescing to you
Speaker 2: or not will he do another debate?
Speaker 3: He's trying to tease it.
Speaker 2: He went to familiar territory on Fox and Friends, and
Speaker 2: Fox and Friends of course, was trying to massage his
Speaker 2: ego a little bit around the debate. But he kind
Speaker 2: of even shocked them when they were like, well, oh,
Speaker 2: it's okay you could do a debate here on Fox, right,
Speaker 2: mister President, And He's like, well, maybe I actually don't
Speaker 2: like some of the moderators that you guys would have.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen to what Trump had to say.
Speaker 4: And I know that last night Fox News offered sent
Speaker 4: letters to your campaign and her campaign offering three dates
Speaker 4: of debates moderated by Martha and Brett. One is October
Speaker 4: ninth in Arizona.
Speaker 5: Well, I wouldn't want to have Mauthor and Brett. I'd
Speaker 5: love to have somebody else other than Martha and Brett.
Speaker 5: I'd love to have Frankly Sean or Jesse, Laura, Uh,
Speaker 5: you know somebody else. Let's give Let's give other people
Speaker 5: the shot. But I didn't think Martha and Brett were
Speaker 5: good last night. Jesse was. Jesse was fantastic last night.
Speaker 5: What he said, Jesse really got it. Jesse said Trump
Speaker 5: won that debate. That was, we won that debate by
Speaker 5: a lot. Now I wouldn't want Matha involved, Okay, I would,
Speaker 5: mister prest. I would take some others.
Speaker 4: So these are the dates that Fox offered your campaign
Speaker 4: in Harris's campaign. October ninth in Arizona, October fifteenth in Georgia,
Speaker 4: October sixteenth in North Carolina. Of course, the big question
Speaker 4: is would you want the microphones on when when you're
Speaker 4: not you know, when the other person is talking. You
Speaker 4: want both microphones on at all times.
Speaker 5: Well, she wanted a moment like she did with Mike Pence.
Speaker 5: But I actually got that moment too. I won that too,
Speaker 5: because she was talking while I was speaking quite a bit. Actually,
Speaker 5: she didn't know that people weren't listening too much or
Speaker 5: hear but I was hearing her and I had little
Speaker 5: fun with that. But look, here's the story when two
Speaker 5: fighters fight and one loses, the first thing they do
Speaker 5: is ask for a debate, or they asked for a fight,
Speaker 5: so in this case, the debate. So we had two
Speaker 5: people they lost very badly. The first thing they did
Speaker 5: is ask for a debate, because that's what when a
Speaker 5: fighter loses, he says, I want to rematch. I want
Speaker 5: to rematch, say always the losing person, the fighter, the debater,
Speaker 5: they always ask for a rematch. I won the debate
Speaker 5: according to c Span by a lot, according to every
Speaker 5: single I think we had fourteen polls that we said
Speaker 5: to you, everyone had me winning the debate. So I
Speaker 5: don't want to do another debate. R.
Speaker 4: So you do right at the end, as I was interrupting,
Speaker 4: so you don't know if you want to do another debate.
Speaker 4: It sounds like you're a no.
Speaker 5: Well, I'd be less inclined to because we had a
Speaker 5: great night. We won the debate. We had a terrible
Speaker 5: a terrible network. I think they were terrible and they
Speaker 5: should be in embarrassed. I mean, they kept correcting me,
Speaker 5: and what I said was largely right, or I hope
Speaker 5: it was right, but what they said was absolutely wrong.
Speaker 5: The other you know what she said and they refused
Speaker 5: to correct I even complained a couple of times, why
Speaker 5: aren't you correcting them? Look, they should have corrected six
Speaker 5: or seven times. She told it outright, Lie another one
Speaker 5: who's Project twenty twenty five. They know it has nothing
Speaker 5: to do with me. She mentioned it all night long,
Speaker 5: and they refuse to correct it, and everybody, I haven't.
Speaker 5: I have nothing to do with Project twenty twenty. I
Speaker 5: was just what they did. But I am not inclined
Speaker 5: to do it because I want the debate by a lot.
Speaker 5: But I think we let it settle in and let's
Speaker 5: see what happens.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 2: So that was completely unedited, so you guys a'll get
Speaker 2: the entire context of that.
Speaker 3: Trump is.
Speaker 2: Look, I mean, he's flailing a little bit here. He's like,
Speaker 2: he doesn't know if he wants to do the Fox debate.
Speaker 2: He's asking for these moderators who he doesn't even like.
Speaker 2: The Brett Bayer and Martha McCowan. By the way, Brett
Speaker 2: and Martha were on the host election analysis. That's what
Speaker 2: he's upset about. Yes, and they were like, hey, I
Speaker 2: don't think that Trump, you know, did all that well
Speaker 2: or I don't even know if they gave opinion analysis.
Speaker 2: From what I saw, they were accurately pointing out that
Speaker 2: he was taking debate or they were covering snap polling
Speaker 2: that showed that people who watched the debate generally did
Speaker 2: not think he did all that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so botch news outside of voter panel, which overwhelmed me.
Speaker 3: Underside of voter panel and Brit Hume.
Speaker 2: I mean, these people are not, like, you know, liberals, right,
Speaker 2: So anyway he was reacting to that, that was just.
Speaker 1: A small point, like how humiliating and embarrassing for you
Speaker 1: not to stand up for your colleagues. I was like,
Speaker 1: I just I mean, it's kind of outrageous, Like there
Speaker 1: he is smearing Martha McCallum and bare which whatever you
Speaker 1: think about him, Like these are your colleagues that you
Speaker 1: work with, and you're just like sit there and take
Speaker 1: I don't know, it's just it's kind of.
Speaker 6: Kind of low.
Speaker 1: And then it's so pathetic he wants the debate to
Speaker 1: be hosted by Sean Hannity or Josey Waters.
Speaker 6: Are you kidding me?
Speaker 1: Like that is an absolute absurdity. So look, you honestly
Speaker 1: called it right after the debate. You're like, I don't
Speaker 1: know if do another one, and you know, he certainly
Speaker 1: he doesn't know if he's going to do another one either,
Speaker 1: which I think is foolish on his part. I think
Speaker 1: he should because I think it's unlikely that you would
Speaker 1: have another outcome that was so lopsided as this one was.
Speaker 1: I think if you did it again, you would likely
Speaker 1: have He probably would prepare better. You know, this time
Speaker 1: he clearly didn't take her seriously, fell into every single trap,
Speaker 1: you know, completely forgot about what message he was supposed
Speaker 1: to be delivering until like the last five minutes of
Speaker 1: the debate. That's unlikely to repeat itself. But you know,
Speaker 1: I think he just can't handle the risk of being humiliated.
Speaker 3: I would flip it onto Kamala too.
Speaker 2: I mean, what is the likelihood that she worked rise
Speaker 2: to the occasion again, It's not actually that high. We've
Speaker 2: seen her do multiple repeat performances usually doesn't go all
Speaker 2: that well.
Speaker 3: So if you this was her best.
Speaker 1: This was the better likely to have a reversion to
Speaker 1: the mean for her and reversion to the meme for him,
Speaker 1: which would be an improved performance.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's what I would.
Speaker 2: I would I would demand a couple of more debates
Speaker 2: just to keep her off of her toes.
Speaker 3: Maybe the moderators won't be so favorable this time. Who knows.
Speaker 2: You can try any you can inject all kinds of
Speaker 2: chaos into it. You want to increase that likelihood. But
Speaker 2: clearly he's feeling on the ropes. He continues to tease
Speaker 2: whether he's going to do it or not. Here he
Speaker 2: was yesterday asking answering a question about the debate.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen, and you're looking at it.
Speaker 7: But you know, when you win, you don't really necessarily
Speaker 7: have to do it a second time. You know, we'll see,
Speaker 7: But we had a I know we had a great debate. Listen,
Speaker 7: thank you very much. We need to change for you
Speaker 7: to agree to a second date. Would you want different rules?
Speaker 7: Would you want to do a format? Well, you know,
Speaker 7: when you when you don't win, it's like.
Speaker 5: A fighter, when a fighter is a man, fight gets
Speaker 5: knocked out or loses the fight.
Speaker 7: The first thing he says is we want to rematch.
Speaker 7: So we won the debate, according to every pole, every
Speaker 7: single pole, I think that are we going to do
Speaker 7: a rematch? I just don't know, but we'll think about it.
Speaker 7: Would you still do the one on ABC? You got
Speaker 7: in September twenty even you'd propose that, and are you
Speaker 7: still I would do NBC. I do Fox too. I
Speaker 7: do Fox too. But right now we have to deman
Speaker 7: whether or not we wanted to do. We had a
Speaker 7: great night last night, and you see by the ball numbers,
Speaker 7: it was really fantastic. Thank you very much, everybody.
Speaker 3: All Right, so there you go.
Speaker 2: We're sticking with the fighter analogy. Let's put this up
Speaker 2: there on this I love.
Speaker 6: I was like, yeah, I do NBC, but I don't know, but.
Speaker 2: I want to decide that that might be one of
Speaker 2: the most classic trump isms of all time. Let's put
Speaker 2: this up there just so everybody understands. The first numbers
Speaker 2: for the debate are absolutely massive. Revised now currently up
Speaker 2: to some fifty seven point seventy five million viewers as
Speaker 2: of this morning, it's actually passed sixty million, according to Nielsen.
Speaker 2: And that is just the people who watch it on
Speaker 2: terrestrial television. So if you add in the what tens
Speaker 2: maybe you know, probably yeah, tens of millions who watched
Speaker 2: it on YouTube, Twitter or anywhere else, then we're talking.
Speaker 2: You know, some are almost half of the entire voting
Speaker 2: age public watched the debate.
Speaker 3: Which happened on Tuesday night.
Speaker 2: That's actually a problem for Trump because more people watch
Speaker 2: the debate with Kamala and Trump then watch the debate
Speaker 2: of Trump versus Biden. Now, I think there's a lot
Speaker 2: to be said about that. It's not just enthusiasm, it
Speaker 2: was the level of interest. People were bored and mostly
Speaker 2: fed up with the election ahead of that debate. That debate, Yeah,
Speaker 2: Biden's drop out really invigorated, but not only a lot
Speaker 2: of Democrats, but it made the race more interesting, which
Speaker 2: is why a lot of people came to this. But
Speaker 2: that's part of why Trump does need to do more debates.
Speaker 2: You can't let that be the only lasting impression in
Speaker 2: voter's minds going into the election. The obvious though for him,
Speaker 2: you know, there's downside risk if he were to have
Speaker 2: a similar performance, and he's doing well enough in the polls,
Speaker 2: he probably thinks he could just stick to his current strategy.
Speaker 3: On Kamali's side, clearly she has the incentive.
Speaker 2: She's already asked for another debate, perhaps the NBC News debate,
Speaker 2: but at the very least thinks the risk would be
Speaker 2: worth it of where she is currently. I mean, I
Speaker 2: don't think the race is fundamentally changed. Yet we haven't
Speaker 2: seen any polling or any of that to indicate it.
Speaker 2: But anytime some seventy million people out of one hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty million people who can vote are watching something,
Speaker 2: it's you know, it's going to have some impact. I
Speaker 2: don't really know exactly what it is that's said. I mean,
Speaker 2: I'll give the boat bear in the bowl case. The
Speaker 2: bowl case would be Trump allegedly lost all debates according
Speaker 2: to opinion polls against Hillary.
Speaker 3: Clinton obviously won that election.
Speaker 2: Biden, according to the polls that came out at the time,
Speaker 2: won the debate again Donald Trump, and he barely won
Speaker 2: that election. So you know, it's not like this is
Speaker 2: make or break. But I wouldn't let it be the
Speaker 2: very last impression, is the only thing I would say,
Speaker 2: especially when things are so tight. Yeah, you don't want
Speaker 2: to let every you don't want to want to let
Speaker 2: even a marginal you know, risk like that come to
Speaker 2: affect her overall performance. Because what if that is the
Speaker 2: last impression that people have and Kamma and her campaign
Speaker 2: can just run ads, you know, showing that all for
Speaker 2: the next couple of months, fifty something days until the election.
Speaker 2: There's too much risk out there, I think for him
Speaker 2: to not do another one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it could actually be make or break because
Speaker 1: if you think about the margin in twenty sixteen and
Speaker 1: you think about the margin in twenty twenty in terms.
Speaker 6: Of the if you look at the electoral college.
Speaker 1: Numbers, it looks like a landslide kind of in both times.
Speaker 1: But we know, if you look at the number of
Speaker 1: votes that separated Hillary Clinton from Donald Trump, it was
Speaker 1: very narrowly that she lost in these key battle ground stations,
Speaker 1: so he won the popular vote. And then in twenty twenty, again,
Speaker 1: you know, very narrow victory for Joe Biden. That's just
Speaker 1: the reality of the country. It's very likely to be
Speaker 1: just as close, if not even somehow a little bit
Speaker 1: closer this time around. So yeah, does it like, you know,
Speaker 1: shift the poles by ten points. No, but we're talking
Speaker 1: about a race where if you move the poles permanently
Speaker 1: by half a point, that could be the difference between
Speaker 1: winning all the swing states and losing all the swing states. So,
Speaker 1: you know, the other question in my mind is you'll recall,
Speaker 1: before Joe Biden got out of the race, he was
Speaker 1: just basically delusional about what the polls showed, and his
Speaker 1: advisors were shielding him from any negative data, and so
Speaker 1: he was really convinced that whatever polls had him down,
Speaker 1: which was like all of them, that they were not real.
Speaker 1: And in reality, if you look at these like few
Speaker 1: cherry picked national polls that ignored the battleground states, he
Speaker 1: was still within the margin of error or whatever. So
Speaker 1: he was delusional about his standing, and he was surrounded
Speaker 1: with a bunch of yes men who did not want
Speaker 1: to upset him, and so cherry picked the data that
Speaker 1: would keep him happy. I wonder if Trump has a
Speaker 1: similar level of delusion where he may not really understand
Speaker 1: the reality of where the race is, or he may,
Speaker 1: you know, based on his track record in twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: twenty twenty of outperforming the polls, just assume that that's
Speaker 1: going to happen again. And maybe it does, but that
Speaker 1: is not a safe assumption whatsoever, especially given that in
Speaker 1: the mid terms they undercounted the Democratic Party support. So
Speaker 1: you know, he may be making strategic miscalculations based on
Speaker 1: a flawed understanding of where he his position is in
Speaker 1: this race at this point. With regard to Kamala Harris, Yeah,
Speaker 1: they came out right away and were like, hey, let's
Speaker 1: do it again. But you know, you could see them
Speaker 1: that you could see them putting forward some debate criteria
Speaker 1: that they kind of know is like a poison pill
Speaker 1: for Trump, like that maybe he should accept, like, you know,
Speaker 1: an NBC News debate with whoever whatever moderators are picked
Speaker 1: for that network to perform, but that they feel pretty
Speaker 1: confident he's not going to pick, so that they can
Speaker 1: have the illusion of strength of like, look, we wanted
Speaker 1: to do it, and he's the one that backed down,
Speaker 1: but without really having a full intention to do it again.
Speaker 6: Because listen from her perspective.
Speaker 1: Frankly, I think the strategic calculus is it's probably better
Speaker 1: just to let this one ride and not take the
Speaker 1: risk of a bad debate moment closer to election day.
Speaker 1: So you know, I think there's a lot of there's
Speaker 1: a lot of gameplay playing going on here.
Speaker 3: Of course, I can see it both ways.
Speaker 2: I will say, in fairness, Trump has always been surrounded
Speaker 2: by stick of fans who tell him whatever he wants. Here,
Speaker 2: It's not like it's actually a thing all that different
Speaker 2: than how things usually go.
Speaker 1: I mean, Laura Lumer is not telling him the straight
Speaker 1: truth Sager.
Speaker 6: I mean, that's shocking.
Speaker 2: Maybe she is, yes, certainly something to her on that
Speaker 2: campaign plane. Well, CNN's Harry Anton, she usually does a
Speaker 2: pretty good job. We relied on him in the past
Speaker 2: for some good analysis. He generally will tell it straight,
Speaker 2: I think in terms of how tied things are Trump's
Speaker 2: favorability and more so, he had an interesting analysis here
Speaker 2: in terms of who allegedly won pass debates and the margins.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen first.
Speaker 8: Debate winner margins. Look at that she won by a
Speaker 8: twenty six point margin, nearly matching Trump's margin over Biden
Speaker 8: back in June when he won by thirty four points,
Speaker 8: very similar to Joe Biden's margin of over Donald Trump
Speaker 8: back in twenty of thirty two points, and significantly higher
Speaker 8: than the twenty sixteen margin that Hillary Clinton had over
Speaker 8: Donald Trump in their first debate just thirteen points. But
Speaker 8: the bottom line here is debate watchers and they actually
Speaker 8: leaned a little bit more Republican than the nation as
Speaker 8: a whole, believed that Kamala Harris easily easily won this debate. Again,
Speaker 8: the scientific term is she crushed former President Donald Trull. Right,
Speaker 8: take a look at the last four times we had
Speaker 8: a first debate, and look at those winners see a
Speaker 8: rise in the polls. Yes, Romney in twenty twelve, Hillary
Speaker 8: Clinton twenty sixteen, Joe Biden twenty twenty, and Donald Trump
Speaker 8: earlier this year. They all saw rises in the polls
Speaker 8: of two points or more. And given how close this
Speaker 8: race is, naturally, given how close it is in the
Speaker 8: swing states, do not be surprised if Kamala Harris jumps
Speaker 8: out to a lead nationally, and don't be surprised if
Speaker 8: she jumps out to a slight small lead in those
Speaker 8: key battleground states. It should still probably be a close
Speaker 8: race based upon history.
Speaker 3: So he's predicting a bump there.
Speaker 2: Nate Silver was a little bit more equivocal in the
Speaker 2: analysis that I read. He's like, look, she did everything
Speaker 2: she needed to do, but we didn't see necessarily a
Speaker 2: bump come out for her from the convention.
Speaker 3: Sure, you know, the convention is going to be.
Speaker 2: A little bit noisy, just because that was at the
Speaker 2: very same time that RFK Junior also dropped out of
Speaker 2: the race, which was going to have an impact, especially
Speaker 2: on the margins.
Speaker 3: There's no way to know really what happened.
Speaker 2: Obviously, this time around, you can't expect, you know, literally
Speaker 2: something as much of a gift like that.
Speaker 3: So we just don't know where things will stand here.
Speaker 2: I just think generally, when I look at the number
Speaker 2: and I see that level, I mean actually think this
Speaker 2: is not necessarily a decent thing for Trump. High level
Speaker 2: of specific engagement in this it's not necessarily good. It
Speaker 2: was good whenever it was against Biden because against Biden,
Speaker 2: low information, low engagement voters were much more pro Trump.
Speaker 2: But this time around, I mean Democratic watch parties. This
Speaker 2: is purely anecdotal, but there were no Biden signs where
Speaker 2: I live, even though all those people were going to
Speaker 2: vote for Biden. But the It's quote about Madam time
Speaker 2: or bat dictatorship bad twenty twenty four signs.
Speaker 3: The Libs are full force.
Speaker 2: They've got banners, their windows are dressed, they are ready
Speaker 2: to roll. The fundraising numbers haven't come out yet from Kamala.
Speaker 2: I'm willing to bet it's an absolute monster. I'm not
Speaker 2: going to say Trump isn't going to raise money as well,
Speaker 2: but you know, just the disparity of the engagement right now,
Speaker 2: betting on high turnout is not necessarily one that I
Speaker 2: would say would have been good for Trump, even though
Speaker 2: I would say that two months ago, this time around,
Speaker 2: we do know those liberal voters, specifically people who were
Speaker 2: very activated by Row versus Wade, the high level engagement.
Speaker 2: They beat the hell out of Republicans back in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two, and they were a huge reason why they
Speaker 2: overperformed expectations. So those high numbers and the high level
Speaker 2: of certific engagement this time around, I think it might
Speaker 2: actually be a bad sign.
Speaker 3: For Trump right now.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think that's a good point. We showed before.
Speaker 1: The voter registration data, which is just like among typically
Speaker 1: democratic leaning groups, has shot through the roof since Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris was you know, since Biden was replaced with Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: We're going to talk in the Taylor Swift blog about
Speaker 1: how she appears to have driven some voter registration as well.
Speaker 1: Now that's very excited about that too. And I would
Speaker 1: just say, you know, this debate definitely permeated the popular consciousness,
Speaker 1: like there's no doubt about it that, you know, judging
Speaker 1: by the conversations that were happening at my kid's soccer
Speaker 1: practices among people who are not particularly political, who have
Speaker 1: never who I've never actually said any heard anything political
Speaker 1: come out of them before, and they're wanting to talk
Speaker 1: about leg what about that dogs and cats situation? So
Speaker 1: and that was definitely that was probably the moment that
Speaker 1: stuck the most in people's minds, just because it was
Speaker 1: so absurd and outlandish and really captured, you know, the
Speaker 1: way that Trump was totally off the rails, and also
Speaker 1: the way that Kamala was able to throw him so
Speaker 1: severely off his game for you know, after the first
Speaker 1: maybe fifteen twenty minutes of the debate, where she just
Speaker 1: really took control. So, you know, between the massively high
Speaker 1: ratings and the fact that in the you know, the aftermath,
Speaker 1: all these clips are circulating, They're on TikTok, they're on Twitter,
Speaker 1: they're everywhere, people are chattering about it. I think it
Speaker 1: was a significant event and I think it could have
Speaker 1: a significant and lasting impact. And when I say significant,
Speaker 1: I mean like one point. You know, I think she'll
Speaker 1: probably get a couple points. Like I said before, I
Speaker 1: think she'll probably return to you know, where she was
Speaker 1: where she was up nationally pretty clearly by a few points,
Speaker 1: where she had a little bit more of a lead
Speaker 1: in the battleground states. I think we'll probably were turn
Speaker 1: to that, which is still basically a coin flip election.
Speaker 6: But you know, again, just.
Speaker 1: Those little bit of shifts, if she's able to maintain,
Speaker 1: really matter.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 1: The one word of caution that I'll sound for Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris is she really we talked, We talked about this.
Speaker 1: Her strategy was very much, let me get under his skin,
Speaker 1: let me remind people of who Donald Trump is and
Speaker 1: some of his worst qualities that people were sick and
Speaker 1: tired of, and that's why they tossed him out in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. She had another job that the voters wanted
Speaker 1: to see her do, which was to really fill in
Speaker 1: the blanks about who she is, how she would govern,
Speaker 1: what her priorities are. You know, what is the Day
Speaker 1: one agenda? That part she really still left very empty.
Speaker 1: You know, it was not a major focus of She
Speaker 1: talked some about policies, but the major focus was more
Speaker 1: about let me get under Trump's skin. And so that
Speaker 1: New York Times Siana pole that showed, you know a
Speaker 1: lot of voters want to know more about her. I
Speaker 1: don't know that she fully answered those questions. And so
Speaker 1: while she certainly burnished her credibility in terms of being presidential,
Speaker 1: being able to go toe to toe with him, you know,
Speaker 1: sort of like filling the shoes, and people being able
Speaker 1: to envision her in the role. I don't think she
Speaker 1: still has answered those questions about well, who are you
Speaker 1: really and who are you really going to govern as?
Speaker 1: And you know, so she still has work to do
Speaker 1: to define herself. That means that there's still an opening
Speaker 1: for Trump to be able to define her in the
Speaker 1: way that he wants to but completely failed to do
Speaker 1: at this debate, And obviously time is relatively.
Speaker 3: Short at this point.
Speaker 2: As a very important point, there was a New York
Speaker 2: Times story where they were like, some undecided voters weren't
Speaker 2: necessarily sure.
Speaker 3: And they picked up exactly on what you said.
Speaker 2: They were like, hey, look, yeah, you definitely did better
Speaker 2: against Trump, but what are you actually going to do?
Speaker 3: I still don't know that much about you.
Speaker 2: She's got a pretty major campaign schedule going into the weekend.
Speaker 2: Apparently you know now that we have after nine eleven,
Speaker 2: Trump is also hitting it. He's going to be in Tucson,
Speaker 2: Harris will hold a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina. I
Speaker 2: think we're learning a lot about that hours later, shall
Speaker 2: fly to Greensboro. Second rally in the states of tube
Speaker 2: rallies in the state of North Carolina.
Speaker 3: It is fascinating just to see that.
Speaker 2: I would never would have thought that North Carolina could
Speaker 2: be a tipping point, but you know, not would have
Speaker 2: necessarily thought that Arizona would be a Democratic state that
Speaker 2: could go blue in twenty twenty. Like I've said, the
Speaker 2: migration data makes a very good case for North Carolina
Speaker 2: and for the exact type of residents that COMMA could
Speaker 2: activate that have all moved probably more than one hundred
Speaker 2: thousand people or so. On top of you got unfavorable
Speaker 2: dynamics at the state level, you got a Democratic governor.
Speaker 2: So I could see that I could see that being
Speaker 2: the case, and it's clearly what they think is their
Speaker 2: path two seventy is very different than Biden. But the
Speaker 2: risk is still exactly what you said, especially to in
Speaker 2: the state of Pennsylvania. I mean, the fact is that
Speaker 2: things are just so tight and so locked there for
Speaker 2: fifty to fifty that I'm very cures where that undecided
Speaker 2: voter profile of who wants to learn more whether that
Speaker 2: was enough for them to eventually come out, Because as
Speaker 2: long as they still see her tied to Biden.
Speaker 3: That's the biggest problem that she's Yeah. Thanks.
Speaker 1: It's perplexing to me because the policies she initially laid
Speaker 1: down in particular, are really popular, and they're kind of
Speaker 1: a no brainer. You know, the price gouging stuff super
Speaker 1: popular and obviously gets at this question of prices that
Speaker 1: people are continue to be very concerned about. The housing
Speaker 1: assistance really popular, getting prescription drug prices down really popular,
Speaker 1: child tax credit, paid family leave, like there's a very
Speaker 1: popular agenda there that she rolled out with some fanfare
Speaker 1: and seems to have been kind of scared off of.
Speaker 1: I mean, they really have retreated into this much more
Speaker 1: like Biden feeling let me cater to the center and
Speaker 1: not really say anything, not really promise anything direction, which
Speaker 1: is you know, classic Democrat and is part of why
Speaker 1: you know, they come so to losing elections or do
Speaker 1: lose elections. So I don't know why she has gotten
Speaker 1: I don't know why she's gotten shy about talking about
Speaker 1: that and making real like, here's my top three priorities.
Speaker 6: Do dot dot. It wouldn't be a hard thing to do.
Speaker 6: It wouldn't have been a hard.
Speaker 1: Thing to put that into the debate in the mix
Speaker 1: with her baiting of Donald Trump. But again, it feels
Speaker 1: like they've just fallen back into this sort of like
Speaker 1: very Biden Esque rut. And look, it might be enough
Speaker 1: Biden one, the press did well running that way in
Speaker 1: the midterms, and so maybe they're looking at that and
Speaker 1: they're like, look, this was a winning strategy two times
Speaker 1: in a row.
Speaker 6: Why we screw with it?
Speaker 1: And I guess there's something to that, But you know,
Speaker 1: they certainly seem to be going more after the like
Speaker 1: Nikki Hayley voter, certainly than trying to further energize and
Speaker 1: further turnout young, more progressive voters and especially voters who
Speaker 1: are you know, also disgusted with the war on.
Speaker 6: The people of Gaza.
Speaker 1: So in any case, just some risks there going forward,
Speaker 1: and we can go ahead and take a look at
Speaker 1: at the polling data and where things stand. So some
Speaker 1: of the networks did some little snap polling after the debate.
Speaker 1: Some of them did some focused groups of undecided voters
Speaker 1: to see what they thought instantly after the debate. Let's
Speaker 1: take a listen to a little bit of what CNN's
Speaker 1: undecided voter panel had to say, who do you think won?
Speaker 9: By a show of hands? Former President Trump two, I'll
Speaker 9: get it four, but tentative two over there? What about
Speaker 9: Vice President Harris More hands? For those of you who
Speaker 9: thought this debate could be determinative, how many of you
Speaker 9: have made up your minds based on what you saw
Speaker 9: tonight on stage in Philadelphia?
Speaker 3: Raise your hands all right?
Speaker 9: I want to ask you why.
Speaker 10: I think it's important to remember that we are voting
Speaker 10: for the leader of our country and not who we
Speaker 10: like the most or who we want in our wedding party,
Speaker 10: but who's actually going to make our country better. And
Speaker 10: we're in an incredibly unique situation where we've had both
Speaker 10: of the candidates in office before and we've gotten to
Speaker 10: see what they would do, and when facts come to facts,
Speaker 10: my life was better when Trump was in office. The
Speaker 10: economy was higher, inflation was lower, things were better overall.
Speaker 10: And now with Kamala's administration, things haven't been so fantastic.
Speaker 6: And she's saying she can fix the problems that her
Speaker 6: administration has caused. But I just don't know if I
Speaker 6: can afford to take that risk.
Speaker 9: Were you leaning towards the former president coming.
Speaker 3: In to night, probably?
Speaker 9: And did you a for him in twenty sixteen or
Speaker 9: twenty twenty, I did so.
Speaker 6: She had been a previous Trump voter.
Speaker 1: She was leaning towards him but undecided on this CNN
Speaker 1: voter panel. So you have, on the one hand, overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: people like Gomulo one, but at least one voter raising
Speaker 1: some concerns about the question Trump should have made at
Speaker 1: the core of his debate performance, which is, are you
Speaker 1: better off now than you were forty Yeah?
Speaker 2: And this is a debate I have with Trump people
Speaker 2: all the time. It's always like, let Trump beat Trump
Speaker 2: and all of that, and I go, well, look, Trump
Speaker 2: has been Trump, and it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.
Speaker 3: Overwhelmingly.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is part of the issue is you
Speaker 2: do hear from a lot of people like that woman
Speaker 2: who are like, I like the policies.
Speaker 3: He pisses me off.
Speaker 2: Someone described him to me as an ugly plumber with
Speaker 2: a massive ass crack, but a guy who does a
Speaker 2: really good job, and so you just have to look away.
Speaker 2: You got to look away from the crack and you
Speaker 2: just let the man fix the pipes. And I was like,
Speaker 2: you know, that is a very act way that a
Speaker 2: lot of people think about Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: That one stuck with me for a long time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think that that what Trump can do
Speaker 2: sometimes is like I remember his very first date of
Speaker 2: the Union, he was acting presidential.
Speaker 3: Every once in a while he'll do I think it
Speaker 3: was when George H. W. Bush died.
Speaker 2: You know, he was like shockingly silent for like two
Speaker 2: weeks and everyone couldn't believe it. Every once in a
Speaker 2: while when he does that, his brutal rating actually does
Speaker 2: take up quite a bit.
Speaker 3: People have a lot of funness for.
Speaker 2: The Trump era, at least in terms of their personal finances,
Speaker 2: and the more that he could remind them of that
Speaker 2: and not of chaos, he'd be better. One piece of
Speaker 2: analysis I saw, which was really spot on, is and
Speaker 2: I'm wondering if you agree, did not seem like Trump
Speaker 2: was the incumbent in that debate. Everything was about him
Speaker 2: or things that were controversies around him. It's like he's
Speaker 2: been out of office for four years. Yeah, the best
Speaker 2: he could have done was to be like, no, no, no,
Speaker 2: I'm not in office. I'm running to get back into
Speaker 2: office to run against the chaos of the Kamala Biden administration.
Speaker 2: And so that's another thing where I think he really
Speaker 2: screwed up and missed the opportunity to win over people
Speaker 2: like her, because there's a lot more others like her
Speaker 2: who probably went the other way.
Speaker 3: You know, I.
Speaker 1: Rewatched some of the debate, and the first fifteen minutes
Speaker 1: or so before she really gets under his.
Speaker 6: Skin, he's pretty unmissage.
Speaker 3: He was good.
Speaker 1: You know, he's getting the better of the of the exchanges.
Speaker 1: She's a little nervous, clearly at the very beginning. And
Speaker 1: then once she said that thing about his rallies, it
Speaker 1: was over. Like the mind was like wiped clean, and
Speaker 1: everything that he had practiced and planned to do in
Speaker 1: the talk of it was gone. And then she was
Speaker 1: calling every single shot. So yeah, I mean, he utterly
Speaker 1: failed to try to land the points that he wanted
Speaker 1: to land. That doesn't change some of the underlying dynamics
Speaker 1: of the race ultimately. But you know, if we can
Speaker 1: put up on the screen the CNN flash poll, which
Speaker 1: was pretty consistent, I mean it was it was pretty
Speaker 1: overwhelming that Harris outperformed Trump in this debate. Pre debate,
Speaker 1: you had this same group of watchers split down the
Speaker 1: middle as to who they expected to do better. So
Speaker 1: it shows you it was like pretty evenly divided, going
Speaker 1: and you had half say and they think Kamala would win.
Speaker 6: Half say, and I thought Trump would win.
Speaker 1: Post debate, sixty three percent said that Kamala Harris won
Speaker 1: and thirty seven percent say that Trump won.
Speaker 6: And maybe maybe most notable to me.
Speaker 1: Was the fact that some thirty percent even of Republicans
Speaker 1: were like, Yeah, she got him, she got him on
Speaker 1: this one. There was a you know, it was a
Speaker 1: very clear consensus that she got the better of him
Speaker 1: that night. So, you know, is it ultimately going to matter?
Speaker 1: I think the thing for part of why I think
Speaker 1: this will be consequential is that Trump has such a
Speaker 1: mystique around him as this showman, as teflon Dawn, someone
Speaker 1: who just can you know, charge his way through anything
Speaker 1: and you know, gets the better of anyone.
Speaker 6: Who he goes toe to toe with. And here you
Speaker 6: have this woman.
Speaker 1: Who has been you know, very caricatured and at times
Speaker 1: rightfully so, for being kind of incompetent and verbally incontinent
Speaker 1: and all over the place, et cetera, et cetera. And
Speaker 1: the fact that she was able to make him look
Speaker 1: small and to really dominate him in the sense of
Speaker 1: causing him to have to react to what she wanted
Speaker 1: to talk about. You know, it really does puncture some
Speaker 1: of the aura and some of the mystique around Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: And that's part and you know, her whole strategy has
Speaker 1: been different than the Hillary strategy, different than the Biden
Speaker 1: strategy of trying to make him look small. So while
Speaker 1: he is up there glowering and furious and seeing red
Speaker 1: over you know, the rallies or whatever else she was
Speaker 1: goading him on, she is laughing, she's above the fraight,
Speaker 1: she's enjoying it. She's having a good time. And so's
Speaker 1: that's part of why I do think that this debate
Speaker 1: will end up being pretty consequential, is because it really
Speaker 1: damaged a core part of his appeal and his mystique
Speaker 1: in his aura that had made him so powerful in
Speaker 1: American politics. And it's also part of why I think
Speaker 1: this strategy that they have landed on, of the you know,
Speaker 1: sort of dismissive like roll your eyes, not taking his bait,
Speaker 1: has been so much more effective than when previously, you know,
Speaker 1: whatever he threw out there, they were just chasing after
Speaker 1: the ball, endlessly moralizing about it, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and look, there's a lot of evidence to say
Speaker 2: that this could be. Let's put the next one, please
Speaker 2: up on the screen. What we see in terms of
Speaker 2: the snap polling from Yugov who won the debate, Harris
Speaker 2: forty three, Trump twenty eight, unsure thirty. I mean, the
Speaker 2: unsure number is still, you know, relatively high, so it's
Speaker 2: not like it was overwhelming, but it's still good. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's not good, all right. And then actually the next one.
Speaker 2: This convinced me more than anything. And it's always funny
Speaker 2: because I have to remind myself what I always sometimes
Speaker 2: think is the most impactful part of the debate, that's
Speaker 2: not what most people are The number one search topic
Speaker 2: during the debate by state was abortion. The only state
Speaker 2: where it was different was Ohio, and that was immigration,
Speaker 2: maybe because they were searching things about Haitian migrants, if
Speaker 2: I had to guess.
Speaker 3: But my point.
Speaker 2: Is just that if you look at all fifty states
Speaker 2: in the country, forty nine out of fifty, abortion is
Speaker 2: a number one search topic during that debate, possibly even
Speaker 2: looking at the various positions on abortion, then that's a
Speaker 2: massive win for the Democrats in my book.
Speaker 1: That's right, And this almost doesn't matter what they're searching
Speaker 1: about abortion.
Speaker 2: I didn't get to challenge a Vita on this. We
Speaker 2: have a segment coming up with her, but I guess
Speaker 2: I'll pre.
Speaker 3: Anyway just for scheduling purposes.
Speaker 2: She she was bringing up late term abortion and all
Speaker 2: of that, and I'm like, listen, whether you morally object
Speaker 2: to late term abortion or not, on a polling level,
Speaker 2: people don't care about it. At least they don't care
Speaker 2: enough when presented with the converse of a six week
Speaker 2: ban Republicans tried all throughout twenty twenty two. Democrats are
Speaker 2: the real radicals on abortion. Democrats are the real radicals
Speaker 2: on abortion. People don't care. They care a lot more
Speaker 2: about the six to twelve weeks of the Row consensus
Speaker 2: than they do about educationes of abortion that are after
Speaker 2: what the sixth, between the six and the ninth month
Speaker 2: of pregnancy. And I'm not even saying that I'm cool
Speaker 2: with that. I'm or like, empirically, it's not about what
Speaker 2: I think. It's about how people have responded to voting patterns.
Speaker 2: And Trump trotted out all the twenty twenty two classics. Yeah,
Speaker 2: they're the real radicals. It's about late term abortion. That's
Speaker 2: why I'm not going to vote for Amendment four. Look
Speaker 2: at the polling on Amendment four, it's overwhelmingly.
Speaker 6: The Florida amendment.
Speaker 1: First seemed to indicate he was going to side with
Speaker 1: the pro choice side. Then there was a huge freak
Speaker 1: out among the pro life community, flip flops within like
Speaker 1: twenty four hours and says no, I am gonna exactly.
Speaker 2: And actually, if you look at the polling, people have
Speaker 2: become even more permissive in America of abortion restrictions past
Speaker 2: the row versus way consents. So if anything, it's actually.
Speaker 3: Backfired against the Republicans.
Speaker 2: So in general, that talking point, again, you may be
Speaker 2: a conservative Christian and God bless you, but most Americas
Speaker 2: don't agree with you, period, especially whenever it comes to
Speaker 2: the ballot box. So in terms of his answer, where
Speaker 2: he landed, it doesn't work.
Speaker 3: There's euro evidence.
Speaker 1: But also where did he even land Because that's the
Speaker 1: other piece is you know, as much as Kamala rightfully
Speaker 1: gets pegged as a flip flopper, and that is true,
Speaker 1: and you know that's another area where he just failed.
Speaker 1: She baited him on something about his dad's net worth
Speaker 1: and again he just chased that down the rabbit hole.
Speaker 1: And let her you know, skate in terms of some
Speaker 1: of the different positions she's taken. But you know, moving
Speaker 1: back to abortion, he gets asked this question, Okay, your
Speaker 1: running mate says, you would veto and ash abortion, pan
Speaker 1: would you? And he's like, oh, I don't really talk
Speaker 1: to that guy, so I don't know what he's talking.
Speaker 1: He won't commit, and clearly he sa really felt the
Speaker 1: heat from pro life first when he tried to actually
Speaker 1: on a policy level moderate on abortion. You heard that
Speaker 1: from Avida. That was the one thing that she was well,
Speaker 1: you're going to hear from Vida. You will hear from Avida,
Speaker 1: our young Republican woman who we had on to talk
Speaker 1: about some of these issues. And she criticizes him about
Speaker 1: how he, you know, moved to the pro choice side.
Speaker 1: So even though you know, he didn't really have to
Speaker 1: run in a primary, you know, he's sort of just
Speaker 1: stayed out of it and participating in the debates or whatever.
Speaker 6: Even though he has really tried to.
Speaker 1: Lean into this rhetoric about just leave it up to
Speaker 1: the states, et cetera, et cetera, this is still a
Speaker 1: powerful coalition that really has a hold on him. So
Speaker 1: much so that even though he recognizes this issue as
Speaker 1: a major problem from him. He cannot bring himself to
Speaker 1: break in a hard away from them. And I don't
Speaker 1: know that it would really benefit him if even if
Speaker 1: he did, because the bottom line is, Kama Harris can
Speaker 1: always say you, as she did in the debate, you
Speaker 1: hand picked these three Supreme Court justices to put on
Speaker 1: the bench and overturn Row.
Speaker 6: And then when she framed it.
Speaker 1: As because he tries to say, oh, well, this is
Speaker 1: what people wanted, and she flips it back and says, no,
Speaker 1: the women who are bleeding out in a pot parking lot,
Speaker 1: the twelve year old girls who were raped by their stepdads, No,
Speaker 1: they they did not want this. And it continues to be,
Speaker 1: you know, as evidenced by that search data, it continues
Speaker 1: to be very powerful. When we picked our top moments
Speaker 1: from the debate, there were a lot of candidates the
Speaker 1: pets thing. I mean, that's just like the iconic, you know, memorable, ridiculous, absurd,
Speaker 1: like the revealing.
Speaker 6: Moment from the debate. But actually picked the abortion one.
Speaker 1: Because it was such because it's such an important issue,
Speaker 1: and because he still is so bad on it and
Speaker 1: still has no idea what to say, and I continue
Speaker 1: to think like, there isn't really an answer here that
Speaker 1: can work for him, regardless of where he tries to
Speaker 1: land or what talking points he tries to try sultimate.
Speaker 3: I mean, do you don't want to know how insane
Speaker 3: this is? With a congratulations?
Speaker 2: By the way, pro life ers, you got Trump to
Speaker 2: disavow a position that eighty percent of the American people
Speaker 2: are against eighty percent. Even people who are pro life,
Speaker 2: who are like in terms of the row versus way,
Speaker 2: they don't even support a national ban on abortion.
Speaker 3: If you look at it, three quarters even three quarters.
Speaker 2: Of Americans people who are pro life say that there
Speaker 2: should not be a federal law banning abortion at six weeks,
Speaker 2: some sixty percent at fifteen weeks. So the rogue consensus
Speaker 2: has literally never been more popular than ever. And JD,
Speaker 2: who is a practicing pro life Catholic, gave you the
Speaker 2: political layup of yeah, he would ban abord, he would
Speaker 2: not sign the national abortion ban, he would veto it,
Speaker 2: and he still decided to go along.
Speaker 3: What is he doing?
Speaker 2: I mean, this is where I look at Trump's calculus
Speaker 2: sometimes and I just have to remind you, like, honestly,
Speaker 2: sometimes he is just an idiot, or he's somebody who
Speaker 2: his political his political like dialed in nature is not
Speaker 2: there where previously. I really believe that twenty sixteen Trump,
Speaker 2: if he were presented with that same landscape, absolutely would
Speaker 2: not have done this. This is actually him a case
Speaker 2: being too immersed in the traditional GOP where there are
Speaker 2: a lot of people who probably support something like that
Speaker 2: and who are in his ear convincing him that this
Speaker 2: is a bigger constituency. If he was truly dialed in
Speaker 2: the way that he has been in the past, there's
Speaker 2: no way that you're going to come out on a
Speaker 2: twenty percent issue.
Speaker 3: Impossible.
Speaker 1: So I've been sort of like workshopping a monologue in
Speaker 1: my head that I may do for next week about
Speaker 1: Trump's political evolution and how what current bubble.
Speaker 6: He is in.
Speaker 1: So in twenty sixteen he really comes out of the
Speaker 1: New York tabloids. Yeah, right, he's like New York that's
Speaker 1: kind of his that's his thing, right. So it's sensationalist,
Speaker 1: it's crass, but there is some like connection to the
Speaker 1: reality of like how people view issues and what normal
Speaker 1: people think about various things that are happening in the country.
Speaker 1: And you know, it's sort of like where Piers Morgan
Speaker 1: is right, it's tabloid. Then he's really swimming in the
Speaker 1: Fox News world, right, and Kyle calls him fox News
Speaker 1: Grandpa in twenty twenty, and I think that's right.
Speaker 6: You know, he's just totally.
Speaker 1: Immersed in this like conservative but mainstream conservative echo chamber.
Speaker 1: So already a lot of the populist elements from twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen are stripped down in twenty twenty, and he's this
Speaker 1: like Fox News Grandpa. Now it's like truth Social person,
Speaker 1: psycho whatever. And that's where you get the pets, right,
Speaker 1: he's hanging out.
Speaker 6: With Laura Loomer.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just I think after Fox News calls
Speaker 1: the election for Biden, and it is actually the first
Speaker 1: to call Arizona for Biden, there's a rupture with Fox News.
Speaker 1: At the same time he's you know, he gets kicked
Speaker 1: off of Twitter. So now he's on truth Social, which
Speaker 1: is truly this very niche fringe ecosystem, and those are
Speaker 1: the waters he's swimming in. And that really comes out
Speaker 1: in his politics and in how he's talking about issues
Speaker 1: and how he's responding to issues, and how he's thinking
Speaker 1: about things and what he chooses to highlight and so,
Speaker 1: you know, I think a lot of the evolution of
Speaker 1: Trump can be explained because he is such a media
Speaker 1: creature that that's an important way to understand who he
Speaker 1: is at that present moment. And I think that accounts
Speaker 1: for a lot of the differences between the twenty sixteen Trump,
Speaker 1: who has his finger on the pulse of something, in
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty four of Trump where you're like, what
Speaker 1: the hell are you even thinking right now? What world
Speaker 1: do you live in? Where you thought that this would
Speaker 1: be a good idea. So, you know, I think that
Speaker 1: that changed media diet has.
Speaker 6: Really done a number on him.
Speaker 1: Not to mention just being in the bubble of being
Speaker 1: a president of post president, surrounding yourself constantly with sick
Speaker 1: of fans, et cetera, et cetera. To get back to
Speaker 1: some of the we have one more. Washington Post did
Speaker 1: an undecided voter panel as well. There's was pretty overwhelming
Speaker 1: to put this up on the screen. So out of
Speaker 1: twenty five people, twenty three said they thought that Harris.
Speaker 1: Two said that they thought Trump performed better. You know,
Speaker 1: they also interviewed these individuals throughout the debate, and even
Speaker 1: the ones who said Harris performed better. There were you know,
Speaker 1: there was some movement towards her also in terms of
Speaker 1: which way people were planning on voting, which is obviously
Speaker 1: really significant. There were still some questions raised about like hey,
Speaker 1: I need to know more about her. But probably the
Speaker 1: thing that I took most note of, which we commented
Speaker 1: on on Debate Night as well, is with regard to
Speaker 1: this like pets Haitian migrants situation, there was just deep
Speaker 1: confusion about what the hell he was even talking about,
Speaker 1: which again gets to the truth social bubble that he's
Speaker 1: existing in where his conspiracies are so outlandish and so
Speaker 1: fringe people like normal people just don't even comprehend what
Speaker 1: your point you're even trying to get across.
Speaker 6: So I thought that was interesting as.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that happened a lot in twenty twenty. Actually are
Speaker 3: it did.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the Trump would be saying something where I'm like, dude,
Speaker 2: I only know what you're talking about because I do
Speaker 2: this for a living. Yeah, I know way too many
Speaker 2: people who are like what, Like what is he saying?
Speaker 2: And that simplicity. Look, this is what made him actually
Speaker 2: a strong candidate in twenty sixteen. It wasn't about being
Speaker 2: online he intuited a basic fact about America. He said,
Speaker 2: Americans don't like the way that things are going. That
Speaker 2: was actually a very counterintuitive in politics at that time.
Speaker 2: American Carnage still one of the most important speeches in
Speaker 2: modern American history because it was counter to the way
Speaker 2: that most people in the elite circles thought about the
Speaker 2: direction of the country this time and it was simple.
Speaker 2: It was about immigration, and it was simply really about
Speaker 2: rolling back the Obama era consensus. This time around, it's mishmash.
Speaker 3: There's an amalgam.
Speaker 2: Now, that doesn't mean he still can't win because a
Speaker 2: lot of Biden is very unpopular and economic tends, trends,
Speaker 2: et cetera. But he's not doing his best, I think,
Speaker 2: to convince people to vote for him. And actually, you know,
Speaker 2: you do see a lot of that, like, for example,
Speaker 2: can we put B five on the screen? A lot
Speaker 2: of these a lot of these swing state voters who
Speaker 2: were asked about from the Washington Post specifically about how
Speaker 2: they thought Trump and Harris performed twenty three out of
Speaker 2: twenty five, said Kamala Harris did. And this is not
Speaker 2: you know, it's not just a bunch of liberals who
Speaker 2: are in this group. You even look at a lot
Speaker 2: of the people who were saying the Harris performed better,
Speaker 2: and they're like, look, I'm frustrated with the status quo.
Speaker 2: We deserve better. I appreciate a strump, you know, I'm
Speaker 2: reading from one. I appreciate Trump has strong views and
Speaker 2: trust his ability to make strong decisions. I worry that
Speaker 2: Harris may lack clear convictions or follow through. Still thinks
Speaker 2: that Kamala had done better and has a preference now
Speaker 2: for Harris, Like these are not people who are brainwashed
Speaker 2: or any a deeply partisan in any way. And I
Speaker 2: think that, you know, thinking about trying to intuit that
Speaker 2: part of the country right there where the overall trend
Speaker 2: is in general, he's not as die in.
Speaker 3: As he was back in twenty sixteen. I think that's
Speaker 3: generally a mistake.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And they asked those same individuals before the debate, Okay,
Speaker 1: who are.
Speaker 6: You leaning towards right? If you have a lean and.
Speaker 1: Before the debate, twelve said Harris and ten said Trump.
Speaker 1: Three were others were undecided, like totally unsure or they
Speaker 1: said neither actually is.
Speaker 6: What they said. Afterwards there were still three that said neither.
Speaker 1: But the Harris number moved from twelve to fifteen, and
Speaker 1: she now had five people that said they were definitely
Speaker 1: voting for her, whereas before they were on the fence.
Speaker 1: Trump's number went down from ten to six, so he
Speaker 1: lost four voters, and no one moved from the probably
Speaker 1: Trump to the definitely Trump column.
Speaker 6: So at least listen.
Speaker 1: It's a small a sample, obviously not statistically significant, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera, but still, if you're just looking at how
Speaker 1: ordinary people process this debate in real time, it shows
Speaker 1: you something something happened here for Trump, and I do
Speaker 1: think part of it was just she did a perfect
Speaker 1: job of queueing him up, and he took debate in
Speaker 1: a way that her top advisors could never have possibly
Speaker 1: dreamed in their wildest dreams, how much he would chase
Speaker 1: every rabbit down the hole every time she tempted him
Speaker 1: to do so. So one of the voters who apparently
Speaker 1: was not overly impressed with Donald Trump's performance was his
Speaker 1: new endorser and transition team member RFK Junior, who was
Speaker 1: fairly fairly honest about how he thought this performance went
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 11: Vice President Harris clearly won the debate in terms of
Speaker 11: her delivery, her polish, her organization, and her preparation. I
Speaker 11: think on the substance, President Trump wins in terms of
Speaker 11: his governance, but he didn't tell that story. In fact,
Speaker 11: the first question was an extraordinary lost opportunity because there's
Speaker 11: a question, and I think Doris pointed out that she
Speaker 11: never answered, which is our Americans better four years later?
Speaker 11: And there's really no argument for saying that they are
Speaker 11: by all the dish by which you measure social deterioration.
Speaker 11: We have double the inflation rate, the housing rates have
Speaker 11: doubled in the last four years. There's fifteen million more
Speaker 11: people and Americans living in poverty. We have these enormous
Speaker 11: suicide rates, enormous overdose rates, and we're in two wars.
Speaker 11: And all of these things can be attributed to the
Speaker 11: poor leadership from Biden Harry's team. And that's the argument
Speaker 11: that he should have been making, but he got distracted.
Speaker 11: And I think it's unfortunate because he you know, I
Speaker 11: think he really had an airy argument for his presidency,
Speaker 11: but he was not able to make that case to
Speaker 11: the American public.
Speaker 12: He said, and it's come in a couple of times
Speaker 12: today that he won the debate, and all the polls.
Speaker 7: Show that he won the debate.
Speaker 3: I hadn't seen a single one to show that. What
Speaker 3: did you think of that reaction?
Speaker 11: Well, I have seen those polls. You know, they're not
Speaker 11: There are polls that you see on uh, you know,
Speaker 11: on the on the internet, and and a lot of
Speaker 11: them probably have have a statistical problem.
Speaker 1: He laughing says that, like, yeah, it's probably like a
Speaker 1: cat turn poll that I don't know that I'm going
Speaker 1: to take too seriously.
Speaker 6: What'd you make of those comments? I was kind of surprised.
Speaker 3: I think he should.
Speaker 2: I mean, look at the very least RFK every once
Speaker 2: in a while, I'm surprised you and he'll say, you
Speaker 2: know what he thinks. I think that's what a lot
Speaker 2: of people appreciated about him whenever he was running for president,
Speaker 2: and look at least give him credit.
Speaker 3: He's like, yeah, I don't think he did well at all.
Speaker 2: And that he's he honestly has the most at stake
Speaker 2: here right now, because not only did he steak his
Speaker 2: entire reputation, is his whole coalition on a Trump victory.
Speaker 2: He's claiming that Trump is going to appoint either him
Speaker 2: or people who are aligned with him to office whenever
Speaker 2: he is elected. So at the very least, like if
Speaker 2: you expect anybody to spend it really would be him.
Speaker 2: I honestly think he has the most on the line
Speaker 2: out of anybody in.
Speaker 1: The Coalitionink about it, your social circle and everything.
Speaker 3: Nicole Shanahan, I'm like, good luck.
Speaker 2: If Trump doesn't win, people are screwed, you know, in
Speaker 2: terms of just think about it, in terms of coalitional support,
Speaker 2: In terms of overall impact of your campaign which you're
Speaker 2: hoping to leverage into power, No Democrat or will ever
Speaker 2: speak to you like ever again, after you've gone this hard.
Speaker 2: They bet the farm really on the Trump campaign. So
Speaker 2: for their sake, the whole family came out against him,
Speaker 2: which I guess isn't all that new, but you know,
Speaker 2: when he the family name is now more in the
Speaker 2: discourse than ever before. Shanahan, Like I said, I mean,
Speaker 2: you shouldn't underestimate like the social circles and all these
Speaker 2: things that those people run in. If she doesn't have
Speaker 2: any power, like, good luck to you, the knives are
Speaker 2: going to come out from all her like billionaire neighbors
Speaker 2: and olive ours. My only point being that they probably
Speaker 2: have more incentive to spin than anybody else, and so
Speaker 2: whenever they have to tell the truth about what's going
Speaker 2: on here, that just tells you that things didn't go
Speaker 2: that well. And that's the problem that I find is
Speaker 2: that there's a deep amount of hackery and a lot
Speaker 2: of commentary. By the way, I did call it on
Speaker 2: our show afterwards, I was like, can't wait to see
Speaker 2: Jesse Waters bitch about the moderators. And that's immediately what
Speaker 2: happened when it was on the show, Because that's why
Speaker 2: if you notice the beginning of our show, what was
Speaker 2: Trump saying, He's like, Jesse, he really got it, he really.
Speaker 3: Understood what was going on.
Speaker 2: You know, at a certain point too, for those people,
Speaker 2: they're not being honest enough with their audience or preparing them,
Speaker 2: which will probably just prime stop the steal.
Speaker 3: Two point oh absolutely, Whereas with RFK on.
Speaker 2: The release, he's like, yeah, it didn't do well. It's like,
Speaker 2: that's that's what being honest with people actually looks like.
Speaker 1: But you know what, like Trump is not going to
Speaker 1: like that answer. Yeah, and he watches and I think
Speaker 1: he was out truth thing about Neil Cavudo, So you know,
Speaker 1: he watches this coverage on Cable New religiously and if
Speaker 1: you are anything but Jesse Waters level sycophantic ass kissing
Speaker 1: like it is not enough because Jesse not only was
Speaker 1: bitching about the moderators, which was kind of like the
Speaker 1: total go to play, but he also was like Trump
Speaker 1: had all the most memorable lines like when he said
Speaker 1: one spa run or when he said they had like
Speaker 1: four things that he rattled off and tried to not
Speaker 1: just say, oh, well, the moderators are the reason he lost,
Speaker 1: but also tried to say actively, actually, I thought Trump
Speaker 1: was way better than Kamwa Harris, which again, no, you
Speaker 1: don't believe that. You don't like you're just lying to
Speaker 1: your audience. You're saying the thing that you know is
Speaker 1: gonna make Trump happy. And this is why, because I'm
Speaker 1: sure like whatever slot RFK was promised on the transition team,
Speaker 1: you know, you can still technically get that slot, but
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that you're going to have any influence
Speaker 1: whatsoever going for in a Trump administration. It doesn't mean
Speaker 1: he's ever gonna call you again, or you're gonna be
Speaker 1: on Air Force one or have a meeting with him
Speaker 1: or whatever because you made such an important point on
Speaker 1: debate night. After something like this, Trump is going to
Speaker 1: go and search out his most sycophantic aids, advisors, supporters, etc.
Speaker 6: That's why he's hanging out with Laura Lemmer.
Speaker 1: She's safe for him because she'll tell him whatever he
Speaker 1: wants to hear and have zero qualms about it. So
Speaker 1: if you are even willing to be honest enough, and
Speaker 1: you know, there was obviously spin there and what RFK
Speaker 1: Junior said too of being like, well, I think he
Speaker 1: had air tight case and here's why he's so much
Speaker 1: about her, and he just failed to make it and
Speaker 1: that's unfortunate. But the fact he led any truth in
Speaker 1: there at all means he is going to be persona
Speaker 1: non grotto with Donald Trump.
Speaker 6: And you know it was that was quick.
Speaker 1: I also wonder how Tulci Gabbard is going to standing,
Speaker 1: is gonna fair within the Trump world, because he's certainly
Speaker 1: not going to blame himself Trump ever for his complete failure,
Speaker 1: even though there is no one to blame but himself.
Speaker 1: You know, whatever you think about the moderators, I was
Speaker 1: thinking about remember when Megan Kelly asked him that question
Speaker 1: about like Rosie o'donna or whatever, which he also thought
Speaker 1: was very unfair. He turned that into a great moment
Speaker 1: for himself. So if you are on top of your game,
Speaker 1: even if a moderator is like, you know, unfair in
Speaker 1: your view towards you, he used to have the capability
Speaker 1: to do that. So anyway, there is no one to
Speaker 1: blame but himself. But we know he will not blame himself.
Speaker 1: So who was prominently advising him and advertised as advising
Speaker 1: him going up to this debate, Tulcy Gabbard. So I
Speaker 1: wonder if she also is going to be on the ounce,
Speaker 1: if he's going to blame her for his inability to
Speaker 1: rise to the occasion and some basic ass political points
Speaker 1: against gom Layer.
Speaker 2: That's what Look, that's what he does. He always lashes
Speaker 2: out at the advisors. It's always the people who are
Speaker 2: around him. I guarantee you there's gonna be a lot
Speaker 2: of snakes in his Oh yeah, right now. Polymarket odds
Speaker 2: on whether Trump will fires campaign manager before the election.
Speaker 2: Let's see, is thirty percent spiked since the debate. So anyway,
Speaker 2: let's put that out interesting and let's see.
Speaker 6: And is it Lasa Vita is technically the firs.
Speaker 3: Las Avita is technically.
Speaker 6: Not Susie, she's sort of like number two, or she's
Speaker 6: number two.
Speaker 2: Also, Kamala actually is now leading Trump in the betting market,
Speaker 2: says presidential election winner is twenty twenty four fifty Kamala
Speaker 2: forty nine percent Trump, first time that she's led him
Speaker 2: in quite a long time.
Speaker 1: And before going into the debate, it was like fifty
Speaker 1: four Trump.
Speaker 2: Forty six Paris or some bread that was to Donald
Speaker 2: Trump tied after the debate and now actually as Kamala
Speaker 2: in the lead. I mean, look, it's fifty forty nine,
Speaker 2: so it's not it's not like overwhelming, but.
Speaker 6: It's also just you know, random people betting online.
Speaker 3: But it's a billion dollar market.
Speaker 2: There's nine hundred million dollars in this market, so yeah,
Speaker 2: you shouldn't discount.
Speaker 1: No, No, it's still indicative of at least the analysis of
Speaker 1: the general consensus about what happened in this debate and
Speaker 1: how it's likely to move things.
Speaker 6: You know, I don't people can be row.
Speaker 2: Betting markets, by the way, perfect, but there's a good
Speaker 2: you know, I read Nate Silver's book and he does
Speaker 2: make a good point that there's just a lot more.
Speaker 3: That does go into into it.
Speaker 2: When you genuinely have money and large sums of money
Speaker 2: on the line that sometimes can call things out in
Speaker 2: a better direction than pundits or like pundits and or
Speaker 2: any other like so called conventional wisdom, because it's true
Speaker 2: you have to factor in downside risk and upside and everything.
Speaker 2: And because they were so wrong last time around, people
Speaker 2: are always looking for opportunities this time to make it.
Speaker 2: And that's why Kamala being tied pretty significant.
Speaker 3: Yeah, with the overall.
Speaker 1: Polling average, Yeah, it's going to be really interesting to
Speaker 1: see the next few rounds of post debate polls that
Speaker 1: come out to see you.
Speaker 3: Know, is probably gets any Monday, actually.
Speaker 1: I would think though, Yeah, I would definitely think by
Speaker 1: Monday we'll have something to chew on there.
Speaker 6: So something to look forward to.
Speaker 1: All right, all right, we got a great panel lined
Speaker 1: up that we have now promoted several times because we
Speaker 1: so enjoyed the conversation that we recorded with these two
Speaker 1: individuals talking about the Taylor Swift endorsement and also talking
Speaker 1: about these emerging gender dynamics among gen Z, which are
Speaker 1: really fascting largest gender divide political gender divide of any
Speaker 1: generation is gen Z.
Speaker 6: So let's go ahead and get to that.
Speaker 1: Very excited to be joined this morning by our two
Speaker 1: panelists on the left and the right. We've got Parker
Speaker 1: Short who is the president of the Georgia Young Dems,
Speaker 1: and we also have a Vita Duffy, who is the
Speaker 1: host of.
Speaker 6: The Bond Gino Report.
Speaker 1: Got a couple topics we wanted to dive into with
Speaker 1: you guys. Welcome, glad to have you this morning.
Speaker 3: Good to see you guys, Thanks for having us.
Speaker 6: Yeah, of course.
Speaker 1: So we got big news the night after the debate,
Speaker 1: like that night during the you know, the post aftermath
Speaker 1: of the debate, that Taylor Swift had come out and
Speaker 1: endorsed Kamala Harris, saying that describing herself as a childless
Speaker 1: cat lady. Parker, let me start with you. I'm sure
Speaker 1: you're you're happy about this news. How significant do you
Speaker 1: think that this will be for the Kamala Harris campaign.
Speaker 13: I'm not particularly a Taylor Swift fan, but I do
Speaker 13: appreciate somebody who uses their platform for a good purpose.
Speaker 13: You know, I kind of did expect this because she
Speaker 13: has been very outspoken before. If you will go out
Speaker 13: there and endorse Phil Bretison and Tennessee in twenty eighteen,
Speaker 13: then you will go out there and get behind Kamala Harris,
Speaker 13: who's one of the most exciting nominees that the party
Speaker 13: has seen in a while. I will say I think
Speaker 13: the most impactful part of this is not Taylor Swift
Speaker 13: convincing voters that wouldn't vote or that we're going to
Speaker 13: vote for Trump. It is instead reaching out to new folks.
Speaker 13: Last year, when she promoted the voter registration link on
Speaker 13: National Voter Registration Day, it was a forty thousand people increase.
Speaker 13: It was much more than last year. That was the
Speaker 13: last highest voter registration bump before Calmly got in the race.
Speaker 13: And then last night we saw more than three hundred
Speaker 13: thousand people click on her link. I think the thing
Speaker 13: that's going to make the difference this election in states
Speaker 13: like North Carolina and Georgia, where I have both lived
Speaker 13: and is new voters coming in, people on college campuses,
Speaker 13: people getting engaged, that are being touched by people like
Speaker 13: Taylor Swift that are using their platform for what I
Speaker 13: think is a good reason.
Speaker 6: Avian. If I to bolster Parker's point here, let's go in.
Speaker 1: But the third element up on the screen, he mentioned
Speaker 1: the number of visitors that her voter registration link received
Speaker 1: in the hours after she endorsed, so her link to
Speaker 1: register to vote brought in three hundred and six thousand
Speaker 1: visitors to vote dot gov. So you know, obviously it
Speaker 1: did something in terms of people being interested in registering
Speaker 1: to vote, and presumably since she endorsed Kamala Harris, many
Speaker 1: of those people will plan to vote for Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: What do you think of the significance of this or
Speaker 1: do you think that it's very significant?
Speaker 12: You know, I tend to actually agree with Parker that
Speaker 12: I'm not sure it's going to be wildly, wildly, you know,
Speaker 12: significant to this election. I think what was interesting is
Speaker 12: I didn't feel like her heart was really in it.
Speaker 12: I mean, there hasn't been a rally with Kamala and Taylor,
Speaker 12: she hasn't put on a concert for her.
Speaker 6: It was just an Instagram post.
Speaker 3: And in the Instagram.
Speaker 12: Post was also kind of flirting with both sides ism
Speaker 12: at the beginning. In the end she sorts and vote
Speaker 12: for who you think would make the best president. And
Speaker 12: so it was not as strong as I think people
Speaker 12: are making it out to be. And you have that
Speaker 12: on top of the fact that she said her reason
Speaker 12: for endorsing Kamala's because she wants to combat misinformation. And
Speaker 12: a lot of people know that during a NATO meeting
Speaker 12: four years ago, the Pentagon's Psychological Operations Unit floated this
Speaker 12: idea of turning Taylor Swift into an asset for combating
Speaker 12: so called misinformation. So I think there's something really interesting
Speaker 12: going on there.
Speaker 1: Thank Taylor is a DP state that wast Well has
Speaker 1: floated the idea, so I mean impossible, And she cited
Speaker 1: misinformation in her statement, which I think is really interesting.
Speaker 6: But the other thing I want to say is that
Speaker 6: I think that.
Speaker 12: Young people are a lot more animated with the real
Speaker 12: issues than just a celebrity endorsement. Trump forced Kamala last
Speaker 12: night to say that he that she loves Israel, she
Speaker 12: supports Israel, she stands with Israel, after he accused her
Speaker 12: of saying of saying she hates Israel. So that to
Speaker 12: young people is going to be really significant as we
Speaker 12: look at what's happening in Gaza, and a lot of
Speaker 12: especially socially conscious left wing people who I think Kamala
Speaker 12: would consider her base, are really going to be alienated
Speaker 12: by that kind of rhetoric. I think that's more important
Speaker 12: to young people than a Taylor Swift endorsement.
Speaker 2: Well, Parker, what do you make of that, because if
Speaker 2: Vita is just I'm assuming giving like a political analysis,
Speaker 2: I believe we'd spoken previously last time we saw you
Speaker 2: in Chicago, and that's something christ and Ryan have been
Speaker 2: talking a lot about as well. You know, if anything,
Speaker 2: she's probably as forceful on the issue, at least on
Speaker 2: the substance that Joe Biden is. Do you think that's
Speaker 2: going to be a problem for her, Like, what do
Speaker 2: you see with younger voters.
Speaker 13: Well, younger voters care a lot about different issues. And
Speaker 13: again I don't speak Faull for all younger voters, but
Speaker 13: I will agree with your other guys. She started off
Speaker 13: by agreeing with me, and I do think she has
Speaker 13: a point. It's more about the policy. I watched that
Speaker 13: debate last night, and I saw Kamala Harris finally talk
Speaker 13: about a lot of policy issues that matter to me.
Speaker 13: I liked the opportunity economy stuff, and I was frustrated
Speaker 13: her her pandering to parts of the American electorate through
Speaker 13: the way that she talks about the genocide that is
Speaker 13: occurring in Gaza and I think she has shown me
Speaker 13: some hope at points on that issue by meeting with
Speaker 13: the Uncommitted movement, by trying to reach out to young voters.
Speaker 13: It is clear to me there's one candidate on the
Speaker 13: ballot that cares about human rights and does have at
Speaker 13: least some care for the human lives that are being
Speaker 13: lost in Gaza. Donald Trump does not care. And yes
Speaker 13: he did force her and push her to that position,
Speaker 13: but I think that kind of shows the difficult position
Speaker 13: that our American politics is in where it is so
Speaker 13: Israel has such power to the point where you can't
Speaker 13: really go out there in mainstream politics and you know,
Speaker 13: be on a presidential debate stage because APAC really is scary.
Speaker 13: Ask Andy Levin, who is you know? I went to
Speaker 13: University of Michigan. He's Jewish. He stood up for what
Speaker 13: was right, and they elected somebody far more pro war
Speaker 13: to his seat. I think that she is trying her
Speaker 13: best on the issue, but her best is definitely not enough.
Speaker 13: There's a lot that I would like to see, and
Speaker 13: I think that debate was her attempt to kind of, yes,
Speaker 13: find that middle ground and debate with Trump, But I
Speaker 13: really I didn't appreciate it. But I will say as
Speaker 13: I said, there is one candidate that cares about human
Speaker 13: rights in the Middle East. And I'm very close with
Speaker 13: rue Roman and I think she would love to come
Speaker 13: on y'all's show. She is a state representative from Georgia.
Speaker 13: She's the only Palestinian elective official in the state of Georgia,
Speaker 13: and we talk about this issue a lot. And for her,
Speaker 13: a Trump presidency looks like more of her family dying
Speaker 13: overseas and it really is terrible and Kamalin needs to
Speaker 13: step up. And Rua should have been a speaker at
Speaker 13: the DNC. That was a missed opportunity for the DNC
Speaker 13: to say, hey, let's hear Palestinian voices. I appreciate that
Speaker 13: Kamala could sit down with the Youngmited movement and hear
Speaker 13: their voices, but there is a lot more than needs
Speaker 13: to be done. Whoever, in Georgia, our rights are under
Speaker 13: attack every single day. People are dying in Georgia hospitals
Speaker 13: because they don't have access to reproductive rights, and that
Speaker 13: is frontline for a lot of voters. And I know
Speaker 13: Rua and I are both dedicated to electing Kamala. As
Speaker 13: frustrating as her position on this issue qvit.
Speaker 2: That is a key point that Parker raises is that
Speaker 2: the issue of abortion, you know, I would say equally
Speaker 2: animating probably to younger voters. What do you think then,
Speaker 2: about Trump's answers on the issue of abortion during that debate,
Speaker 2: which arguably could be just as consequential in swinging voters
Speaker 2: as well.
Speaker 12: Well, you know, I've it's an interesting question because I've
Speaker 12: really been disillusioned with the way that Trump has handled
Speaker 12: the abortion question over the last month or two. He's
Speaker 12: really turned the GOP much more to the pro choice
Speaker 12: side than I would like as a pro life person.
Speaker 12: Parker said that Kamala is somebody who cares about human rights,
Speaker 12: and in my opinionion killing unborn children in the womb
Speaker 12: is the epitome of spitting on human rights, and I
Speaker 12: think that is something that is egregious. And I liked
Speaker 12: that Trump during the debate for the first time, really
Speaker 12: started to put some pressure on Kamala and how radical
Speaker 12: the Democrats are with the pro with their pro abortion stance.
Speaker 12: I think a lot of Americans think abortion is safe, legal, rare.
Speaker 12: It's said in the early stages, and the reality is
Speaker 12: that Democrats have in Democrat controlled states permitted abortion at
Speaker 12: all stages.
Speaker 6: That's just a fact.
Speaker 12: You had the fact checkers come in and say, oh,
Speaker 12: this isn't true. There's no abortions after a baby is born.
Speaker 12: That actually has happened. There are five instances of this
Speaker 12: happening on the record. You can go to the Daily Signal.
Speaker 3: They've reported it out.
Speaker 12: But the truth is that Democrat states, when they have
Speaker 12: that option, will allow abortion at all stages. And this
Speaker 12: is a radical stance that I think most Americans don't
Speaker 12: agree with. And the other thing that I'll mention about
Speaker 12: human rights is I'm not really sure and I don't
Speaker 12: really think a lot of young people are sure that
Speaker 12: Kamala is going to bring peace to the world that
Speaker 12: she's at office, because we have right now the carnage
Speaker 12: that Trump also mentioned during the debate in Ukraine, and
Speaker 12: Kamala is not committed to ending this war, She's not
Speaker 12: committed to a peace deal. There is suffering. I mean,
Speaker 12: hundreds of thousands of people are dying because America keeps
Speaker 12: us in this funding this battle. That even Zelenski has
Speaker 12: now recently come out and said, we need to take
Speaker 12: a step back, we need to start negotiating a peace
Speaker 12: deal of some kind. I think that's really short sighted.
Speaker 12: I think that shows a real disrespect for human life
Speaker 12: and perhaps a symbol that Kamala is in bed with
Speaker 12: the military industrial complex, which makes money off of human
Speaker 12: lives being lost.
Speaker 6: Parking your respond there, well.
Speaker 13: I really would like to talk about Ukraine, because I
Speaker 13: do think it is interesting. But first I'm going to
Speaker 13: talk about abortion, because this is not something that we
Speaker 13: should beat around the bush on. We talk about human rights,
Speaker 13: and I hear where your panelist is coming. This is
Speaker 13: personal for a lot of people, but again, it is
Speaker 13: a personal choice. And in Georgia abortion is banned six weeks,
Speaker 13: as it is in South Carolina, as it is in
Speaker 13: many places all over the country. And every single day
Speaker 13: women are dying in Georgia because they don't have access
Speaker 13: to proper reproductive care. And reproductive care and women's rights
Speaker 13: are human rights. And you know, I have a girlfriend,
Speaker 13: We're very serious. We talk about having a kid, and
Speaker 13: she's scared to be pregnant in Georgia because you can't
Speaker 13: get proper medical care. I think human rights as people
Speaker 13: being able to have self determination and the choice about
Speaker 13: their own bodies. And while I respect you and your opinions.
Speaker 13: You can make that decision about your body. We are
Speaker 13: at a point in our lives and in our country
Speaker 13: where Donald Trump and the Republican majority, Republican appointed majority
Speaker 13: on the Supreme Court has taken away rights from people
Speaker 13: all across the country. And the truth is that a
Speaker 13: majority of Americans actually want to restore those right. I
Speaker 13: know you said that a majority don't feel that way.
Speaker 13: It's not true. Because you look at Kansas, they voted
Speaker 13: to protect abortion rights. You look at Michigan, they voted
Speaker 13: to protect abortion rights on November fifth. In Florida, they
Speaker 13: have the opportunity to protect abortion rights because they're trying
Speaker 13: to do They have a six week ban, which most
Speaker 13: women don't know they're pregnant, ends up preventing people from
Speaker 13: getting reproductive care, criminalizes healthcare. Doctors are unable to provide
Speaker 13: the care that women need, and they often put the
Speaker 13: health of the mother at risk. That's going to be
Speaker 13: on the ballot. Donald Trump's not going to vote for it.
Speaker 6: This is actually probably.
Speaker 13: That is as clear as it can be. Also, marijuana
Speaker 13: is on the ballot in Florida's statewide and that one
Speaker 13: Kamala Harris came out in favor of marijuana legalization recently.
Speaker 1: The other piece we wanted to get from you guys,
Speaker 1: which is this really massive emerging gender gap among gen z.
Speaker 1: David Hogg actually tweeted something about this that we found
Speaker 1: interesting and put up on the screen about how Democrats
Speaker 1: are struggling with young men. Go ahead and put d
Speaker 1: one up guys on the screen so we can read
Speaker 1: from this. Sure it is I hope I'm wrong, but
Speaker 1: if we lose in November, I think the main reason
Speaker 1: why will be the number of young men of all
Speaker 1: races that are no longer Democrats. There's been a taboo
Speaker 1: about talking about this because we understandably are hesitant to
Speaker 1: make men a main point of conversation, given we have
Speaker 1: been for thousands of years. But we have a real
Speaker 1: problem to deal with at this point, with sixty days ago,
Speaker 1: there isn't much we can do to recover it other
Speaker 1: than turning out more young women and trying to slow
Speaker 1: the departure of young men. I think a lot of
Speaker 1: this is caused by COVID, the epidemic of male loneliness
Speaker 1: in this country meansuing commodification through social media of misogyny.
Speaker 1: Long term We've got a lot of work to do
Speaker 1: to provide positive examples of what actual masculinity looks like
Speaker 1: that is not defined by putting down women or other people,
Speaker 1: but by lifting others up and being a true leader. Parker,
Speaker 1: what is what's your reaction? Is that your experience among
Speaker 1: the young gentlemen that you that you know.
Speaker 13: That's I've met David. He's an interesting guy, and I
Speaker 13: will say I appreciate him coming out and speaking out,
Speaker 13: and I think more young young men and young women
Speaker 13: should speak out. I know a lot of young men
Speaker 13: that are Democrats that are very much involved for different reasons.
Speaker 13: I got involved because I lost my dad at a
Speaker 13: young age and I understood the impact of good governance.
Speaker 13: I have a public policy degree because I knew I
Speaker 13: wanted to make a difference. But I have friends that
Speaker 13: are involved for all different reasons. And I know so
Speaker 13: many young men that have stood up, stepped up and
Speaker 13: really trying to make a difference in their communities, whether
Speaker 13: that's on the city council or the county commission. You know,
Speaker 13: I've got a best friend who's a teacher named Bryce Berry.
Speaker 13: He's twenty three years old. He's running for Statehouse in Georgia,
Speaker 13: and he's gonna win. There's no way he doesn't win.
Speaker 13: And I really think that young men can set an example.
Speaker 13: And you know, I'm from Atlanta. I know so many
Speaker 13: amazing men that show me what good mass kilnity looks like.
Speaker 13: That show me what giving back to your community looks like.
Speaker 13: And I'll end on the point that I think a
Speaker 13: good man looks like Tim Waltz, Somebody who cares, somebody
Speaker 13: who you can trust, somebody if you had a flat tire,
Speaker 13: they pull over the side of road and help you
Speaker 13: change it. And I think that's more of what our
Speaker 13: party should be elevating. And I think the choice of
Speaker 13: Tim Waltz demonstrates that. And I do think young men
Speaker 13: are going to surprise a lot of people and may
Speaker 13: hopefully surprise David in November, because I think we're going
Speaker 13: to turn out and show out, and at least in Georgia,
Speaker 13: I know young men are very much aware of what
Speaker 13: is at stake and how women's rights have been taken away.
Speaker 2: I think that's possible, but there's a lot of data
Speaker 2: that shows otherwise.
Speaker 3: Just put this a D two please up on the screen.
Speaker 2: This is originally guys, what we were all going to
Speaker 2: talk about the last time that we wanted to see you.
Speaker 2: If you look at the gen Z gender gap here
Speaker 2: for younger men specifically eighteen to twenty nine, you have
Speaker 2: men both overall but also between eighteen to twenty nine
Speaker 2: who are supporting Trump and almost over a plus ten
Speaker 2: mar while you have women, younger women specifically, almost at
Speaker 2: a plus eighteen margin there for Democrats, specifically for Kamala Harris,
Speaker 2: the gender gap actually gets even bigger whenever you look
Speaker 2: at thirty to forty four.
Speaker 3: So, my fellow.
Speaker 2: Millennials, but Ivita, why do you think then it is
Speaker 2: that Democrats are winning so much with younger women, you know,
Speaker 2: Taylor Swift demographic, I guess, But that Donald Trump is
Speaker 2: doing so well with younger men.
Speaker 12: Well, let me just start by saying that I don't
Speaker 12: think Tim Walls is a masculine man. I don't think
Speaker 12: any young men are looking to him as a role model.
Speaker 12: This is the guy that put tampon's in the boy's
Speaker 12: bathroom and who's also charged with making a city safe
Speaker 12: for the state of Minnesota, and he let it burn
Speaker 12: to the ground during BLM riding. So that's something to
Speaker 12: take note of.
Speaker 6: But I want to get to like the real heart
Speaker 6: of this.
Speaker 12: I think that third wave feminism has really disrupted the
Speaker 12: natural order between men and women, and I think men
Speaker 12: feel really lost in modern society. This idea that the
Speaker 12: future is female. It's turned out to be female domination
Speaker 12: over the masculine. And we're experiencing this mass feminization of society,
Speaker 12: encouraging men to be more effeminate, telling them to cry more,
Speaker 12: don't be too masculine, don't be too assertive, don't sit
Speaker 12: a certain way, don't have male only spaces, and they're
Speaker 12: even being told that they're very nature right. Masculinity is toxic.
Speaker 12: And you have the system itself set up against them,
Speaker 12: with scholarships and college admissions being rigged against men, particularly
Speaker 12: white men, and you're seeing men just give up. You
Speaker 12: have male suicide, depression, anxiety. It's through the roof. Men
Speaker 12: make up eighty percent of suicides in America, and a
Speaker 12: lot of guys are just saying, you know, we need
Speaker 12: to return to normalcy, we need to return to order.
Speaker 6: And that's why I think the phrase make.
Speaker 12: America great again. Whether you think it's dumb or not,
Speaker 12: it has a real effect with men who feel like
Speaker 12: the culture does not respect them, and that their unique
Speaker 12: contributions to society as men are not respected either. To
Speaker 12: return to the past and the normalcy of times before.
Speaker 6: Go ahead, Parker, what do you think.
Speaker 13: I don't think make America great again and is dumb.
Speaker 13: I think it's dangerous. I think a lot of this
Speaker 13: idea of what Trump is pushing as masculinity is actually toxic.
Speaker 13: I've never had somebody tell me that, you know, me
Speaker 13: playing basketball or hang out my friends at a bar
Speaker 13: is too masculine. But you know, I truly think the
Speaker 13: ideals that Trump is pushing for what masculinity is is
Speaker 13: more about hating women. You look at him on all
Speaker 13: these right wing podcasts. They are misogynists. They're divisive, and honestly,
Speaker 13: I do think Tim Waltz is a masculine man. He's
Speaker 13: a state championship winning football coach, and you know, I
Speaker 13: look up to him and I see a lot of
Speaker 13: other good men in my life where you know what,
Speaker 13: it's not bad to be loving and caring and joyful,
Speaker 13: and I think to be masculine is yeah, to be
Speaker 13: strong and tough, but to also be a person. And
Speaker 13: the ideal of what Trump and the right and people
Speaker 13: like Aidan Ross are pushing for men to be is
Speaker 13: in fact toxic. And yes, our politics is so divided
Speaker 13: and it's really frustrating, and there is an epidemic young
Speaker 13: among young men. I see it, I see it, we
Speaker 13: all see it. I'm not going to pretend that the
Speaker 13: gender divide does not exist in politics. It is stronger,
Speaker 13: just about the strongest divie we have in America politics,
Speaker 13: and it is more stark among young men because of COVID,
Speaker 13: because people are disconnected and young men are going to
Speaker 13: college at way lesser rates. Anyone that watches this show
Speaker 13: knows that there is a crisis among young men. But
Speaker 13: I think then watching these far right podcasts only isolates
Speaker 13: them more. I was watching the PBS News Hour last
Speaker 13: night and they had a former long time bright Bart
Speaker 13: contributor on there, and she was talking about how much
Speaker 13: she regretted being a part of the far right ecosystem
Speaker 13: and how it just encouraged people to get more and
Speaker 13: more far to the right, to push more and more
Speaker 13: dangerous rhetoric, to get more attention, to boost each other's networks.
Speaker 13: And I think what Trump is doing is appealing to
Speaker 13: this problem among young men. This insecurity. He is using
Speaker 13: it and taking advantage of young men and trying to
Speaker 13: lean on their fears and their insecurities to say, hey,
Speaker 13: then we aren't heard, so we have to go back
Speaker 13: and make America great again. You know, some men see
Speaker 13: things as they are and ask why I want to
Speaker 13: go back. I want to dream of things as they
Speaker 13: could be. And I don't know how you can look
Speaker 13: at Tim Waltzon and think that's not what a good
Speaker 13: man looks like. I mean, you don't have to be,
Speaker 13: you know, the strongest guy in the world, the meanest,
Speaker 13: toughest guy. I think masculinity is being a good dad,
Speaker 13: a good neighbor, a good coach. I mean, I wouldn't
Speaker 13: trust Donald Trump or JD.
Speaker 2: Pans put yourself out of the Tim Walls discussion though,
Speaker 2: and you even have liberals who are talking about this.
Speaker 2: Let's put D three please up on the screen. Hassan
Speaker 2: actually put this out. I think he's absolutely correct. Every
Speaker 2: young male interest online, from game being, fitness to culture
Speaker 2: and self help is dominated by right wing red pilled
Speaker 2: manosphere commentary. He says they prey on the anxieties and
Speaker 2: insecurities of vulnerable young men. Take his last sentence out
Speaker 2: of there, and I think empirically he is correct, and
Speaker 2: I could say that from first hand experience. So Evita,
Speaker 2: I mean, do you think that that is a positive development.
Speaker 2: We've previously had people like Ali Betstucky here on the
Speaker 2: show to kind of speak out against Andrew Tate's you know,
Speaker 2: kind of influence amongst younger red pilled I guess men,
Speaker 2: So how do you see that dynamic specifically as a
Speaker 2: young woman on the right.
Speaker 12: Yeah, you know, Andrew Taite is a really interesting topic.
Speaker 12: I mean, I think as a conservative, as a Christian,
Speaker 12: the best role models for young men are their fathers,
Speaker 12: and I think also their father in heaven. I think
Speaker 12: you should. I think religion is something that's really lacking
Speaker 12: right now. But men have had to go to these
Speaker 12: surrogate fathers, right the Andrew Tates of the world, you know,
Speaker 12: even a Jordan Peterson. And you know, I don't They're imperfect,
Speaker 12: they can never be perfect. But I also think that
Speaker 12: it's a net positive on society to have men start
Speaker 12: to take back some agency instead of just playing video
Speaker 12: games and watching porn and becoming in cells. Like I
Speaker 12: think that there is a real spiritual and emotional uh,
Speaker 12: epidemic happening among young men, and to have them be assertive,
Speaker 12: embrace their masculinity, even if it's through an imperfect avenue
Speaker 12: like Andrew Tate, is a net positive on society. And
Speaker 12: I'll also say, you know, the figures that the left
Speaker 12: is elevating to young men are just objectively not not positive.
Speaker 12: I mean, we talked about Tim Wallashill also mentioned Doug
Speaker 12: m Hoff, right, they want him to be some sort
Speaker 12: of masculine figure in this election cycle. And this guy
Speaker 12: impregnated his kid's nanny, right, and he can't control his
Speaker 12: sexual appetites.
Speaker 6: That's very masculine.
Speaker 1: I have to cut you off there, because it's not
Speaker 1: like Donald Trump has had the most you know, by
Speaker 1: the book.
Speaker 6: Christian Family Life. No, no, no, I is he a
Speaker 6: good positive role model for young men?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 6: I agree with that.
Speaker 12: I mean that's why I said this. These these are
Speaker 12: imperfect avenues. But there was there's specifically been a push
Speaker 12: to have Doug m Hoff and Tim Willalls be the
Speaker 12: new new masculine figures that I'm speaking to.
Speaker 1: Obviously a big push to make Donald Trump the sort
Speaker 1: of epitome of the masculine ideal. But I also want
Speaker 1: to flip the script at you of Vita, because if
Speaker 1: we can put the numbers back on the screen D two,
Speaker 1: you know, it's the gender gap goes both ways, right.
Speaker 1: So you have young men who favor Trump by you know,
Speaker 1: in this polling somewhere around plus ten, young women favoring
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris by almost forty points. So what is your analysis,
Speaker 1: as a Republican woman of why so many young women
Speaker 1: are so turned off from the Republican Party and some
Speaker 1: of the rhetoric and ideology and positioning coming from there.
Speaker 12: Well, I can tell you I think that there are
Speaker 12: to the Democratic Party. I mean, I think that the
Speaker 12: abortion issue is in this abortion being the women's issue
Speaker 12: of our time has been really animating for a lot
Speaker 12: of young women. I personally don't agree with it, but
Speaker 12: I think the left has done a really effective job
Speaker 12: of making women feel like this is a right of
Speaker 12: theirs and that it is being taken away by Republicans.
Speaker 12: I think they've done a really effective job messaging that way.
Speaker 12: But what I will also say is that I know
Speaker 12: a lot. I mean, I went to college, I graduated
Speaker 12: not that long ago, and the left wing lifestyle has
Speaker 12: been really damaging on young women. I think a lot
Speaker 12: of women think that they want a Doug m Hoff
Speaker 12: to marry or be with, and the reality is that
Speaker 12: they don't. I think young women actually are attracted to
Speaker 12: masculine men. I think that this idea that they're going
Speaker 12: to be a boss babe, and you know, fill in this,
Speaker 12: this corpor climb, the corporate ladder. I think a lot
Speaker 12: of these things actually have left women deeply unhappy. The
Speaker 12: most unhappy demographic in America is single women. The most
Speaker 12: mentally ill graphic in America is liberal women. That means something,
Speaker 12: and so I think focusing on your love life. I
Speaker 12: think embracing tradition is the answer for a lot of
Speaker 12: young women who are also feeling disillusioned with life. It's
Speaker 12: not just young men, but unfortunately they continue to vote
Speaker 12: for people who are promoting an ideology that is making
Speaker 12: people deeply unhappy.
Speaker 14: Parker, last thoughts to you, Well, I will say they
Speaker 14: are not perfect figures, these false dads that you as.
Speaker 13: The way you described it, that the right has people
Speaker 13: like Andrew Tait and Donald Trump being a model for masculinity.
Speaker 13: I think, again, the gender divide in politics is a
Speaker 13: lot because the Right is exploiting young men, and I
Speaker 13: think young women are scared of people like Andrew Tate
Speaker 13: because he's a sexual predator. And when we are elevating
Speaker 13: people like that, people like Aiden Ross who say racist
Speaker 13: and misogynist things on stream, when Donald Trump is giving
Speaker 13: them a platform, appealing to them, pandering to those voters,
Speaker 13: it's disgusting. And he's taking advantage of the insecurities of
Speaker 13: young men. He's telling them that they aren't masculine enough.
Speaker 13: These right wing figures, these bloggers, they're manipulating people to,
Speaker 13: you know, say that there is this crazy, you know,
Speaker 13: masculinity issue, and when the truth is yall are obsessed
Speaker 13: with Doug m Hoff and Tim Walls being the ideal man.
Speaker 13: They're not who I look to for masculinity in my life.
Speaker 13: I'm not spending all day thinking about masculinity. I think
Speaker 13: I'm more thinking about how to do a good job
Speaker 13: and how to get things done. I just be a man.
Speaker 6: Oh no, no, oh, there we go. You cut off
Speaker 6: for a cashf But hey, both.
Speaker 1: Of you guys, I really appreciate Yeah, I really appreciate
Speaker 1: having both of you today and enjoyed the conversation a lot.
Speaker 1: So I hope we can do it again. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for time this morning.
Speaker 3: Thanks guys.
Speaker 2: We'll have links to Vita's show in the bio and
Speaker 2: to Parker's Parker, what do you prefer Instagram?
Speaker 3: Should we put that on Instagram?
Speaker 13: All right, let's do that talking you Hey, Sorry, y'all.
Speaker 13: I really appreciate you having me and Avida. Thank you.
Speaker 13: It was really nice to talk to you. I thought
Speaker 13: this was a good conversation.
Speaker 3: I enjoyed it.
Speaker 6: We enjured to talk to you.
Speaker 3: Thanks guys.
Speaker 10: Pleasure.
Speaker 2: At the same time, we want to turn now to
Speaker 2: a major anti trust case against Google, of which the
Speaker 2: details are super interesting.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: Major blockbuster anti trust case again after a judge has
Speaker 2: ruled that the company stifled competition in search, and another
Speaker 2: trial opens on ad tech practices, So it's actually here
Speaker 2: in Northern Virginia, the company is facing a federal lawsuit
Speaker 2: alleging it illegally monopolizes the ad tech workplace, second such
Speaker 2: case in less than a year. Opening arguments were made
Speaker 2: in the case on Monday, saying Google has quote unlawful
Speaker 2: grip on the market for software used to buy and
Speaker 2: sell digital ads. The trial is going to last approximately
Speaker 2: a month in northern Virginia, and it could face major
Speaker 2: implications for Google in terms of how it would get
Speaker 2: broken up and what the overall marketplace would look like.
Speaker 2: In addition to its even inability to buy bigger companies
Speaker 2: in the future. The search case must now quote decide
Speaker 2: how to remedy Google's antitrust violations, which could mean limiting
Speaker 2: its ability to pay web browsers and phone manufacturers to
Speaker 2: be their default search engine. This includes a multi billion
Speaker 2: dollar deal with Apple for the iPhone with Samsung, of course,
Speaker 2: which runs the Android ecosystem, and it says if the
Speaker 2: company loses in Virginia, back to backblows would crimp company
Speaker 2: revenue at a time when it is pouring money into
Speaker 2: artificial intelligence to compete with Microsoft. So that actually might
Speaker 2: be possibly the most significant thing. Something that's happening right
Speaker 2: now with a lot of these big tech companies is
Speaker 2: that they're using ad monopoly or ad search dollars to
Speaker 2: fund what has now been a crapshoot so far in aim.
Speaker 2: It sounds stupid, but the theory for all of them
Speaker 2: is if you dump billions into this, whoever wins is
Speaker 2: going to roll up all the potential gains of AI.
Speaker 2: So the upside of the bet is so asymmetric that
Speaker 2: it's worth burning as much capital as you can right now.
Speaker 2: And it sounds like they're more profitable than God, so
Speaker 2: it almost doesn't really matter. They're still posting record returns
Speaker 2: and doing sheer buybacks. Yeah, but the problem is that
Speaker 2: if you turn off the spigot for Google, it would
Speaker 2: essentially wipe them out of the AI race. I actually
Speaker 2: support that because one of the things I've been really
Speaker 2: concerned about is that the sheer cost of AI and
Speaker 2: of data centers just means that the big actors are
Speaker 2: the ones who are most likely to win. You have
Speaker 2: to spend tens of billions crunching all of this data
Speaker 2: on energy costs, you know, all of the chips and video.
Speaker 3: Obviously that's why it's profits are up so much.
Speaker 2: But that just means that the barrier to entry is
Speaker 2: so high that big tech almost certainly is going to win.
Speaker 2: Or what's happened with open AI is you just sign
Speaker 2: a major, multi billion dollar deal with Microsoft and you
Speaker 2: let them, you know, sab size all that stuff and
Speaker 2: you fuse the two companies together.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's really concerning.
Speaker 1: No that's that's absolutely the case, and I mean it
Speaker 1: looks like it's sort of it's already happening. You know,
Speaker 1: it is almost our no point done that it's going
Speaker 1: to be. You know, they the big players already, are
Speaker 1: the ones that are spending the money already, are the
Speaker 1: ones that are pushing the tech forward. Just to go
Speaker 1: back to some of the details here, because this is
Speaker 1: something of course Matt Stiller of It has big substack
Speaker 1: has been covering and it is extremely consequential. And it's
Speaker 1: important to understand. Google is facing anti trust issues on
Speaker 1: multiple fronts. So there was a civil case against them
Speaker 1: that under that had to do with their control of
Speaker 1: the Android App Store, was a fight with Epic Games.
Speaker 1: Then the second suit, the second case against them from
Speaker 1: the DJ that Saga reference was over its search monopoly.
Speaker 1: This is a third issue for Google regarding their ad
Speaker 1: sales and so effectively. And I'll just read a little
Speaker 1: bit of how Stoler describes what they did and why
Speaker 1: you know there's a legitimate case against them. He says
Speaker 1: they locked in both sides of a network engaged in surveillance,
Speaker 1: thwarted rivals through course of practices and unlawful acquisitions and
Speaker 1: then manipulated pricing across a host of markets. And that's
Speaker 1: the essence of the case. You know, they got into
Speaker 1: this ad space early. This is the original Google founders
Speaker 1: were actually very leery of pairing advertising research because of
Speaker 1: the way that obviously is going to impact your results. Right,
Speaker 1: if you've got companies that are buying ads, you're going
Speaker 1: to be incentivized to put results for those companies at
Speaker 1: the top of the page. Then the next layer is, Okay,
Speaker 1: now we're going to place these ads actually on your website,
Speaker 1: which makes it even more of a conflict of interest.
Speaker 6: Then the next phase is.
Speaker 1: Oh, we're going to use all this data we're able
Speaker 1: to collect from those companies' websites and around the web
Speaker 1: to make it so it's basically impossible to compete with
Speaker 1: our ad product because we have so much data on
Speaker 1: these consumers and what it is that they want. Now,
Speaker 1: the counter case is the Google lawyers will argue, Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: we've you know, we sell a lot of ads. Sure,
Speaker 1: but there are other places you can buy ads. It
Speaker 1: is a competitive market. You can buy ads on Instagram,
Speaker 1: you can buy ads on TikTok, there are any number
Speaker 1: of other alternative avenues you have to place and secure
Speaker 1: AD space. So that's going to be the argument Stoler,
Speaker 1: and I just you know, I defer to him because
Speaker 1: he looks at these issues so much more closely. He
Speaker 1: seems to think that the government does have a pretty
Speaker 1: strong case against them, even though Google does have some
Speaker 1: reasonable counter arguments. And what makes this so consequential is, Okay,
Speaker 1: Google has already lost in the search case. Now if
Speaker 1: they lose in the AD case, what is what is
Speaker 1: the remedy going to be? What does that look like?
Speaker 1: Are we actually talking about breaking Google up to constituent parts?
Speaker 1: And that is at this point very plausible, very plausible
Speaker 1: that that could be the end point here where you know,
Speaker 1: Google will still be fine whatever, you know, core parts
Speaker 1: of the business they remain, They retain, the different pieces
Speaker 1: of the business are you know, profitable on their own.
Speaker 1: But it does really put a crump in their style,
Speaker 1: as you're pointing out Zager, in terms of having the
Speaker 1: mass amount of cash available to them in order to
Speaker 1: you know, continue investing in AI in the massive quantities
Speaker 1: that they have there.
Speaker 2: There's also a Kamala angle. Let's put this up there
Speaker 2: on the screen. This is very interesting, important and you know,
Speaker 2: potentially very consequential is that Karen Dunn, who is one
Speaker 2: of the people who was preparing Kamala Harris for her debate,
Speaker 2: is also defending Google from a lawsuit being brought by
Speaker 2: the Biden Harris administration. This is from the American Prospect,
Speaker 2: but multiple other outlets have also picked it up. She
Speaker 2: literally was prepping legal defense strategy in Alexandria, Virginia courtroom
Speaker 2: for Google while also working at a law firm and
Speaker 2: being in the room for Kamala Harris debate preparation. There's
Speaker 2: probably no better visual into Washington politics as lady quote.
Speaker 2: If that seems to you like blatant conflict of interest,
Speaker 2: the Harris team would like to recommend you focus your
Speaker 2: attention elsewhere.
Speaker 3: Nothing to see because even the.
Speaker 2: Trump campaign is now picked up on it and criticizing
Speaker 2: her for coziness with the big tech top lawyers especially
Speaker 2: is noteworthy to me because not only is this lawyer
Speaker 2: very close with institutional democratic circles. Yeah, Kamala already has
Speaker 2: the problem of Tony West, who is her brother in law.
Speaker 2: She can't control who her family is. But you know,
Speaker 2: I don't know if this is common. Do you always
Speaker 2: have your brother in law is a very close political
Speaker 2: advisor to you, especially when he's a top lawyer for
Speaker 2: Uber and is a longtime connect to Silicon Valley, and
Speaker 2: you were the senator from California and you have all
Speaker 2: these connections. So I do think that there is very
Speaker 2: legitimate concern for Matt Soul from the American Prospect and
Speaker 2: others that a lot of action on anti trust from
Speaker 2: the Biden administration could be ditched by Kamala just given
Speaker 2: who her circles are and who she's currently brought in
Speaker 2: around her for closest closest advisors.
Speaker 1: If we had a better politics. These are the sort
Speaker 1: of questions that obviously to be asked. And I mean that, yeah,
Speaker 1: this is such a key question about that I have
Speaker 1: and that people who care about you know, corporate power
Speaker 1: should have about what a Kamala Harris administration would look
Speaker 1: like and what a Trump administration.
Speaker 6: Would look like.
Speaker 1: But you know they're they're listen. On the one hand,
Speaker 1: I'm sympathetic to the moderation because you only get ninety
Speaker 1: minutes and there are these big too. You know, you're
Speaker 1: going to ask about abortion, You're going to ask about
Speaker 1: the economy, You're going to ask about immigration.
Speaker 6: But this is, you know, part of why we need
Speaker 6: more from these candidates.
Speaker 1: We need more time from these candidates so we can
Speaker 1: really understand what their plans are. Kamala Harris is kind
Speaker 1: of an empty vessel, right, so it makes all these
Speaker 1: people she surrounds herself with more consequential. That's why I was,
Speaker 1: you know, really excited about the pick of Tim Wowles
Speaker 1: because of what that indicat with regards to his agenda
Speaker 1: in the state of Minnesota. That's why it's very pleased
Speaker 1: to see Brian Deese, who has been one of the
Speaker 1: better economic advisors to Biden and has been you know,
Speaker 1: really crucial pushing forward some of the best parts of
Speaker 1: his agenda, and I think was probably involved in some
Speaker 1: of the better parts of Kamala's announced agenda, the price gouging,
Speaker 1: the housing piece, all of the child six thousand dollars
Speaker 1: child tax credit, all of those pieces and why. On
Speaker 1: the other hand, it's troubling to see the closeness of
Speaker 1: someone like Karen Dunn, who is a long time Democratic
Speaker 1: Party She helped I think Hillary prepare for her to
Speaker 1: dates which I don't know why you wrote whatever it
Speaker 1: worked out in this case, Kambloy obviously came in and
Speaker 1: did a good job. She helped prepare Merrek Garland for
Speaker 1: his confirmation hearings. She is this longtime Democratic Party associated operative,
Speaker 1: and you know the closeness with Kamala not just in
Speaker 1: terms of the debate prep but as a larger advisor. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's that's troubling. And there's been this billionaire led push
Speaker 1: to get rid of Lena Kahan and get undercut the
Speaker 1: fantastic trust busting work that the Biden administration has been doing.
Speaker 1: And it still is a question mark where what the
Speaker 1: direction is. So that's why you know, this may seem
Speaker 1: like inside baseball. It is inside baseball. But that's why
Speaker 1: we have to pay attention to these things, because we
Speaker 1: aren't getting direct answers about what Kamma's priorities would be,
Speaker 1: specifically with regard to corporate power. So this is one
Speaker 1: of those things that has to be seen as troubling.
Speaker 1: It's also wildlif just inside DC story here if you
Speaker 1: read this whole American Prospect story, because this particular law
Speaker 1: firm is where Jonathan Canter, yes, who now heads the
Speaker 1: doj Anti Trust Division and is you know, leading these
Speaker 1: cases against Google and other you know, giants and various sectors.
Speaker 1: He used to work there, and Karen Dunn comes in
Speaker 1: and she's going to represent Google, and he actually was
Speaker 1: represent some of the some of the people who were
Speaker 1: opposing Google in this suit, and so they were going
Speaker 1: to make him give up his clients and then he
Speaker 1: ends up going to the DOJ. So now this law firms,
Speaker 1: So there's like a law firm conflict of interest there too,
Speaker 1: because if you can imagine, they're handling the other side
Speaker 1: of this case, so they're privy to all of the
Speaker 1: strategy and the you know, research and all of the
Speaker 1: planning that's going on on the other side of the case,
Speaker 1: and then you know, now they're representing Google. So the
Speaker 1: government was arguing like this is really they have this
Speaker 1: massive conflict of interest. It's a really it's really a
Speaker 1: huge problem. The judge took those arguments pretty seriously as well.
Speaker 1: So anyway, little insight into the swamp here and how
Speaker 1: all of this works.
Speaker 2: That's right, all right, Thank you guys so much for watching.
Speaker 2: We really appreciate you. We will have any breaking news,
Speaker 2: we'll cover it otherwise. We'll see you all on Monday.