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.
Speaker 1: So, there are some very interesting things happening over on
Speaker 1: Liberal TikTok that we wanted to update you guys on.
Speaker 1: First of all, I'm not really on TikTok, so I
Speaker 1: was not aware of any.
Speaker 4: Of these phenomena.
Speaker 1: But apparently they are a bunch of astrologers on TikTok
Speaker 1: who are very popular, who are very confidently predicting that
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris, because of where her sign was in alignment
Speaker 1: with whatever who was going to win the presidential election.
Speaker 1: And they're having to grapple with that, and people who
Speaker 1: believe them are also having to grapple with that. And
Speaker 1: apparently a number of these TikTok astrologers are asserting that
Speaker 1: actually they were right and the election is not really,
Speaker 1: it cannot possibly really be over because it's simply unimaginable
Speaker 1: that they read the stars incorrectly.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to a little bit of that.
Speaker 3: I'm sad about the election too. What I'm especially said
Speaker 3: about is the fact that I can no longer trust
Speaker 3: a single TikTok astrologer on this app.
Speaker 5: So thanks.
Speaker 6: I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but
Speaker 6: something feels off about this election. How did we raise
Speaker 6: over a billion dollars in just four months packed rallies
Speaker 6: and they won by a landslide in just a matter
Speaker 6: of hours. Also, why is he not on Twitter boasting
Speaker 6: and bragging about himself When she had her concession speech,
Speaker 6: it felt like we weren't done yet. We still have
Speaker 6: some fight, but we're going to fight silently her walk off,
Speaker 6: I know that walk off.
Speaker 7: Hm. The fact that almost every which every astrologer, very medium,
Speaker 7: every I kick on this app is sort of coming
Speaker 7: together right now because of this presidential election is incredibcause
Speaker 7: by now we all know that almost everyone who's intuitively
Speaker 7: connected in any way woke up between two and four
Speaker 7: am morning after the election, and y'all knew something was up.
Speaker 7: But at the same time, we all felt a sort
Speaker 7: of peace and calmness within.
Speaker 8: Here's the thing, the astrology grillies have not let us
Speaker 8: down all year. So while y'all accept these results, while
Speaker 8: y'all accept what's on this screen right here, I will
Speaker 8: not be counting my chickens before they hatch.
Speaker 4: So that's happening.
Speaker 1: I didn't realize, you know, I feel like had more
Speaker 1: connectivity to this, like astrology trend on technic.
Speaker 4: No, it's more aware of it.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm a was aware that it was happening.
Speaker 2: That doesn't mean I was like watching it. Yeah, there's
Speaker 2: a lot of libs. Stop the steal that is currently happening.
Speaker 2: Astrology is a big part of it. Another part of
Speaker 2: it is this clip that's going viral from Joe Rogan.
Speaker 1: Oh well, no before we get to that, because the
Speaker 1: Joe Rogan ties into the next clip. But we have
Speaker 1: another This is the big libstock, the Steel conspiracy, which
Speaker 1: is this one woman who said she works in tech
Speaker 1: and her dad called her and she lays out in
Speaker 1: a nine minute video that went super viral why she
Speaker 1: believes that Elon used starlink to change the results in
Speaker 1: key states.
Speaker 4: Now I'm gonna be honest with you. I listened to this.
Speaker 1: Video and I really did not understand the argument he
Speaker 1: was making at all. But let's take a listen to
Speaker 1: a little bit of that nine minute video so you
Speaker 1: can get a sense of it.
Speaker 9: With that being said, he sent me a video letting
Speaker 9: me know that California and other swing states were able
Speaker 9: to use starlink in order to tell you up and
Speaker 9: to count ballot boats or on voting ballots in their state. Okay,
Speaker 9: those systems were connected to the internet. Those machines have
Speaker 9: absolutely no problem tallying up votes like they have done
Speaker 9: since the beginning of time.
Speaker 1: There's a lot more there that she goes into that
Speaker 1: you guys can listen to and assess for yourself. But
Speaker 1: part of what this ties into is this Joe Rogan clip.
Speaker 1: That's right, because if your theory is Elon was actually
Speaker 1: using starlink to control the election results, then you hear
Speaker 1: this Joe Rogan clip and it really makes sense to you.
Speaker 4: Take a listen.
Speaker 10: It was interesting because at the beginning of the night,
Speaker 10: no one knew what was going to happen. So you're
Speaker 10: watching the first results roll in and there's like this
Speaker 10: weird thing. And then Trump gets way ahead, but you're like,
Speaker 10: you don't want to like get too hopeful, Like how
Speaker 10: far ahead?
Speaker 5: I head by one hundred points?
Speaker 10: It seems like a lot.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and you're like, what is it? And some channels
Speaker 5: are like and then every channel is kind of different.
Speaker 10: Yeah, they had different numbers. I was getting a different
Speaker 10: number off Apple News Update than I was getting off
Speaker 10: of CNN. And then I was texting people like Tulci
Speaker 10: and jd Vance, I was getting a different Apparently Elon
Speaker 10: created an app and he knew who won four hours
Speaker 10: before the results. So as the results were coming in
Speaker 10: before four hours before they called it, Dana White told
Speaker 10: me Elon was like, I'm leaving it's ova.
Speaker 5: Donald won.
Speaker 11: He just fucking He just fucking somehow or another. I
Speaker 11: don't know what he's getting where he's pulling his data from.
Speaker 11: But he had like the most accurate data in terms
Speaker 11: of the rural states. Hadn't put the results in yet,
Speaker 11: but yet Trump was ahead in these states. Combos never
Speaker 11: gonna win those states. So tabulated that and put it
Speaker 11: all together.
Speaker 10: I don't know how he did it, but Dana to
Speaker 10: I don't even I don't even talk to Elon about this.
Speaker 10: I don't know like the data translation, but Dana said
Speaker 10: he had an app and he was like showing them.
Speaker 10: He's like it's OVA.
Speaker 3: He's like it left.
Speaker 5: Dude, just left it. John Jones won.
Speaker 11: That.
Speaker 10: He just fucking left.
Speaker 3: Uh so there you go, just calling me. Here's the thing.
Speaker 2: Four hours before so the AP called it at I
Speaker 2: want to say, what three four am?
Speaker 4: Something like that?
Speaker 2: Okay, well I was by midnight. If you're watching Breaking
Speaker 2: Points where we tell you Trump won.
Speaker 4: The elections, yeah, we were.
Speaker 3: We're going ahead, It's gonna win.
Speaker 1: And we'll come back tomorrow and tell you, like the only.
Speaker 2: Question was whether he would, like by what margin he
Speaker 2: would win the popular vote.
Speaker 3: That was literally the only question at midnight.
Speaker 4: And which and there were certain like sentence seats and stuff.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that was all.
Speaker 2: But obviously that took a while to call. But you know,
Speaker 2: by what what time would you say? I was like,
Speaker 2: Trump's gonna win ten o'clock. Honestly, that's conservative. I would
Speaker 2: take that.
Speaker 1: I mean, we really tried to to even as it
Speaker 1: became pretty clear the direction that we really tried to be.
Speaker 3: Like, okay, but you know, maybe you have to do that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you have to be like, yeah, you never know,
Speaker 1: you know, it would be something crazy could have in
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania. But probably by by ten o'clock for sure, I.
Speaker 3: Was like, I have and don Trump pretty much over.
Speaker 2: It's game over, yeah, especially because by that time Pa
Speaker 2: had come in so hard for Trump. And I was like,
Speaker 2: and Georgia too, remember, because everyone was like, oh, well
Speaker 2: Georgia or still waiting on. But these initial numbers look
Speaker 2: really good. So Georgia was the first indication. Then North
Speaker 2: Carolina was number two. Because North Carolina, it was like, okay,
Speaker 2: well the case for the Kamala landslide was Georgia, North Carolina.
Speaker 3: None of those panning out. Yeah, And then by ten
Speaker 3: o'clock you're like PA's coming in art and that's it.
Speaker 3: It's game time. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Once once it was like, okay, Georgia, North Carolina are
Speaker 1: like this probably is going to Trump, but you know,
Speaker 1: maybe there's something different going on in the industrial Midwest.
Speaker 1: Then once you see Pennsylvania coming in, it's like, all right,
Speaker 1: this is not happening exact, you know. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: can I blame these TikTok girlies?
Speaker 4: Not really?
Speaker 1: I mean, listen, what did they watch they've watched. Still,
Speaker 1: the Republican base still and Donald Trump thinks that he
Speaker 1: won the last election and offered evidence equivalent to like
Speaker 1: my astrologer said, so, and here's a clip of Joe
Speaker 1: Rogan saying something that.
Speaker 4: I find to be nefarious.
Speaker 1: So you know whatever, Libs have their conspiracies too, and
Speaker 1: so at some point you know there will be because
Speaker 1: I think if you did have some Democratic politician who
Speaker 1: is actually willing to indulge this stuff, I think they'd
Speaker 1: be hugely popular. I think there's a wide open lane.
Speaker 1: I'm not encouraging this. I'm just saying that it's inevitable
Speaker 1: that someone is going to take up that market opportunity,
Speaker 1: not maybe this time cycle, because they're still very invested
Speaker 1: in the like we're the ones that take election results
Speaker 1: seriously whatever. But Trump opened Pandora box, Pandora's box to
Speaker 1: basically every election, whichever side loses, people are going to
Speaker 1: come up with because in every election there's always weird irregularities,
Speaker 1: things you can point to and say, well, this doesn't
Speaker 1: seem quite right, and what about these vote totals and
Speaker 1: that doesn't make sense with last time's election. That's the
Speaker 1: other big conspiracy is like that Kamala got some number
Speaker 1: fewer votes than Joe Biden, but even that turned out
Speaker 1: to not really be because a lot of it was
Speaker 1: just California hadn't counted their ballots yet.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it was a big part of that is anyway.
Speaker 3: So there's a lot.
Speaker 1: This is my point, my only point. I think this
Speaker 1: is the new world that we live in. And while
Speaker 1: it mostly is on the Republican side at this point,
Speaker 1: like it's more prominent and as a percentage of the base,
Speaker 1: I think that we're going to see an expansion and
Speaker 1: flourishing of the liberal conspiracy as well, especially as liberals
Speaker 1: now are also becoming disenchanted. This is a good segway
Speaker 1: to our next segment, disenchanted with mainstream media establishment, you know,
Speaker 1: institutions as well. You're much more likely to have a
Speaker 1: flourishing and embrace of these types of conspiracy on the
Speaker 1: liberal side too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, No, definitely, And I mean, look, it's also been
Speaker 2: there for a while. There was Russia Gate, that was
Speaker 2: the elite one. That's what they did last time. There
Speaker 2: was also in four there was a huge like libs
Speaker 2: steel well objection. I'm not saying there was nothing to it,
Speaker 2: but I'm just saying R Junior about that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you can ask me.
Speaker 2: On Ohio and the voting machines and the Chinese. There's
Speaker 2: a whole two thousand and four HBO documentary about it
Speaker 2: if you're interested in going to watch. So anyway, it's
Speaker 2: been there, it will continue to be there. And yeah,
Speaker 2: I'm sure that some politician will take it up, and
Speaker 2: they will be I.
Speaker 1: Think the difference is it's like really gone mainstream. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: and on the right it's fully made. Obviously Trump still
Speaker 1: hasn't concated the last election. On the Democratic side, I
Speaker 1: think it also will be beautiful and more mainstream.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, it's like Keith Olberman, you need to
Speaker 2: release Valve and it will happen. The only question is
Speaker 2: when and which character will emerge in this. So, like
Speaker 2: you said, we've got media conversation, let's get to that.
Speaker 1: So we got a few interesting media shakeout post election
Speaker 1: updates for you. Let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: So apparently MSNBC, which should very well on election night,
Speaker 1: and the clips CNN for the first time ever, now
Speaker 1: they have lost half of their viewers compared to this
Speaker 1: time last year, she had fifty four percent other viewers.
Speaker 1: I believe CNN also completely plummeted after election day. And
Speaker 1: you know it's not just this, So you know, part
Speaker 1: this is just like liberal depression post Trump.
Speaker 4: Getting reelected, Kamal losing.
Speaker 1: This is very normal after election cycles where you know,
Speaker 1: the chosen candidate loses, or Fox last time, after twenty
Speaker 1: twenty oh, there was a stop. I was going to say,
Speaker 1: they suffed significant blow, not only because Trump lost, but
Speaker 1: then they didn't really think he lost. And then these
Speaker 1: other outlets One American Network and these other places were
Speaker 1: willing to fully indulge the conspiracies in a way that Fox.
Speaker 1: I mean, they only dabbled in indulging the conspiracies, so
Speaker 1: they took a big hit as well. So in certain
Speaker 1: ways this is typical, but in other ways I think
Speaker 1: it is, it is significant, and it is different in
Speaker 1: this sense I referenced in the last block, there's been
Speaker 1: a liberal disillusionment with the mainstream press starting. Some of
Speaker 1: this is I mean, it's justified, some of their specific
Speaker 1: reasoning is not particularly justified. So the original angst and
Speaker 1: agitation was around the reporting, the accurate reporting on Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's decline. There were a lot of liberals who were
Speaker 1: very mad about that. And then there's a whole cottage
Speaker 1: industry of liberals who are very upset many times justifiably
Speaker 1: so about New York Times headlines and in their worldview,
Speaker 1: they feel that these outlets have not been harsh enough
Speaker 1: on Donald Trump. Then the Washington Post bezos deciding not
Speaker 1: to make an endorsement in this election was really how
Speaker 1: many subsidy they lost, like thousand, It was like a
Speaker 1: quarter of a million at least that was at that point.
Speaker 1: That was like a day or two in of their
Speaker 1: paid subscribers. So there has been a real blow to
Speaker 1: liberal trust of establishment media organizations. And there have been
Speaker 1: some outlets who have been picking up support in the
Speaker 1: wake of this loss, for like the more liberal you
Speaker 1: know institutions that have been the mainstays. Our friends over
Speaker 1: at lever News, they apparently are doing really well.
Speaker 4: We can put this up on the screen d two.
Speaker 4: So I talked to David Sirota yesterday.
Speaker 1: And he told me I could share with you that
Speaker 1: not only has master Planned their podcast, which you guys
Speaker 1: really should listen to, not only has that jumped up
Speaker 1: the podcast charts, but they have seen an eleven percent
Speaker 1: overall increase in their paid subs in just the past
Speaker 1: couple of months, so a huge, huge jump in terms
Speaker 1: of their paid subscribers. I talked to Ryan at drop
Speaker 1: Site also, he said that they have seen specifically on
Speaker 1: the free sub front, they've seen a massive, like multi
Speaker 1: thousand person surge in terms of drop site News subscribers.
Speaker 4: And then Nathan J.
Speaker 1: Robinson, who is a lefty runs Current Affairs magazine, put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen.
Speaker 4: He says they've seen.
Speaker 1: A nine hundred percent increase in the rate of new
Speaker 1: Current Affairs subscribers over the last few days. He says,
Speaker 1: people know independent left media tells them the truth. Other
Speaker 1: outlets delude them and more vital than ever in combating
Speaker 1: right wing propaganda. So there's some you know, some interesting
Speaker 1: energy that is out there kind of on the left
Speaker 1: looking for independent outlets that people feel more effectively report
Speaker 1: the news and you know, share their worldview and also
Speaker 1: are like with lever News, I mean, these guys are
Speaker 1: doing actual journalism. Ryan obviously and Jeremy doing really important
Speaker 1: actual journalism over at job site, and it's stuff that
Speaker 1: the mainstream press has largely completely ignored, like accountability journalism
Speaker 1: and with Ryan and Jerry particular, Big four, big focus
Speaker 1: on foreign affairs. So kind of an interesting shift that's
Speaker 1: happening there over on the on that side.
Speaker 2: I can only hope and look, Rassia Gate saved their
Speaker 2: ass last time, because this happened last time around too.
Speaker 2: But this time, I don't know, you can tell me psychologically,
Speaker 2: it just feels very different.
Speaker 3: Oh, last time it was a shock. Trump was a shock.
Speaker 2: If you're too young, I'm not imagine you remember. I
Speaker 2: will never forget. So I was up till like three
Speaker 2: or four in the morning. Election night, We're working at
Speaker 2: the Daily Caller office, went home, grabbed a couple hours
Speaker 2: of sleep, got on the metro.
Speaker 3: The next morning, came to work. It was the death.
Speaker 3: It was like nine to eleven.
Speaker 2: Like that's I wasn't I was too young to remember
Speaker 2: what it was like to be an adult, but that's
Speaker 2: what I could imagine it was like to have been
Speaker 2: around the day.
Speaker 3: Afternoon.
Speaker 1: Yeah, when I was walking through the airport, I had
Speaker 1: the same vibe like people were.
Speaker 2: I was like this, yeah, this is insane. This time
Speaker 2: it was just like, you know, it's normal. Also, there's
Speaker 2: no cope. This time he won the popular vote. He
Speaker 2: won all the swing states. It wasn't narrow. It was
Speaker 2: a blowout, like they left it all out on the
Speaker 2: field and they got their asses kicked.
Speaker 3: And there's so if anything, there's like a reckoning. I'm like,
Speaker 3: all right, well, you know, we lost to him twice
Speaker 3: in eight years.
Speaker 1: It was not a one on. It was not a fluke.
Speaker 1: It's not a we're going to get him next time. No,
Speaker 1: in the end, like he got away with all the
Speaker 1: stuff and.
Speaker 3: He won and he won.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, not just one like he won the popular vote,
Speaker 2: like that's a mandate, you know.
Speaker 3: I mean, I remember, you know, everyone was like, how
Speaker 3: can this possibly be?
Speaker 4: It?
Speaker 3: Look at the RNC, you know, we were talking earlier
Speaker 3: about immigration.
Speaker 2: They held up signs that said mass deportation at the RNC.
Speaker 2: Don't be surprised when mass deportation happened. He stood up
Speaker 2: in front of the sign the day before election. There
Speaker 2: are only two things ins said behind him, n migrant
Speaker 2: crime and mass deportation.
Speaker 3: America knew what it was voting for one hundred percent.
Speaker 2: So it's one of those where to them, that's unimaginable
Speaker 2: to the liberal mind. But now they have to grapple
Speaker 2: with that and It's one of those where they're like,
Speaker 2: what do we do? And the truth is MSNBC has
Speaker 2: no coherence to explain that strategy that's correct, and it's
Speaker 2: because and look, you can give a left you know analogy. Wait,
Speaker 2: I have plenty of disagreements. We'll continue to talk over
Speaker 2: the next four years. But there's a coherence to what
Speaker 2: you're offering to what Kyle is offering to I mean
Speaker 2: to uh, even the podsafe guys to what they're offering.
Speaker 2: But there is no coherence to MSNBC Morning Joe liberalism
Speaker 2: that offered a path and got blown out by the
Speaker 2: American electorate.
Speaker 1: That is such a key point because the Kamala Harris campaign,
Speaker 1: like they ran the Morning Joe campaign, it was run
Speaker 1: exactly like Joe Scarborough would.
Speaker 4: Want to run.
Speaker 1: Yes, right, the embrace of freaking Liz Cheney, the obsess
Speaker 1: with never Trump Republicans, the constant like shunning of the
Speaker 1: base and anything that they would want, the you know,
Speaker 1: constant like shilling for Israel and really you know, basically
Speaker 1: smearing your own base as a bunch of anti Semits
Speaker 1: for wanting a ceasefire and wanting peace. They ran that
Speaker 1: campaign and Joe Biden ran that campaign, and Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: ran that campaign, and Joe Biden eeks down a win,
Speaker 1: barely barely, at a time when Trump's approval ratings were
Speaker 1: in the toilet. People were getting killed during COVID like
Speaker 1: it was a mess, and you barely eke down a victory.
Speaker 4: Now it's like, wow, this.
Speaker 1: Whole universe, the especially the MSNBC CNN universe in particular,
Speaker 1: but also the Washington Post New York Times universe.
Speaker 4: Your view of the world was wrong. Like it was wrong.
Speaker 4: It was repudiated. What you told us was going to work.
Speaker 1: When you promised that these were the people who were
Speaker 1: electorally viable and this was the path and these were
Speaker 1: the you know issues, and this is how they should
Speaker 1: talk about It's like they did all of that and
Speaker 1: they lost.
Speaker 4: They got blown out.
Speaker 1: And not only that, but you told us that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump was an existential threat and you did not act
Speaker 1: like it. You did not act like it. I mean,
Speaker 1: especially like Joe scart Butt. These people were running cover
Speaker 1: for Joe Biden and still trying to keep him in
Speaker 1: the race after that debate.
Speaker 4: They wanted a four.
Speaker 1: Hundred electoral college vote blowout. So I think there's just
Speaker 1: a very justified loss of confidence, not only in those institutions,
Speaker 1: but in that worldview entirely. So, I mean it creates
Speaker 1: an opening, you know, clearly, like places like lever News,
Speaker 1: drop site and others are you know, are there to fill.
Speaker 1: And this whole conversation about like oh the democratsy their
Speaker 1: own ecosystem or whatever.
Speaker 4: It's like, Listen, it may not.
Speaker 1: Be as big as the right or as well funded
Speaker 1: as the right, but it's not like there is no
Speaker 1: one in the left of center podcase podcast space. It's
Speaker 1: just that you've spent most of your time like ignoring, shunning, smearing,
Speaker 1: minimizing that world. And I think you know that probably
Speaker 1: is somewhat going to change. The last thing just doesn't mention,
Speaker 1: which is kind of funny. Chris Wallace is apparently leaving
Speaker 1: CNN and you put this up on the screen.
Speaker 4: Wasn't there a lot? What was he there? Four years?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Three years?
Speaker 3: About three so he came for CNN plus.
Speaker 4: Yes, oh I remember, I remember.
Speaker 2: Apparently, though it's kind of misleading when they say he
Speaker 2: quits CNN. What happened is is that they offered him
Speaker 2: a pay cut and they were like, you can stay,
Speaker 2: but you're gonna have to take a massive.
Speaker 3: Pay cut and video could not, and he was like,
Speaker 3: oh I can't handle them. He was getting paid like
Speaker 3: seven million.
Speaker 1: Well this was an actually very smart way for him
Speaker 1: to frame this, to be honest with you, because he
Speaker 1: was like, you know what, this cable news thing that's tired,
Speaker 1: like streaming is where it's at. I'm going to go
Speaker 1: out and do like the podcast thing.
Speaker 3: Which good luck, it's good luck. First all, his show
Speaker 3: is awful on CNN. It was very low rating.
Speaker 1: Anyone watches almost any of these people is just because
Speaker 1: it's like it's on in the background and that's it.
Speaker 1: There's no like I'm tuning in for Chris Wallace that's
Speaker 1: not really.
Speaker 3: Had a very low rated show.
Speaker 2: He tried to do all these we interviews with pop
Speaker 2: culture Fish. Yeah, he completely lost his lane. Never should
Speaker 2: a last Fox News Sunday. So yeah, I mean, look,
Speaker 2: he's like a seventy something year old man, like he'll
Speaker 2: be fire, yeah, exact right, retire multi millionaire. Your father
Speaker 2: was famous. I'm sure it hurts not to be as
Speaker 2: good as your dad. It's okay, you know, you're an
Speaker 2: old man. You've had enough time to reconcile it at
Speaker 2: this point, just right off from the sunset. All right,
Speaker 2: leave it to us. We'll continue to fight here.
Speaker 1: I like I like imagining him like over on Twitch
Speaker 1: trying to compete with like Hassan.
Speaker 3: Or something exact incredible, right, I like that. I want him.
Speaker 4: I would like him to.
Speaker 3: Try that out as lemon.
Speaker 1: Right, all right, let's go ahead and get to Jim
Speaker 1: Zobie to talk about his analysis of what went wrong,
Speaker 1: what is going on at the DNC, the spending, the
Speaker 1: blaming of voters, the AOC Trump voter, got a lot
Speaker 1: of things we want to get to with him.
Speaker 4: So let's go ahead and do that.
Speaker 3: Let's get to it.
Speaker 1: We are really fortunate this morning to be joined by
Speaker 1: James Zobie, who, of course the president of Air American
Speaker 1: Institute and also a thirty two year member of the DNC.
Speaker 4: AM.
Speaker 1: I right about those numbers, long suffering thirty two year
Speaker 1: member of the DNZ.
Speaker 5: Another, you're the suffering ones.
Speaker 1: I think we're all suffering right now. To be honest
Speaker 1: with you, Agam, at least you and I are at
Speaker 1: this table. I had a number of things I wanted
Speaker 1: to chat with you about, but I first did want
Speaker 1: to talk to you about the DNC in particular, since
Speaker 1: you have such deep knowledge of how that organization works
Speaker 1: and where some of the problems are. Let's put this
Speaker 1: first element up on the screen. Jamie Harrison has gotten
Speaker 1: into a bit of a back and forth with Bernie Sanders. Bernie,
Speaker 1: of course, came out with a quite scathing indictment of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party after Kamala Harris's loss, saying that they
Speaker 1: abandoned working class people. Jamie Harrison, chair of the DNC,
Speaker 1: described this as straight up BS, I'd love for you
Speaker 1: to discuss, you know, both your thoughts on this particular battle,
Speaker 1: but also more broadly, what's some of the issues that
Speaker 1: you see are at the DNC and what you think
Speaker 1: would be important in terms of reform.
Speaker 5: Well, look, let's I'm going to leave some of the
Speaker 5: political issues aside and just talk about the DNC. First.
Speaker 5: I grew up. My mom was a precinct captain and
Speaker 5: I used to go door to door with her and
Speaker 5: go to ward meetings, and on election day we'd get
Speaker 5: poll cards and we'd go to the polls and pass
Speaker 5: them out. You belonged to something and you felt like
Speaker 5: this was part of who you were. That's no longer
Speaker 5: the case. The being a member of the Democratic Party
Speaker 5: means nothing more than I'm on an email list, I'm
Speaker 5: on a text message list, I'm on a hard mail list,
Speaker 5: I'm on a phone list, and I get asked for money.
Speaker 5: Nobody asked my opinion. There is no way to record
Speaker 5: your feeling about an issue DNC, even DNC members. First
Speaker 5: time we had an actual in all the years I've
Speaker 5: been on the DNC, first time we had an actual
Speaker 5: election was when Keith Ellison and Tom Perez faced off
Speaker 5: after the Bernie Hillary race. First time we had a
Speaker 5: floor vote and a debate on an issue was at
Speaker 5: that same meeting when we debated whether we should accept
Speaker 5: money from packs that emanated from businesses that violated the
Speaker 5: DNC positions on oil fracking. Whatever. The fact is that
Speaker 5: DNZ members even were like props who go to meetings
Speaker 5: and fill chairs. And I can say it because I'm
Speaker 5: a Catholic. You know, we know when to stand up,
Speaker 5: when to sit down, when to clap, when to leave,
Speaker 5: and you know votes are a done deal. The staff
Speaker 5: decide what we vote on. When I was chair of
Speaker 5: the Resolutions Committee for ten years, people even Barbara Lee,
Speaker 5: would write a resolution and submit it and the staff
Speaker 5: say we're not going to accept that, and I'd say, well,
Speaker 5: then are you to not accept it? And the Unity
Speaker 5: Reform Commission, I was able to get both sides, the
Speaker 5: Hillary and Bernie side, to agree on a resolution to
Speaker 5: honor our by laws and fulfill our by law requirement
Speaker 5: to annually review the budget and evaluate the effectiveness of
Speaker 5: expenditures and staff by creating an elected finance oversight committee.
Speaker 5: Guess what staff wrote it out of the final They
Speaker 5: deleted it from the final report and would not have
Speaker 5: a vote on it, and then sent me to the
Speaker 5: Rules and Bylaws Committee that after I fought and said
Speaker 5: I want to vote on this, they said, yeah, will
Speaker 5: you go to Rules and Bylaws Committee, which is peopled
Speaker 5: by some of the very people, the consultants that I
Speaker 5: was busy railing about in that proposal. Because every year,
Speaker 5: every cycle, the DNC spends hundreds of millions of dollars.
Speaker 5: This year well over a billion, and guess what, I
Speaker 5: have no idea where it's going to go. The Harris
Speaker 5: campaign went raised a billion dollars, is in the red.
Speaker 5: We will never know where that money got spent. We
Speaker 5: will never evaluate was it effective or not people give
Speaker 5: three dollars donations monthly because they think we have no
Speaker 5: idea where that money goes. And as opposed to being
Speaker 5: a governing body, like I said, we're props at meetings.
Speaker 5: And so what has to happen in the future is
Speaker 5: that the DNC has to be the governing body of
Speaker 5: the party and we have to build a party as
Speaker 5: an organization that people belong to. There has to be
Speaker 5: financial accountability and transparency. There has to be democratic decision
Speaker 5: making so we know where this stuff is. I mean,
Speaker 5: who decided that I'll get to the issues. I'm on
Speaker 5: a terror when I get into this.
Speaker 4: This is go off, go off.
Speaker 5: Who decided that Liz Cheney was the ideal person to
Speaker 5: campaign with. Who decided that we would give up on
Speaker 5: the working class and go to suburban moderate Republican women.
Speaker 5: I mean, how do those decisions get made? Who thinks
Speaker 5: that stuff up? Who decides that, yeah, in Pennsylvania we
Speaker 5: ought to be pro fracking. Who decided that we should
Speaker 5: give up a universal healthcare? Who decided that we should
Speaker 5: target our vote getting to constituencies that we could not
Speaker 5: reach and not focus on people that we could reach.
Speaker 5: Because I see what Jamie is saying that, yeah, Joe
Speaker 5: Biden had a pro labor agenda. That's not the campaign
Speaker 5: we ran in twenty four. I dare say, if you
Speaker 5: ask union people how pro union were we, they wouldn't
Speaker 5: have said so on something particular to me, who decided
Speaker 5: that no Palestinian speaker at a convention because it would
Speaker 5: be what to controversy when actually that's where the base
Speaker 5: of the party is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well that's something we wanted to ask you about, sir.
Speaker 2: We have some interesting There was AOC actually asked some
Speaker 2: of her constituents, many of whom did vote for her
Speaker 2: and for Donald Trump, and she was like, why, let's
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen. There's a variety
Speaker 2: of interesting answers, and you can see there's there's quite
Speaker 2: a few, but some are actually quite simple. There go
Speaker 2: it's simple Trump and you care for the working class.
Speaker 2: I wanted change, so I went with Trump. Blew for
Speaker 2: the rest of the ballot to put on some brakes.
Speaker 2: They say a few others and you know, are pointing
Speaker 2: out very different stuff.
Speaker 3: About war, but a lot of it was about war,
Speaker 3: foreign policy, Gaza.
Speaker 2: There were several of those, and so I'm curious for
Speaker 2: your reaction considering that Trump did obviously run up the table,
Speaker 2: you know, in the Bronx, but AOC actually was able
Speaker 2: to hang on to some of that, and she says there,
Speaker 2: I'd like to talk about the Gaza pieces as well,
Speaker 2: and we'll make some stories about it later.
Speaker 1: She outperformed Kamala Harris in the district by twenty two
Speaker 1: points twenty.
Speaker 5: A lot of Democrats performed Kamala Harris in their districts.
Speaker 5: And where's the accountability for that? And I don't believe
Speaker 5: it's Kamala Harris as much as it's the political consultants
Speaker 5: who run make the decisions for the party. It's the
Speaker 5: big donors who contribute to the party and the consultants
Speaker 5: who get the money and make the decisions about what
Speaker 5: we do and what we say and what's possible. And
Speaker 5: they do the same with the candidates. I mean, what
Speaker 5: we need is control over that process so that these consultants,
Speaker 5: who incidentally never lose an election, they never lose an
Speaker 5: election because they make their money, live with the consequences,
Speaker 5: but they make their money and they come back again
Speaker 5: two years from now, four years from now and do
Speaker 5: the same stuff. Yeah, Frankly, that's got a change and
Speaker 5: on Gaza, I understand completely. Look, I've been pulling on
Speaker 5: this issue for a while what we call our coalition
Speaker 5: these days, young people, Black Latino Asian voters. They are
Speaker 5: decidedly against this war and against continuing to fund human
Speaker 5: rights violations as we do. And we didn't pay attention
Speaker 5: to them at all.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Actually, it's been so easy to speak to them, we didn't.
Speaker 1: Let's put E three up on the screen, guys, because
Speaker 1: this has some of the relevant data. This is about
Speaker 1: Muslim voters. Muslim Americans back in twenty twenty ninety three
Speaker 1: percent for Joe Biden, seven percent for Trump. This time
Speaker 1: around fifty three percent for Jill Stein, twenty one percent
Speaker 1: for Trump, and twenty percent for Kamala Harris.
Speaker 5: Well you I'm going to I'm going to differ with
Speaker 5: you on.
Speaker 3: That, Okay, go ad.
Speaker 1: Why I want to ask you is because you've done
Speaker 1: so much research and pulling yourself. How what did you
Speaker 1: see and how significant do you think this ended up
Speaker 1: being to Kamala Harris's loss?
Speaker 5: And Number one, that was a bogu. That's not a
Speaker 5: poll at all. The demographics of it don't match. Look
Speaker 5: from the group that did it fifty three percent for
Speaker 5: Jill Stein. If there are two point five million registered
Speaker 5: Muslim voters, which is what that group says there are,
Speaker 5: and sixty percent of them turned out, which is one
Speaker 5: point five million, fifty three percent of them is one
Speaker 5: hundred thousand votes more than Jill Stein actually got in
Speaker 5: the hard count. So that's a bogus thing. What we
Speaker 5: found in our polling was among Arab Americans, we don't
Speaker 5: pull Muslims overall because it's a very diverse community and
Speaker 5: the largest group, portion of which are African American who
Speaker 5: I believe, did vote for Jill for I'm sorry for Harris.
Speaker 5: I think in the Arab community what you got was
Speaker 5: a more even split between Trump and Harris. That's not
Speaker 5: enough because Joe Biden got sixty percent of that vote
Speaker 5: and Donald Trump got a little over thirty percent. He
Speaker 5: beat her. He beat Trump two to one. If Harris
Speaker 5: had beaten Trump two to one, she might have won
Speaker 5: Michigan with air of American votes. As it was, she
Speaker 5: lost sixty seventy thousand Air of American voters statewide, coupled
Speaker 5: with students and others who stayed home or also voted
Speaker 5: for other candidates and you got the loss. But again,
Speaker 5: that kind of autopsy is not going to be done.
Speaker 5: And that's when I saw reports that there ought to
Speaker 5: be an autopsy, and then I saw the people they
Speaker 5: were mentioning for the autopsy. It's like giving the murderer
Speaker 5: the right to dissect the body and figure out what
Speaker 5: you know. You don't have the consultants who brought us
Speaker 5: the mess do the autopsy on how the consultants brought
Speaker 5: us the mess, because that's where it came from. Don't
Speaker 5: blame the voters. I have an interview in Rolling Stone
Speaker 5: right now.
Speaker 4: Actually can put that up on the screen.
Speaker 5: Guys on the sport, don't blame the people you let down.
Speaker 5: I mean, so, how do you get to a point
Speaker 5: where the Republican Party what's his name, Lindsey Graham can
Speaker 5: say we're the party of the working class and Democrats
Speaker 5: have become the party of the elites?
Speaker 3: How did that?
Speaker 5: Even? How did we get to that point? Aren't we
Speaker 5: ashamed of ourselves that we let down the working class
Speaker 5: to that extent that they don't see us as their champions,
Speaker 5: that they see this bigoted, xenophobic, narcissistic, misogynist criminal as
Speaker 5: their champion because he talks to them, and Joe Biden
Speaker 5: did talk to them. He did. I don't believe the
Speaker 5: Harris campaign did. I think she could have, but the
Speaker 5: consultants had a different message for her. It was going
Speaker 5: to be joy. But there weren't people in the country
Speaker 5: feeling joy. There were people feeling hurt. And why did
Speaker 5: the consultants not understand that hurt? Why didn't they understand
Speaker 5: that people felt socially, economically, politically dislocated and unsure of
Speaker 5: their future. Why did we not understand that and craft
Speaker 5: a campaign? Why because the consultants are out of touch. Yeah,
Speaker 5: here's what I say. You know, Ben Rhodes calls the
Speaker 5: foreign policy blob people who've been cycled for decades and
Speaker 5: don't get the world and how it's changed. We have
Speaker 5: the political consultancy blob. It's the same people who populate
Speaker 5: all these campaigns, who make all the decisions, and they're
Speaker 5: completely out of touch with where the electorate is. And
Speaker 5: yet they keep coming back campaign after campaign. We see
Speaker 5: the same faces running things.
Speaker 1: Jim, last question for you, do you have a favorite
Speaker 1: for next Dan c chair?
Speaker 4: I do? Who do you like?
Speaker 5: He hasn't announced yet, he will writing and so. But
Speaker 5: it is a state chair. Yeah, it's a state chair.
Speaker 5: And I believe that we need somebody who has the
Speaker 5: commitment to building the organization as an organization, you know,
Speaker 5: and I and I believe that.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 5: The other thing is there ought to be an end
Speaker 5: to the dominant of the political consultants over a decision making.
Speaker 5: Electing a new chair is one thing, but we've got
Speaker 5: to have a DNC that is empowered to be the
Speaker 5: governing body. And I will tell you I'm thinking of
Speaker 5: running for one of the vice.
Speaker 4: Chair slots because that's fantastic.
Speaker 5: Thirty two years and I am up to here with
Speaker 5: the the you know, the banging my head against the
Speaker 5: wall for change, I decided, I guess I'm just going
Speaker 5: to have to try to raise those issues. I don't
Speaker 5: know if I'll win, but at least I'll have a
Speaker 5: chance to raise the issues, and I want to do it.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 1: That is some some rare good news for me, at
Speaker 1: least to hear post elections. So I'm always great to
Speaker 1: talk to you, and I hope you know once you
Speaker 1: officially jump in, and your ideal candidate also officially jumps in,
Speaker 1: that you'll come back and explain to us why you
Speaker 1: think that this is the right course.
Speaker 5: Good to see you say, take care, bye you too.
Speaker 4: In the wake of Kamala's stunning defeat, have.
Speaker 1: Been studiously passing around various charts and data points to
Speaker 1: try to make sense of it all. Here's a regression
Speaker 1: analysis of voter preferences in seven key states. Here's a
Speaker 1: graph mapping ideological leanings versus district over performance compared to
Speaker 1: Gamala and Biden. Here's a heat map of the precincts
Speaker 1: where Trump accumulated the largest eight year improvement correlated with
Speaker 1: income deciyle, listen, I get it, and I'm the same.
Speaker 1: I'm a little a student teacher's pet type, and I
Speaker 1: too would like to plot, chart, and data analyze my
Speaker 1: way to the one correct answer for how Democrats should look, walk, talk,
Speaker 1: and act. But to be honest with you, that shit
Speaker 1: needs to stop because it utterly misses how politics actually works.
Speaker 1: In fact, this type of focus group, poll driven laundry
Speaker 1: list approach to politics is exactly what Democrats already do,
Speaker 1: and you can see precisely how that's worked out. In fact,
Speaker 1: Kamala ran the platonic ideal of this approach, which has
Speaker 1: been dubbed popularism. Now the guy who popularized popularism David Shore.
Speaker 1: He actually ran a seven hundred million dollars super pack
Speaker 1: for the kmmon campaign. The basic idea is you pull
Speaker 1: a bunch of policies, you pick what's most popular, and
Speaker 1: you run on it. Like a good little centrist. Kama
Speaker 1: Is shoed all divisive talk of racer genders. She spent
Speaker 1: the entire campaign run around with Republican insitcumvince everyone she
Speaker 1: didn't actually really stand for anything. She embraced the GOP
Speaker 1: position on the border. She talked endlessly about how she
Speaker 1: prosecuted transnational gangs and argued the problem with Trump's border
Speaker 1: policy was that he didn't construct enough of his vaunted
Speaker 1: border wall seriously. As John Stewart argued, though far from
Speaker 1: running a woke campaign, Kammalin, Democrats obsessively tried to pander
Speaker 1: to the polls and adopted Republican framing.
Speaker 12: I only have one problem with the woke theory. I
Speaker 12: just didn't recall seeing any Democrats running on woke shit.
Speaker 12: These were the commercials I saw for the Democrats. Shared
Speaker 12: Brown is working to fix our border crisis and Monday
Speaker 12: Jones is working to secure our border.
Speaker 6: Pat Ryan is restoring order at our southern border.
Speaker 4: I'm Laura Gillon, and I'm here at the border of
Speaker 4: Nasa County with two thousand miles from Mexico.
Speaker 5: But we're stealing the migrant crisis almost every day.
Speaker 1: We can't let China steal Wisconsin's.
Speaker 2: Jobs, benefits for legal immigrants, no way blocking support for
Speaker 2: white farmers.
Speaker 9: I mean, look at.
Speaker 12: Me standing with law enforcement against defunding the police.
Speaker 4: I've owned a done my whole life.
Speaker 12: Let me be clear.
Speaker 5: I don't want boys playing girls sports. You all know me.
Speaker 12: I've never pushed for sex changes. Well that's just a
Speaker 12: weird one at the end of don't forget about Tomala Harris.
Speaker 3: It's not like she was exactly.
Speaker 12: Waving around her NPR tote bag.
Speaker 5: I have a clock.
Speaker 3: They didn't do the.
Speaker 12: Woke thing they tried. They have to like Republicans for
Speaker 12: the last four months, they wore tamo hats and went
Speaker 12: to Cheney family reunion. Check out how dangers it is
Speaker 12: to wear a hunting hat around Shaney.
Speaker 1: Collin's campaign could have been designed by a centrist AI
Speaker 1: fed reams of focused group data, poll tested messaging world's
Speaker 1: most lethal military opportunity economy coalition of Liz Cheney, Taylor Swift,
Speaker 1: and Bernie Sanders. As Edin Germentum points out over on Twitter,
Speaker 1: quote the wave al are talking. You would never have
Speaker 1: known the central pillar of the Democratic campaign strategy was
Speaker 1: bringing up the border bill that Trump shot down. This
Speaker 1: was very much the first post wokeness Democratic campaign was
Speaker 1: run by a party whose top people road Mataglesias and
Speaker 1: gave seven hundred million dollars to a pack heavily influenced
Speaker 1: by David Shore. For this wing to act like Cassandra's
Speaker 1: is beyond absurd. And I would add that she and
Speaker 1: Biden routinely took every opportunity to castigate lefty college kids
Speaker 1: for their campus activism, smearing the prototypical pink haired college
Speaker 1: kids who happened to be opposing a genocide as raging
Speaker 1: anti semits. What's more, during the campaign, the popularist, some centrists,
Speaker 1: they all thought this campaign was going great.
Speaker 4: They loved the.
Speaker 1: Liz Cheney strategy. Here is Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine.
Speaker 1: He says the race is close because Harris is running
Speaker 1: a brilliant campaign. Stop complaining the centrism is working. But
Speaker 1: of course even when Democrats run exactly as Chait, Aglesias
Speaker 1: and co.
Speaker 7: Won.
Speaker 1: There's always some person out there existing in the world
Speaker 1: and being woke that they can blame for elite democratic
Speaker 1: failures and working class abandonment. Now, I don't think it's
Speaker 1: fair to lay all the blame for Kamma's loss at
Speaker 1: her feet, but certainly she gets some of the blame,
Speaker 1: and so too do those who advocate for this bloodless,
Speaker 1: paint by number style of politics. It has failed routinely
Speaker 1: and now completely, and their capitulation in Republican framing is
Speaker 1: already a moral and political catastrophe. The core of Kmma's
Speaker 1: approach and that of biden bulk of establishment politics, is
Speaker 1: to avoid controversy and avoid division. If an issue polls
Speaker 1: under sixty percent, avoid it if a previous position drops
Speaker 1: in support or abandon it. Studiously avoids saying anything that
Speaker 1: might God forbid create a backlash.
Speaker 4: This approach is wrong. It's brain dead.
Speaker 1: It's idiotic, as is the saying that politics is about
Speaker 1: addition wrong. Winning politics that can also deliver anything worthwhile
Speaker 1: is divisive. The only thing that really matters is getting
Speaker 1: that division correct. Think about Trump, For God's sakes, he
Speaker 1: is the single most divisive politician of modern era. Without
Speaker 1: a doubt, he is also the most successful. He deeply
Speaker 1: understands his divisive politics, and everything he says and does
Speaker 1: effectively drives towards the division that serves his political interests
Speaker 1: and message. On one side of the migrants, democrats, and
Speaker 1: cultural elites who, in his narrative, want to destroy your town,
Speaker 1: steal your job, and indoctrinate your kids. On the other
Speaker 1: side is anyone who supports Trump against these forces. And
Speaker 1: Trump alone is of course the politician who can fix
Speaker 1: the problem. Another divisive politician, Bernie Now. He stylistically, of course,
Speaker 1: quite different from Trump, but make no mistake, his fundamentally
Speaker 1: is a divisive politics and the language of occupy. It's
Speaker 1: the ninety nine percent versus the one percent. It's the
Speaker 1: millionaires and billionaires versus everyone else, throwing the corporate media
Speaker 1: the corrupt establishment, and you've got all you need for
Speaker 1: a winning, fruitful, divisive politics.
Speaker 4: Think about it. If you did your little checklist.
Speaker 1: Politics telling how popular Kamala's policies are versus Trump's policies,
Speaker 1: Kamala would win every time. Democrats would sweep forty states,
Speaker 1: as evidenced by the fact that paid sickly of abortion
Speaker 1: rights and high minimum wages were passed in deep red
Speaker 1: states like Missouri, but that is not remotely how politics
Speaker 1: actually works. Democratic posters Lilinda Lake made this point when
Speaker 1: she explained the difference in how voters saw Trump and
Speaker 1: Kamalist economic policies. Quote, everybody knows what Trump economics is,
Speaker 1: China tariffs, tax cuts. Then you go to them and
Speaker 1: ask what are Democratic economics and someone will make a
Speaker 1: joke about welfare, and half the people can't name anything.
Speaker 1: It is nothing like the Republican brand. Now this isn't
Speaker 1: because Democrats had a failed ad strategy. There's some evidence
Speaker 1: there ad and grond game. Actually we're kind of effective.
Speaker 1: It's because they have zero narrative. They have failed to
Speaker 1: create the right divisive politics. And if you don't relentlessly
Speaker 1: explain your story of the world, your goals, principles, heroes
Speaker 1: and villains, your opponents, they will happily fill in the blanks. Ergo,
Speaker 1: she's for they them, he's for you. So what would
Speaker 1: a better strategy look like? Well, it looks like Bernie's
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen class verse populism, but on steroids. Democrats need
Speaker 1: to abandon a bland and offensive unity between the Chinese
Speaker 1: and AOC, and embrace the division that aggressively excises everyone
Speaker 1: who puts the billionaire's interests over the working class. There
Speaker 1: should be purity tests on everything that is core to
Speaker 1: that war against the plutocrats, and a large public purge
Speaker 1: of those who are on the wrong side of that divide.
Speaker 1: If you don't agree the billionaire and should be abolished,
Speaker 1: then get the fuck out. If you don't want to
Speaker 1: tax the rich, get the fuck out. If you don't
Speaker 1: want to radically increase union power, get the fuck out.
Speaker 1: If you don't want to implement a universal jobs guarantee,
Speaker 1: get out. If you don't want universal health care, get out.
Speaker 1: If you do support these things but you also have
Speaker 1: more moderate position of abortion, guns, trans athletes, okay, there
Speaker 1: can be a space for you here. But these cultural
Speaker 1: issues can never be central. They are distractions because to
Speaker 1: claim them as central is to void the correct divisive
Speaker 1: frame and undercut the narrative. The war is not between
Speaker 1: immigrants and Americans. The war is between the plutocrats and
Speaker 1: the people. Immigrant and trans Panics. Those are ploys to
Speaker 1: keep regular people divided against each other instead of against
Speaker 1: the corrupt political media and economic elite who have rigged
Speaker 1: the system and hogged all the spoils. Elon Musk is
Speaker 1: out there running around crying about trans people and migrants
Speaker 1: existing because he wants another giant taxpayer subsidy and an
Speaker 1: even bigger tax cut. He does not have your best
Speaker 1: interest or those of the country for that matter in mind.
Speaker 1: Vernie explained the all perfectly in a classic clip, of course,
Speaker 1: which is recently resurfaced.
Speaker 4: Take a listen.
Speaker 13: Now, if you had an agenda like that and you
Speaker 13: went before the American people, tax breaks for the rich,
Speaker 13: destruction of medicad, destruction of socialist security as we know it,
Speaker 13: lowering the minimum wage or abolishing it, how many votes
Speaker 13: do you think you'd get?
Speaker 3: Not a whole lot.
Speaker 13: Maybe the riches one percent we vote for you. That's
Speaker 13: not a lot of votes. So what do I do?
Speaker 3: Got a problem?
Speaker 13: You package it? How do you package it? And here
Speaker 13: I want you to pay attention to me. This this
Speaker 13: is bad stuff. We divide people up by racist affirmative
Speaker 13: action becomes one issue, all them black people getting the
Speaker 13: jobs that we white people used to have, split people
Speaker 13: working class white against black instead of working together to
Speaker 13: create decent jobs for all those uppity women now they
Speaker 13: want the right to choose. Will split people on the
Speaker 13: abortion issue. We'll split people up on the gun issue.
Speaker 13: We'll split people up on religious issues. You follow what
Speaker 13: I'm saying, So you split people up, and then they
Speaker 13: end up if you're a middle class person voting against
Speaker 13: your own interests, and the rich go laughing all the
Speaker 13: way to the bank. And they succeed with the help
Speaker 13: of the media because the media will not talk about
Speaker 13: how in a sense that problems that Americans face on
Speaker 13: how we bring people together. And that's what I believe.
Speaker 13: I believe that on issues, like everybody in this room thinks,
Speaker 13: I think that instead of giving tax breaks to the rich,
Speaker 13: we should increase federal aid to education. Anyone disagree with that,
Speaker 13: But you know what, most Americans agree with that. All
Speaker 13: of you think that every American should be entitled to healthcare.
Speaker 13: I suspect most of you think we should not have
Speaker 13: a trade policy which allows corporations to throw American workers
Speaker 13: out on the street and run to China. Most Americans
Speaker 13: agree with that. And our job is to bring people
Speaker 13: together on common interest and some of these extreme right
Speaker 13: wing people you watch the issues that they talk about
Speaker 13: affirmative action. They use to divide the issue of abortion,
Speaker 13: they use to divide the issue of guns. They use
Speaker 13: to divide. And our job is to say, let's focus
Speaker 13: on basic economic issues. How do we expand the middle class.
Speaker 13: This is a great country. Why is it the average
Speaker 13: American is working longer hours for low wages than thirty
Speaker 13: years ago.
Speaker 4: Let's talk about that, amen, Bernie.
Speaker 1: And of course there is another figure in American history
Speaker 1: we can look to who understood this politics of division
Speaker 1: and reaped massive electoral rewards which allowed him to deliver
Speaker 1: an American social democratic program. Talking of course about FDR,
Speaker 1: who famously welcomed the hatred of those economic royalists wo
Speaker 1: would seek to block his agenda. In front of the
Speaker 1: show I our miosa Frimpong points out plan is actually
Speaker 1: not that complicated and FDR's economic bill of rights will
Speaker 1: more than suffice.
Speaker 4: It reads, every.
Speaker 1: American has the right to number one a job. Number two,
Speaker 1: an adequate wage and decent living number three, a decent
Speaker 1: home number four, medical care number five, economic protection during sickness, accident,
Speaker 1: old age, or unemployment. Number six, a good education. That's it.
Speaker 1: That's the program. Simple to understand impossible to actually achieve
Speaker 1: with the current donor beholden leadership of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: Probably the only hope is someone to come in like
Speaker 1: a bullet and china shop from the outside, like what
Speaker 1: Donald Trump did. Even Bernie was ultimately way too nice
Speaker 1: to these people. And since the program is actively hostile
Speaker 1: to capital, the capital class will wage a far more
Speaker 1: aggressive fight than they really mustered against Trump. Is more
Speaker 1: likely the Democrats take the advice of those who are
Speaker 1: rushiing to throw trans people, immigrants, whoever, under the bus
Speaker 1: and simply capitulate to Trump's narrative many already have. In fact,
Speaker 1: this path may even be electorally viable in the same
Speaker 1: way that Democrats became viable after Bill Clinton adopted Reagannite
Speaker 1: neoliberal framing. But I don't care about Democrats winning ultimately,
Speaker 1: I hear about delivering meaningful improvements for working class people,
Speaker 1: avoiding wars, and keeping our democracy. Donor friendly capitulation is
Speaker 1: a plan to avoid even joining the fight, Sager.
Speaker 4: The John suro Clip enjoyed that.
Speaker 2: And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue,
Speaker 2: become a Premium subscriber today. At breakingpoints dot com. Thank
Speaker 2: you guys so much for watching. We appreciate you thinking
Speaker 2: me a great counterpoints show for everybody tomorrow and we'll
Speaker 2: see you all on Thursday.