Speaker 1: Welcome back to a Numbers game with Ryan Gurdusky. Happy Monday,
Speaker 1: Rise and grind everybody. I hope you're enjoying the beginning
Speaker 1: of the summer. It has been a while weekend since
Speaker 1: Thursday's episode. Trump and Elon had their big Beautiful breakup,
Speaker 1: where Trump threatened to cut off all federal contracts to
Speaker 1: Elon's companies, and Elon accused Trump of being in the
Speaker 1: Epstein files, a charge that was dismissed by Epstein's former lawyer,
Speaker 1: who said he asked him about it, and Epstein said no,
Speaker 1: I kind of doubt that he would be in the
Speaker 1: Epstein file, and Biden wouldn't have released it. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to go this whole episode until the end of
Speaker 1: the bromance, but I'll say this, I told my audience
Speaker 1: for a long time to be skeptical on Elon Musk.
Speaker 1: From all my sources who know him, he never went
Speaker 1: into this position with the goal of shrinking the size
Speaker 1: of government. That was the pr of DOGE. There's always
Speaker 1: been a financial incentive around him being there and federal
Speaker 1: data incorporating his AI into the federal government. There were
Speaker 1: reports from the Reuters and The New York Times about
Speaker 1: how he was trying to do it for the Department
Speaker 1: of plan and Security and for the Treasury. Everything else
Speaker 1: was kind of just a frontal face. And why he's
Speaker 1: mad about the big beautiful bill isn't just the amount
Speaker 1: of spending, even though he's correct about what he's saying
Speaker 1: when it comes to spending, not about Epstein. I want
Speaker 1: to make that clear. I will tell my audience one
Speaker 1: other thing to look out for. There will be intense
Speaker 1: media scrutiny over Steven Miller, his wife Katie Miller, and
Speaker 1: their relationship to Elon. I've spoken to a lot of
Speaker 1: reporters in the last week. The rumors in DC about
Speaker 1: their close relationship between Katie, Elon and Stephen is everywhere.
Speaker 1: It's what everyone is talking about and trying to find
Speaker 1: the truth of the fact that she works for Elon's company,
Speaker 1: the fact that Elon and Stephen have unfollow each other
Speaker 1: on social media. I'm telling you among reporters that I
Speaker 1: have a decent relationship with This is half of what
Speaker 1: they're talking about, aside from Trump and Elon himself. Also,
Speaker 1: one of my predictions from the last episode came true.
Speaker 1: I said that the Senate would change our language over
Speaker 1: the ten year AI moutatorium. Instead of it being a
Speaker 1: strict fan which would have been hurt in the Bird rule,
Speaker 1: it's now going to be a financial incentive where states
Speaker 1: will receive extra federal funds if they don't regulate AI,
Speaker 1: and this will helpfully get that's what the Republicans are
Speaker 1: hoping we'll get past the Bird rule. I personally think
Speaker 1: that this is very stupid and won't do much because
Speaker 1: the amount of money they're talking about allegedly offering is
Speaker 1: fairly negligible as far as state budgets go. Okay, for
Speaker 1: today's episode, which will be another solo episode, just me.
Speaker 1: I hate to disappoint you, guys if you're looking forward
Speaker 1: to guests. I will have guests coming on later in
Speaker 1: the weekend next week, but I line them up, but
Speaker 1: right now it's just me. I want to do a
Speaker 1: two parter one the first on wocism in America and
Speaker 1: the second on Europe. I asked you guys the last episode,
Speaker 1: if you want me to talk more about Europe, and
Speaker 1: I immediately received emails saying yes, I do. So I'm
Speaker 1: going to You're going to indulge me, and I'm going
Speaker 1: to indulge you. First on America. When the General Social
Speaker 1: Survey came out last week or the week prior, I
Speaker 1: did a full episode on it, but I wasn't able
Speaker 1: to break down the specific demographics on the changing opinions
Speaker 1: of wokeism at the time. Before I go any further,
Speaker 1: let me describe what I'm talking about when I say
Speaker 1: woke and being woke in the modern sense, Like I'm
Speaker 1: talking about how liberals make race the central organizing principle
Speaker 1: of everything. Black people receive lower standardized tests than Asians.
Speaker 1: That's racism, more police encounters, that's racism. Indians have weaker
Speaker 1: handstring than Africans, that's racism. Everything is racism, identity, but
Speaker 1: specifically race is at the center of their ideology and
Speaker 1: their governing principle. Now I know that wocism is considered
Speaker 1: almost a joke now, something that the left doesn't claim
Speaker 1: ownership of and the right uses to mock them, but
Speaker 1: the grasp it had on progressives in America just five
Speaker 1: year years ago is virtually unmatched. Think about this for
Speaker 1: a second. I know that pre COVID is almost a
Speaker 1: brain fog, and COVID was a brain fog. But in
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, Ebram x Kenny, one of the premier anti
Speaker 1: racists in America, wanted a federal department on anti racism
Speaker 1: and a constitutional amendment that acknowledged anti racism. He said,
Speaker 1: and I quote, racial inequality is evidence of a racist policy,
Speaker 1: and the different racial groups are equals. The amendment would
Speaker 1: make unconst race inequality over a certain threshold, as well
Speaker 1: as racist ideas by public officials. With racist ideas and
Speaker 1: public officials clearly defined. It would establish a permanently funded
Speaker 1: Department of Anti Racism compromise of formal trained experts on
Speaker 1: racism and no political appointees the DOA. The Department of
Speaker 1: Anti Racism would be responsible for pre clearing all l local, state,
Speaker 1: and federal public policies to ensure they won't yield racial inequity,
Speaker 1: monitoring those policies, investigating private racist policies when racial inequality surface,
Speaker 1: and monitoring public officials for expressions of racist ideas. Now
Speaker 1: I know that this is a batshit crazy idea. A
Speaker 1: federal's apartment that guarantees equal outcomes on the basis of
Speaker 1: race in all levels of government is crazy. But what's
Speaker 1: even crazier is the fact that Senator Elizabeth Warren and
Speaker 1: a congresswoman wrote a bill to create a National Center
Speaker 1: for Anti Racism with the CDC because they declare racism
Speaker 1: was a national health crisis and even wilder, it received
Speaker 1: fifty seven Democrat co sponsors, fifty two in the House
Speaker 1: and five in the Senate. That's nuts. Democrats were writing
Speaker 1: anti racism and wokeism until the tires fell off the
Speaker 1: car well. According to a new data from the General
Speaker 1: Social Survey that's coming to an end. The data found
Speaker 1: that support for affirm of action even among white Democrats
Speaker 1: is down. Among white Democrats, those who strongly favor affirmative
Speaker 1: action fell by twenty points from plus thirty five to
Speaker 1: plus fifteen. Democrats have fallen closer to the center when
Speaker 1: it comes to the idea of a firm of action,
Speaker 1: although their Republicans are way closer independence than Democrats are. Still,
Speaker 1: on the question of do you want more immigration or
Speaker 1: less our cred support for more immigration fell from majority
Speaker 1: to less than ten percent, a complete and total freefall
Speaker 1: on a core tenant of vocism. Because if you feel
Speaker 1: whiteness is inherently evil, then you support policies to make
Speaker 1: our country less white for the sake of making our
Speaker 1: country less white. Among white voters under thirty, the numbers
Speaker 1: are even more startling. Those who said that we should
Speaker 1: let in more immigrants fell in half from twenty twenty
Speaker 1: one to twenty twenty four. Those who said differences in
Speaker 1: outcome are due to discriminate fell from nearly seventy percent
Speaker 1: to forty percent. Those who said we spend too little
Speaker 1: on blacks fell from over sixty percent to thirty eight percent,
Speaker 1: and those who said the government is obligated to give
Speaker 1: special treatment to blacks fell from nearly thirty percent to
Speaker 1: ten percent. The most dramatic decline came specifically from white
Speaker 1: men under the age of forty, and it fell by
Speaker 1: nearly twenty points from sixty to forty one on the
Speaker 1: idea of affirmative action. Women under forty also declined, but
Speaker 1: it was very small. Was much smaller than men. Non white,
Speaker 1: non black Americans, that's what they labeled as others, but
Speaker 1: I'm assuming they mean Hispanic Asians and Native Americans fell
Speaker 1: from sixty two percent to forty five percent. This is
Speaker 1: a startling decline among the most progressive generation in history
Speaker 1: and probably aligns with why and an increasing number of them,
Speaker 1: especially white men, between eighteen to twenty one through their
Speaker 1: support behind President Trump. Now it's not all positive news.
Speaker 1: There is a spike among Americans, specifically young female Americans
Speaker 1: who say they're not proud to be an American. For
Speaker 1: the very first time, a majority of young women fell
Speaker 1: into that category. The most privileged and affluent group in
Speaker 1: history are the ones who don't find pride in this country.
Speaker 1: You cannot make it up. Those are the dramatic changes though,
Speaker 1: among wokeism, and it will absolutely continue to affect our
Speaker 1: policies as politicians like AOC, like Ilan Omar, like Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: like the Progressive Caucus sit there and double down on
Speaker 1: race based identity politics. It's all they really have. They
Speaker 1: can't give it up because those who still believe in
Speaker 1: it really believe in it, and they make up their
Speaker 1: donor class and a big percentage of their voter class,
Speaker 1: and they live in heavily cosmopolitan enclaves like in a
Speaker 1: Story of Queens, where AOC and a lot of the
Speaker 1: progressive left really thrive. So I don't think you'll see
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party really run away from it, but voters,
Speaker 1: even those who are still Democrats, have it's just going
Speaker 1: to be the loudest voices left in the room still
Speaker 1: believing in it. Next up, I want to talk about
Speaker 1: England coming up right up to these messages. We're back
Speaker 1: and a bombshell report came out just a few days
Speaker 1: ago that didn't make much news in the United States,
Speaker 1: but it was front and center in the UK. According
Speaker 1: to a report by professor Matt Gobin of Buckingham University,
Speaker 1: he was on this podcast just two weeks ago, the
Speaker 1: white native majority of Great Britain will be a minority
Speaker 1: by twenty sixty three. Now. I know, if you're a
Speaker 1: geriatric millennial like myself, you think that's sixty three years
Speaker 1: from now, because we're kind of always under the premise
Speaker 1: in the contract that nineteen ninety was ten years ago,
Speaker 1: but it's not. The date that British Natives will be
Speaker 1: a minority in their own homeland is thirty nine years away.
Speaker 1: For Brits born this year, they will be a minority
Speaker 1: in their own country among their age group in just
Speaker 1: twenty five years. Further projections are that by twenty one
Speaker 1: h one hundred, just one in three people living in
Speaker 1: the UK will be white British, and the form born
Speaker 1: population will be an outright majority by twenty seventy nine
Speaker 1: in England, to eighty one in Wales, twenty ninety three
Speaker 1: in Scotland, and then much much later Northern Ireland, possibly
Speaker 1: not for another one hundred years, but the Muslim population
Speaker 1: will swalter from seven percent today to twenty five percent
Speaker 1: by the end of the century. Now I know that
Speaker 1: any implications that this is a bad thing, or any
Speaker 1: kind of notion that this is not wonderful as deemed racism,
Speaker 1: we can talk about it. Blah blah blah. I've already
Speaker 1: been canceled for making a beeper joke, so I don't care.
Speaker 1: This kind of demographic change in such a rapid pace
Speaker 1: creates a fundamental problem both domestically for the British and
Speaker 1: internationally as a member of NATO and close ally of
Speaker 1: the United States. Let's start with the second part first.
Speaker 1: In twenty fifteen, a story broke that more British Muslims
Speaker 1: have left the country to join Isis in their fight
Speaker 1: for the caliphate, then joined Her Majesty's army, the British Army.
Speaker 1: Muslims in the UK made a choice when it came
Speaker 1: to do they side more with Western civilization or the
Speaker 1: most heenous acts of barbarism committed in modern times, and
Speaker 1: Western civilization did not win out. The British military has
Speaker 1: been plagued by recruiting issues and it's gotten so bad
Speaker 1: that they're asking foreign nationals in Kenya, India, Canada, Canada
Speaker 1: which is more looking more and more like India every day,
Speaker 1: and Fiji to join the army to make up for
Speaker 1: Brits not wanting to fight for His Majesty. Now they
Speaker 1: cannot commence their own young people to serve in their
Speaker 1: armed forces, so they're asking those around the globe who
Speaker 1: are in the Commonwealth, that live in the UK, even
Speaker 1: though they're not citizens, they have no connection to that country,
Speaker 1: they have no connection to the heritage or to the Crown,
Speaker 1: to do the fighting for them as their country diversifies
Speaker 1: and imports more cultures hostile Western civilization, hostibly the United
Speaker 1: States and some of our allies like Israel, and I'm
Speaker 1: more in line with some of our enemies. What does
Speaker 1: that say about our alliance? How much harder will it
Speaker 1: be to secure our own border when the UK can
Speaker 1: easily produce one thousand, maybe two thousand homegrown terrorists in
Speaker 1: their Muslim ghettos, neocons and Libtards have this notion that
Speaker 1: every time there's a global conflict that the United States
Speaker 1: can get this band of European allies from World War
Speaker 1: Two back together and bring peace in the world. You
Speaker 1: hear about it on like the Caroswisher podcast with that
Speaker 1: guy or the university professor for NYU. They always talk
Speaker 1: about this notion that we'll just get the Western Allies
Speaker 1: back together and we'll be able to fight Russia and
Speaker 1: China and whatever problems there are in the Middle East.
Speaker 1: What happens when those Allies soldiers have no ties to
Speaker 1: that thinking They believe Winston Churchill was a villain, not
Speaker 1: a hero, as many Indian Brits do. This delusion on
Speaker 1: the part of neo conservatives that mass immigration, especially for
Speaker 1: Muslim majority countries, will not alter European country's willingness to
Speaker 1: engage in military action when their populations have no connection
Speaker 1: or historical ties, is delusional. Let's get back more to
Speaker 1: the domestic part of the problem. What does it mean
Speaker 1: to be English? Can you have in England where the
Speaker 1: ancestral people have had their ability to decide their fate
Speaker 1: and the fate of their countrymen taken from them? When
Speaker 1: you have no unifying culture, history, religion, heroes, language. In
Speaker 1: many cases, does sharing a border make countrymen? I don't believe. So.
Speaker 1: What is the fate of the British monarchy? Possibly the
Speaker 1: most identical part of being the British nation today is
Speaker 1: they have a king and queen. Will that survive as
Speaker 1: the subjects no longer look to them as you know,
Speaker 1: the divine leaders of their nation as the most positively
Speaker 1: viewed figures, even though they're not political political figures in
Speaker 1: their country. This is what has caused the UK to
Speaker 1: go from a high trt society to a low trust
Speaker 1: society in the course of two decades. In twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: the Migration Observatory at the Oxford University reviewed evidence on
Speaker 1: immigration and social cohesion in the UK. They found a
Speaker 1: modest negative correlation between diversity and trust at the neighborhood level.
Speaker 1: And that was when Muslim population in the country was
Speaker 1: about five percent and the non white population was under
Speaker 1: twenty five percent. Now take it and expand it, Now
Speaker 1: take it and double it. It's not that the UK
Speaker 1: couldn't have any immigration, but their leaders have decided to
Speaker 1: go from a ninety one percent white British nation to
Speaker 1: a thirty three percent white British nation in ninety nine years.
Speaker 1: This is the singular reason that the rise of national
Speaker 1: populism in the UK has happened. This is why the
Speaker 1: most stable Western democracy for the past millennia is seeing
Speaker 1: a populist backlash and the rise of Nigel Faraj as
Speaker 1: a reform UK Party. The British public have essentially two
Speaker 1: elections to not just slow down overturn the effects of
Speaker 1: mass migration and by the means of mass deportation by
Speaker 1: remitigation the way the Sweden and Denmark are trying to
Speaker 1: do it. Now. That's not a lot of time, and
Speaker 1: the type of demographic shift is especially volatile in a
Speaker 1: nation that is steeped with white guilt and anti colonialism
Speaker 1: and CRT and equity communism, as the UK is, And
Speaker 1: there is no telling if in institutions, if these institutions
Speaker 1: that hold that country together will continue to hold it
Speaker 1: as they come apart in their identity, in their shared bonds.
Speaker 1: It's not great, by the way, to be a former
Speaker 1: member of a majority that is still the economic dominant
Speaker 1: minority in a nation that changes so quickly in their demographics.
Speaker 1: Look no further to the whites of the Congo and
Speaker 1: Zimbabwe and South Africa, or the ethnic Chinese in Vietnam
Speaker 1: or Malaysia or Indonesia, or the Indians in Ethiopia and Uganda.
Speaker 1: None of them had a happy ending. It's just a
Speaker 1: warning and it's just a sign of the change to
Speaker 1: come politics and culture in our nations. We are not
Speaker 1: living in ponds. We're living in ever changing rivers that
Speaker 1: are moving constantly that you cannot go back to. And
Speaker 1: the decision to have mass migration on such a level
Speaker 1: means that you will never have the culture and the
Speaker 1: country that we know as England will not be the
Speaker 1: one In just a few decades. Our children, our grandchildren
Speaker 1: will look at videos of Princess Diana's funeral and not
Speaker 1: recognize the country mourning for their princess. Will not understand
Speaker 1: why the King and Queen meant something, will not understand
Speaker 1: the unity and the bond, or why even the commemoration
Speaker 1: of things like d Day cannot understand the commemoration and
Speaker 1: the unity that our allied nations fought together in World
Speaker 1: War Two. All of that will be lost because of
Speaker 1: mass demographic transformation, a decision by the way that was
Speaker 1: made by the elites made by the politicians, made by
Speaker 1: the donor class. It was not made by the people,
Speaker 1: and every time the people have asked for it to
Speaker 1: be reversed, the politicians have said no. It's a stark warning,
Speaker 1: but one that needs to be said. Now before we
Speaker 1: end this podcast, I want to go to questions from
Speaker 1: my audience and they ask Me Anything segment. I have
Speaker 1: a bunch of questions. I'll be doing more than one
Speaker 1: for the very first time. Stick around. We'll be right
Speaker 1: back with that. We're back with the ask Me Anything
Speaker 1: segment of this podcast. If you want a part of
Speaker 1: the Ask Me Anything segment, please email me ryanat Numbers
Speaker 1: Game Podcast dot com. That's Ryan at Numbers Plural Numbers
Speaker 1: Game podcast dot com. I read all your emails. I
Speaker 1: love getting them. I try to respond to as many
Speaker 1: as I possibly can, so keep them coming. If you've
Speaker 1: an idea for the podcast or question you want me
Speaker 1: to answer answer on air. The other day I tweeted
Speaker 1: if people had questions, so I'm actually going to answer
Speaker 1: questions from Twitter. So the first question comes from a
Speaker 1: guy named Tron and he said if Henry Kular, he
Speaker 1: is a congressman from South Texas, is found guilty of
Speaker 1: in his trial in September and resigns in Texas twenty eight.
Speaker 1: Who would be the best candidate for either party in
Speaker 1: a special election and also who will be favored to
Speaker 1: win R or D. This is a great question. Henry
Speaker 1: Kular is a Democrat from South Texas in a district
Speaker 1: that is rapidly becoming more Republican. It is a lot
Speaker 1: of Tahnos who have left the party. It's part of
Speaker 1: that South Texas migration. I don't know who the best
Speaker 1: Republican would because I don't know the district especially well,
Speaker 1: but it is one of the It is probably the
Speaker 1: fastest moving Republican district in the country. My bet is
Speaker 1: Henry Kuler will be the last Democrat to hold the election. Okay,
Speaker 1: next question is come from Jim Will. One of the
Speaker 1: impacts of the federal and federal and state level efforts
Speaker 1: to reduce spending just be an increased on taxation at
Speaker 1: the local city, county level to make up the difference.
Speaker 1: I'm quite literally living in the moment and attempting to
Speaker 1: stop a proposal to increase in an R plus thirty district. No,
Speaker 1: I don't think so, because most federal taxes are not
Speaker 1: paid for by local taxes, right, So any when a
Speaker 1: state or municipality increase let's even say sales tax or
Speaker 1: property tax, it usually goes to local schools, firefighters, cops.
Speaker 1: It doesn't usually go to the federal government. So I
Speaker 1: don't believe that that's how they will pay for it.
Speaker 1: But what I will say is when you're going to
Speaker 1: look for tax increases as a possibility to kind of
Speaker 1: get themselves out of it, one the idea of a
Speaker 1: millionaire's tax, I think is actually really on the table
Speaker 1: even for a number of Republicans. I think that that's
Speaker 1: not out of the question for people who make more
Speaker 1: than five million dollars a year, because the donor base
Speaker 1: of Democrats who make five million dollars a year far
Speaker 1: is outside the number of Republicans. You know, Wall Street people,
Speaker 1: They're mostly Democrats, Hollywood actors, tech entrepreneurs, these are all
Speaker 1: Democrats voter base. And I think that as the Republican
Speaker 1: Party is more populous and is further away from like
Speaker 1: the Reaganomics view of the economy, that is absolutely going
Speaker 1: to be on the table. But I don't see it
Speaker 1: for local or municipality elections. So anyway, that's uh, that's
Speaker 1: that's what I think that Okay, PA Loyalist writes, what
Speaker 1: happens ad Vance loses in twenty twenty eight and MAGA
Speaker 1: is not showing over the polls. So this is a
Speaker 1: wonderful question. Will MAGA show up in a post Trump election?
Speaker 1: I kind of think so, only because yes, they do
Speaker 1: love Trump. But if Trump annoints the successor who is
Speaker 1: energetic and populus on the issue, they will know There'll
Speaker 1: be no man like Donald Trump ever again. We will
Speaker 1: not see the likes of him again. He is uniquely funny,
Speaker 1: he's uniquely energetic, he speaks in a brash way. There
Speaker 1: will never be anyone like Donald Trump again. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to make the comparison they will be, But I
Speaker 1: do think that the base of the party is changing
Speaker 1: enough that they will show up for the successor. But
Speaker 1: what happens if they if they lose, I don't know.
Speaker 1: But given that working class vow of all ethnicities are
Speaker 1: becoming more and more Republican and they do show up
Speaker 1: in presidential elections, I'm not sure that that's a question
Speaker 1: I'm gonna have to worry about. Last question. I believe
Speaker 1: and so many members of Congress have tied their future
Speaker 1: to President Trump. Mine Rep. Fine, He's a new congressman
Speaker 1: from Florida literally based his entire campaign on Trump's endorsement.
Speaker 1: What is the potential impact of those politicians if there's
Speaker 1: a true split between Elon and Trump supporters. I don't
Speaker 1: think that this is real because I don't think there's
Speaker 1: any genuine Elon supporters. I think there are people interested
Speaker 1: in him as a man and as a businessman, but
Speaker 1: not as a politician. They may agree with his question
Speaker 1: over spending, and they may say he has a point,
Speaker 1: and he probably does have a point, but I think
Speaker 1: that the I think it's a party of Trump. I
Speaker 1: think the bigger question is what happens to those people
Speaker 1: and what happens to the Trump economy, the people who
Speaker 1: sell access to Trump, the people who sell commemative memorabilia
Speaker 1: on Trump, the people who sell the notion that they
Speaker 1: speak trump Ism When there's no Trump. What happens the
Speaker 1: entire grifter economy that lives outside mar A Lago twenty
Speaker 1: four hours a day post Trump. There are a million
Speaker 1: of those people, That's really the question, and I think
Speaker 1: a lot of them don't survive. And the ones who
Speaker 1: don't find themselves in good standing with whoever the successor is,
Speaker 1: will become desperate and will probably back a primary challenger
Speaker 1: that will give them in grant them access. I can
Speaker 1: tell you, guys, I heard his story last year that
Speaker 1: a number of these well known maga I love Trump
Speaker 1: people who really serve no purpose aside from saying that
Speaker 1: they love Trump on social media and trying to grift
Speaker 1: off of it. That they were hoping Carrie Lake would
Speaker 1: win her Senate race in twenty twenty four so they
Speaker 1: could run her for president in twenty twenty eight because
Speaker 1: they know that she would be granting them the access
Speaker 1: that they have from Trump. Didn't really work out out,
Speaker 1: and I don't think she's going to run, but it
Speaker 1: goes to show that they are willing to do anything
Speaker 1: to be part of the conversation and get access. That's
Speaker 1: how hungry this grifter community is. It shouldn't be lost
Speaker 1: in anybody anyway. Those are my questions. I had one more, Actually,
Speaker 1: do we win New Jersey in the fall in the
Speaker 1: governor's race. I don't know. There's not a lot of
Speaker 1: general election polling out there. I think Republicans are still behind,
Speaker 1: but I think it's much more open and the possibility
Speaker 1: of it happening is very very real. So I will
Speaker 1: have to wait to see more polling and more data
Speaker 1: to sit there and show that. But Republican registration, Republican
Speaker 1: voter turnout is very high. If independents break heavily enough
Speaker 1: with Republicans like they did last time, given that there's
Speaker 1: all these new Republicans, I think Republicans can win. But
Speaker 1: it's a lot of ifs in that sentence for it
Speaker 1: to happen. Anyway, thank you again for listening to this
Speaker 1: Monday's episode. We'll be back on Thursday. Please like and
Speaker 1: subscribe to this podcast on the iHeartRadio app Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: where every of your podcast it's so important to like
Speaker 1: and subscribe brings listeners on each and every single week,
Speaker 1: and if you're feeling generous, a five star review goes
Speaker 1: a very very long way. I try to bring you,
Speaker 1: guys the most interesting information and data every week and
Speaker 1: tell you why it's important for our narratives, both nationally
Speaker 1: and internationally. So I hope that you appreciate my work,
Speaker 1: and I hope you will be willing to like and subscribe,
Speaker 1: and we'll be back again on Thursday. Have a great week, guys.