Krystal and Saagar discuss the latest polls showing early voting data and if Kamala is losing her path to victory, Kamala's plan to win over "black male" voters, and the rumors that Kamala is potentially going on Rogan.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent coverage.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
That is possible.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
If you like what we're all about, it just means
the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday.
We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
What do we have, Prystal?
Speaker 4 (00:29):
Indeed we do.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
We got Logan back in house to give us the
latest update on his model, and also some new polling developments,
both with regards to the presidential race in Pennsylvania specifically
and with regard to Senate races. Texas may be more
interesting than people previously thought, so we'll take a look
at all of that. Also, Kamala Harris yesterday announcing her
policy plan for black men, and it is really something
(00:53):
apparently I don't know. Well, allow to save all of
my commentary on that for that involves week involves we
involve giving and mail mentors and most neoliberal thing I've
literally ever seen, so we'll dig into that. Also might
be going on Joe Rogan Kamala Harris yesterday we covered,
but Trump may be going on with Joe Rogan and today,
(01:14):
so we felt the need to get this into the
show today.
Speaker 4 (01:16):
But apparently her people are in talks, so it'll be interesting.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
I'm hoping. I think it'd be fun.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Clearly we're trying to make a pitch for the mail
vote bro vote with all this crypto and Rogan doings,
so we'll dig into that. We also Trump making some
truly wild comments that we wanted to make sure and
cover and what that could pretend in terms of election
day in a future Trump possible administration. We're also going
to take a look at this supposed third assassination attempt
(01:43):
on Trump, which appears to be nothing of the sort.
Speaker 4 (01:46):
We'll bring you all of the details there.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
We also wanted to take some time out to take
a look at the real estate market in Florida. You know,
Florida experienced this massive during COVID. Post COVID boom, many
people move to the state. You know, Ronda Standis and
other politicians really really bragging about that, very proud of that.
Some of that may be reversing now, so we're going
to dig into the real estate market there, especially exacerbated
(02:10):
now by the state being hit by two very severe hurricanes.
We've got some once again horrific updates for you out
of Israel as well, including a New York Times report
about how Israel has been systematically using Palestinians as human
shield well documented sourced actually to the soldiers themselves who
(02:30):
are engaged in this practice.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
So will break all of that down for you as well.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
That's right, before we get to any of that, make
sure you go ahead subscribe Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
You get access to our exclusive.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Election content, including one of our segments today with Logan,
So if you want to be able to watch that
and everything the show uncut AMAS, you can take advantage
Breakingpoints dot Com become premubscriber. Let's get to Logan joining
us now, Logan Phillips, our exclusive election forecaster, Logan.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
We love seeing you here at the desk.
Speaker 5 (02:55):
Welcome back, man, I love to be here.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
Awesome. All right, let's dig into it.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
You've got your forecast to the White House is going
to put that up there on the screen. We've only
got twenty days until the presidential election. You currently have it, Actually,
it's narrowed a little bit since we talked last time.
You have it fifty five forty five for Kamala Harris. Effectively,
in my head, that's like a toss up, right, you know,
with only five percent margin or so. So talk to
us about some of the movement within that why things
(03:18):
have maybe tightened with a little bit with less time
to go now before the rate.
Speaker 6 (03:22):
Yeah, there's two reasons. Donal Trump skins a little bit
in the national polls. We seem to more movement in
the national polls as we do in some of these
swing states. Yeah, but you know, Harris's lead is crept
a little bit under three percent nationally. And the other
thing is we had to rush the poles showing Trump
aheaded Michigan in Wisconsin. Now, right, some of these were
lower quality polls, but they were enough for them that
they at least for me and I think everyone else,
(03:42):
they kind of pulled it a little closer. So, either
that's true or not. We're gonna get a better sense
in the next few days. But it's certainly a canary
in the coal mine for Harris.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Got it all right, Well, let's let's sorry, go ahead, Crysal, Yeah,
all right, well let's continue.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Let's continue then on the electoral college, because this is
where what you were just talking about with the swing states,
this stuff really matters. So A two please if we
can put that up on the screen. Here, you have
in the overall seven key swing states, you actually have
Trump up by point five. They're in the state of
Pennsylvania arguably the most important one Wisconsin, though you have
Harris up by one in Nevada. I want to come
(04:15):
back to this because you have Harris up by one
point six. It's a little bit different than what I've
seen elsewhere. Trump up in North Carolina, and then you
also have Wisconsin pretty well close there. So maybe explain
a little bit of where things are here in the forecast.
Also I misspoke, I apologize. Pennsylvania, you have Hairs up
by one point three. Just explain a little bit here
this margin some of the movement again that we've seen here,
(04:38):
and your theory of whether they'll all move together or
they won't.
Speaker 6 (04:42):
Yeah, to some Pomey, they definitely will move together. But
to quiet, there still can be that gap. And if
the election is as close as the pole suggest and
there is a big pulling miss. You could absolutely see division, right,
but if either canon overperforms even by like one and
a half points, they could sweep all of them potentially. Yeah,
And I think there's something really interesting going on right because,
like the honestly, like at least since twenty twelve, we've
(05:03):
seen Midwestern states that are a little bit more white
like shift very very fast towards Republicans. Yeah, and Democrats
start to zoom forward in the Sun Belt so fast.
The states like Jordia that weren't even close in play,
you know, are going for them if they win the
popular vote by enough. This year, it seems like the
breaks have been stopped on both of those trends and
maybe even reversed. And I'm wondering if you have something
(05:23):
to do with the strategic objectives for both parties. The
iceberg for the GOP is their low performance with non
white voters that will kill them as the country becomes
majority minority. And for Democrats, the short term iceberg, the
one that almost cost them in twenty twenty and did
cost them election in sixteen, is their poor performance with
white voters. And so perhaps these as both parties achieving
their goals to some degree, which has caused the map
(05:43):
to kind of shift a little bit in the other direction,
where Democrats are doing better than they did in the
Midwest last time relative to the national vote, and actually
maybe even worse than Georgian Arizona.
Speaker 5 (05:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
So sticking with that point, you're specifically talking about Democratic
gains with white voters, probably white college educated voters, and
then Trump and get Republican performance with black and Latino votes,
specifically men, which we're about to get to.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
In a little bit.
Speaker 6 (06:06):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, and mostly how much it doug goes
in reality. I mean, there's a constant trend of polls
underrating Democratic support of black voters, and you know, New
York Times Nate Cohen went into this recently as one
of the possibilities, right, is that some of the supporters
that are some black voters that say they're going to
support Republicans don't often vote necessarily their low propensity voters. Yeah,
(06:28):
so it hasn't always shown up. Part of that's due habits,
some of that is due to the GOT efforts in
the black commun You're often targeted more towards Democratic groups, right,
and Republicans haven't really put much effort or resources in
they're just starting to where they're not going to catch
up in one cycle.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
Yeah, we're going to cover in the next blocks on
the Kamala Harris's effort to reach men in general, black
men specifically. And I've had the same question in my
mind because back in twenty twenty, there were also a
lot of polls that showed like, oh, Joe Biden might
underperform with black men, but then when it came to
election day, he had the same performances Democrats typically have.
So I think that's a big question mark.
Speaker 4 (07:03):
We wanted you to.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
Dig into a little bit of Pennsylvania because I imagine
your assessment is the same as ours, the same with
a lot of other people, that Pennsylvania may be effectively the.
Speaker 4 (07:12):
Whole ball game.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
There's some interesting early voting data that I wanted you
to take a look at and tell us what, if anything,
we should make of it. Tom Bonnier, who's with Target Smart,
which is a Democratic aligned firm.
Speaker 4 (07:23):
But you know, I mean, their data is just data.
She's taking a look at it.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
So let's put this thread up on the screen. Let
me show you a few pieces of this. So he says,
if you look at the vote report in Pennsylvania. So
far Democrats have a solid advantage in terms of party registration.
That the gap is smaller than it was in twenty
twenty at the same point, but that doesn't tell the
whole story. Go ahead to the next one. Here we
can take a look, he says. Let's look at the
early vote by modeled partisanship, so not just what people
(07:48):
self identify, but what their target. Smart modeling suggests their
vote will be. It shows a wider dem lead than
at this point in twenty twenty.
Speaker 4 (07:57):
Why is that.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
The answer as simple, the model believes that the unaffiliate
voters are more Democratic than they were in twenty twenty.
If we could go to the next one as well,
He's been pointing out that there appears to have been
in multiple states a huge surge in Black women registering
to vote and so far also turning out to vote.
He says, looking at the racial breakdown of women early
voters in PA, we see the biggest increases among women
(08:20):
of color, especially Black women, whose turnout is two hundred
and forty eight percent of their turnout at this point
in twenty twenty, compared to one hundred and forty six
percent for white women, so women in general turning out
at higher rates than they do in twenty twenty. What,
if anything, do you make of these numbers? How should
we think about these things?
Speaker 6 (08:38):
Yeah, I don't know if it can tell us too
much about who's going to win, because it's so hard
to interpret early vote accurately, especially getting how much the
electorate is changing with the early voting habits post COVID.
That being said, it does tell us a story of
what the parties you're trying to do and whether they're
being successful. Republicans were trying really hard to reverse some
of the fears about early voting and voting by mail, Jess.
(09:00):
Maybe they've made some ground on that front. That doesn't
mean they're going to win the election. Some of these
guys would have voted on election day. But it's a
lot easier when you have a GOTV operation to get
people to vote early because you don't have to then
worry about them in the final stretch, and you can
focus your resource.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
You can kind of check them off and focus on
the people who you're still working to persuade to.
Speaker 6 (09:16):
Turn out exactly, and then on the democratic front, right
as we're just talking about the fear is, how are
they going to have the same level of turnouf with
black voters, especially in Philadelphia and Milwaukee. And so we're
seeing some good signs in Pennsylvania Wisconsin on that front
for Dems. And you know, turnout was high across the board.
It was a little lower in some of these cities.
(09:36):
And twenty twenty relative to the rest of the state,
Democrats managed to win anyway, and you know they're hoping
that that doesn't happen in twenty twenty four. And this
is a sign that they're planned to change. This is working.
And you know, the Harris campaign, everyone says has a
pretty great GEOTV operation. I think there's a question mark
on Trump's because he has had his super packs take
(09:58):
the lead on that they're using some new stratus jeez,
and could work out. It could also kind of blow
up in their face. And a lot of GOP operatives
are worried about that.
Speaker 5 (10:05):
That.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
Well, Elon is a big part of the turn on
operation of Pennsylvania.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
Yes, the America Pack.
Speaker 6 (10:10):
Yes, yeah, So sometimes innovation in politics is very important
can work.
Speaker 5 (10:14):
And Elon himself is kind of interesting because.
Speaker 6 (10:16):
The guy either kills it or it fails it's a
good way for that's a very good way for you.
Speaker 3 (10:22):
Can we put the New York Times pull up on screen?
Speaker 2 (10:24):
I want to talk to you about this A four
please mystery repeats Harris up by four and Pa, according
to the New York Times, Trump up by six in Arizona.
So there was a previous theory that all seven swing
states would either go one way or the other way
kind of how they did in twenty twenty. This time,
like you just said, we see a rid of a
reversal in that trend. This both of the parties are
(10:44):
fighting to accomplish the two things that cost them previous elections.
Is that what you see going on here? What are
the key characteristics of why and how there could be
a ten point spread between these two critical swing states.
Speaker 6 (10:56):
So I think it's unlikely it's that big, but it's possible. Right,
it's probably the spread of Polsters have it, or at
least anything I can think of off the cuff. But
the New York Times theory of the case, and they're smart,
so maybe they're right. Yeah, is that Democrats are genuinely
doing better with white voters, especially white college educated voters,
and that is enabling them to do better in the Midwest,
but they are losing ground with non white voters and
(11:17):
therefront and performing in the sun Belt. So they see
the national vote being worse for Democrats and a lot
closer than everyone else's showing right now, and they show
but they still have Democrats winning for that Midwest path.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
And that would be a twenty twenty two scenario, right
because that's what we talked a lot about yesterday. Times
both budding on this political realignment. In this scenario, would
you expect Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada to all move similarly?
Because I saw it in your forecast. You have Nevada
Harris up, but you know I've seen Trump up there
almost by six points in some places, which is a
crazy reversal. When's the last time Republicans one, I want
(11:51):
to say two thousand and four.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
Yes, it's a long time.
Speaker 6 (11:53):
I saw the same pole, and I think that one
was an ally. I'd be shocked if you one. I
want to be shocked to be one about it, but
I'd be shocked be one by six. I think that
Nevada is probably a little easier for Dems than maybe
even the other three Midwest states. Based off the current polling.
But it's a hard state to poll, and the GOP
it's been their white whale, and it's not because it's
an uncatchable one.
Speaker 5 (12:12):
They're barely losing.
Speaker 3 (12:13):
Yet every time it's like this close, so they could win.
Speaker 6 (12:16):
And in twenty fourteen they just had Democrats went completely
a wall in the state and PLP won the House
seats by combined eighteen percent. I think they won the
governor race by forty. So like there's the you can't
roll out of. It is a reason it's on the
swing state list.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Yeah, I mean it's such a unique state demographically, and
also just with the union density and the nature of
the i mean the culinary workers union and how much
the service sector are dominated. So it's not like you know,
hardcat construction unions which have really shifted towards Trump.
Speaker 4 (12:44):
It's the service.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
Sector unions which have stayed more in the Democratic camp.
But you know, still you have a state where there
was hit very hard by COVID, where economic concerns are
really paramount, where the demographics may not at this point
in time, particularly favor Democrats in terms of you know,
some of the realignments and some of the ships. But
you know, to go back to your point about if
the New York Times theory is correct about the shifts
(13:08):
in the electorate, if Kamala Harris wins those quote unquote
blue Wall states but loses all the other ones, she
wins two seventy to sixty eight, Like I mean, right,
am I doing that math right as close as it
could effectively possibly with Nebraska, with which kind of terrifies me,
just given the way that the post election last time went,
(13:30):
with all the conspiracy theories and all of the ink
January six and all of the chaos. Like, if it
is that razor thin, I think we're in. I won't
ask you to a pine on that piece, but I
think we're in for some very troubled times post election day.
If it is truly that narrow of a margin.
Speaker 5 (13:45):
I know what you're talking about, Chris. So I think
everyone in the country will handle that very piece.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Somewhere's gonna be like, Okay, we're so great, we congratulate
our new presidential victor.
Speaker 4 (13:54):
We'll I'll move forward.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
I wanted to add I did want you to have
pine though on this phenomena of quote unquote trash polls
and whether you think this is a real thing. We
could put the real clear politics average up here. These
are all of the pencil recent Pennsylvania polls, and many
of them are favoring Trump, but also many of them.
Speaker 4 (14:13):
Are partisan polls.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
A few of them are ones that I think you
could you could classify in that junk poll or trash
pole status. So talk to us about the rise of
some of these new pollsters and how we should be
thinking about that in terms of these these states and
these numbers.
Speaker 6 (14:31):
Yeah, well, you know, I don't really like to talk
about this, and my fellow you know, polster pull averagers
out there, but RCB does have a bit of a
tendency to include some of the GOP internal polls and
managed to take off some of the high quality polls
that might show that Democrats ahead sometimes.
Speaker 5 (14:45):
So yeah, it might be a little skewed.
Speaker 6 (14:47):
I think there is some concerns, especially for as Musen Trafalgar,
you know as Muson in particular. They had a poll
a year ago that they put out that they said
proved that doctor Fauci had killed more people than anyone
since the Holocaust.
Speaker 5 (14:58):
And so there's five thirty eight.
Speaker 4 (15:01):
Then I'd exactly like straight shooting.
Speaker 6 (15:03):
With that, I don't bet almost anyone, right, Like I
might lower the rating, but like it's a high standard
for me.
Speaker 5 (15:08):
But Resnution just kind of met that and vaulted over it.
So some of these are a little less reputable than Okay.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
Well, My question though, is and the reason why I'm
focusing on it, is that this was such a key
part of the twenty twenty two story. Is that if
you had and I put this out like a couple
of days ago, and one of the common responses I
got is, look, you know, even by Republicans, they're like, look,
liberals are not wrong. But there were a lot of
crappy stuff in the overall polling averages leading up to
twenty twenty two, which led to a false picture where
(15:35):
if you scroll down and you look at Maris, New
York Times, Sienna, they all mostly had Fetterman up by
a couple of points, and they were right right. And
so if we want to for the viewer out there
who doesn't just want who wants to look for themselves
and try and figure this out not necessarily rely on
a waiting measure, how should they think about it? Like,
how do you think about it when you're rating different people.
(15:56):
Is it just accuracy?
Speaker 3 (15:57):
Is it?
Speaker 2 (15:58):
You know, like samples, just talk to us about that,
because I think we have an audience that really wants
to get in the ways here.
Speaker 5 (16:03):
Yeah, yeah, I think. I think. I guess she's a
big part of it.
Speaker 6 (16:06):
And you know, it does just because you got to
right one cycle doesn't mean you get it right the
next cycle.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Right.
Speaker 6 (16:10):
And a lot of these posters have a tendency to
miss a little to the left, a little to the right,
and it makes it harder. Sometimes they change their approach.
Emerson used to miss to the left. Now they appear
to be to the right of most polsters change their strategy,
so that makes it a little harder.
Speaker 5 (16:22):
I would say, I think one.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
Of the ones that's shifted to the self identification of
like you know how you voted last time.
Speaker 6 (16:28):
I believe that Emerson uses that, but I'm not absolutely
sure they definitely include that in all of their polls. Yeah,
and that's also that's a really good point, right, Like
that's the gamble polsters. Some posters are taking some of
like the Maybe they're not like New York Times or
Maris like the top ones, but ones that are still rapputable.
Speaker 5 (16:47):
It's sort of like a shortcut.
Speaker 6 (16:48):
They're saying, Okay, if the electric's like e's actually like
twenty twenty, how are these voters going to vote? But
we know for in fact the electric's not going to
be like twenty twenty. Yeah, right, because that was the
highest turnout election in American history, if we unless we
go back before women had the right to vote, and
which I don't think we should.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
You said previously, you talked about how you think turnout
will be a little bit less this time around. So
where do you think things was around twenty sixteen twenty twenty, Like,
what are our benchmarks here?
Speaker 5 (17:13):
You're making to hire for me? It's lolasier to be
right if I just take less than.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
The highest turnout. Yeah, yeah, I.
Speaker 5 (17:19):
Don't really know to answer that question.
Speaker 6 (17:20):
That's such a hard one to estimate, And that is
why Poster's job is so hard, because you have to
get a sample of the electorate with people who aren't
responding to phone calls as much to get an idea
of both how likely they are to vote and who
are they going to vote for instead. Honestly, the best
approach are ones like selzer uses in Iowa, where you
(17:41):
just call people on voter registration files and you ask
you figure out how likely they are to vote by
asking them some questions, then you can project turnout. But
even then you get that's part of why polls are
a lot more accurate at the last second, because it's
not just that people change their mind, is that people
might commit to voting or not voting.
Speaker 3 (17:56):
Yes, yeah, that's such a key point.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
Yeah, that is a great point.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Let's kind of move on to the Senate forecast, and
for those of you who are premium subscribers, we're gonna
have this posted early exclusively for you. We're gonna have
a posted later in the week for all. But if
you want to get this heads up straight from Logan
as soon as possible, which we know you all do,
go and subscribe Breakingpoints dot com. All right, let's go
and put up this.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Kamala Harris is out with some new policy proposals. She
needs to win over black voters, specifically black mail voter,
so she appeared on the Shade Room Predominantly black podcast.
Speaker 3 (18:35):
We're going to talk about that. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 7 (18:37):
President Barack Obama, he was campaigning for you in Pittsburgh
before some students at the University of Pittsburgh, which is
my alma mater, and he said some things that really
ruffled some feathers.
Speaker 5 (18:50):
In the news.
Speaker 7 (18:51):
He said, it makes me think you aren't just feeling
the idea of having a woman as a president. You're
coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that.
We have not seen the same kind of energy and
turnout in all corners of our neighborhoods and community as
we saw when I was running. So when you hear
those words, I'm sure you were briefed on the situation.
(19:11):
You know, a former Ohio State Senator Nina Turner, she
came out on CNN and said, why are you, you know,
putting black men up against the wall and pressuring them
into something that possibly, you know, they don't want to
do if they want to vote for you or not.
So my question to you is do you think that
what President Obama said was the right thing to say.
Speaker 8 (19:30):
Let me tell you, I am very proud to have
the support of President Obama and that he is out
traveling to talk with voters about what is at stake
in this election.
Speaker 4 (19:42):
I'm very proud.
Speaker 3 (19:43):
To have his support.
Speaker 8 (19:46):
What is also important is one to understand, like, as
I said, I intend to earn the vote of everyone,
including black men. Two, pay attention to everything that President
Obama talked about, because he talked about at length.
Speaker 3 (20:02):
The danger of Donald Trump.
Speaker 8 (20:04):
The danger I think is really important to focus on
the stakes of this election. And there are two choices,
two choices. And I ask everyone to look at the background,
look at the work, look at the words.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
Hmm, all right, so pretty clearly she is she may
not be too so happy with Barack Obama. He's put
her in a little bit of a bind. I mean, look,
anybody running for office as opposed to Obama, in his
masterly sinecure just lecturing all of us mere mortals, actually
has to grapple with like he no longer has to
(20:45):
get himself elected. And also I would say he never
did that when he was trying to get himself elected.
It's only now that he's influencer Netflix, Obomba, his.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
Era, the whole like my Brother's Keeper thing. It's pretty
consistent with his politics of you know, black respectability.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
I think you're not wrong.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
I guess I would just put it as like this
nakedness of I mean, he literally was like I want
to speak to the brothers out there, I'd be like,
some of y'all ain't voting for women, and you're making
things up. I'm like, dude, you are literally trying to
tell people not only what to think, but if what
they think.
Speaker 3 (21:20):
Is not going along with you, that you're a straight
up sexist.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
That is an insane thing to do for any group,
not just black people. I mean, if some Indian person
was to my Indian brothers out there.
Speaker 3 (21:30):
Like, who the fuck are you.
Speaker 4 (21:32):
To be talking?
Speaker 1 (21:32):
I have to think, yeah, well, I mean I think
so two things are possible. One is that he actually
got crosswise with the way Kamala wanted to message this.
And that's actually my guess because she has been very
careful to not fall into the Hillary Clinton trap of
being you know, actively contemptfual of voters or messaging like
(21:54):
she doesn't have to earn their vote, she's just entitled
to it.
Speaker 4 (21:58):
Also, she's really.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
Of thank god this messaging around like what's important about
this election is my trailblazing status, Like she has dodged.
Speaker 4 (22:07):
All of that, even you'll recall, And she.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
Got asked that question on CNN by Dana Pash of
like like teed her up to trash Trump over his
comments about she's not really black or whatever, She's just
like same old playbook, Let's move on, And so I
think it's likely that she's actually not happy about this
messaging from Obama. It's also possible, though, that they feel
like he has the.
Speaker 4 (22:30):
Cred to lecture black He doesn't. Nobody does.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
No one should right to lecture blackmail voters. Whereas obviously
if it was her trying to pull that off, it
would go even more poorly than it did with Obama.
Speaker 4 (22:43):
But I don't know.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
I thought with her pivot there, it seemed to me
like she was actively unhappy about this direction. When we
were talking to Logan previously, you mentioned that there is
a lot of discussion online of like, oh, Kamala is
doing this media blitz now because their internals must be
really poor, and by and large, I think Logan analysis
of like, also, it's almost election day, and like, of
course the candidates are likely to be doing media appearances.
(23:06):
I think that's largely true, but it does seem like
there is a particular nervousness around black mail voters.
Speaker 3 (23:12):
Specifically, that is true, she's doing Charlemagne today.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
As evidenced by this podcast Charlemagne the you know, the
policy proposals we're about to talk about and rip apart
the Obama comments, et cetera. There does seem to be
some nervousness about that specific demographic group that they're kind
of telegraphing in some of these moves.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
Absolutely, because I mean, look, it's a game of margins,
and it's one of those where I guess just stick
on this point. You know, everyone's like, oh, the internals
must be bad if she's going on Fox News, I rogan,
I'm like, what if the internal show that it's a
fifty to fifty race, and if I had only a
fifty percent shot of accomplishing the single most important thing
I'll ever do in my life, I would be doing
some crazy shit to make sure that that got from
fifty to fifty one to fifty two. Even fifty point
(23:52):
five is better than fifty. So maybe that's just me.
But let's put B two up on the screen just
to set up again why this policy propose is coming
from Harry anton Over at CNN. No matter how you
splice the data, Trump seems to be the strongest Republican
with black voters since nineteen sixty. Young black men in
particular have trended right towards Trump runs, cutting the DEM
margin by forty points from twenty twelve. But Trump is
(24:15):
doing historically well with black women too, So that is
the key point is that this is the biggest realignment
of black voters, at least poised to be since the
Civil rights era.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
I want to say though that I I'm reserving judgment
until it actually happens. Sure, because we did see these
same trends heading into the Biden twenty twenty run, where
you know, he was trailing how Hillary Clinton did, and
there was a big discussion about this, and on an
election day, black voters overall showed up for him and
(24:45):
basically the same numbers as previously. So and there has
been some polling that's been contradictory. And I put a
lot of stock in the New York Times pool because
they did a super sample of black voters. That means
they had a larger groups that were able to look more,
you know, in detail at this data. But there have
been other polls that have show Kamala performing just as
well with black voters as Biden did last time around.
(25:07):
So to me, it's not definitive that this is going
to manifest, but there's certainly been a significant amount of
polling data that suggests it could. And as I said before,
the Kamala Harris team seems to be projecting some nervousness
that this trend with black men in particular could be
the case. I'm fairly persuaded with the numbers on how
many new black women registered to vote and are showing
(25:29):
up in the early voting periods and the states that
we have data to say, I don't think that she
probably is going to have an issue there with black women.
We also see women in general this large gender gap
in you know, with women favoring Kamala and a large
gender gap with men more favorable towards Trump. So I'm
definitely more skeptical about the black women piece of this,
but I think it's definitely possible with black men.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
Yeah, definitely.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
And well, again to underscore I guess the policy proposal,
whether they whether it's true or not, they seem to
believe it and they're acting in that way.
Speaker 3 (26:01):
So let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
Kamala now has some new opportunity agenda for black men.
Let me just go through it. Provide one million loan
dollar loans one million loans that are fully forgivable up
to twenty thousand dollars for black entrepreneurs and others to
start a business. Support education, training and mentorship programs that
lead to good paying jobs for black men, including pathways
(26:25):
to become teachers. Protect cryptocurrency investments so black men who
make them know that their money is safe. Launch a
national health initiative focused on illnesses that disproportionately impact black men.
And legalize recreational marijuana to create opportunities for Black Americans
to succeed in this new industry. You called it peak neoliberalism,
(26:49):
and I genuinely do think that is so accurate because
I mean, let's just fix cite.
Speaker 3 (26:55):
On this a little bit. So we're going to provide
a million dollars in loans.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
To specifically people for the their skin. M Okay, so
we're going to affirmatively it doesn't.
Speaker 4 (27:02):
Mean to say it says black entrepreneurs and others. Oh yeah,
so it's not even really clear.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
It's just okay, Well, I guess then we're just cherry
picking what exactly that means. Some of it will go
to black people. Cool, we're going to support mentorship programs.
I want everyone out there in your life to ask
yourself if you want a mentor provided to you by
the government. That's an insane thing to do. We're going
to provide government mentor. Here is your government issued mentor
(27:28):
to make sure that you live a better life.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
And that is some pure Obama eraship.
Speaker 4 (27:33):
Yeah, definitely, it really is.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
I mean that was like his My Brother's Keeper program
and all of that. But yeah, I mean I saw
Perry Bacon Jr. Who's I think he's still the Washington Post, right,
the Washing Post previously at NBC, himself a black man, saying, like,
you know, I don't really love the idea being put
out there that black men specifically need mentors. The other
(27:55):
one that really gets me is, okay, crypto, let's just
put a pin in that, because I have a lot
to say about that one.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
The health one.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
So they describe this in you know, in the greater
detailed part as a National Equity Health Initiative focused from
the like National Institute of Health on illnesses that disproportionately
impact black men. And this is where I really can
dig into how what I mean by like this is
the peak of neoliberalism, Why can't you just run on
(28:28):
universal health care so that we don't have to pick
and choose, Like, oh, if you got prostate cancer, maybe
we'll care about that and do a health equity initiative,
not even giving you care, but some study at the NIH,
thank you very much, Or like oh, if you need.
Speaker 4 (28:42):
IVF, maybe we'll pay for that.
Speaker 1 (28:44):
How about we just have healthcare that would, yes, actually
disproportunately benefit black men and other marginalized group, but would
help everybody and you know, not be like pathetically inadequate
and patronizing as many of these things are. And that's
what drives crazy about this is We've talked about this
a nauseum, but it's just worth reminding people the policies.
(29:06):
I'm not saying that it is never the case that
it makes sense to have policies that are specific to
a demographic group. I'm not saying that like blanket across
the board, but we know from history that the policies
that have most improved the lives and economic status of
Black Americans have been universal policies like lifting the minimum wage,
like increasing rates of unionization.
Speaker 4 (29:27):
Like you know, in a.
Speaker 1 (29:28):
Theoretical world where democrats still cared about and talked about healthcare,
universal health care. And so that's why this sort of
like let me do some niche, little bullshit programs for
some targeted demographic group drives me so crazy.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
And I mean again, you know, just to stick with
And this is part of why the whole equity mindset
is so stupid. When they're like health initiatives on prostate cancer,
it's like, you know, prostate cancer is a cancer that
affects most men generally, specifically people.
Speaker 3 (29:54):
Who are poor and unhealthy. Well, you know, if we.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
Talk about diseases that are the worst, most impactful on
black communities, it's the same statistically for people who are
poor and who don't have access to healthcare, eat a
shitty diet. So it's like, it's not complicated to think
about it that way. And also if you if you
put it that way, it sounds a lot better, right, Hey,
all these diseases that disgrationally impact you know, men who
(30:19):
are old, obese, diabetic, We're going to try and fix that.
That will help black people, help white people, it'll help everybody.
You know, there's a lot of poor white people out
there too, also suffer from prostate cancer. From diabetes and
from a lot of this stuff. So that's nonsense. Look
on the weed thing, you can keep everybody here knows
that I'm against weed, all right, I think it's bad.
But how if I was black and I was, like, man,
(30:41):
I would be so insulted that one of the key
pillars is let's legalize weed. They're like, oh, let's give
you people drugs?
Speaker 3 (30:48):
Is that?
Speaker 2 (30:49):
Like?
Speaker 3 (30:49):
How is that not so insulting to these people to
be like, oh, they really like to smoke weed? Right, Like,
what the fuck this? We're going to.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
Legalize drugs specifically for a specific demographic if you want to.
But she didn't even mention, you know, that's one of
those really, Look, I don't agree with it. People are like, oh,
black people just portually get arrested for it or whatever
or have in the past, so it needs to be
you know, redistributed with some criminal justice bullshit. Fine, doesn't
make a lot of sense to me still with the
current data, but I could.
Speaker 3 (31:17):
Understand that on this one.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
It's literally like, we need to legalize weed, and we
need to legalize it so that you can sell it
and you can do a better job of being a
fucking legal drug dealer. I'm like, how is that not
so insulting to people that it's like, that is the
epitome in my head of handoutism, and it's like and
it doesn't get called racist or anything by the media,
and that's that's the pinnacle of racism.
Speaker 3 (31:40):
Yeah, to me, legalize drugs for you.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
What, I support the policy, right, I support both the
legalizing and I support the you know, the idea of
this is the community. It's been most impact, is it
We're opening up this new business opportunity, like, let's do
things in there.
Speaker 4 (31:55):
I'm good with all of that. But you're so right to.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Put it as a specific plank framed in life. This
is our blackmail agenda is really something. Yeah, here's weak
for Let's talk about crypto though, because there is so
much going on with the fact again that they put
the crypto plank in this particular policy proposal, and it's
no secret why. There's actually, you know, significant pulling that
(32:18):
suggests that black men are you know, disproportionately actually holders
of crypto. So that's part of why they include this plank.
That's that's their logic. But there also has been Crypto
has already won this election. Let me just say that,
right the Biden administration, through Gary Gensler at the SEC,
they have aggressively enforced the laws that are on the
(32:39):
books against crypto, against scams, and against you know things,
people getting scammed in the financial world in general, and
Crypto has been subject to that enforcement. And there has
been over years now a large and concerted effort that
was very visible when it's Sam Bankman freed, but has
very much continued at large scale after that. And Crypto
(33:01):
is now one of the largest corporate contributors that industry
to the presidential campaign and down ballot campaigns in this
whole cycle. This is one of the areas whe Kamala
has really pretty consistently signaled that she will actually be
different from Joe Biden. She will be more lax on enforcement.
And I was just reading this morning soccer. I didn't
know all of his backstory, but they've really made an
(33:24):
example of Katie Porter in particular, where in the weeks
before her election, a crypto affiliated pack dump ten million
dollars into ads against her. They didn't have anything to
do with cryptocurrency these ads, but into ads against her.
She loses, and that ended up being like a warning
shot at all Democrats and Republicans that hey, you better
(33:46):
not get crosswise here. And they've wrapped it all in
this language of like, oh, entrepreneurship and innovation, et cetera,
et cetera. And Trump completely flipped on crypto Kamala versus Biden.
She's completely you know, signaled that she's got to be
different on crypto too. And so you know that manifests
and things like saying that part of your blackmail agenda
(34:06):
is quote unquote protecting crypto assets. It's you know, it's
extraordinary to see the influence of money and politics.
Speaker 4 (34:14):
In real time.
Speaker 2 (34:14):
I have a conflict of interest on this one. I
like crypto. I'm a hodler myself. Yeah, you don't really
get scammed. H No, I actually did get scammed. Yeah,
as people here. No, I lost five thousand dollars on
a block flight by the way, actually finally got my
money back. I don't know how exactly that happened, but
one day I got an email and they're like, here,
you know, somehow the bankruptcy clawback stuff worked. So you know,
it only took a couple of years and being in
(34:35):
the in the weeds. But they're as what they point
out is that there are a lot I mean men
in particular from Robinhood, Crypto and all, especially back in
the twenty twenty one twenty twenty two era, probably did
buy a decent amount of crypto.
Speaker 3 (34:47):
I bought a lot before that.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
The point is is that what they are trying to
do is in This is just hand out shit.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
This is not anything that has.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
To do with what is the way that we should
have a well regulated like commerce and exchange. What should
the future of American monetary you know, policy look like, like,
how should we think about banking? How should we make
sure that people are protected? This is just pure like
trying to get into the weeds of quote unquote like
appealing to people by talking about some tiny, little specific thing,
(35:18):
which ends up, in my opinion, being very very patronizing.
So this entire thing, you know, I'm really hoping Charlemagne
has an interview with her today around like five pm.
It's gonna be live. I'm gonna be watching it, and
he does a good job of cutting to the core
of this stuff.
Speaker 3 (35:31):
So I saw him recently.
Speaker 2 (35:32):
He was just talking with Andrew Schaltz talking about young
black men and their appeal with Trump and I'm really
hoping he focuses in on that with her and just
just tries to get to the crux of like, what's
actually happening happening here and is it not very patronizing
the way that you were talking, both Obama and her
in the way that this being put for. And of
course you've got Bacari Sellers and all these other black
(35:54):
congressmen out there, like, look at Kamalo's incredible plan for
black men. I'm like, again, I cannot imagine how it's
still that would be if my leaders and I supported
Elders and all these other people.
Speaker 3 (36:04):
This is what they were saying, is so good for you, you.
Speaker 2 (36:06):
Know, It's just I don't know's there's so much lack
of individualism in the way that you even look at
any of this.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
You know, Nina, we had Nina Turners and her Nina
Turner on yesterday. I encourage you to watch her her comments.
Her first reaction when she before she really read through
the plan details, was like, Okay, well, at least they're
trying to appeal to people through policy, and I think
that's fair. But it's also fair to look at the
policy and say this patronizing that and bad. Just to
(36:32):
dig one layer deeper on the crypto thing, because I've
been thinking a lot about this, the reason that so
many black part of the reason so many black men
have crypto investments is because they've been locked down on
so many other forms of wealth accumulation and wealth building,
lower home ownership rates, you know, discriminated against in terms
of banks and the mortgage rates that's their charge, or
(36:54):
whether they even approved for a loan, And so crypto
really offered this, you know, this utopian vision of like, well,
this is the new financials, this is how you're gonna
make it, This is how you're going to be able.
Speaker 4 (37:07):
To build wealth.
Speaker 1 (37:09):
And you know, some of that is genuine and some
of it has just been completely fraudulent in scams. So,
you know, again to get to like the neoliberal point
of this, rather than really doing anything that's going to
fundamentally address that lack of wealth accumulation, it's like, well,
we're just going to like keep enabling the scammers and
make sure that they're regulated more lightly so that they
(37:31):
can so that the people who have lots of crypto
or because crypto is also rife with massive inequality in
terms of who's benefiting and who's on the other end
sometimes getting screwed.
Speaker 4 (37:42):
So we're going to make sure that.
Speaker 1 (37:43):
Those people at the top can continue to get theirs
and continue to, like you know, in certain instances, screw
you over.
Speaker 4 (37:49):
That's part of what's so disturbing her.
Speaker 1 (37:50):
And just you know, the specific fight is really around
which agency is going to regulate crypto and do the enforcement,
and the SEC tends to be more aggressive. There's another body,
the CFTC that the crypto industry wants to be the
regulator because they think that they just basically won't really
conduct any oversight there. And like I said, at this point,
(38:14):
I think it's it doesn't really matter which of these
candidates wins because both of them have already signaled that
they're going to do what the crypto industry once.
Speaker 4 (38:22):
So anyway, that's where we are.
Speaker 1 (38:23):
We do have an axios ters you can just show
put up on the screen there B five just to
you know, back up what I was saying before about
the amount of money that this sector has donated, and
they've launched this whole campaign aimed at elites, at political
elites to convince them. There as a quote unquote crypto
(38:44):
voter who is going to be basing their vote on
whether crypto is regulated at the SEC or the CFTC,
that this is like the primary thing that they're going
to be voting on. There's no evidence that that's really
the case outside of you know, the Mark Cubans of
the world and like the people who kind of at.
Speaker 4 (39:00):
The top of that industry.
Speaker 1 (39:02):
But I think the politicians are buying that that's the case,
and they're certainly buying that they don't want to get
crosswise of this industry because of the amount of money
they had to spend against you if you if you
undercut them or if you piss them off.
Speaker 2 (39:17):
Kamala Harris is now apparently in talks with Joe Rogan
to appear on the.
Speaker 3 (39:23):
Joe Rogan podcast.
Speaker 4 (39:24):
Not see this one coming.
Speaker 3 (39:25):
I did not see it coming as well.
Speaker 2 (39:27):
I think it's a welcome development and so just a
little bit more behind the scenes. Obviously, this just broke
and they didn't have much detail on it.
Speaker 3 (39:35):
But what they say is that and I was actually
kind of curious about this.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
They're like, Kamala's representatives met with Rogan's representatives, and I'm like,
which represents exactly maybe his agent? I mean as far
as I know, Yeah, like Amy's Jami meeting with I
would I would pay to see money of Jamie meeting with.
Speaker 4 (39:53):
Somebody from Anita Dunn or whoever.
Speaker 3 (39:54):
That would be hilariously.
Speaker 2 (39:57):
Uh yeah, I think I mean Joe's again, I have
no insie knowledge, but I mean he has talked previously.
He's like as one booker and one manager, so maybe
as one of those people that has done it. But regardless,
this comes on the heels of Trump saying that he
would be he would be going on rogue and we
don't know if that's true, whether he had confirmed it
or any of not. Maybe it's the case that Joe
(40:17):
was trying to say, well, if I'm going to have
Trump and I want to have both one and extended
the offer.
Speaker 3 (40:21):
That's what most people have done who.
Speaker 2 (40:22):
Have interviewed both candidates, They've put in offers with both,
and usually it's either Trump or Comma or whatever who
will accept that. In this case, though, this actually now
has the chance of happening, and that would be kind
of amazing and it's funny again.
Speaker 3 (40:36):
I want to come back to this.
Speaker 2 (40:37):
There's so many people out there who are like, oh,
the internals must be bad. And I'm like, again, if
you are in a fifty fifty race and you want
to go and reach millions of people who may not
be engaging with the mainstream media, why would you not
go on this podcast? And look, I mean, I guess
the answer is you're not confident in what you believe
(40:59):
or in what say. The thing is, though Joe is
not is a curious interviewer. He doesn't usually get into
some prolonged back and forth or something him mostly just
asking questions, did back and listen. So if you want
to explain your actual thought process, which is what Joe Rogan, oh,
which is what Bernie Sanders did when he went on,
which is what Andrey Yang did when he went on,
which is what RFK Junior did whenever he went on,
(41:21):
I can't think of a better format to go in.
And also, if you have somebody, so Joe is probably
going to challenge her a little bit on some of
the things that he disagrees with her on. But he
is one of those people who said consistently he's like, look,
I'm mostly like liberal in many things. You know, I'm
very liberal on the issue of abortion. I'm very conservative
on the issue of guns traditionally, like was a Democrat
and all that, but I moved to Texas because of
(41:41):
my disagreement. I mean, that would give her a format
to talk to people out there who ness who might
align with his view. So I can't think of a
better place to go, not just Rogan, but any like
Manosphere era stuff where you think you could get at
least somewhat of an honest convo, Go for it, Like
if you're in a fifty to fifty election, you should
be doing it. Everyone was dunking on Kama for going
(42:03):
on call her daddy. I think Trump should go and
call her daddy.
Speaker 3 (42:05):
I'm absolutely I think you should do it. He would
do well, That's what I don't understand the caution.
Speaker 2 (42:11):
He's grew up on Howard Stern and in the New
York tabloids. You think he can't handle freaking Alex Cooper.
Of course he can. I mean, what are some of
his best moments in these mainstream media interviews with CNN
or with MSNBC, either when he spars or whatever, you know,
disarms them with a joke. So anyway, that's my opinion.
I think Kamas should go on then nelk boys Uh,
(42:31):
Trump should go on call her dad with absolutely, yeah
she should. Hey, she wants to talk about crypto crypto gambling.
She could be read a Steak dot com and.
Speaker 1 (42:41):
You're getting the uh, you're getting the King of the Bros. Here,
she's going straight to the top show with White Brogan.
Speaker 3 (42:46):
Good.
Speaker 1 (42:46):
But I mean, okay, So there's a few things to
say about this. First of all, it's not without risk
for sure, because yeah, I mean, Joe is not a journalist.
He's not gonna do the like, you know, super adversary,
we're going to ask you five times whatever. But he
has made people look stupid on his show, just kind
of casually like humiliated a variety of people on his show,
and that is not on the question because he's a
(43:09):
good listener and he's just he's a good question asker.
Speaker 4 (43:12):
So that's a risk for her. And we all know.
Speaker 1 (43:14):
How she is like on her feet in these interviews,
even like on the view with softball questions.
Speaker 4 (43:20):
She can definitely screw it up. There's no doubt about it.
So it's risky. I hope she does it.
Speaker 1 (43:24):
I think it'd be very interesting to see. I think
it would be smart if she pulls it off. I
think it would be intelligent. If she doesn't pull it off,
then it will obviously be a mistake. The other thing
I just have to comment on though, is Sager, you
remember the way liberals smeared Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 3 (43:39):
Yes, I do, Yes, I do.
Speaker 1 (43:41):
Not so much, but just going on the podcast, but
Joe made this comment like, oh, I'll probably vote for
Bernie Sanders. They were like cool, the number one podcast
in the world said he would vote for me. Like,
let me make a thing of that, as a politician
would the number of liberals who absolutely smear how dare
you platform this racist sac is blah blah blah blah blah,
(44:02):
who are now going to be out there like, oh,
it's so great that christ Kamala was going on with
Joe Rogue and like, I just you know, I'm here
for it. I'm absolutely here for the way that these
people have zero principles or values and we'll just turn
on a dime when it suits them with their their
favorite candidates.
Speaker 4 (44:16):
So looking forward, looking forward to Yeah.
Speaker 2 (44:18):
Well you can stick with that theme actually, because what
also was announced is that she will be doing a
sit down interview with Brett Bayer over at Fox News
for a prolonged period of time. But I think it airs.
It either is today or at airsmorrow, I forget. Yeah,
But the point is is that previously, remember Elizabeth Warren
tried to get everybody on the DNC stage to raise
their hand.
Speaker 3 (44:37):
In boycott Fox News.
Speaker 2 (44:39):
But now whenever its election time, like, yeah, well you
should go on Fox.
Speaker 1 (44:43):
They've been loving Pete budaju Jeh on Fox News. That's
like one of their favorite things because I mean he
does he handles himself very well in the format, and
so yeah, they really love when he goes on there.
Speaker 3 (44:53):
And Birthing went on Fox. He did a whole town
home that was.
Speaker 1 (44:56):
One of the watch the best moments he did fantastic.
He had a Fox News audi cheering for them, and
so yeah, I mean Brett Baer, you know, he's going
to frame things from kind of like a center right perspective,
but he's not going to be like wildly unfair right there.
Speaker 3 (45:08):
He's like a sixty minute style journalist.
Speaker 2 (45:11):
He's just gonna sit there and be like, he used
to say this about illegal immigrants, and now you say this,
How do you square that he used to say this
and now you say this?
Speaker 3 (45:17):
How it'll be it will be.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
Frankly, I think better than Dana Basher any of these
other people who've interviewed her. I actually got the sixty
minutes guys. Credit to them outside of the whole editing fiasco.
But the actual journalist journalist. That's not the journalists at
least I assume so. But the actual guy you interviewed her,
he did a pretty good job, right, He has a decent.
Speaker 3 (45:36):
Amount follow ups.
Speaker 2 (45:36):
That's probably what we should expect here, And in general,
you should be doing more of these things. So I
keep seeing this like, oh, she must be losing and
all that. I'm like, well, first of all, if you
think you're losing, the best way to do is do
something drastic. So I think that's good, even though I
don't think it's all that drastic to go on any
of the things. But you should always just be doing
everything you possibly can to reach as many people that
(45:58):
you can. Before an election, a lot people make up
their minds right around right now on.
Speaker 3 (46:02):
Whether they're going to vote who they're going to vote for.
So this is it, This is what you should be doing.
Speaker 2 (46:07):
Trump is doing a ton of podcasts in the lead up,
and Kamalas should be doing more.
Speaker 1 (46:11):
Fox News has a large viewership and not News Channel.
Not all of them are diehard Trump supporters. You know,
they've got their Kamala's doing this whole whether I like
it or not, She's doing this whole, Nikki Aley, Liz
Cheney voter strategy, and there will be some of those
people watching Fox News. So you know, again, it all
(46:32):
depends is it a smart strategy. It all depends on
how she does. I can't say that the last week's
media strategy worked out particularly well for her.
Speaker 4 (46:39):
The sixty minutes interview not great. The view interview not great.
Speaker 1 (46:42):
But you know, apparently they have enough confidence that they
think that these additional media appearances can help to clean
things up.
Speaker 2 (46:48):
Definitely, all right, And oh, I said Jessee Trump was
on Bustin' Busting with the Boys, which is a barstool podcast.
Speaker 3 (46:54):
Oh really incredible. I mean, Josie, he's doing.
Speaker 4 (46:58):
Many more podcasts than these rallies. This thing, this is
really his.
Speaker 2 (47:00):
He seems to doing like one in one yeah, I mean, look,
it doesn't take that long in film, right, So it's
like one of those where why not you know, you
can set it up and you can actually make it
and reach a bunch of people who were talking about
otherwise about college football. I wonder what the crossover is
when college football and South and Trump. I mean, it
doesn't take a genius to see these things. If anything,
is crazy that it took so long for politicians to
(47:21):
embrace charcass It's more of a lagging thing than it
is something in the former
Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent coverage.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
That is possible.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
If you like what we're all about, it just means
the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday.
We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
What do we have, Prystal?
Speaker 4 (00:29):
Indeed we do.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
We got Logan back in house to give us the
latest update on his model, and also some new polling developments,
both with regards to the presidential race in Pennsylvania specifically
and with regard to Senate races. Texas may be more
interesting than people previously thought, so we'll take a look
at all of that. Also, Kamala Harris yesterday announcing her
policy plan for black men, and it is really something
(00:53):
apparently I don't know. Well, allow to save all of
my commentary on that for that involves week involves we
involve giving and mail mentors and most neoliberal thing I've
literally ever seen, so we'll dig into that. Also might
be going on Joe Rogan Kamala Harris yesterday we covered,
but Trump may be going on with Joe Rogan and today,
(01:14):
so we felt the need to get this into the
show today.
Speaker 4 (01:16):
But apparently her people are in talks, so it'll be interesting.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
I'm hoping. I think it'd be fun.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Clearly we're trying to make a pitch for the mail
vote bro vote with all this crypto and Rogan doings,
so we'll dig into that. We also Trump making some
truly wild comments that we wanted to make sure and
cover and what that could pretend in terms of election
day in a future Trump possible administration. We're also going
to take a look at this supposed third assassination attempt
(01:43):
on Trump, which appears to be nothing of the sort.
Speaker 4 (01:46):
We'll bring you all of the details there.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
We also wanted to take some time out to take
a look at the real estate market in Florida. You know,
Florida experienced this massive during COVID. Post COVID boom, many
people move to the state. You know, Ronda Standis and
other politicians really really bragging about that, very proud of that.
Some of that may be reversing now, so we're going
to dig into the real estate market there, especially exacerbated
(02:10):
now by the state being hit by two very severe hurricanes.
We've got some once again horrific updates for you out
of Israel as well, including a New York Times report
about how Israel has been systematically using Palestinians as human
shield well documented sourced actually to the soldiers themselves who
(02:30):
are engaged in this practice.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
So will break all of that down for you as well.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
That's right, before we get to any of that, make
sure you go ahead subscribe Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
You get access to our exclusive.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Election content, including one of our segments today with Logan,
So if you want to be able to watch that
and everything the show uncut AMAS, you can take advantage
Breakingpoints dot Com become premubscriber. Let's get to Logan joining
us now, Logan Phillips, our exclusive election forecaster, Logan.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
We love seeing you here at the desk.
Speaker 5 (02:55):
Welcome back, man, I love to be here.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
Awesome. All right, let's dig into it.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
You've got your forecast to the White House is going
to put that up there on the screen. We've only
got twenty days until the presidential election. You currently have it, Actually,
it's narrowed a little bit since we talked last time.
You have it fifty five forty five for Kamala Harris. Effectively,
in my head, that's like a toss up, right, you know,
with only five percent margin or so. So talk to
us about some of the movement within that why things
(03:18):
have maybe tightened with a little bit with less time
to go now before the rate.
Speaker 6 (03:22):
Yeah, there's two reasons. Donal Trump skins a little bit
in the national polls. We seem to more movement in
the national polls as we do in some of these
swing states. Yeah, but you know, Harris's lead is crept
a little bit under three percent nationally. And the other
thing is we had to rush the poles showing Trump
aheaded Michigan in Wisconsin. Now, right, some of these were
lower quality polls, but they were enough for them that
they at least for me and I think everyone else,
(03:42):
they kind of pulled it a little closer. So, either
that's true or not. We're gonna get a better sense
in the next few days. But it's certainly a canary
in the coal mine for Harris.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Got it all right, Well, let's let's sorry, go ahead, Crysal, Yeah,
all right, well let's continue.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Let's continue then on the electoral college, because this is
where what you were just talking about with the swing states,
this stuff really matters. So A two please if we
can put that up on the screen. Here, you have
in the overall seven key swing states, you actually have
Trump up by point five. They're in the state of
Pennsylvania arguably the most important one Wisconsin, though you have
Harris up by one in Nevada. I want to come
(04:15):
back to this because you have Harris up by one
point six. It's a little bit different than what I've
seen elsewhere. Trump up in North Carolina, and then you
also have Wisconsin pretty well close there. So maybe explain
a little bit of where things are here in the forecast.
Also I misspoke, I apologize. Pennsylvania, you have Hairs up
by one point three. Just explain a little bit here
this margin some of the movement again that we've seen here,
(04:38):
and your theory of whether they'll all move together or
they won't.
Speaker 6 (04:42):
Yeah, to some Pomey, they definitely will move together. But
to quiet, there still can be that gap. And if
the election is as close as the pole suggest and
there is a big pulling miss. You could absolutely see division, right,
but if either canon overperforms even by like one and
a half points, they could sweep all of them potentially. Yeah,
And I think there's something really interesting going on right because,
like the honestly, like at least since twenty twelve, we've
(05:03):
seen Midwestern states that are a little bit more white
like shift very very fast towards Republicans. Yeah, and Democrats
start to zoom forward in the Sun Belt so fast.
The states like Jordia that weren't even close in play,
you know, are going for them if they win the
popular vote by enough. This year, it seems like the
breaks have been stopped on both of those trends and
maybe even reversed. And I'm wondering if you have something
(05:23):
to do with the strategic objectives for both parties. The
iceberg for the GOP is their low performance with non
white voters that will kill them as the country becomes
majority minority. And for Democrats, the short term iceberg, the
one that almost cost them in twenty twenty and did
cost them election in sixteen, is their poor performance with
white voters. And so perhaps these as both parties achieving
their goals to some degree, which has caused the map
(05:43):
to kind of shift a little bit in the other direction,
where Democrats are doing better than they did in the
Midwest last time relative to the national vote, and actually
maybe even worse than Georgian Arizona.
Speaker 5 (05:53):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
So sticking with that point, you're specifically talking about Democratic
gains with white voters, probably white college educated voters, and
then Trump and get Republican performance with black and Latino votes,
specifically men, which we're about to get to.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
In a little bit.
Speaker 6 (06:06):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, and mostly how much it doug goes
in reality. I mean, there's a constant trend of polls
underrating Democratic support of black voters, and you know, New
York Times Nate Cohen went into this recently as one
of the possibilities, right, is that some of the supporters
that are some black voters that say they're going to
support Republicans don't often vote necessarily their low propensity voters. Yeah,
(06:28):
so it hasn't always shown up. Part of that's due habits,
some of that is due to the GOT efforts in
the black commun You're often targeted more towards Democratic groups, right,
and Republicans haven't really put much effort or resources in
they're just starting to where they're not going to catch
up in one cycle.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
Yeah, we're going to cover in the next blocks on
the Kamala Harris's effort to reach men in general, black
men specifically. And I've had the same question in my
mind because back in twenty twenty, there were also a
lot of polls that showed like, oh, Joe Biden might
underperform with black men, but then when it came to
election day, he had the same performances Democrats typically have.
So I think that's a big question mark.
Speaker 4 (07:03):
We wanted you to.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
Dig into a little bit of Pennsylvania because I imagine
your assessment is the same as ours, the same with
a lot of other people, that Pennsylvania may be effectively the.
Speaker 4 (07:12):
Whole ball game.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
There's some interesting early voting data that I wanted you
to take a look at and tell us what, if anything,
we should make of it. Tom Bonnier, who's with Target Smart,
which is a Democratic aligned firm.
Speaker 4 (07:23):
But you know, I mean, their data is just data.
She's taking a look at it.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
So let's put this thread up on the screen. Let
me show you a few pieces of this. So he says,
if you look at the vote report in Pennsylvania. So
far Democrats have a solid advantage in terms of party registration.
That the gap is smaller than it was in twenty
twenty at the same point, but that doesn't tell the
whole story. Go ahead to the next one. Here we
can take a look, he says. Let's look at the
early vote by modeled partisanship, so not just what people
(07:48):
self identify, but what their target. Smart modeling suggests their
vote will be. It shows a wider dem lead than
at this point in twenty twenty.
Speaker 4 (07:57):
Why is that.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
The answer as simple, the model believes that the unaffiliate
voters are more Democratic than they were in twenty twenty.
If we could go to the next one as well,
He's been pointing out that there appears to have been
in multiple states a huge surge in Black women registering
to vote and so far also turning out to vote.
He says, looking at the racial breakdown of women early
voters in PA, we see the biggest increases among women
(08:20):
of color, especially Black women, whose turnout is two hundred
and forty eight percent of their turnout at this point
in twenty twenty, compared to one hundred and forty six
percent for white women, so women in general turning out
at higher rates than they do in twenty twenty. What,
if anything, do you make of these numbers? How should
we think about these things?
Speaker 6 (08:38):
Yeah, I don't know if it can tell us too
much about who's going to win, because it's so hard
to interpret early vote accurately, especially getting how much the
electorate is changing with the early voting habits post COVID.
That being said, it does tell us a story of
what the parties you're trying to do and whether they're
being successful. Republicans were trying really hard to reverse some
of the fears about early voting and voting by mail, Jess.
(09:00):
Maybe they've made some ground on that front. That doesn't
mean they're going to win the election. Some of these
guys would have voted on election day. But it's a
lot easier when you have a GOTV operation to get
people to vote early because you don't have to then
worry about them in the final stretch, and you can
focus your resource.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
You can kind of check them off and focus on
the people who you're still working to persuade to.
Speaker 6 (09:16):
Turn out exactly, and then on the democratic front, right
as we're just talking about the fear is, how are
they going to have the same level of turnouf with
black voters, especially in Philadelphia and Milwaukee. And so we're
seeing some good signs in Pennsylvania Wisconsin on that front
for Dems. And you know, turnout was high across the board.
It was a little lower in some of these cities.
(09:36):
And twenty twenty relative to the rest of the state,
Democrats managed to win anyway, and you know they're hoping
that that doesn't happen in twenty twenty four. And this
is a sign that they're planned to change. This is working.
And you know, the Harris campaign, everyone says has a
pretty great GEOTV operation. I think there's a question mark
on Trump's because he has had his super packs take
(09:58):
the lead on that they're using some new stratus jeez,
and could work out. It could also kind of blow
up in their face. And a lot of GOP operatives
are worried about that.
Speaker 5 (10:05):
That.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
Well, Elon is a big part of the turn on
operation of Pennsylvania.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
Yes, the America Pack.
Speaker 6 (10:10):
Yes, yeah, So sometimes innovation in politics is very important
can work.
Speaker 5 (10:14):
And Elon himself is kind of interesting because.
Speaker 6 (10:16):
The guy either kills it or it fails it's a
good way for that's a very good way for you.
Speaker 3 (10:22):
Can we put the New York Times pull up on screen?
Speaker 2 (10:24):
I want to talk to you about this A four
please mystery repeats Harris up by four and Pa, according
to the New York Times, Trump up by six in Arizona.
So there was a previous theory that all seven swing
states would either go one way or the other way
kind of how they did in twenty twenty. This time,
like you just said, we see a rid of a
reversal in that trend. This both of the parties are
(10:44):
fighting to accomplish the two things that cost them previous elections.
Is that what you see going on here? What are
the key characteristics of why and how there could be
a ten point spread between these two critical swing states.
Speaker 6 (10:56):
So I think it's unlikely it's that big, but it's possible. Right,
it's probably the spread of Polsters have it, or at
least anything I can think of off the cuff. But
the New York Times theory of the case, and they're smart,
so maybe they're right. Yeah, is that Democrats are genuinely
doing better with white voters, especially white college educated voters,
and that is enabling them to do better in the Midwest,
but they are losing ground with non white voters and
(11:17):
therefront and performing in the sun Belt. So they see
the national vote being worse for Democrats and a lot
closer than everyone else's showing right now, and they show
but they still have Democrats winning for that Midwest path.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
And that would be a twenty twenty two scenario, right
because that's what we talked a lot about yesterday. Times
both budding on this political realignment. In this scenario, would
you expect Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada to all move similarly?
Because I saw it in your forecast. You have Nevada
Harris up, but you know I've seen Trump up there
almost by six points in some places, which is a
crazy reversal. When's the last time Republicans one, I want
(11:51):
to say two thousand and four.
Speaker 3 (11:52):
Yes, it's a long time.
Speaker 6 (11:53):
I saw the same pole, and I think that one
was an ally. I'd be shocked if you one. I
want to be shocked to be one about it, but
I'd be shocked be one by six. I think that
Nevada is probably a little easier for Dems than maybe
even the other three Midwest states. Based off the current polling.
But it's a hard state to poll, and the GOP
it's been their white whale, and it's not because it's
an uncatchable one.
Speaker 5 (12:12):
They're barely losing.
Speaker 3 (12:13):
Yet every time it's like this close, so they could win.
Speaker 6 (12:16):
And in twenty fourteen they just had Democrats went completely
a wall in the state and PLP won the House
seats by combined eighteen percent. I think they won the
governor race by forty. So like there's the you can't
roll out of. It is a reason it's on the
swing state list.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Yeah, I mean it's such a unique state demographically, and
also just with the union density and the nature of
the i mean the culinary workers union and how much
the service sector are dominated. So it's not like you know,
hardcat construction unions which have really shifted towards Trump.
Speaker 4 (12:44):
It's the service.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
Sector unions which have stayed more in the Democratic camp.
But you know, still you have a state where there
was hit very hard by COVID, where economic concerns are
really paramount, where the demographics may not at this point
in time, particularly favor Democrats in terms of you know,
some of the realignments and some of the ships. But
you know, to go back to your point about if
the New York Times theory is correct about the shifts
(13:08):
in the electorate, if Kamala Harris wins those quote unquote
blue Wall states but loses all the other ones, she
wins two seventy to sixty eight, Like I mean, right,
am I doing that math right as close as it
could effectively possibly with Nebraska, with which kind of terrifies me,
just given the way that the post election last time went,
(13:30):
with all the conspiracy theories and all of the ink
January six and all of the chaos. Like, if it
is that razor thin, I think we're in. I won't
ask you to a pine on that piece, but I
think we're in for some very troubled times post election day.
If it is truly that narrow of a margin.
Speaker 5 (13:45):
I know what you're talking about, Chris. So I think
everyone in the country will handle that very piece.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Somewhere's gonna be like, Okay, we're so great, we congratulate
our new presidential victor.
Speaker 4 (13:54):
We'll I'll move forward.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
I wanted to add I did want you to have
pine though on this phenomena of quote unquote trash polls
and whether you think this is a real thing. We
could put the real clear politics average up here. These
are all of the pencil recent Pennsylvania polls, and many
of them are favoring Trump, but also many of them.
Speaker 4 (14:13):
Are partisan polls.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
A few of them are ones that I think you
could you could classify in that junk poll or trash
pole status. So talk to us about the rise of
some of these new pollsters and how we should be
thinking about that in terms of these these states and
these numbers.
Speaker 6 (14:31):
Yeah, well, you know, I don't really like to talk
about this, and my fellow you know, polster pull averagers
out there, but RCB does have a bit of a
tendency to include some of the GOP internal polls and
managed to take off some of the high quality polls
that might show that Democrats ahead sometimes.
Speaker 5 (14:45):
So yeah, it might be a little skewed.
Speaker 6 (14:47):
I think there is some concerns, especially for as Musen Trafalgar,
you know as Muson in particular. They had a poll
a year ago that they put out that they said
proved that doctor Fauci had killed more people than anyone
since the Holocaust.
Speaker 5 (14:58):
And so there's five thirty eight.
Speaker 4 (15:01):
Then I'd exactly like straight shooting.
Speaker 6 (15:03):
With that, I don't bet almost anyone, right, Like I
might lower the rating, but like it's a high standard
for me.
Speaker 5 (15:08):
But Resnution just kind of met that and vaulted over it.
So some of these are a little less reputable than Okay.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
Well, My question though, is and the reason why I'm
focusing on it, is that this was such a key
part of the twenty twenty two story. Is that if
you had and I put this out like a couple
of days ago, and one of the common responses I
got is, look, you know, even by Republicans, they're like, look,
liberals are not wrong. But there were a lot of
crappy stuff in the overall polling averages leading up to
twenty twenty two, which led to a false picture where
(15:35):
if you scroll down and you look at Maris, New
York Times, Sienna, they all mostly had Fetterman up by
a couple of points, and they were right right. And
so if we want to for the viewer out there
who doesn't just want who wants to look for themselves
and try and figure this out not necessarily rely on
a waiting measure, how should they think about it? Like,
how do you think about it when you're rating different people.
(15:56):
Is it just accuracy?
Speaker 3 (15:57):
Is it?
Speaker 2 (15:58):
You know, like samples, just talk to us about that,
because I think we have an audience that really wants
to get in the ways here.
Speaker 5 (16:03):
Yeah, yeah, I think. I think. I guess she's a
big part of it.
Speaker 6 (16:06):
And you know, it does just because you got to
right one cycle doesn't mean you get it right the
next cycle.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Right.
Speaker 6 (16:10):
And a lot of these posters have a tendency to
miss a little to the left, a little to the right,
and it makes it harder. Sometimes they change their approach.
Emerson used to miss to the left. Now they appear
to be to the right of most polsters change their strategy,
so that makes it a little harder.
Speaker 5 (16:22):
I would say, I think one.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
Of the ones that's shifted to the self identification of
like you know how you voted last time.
Speaker 6 (16:28):
I believe that Emerson uses that, but I'm not absolutely
sure they definitely include that in all of their polls. Yeah,
and that's also that's a really good point, right, Like
that's the gamble polsters. Some posters are taking some of
like the Maybe they're not like New York Times or
Maris like the top ones, but ones that are still rapputable.
Speaker 5 (16:47):
It's sort of like a shortcut.
Speaker 6 (16:48):
They're saying, Okay, if the electric's like e's actually like
twenty twenty, how are these voters going to vote? But
we know for in fact the electric's not going to
be like twenty twenty. Yeah, right, because that was the
highest turnout election in American history, if we unless we
go back before women had the right to vote, and
which I don't think we should.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
You said previously, you talked about how you think turnout
will be a little bit less this time around. So
where do you think things was around twenty sixteen twenty twenty, Like,
what are our benchmarks here?
Speaker 5 (17:13):
You're making to hire for me? It's lolasier to be
right if I just take less than.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
The highest turnout. Yeah, yeah, I.
Speaker 5 (17:19):
Don't really know to answer that question.
Speaker 6 (17:20):
That's such a hard one to estimate, And that is
why Poster's job is so hard, because you have to
get a sample of the electorate with people who aren't
responding to phone calls as much to get an idea
of both how likely they are to vote and who
are they going to vote for instead. Honestly, the best
approach are ones like selzer uses in Iowa, where you
(17:41):
just call people on voter registration files and you ask
you figure out how likely they are to vote by
asking them some questions, then you can project turnout. But
even then you get that's part of why polls are
a lot more accurate at the last second, because it's
not just that people change their mind, is that people
might commit to voting or not voting.
Speaker 3 (17:56):
Yes, yeah, that's such a key point.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
Yeah, that is a great point.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Let's kind of move on to the Senate forecast, and
for those of you who are premium subscribers, we're gonna
have this posted early exclusively for you. We're gonna have
a posted later in the week for all. But if
you want to get this heads up straight from Logan
as soon as possible, which we know you all do,
go and subscribe Breakingpoints dot com. All right, let's go
and put up this.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Kamala Harris is out with some new policy proposals. She
needs to win over black voters, specifically black mail voter,
so she appeared on the Shade Room Predominantly black podcast.
Speaker 3 (18:35):
We're going to talk about that. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 7 (18:37):
President Barack Obama, he was campaigning for you in Pittsburgh
before some students at the University of Pittsburgh, which is
my alma mater, and he said some things that really
ruffled some feathers.
Speaker 5 (18:50):
In the news.
Speaker 7 (18:51):
He said, it makes me think you aren't just feeling
the idea of having a woman as a president. You're
coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that.
We have not seen the same kind of energy and
turnout in all corners of our neighborhoods and community as
we saw when I was running. So when you hear
those words, I'm sure you were briefed on the situation.
(19:11):
You know, a former Ohio State Senator Nina Turner, she
came out on CNN and said, why are you, you know,
putting black men up against the wall and pressuring them
into something that possibly, you know, they don't want to
do if they want to vote for you or not.
So my question to you is do you think that
what President Obama said was the right thing to say.
Speaker 8 (19:30):
Let me tell you, I am very proud to have
the support of President Obama and that he is out
traveling to talk with voters about what is at stake
in this election.
Speaker 4 (19:42):
I'm very proud.
Speaker 3 (19:43):
To have his support.
Speaker 8 (19:46):
What is also important is one to understand, like, as
I said, I intend to earn the vote of everyone,
including black men. Two, pay attention to everything that President
Obama talked about, because he talked about at length.
Speaker 3 (20:02):
The danger of Donald Trump.
Speaker 8 (20:04):
The danger I think is really important to focus on
the stakes of this election. And there are two choices,
two choices. And I ask everyone to look at the background,
look at the work, look at the words.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
Hmm, all right, so pretty clearly she is she may
not be too so happy with Barack Obama. He's put
her in a little bit of a bind. I mean, look,
anybody running for office as opposed to Obama, in his
masterly sinecure just lecturing all of us mere mortals, actually
has to grapple with like he no longer has to
(20:45):
get himself elected. And also I would say he never
did that when he was trying to get himself elected.
It's only now that he's influencer Netflix, Obomba, his.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
Era, the whole like my Brother's Keeper thing. It's pretty
consistent with his politics of you know, black respectability.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
I think you're not wrong.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
I guess I would just put it as like this
nakedness of I mean, he literally was like I want
to speak to the brothers out there, I'd be like,
some of y'all ain't voting for women, and you're making
things up. I'm like, dude, you are literally trying to
tell people not only what to think, but if what
they think.
Speaker 3 (21:20):
Is not going along with you, that you're a straight
up sexist.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
That is an insane thing to do for any group,
not just black people. I mean, if some Indian person
was to my Indian brothers out there.
Speaker 3 (21:30):
Like, who the fuck are you.
Speaker 4 (21:32):
To be talking?
Speaker 1 (21:32):
I have to think, yeah, well, I mean I think
so two things are possible. One is that he actually
got crosswise with the way Kamala wanted to message this.
And that's actually my guess because she has been very
careful to not fall into the Hillary Clinton trap of
being you know, actively contemptfual of voters or messaging like
(21:54):
she doesn't have to earn their vote, she's just entitled
to it.
Speaker 4 (21:58):
Also, she's really.
Speaker 1 (21:59):
Of thank god this messaging around like what's important about
this election is my trailblazing status, Like she has dodged.
Speaker 4 (22:07):
All of that, even you'll recall, And she.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
Got asked that question on CNN by Dana Pash of
like like teed her up to trash Trump over his
comments about she's not really black or whatever, She's just
like same old playbook, Let's move on, And so I
think it's likely that she's actually not happy about this
messaging from Obama. It's also possible, though, that they feel
like he has the.
Speaker 4 (22:30):
Cred to lecture black He doesn't. Nobody does.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
No one should right to lecture blackmail voters. Whereas obviously
if it was her trying to pull that off, it
would go even more poorly than it did with Obama.
Speaker 4 (22:43):
But I don't know.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
I thought with her pivot there, it seemed to me
like she was actively unhappy about this direction. When we
were talking to Logan previously, you mentioned that there is
a lot of discussion online of like, oh, Kamala is
doing this media blitz now because their internals must be
really poor, and by and large, I think Logan analysis
of like, also, it's almost election day, and like, of
course the candidates are likely to be doing media appearances.
(23:06):
I think that's largely true, but it does seem like
there is a particular nervousness around black mail voters.
Speaker 3 (23:12):
Specifically, that is true, she's doing Charlemagne today.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
As evidenced by this podcast Charlemagne the you know, the
policy proposals we're about to talk about and rip apart
the Obama comments, et cetera. There does seem to be
some nervousness about that specific demographic group that they're kind
of telegraphing in some of these moves.
Speaker 2 (23:31):
Absolutely, because I mean, look, it's a game of margins,
and it's one of those where I guess just stick
on this point. You know, everyone's like, oh, the internals
must be bad if she's going on Fox News, I rogan,
I'm like, what if the internal show that it's a
fifty to fifty race, and if I had only a
fifty percent shot of accomplishing the single most important thing
I'll ever do in my life, I would be doing
some crazy shit to make sure that that got from
fifty to fifty one to fifty two. Even fifty point
(23:52):
five is better than fifty. So maybe that's just me.
But let's put B two up on the screen just
to set up again why this policy propose is coming
from Harry anton Over at CNN. No matter how you
splice the data, Trump seems to be the strongest Republican
with black voters since nineteen sixty. Young black men in
particular have trended right towards Trump runs, cutting the DEM
margin by forty points from twenty twelve. But Trump is
(24:15):
doing historically well with black women too, So that is
the key point is that this is the biggest realignment
of black voters, at least poised to be since the
Civil rights era.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
I want to say though that I I'm reserving judgment
until it actually happens. Sure, because we did see these
same trends heading into the Biden twenty twenty run, where
you know, he was trailing how Hillary Clinton did, and
there was a big discussion about this, and on an
election day, black voters overall showed up for him and
(24:45):
basically the same numbers as previously. So and there has
been some polling that's been contradictory. And I put a
lot of stock in the New York Times pool because
they did a super sample of black voters. That means
they had a larger groups that were able to look more,
you know, in detail at this data. But there have
been other polls that have show Kamala performing just as
well with black voters as Biden did last time around.
(25:07):
So to me, it's not definitive that this is going
to manifest, but there's certainly been a significant amount of
polling data that suggests it could. And as I said before,
the Kamala Harris team seems to be projecting some nervousness
that this trend with black men in particular could be
the case. I'm fairly persuaded with the numbers on how
many new black women registered to vote and are showing
(25:29):
up in the early voting periods and the states that
we have data to say, I don't think that she
probably is going to have an issue there with black women.
We also see women in general this large gender gap
in you know, with women favoring Kamala and a large
gender gap with men more favorable towards Trump. So I'm
definitely more skeptical about the black women piece of this,
but I think it's definitely possible with black men.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
Yeah, definitely.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
And well, again to underscore I guess the policy proposal,
whether they whether it's true or not, they seem to
believe it and they're acting in that way.
Speaker 3 (26:01):
So let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
Kamala now has some new opportunity agenda for black men.
Let me just go through it. Provide one million loan
dollar loans one million loans that are fully forgivable up
to twenty thousand dollars for black entrepreneurs and others to
start a business. Support education, training and mentorship programs that
lead to good paying jobs for black men, including pathways
(26:25):
to become teachers. Protect cryptocurrency investments so black men who
make them know that their money is safe. Launch a
national health initiative focused on illnesses that disproportionately impact black men.
And legalize recreational marijuana to create opportunities for Black Americans
to succeed in this new industry. You called it peak neoliberalism,
(26:49):
and I genuinely do think that is so accurate because
I mean, let's just fix cite.
Speaker 3 (26:55):
On this a little bit. So we're going to provide
a million dollars in loans.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
To specifically people for the their skin. M Okay, so
we're going to affirmatively it doesn't.
Speaker 4 (27:02):
Mean to say it says black entrepreneurs and others. Oh yeah,
so it's not even really clear.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
It's just okay, Well, I guess then we're just cherry
picking what exactly that means. Some of it will go
to black people. Cool, we're going to support mentorship programs.
I want everyone out there in your life to ask
yourself if you want a mentor provided to you by
the government. That's an insane thing to do. We're going
to provide government mentor. Here is your government issued mentor
(27:28):
to make sure that you live a better life.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
And that is some pure Obama eraship.
Speaker 4 (27:33):
Yeah, definitely, it really is.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
I mean that was like his My Brother's Keeper program
and all of that. But yeah, I mean I saw
Perry Bacon Jr. Who's I think he's still the Washington Post, right,
the Washing Post previously at NBC, himself a black man, saying, like,
you know, I don't really love the idea being put
out there that black men specifically need mentors. The other
(27:55):
one that really gets me is, okay, crypto, let's just
put a pin in that, because I have a lot
to say about that one.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
The health one.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
So they describe this in you know, in the greater
detailed part as a National Equity Health Initiative focused from
the like National Institute of Health on illnesses that disproportionately
impact black men. And this is where I really can
dig into how what I mean by like this is
the peak of neoliberalism, Why can't you just run on
(28:28):
universal health care so that we don't have to pick
and choose, Like, oh, if you got prostate cancer, maybe
we'll care about that and do a health equity initiative,
not even giving you care, but some study at the NIH,
thank you very much, Or like oh, if you need.
Speaker 4 (28:42):
IVF, maybe we'll pay for that.
Speaker 1 (28:44):
How about we just have healthcare that would, yes, actually
disproportunately benefit black men and other marginalized group, but would
help everybody and you know, not be like pathetically inadequate
and patronizing as many of these things are. And that's
what drives crazy about this is We've talked about this
a nauseum, but it's just worth reminding people the policies.
(29:06):
I'm not saying that it is never the case that
it makes sense to have policies that are specific to
a demographic group. I'm not saying that like blanket across
the board, but we know from history that the policies
that have most improved the lives and economic status of
Black Americans have been universal policies like lifting the minimum wage,
like increasing rates of unionization.
Speaker 4 (29:27):
Like you know, in a.
Speaker 1 (29:28):
Theoretical world where democrats still cared about and talked about healthcare,
universal health care. And so that's why this sort of
like let me do some niche, little bullshit programs for
some targeted demographic group drives me so crazy.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
And I mean again, you know, just to stick with
And this is part of why the whole equity mindset
is so stupid. When they're like health initiatives on prostate cancer,
it's like, you know, prostate cancer is a cancer that
affects most men generally, specifically people.
Speaker 3 (29:54):
Who are poor and unhealthy. Well, you know, if we.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
Talk about diseases that are the worst, most impactful on
black communities, it's the same statistically for people who are
poor and who don't have access to healthcare, eat a
shitty diet. So it's like, it's not complicated to think
about it that way. And also if you if you
put it that way, it sounds a lot better, right, Hey,
all these diseases that disgrationally impact you know, men who
(30:19):
are old, obese, diabetic, We're going to try and fix that.
That will help black people, help white people, it'll help everybody.
You know, there's a lot of poor white people out
there too, also suffer from prostate cancer. From diabetes and
from a lot of this stuff. So that's nonsense. Look
on the weed thing, you can keep everybody here knows
that I'm against weed, all right, I think it's bad.
But how if I was black and I was, like, man,
(30:41):
I would be so insulted that one of the key
pillars is let's legalize weed. They're like, oh, let's give
you people drugs?
Speaker 3 (30:48):
Is that?
Speaker 2 (30:49):
Like?
Speaker 3 (30:49):
How is that not so insulting to these people to
be like, oh, they really like to smoke weed? Right, Like,
what the fuck this? We're going to.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
Legalize drugs specifically for a specific demographic if you want to.
But she didn't even mention, you know, that's one of
those really, Look, I don't agree with it. People are like, oh,
black people just portually get arrested for it or whatever
or have in the past, so it needs to be
you know, redistributed with some criminal justice bullshit. Fine, doesn't
make a lot of sense to me still with the
current data, but I could.
Speaker 3 (31:17):
Understand that on this one.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
It's literally like, we need to legalize weed, and we
need to legalize it so that you can sell it
and you can do a better job of being a
fucking legal drug dealer. I'm like, how is that not
so insulting to people that it's like, that is the
epitome in my head of handoutism, and it's like and
it doesn't get called racist or anything by the media,
and that's that's the pinnacle of racism.
Speaker 3 (31:40):
Yeah, to me, legalize drugs for you.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
What, I support the policy, right, I support both the
legalizing and I support the you know, the idea of
this is the community. It's been most impact, is it
We're opening up this new business opportunity, like, let's do
things in there.
Speaker 4 (31:55):
I'm good with all of that. But you're so right to.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Put it as a specific plank framed in life. This
is our blackmail agenda is really something. Yeah, here's weak
for Let's talk about crypto though, because there is so
much going on with the fact again that they put
the crypto plank in this particular policy proposal, and it's
no secret why. There's actually, you know, significant pulling that
(32:18):
suggests that black men are you know, disproportionately actually holders
of crypto. So that's part of why they include this plank.
That's that's their logic. But there also has been Crypto
has already won this election. Let me just say that,
right the Biden administration, through Gary Gensler at the SEC,
they have aggressively enforced the laws that are on the
(32:39):
books against crypto, against scams, and against you know things,
people getting scammed in the financial world in general, and
Crypto has been subject to that enforcement. And there has
been over years now a large and concerted effort that
was very visible when it's Sam Bankman freed, but has
very much continued at large scale after that. And Crypto
(33:01):
is now one of the largest corporate contributors that industry
to the presidential campaign and down ballot campaigns in this
whole cycle. This is one of the areas whe Kamala
has really pretty consistently signaled that she will actually be
different from Joe Biden. She will be more lax on enforcement.
And I was just reading this morning soccer. I didn't
know all of his backstory, but they've really made an
(33:24):
example of Katie Porter in particular, where in the weeks
before her election, a crypto affiliated pack dump ten million
dollars into ads against her. They didn't have anything to
do with cryptocurrency these ads, but into ads against her.
She loses, and that ended up being like a warning
shot at all Democrats and Republicans that hey, you better
(33:46):
not get crosswise here. And they've wrapped it all in
this language of like, oh, entrepreneurship and innovation, et cetera,
et cetera. And Trump completely flipped on crypto Kamala versus Biden.
She's completely you know, signaled that she's got to be
different on crypto too. And so you know that manifests
and things like saying that part of your blackmail agenda
(34:06):
is quote unquote protecting crypto assets. It's you know, it's
extraordinary to see the influence of money and politics.
Speaker 4 (34:14):
In real time.
Speaker 2 (34:14):
I have a conflict of interest on this one. I
like crypto. I'm a hodler myself. Yeah, you don't really
get scammed. H No, I actually did get scammed. Yeah,
as people here. No, I lost five thousand dollars on
a block flight by the way, actually finally got my
money back. I don't know how exactly that happened, but
one day I got an email and they're like, here,
you know, somehow the bankruptcy clawback stuff worked. So you know,
it only took a couple of years and being in
(34:35):
the in the weeds. But they're as what they point
out is that there are a lot I mean men
in particular from Robinhood, Crypto and all, especially back in
the twenty twenty one twenty twenty two era, probably did
buy a decent amount of crypto.
Speaker 3 (34:47):
I bought a lot before that.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
The point is is that what they are trying to
do is in This is just hand out shit.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
This is not anything that has.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
To do with what is the way that we should
have a well regulated like commerce and exchange. What should
the future of American monetary you know, policy look like, like,
how should we think about banking? How should we make
sure that people are protected? This is just pure like
trying to get into the weeds of quote unquote like
appealing to people by talking about some tiny, little specific thing,
(35:18):
which ends up, in my opinion, being very very patronizing.
So this entire thing, you know, I'm really hoping Charlemagne
has an interview with her today around like five pm.
It's gonna be live. I'm gonna be watching it, and
he does a good job of cutting to the core
of this stuff.
Speaker 3 (35:31):
So I saw him recently.
Speaker 2 (35:32):
He was just talking with Andrew Schaltz talking about young
black men and their appeal with Trump and I'm really
hoping he focuses in on that with her and just
just tries to get to the crux of like, what's
actually happening happening here and is it not very patronizing
the way that you were talking, both Obama and her
in the way that this being put for. And of
course you've got Bacari Sellers and all these other black
(35:54):
congressmen out there, like, look at Kamalo's incredible plan for
black men. I'm like, again, I cannot imagine how it's
still that would be if my leaders and I supported
Elders and all these other people.
Speaker 3 (36:04):
This is what they were saying, is so good for you, you.
Speaker 2 (36:06):
Know, It's just I don't know's there's so much lack
of individualism in the way that you even look at
any of this.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
You know, Nina, we had Nina Turners and her Nina
Turner on yesterday. I encourage you to watch her her comments.
Her first reaction when she before she really read through
the plan details, was like, Okay, well, at least they're
trying to appeal to people through policy, and I think
that's fair. But it's also fair to look at the
policy and say this patronizing that and bad. Just to
(36:32):
dig one layer deeper on the crypto thing, because I've
been thinking a lot about this, the reason that so
many black part of the reason so many black men
have crypto investments is because they've been locked down on
so many other forms of wealth accumulation and wealth building,
lower home ownership rates, you know, discriminated against in terms
of banks and the mortgage rates that's their charge, or
(36:54):
whether they even approved for a loan, And so crypto
really offered this, you know, this utopian vision of like, well,
this is the new financials, this is how you're gonna
make it, This is how you're going to be able.
Speaker 4 (37:07):
To build wealth.
Speaker 1 (37:09):
And you know, some of that is genuine and some
of it has just been completely fraudulent in scams. So,
you know, again to get to like the neoliberal point
of this, rather than really doing anything that's going to
fundamentally address that lack of wealth accumulation, it's like, well,
we're just going to like keep enabling the scammers and
make sure that they're regulated more lightly so that they
(37:31):
can so that the people who have lots of crypto
or because crypto is also rife with massive inequality in
terms of who's benefiting and who's on the other end
sometimes getting screwed.
Speaker 4 (37:42):
So we're going to make sure that.
Speaker 1 (37:43):
Those people at the top can continue to get theirs
and continue to, like you know, in certain instances, screw
you over.
Speaker 4 (37:49):
That's part of what's so disturbing her.
Speaker 1 (37:50):
And just you know, the specific fight is really around
which agency is going to regulate crypto and do the enforcement,
and the SEC tends to be more aggressive. There's another body,
the CFTC that the crypto industry wants to be the
regulator because they think that they just basically won't really
conduct any oversight there. And like I said, at this point,
(38:14):
I think it's it doesn't really matter which of these
candidates wins because both of them have already signaled that
they're going to do what the crypto industry once.
Speaker 4 (38:22):
So anyway, that's where we are.
Speaker 1 (38:23):
We do have an axios ters you can just show
put up on the screen there B five just to
you know, back up what I was saying before about
the amount of money that this sector has donated, and
they've launched this whole campaign aimed at elites, at political
elites to convince them. There as a quote unquote crypto
(38:44):
voter who is going to be basing their vote on
whether crypto is regulated at the SEC or the CFTC,
that this is like the primary thing that they're going
to be voting on. There's no evidence that that's really
the case outside of you know, the Mark Cubans of
the world and like the people who kind of at.
Speaker 4 (39:00):
The top of that industry.
Speaker 1 (39:02):
But I think the politicians are buying that that's the case,
and they're certainly buying that they don't want to get
crosswise of this industry because of the amount of money
they had to spend against you if you if you
undercut them or if you piss them off.
Speaker 2 (39:17):
Kamala Harris is now apparently in talks with Joe Rogan
to appear on the.
Speaker 3 (39:23):
Joe Rogan podcast.
Speaker 4 (39:24):
Not see this one coming.
Speaker 3 (39:25):
I did not see it coming as well.
Speaker 2 (39:27):
I think it's a welcome development and so just a
little bit more behind the scenes. Obviously, this just broke
and they didn't have much detail on it.
Speaker 3 (39:35):
But what they say is that and I was actually
kind of curious about this.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
They're like, Kamala's representatives met with Rogan's representatives, and I'm like,
which represents exactly maybe his agent? I mean as far
as I know, Yeah, like Amy's Jami meeting with I
would I would pay to see money of Jamie meeting with.
Speaker 4 (39:53):
Somebody from Anita Dunn or whoever.
Speaker 3 (39:54):
That would be hilariously.
Speaker 2 (39:57):
Uh yeah, I think I mean Joe's again, I have
no insie knowledge, but I mean he has talked previously.
He's like as one booker and one manager, so maybe
as one of those people that has done it. But regardless,
this comes on the heels of Trump saying that he
would be he would be going on rogue and we
don't know if that's true, whether he had confirmed it
or any of not. Maybe it's the case that Joe
(40:17):
was trying to say, well, if I'm going to have
Trump and I want to have both one and extended
the offer.
Speaker 3 (40:21):
That's what most people have done who.
Speaker 2 (40:22):
Have interviewed both candidates, They've put in offers with both,
and usually it's either Trump or Comma or whatever who
will accept that. In this case, though, this actually now
has the chance of happening, and that would be kind
of amazing and it's funny again.
Speaker 3 (40:36):
I want to come back to this.
Speaker 2 (40:37):
There's so many people out there who are like, oh,
the internals must be bad. And I'm like, again, if
you are in a fifty fifty race and you want
to go and reach millions of people who may not
be engaging with the mainstream media, why would you not
go on this podcast? And look, I mean, I guess
the answer is you're not confident in what you believe
(40:59):
or in what say. The thing is, though Joe is
not is a curious interviewer. He doesn't usually get into
some prolonged back and forth or something him mostly just
asking questions, did back and listen. So if you want
to explain your actual thought process, which is what Joe Rogan, oh,
which is what Bernie Sanders did when he went on,
which is what Andrey Yang did when he went on,
which is what RFK Junior did whenever he went on,
(41:21):
I can't think of a better format to go in.
And also, if you have somebody, so Joe is probably
going to challenge her a little bit on some of
the things that he disagrees with her on. But he
is one of those people who said consistently he's like, look,
I'm mostly like liberal in many things. You know, I'm
very liberal on the issue of abortion. I'm very conservative
on the issue of guns traditionally, like was a Democrat
and all that, but I moved to Texas because of
(41:41):
my disagreement. I mean, that would give her a format
to talk to people out there who ness who might
align with his view. So I can't think of a
better place to go, not just Rogan, but any like
Manosphere era stuff where you think you could get at
least somewhat of an honest convo, Go for it, Like
if you're in a fifty to fifty election, you should
be doing it. Everyone was dunking on Kama for going
(42:03):
on call her daddy. I think Trump should go and
call her daddy.
Speaker 3 (42:05):
I'm absolutely I think you should do it. He would
do well, That's what I don't understand the caution.
Speaker 2 (42:11):
He's grew up on Howard Stern and in the New
York tabloids. You think he can't handle freaking Alex Cooper.
Of course he can. I mean, what are some of
his best moments in these mainstream media interviews with CNN
or with MSNBC, either when he spars or whatever, you know,
disarms them with a joke. So anyway, that's my opinion.
I think Kamas should go on then nelk boys Uh,
(42:31):
Trump should go on call her dad with absolutely, yeah
she should. Hey, she wants to talk about crypto crypto gambling.
She could be read a Steak dot com and.
Speaker 1 (42:41):
You're getting the uh, you're getting the King of the Bros. Here,
she's going straight to the top show with White Brogan.
Speaker 3 (42:46):
Good.
Speaker 1 (42:46):
But I mean, okay, So there's a few things to
say about this. First of all, it's not without risk
for sure, because yeah, I mean, Joe is not a journalist.
He's not gonna do the like, you know, super adversary,
we're going to ask you five times whatever. But he
has made people look stupid on his show, just kind
of casually like humiliated a variety of people on his show,
and that is not on the question because he's a
(43:09):
good listener and he's just he's a good question asker.
Speaker 4 (43:12):
So that's a risk for her. And we all know.
Speaker 1 (43:14):
How she is like on her feet in these interviews,
even like on the view with softball questions.
Speaker 4 (43:20):
She can definitely screw it up. There's no doubt about it.
So it's risky. I hope she does it.
Speaker 1 (43:24):
I think it'd be very interesting to see. I think
it would be smart if she pulls it off. I
think it would be intelligent. If she doesn't pull it off,
then it will obviously be a mistake. The other thing
I just have to comment on though, is Sager, you
remember the way liberals smeared Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 3 (43:39):
Yes, I do, Yes, I do.
Speaker 1 (43:41):
Not so much, but just going on the podcast, but
Joe made this comment like, oh, I'll probably vote for
Bernie Sanders. They were like cool, the number one podcast
in the world said he would vote for me. Like,
let me make a thing of that, as a politician
would the number of liberals who absolutely smear how dare
you platform this racist sac is blah blah blah blah blah,
(44:02):
who are now going to be out there like, oh,
it's so great that christ Kamala was going on with
Joe Rogue and like, I just you know, I'm here
for it. I'm absolutely here for the way that these
people have zero principles or values and we'll just turn
on a dime when it suits them with their their
favorite candidates.
Speaker 4 (44:16):
So looking forward, looking forward to Yeah.
Speaker 2 (44:18):
Well you can stick with that theme actually, because what
also was announced is that she will be doing a
sit down interview with Brett Bayer over at Fox News
for a prolonged period of time. But I think it airs.
It either is today or at airsmorrow, I forget. Yeah,
But the point is is that previously, remember Elizabeth Warren
tried to get everybody on the DNC stage to raise
their hand.
Speaker 3 (44:37):
In boycott Fox News.
Speaker 2 (44:39):
But now whenever its election time, like, yeah, well you
should go on Fox.
Speaker 1 (44:43):
They've been loving Pete budaju Jeh on Fox News. That's
like one of their favorite things because I mean he
does he handles himself very well in the format, and
so yeah, they really love when he goes on there.
Speaker 3 (44:53):
And Birthing went on Fox. He did a whole town
home that was.
Speaker 1 (44:56):
One of the watch the best moments he did fantastic.
He had a Fox News audi cheering for them, and
so yeah, I mean Brett Baer, you know, he's going
to frame things from kind of like a center right perspective,
but he's not going to be like wildly unfair right there.
Speaker 3 (45:08):
He's like a sixty minute style journalist.
Speaker 2 (45:11):
He's just gonna sit there and be like, he used
to say this about illegal immigrants, and now you say this,
How do you square that he used to say this
and now you say this?
Speaker 3 (45:17):
How it'll be it will be.
Speaker 2 (45:19):
Frankly, I think better than Dana Basher any of these
other people who've interviewed her. I actually got the sixty
minutes guys. Credit to them outside of the whole editing fiasco.
But the actual journalist journalist. That's not the journalists at
least I assume so. But the actual guy you interviewed her,
he did a pretty good job, right, He has a decent.
Speaker 3 (45:36):
Amount follow ups.
Speaker 2 (45:36):
That's probably what we should expect here, And in general,
you should be doing more of these things. So I
keep seeing this like, oh, she must be losing and
all that. I'm like, well, first of all, if you
think you're losing, the best way to do is do
something drastic. So I think that's good, even though I
don't think it's all that drastic to go on any
of the things. But you should always just be doing
everything you possibly can to reach as many people that
(45:58):
you can. Before an election, a lot people make up
their minds right around right now on.
Speaker 3 (46:02):
Whether they're going to vote who they're going to vote for.
So this is it, This is what you should be doing.
Speaker 2 (46:07):
Trump is doing a ton of podcasts in the lead up,
and Kamalas should be doing more.
Speaker 1 (46:11):
Fox News has a large viewership and not News Channel.
Not all of them are diehard Trump supporters. You know,
they've got their Kamala's doing this whole whether I like
it or not, She's doing this whole, Nikki Aley, Liz
Cheney voter strategy, and there will be some of those
people watching Fox News. So you know, again, it all
(46:32):
depends is it a smart strategy. It all depends on
how she does. I can't say that the last week's
media strategy worked out particularly well for her.
Speaker 4 (46:39):
The sixty minutes interview not great. The view interview not great.
Speaker 1 (46:42):
But you know, apparently they have enough confidence that they
think that these additional media appearances can help to clean
things up.
Speaker 2 (46:48):
Definitely, all right, And oh, I said Jessee Trump was
on Bustin' Busting with the Boys, which is a barstool podcast.
Speaker 3 (46:54):
Oh really incredible. I mean, Josie, he's doing.
Speaker 4 (46:58):
Many more podcasts than these rallies. This thing, this is
really his.
Speaker 2 (47:00):
He seems to doing like one in one yeah, I mean, look,
it doesn't take that long in film, right, So it's
like one of those where why not you know, you
can set it up and you can actually make it
and reach a bunch of people who were talking about
otherwise about college football. I wonder what the crossover is
when college football and South and Trump. I mean, it
doesn't take a genius to see these things. If anything,
is crazy that it took so long for politicians to
(47:21):
embrace charcass It's more of a lagging thing than it
is something in the former
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com