10/17/24: Krystal and Saagar DEBATE Kamala's Fox News Interview, Trump Flips On Immigration, White Women ALL IN For Kamala, Pelosi Reveals Biden Bitterness, Hamas Sinwar Dead?, CNN Panel Erupts Over Ferguson Effect

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 that is possible. 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 Thursday. Have an amazing show for everybody today. What
do we have, Crystal.

Speaker 1 (00:29):
Indeed, we do a lot of interesting things that are happening.
So Kamala went on Fox News yesterday for a very
contentious interview. We'll show you all the highlights of that.
And Trump also was on Fox News for like a
women's focus town hall. Very different vibes, i would say,
between the two of them. So we'll share some of
that with you as well. Also have some new pulling
for you and Harry Unton taking a close look at

(00:50):
how well Kamala is doing with white women. Will they
ultimately allow her to cruise into the White House? We
will see Biden's still very mad at Nancy Pelow's apparently
they still have not spoken since he dropped on of
the race. Interesting revelations there and some reported tension between
the Kamala Harris and Joe Biden camps as well. We
are finally, I think, going to take a look at

(01:12):
the Florida real estate market today. We teased it the
other day and then we talked too much and some
other segments, so we just pushed it to today. So we
wanted to make sure we had time to do that
one justice because it is a very interesting story. We
also have our eyes of course on Israel in the
Middle East, former Israeli IDF. Actually someone who's high up
in the IDF issued a dire warning about the future
of the state of Israel. Who want to bring you

(01:32):
that as well as some other developments and a couple
of noteworthy CNN moments that we wanted to react to
for you. So that one's always.

Speaker 2 (01:39):
Yes, exactly, always fun to get that into the show.
Before we get to that, just thank you to everybody
who has been signing up premium subscription. So we're getting
down to the wire here. As a reminder, you will
get our exclusive election map and prediction before election day.
If you are a premium subscriber all of our content
with Logan, which is our election forecaster, as well as

(02:00):
stuff that we're going to tease on election nights. You're
going to take advantage of that Breakingpoints dot Com and
you can become a premium sub now. As Crystal said,
we had a very contentious, certainly interview with Fox News.
Brett Bayer sat with Kamala Harris roughly twenty eight minutes.
A couple of different sections we wanted to go through
here for everybody. That shows some of the highlights for

(02:21):
what you think you could get out of it and
more importantly, what maybe some swing people could have gotten
out of it. First was on the section of immigration.
Let's take a listen.

Speaker 3 (02:29):
There's a lot of people that look back at what
you said at twenty nineteen when you first ran for president,
and there have been changes, and you've talked about some
of them. When it comes to immigration, you supported allowing
immigrants in the country illegally to apply for driver's license,
to qualify for free tuition at universities, to be enrolled
in free healthcare.

Speaker 4 (02:47):
Do you still support those things?

Speaker 5 (02:49):
Listen, that was five years ago, and I'm very clear
that I will follow the law. I make that statement
over and over again, and as Vice President of the
United States, that's exactly what I've done.

Speaker 2 (02:59):
Not to mention before you.

Speaker 3 (03:01):
If that's the case, you chose a running mate, Tim Walls,
governor of Minnesota, who signed those very things into state law.
So do you support that?

Speaker 5 (03:12):
We are very clear, and I'm very clear as is
Tim Walls, that we must support and enforce federal law,
and that is exactly what we will do.

Speaker 2 (03:23):
That capped about what I would say ten minutes or
so on immigration.

Speaker 1 (03:27):
He started with immigration and stayed there for a long time.

Speaker 2 (03:30):
Yeah, it was I would say it was about half
maybe you know, roughly yef something like that worth of
the interview. So anyway, I mean, it's one of those
where it was obvious that they were going into that
that's about the best that she's going to get this whole.
I what did she say? It was like, Well, that
was five years ago, so that was certainly something I
picked up on. I don't know. I mean, you and
I have very I usually I think we come into

(03:51):
this with the same frame, but I don't this one.
I'm mystified. You think she did very well, so.

Speaker 1 (03:55):
I should be so let me say, first of all,
to set up like the totality of the inner Brett bhare,
I don't think you would disagree. Very aggressive in a
way that he would never be with Trump. Not that
he wouldn't ask Trump tough questions. I think he would.
But from the very first question, he's cutting her off,
doesn't even let her finish a sentence. You know, they're
really going back and forth. We'll show you a moment

(04:15):
later on where he really deceptively edited this Trump comments
about enmy from within. So he clearly came into this
thinking like Trump had called out Fox News for even
doing this interview and put pressure on obviously Brett Baer
in advance of like you better really hold her feet
to the fire. He's feeling the pressure of the Fox
News audience. And it was very clear that his goal was,

(04:38):
like I'm going to be aggressive and I'm going to
try to really get her off balance. So you know,
on like this question, there is no good answer here
for her because she has changed her positions so dramatically
on any number of things, and this is always going
to be you know, the best she's come up with
is like my values haven't changed here. I think she

(04:59):
handles what is again effectively an impossible question for her
to really be honest about, which the real answer is,
you know, politically, in twenty twenty, I was trying to
run to the left of Bernie Sanders. Now politically I'm
trying to like pivot and appeal to a general election audience,
So my pandering strategies have changed. Like, that's the honest answer.
She obviously can't give that answer, so to just be like, listen,

(05:21):
have I done any of that as Vice President of
the United States. No, I've enforced the law. That's what
I'll do it going forward. I think that's about the
best you could do. My assessment of the overall interview
is not that I like love every answer, because obviously
I have many significant policy differences with Kamala Harris, in
particular on immigration, and also they touched on Israel and
Iran later on. Of course, the framing, yeah, the framing

(05:43):
of that from Bett Brett Baerr is basically like, you know,
why aren't you at war with Iran already? That's the
framing of you know, that's not unique to Fox News.
That was also the framing the debate. So it's not
that I love the substance of her answers on a
number of these. But she handled an adversarial interview that
was very aggressive and at times actively dishonest better than

(06:04):
she handled the view ladies. Which is kind of interesting,
right with Kamala. It's all about does she take it
seriously and did she prepare. That's why she did so
well in the first debate against Joe Biden, That's why
she did so well in the debate against Trump. She
clearly took this interview very seriously and came prepared. And
you know, I don't think there was I know that
this is a little bit of a rorshack test that

(06:25):
the Trump people think she did terrible or whatever. But
she never got thrown off balance. She never spluttered, she
never got angry, she did not take the bait when
multiple times Brett Baer was trying to get her to
like trash Trump supporters, and so yeah, I think in
what was a difficult adversarial situation, overall, she handled herself
quite well.

Speaker 2 (06:42):
I'm trying. Look, I'm trying hard to color my bias
on this one, but I don't see that at all.
I mean, on the immigration answer again, like look, if
you're a and again I'm trying to put on the
mind of a swing state voter, of somebody who is
genuinely independent. So I'll start with what I thought she
did well, And actually the Fox people agreed she got
her licks in against Trump. Basically every pivot was but Trump,

(07:04):
but Trump, but Trump. And we're going to show people
some of the clips in a bit about Biden and
the inability to address the mental acuity. But that's where
she did kind of sput her right on, Well, when
did you first notice that Joe Biden's mental faculties had declined? Zero?
Answer in terms of immigration. I mean, I thought what
was so weak about it was actually just not only

(07:26):
the flip flop of the dishonesty around the position, but
in the beginning too, there was a lot of trying
to basically turn it around as if her administration had
no power in this situation. So Brett had asked her
a question something on along the lines of like, why
have there been X million people illegally led into the
country while you were under the while you a vice president?

(07:47):
And she dishonestly is like, well, in the first week
of Congress, we presented a bill and they didn't pass
the bill. And that's why it's the Republican's fault. It's like,
hold on a second, as Ryan laid out yesterday, that's
an amnesty bill. But second, this is it ignores like
all the executive action over that three and a half years.
So he kept trying to interrupt her to get at that. Now,
I agree it was aggressive, but I mean I don't

(08:08):
have an issue with people interrupting politicians. People should interrupt
people more. But the point is that on that in particular,
for those first ten minutes, the command and the spin
just leaped out at me dramatically. Again, if you if
you don't have a deep familiarity with amnesty bills and
all that, like, maybe that came across differently. She certainly

(08:29):
stood her ground, I think for what liberals could take
away as like, yeah, she stood up to Brett Baer
and to Fox News. There's no question it was aggressive
as hell. Right, it really was like the lions Den.
We should give politicians props, they should do more of that.
So I don't want to totally discourage you, but I
don't know how we could classify that as good as
a good performance.

Speaker 1 (08:48):
Here's what I would say. I mean, Trump is reportedly
literally calling her retarded. So you can't look at this
interview and be like this person. She really held her
own and was able to pivot. I thought Brett asked
her a, you know, really challenging question, played the clip
of her talking about the transgender surgeries in prison, and

(09:11):
she actually had a great response. She was like, number one,
this happened under Trump, So when did you ask him
about that? And number two, he's spending two hundred and
fifty million dollars on these ads. Do you really think
this issue is like top of mind for Americans to
try and pay their bills, et cetera. And again, that's
a very very challenging question for her to have to
deal with, given how she's trying to like buck the

(09:32):
two liberal label et cetera, et cetera in her campaign strategy,
which is to shift to the right. That's a very
challenging question, and I thought that was about as good
an answer as you could possibly give. Also, another highlight
in my opinion from her was he was asking her like, Okay, well,
if Trump is so bad, why is half the country
set to vowarm? She was like, it's a presidential election,

(09:52):
it's not supposed to be easy. And I also thought
that was a fantastic answer, because you know, he again
challenging question. He wanted her to give him some clippable moment,
like basically calling the Trump based deplorable or whatever. And
yet he tried to get her to go down that path,
and she just wouldn't do it at all. As you said,

(10:13):
she kept pivoting back to Trump and her position on that.
So no, overall, I thought, in a very challenging circumstance,
she handled herself quite well and certainly exceeded my expectations
of what she was even really capable of in the circumstances.
And so that's kind of my point is, like, you know,
the caricature, which has been at times really justly deserved
of Kamala Harris is that she can't think on her feet.

(10:35):
If she's off the teleprompter, it's just a hot mess.
You know that she's word salad and all over the place,
And we didn't see that in this In this exchange,
she was quite capable and competent, and you know, proved
that she deserved to be in that slot. And so
when I think about swing voters and how they might
process this, Number One I don't really think swing voters

(10:56):
really are processing this. To be honest with you, I'm
not sure not. I mean, I don't know what's going
to move people at this point. I have no idea.
But it's probably more likely to be you know, the
podcast appearance with or the appearance with Charlemagne or some
of the more cultural figures than it is a Fox
News interview. But some of this might break through. But
if you're just looking at that in the vibe, you're like, oh,
this is a capable person, Like this is a strong person.

(11:18):
This is a tough person. She's able to hold her
own and push back. And so that's why I think
that she did herself some favors in this interview, not
just with Democrats who were very happy with her performance,
but with those potential swing.

Speaker 2 (11:30):
Voters as well. See I didn't get the competent part. Again,
I'm trying hard to color my bias here, but I
didn't see it. It's let's let's play a wrong track answer.
For example, we need to play more of this for people.

Speaker 4 (11:42):
Of people.

Speaker 5 (11:43):
That is about turning the page on rhetoric that people
are frankly exhausted of bread more than to.

Speaker 3 (11:49):
Tell the country is on the wrong track. They say
the country is on the wrong track. If it's on
the wrong track, that track follows three and a half
years of you being vice president and President Biden being president.
That is what they're saying, seventy nine percent of them.
Why are they saying that? If you're turning the page,
You've been in office for three and a half years.

Speaker 5 (12:11):
And Donald Trump has been running for office.

Speaker 4 (12:15):
But you've been the person home on some what you.

Speaker 6 (12:17):
And I both know what I'm talking about. You and
I both know what.

Speaker 4 (12:20):
I'm actually do. What are you talking about?

Speaker 5 (12:22):
What I'm talking about is that over the last decade,
people have the cower. But listen, over the last decade,
it is clear to me and certainly the Republicans who
are on stage with me, the former chief of staff
to the President Donald Trump, the former defense secretaries, national

(12:44):
security advisor, and his vice president one that he is
unfit to serve, that he is unstable, that he is dangerous,
and that.

Speaker 6 (12:52):
People are exhausted.

Speaker 3 (12:54):
Well, people aren't tired of that, that's the case. Why
is half the country supporting him? Why is he beating
you in a lot of swing states? Why if he's
as bad as you say that half of this country
is now supporting this person who could be the forty
seventh president of the United States.

Speaker 4 (13:10):
Why is that happening.

Speaker 5 (13:11):
This is an election for president of the United States.
It's not supposed to be easy.

Speaker 4 (13:16):
I know, but it's not supposed.

Speaker 6 (13:18):
To be It is not supposed.

Speaker 3 (13:20):
To be a misguided, stupid what God.

Speaker 6 (13:25):
I would never say that about the American people.

Speaker 5 (13:27):
And in fact, if you listen to Donald Trump, if
you watch any of his rallies, he's the one who
tends to demean and belittle and diminish the American people.

Speaker 6 (13:37):
He's the one who talks about an enemy within, an.

Speaker 5 (13:41):
Enemy within, talking about the American people, suggesting he would
turn the American military on the American people.

Speaker 2 (13:49):
So I don't disagree to that last part, But on
that wrong track, that was a skillful thing, right, But
on the wrong track. She was like, listen, you know
Trump has been around for ten years. That's a terrible
Like when I watched that live, I actually cringed at
the She was like, oh, well, Trump has been around,
you know what I'm talking about. He's like, I don't
know what you're talking about, actually, And honestly, I don't
know what she's talking about, like the idea that because

(14:10):
Trump has been in politics for a decade, that you're
not responsible for the direction of the country. And look,
if we're being honest, was she running the country? Like
obviously no, right, she's the freaking vice president. But she's
also the one who doesn't want to put any real
distance between herself and Joe Biden, which we're about to
get into in a little bit. And so that answer,
I thought it was her worst because the seventy nine

(14:30):
percent on wrong track, the perfect idea of like, well,
don't you bear some responsibility for this? There's no answer
but Trump, Now, I want to be clear, you might
win based on that. As we see, Trump is a
very polarizing figure, and he's certainly they are running the
same case that Hillary and Biden did, Biden obviously a
little bit more effectively. That Trump is a unique threat

(14:53):
and all of that, and the Trump specter is bad.
And you know, she basically at every turn pivoted towards
don Trump. But if you look at those swing state
polls and you see the number one reasons that people
are not supporting her, it's number one. I don't know
what you're actually gonna do. But two is I'm really
unsatisfied with the direction of the country right now, and
so for me, but Trump, I mean, that's not a

(15:14):
competent answer, Like, that's not one that is well thought out.
It is not one of a new vision. What is it.
The closest that she got was just my presidency won't
be a continuation of Joe Biden. That is not a
strong declaration of change. And what is empirically a change
election now, change is interpreted very differently by very many people.
So that's why I was like, if you're watching this,

(15:35):
you're a swing state person, I don't know how you couldn't,
like feel how you could feel satisfied with an answer
like that. Put the policy aside, just appear like, hey,
I want something to change wrong track. And she's like,
but Donald Trump, that that doesn't seem to cut it. Yeah,
I disagree.

Speaker 1 (15:50):
So here's what I would say, first of all, on
the on the latter part that we more or less
agree on, Yeah, you should never fallow continuinely continually they're
trying to be her into trashing Trump support evens oh,
what would you call them?

Speaker 2 (16:03):
This guide?

Speaker 1 (16:03):
And she's like no, and then she skillfully pivots to
but the other guy. He's doing that all day long.
And by the way, you don't have a whole lot
to say about that, and we'll get to the very
dishonest framing of the enemy within commas that he does
in a moment. But what she's referring to, I think
we all know, like this is the Trump era, and
the dissatisfaction with the state of the country certainly predates

(16:26):
their time when offic was. In fact, I went back
and looked it up after January sixth, the right Track
number was at eleven percent. I remember that eleven percent.
So listen, do Joe Biden, Kama Harris bear plenty of
responsibility for people being dissatisfied? Of course they do. And
given the fact that she has decided she is not

(16:49):
really going to break with Biden on anything, including a
disastrous policy in the Middle East, where she one hundred
percent should break with Joe Biden, given that that's the
landscape that she's showed in the political strategy that she's chosen. Yeah,
I think this is about as good as you can give.
And it's not without some merit, because again, let's all
be honest, this is not the Joe Biden era of
politics that we're living in. It's the Donald Trump era

(17:11):
of politics. He has defined all of the fault lines
in American politics since he wrote down that Golden Escalator.
And that's how you end up with you know, Liz
Cheney on one side and you know RFK Junior on
the other. It's all just about it's not about issues.
It's just all about how you feel about this particular person.

Speaker 4 (17:31):
You know.

Speaker 1 (17:32):
It gets to like what Tim Walls talks about this
just very normally, like wouldn't you like to go back
to the Thanksgiving dinner table and not have it be
ugly and vitriolic and just be able to have like
normal discussions. Again, it's really Donald Trump who has defined
the contours of this era. And so yeah, I mean,
is it kind of like politician easily to get out

(17:52):
of any responsibility for of course it is, like, of course,
I would be dishonest if I didn't say that. But
she's also not without a point that he really has
has been the central character defining the tenor tone and
direction of politics. And it's part of what to me
is so frustrating about this era because it does make
it impossible to really have policy discussions about the future
of the country and you know, really be able to

(18:15):
vote based on those things. Because he everything just becomes
this dividing line about your personal opinion in the person
of Donald Trump, and it kind of shuts down all
other forms of politics. So, you know, is it one
hundred percent honest, No, of course, But does she have
a point that he is the defining character of this

(18:36):
era and that there are millions upon millions of people,
including plenty of swing voters. And we'll get to this
in the poll section, especially like you know, suburban women,
of abortion, all kinds of other things. Are there millions
of voters who have put aside all kinds of other
concerns or policy priorities to just like vote against Donald
Trump because they want this era to be over and
they don't want to quote unquote go back as KMin

(18:58):
has been framed me. Yeah, there are. And so I
do say think that that speaks to a central concern
that a lot of people have in the sense that
this era has been exhausting and they want to turn
the page from it.

Speaker 7 (19:06):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (19:07):
On a vibe level, I totally understand what you're saying,
But I mean, and I think a lot of the
people who agree with that frame are already voting for her.
So all the people who are on the fence about
where to go, a lot of them do remember the
Trump era fondly, and they don't remember the Biden years
as good, in particular on inflation and elsewhere. Now to
your point about the whole enemy within thing, this is

(19:28):
I agree, this was a pretty egregious mistake. Or I
don't know, but maybe possibly it was the way that
they wanted to frame it. But she kept bringing up
the enemy within comments. We covered them on our show
on Tuesday previously. People can go back and watch it.
But she brought that up repeatedly in the interview. Just
at the end there, as you saw, they decided to

(19:48):
play a clip of Trump responding on that topic at
a Fox News town hall, but not actually the comments themselves,
and that was, in my opinion, this is the one
that's going the most viral. Yeah, from what I've seen
amongst the left, ye go.

Speaker 1 (20:01):
And just a minor correction on that. So it's not
just that they played his response in a town hall.
They edited out the first part of his response where
he doubled down in these comments and also said what
I mean by that is, you know Pelosi, ship, et cetera.
So they took the one portion of his comments that
they could use to spin it as see, he doesn't
mean that, he's being totally reasonable and left out the

(20:23):
part from their own event where he was like, no,
I mean the left.

Speaker 2 (20:28):
I mean, in my opinion, that's stupid, because you should
just play the damn comment if you're going to play anything,
and it might be I wouldn't played anything. I just
left the lady to talk because I think that that's
one of those But if you're going to play something,
you shouldn't be editing this stuff down anyway. So let's
take a listen to.

Speaker 4 (20:40):
That question to the former president.

Speaker 3 (20:42):
Today, Harris Faulkner had a town hall and this is
how he responded.

Speaker 8 (20:48):
I heard about that they were saying. I was like threatening,
I'm not threatening anybody. They're the ones doing the threatening.
They do phony investigations. I've been investigated more than Alphonse Capon.

Speaker 4 (20:58):
He was the greatest nection. Know it's true, we don't
but think of it.

Speaker 8 (21:01):
It's called weaponization of government. It's a terrible there.

Speaker 5 (21:04):
So I'm sorry, and with all due respect, that clip
was not what he has been saying about the enemy
within that he has repeated when he's speaking about the
American people.

Speaker 6 (21:16):
That's not what you just showed.

Speaker 4 (21:18):
He was asking.

Speaker 5 (21:18):
No, no, no, that's not what you just showed. In
all fairness and respect.

Speaker 4 (21:22):
To you, the question that we asked him.

Speaker 6 (21:24):
He didn't show that. And here's the bottom line.

Speaker 5 (21:26):
He has repeated it many times, and you and I
both know that. And you and I both know that
he has talked about turning the American military on the
American people.

Speaker 6 (21:36):
He has talked about going.

Speaker 5 (21:38):
After people who are engaged in peaceful protest. He has
talked about locking people up because they disagree with him.
This is a democracy, and in a democracy, the president
of the United States, in the United States of America
should be willing to be able to handle criticism without
saying he'd lock people up doing it. And this is

(22:02):
what is at stake, which is why you have someone
like the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
saying what Mark Milly has said about Donald Trump being
a threat to the United States of America.

Speaker 2 (22:16):
So yeah, there you go, Like, I agree, it wasn't good,
but you know that's where you were saying previously she
didn't get angry. She actually did kind of get angry.
I mean, maybe it's effective or not, but it was
clear like she was really roaring to go at it.
Now from what Brett said, Brett was like, I think
she came into this she wanted to score some good
hits against Trump on Fox News. And He's like, I

(22:36):
think she accomplished that. He was like, I also think
that she came into this one to score some good
hits against us, and like that clearly was the moment
that they were looking for. From what I've seen, like
on the liberal side, that's the one that's probably gone
the most viral.

Speaker 4 (22:49):
I agree.

Speaker 2 (22:49):
It means I do on think it's a good look
for Fox. They should just play the damn comments. I
don't know why they did that.

Speaker 4 (22:53):
Well.

Speaker 1 (22:53):
It also just makes it like it takes it on
of the realm of debatable whether it was like a
fair and just tough interview or whether it was dishonest Partison,
because we can show you what he actually said. So
what they did is they took out, they clipped out
the peace of his answer that they thought best served
their ends to be like, hey, it doesn't mean that

(23:13):
come on, you know, Donald Trump, he's just joking around
when literally they're same event. When he was actually asked
that question, his first response was to double down and say, no,
I do mean my political opponents. So let's take a
listen in contrast to what he actually said in response,
so you can see just how dishonest it was.

Speaker 9 (23:33):
They're using your words to say that you are not
for crime and keeping particularly women safe in ads. I
want to take a look at what you said and
just tell me.

Speaker 6 (23:44):
Let's let's watch it if we have to.

Speaker 4 (23:46):
Yeah, we have two enemies.

Speaker 8 (23:48):
We have the outside enemy and then we have the
enemy from within. And the enemy from within, in my opinion,
is more dangerous in China, Russia and all these countries
because if you have a smart president can handle them
pretty easily. But the thing that's tougher to handle these
lunatics that we have inside, like Adam Schiff, I call

(24:09):
him the enemy from within.

Speaker 9 (24:10):
Mister President. Kamala Harris said, you sounded unhinged and unchecked
power is in our future.

Speaker 4 (24:17):
What I thought it was a nice presentation.

Speaker 6 (24:20):
I wasn't.

Speaker 4 (24:21):
I wasn't an unhinged you.

Speaker 8 (24:22):
Know they are. They're a party of sound bites there.
Somebody asked me, can they be brought together? You know,
it's very I never thought, really, I wasn't thinking like
they could because they are they're very different, and it
is the enemy from within and they're very dangerous.

Speaker 1 (24:40):
So anyway, there you go. It's like that's what he
actually said. And so clearly they knew she was going
to bring that up, right because this has been, you
know me, for good reason, a major point they've been
bringing up on the trail in recent days, and so
in order to rebutt it, they picked out this incredibly
like just decept version of what he's been saying about this,

(25:03):
so they can see, you know, he's fine, what are
you talking about? There's nothing, no problem there. And you
know that's where, like I said, it gave her an opportunity. Now,
the thing is that Kamala Harris doesn't always rise to
those opportunities like this gave her a chance both to
go against Donald Trump, to really articulate in a forceful
way how disturbing and disgraceful she thinks those comments and

(25:24):
others are right in a way that Look, we saw
in twenty twenty two, these sorts of concerns about Donald
Trump do animate a lot of voters and have been
successful for Democrats in terms of electoral performance. And she
gets a chance to push back on Fox News and
you know, call out Brett for not showing the full
context here and not actually showing the comments that Trump made.

(25:45):
So it's a good moment for her with the basse.
I also think it's a good moment for her with
any potential swing voters. Again, as I said before, how
much does this any of this matter? I don't know really,
but anyway, I thought that was, like you said, soccer,
probably her strongest moment, Oh, definitely in this interview.

Speaker 2 (25:58):
Now to the weakest think Actually maybe I don't know,
most journalistically, the most consequential electorally, I'm not so sure.
This is on Biden's mental acuity. I thought this was
absolutely her worst answer of the night. Let's take a.

Speaker 3 (26:13):
Lesson called Donald Trump, He's misguided. You say, now, he's unstable,
he is unstable, he's not well, you say, he's mentally
not stable.

Speaker 4 (26:25):
Ask you this, and.

Speaker 3 (26:26):
You told interviewers that Joe Biden was on his game
that ran around circles on his staff. When did you
first notice that President Biden's mental faculties appeared diminished.

Speaker 6 (26:39):
Joe Biden.

Speaker 5 (26:41):
I have watched in from the Oval office to the
situation room, and he has the judgment and the experiment
and experienced to do exactly what he has done and
making very important decisions on behalf of the American people.

Speaker 6 (26:57):
Joe Biden is not on ballot, understand Donald Trump.

Speaker 5 (27:00):
Donald Trump, he talked about it and Donald George Cloon.

Speaker 3 (27:04):
Within a few minutes of talking to Biden a fundraiser,
that he thought this was not the same Joe Biden
that we saw on the debate.

Speaker 10 (27:11):
Stay.

Speaker 6 (27:11):
Trump is on the ballot.

Speaker 3 (27:13):
I understand you met with him at least once a
week for three and a half years.

Speaker 4 (27:17):
You didn't have any concerns.

Speaker 5 (27:20):
I think the American people have a concern about Donald Trump,
which is why the people who know him best, including
leaders of our national security community, have all spoken out,
even people who worked for him.

Speaker 2 (27:34):
All right, Yeah, I mean I thought that was wild.
It was like, Joe Biden, what did he say? He
has done what he has done for the American people,
And then it was Joe Biden is not on the ballot, which, frankly,
you should be saying that a lot more. But there
is no real distance. The only other line, I guess
we didn't have it in there was maybe park What
do you think.

Speaker 1 (27:51):
Would be the best answer for her here?

Speaker 2 (27:54):
That's a little bit. Did any amount of gaslighting that
these people did? It's like, I don't really know because
he hasn't dead to right.

Speaker 1 (28:00):
If yeah, that's that's the problem, is like there is
no good answer really to this question, because if you admit,
like I've been seeing this dude going downhill for a while,
which is probably the honest answer, Like, you can't really
say that, right, So I think I think it's going
to be very important question for history. Who knew what when?

(28:21):
With regard to Joe Biden.

Speaker 2 (28:22):
Oh, I've been reading Bob Woodward's more recent book, and
there's some wild stuff in that.

Speaker 1 (28:26):
And I think, you know this, this tape will be
entered into the annals of history in terms of, you know,
the level of spin and the level of gas lighting
of the American people that occurred at the time. As
a political matter, I don't know that there's really a
better answer that she could give than listen, it's not
him on the ballot. He's fine, well and good, and
I saw make great decisions and it was all fine.

(28:47):
And you know, I'm not admitting any wrongdoing here on
my behalf because I was covering anything up and Donald
Trump is really where the focus is. And frankly, you know,
I actually thought that these questions would be more of
a sticking point for the American people after the you know,
switch from Biden to Kamala. But I actually think most
people do feel the way she articulated, like, all right,
he's that's the past. We're moving forward. It's me versus

(29:09):
Donald Trump. So let's talk about that. So yeah, is
it like, is it dishonest? Yes, it's dishonest. Is a
great look for her to a tough Gordon? Of course not.
But I'm not sure that there was really a better
answer on the table for her to give, at least
I'm not smart enough to really come up with one.
Given like the position she's taked down.

Speaker 2 (29:29):
I was gonna say, I just you know the answers.
Don't put yourself in that position. It's an insane one.
I don't disagree. Actually, Americans have an amazing capacity for
temporary amnesia. But from the assassination attempt.

Speaker 1 (29:40):
They were just so relieved he stepped aside. I think
they were like, all right, he stepped aside.

Speaker 5 (29:44):
He did.

Speaker 1 (29:45):
At the end of the day, he did the thing
he was supposed to do. Now, I would say it's
unconscionable he's still even occupying the White House, given the
fact that, I mean, we really were on the brink
of a massive war in the Middle East. We really
have no sense of who's actually making these decisions. I'm
not sure whether it's better or worse for him to
be making the decisions or Bret McGirk or these other,

(30:06):
you know, genocidal terrorists that apparently are cool with what
we're doing in the Middle East. So, you know, I
think it's unconscionable that we're in that place. But I
also have to acknowledge the political reality that most people
are like, hell, he stepped aside, so we're moving forward.

Speaker 2 (30:19):
Yeah, it's certainly possible. So there you go. That was
the review of everything there Trump. Let's move to him.
He participated in two town halls yesterday. One was with
Fox News. It was a Fox News women town hall.
It does appear, by the way, from Michael Tracy's reporting
that a lot of these ladies were like pro Trump
already Republican activists. You know, this has been a real issue.

(30:43):
I just want to say this at the top, because
all of these town halls. So Univision did a town
hall with Kamala a couple of days ago. There was
actually not that much that came out of it. I
listened to most of it, and I realized why from
what Tracy said, because he was in attendance. Yeah, is
that most of those people were basically like organized by
some Democrat cutout group. Same thing on this one. And then,
by the way, there was another Univision town hall just

(31:05):
last night with Donald Trump where apparently it was the
same thing where a lot of these people were actually
paid to attend, and so.

Speaker 1 (31:11):
They went a modeling. This is on Michael Tracy. The
audience numbers were paid by a modeling agency that contracted me.

Speaker 4 (31:17):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (31:18):
So anyways, the point is, like, you know, even these
town halls are becoming a total farce. But regardless, we
got some things that are out of it. Here is
Donald Trump answering a question on immigration.

Speaker 1 (31:28):
Let's take a listen to your President Trump.

Speaker 11 (31:30):
Thank you so much for everything you have done for
this country. You fight first in the past, you fight
first right now, and I know you will fight for
us in the future. My name is Stream England and
my family escaped the communist Vietnam thirty years ago. And
this is my question for you. America is a land
of opportunity and it's policy welcome immigrants legally. How different

(31:54):
is your policy versus Harris when it comes to securing
our borders and only accepting people to us without causing
any issue to our country.

Speaker 2 (32:05):
On the borders, Well, people coming legally.

Speaker 8 (32:09):
Yeah, we want to have as many people come in
as possible, but they have to come in legally. We
don't want murderers, we don't want drug dealers, we don't
want human traffickers, we don't want people from prison that
are being let out after murdering somebody.

Speaker 2 (32:23):
All right, just took a lot of shots at Commas.
Now it's Trump's turn. This is basically in total violation
of everything Trump has previously said ever on immigration, including
all of the people who work for them. Why do
I know this because I literally cover the White House
and I also know a lot of these people, so
I know that if any Democrats said this that they
would freak out. But this is pure If you want

(32:43):
to really look at elon Musk's like major contribution to
Donald Trump. I would put this all the way up
at the top for the all in and elon Silicon
Valley support because this is a classic Silicon Valley talking point.
We have to have as many people who come in
as possible. We just have to secure our border. I mean,

(33:04):
that is like the previous that's like a twenty twenty Democratic,
a twenty twenty Democratic Party position on immigration. And part
of the problem for a lot of Republicans is there
are not people who have any like credibility on the
issue with the base or frankly on anything to be
able to call Trump out. There's no internal policing on

(33:24):
this literally that exists. The money is behind it, and
a lot of the immigration people just I mean, look,
I get it to a certain extent because they're like
I think the Democrats be worse, so they just don't
say anything. But you know you're gonna if you're going
to police like like, for example, I know Jade Vans
doesn't agree with this, I know for sure he's never
said anything like this in the past. But a lot
of the people who are on the Republican side, they

(33:45):
just let a lot of the stuff slide. I think
it's nuts.

Speaker 1 (33:47):
Yeah, I mean, look, if his position is genuinely like
let us he said, what let as many people as possible.

Speaker 2 (33:56):
That's an insane thing to say. As a Republican who's
an immigration restriction, that is literally an insane thing to say.
And for everybody out there is we support high skilled
immigration and all that. Even people who support high skilled
immigration support caps and numbers of what that should look like.
First of all, Trump has not even said anything about
high skilled immigration a lot in the past except what
did you say, staple of THESA to every PhD in

(34:17):
the country. Sounds like a real genius money laundering operation
for every university. But okay, move past.

Speaker 6 (34:24):
I support the.

Speaker 1 (34:26):
I support the let as many people in as possible,
That's my point.

Speaker 2 (34:29):
But it's crazy if you really believe in immigration restriction.
This is a horrible thing for the country. Especially this
is the basic position of comprehensive immigration reform, which is
legalize everybody here and then just throw it all wide open.

Speaker 1 (34:43):
Yeah, but he's still wants to do the like, you know, uh,
mass deportation. You know, round everybody up in every town,
including some of the people who are here legally like
the Haitian migrants in Springfield, o Hioive.

Speaker 2 (34:57):
So let's go back.

Speaker 1 (34:58):
So in any case, he's it's not like he's gone
soft on these things. It's just, you know, after his
what do you call it, like very bloody, very bloody
immigration roundup that then I guess, at least an answer
to this woman who's herself an immigrant, he says we
should let his man this. Who the fuck knows what
this man wants to do or what he really means.
It's just, you know, it is I think your point

(35:20):
is the most important one, which is the people who
claim their whole politics around immigration restriction. I am not
one the people who are on that side. They will
hear this and they will say not yeah.

Speaker 2 (35:31):
And that's word. Well, that's what bothers me is that Trump.

Speaker 1 (35:34):
It's the culture personality. Ultimately, that's what it is.

Speaker 2 (35:38):
It has to be called out, no matter and especially allegedly,
you know, by the so called like leader of the party,
because these things do matter. Look, I get we're in
a nothing matters era, but you know that actually is
the default position of the old school GOP, of which
Trump has always claimed to move past. So which is it?
And I do know that Trump, in particular this time around,

(35:58):
is much more amenable to whatever the highest bidder wants
him to do and a huge amount of his new
Silicon Valley money, like this is the position that they have.
So yeah, I think the main point is that on
the act, amongst like actual immigration people, I see very
very few who are actually attacking Donald Trump. I get it. Yeah,
maybe you'd be better or whatever, but that doesn't mean

(36:19):
that you want to let standard bearer to have this position.
Let's move on to IVF. This Trump has stold this
story before. I've heard this, but it is one of
the most wild like twist and turns and actually great
insight into how he makes decisions. So I just talked
about how he's impressionable. It depends on who he's talking to,
regardless of how he arrives. So here is the backstory
on how Trump arrived at being pro IVF. Let's take

(36:41):
a list.

Speaker 8 (36:42):
I got a call from Katie Britt, a young, just
a fantastically attractive person from Alabama. She's a senator, and
she called me up like emergency emergency, because an Alabama
judge had ruled that the IVF clinics were illegal and
they have to be closed down. A judge ruled, and
she said, friends of mine came up to me and

(37:03):
they were, Oh, they were so angry. I didn't even
know they were going, you know, she they were it's fertilization.
I didn't know they were even involved. And nobody talks
about it, don't talk about it. But now that they
can't do it, she said, I was attacked in a
certain way. I was attacked and I said, explain IVS
very IVF very quickly, and within about two minutes I

(37:23):
understood it. I said, no, no, we're totally in favor
of IVF.

Speaker 2 (37:28):
Right. So Katie Britt, the attractive senator, called him and
talked about how women came up to her in church
and told them about how they were using IVF, and
they based on that is the only reason they decided
to change on this object. I mean, look, I'll take
it right. I think it's a good thing. But it's
one of those where the incoherence of a lot of
the GOP's like ability to handle this issue comes to light,

(37:52):
where you know, they get stumbled into things where you
have this like evangelical based part of the party who look,
I guess to their credit. They really do believe in
banning IVF and and at least some of them in
banning IVF or in making sure that abortion is completely
illegal like in all cases. And then they are stuck
with the political consequences of what has been a disaster

(38:14):
for the GOP electorally. I mean, you know, we're going
to talk in a bit about what the new electorate
may look like based on some initial projections of early vote,
et cetera. And it's like, I can't even begin to
describe how much abortion dramatically changed the landscape. It's so remarkable.
Never I mean, I knew it was going to be something,
but to think it would realign almost everything and be

(38:37):
the primary reason that a lot of women are going
to vote, I would never have predicted that, and yet
it has. So this is a good view into they
really don't know how to handle it. Like it's like
everybody wanted Row versus Way to be gone. It's like
not really, and then now it is gone. It's like
and actually it's a good thing, you know, for this day.
It's just it's just all over the map, Like, yeah,
it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Speaker 1 (38:57):
Yeah, is the main thing? Well, I would saying with
Kamlin Harris like in certain questions, there just isn't really
a good answer for her. And this is a question
for Donald Trump, like there is no good answer because also,
I mean, he has the reality contend with that his
justices that he hand picked and put on the court
with the you know, direct intention of overturning Roe versus Wade,

(39:18):
like this was the logical consequence consequence of the actions
that he himself took number one and number two when
Democrats have brought up let's protect IVF bills at the
federal level. You know, last time that this happened, all
but two Republicans voted against it, and Jade Vance just
didn't come so he didn't have to take a vote
either way. So you know, he wants to position republicanss

(39:41):
like the Party of IVF and himself is what do
you call himself, like the King of IVF or.

Speaker 2 (39:45):
Something, a father, a fertilization father. Listening, he's got what
he's got children with three different women's So in some ways.

Speaker 1 (39:52):
People are just not really going to buy like he's
the one to protect women's rights. And as I said,
I can't really get him. I can't really coach him
on a better answer, because I don't really think there
is one, given the actions that he's already taken, given
his coalition, And you know, he's very fortunate that there
aren't more pro life leaders and voters who are as

(40:16):
critical of him as like Lyla Rose was when she
talked to us on our show. You know, they've largely
given him a pass on this too, so that gives
him the freedom to go out there and be like, oh,
IVF is wonderful, and of course I love IVF, and
of course it should all be left to the states
and all of these things. But yeah, it's just a
losing issue for them, period, you know, bottom line out
of story, because it's not really a political framing issue

(40:38):
at this point. It's a reality issue, and people are
very set on how upset they are about the changed
landscape of rights that they previously enjoyed.

Speaker 2 (40:46):
Absolutely, all right, let's move on to the polls.

Speaker 1 (40:50):
So some interesting pulling data to get to this morning,
but I also wanted to take a look at that
analysis from Harry Enton. He did a great job breaking
down some of Kamala Harris's issues with non white voters,
especially among men. This segment. He looks at the flip
side of that, which is her historically good performance with
a key demographic group. That would be white women, my people,

(41:11):
apparently with jigalism.

Speaker 12 (41:13):
Let's take a look here the GOP's margin among white women.
Look Romney one and by nine. All right, Trump in
twenty sixteen one and by six. You go back four
years ago, Trump won and by seven.

Speaker 4 (41:25):
Look.

Speaker 12 (41:25):
Now, look how much lower Trump's margin is among white women. Look,
he still leads, but it's well within the margin, or
it's just a point. He's doing six points worse than
he did four years ago. In fact, he's doing the
worst if this holds for a GOP candidate this century
among white women.

Speaker 2 (41:42):
John Well, how much do white women matter in the electric.

Speaker 12 (41:45):
So this is the whole thing, right, how much do
they matter? If you were to break it down, white women,
white men, women of color, men of color, white women
make up the plurality of the electorate thirty six percent.
So you know, yesterday we were talking about those massive
gains that Donald Trump was making among black men, black women,
But the bottom line is they actually make up a

(42:05):
considerably smaller portion of the electorate than white women do.
So when we're talking about five six point shifts, seven
point shifts in Kamala Harris's direction. We're talking about that
among a major part of the electorate, and that can
actually move the overall electorate more than ginormous shifts among
a considerably smaller part of the electric If she wins,

(42:27):
it could ultimately be because she did so well with
white women.

Speaker 1 (42:30):
John and what he was showing there at the end
is the difference the gender gap between who is prioritizing
abortion and saying that's their top issue for women. Twenty
seven percent of women are saying that is my number
one issue. So this is effectively I mean, if you
want to understand, I don't agree with all of the
Kamala Harris campaign strategy. I think they should be focusing

(42:50):
a lot more and foregrounding a lot more economic plans,
bread and butter plans. I think they should be hitting
Trump on the economy. I think they would be doing
much better in the polls right now than the absolute
fifty to fifty toss up at best that it is
at this point. But this is effectively their strategy. Soccers
they see those like Nicky Haley voters and they they're
looking at these numbers and say, hey, that's the largest

(43:13):
demographic group that we could improve them. So if we
up that by you know, a few points, then hey,
we're we're in good position. And that's what all of
the that's what a lot of their campaign strategy has
been geared towards. And of course a lot of their
you know, AD dollars have been spent, a lot of
their vocal energy and campaign rallies and debate stage time,

(43:33):
and all of that is also spent on the issue
of abortion because it's the most uniting issue among this
particular coalition.

Speaker 2 (43:40):
Absolutely, And you know, this is a point often made
by others about the GEOP. You know, Trump is obsessed
with the idea of winning more Latino and black men.
And look, that's great, you know, I think it's objectively
like a good thing for the country and certainly should
always be trying to win everybody. But you know, seventy
five percent of the people in the country vote are
white five percent, So when you have a nine percent

(44:02):
margin problem from Romney to today or eight percent, that's
actually bad because even though it's a smaller margin, then
let's say other groups like Latino man, there's a ton
more white women who are out there. Well, some more
white people who are out there who actually vote, So
by the numbers, that actually matters a lot. It matters
the most in the actual states that are the most

(44:25):
critical in this election, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, which are
way more white than the Sun Belt. And in fact,
if we consider a scenario where what what is Trump
upbeyed in the New York Times in Arizona like four
maybe six?

Speaker 1 (44:38):
I think six.

Speaker 2 (44:39):
That's a ton, right, What does that explain? So Hispanics,
it's a very diverse state. There's way less white people
who live in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, wisconsinly ever been there,
Like it's they're pretty white places, and you know, the
minorities that they have is like usually black people who
are in like urban areas and especially in the rural counties,
places that Trump used to dominate. If he is going

(45:00):
to only win white women there by some fifty to
fifty margin, massive problem for him, especially when you consider
what all of those people proportionally coming for the Democrats
could mean. Even with higher voter registration and even with
higher turnout amongst men, it wouldn't even matter numbers wise, I've.

Speaker 1 (45:16):
Seen a number of Trump supporting Republicans who are like,
he really needs to do some female focused podcasts, you know.

Speaker 2 (45:22):
And you can see like Riley Gain say that that's why,
that's why I saw. Yeah, they're not wrong. I think
they're right.

Speaker 1 (45:28):
Yeah, And you see, you know, Tommy Laren has also
been critical at times of his strategy of or lack thereof,
to outreach to women, because this is such an important
demographic group like all the rest, and you do see
on the hair side, they realize we got a little
bit of a problem the manisphere. I'm going to go
I'm going to try to go on Joe Rogan, I'm
going to go on with Charlemagne, like I'm going to

(45:49):
go on these various places to try to shore up
our support. There you can see they recognize that there's
a bit of an issue and they're trying to shore
things up. You know, Trump to do this like news
town Hall with pre selected audience members. But in terms
of the similar podcast strategy that he's used to reach
young men, there doesn't seem to be a similar level

(46:10):
of effort to try to improve his margins with women,
as you see on the Hair side, and again you know,
part of this cake is like already baked. I think
it is difficult. At this point, there's probably only a
few percentage points of undecided voters who could truly go
either way. So you know, your best bet probably is
these non traditional platforms. These were cultural figures to call

(46:32):
her daddies of the world, et cetera. And it's hard
to it's hard to imagine Trump in those spaces, but
it would also be very interesting to.

Speaker 2 (46:38):
See Trump and keeps saying it would be crange. I
totally disagree. Trump is funny. He's a pop culture person.
Howard Stern. You think he doesn't know how to handle
like somebody like call her daddy, Like come on.

Speaker 1 (46:49):
The problem is he gets especially I haven't seen him do.
Maybe maybe it can remind me of if I'm not
remembering one. I've not seen him do a contentious interview
this cycle where he hasn't just gotten angry. You know,
I'm thinking of the last contentious interview that comes to
my mind as the National Associations last journalist, where he
just completely lost it and started, you know, ranting about

(47:10):
how Kamala hair is not really black and attacking the
moderators or whatever. And I don't think if you're trying
to appeal to women voters, like if you go in
a majority female space and that's the way you treat
the host, I don't think that's going to go well.
So we'd have to bring more of the like it's
going to be a more adversarial questioning. And can he
handle that without just like blowing his top as he

(47:30):
has in previous boundings this cycle, I do I don't know.

Speaker 2 (47:33):
I mean, I know he has it in him for sure.
You know, I've seen him do it many times in
the past. He's like you frequent Oprah guest, right, Like,
it's not somebody who doesn't have this in their repertoire.

Speaker 1 (47:41):
So I think it's been a minute.

Speaker 2 (47:43):
I think he should do it. I think you're right,
and there's no reason especially not to do Like honestly,
I think if I were him, I would do Oprah
or I would do uh.

Speaker 1 (47:52):
Otra has actively Kamala Harris and spoke of the DNC, so.

Speaker 2 (47:55):
I'm strong, be strong. Yeah, so his call her daddy.
She's basically come out as like pro Kamala. Who else
I'm trying to think of, like vaguely women Podcast.

Speaker 1 (48:05):
Women's maybe there's like somebody big in the true crime
space is not all that political that he did, that
he can vibe with it.

Speaker 2 (48:10):
That's actually a good idea. I'm not really sure. I
don't listen to a lot of these true crime things, right,
I mean, they're some of the top biggest female shows
in the entire country. Yeah, so that wouldn't be you know,
that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

Speaker 13 (48:20):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (48:20):
Anyway, so that's Trump with the ladies. Let's take a
look at YouGov has just launched their MRP projections. Let's
put this up on the screen. So this is a
little different than a poll and soccer. Maybe you can
explain this better than I can. But effectively, they're doing
interviews with something like one hundred thousand voters across the country,

(48:42):
and they are continually reaching out to these voters to
see how they're shifting, and they're asking him a range
of questions not just about who they're supporting, but critically
because this is the hardest thing to determine how likely
they are to actually show.

Speaker 2 (48:56):
Up and vote.

Speaker 1 (48:57):
So this is the launch of their of this MRP model.
Based on this technique that they're using. You can see
that Kamala Harris has a little bit of an edge
fifty to forty seven in terms of the national popular vote.
That would probably be enough, although it would be quite
razor fin for her to be able to secure a
win using those industrial Midwestern like the blue Wall state path.

(49:21):
You can see in this model they have her winning
Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania basically a toss up. If
you do click over Pennsylvania, they do have her with
a slight edge there as well, but you know, too
close for them to actually put it in her column.
Let's go ahead to the next piece. You can see
three the more details about the MRP projections, and what

(49:45):
this person notes that's really fascinating is the fact that
if they're right, then it looks a lot. It's very
validating of the New York Times theory that twenty twenty
four looks more like twenty twenty two than it does
twenty twenty. These results imply this person rights that on average,

(50:06):
the swing states will do almost a half a point
better than the twenty twenty margin in those core seven battlegrounds,
but they'll do worse basically everywhere else, and so the
national popular vote they'll do more poorly in even as
they're holding up and even doing better than twenty twenty
in those swing states. And like I said, that's somewhat
consistent with how things turned down in the mid term

(50:29):
elections and would again indicate that there's a shrinking of
the gap between the electoral college advantage that Republicans have
and the national popular vote. So who knows, right, it's
just more pieces of data to throw into the mix.
But I do sort of think there's a logic to
that New York Times theory that based on the reshaping

(50:52):
of the electorate post COVID, post row versus way, that
it makes some sense that it would look more like
twenty twenty two, where you have some places that continue
to move to the right, but in the key states,
Kamala Harris is holding up pretty well here. So what
did you make of this saga?

Speaker 2 (51:05):
Same as you. I mean, it's a key piece of data.
The UGUV model is not bad. Apparently I checked some
of his track record back in the day. It's pioneered.
Actually in the UK they call it the what is
it the MRP model, the technique to project it. The
point is is that this the heuristic that everybody needs
is are we in a twenty twenty scenario or are
we in a twenty twenty two scenario. So right now,

(51:28):
a lot of poles are assuming a twenty twenty scenario
the exact same makeup of the electorate. Because we consider
what I said previously about abortion. Abortion fundamentally changed the
way that Americans interact with the political system, millions and
millions of people changing the way that they do on
top of major demographic and dynamic changes which we actually

(51:48):
can see, like if we want to move into some
of the polls, like let's go to be four, please
and put that up on the screen. So if you
look at these poles, and you look specifically at the
Harris and Yugov and economists, they have a forty nine
forty five for Harris, that's within four points. For the
Tip people, they have a fifty forty six for Harris,

(52:08):
and Harris at fifty to forty seven, and the overall
average she's roughly around three percent in the national popular vote.
But the thing is is that the national popular vote
that's a little bit less than where things had looked
previously for a lot of Democrats. So with the less
popular vote, you still have to then look at those
micro demographics, and if you see where you had in

(52:30):
twenty twenty two, you had an electorate which was Republican
plus two in its preference, but you had so many
independents that came over and voted in the swing states
in particular, that it still looked like a major blowout.
And this is like with the major areas of the
country are changing very differently. New York and the outer
boroughs are becoming a lot more red. Obviously Florida has

(52:53):
become a lot more red. That's kind of interesting. But
you also have North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona really fundamentally changing.
I mean, North Carolina may be the one which has
changed the most. You've got a way more wealthy and white,
affluent number of net migrants coming into the state from
the last four years. You've got all this stuff right
now with the hurricane damage, and particularly western North Carolina

(53:16):
where it's already a Republican stronghold. So I could see
an upset there probably more than anywhere else.

Speaker 1 (53:20):
Yeah, I think that's very possible, really interesting if she
won North Carolina lost Georgia. I mean, it's just you know,
there's there's a lot of potential dynamics that could play
out to your point about like, you know, the polls
and how we think about these things. You know, we
covered that poll and that data that showed that Republican
self identification had edged out above Democratic health identification, and

(53:41):
then that same polster released a poll like the next
week that had it flipped back the other ways. I
was like, all right, well, who the hell knows what
do we know about any of this? But one thing
I wanted to flag is in that last tweet they
had the tipp I don't know if people just say
tip or they say tippe, but whatever. Anyway, they had
that now Daily Tracker, and that poll ended up last

(54:03):
time around being the most accurate polster. So people are
paying a little bit special attention to this. But to
break down why any of this matters, because it seems
like we're really parsing here. When you're looking at the
national polls, if you see a lot of people are
see Kamala Harris with like a two or three point lead,
and they're like, well, with the electoral college advantage that
Republicans had in twenty twenty and twenty sixteen, that may

(54:24):
not be enough. That's really the key question here, because
if it's more of a twenty twenty two electorate, then
a three or even potentially a two point maybe one
point lead for her in the popular vote could be
sufficient depending on what happens in these battlegrounds. So that's
kind of the key point is you're trying to analyze
all of these things. We wanted to update you on

(54:45):
some good news with regard to election night. Let's go
and put this up on the screen. So Georgia had
issued their election board, which is very you know, pro
Trump sort of mega election board, different than Brian Kemp,
who obviously as governor in the state. They had ruled
that every ballot in the state was going to have

(55:05):
to be hand counted. Now you can understand how long
that would take, especially given how close they are to
election day, how little time they'd have to adjust to
this new rule. And as of now, a county judge
in Georgia blocked that new rule mandating a handcount of
election ballots across the state. He said that enacting that

(55:27):
sweeping change right now, so close to the Novumber election
would be quote too much, too late. He didn't knock
it down outright leaving the door open the potentially in
the future they could implement this rule change, but just
saying listen, it's too close to election day, and this
would potentially create a lot of chaos. And you know,
I'm relieved, because number one, I want to be able

(55:47):
to get the election results and actually know who wins
at some point in time, and this was definitely going
to delay that being able to occur, and it was
going to create more of that red mirage of fact
where because the largest cities and largest suburban areas tend
to be more democratic, those are also the places with
a lot of votes, and if you're trying to hand count,

(56:09):
those will be the places that came in last. So
it creates that opening that Trump used last time around
to say, look, the results were all coming in Republican
and then all of a sudden, in the middle of
the night, you know, they get in these secret ballots
and suddenly the Democrats take the lead. So this helps
to mitigate some of that dynamic and leave less of
an opening for his shenanigans. In this particular stace, we.

Speaker 2 (56:30):
Also just take I mean, the main point is just
takes freaking forever, and it's one of those where everyone
always like, oh, we need better elections and all this
is like, how is hand counting not way worse? It's
one of those where you know, you put your trust
in Look, no offense to the poll workers out there,
but it's like, you know, have you ever met some
of these folks about who they are? And then don't
even forget about the whole hanging Chad nightmare from Florida

(56:52):
in the year two thousand where you had those two
individual people they're examining the ballots as another person people. Really,
you know, I wasn't truly cognizant like at that time,
but the more I read about it, I'm like, what
an insane It was wild?

Speaker 1 (57:06):
It was really wild. I was barely politically cognizant, to
be honest with you, because I just wasn't that political
at that ase. But yeah, I remember being like, what
the hell is going on? Listen? Maybe it's controversial. I
personally think, yes, it's fine for individual states to run
their elections. I think that's good, and I think that
prevents fraud whatever, because we have all these different systems
to penetrate. I think there should be federal standards for elections.
I think everybody should have the same in terms of

(57:29):
is voter ide required or not? What is the early
voting process? Is there mail in voting? What's the early
voting period?

Speaker 6 (57:37):
Is it hand?

Speaker 3 (57:37):
Like?

Speaker 2 (57:38):
How do Fellon's vote? That's actually the craziest one if
you think about it. Some states are felling to vote
some station.

Speaker 1 (57:42):
Yeah, that's right. So what's the most eligible to vote?
In different states? It's different and it is outrageous. So
I don't know. I think it should be one federal
standard because I think it's crazy that voters in some
states have way more acts, is way easier to vote
than in other states. But I'll that's neither here nor there.
I'm glad that they struck down this handing.

Speaker 2 (58:01):
Oregon they can only do vote by mail. It's craazy.
They don't even do in person voting. You're like, wow, like,
but actually they have a pretty high voter participation.

Speaker 4 (58:09):
Kind of interesting.

Speaker 2 (58:10):
But then yeah, and then some places, like we live
in Virginia, and Virginia, what is it? Vote by mail
is a lot harder, but we have a ton of
early voting. Early voting is actually very nice.

Speaker 1 (58:18):
I like to vote early in person as my personal preference.

Speaker 2 (58:21):
It's the easiest way to do it, so you can
you can get it done quickly. But then there are
there are like weird questions around the election and like
voting all the way up until September. So I don't necessary,
I don't really disagree in terms of like what the
standards and all of that should look like. There you go,
that's that's the picture. That's all we know, and we
don't know much. We have little little things that could

(58:41):
show us something and be indicators of what's coming in
the in the future, and after the outcome, we'll be
able to look back and really see what was correct,
what wasn't, and what we should have looked at.

Speaker 1 (58:52):
Yeah, okay, so let's go ahead and move on to
the current president Joe Biden. He still exists. That's still
a person who exists, was supposedly running our country. He
is hitting the campaign trail in some limited fashion on
behalf of Kamala Harris. Let's take a listen to a
little bit of how that went.

Speaker 13 (59:10):
Let me tell you something. You can't be pro insurrection
and pro American if you can't announce Sanuary sixth, you
have no business being present. He look, Trump hasn't changed.
I would argue he's gotten worse. Clearly he lost the
election of twenty twenty. He snapped, no, I mean it.

(59:32):
He become unhinge. Look at his rallies last night. Last night,
his rallies stopped taking questions because someone got hurt. And
guess what, he stood on the stage for thirty minutes
and danced. I'm serious, what's wrong with this guy?

Speaker 1 (59:55):
So there you go. That's some of his messaging out
on the trail, consistent with a lot of what you
hear from Will Harris and Tim Walls. At the same time,
he and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. We're all actually
at the funeral of Ethel Kennedy and interesting to see
them all together. We can take a look at a
little bit of this. You know, Sager, what did you

(01:00:18):
what did you make of this movie? You can see
them all three that had seated together for They all
look old.

Speaker 2 (01:00:22):
But this is one where everyone.

Speaker 1 (01:00:24):
Was Obama aged focused so much in office.

Speaker 2 (01:00:26):
Oh my god, Obama gives a little bit of a
side eye, looks a little frustrated. You know, they're not
really like making eye contact. Now you can see the
power dynamic in play here about who is really the
one in charge, although maybe I'm just reading way too
much into it, which is most likely. I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:00:41):
Crazy that Bill Clinton is younger than Joe Biden.

Speaker 2 (01:00:44):
I know it's great.

Speaker 1 (01:00:44):
It is imagine I'm running for office again.

Speaker 2 (01:00:47):
I mean we've talked about that before. But if there
was no Amendment twenty second Amendment, I think Clinton this
would be Clinton's last term in office. He would have
obviously would have run for like five straight terms. He
would have stayed in office the entire time. Sixty percent
approval rating on the day that he left. Though, that's great.
I was just looking at the nineteen ninety six.

Speaker 1 (01:01:05):
See, that's my I always think about wild I always
think about if there were no term limits, I think
we still have Obama. But it wouldn't have even gotten there.

Speaker 2 (01:01:14):
He would Bill Lees. He'd still be a skinny kid
with a funny name who was the elector. He probably
would have left the Senate because he was bored. I
mean Clinton, I'm.

Speaker 1 (01:01:22):
Looking at or something.

Speaker 2 (01:01:24):
Electoral map. Clinton won, uh Louisiana, Arkansas, like Missouri, World, Iowa.
This crazy stuff. He won three hundred and seventy nine
electoral votes. Man Bob Doly won one hundred and fifty nine,
the guy was like a king. It's kind of crazy,
you know what happened to him in retrospect, And then

(01:01:45):
just four years later in two thousand, Gore only puts
up two hundred and sixty six electoral votes, even if
you look discount Florida within that. I mean, gosh, consider
just how much things had changed just in his last
four years. So it's actually pretty interesting just to think
about what it all looked like in retrospect. But with Biden,
and what we definitely wanted to focus on here was

(01:02:07):
Nancy Pelosi and Biden apparently have not spoken since they
dropped out, and there's still quite a lot of salt
behind the scenes between the two.

Speaker 14 (01:02:16):
Let's take a lesson with Joe Biden since that happened.
That's a couple of months have passed since. Have you
had a conversation too.

Speaker 15 (01:02:23):
Nuts since THENO so, But I'm prayerful about it. I
have the greatest respect for him. I think he's one
of the great consequential presidents of our country. I think
his legacy had to be protected. I didn't see that
happening in the course that it was on the election,

(01:02:44):
was on my call was just to let's get on
a better course. He will make the decision as to
what that is, and he made that decision. But I
think he has some unease with because we've been friends
for decks. Look, let me just say this. Elections are
decisions you decide to win. I decided a while ago

(01:03:10):
that Donald Trump will never set foot in the White
House again as President of the United States or in
any other capacity, but as I can't keep them there
for going for tea, but as president of the United States.
So when you make a decision, you have to make
every decision in favor of winning.

Speaker 14 (01:03:31):
And you just felt he couldn't win.

Speaker 15 (01:03:33):
No, I thought his campaign that they were on couldn't win.
He might win, but they had to change what was happening,
and he decided that change would be his stepping aside.

Speaker 14 (01:03:45):
As you said you had been close for so long
and on Capitol College for decades.

Speaker 15 (01:03:50):
Before I was even in Congress.

Speaker 14 (01:03:51):
Yeah, and now you've told us that you haven't spoken
to him since then. Do you think he's not forgiven
you for your role?

Speaker 15 (01:04:03):
There may be some people around him who haven't forgiven
me for my role.

Speaker 2 (01:04:07):
There may be some people around him who haven't forgiven him.
So god a spicy she talks.

Speaker 1 (01:04:13):
Is so funny to me because she really talks like
I'm running the show, you know. She's like, she's like,
winning is a decision, and I decided that we were
going to win and Donald Trump wasn't going to be
in the White House. And she's very delicate, of course
about oh, maybe Biden could have won, but that campaign
was not going to win. And I think that's an
effort like she didn't really care if the campaign staffers
no matter or like whatever. She didn't give a shit, right,

(01:04:34):
But she's trying to preserve some sort of you know,
possibility of relationship with him and the public niceties, et cetera.
But obviously the big reveal there that they have not
spoken since he dropped out of the race, and that's
pretty wild. I mean, that definitely reveals that he's still
salty about her role, probably Obama's role as well. And

(01:04:56):
there's also a lot of reporting about makes sense so
interest staff conflict between the Biden camps and the Harris camps.
We can put this up on the screen from Axios.
Tensions rise between Harris and Biden teams as election nears
and you know, on the one hand, you got the
Biden people close Harris ally said they're too much in

(01:05:18):
their feelings. They say he wants Harris to win, Yes,
but many senior Biden aids are still wounded by the
President being pushed out of his reelection like he was
gonna lose, and also you were doing him no favors
in terms of like this mean, can't serve another four
years anyway. They're too much in their feelings, according to
one close Harris ally. But there's also some of the

(01:05:39):
Harris teams who are bitter over the fact that a
bunch of Biden aids were out there suggesting that she
was unelectable. So there continues to be some hurt feelings
between the camp. We've also seen some we'll say disconnected
messaging coming from the Biden side. He gave a press
conference in the White House Briefing Room just as Harris

(01:05:59):
was about to do an event in Michigan, so kind
of undercutting her TV coverage. Also, there was that whole
flat between Kamala and Ron de Santis were kind of
engaged in this like back and forth where he wasn't
taking her call whatever, and Biden got asked about it
and said that Desanta's had been quote gracious and cooperative,
so again kind of undercutting her there. But you know,

(01:06:19):
my guest saga is that if they lose, if Kamala loses,
you're gonna hear a lot more of this, and the
Biden people will preposterously claim that he would have been
a better candidate to win, which is absurd given what
we saw in terms of the movement of the polls.

Speaker 2 (01:06:35):
And he's been saying it behind the scenes. He's been like,
I actually look at her, I could have one. It's
crossously crazy, preposteros. Yeah, there will be two, like vibe
checks afterwards if Kamala loses. One will be Biden saying
he never should have dropped out. That will be the
revision's history. And two will be they should have picked
John if she loses Pennsylvania. Oh my god, Josh Shapiro

(01:06:57):
propaganda that we're going to hear for the next four
years is going to be.

Speaker 1 (01:07:00):
Why when the correct take is that they should have
had an actual democratic primary so that these candidates might
have been stress tested and voters have an actual democratic
opportunity to choose the candidate they thought would be best
to go up against Donald Trump. That will be the
correct take if she loses. But I have a feeling
if she does pull off a win, all of this

(01:07:20):
unhappiness it will be fine, swept under the rug. Joe
Biden will go back. You know, he's a hero, thinks
brown eyes and him off the Wilmington.

Speaker 2 (01:07:27):
Yeah, look at you wish that you should do.

Speaker 1 (01:07:28):
Right now, But forget about the genocide. Don't worry about that.
He is noble and great and wonderful and honorable and
all of these things. And he's noble, and his brain
is still perfectly fine. Even though his brain was still
not fine that we had to push him out of
the race. Whatever. If they win, then that will be
the all of this will be smoothed over. If they lose.
These are the some of the contours of the knives
that will come out post loss.

Speaker 2 (01:07:49):
I think you are certainly correct, Florida. We've been teasing
it for long enough, right.

Speaker 1 (01:07:53):
Yes, indeed, so you know this is significant just in
terms of the broader sort of conversation about where we
are in terms of our economy, in terms of home ownership,
in terms of some of the political contours. Even Rhonda
Santisen Republicans have been really proud of how many people
have moved to the state of Florida and how vibrantthotic
economy has been. There are some signs that some of

(01:08:15):
that could be reversing for a range of reasons. Number One,
housing prices have just gone up in the state of
Florida because a lot of people move there and housing
prices are kind of going up everywhere, So that's number one. Obviously,
the mortgage interest rate situation, again, that's a national issue.
You also have had this problem with home property owners insurance,

(01:08:36):
which is a total disaster, which I'll get into the
specifics of a little bit more in a moment. And
then you have a situation after remember that condo building
that collapsed and killed a bunch of people was horrifying. Well,
in response to that, there's they're imposing these levees so
that these older condo buildings can be brought up to
the codes. You don't see that again, but that's causing

(01:08:58):
issues too with the in the level of those assessments,
which sometimes can reach into like hundreds of thousands of
dollars for individual condo owners. So that and then most
obviously recently you had these two back to back massive
storms hit almost the entire state of Florida, which is
making a lot of people go like, ugh, I why

(01:09:20):
do I want to move into a place that's just
going to be routinely hit by massive storms and flooded.
And I can't even get property owner's insurance. So it
is really putting a chill on that on that whole market.
We can put this up on the screen. This first
element here from the Wall Street Journal. They say the
Great Florida Migration is coming undone. A surplus of housing
inventory and dwindling buyer interests are slowing sales. Hurricanes and

(01:09:43):
extreme weather are making it worse. They profile at the
beginning this man, Anthony Holmes, who was part of that
Florida migration. He moved from a Virginia to a gated
suburban community in Tampa. Now that he's had to leave,
he's a victim of a glutted housing market where buyers
are increasing hard to find. He paid five hundred and
fifty thousand dollars for his five bedroom home, spent another

(01:10:05):
fifty thousand dollars on solar panels and interior improvements, but
now he's having to move back to Virginia for work.
He thought he'd be able to sell his house right away.
He listed it in February. He has had no luck.
He's dropped the price five different times. He's just trying
to break even. And he says, quote, I can't unload
the thing in eight months. I've had zero offers.

Speaker 4 (01:10:29):
Jeez.

Speaker 1 (01:10:29):
No one even showed up to the open houses. Nobody,
so they said. Another sign that we should all pay
attention to here that the housing market is approaching a
potential inflection point, is that institutional investors are starting to
sell and pull back. Many are eager to cash in
on the huge increase in prices that many of these
homes have seen since twenty ten and are now pruning

(01:10:52):
their Florida housing exposure. Just to give you a few
more numbers than on get your reaction to all of
this saga, they say. Tampa, Orlando and much of the
Space Coasts are also experiencing this Florida housing reversal. Inventory
for single family homes and condos in these areas was
up more than fifty percent in August versus the last year.
At the same time, demand has decreased ten percent or more.

(01:11:16):
In these areas. About half of the homes listed for
sale in Tambo, which is where the individual is talking about,
was struggling to sell his home, about half of them
have experienced price reductions. As of September ninth, that's the
third highest share of all US major metro areas. So
it does seem like something is going on.

Speaker 2 (01:11:32):
Absolutely, can we put the next one please up on
the screen, because this is probably one of the most
important parts, is about all of these properties that are
for sale of skyrocketed. The guy was speculating, what are
the odds he's or airbnbs with owners who are about
to declare bankruptcy. But what you actually see inside all
the data is that it's a flat housing market from

(01:11:53):
March twenty twenty three onward. Two huge hurricanes that have
now come through in the last year, skyrocketing insurance of
four hundred percent, and then on top of that you
have a lot there's not a lot of faith inside
of the actual state that the current coluge of insurance
system that's been put together after a lot of the

(01:12:14):
insurance companies pulled out will even hold up. And this
was the most interesting part to me. Let's put the
next one please on the screen. What we saw is
that the insurer of last resort is actually already in
trouble and that Milton may be a big part of it.
It's called the Citizens Property Insurance Group. It's the state
and nonprofit home insurance that was set up as the

(01:12:36):
last resort. One point three million policies are enforced in
the last month, three times as many compared to five
years ago. It's the largest provider in the entire state.
The problem is that the governor already warned that Citizens
was not solvent and that quote it can't function with
millions of people on that because if a storm hits,

(01:12:57):
it's going to cause problems for the state.

Speaker 4 (01:13:00):
Vote.

Speaker 2 (01:13:00):
Thankfully that they've avoided the worst case scenario for Milton,
but that doesn't change that Citizens is one catastrophic storm
away from complete and total insolvency, which means what that
they're either going to get bailed out by the federal
government or those insurance premiums are about to go from
four hundred percent of five years ago to like a
thousand percent five years ago. So you can't even imagine

(01:13:21):
what that would do, especially in a high interest rate environment.
Think about what your mortgage payment is going to look
like from interest and insurance. Honestly, could even it could
go way over principle. Maybe start to think about what
the cost of living there would be.

Speaker 1 (01:13:34):
Yeah, that's crazy, that's absolutely true. No, I mean, if
you think about four hundred percent increase in those costs
over just a few years, that's mind blowing. And so
what's happened is a bunch of the local private insurers
just cancel palls or out or not. Yeah, they're say
more there now. And so people were forced to, you know,
into this property owner's insurance of last resort, which is
you know, federal and state back Citizens Property Insurance Corporation.

(01:13:57):
And you have politicians here in DC raising alarms that
they're on the brink of insolvency if they get hit
with another catastrophic event. You know, they're already probably going
to have to pay out billions of dollars in claims
after these two storms. And so while this outfit has
a mechanism in order to be able to make sure
it remain solvent, that mechanism is basically just jacking up

(01:14:18):
the prices like crazy, not only on homes but also
on you know, other forms of bright like cars and
boats and whatever. And how politically feasible is that really
going to be for whoever is governor, whether it's Rondo
Santas or whoever's governor of the state at the time.
And so Sheldon white House was saying, should claims exceed
the insuran's ability to pay citizens does have a mechanism

(01:14:39):
to pass those losses onto Florida families are already paying
sky high premiums. Recouping billions of dollars in losses from
Floridians is unlikely to be feasible economically or politically, let
alone in time to pay massive claims. Hence the Budget
Committee concern about possible requests for a federal bailout. So
whether or not you live in Florida very possible. This
could be a question that the whole country is faced

(01:15:00):
with here shortly. But you know, it's an irony that
the very things that some of the things that make
Florida so incredibly appealing obviously is a little bit of
the great weather, But all of this beachfront property may be,
you know, the thing that is also causing a lot
of people to be reluctant to relocate there because you're
facing these storms, You're facing this property insurance, you know,

(01:15:21):
skyrocketing property insurance impossibility in certain instances of even getting
property insurance, and so you are already starting to see
a reversal of some of those trends.

Speaker 2 (01:15:30):
Yeah, I'm going to watch. Look, there's a lot of
stuff going on. The point is is that if you
really look at the lot of the demographics, like we're
watching Florida now go red, I'm watching with great interest
how North Carolina is going to go and what the
margins of that will look like, disproportionately a lot wider
than the more economically dinamic swing of the Sun Belt states.
I really am also watching Nevada. Nevada's had a ton

(01:15:52):
of economic development in the last couple of years. They've
also had big changes in terms of like their political
outlook and who they may vote for. America is changing
a lot. America is changing a lot. I think it's
part of the most exciting things about covering this stuff.
And you know, a lot of the bowl case for
Florida is now becoming a little bit of a bear case.
So you should definitely think about that when you are

(01:16:12):
making decisions.

Speaker 1 (01:16:16):
So we have a stunning potential development out of Israel
and Gaza strip. We could go ahead and put this
tear sheet up on the screen from Axios. Israel is
apparently investigating the possible death of hamas leader Yeah Yeah
Sinwar Sinwar credative of course, with some of the architecting
of October seventh. He has been probably the primary target

(01:16:38):
for assassination by Israel post October seventh. There are some
gruesome images floating around social media of the individuals purported
to be Yeah Yeah Sinwar after this strike that potentially
killed him. That has not been firmly confirmed at all yet.
The IDEAF is still investigating it, so we wanted to

(01:16:59):
bring you everything we know. You know, just looking at him, Sager,
it does look like it could be him.

Speaker 2 (01:17:04):
Looking at the pot. We're not going to put the
photos up there. They're pretty gruesome and some of the
details are a bit odd. So from what we know,
what is it right now? It looks like it was
as a result of a drone strike, and it was
a drone strike on three individuals who were walking, I think,
And it was after they discovered the remains that they

(01:17:26):
were like, oh man, this could be Sinwar. So they're
doing genetic testing, like they said, right now, to confirm
with one hundred percent certainty, and apparently they still have
to clear explosive devices from the scene. But I mean
just purely like looking at him, it definitely looks it
looks more like him than it did when they caught Saddam,
I'll put it that way.

Speaker 1 (01:17:46):
That's true.

Speaker 2 (01:17:47):
Well they got Saddam. I was like, I don't know
if that really I mean, cameras were different.

Speaker 1 (01:17:50):
Than but so they said. Israeli officials claim the incident
was coincidental, not based on intelligence. They say that during
a routine patrol by the ID after soldiers encounter three
arm bending, changed fire and killed them. And then it
was after the fact that one of the soldiers saw
the face of one of the bodies and thought that
he resembled Sinwar, but his identity could not be immediately confirmed.

(01:18:10):
You know, obviously if Sinware, if this was indeed Sinwar
and he is now dead, that is an extraordinarily significant development.
As I mentioned before, it was probably the top target
of Israel in terms of him being the architect of
October seventh. And you know, if you had a different administration,
they might look at this. Both the US and Israeli administration.

(01:18:31):
They might look at this and say, hey, let's take
the w here I was going, we got our man.

Speaker 2 (01:18:34):
There's actually two ways that we could go, you know,
and in some ways it's not a bad development because
sin War is one of the I mean, we were
reading reporting he wanted to renew suicide bombers. He was
the guy who what is it who greenlit and planned
a lot of the October seventh attacks, and cynically, you know,
there'd been obviously an analysis that maybe Israel had put

(01:18:55):
itself in a position to elevate sin War so he
could be like that radical wing of the party. So,
like you just said, it's one of those where look,
imagine if a year into the war on Terror we
got bin Laden. That would be a great argument for
let's wrap it. Yeah, it's like we're good, Yeah, congratulations,
now let's go. One could go that way. The other
unfortunate way that they're more likely to do it is

(01:19:15):
just be like yes, but now about what about his loop?
This is what they did with Hesbola immediately went from
Nostrella to number the guy who replaced Nostralita, and then
the guy who replaced the replacement of Nasralla. And it's
not like anything has changed all that much. So that's
what we did. Fortunate reality, that's exactly. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:19:30):
I mean, we already know the answer is going to
be there, not going to take the w and say, okay,
we did it, let's move on. But you know, this
is something I'd love to talk to Jeremy Scahill more
about because he's interviewed right some of you know HAMAS
members and members of Palestinian Islamic Jihad as well. But
you know, my general understanding is that Ismael Haniah, who
was the head of the political wing of HAMAS, who
was previously assassinated by Israel In while he was in Tehran,

(01:19:54):
actually in Iran, that he was more you know, I
know it seems preposterous to talk about a modern wing
of Hamas, but he was more interested in a diplomatic solution.
He was less enamored with some of the more sort
of like you know, terrorists or violent activities that Hamas
has in particular engaged in, not only in October seventh
fees of the civilians, but in the past with regard

(01:20:14):
to suicide bombings, and so he was someone knew that
you could more easily work with and imagine coming in
a diplomatic solution Sinwar more of the hardliner And there
had been some reporting, I don't know whether it's true
or not, but that he was thinking again of hey,
we need to you know, get back into the suicide
bombing business. And so if he is now taken out

(01:20:35):
as head of Hamas, who knows who fills that vacuum
and what the ideology is coming next, you know what
version of their ideology it is. In any case, we'll
keep an eye on it and you know, see if
this is ultimately confirmed right now continues to be a
big question mark. What is not a big question mark
is that Israel continues with their offensive, both in Gaza,

(01:20:56):
also in other parts of the region, but most specifically
in Leben. We can put this images up on the screen.
This is a video of just the detonation of an
entire residential neighborhood in a southern Lebanon town. You know,
hard to imagine this being really like a precision strike
to get the baddies and Hesbala when you just you know,

(01:21:19):
wantonly destroy an entire village. So that's what you're looking
at there. We also have some domestic news, some new
revelations about you guys. Recall there was that effectively pro
rape riot at a torture facility they call it a
detention center for Palestinian detainees, where soldiers who were accused

(01:21:40):
and I mean the evidence is all there. I think
to even give them the benefit of the doubt at
this point is very generous. Who are accused of raping
a Palestinian detainee. The military police came in to arrest
these suspects and there was a massive revolt among his
fellow soldiers, but also among a bunch of right wing
groups including LACUD party members and ministers that's Benjamin net

(01:22:05):
Yahoo's party. Ultimately, you know they're after a huge backlash.
They you know, they had to take them to different facilities.
It was a wild scene and now we're learning new details.
We can put this up on the screen that those
soldiers not only did they protest, there are fellow soldiers
who were again accused of raping a palaes Didnian detainee.

(01:22:28):
Not only did they protest, but they also attacked those
military police investigators. They also used held them at gunpoint
and barricaded themselves with the suspects to try to keep
them from getting arrested. Military police has witness testimonies to
the assault. It has not, though, been investigated, on the

(01:22:49):
grounds that the assaulted soldiers are afraid to officially complain,
even though and it's after mass some of the investigators
involved stop fulfilling operational roles and one stop showing up
for duty. So these are also you know, people are
in the military. The military police who came to arrest
these individuals accused of grave crimes with quite a lot
of evidence, and the fellow soldiers take out their weapons,

(01:23:14):
barricade them in rooms, assault them directly, and there's been
zero investigation into any of this because effectively, you know,
the government, certainly a significant part of Israeli society supported
the side that was like, we don't think that, we
think it should be fine for soldiers to rape Palestinians
and there should be no consequences. Oh yeah, just a
wild sign of where the society is.

Speaker 2 (01:23:36):
The inside of it is totally crazy, especially with that
riot that would happened, and then now the the what
is it the actual internal efforts to police it is crazy.
They literally attack the military police for arrested them. You
can't even imagine what this would look like in the
US military or for our discipline. I mean, it would

(01:23:56):
be a total destruction of like chain of command, of justice,
of everything that they pride themselves on, the professionalization, professionalization
of the force. From my lie on, it's just absolute madness,
like and think even look, Abu Grad was shameful, right,
but there was a lot done to make sure that
something like that never ever happened again. This is the
opposite reaction. This would be like if they got away

(01:24:18):
with it, and worse that when they were arrested, that
the people there actually turned and cited with those who
were at Abu Gra.

Speaker 1 (01:24:24):
That's exactly right. Yeah, it's it's wild to comprent. And
then the fact that they're you know, basically the government's like, oh,
we're on the side of the people who you know,
took out their weapons and assaulted the military police trying
to do their job and invest in you know, investigate
these people and bring them into detention. Yeah, it tells
you a lot. Let's go and put this next piece
up on the screen. This was quite an interesting opinion

(01:24:46):
piece published in an Israeli newspaper Haretz. The author here
Yatak Brink, Major General Yatak Brick served in the Armor
Corps as a brigade divisioning troop commander, as commander of
the IDF military colleges for ten years. He was the
i ombudsman. So this is no You know, anti Zionists,
pink care lefty on a college campus and the headline

(01:25:07):
is Israel will collapse within a year if the war
of attrition against Hamas and has Blood continues. So you
know this person who is very invested in the future
of the Israeli state, who is founding the warning, he says,
I assume Defense Minister Golan already understands the war has
lost its purpose. Israel's thinking deeper into the gosen mud,
losing war and more soldiers as they get killed or
wounded without any chance of achieving the war's main goal

(01:25:29):
bringing down Hamas. The country really is galloping towards the
edge of an abyss. If the war of a attrition continues,
Israel will collapse within no more than a year. Terror
attacks are intensifying the West Bank and inside the country.
The reserved army is voting with its feet following recurring
mobilizations of combat soldiers, and the economy is crashing. Israel's
also become a pariah state, prompting economic boycotts and an

(01:25:49):
embargo on arms shipment. So you know, we've seen some
ezy right, I don't know, but we've seen some signs that,
you know, they've got real problems. There are more more
countries who are saying we're not going to ship you
weapons anymore. You have the US doing I don't have.
I don't feel like it has much credibility. But this
letter from the State Department saying basically like you got

(01:26:11):
to shape up with regard to eight or you know,
there may be consequences. They're already sending signals that like, no,
actually there won't be consequences. But the US sending that letter,
I mean, it is something. And certainly the NETNYA who
is government is fearful that if Kamala Harris were elected
or even post election, that bide my feely as a
freer hand to take some sort of actions against them.

(01:26:34):
But more to the point, we've seen businesses pulling out.
We've seen Intel was supposed to go forward with some
significant investment in the state that they back down of.
You have an incredible burden on society from these multiple
wars that they're fighting and constantly trying to escalate. And
you even had a letter from some one hundred and
thirty IDF members who said, no, if you don't go

(01:26:54):
and get a hostage deal and bring home the hostages
and have a sea spy, like, we're not doing this anymore,
We're going to refuse to serve. So the cracks are
certainly showing, and so it's not preposterous this assessment from
this individual, especially when you consider the numbers of Israelis
who have said, yeah, I've thought about leaving, and I've
taken some steps to investigate what that could look like.

Speaker 2 (01:27:13):
Yeah, I mean, I just don't know what to make
of all of these developments and what the Biden administration
really will do after the election. They have multiple different
opportunities about what to do and which policy. You know,
for example, the Obama administration allowed some anti or not
critical resolutions against Israel to go through the UN Security

(01:27:36):
Council after the election when Trump was coming into office
during the transition, so they could take them. But I mean,
all signs don't currently indicate that.

Speaker 1 (01:27:44):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:27:44):
Right now, I just I really don't know why which
way it's going to go. Astra stinwhar while you were talking,
I was just making sure. Still don't see anything right
now for me? Barak Revid says. Three Israeli officials say
one of the bodies is most likely Sinwar. They will
have to wait for DNA and fingerprint analysis. They say
that Israel has both his DNA and his finger friends
from the time that he is in prison, so they'll

(01:28:04):
be able to know relatively short.

Speaker 1 (01:28:06):
So be crazy for him to just be like out
and about.

Speaker 2 (01:28:09):
I mean, yeah, it's kind of mad to be not tracked,
to be out and about with two bodyguards. I mean
it also, frankly, I mean in terms of the Israeli
intelligence machine, what does it say about them? They've been
telling us like he's underground.

Speaker 1 (01:28:22):
I know exactly, you know exactly where it is.

Speaker 2 (01:28:25):
He's surrounded by hostages at all times. You know this
is like, so which one is it? I mean, frankly,
what he was doing is probably the smart thing. You
actually want to keep a low profile. You don't want
a bunch of guys around you. They're probably looking for
the hostages more so you don't necessarily want to be
around them. And the fact that he got caught on
the ground like walking out in the open is kind
of insane for it to be the literal leader of Hamas.
But maybe we'll learn a little bit more about it.

(01:28:45):
They basically got it by accident. It looks like this
was no bin laden style operations. Yeah, if it is
one hundred percent.

Speaker 1 (01:28:52):
So one quick update on that letter that I referenced
before from the Biden administration to the Israelis was trying
to put pressure on them with regard to be her
lack of aid in Gaza in general, but Northern Gaza
in particular, where no aid had gone in in the
month of October whatsoever. We could put this up on
the screen. So the idea in the State Department, this
is per our own Ryan Graham are both claiming fifty

(01:29:15):
AID trucks have entered North Gaza, but reporters on the
ground say this is false. We have a Palestinian journalist
who elaborated on this. We could put this up on
the screen as well. They say, the images and videos
you're seeing that claim to show aid reaching Northern Gaza
are highly misleading, part of a larger narrative being pushed
by the Israeli military. I can confidently assert no aid

(01:29:36):
trucks have entered the besieged areas. The AID that is
entered has only gone to the southern parts of Gaza,
was intended primarily for media and propaganda purposes. Not a
single truck has reached the northern areas since the start
of the military operation there. And you know this is
because the US sent this letter. The very likely game
that's going to be played here is they'll do this

(01:29:57):
photo op with some more AID trucks. You els, will
use it to be able to see they're doing their job,
and we put pressure on them, and look how great
we are and it's amazing. Problem solved. We're moving on
and not take any sort of you know, not to
change course whatsoever. That seems like the likely direction that
we're ultimately going in here, based on the evidence we
have and the track record we have as of today.

Speaker 4 (01:30:19):
That's right.

Speaker 2 (01:30:22):
All right, let's get to CNN. Wanted to make sure
we covered there are two wild things that happened on CNN.
Both it appears on the topic of race. So let's
start with the first. There was a segment in which
you had a pro Trump, pro Trump supporter who was
black against a Kamala supporter and a host and some

(01:30:43):
wild language was used. Let's take a lesson.

Speaker 7 (01:30:46):
If you're an African American man. Look, let me boil
this election down in the African American community to a
very simple I'll reference to Great Malcolm X. This race
is between house African Americans and field African Americans.

Speaker 4 (01:31:01):
And the field.

Speaker 7 (01:31:02):
African Americans are going for Donald Trump. I'm talking about
your men who I'm talking about, Your men who build,
your men who put things together, your men who work
with their hands, your men who do things, not the
men who push paper, and the men who are connected
the power and want to continue to be connected to power.
Are you derating me?

Speaker 9 (01:31:20):
Are you denigrating or debating African American men who are
professionals who work in white collar jobs?

Speaker 1 (01:31:26):
Is that what I'm hearing from you or No.

Speaker 10 (01:31:29):
I'm not trying to understand, Shelley the house, what I'm
doing the field. I'm just trying to understand that point.
I'm just trying to understand. We have someone who's spitting
I'm just trying understand the one that's spitting talking points
right now. Are you Are you the house negro of
the field negbro that you're referring to so I just
want to make sure your question was about denigrating black people.
That literally was your question.

Speaker 6 (01:31:47):
You have a.

Speaker 10 (01:31:48):
Republican right who was talking right now about you literally
just said that black men. You just you actually just said,
this is an election about house or field. This is
the nonsense that we are listening to right now by
those that are supporting Donald Trump.

Speaker 2 (01:32:05):
All right, So that was wild Shelley Winter is his name.
He's a pro Trump radio host. I just I'm like, man, man,
you know, why, why what do you want to use
that terminology? There are probably ten million better ways to
make that point. I mean, in a certain sense, you're like,
I get what you're trying to say. You're talking about

(01:32:27):
highly educated, like elite black.

Speaker 1 (01:32:29):
Yeah, but we versus like people remember.

Speaker 2 (01:32:32):
A blue collar But you're like, dude, this is that
appropriate analogy.

Speaker 1 (01:32:37):
Eighty percent, roughly perhaps more of black people in this
country are going to overcome one.

Speaker 2 (01:32:42):
Yes, that's right.

Speaker 1 (01:32:43):
So you are insulting eighty percent of black merits not
to mention. Not to mention, there are plenty of professional
black men and women who will also be pulling the
lever for it. I mean, it's just a Barack Obama's
lecturing a black man got nothing on this guy, and
just absolute slander against a vast swath of the country.

Speaker 2 (01:33:04):
The funny thing too, is I remember, because I was
reading this about Malcolm X, the whole point of this,
the whole tirade that he gave was actulutely to speak
against civil rights activists at the time, like Martin Luther
King Junior, because he described them that way for trying
to work within the political system right and to quote
please the white master, whereas I mean eventually completely changed

(01:33:27):
his entire ideology. But in the nineteen sixties, whenever, in
nineteen sixty three, when he gave this speech and he
was still part of the Nation of Islam, it was
about black nationalism and an ideology of actually, there's nothing
that the white man can do for this, which he
then later denounced. So that's why it's part of the
other reason why you really shouldn't be using that analogy,
and especially looking at well, who was a little bit

(01:33:49):
more successful at the end the long run by working
within that and who ended up actually denouncing his own
framework that he puts forward. So there you go. That
was wild. Second, and I guess on the other side
of that was another wild moment where our friend Ryan Gurdusky,
who's been on CNN a little bit more, had a
moment where he revealed a lot I think about CNN,

(01:34:12):
and he mentioned the Ferguson and the Floyd effect. Now,
I guess I have to explain this. I thought any
reasonable person who reads the news would know what it is.
That is an idea which came about after Ferguson and
specifically a lot of the BLM movement from twenty fifteen,
where there was a rise in crime as a result

(01:34:34):
of the BLM riots and or demonstrations. The idea being
that police were more afraid to pull over people. Basically,
police were quiet quitting, which led to an increase in crime.
It is not a difficult concept. If you are I'm
going to say ten percent familiar with debates about criminal

(01:34:55):
justice and about crime, you're going to know what these
two things is. Two things are Watch what happens when
he uses this term on CNN, specifically with some people
who are still called black activists, and they've never even
heard of it before. Let's take a.

Speaker 16 (01:35:08):
Listen yesterday Ryan about how, in the context of riots
he was saying, let's just bring the military into it
to deal with American citizens.

Speaker 4 (01:35:17):
I mean that happened yesterday.

Speaker 17 (01:35:18):
Right, But there are the post George Floyd riots resulted
in excess of over fifteen thousand black male deaths in
this country.

Speaker 4 (01:35:25):
How the surge of violent crime.

Speaker 17 (01:35:28):
It was like Ferguson, the ferus effect, the Florida fact.

Speaker 10 (01:35:31):
You can explain to me how George Floyd's death any causation. Yes,
it really is.

Speaker 17 (01:35:36):
What happens is after the Ferguson riot and after the
Floyd riot, policemen, in fear of their jobs many times
and political coverage pull back from their jobs, resulting in
an increasing.

Speaker 2 (01:35:48):
Listen, I got to stop there at the country. Hold
you can look at the was We.

Speaker 16 (01:35:51):
Got to stop you there because you're literally making a
connection out of your own conjecture.

Speaker 2 (01:35:56):
Cannot, it's a real thing.

Speaker 17 (01:35:57):
Look up, look up the Ferguson effect, look up the
Floyd effect.

Speaker 4 (01:35:59):
It is a real term.

Speaker 6 (01:36:00):
You cannot, you can.

Speaker 16 (01:36:00):
It's a I didn't just invent a connection between two
things just because you want that to be there.

Speaker 1 (01:36:07):
It's I mean little, it's a real thing.

Speaker 16 (01:36:16):
Because reading this, we're talking about things that happened when
Donald Trump was president.

Speaker 2 (01:36:26):
He was the president.

Speaker 17 (01:36:27):
So how is he not responsible for Well, the presidents
controlled local police deport.

Speaker 16 (01:36:31):
Okay, but you're trying to blame crime on Joe Biden
and you don't blame Republicans have blamed crime on Joe Biden,
but you cannot. But you're saying that that people who
died when Donald Trump was president, that's not his fault.

Speaker 4 (01:36:45):
I don't.

Speaker 16 (01:36:46):
I don't agree with either blame being assigned to either president.

Speaker 4 (01:36:50):
I think presidents blame.

Speaker 16 (01:36:51):
You don't have a magic want.

Speaker 2 (01:36:53):
Okay, I think that is so what you tell me
what you think? I I just can't get over it.
It's like, do you not read the news? But car
E Sellers, you don't know what the freaking Floyd or
Ferguson effect is. By the way I looked it up,
Abby Phillips, that host you don't want to know who
covered Ferguson for the Washington Post. Turns out it was
Abby Phillips. You don't know what freaking Ferguson effect is
her own paper while she worked there under that guy

(01:37:15):
was at Wesley Lowry. They did a million pieces trying
to disprove the Ferguson effects. So look, whether you agree
or not, how can you possibly not know what it is?
I just don't get it. And then she kept cutting
them off the whole time, saying it was totally invented.
This is an FBI addressed terminology. Just ludicrous. So you
give me a reaction, I can't get over it.

Speaker 1 (01:37:36):
Yeah, I mean I think it's a very clear evidence
of what bubbles these okay people live in, you know,
because like as someone on the left, like I'm very
familiar with this, I personally think it's sort of outrageous
for cops like quite quit after because they faced grew
me for you know, killing unarmed black citizens. But I'm
definitely familiar with the term to be able to argue

(01:37:58):
about it and talk about it. And so the fact
that yeah, they all seemed like what are you even
talking about?

Speaker 2 (01:38:03):
Was it was kind of wild, that's what But car
and Macary was like, you made that up? I looked
at it. It was reaction on Twitter too, because a
lot of conservatives were looking at this, and I mean
the reason why I'm not sure it's a bubble thing
and I'm actually like, are you just stupid? Is for
you to have a conviction you should I would hope,
like do a little bit of reading about Like you
just said, I have met a cab BLM people. They'll

(01:38:26):
tell you all about how whether FERG is in effect
and how it's bullshit, or about the Floyd effect well
and why that's wrong.

Speaker 1 (01:38:31):
I don't think it's don't.

Speaker 2 (01:38:32):
Read about it, you don't investigate.

Speaker 1 (01:38:34):
Maybe listen, I don't. I'm not going to like a
fine on their IQ levels, but I can say I
think it demonstrates a lack of seriousness about their concern
for the problem.

Speaker 2 (01:38:42):
Yeah, that's what I'm talking.

Speaker 1 (01:38:43):
That's that I think is fair to say. And yeah,
and it is partly a bubble problem because they're never
in whatever their social media news consumption habits were, they
were never confronted with this never term and have to
deal with it and think about what it means and
whether you know, whether the conservatives have a point about it,
or what the push back on the left is or
any of that. So to me, it displays not so

(01:39:04):
much lack of intelligence, but lack of seriousness about the issue.
And you know, a sort of like surface level relationship
to the you know, the protests that they cover.

Speaker 2 (01:39:16):
Yeah, Ryan and I were talking about it yesterday and
I'm like, you know, you know, we have both of
us combined. How many hours a day do we just
spend reading the news like and everything? I mean every
you know things, even I strongly believe I read so
many countercases, either to be familiar or to try and
change my own mind. Who the hell knows, And I
still obviously have biased problem. I know you do the
same thing just to prepare for every single day of

(01:39:38):
being here. So to watch that, I was just like,
oh my god, that one of thing do you even
prepare for when you go on your like to talk
with confidence on cable television. My rule was always I thought,
you need about thirty minutes of reading too for every
like one minute of speaking, And like what I meant
by that is to distill an idea into a concise

(01:39:58):
and thing to be able to address an argument. It
takes time. You need to be familiar with the things
that are going on with the news, with all the facts,
and then you can try and break down into a
single thing. And even then, you know, here on our
show we talk for almost two hours, they're talking for
forty five yeah minute with each other, So maybe that's
part of it.

Speaker 1 (01:40:14):
That's what I was gonna I think that is part
of it because anytime i've you know, I don't often
I mean, they don't invite me on these shows any more,
number one, But even when I engage in anything that's
like even remotely like this format, it's a reminder to
me of yeah, there's like six or eight minute segments. Yeah,
you don't have to know a lot because if you

(01:40:35):
just fill abuster through one answer or you know, stick
your talking points, then that's it. So you can get
away with having a pretty surface level understanding. And also
because you aren't oftentimes faced with people who have a
different perspective or have facts or you know, it's to
taste or whatever that's like uncomfortable for you've never had
to grapple with that really, or don't have to grapple

(01:40:57):
with it very often outside of the realm of just
like is Trump good or Trump bad? Then you know
it can lead to some major.

Speaker 2 (01:41:04):
US Yeah, definitely that. Okay, guys, thank you guys so
much for watching. We really appreciate you. If there's any
breaking news, obviously we'll see you over the weekend. Otherwise
we're going to see you all on Monday. Thanks so
much for our premium subscribers,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

All Episodes

Stuff You Should Know