Krystal and Saagar discuss early voting data, Trump Kamala ads, Trump works at McDonalds, Elon gives million dollar checks to register, Kamala with Al Sharpton.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent coverage.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
That is possible.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
If you like what we're all about, it just means
the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody,
Happy Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.
What do we have, Crystal, indeed we do.
Speaker 4 (00:30):
How many days are we till day?
Speaker 3 (00:31):
Fifteen days?
Speaker 4 (00:31):
Oh my god, super close.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
We've got new early voting data out of Nevada that
is quite interesting to dig into with our friend Logan,
so we will do that. We also have some new
numbers about how both campaigns are making their closing pitch.
They clearly both have very different analyzes of how to
move voters here in the final days that we'll dig
into that as well. We also have a lot of
activity on the campaign trail, Donald Trump working at McDonald's.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
We'll show you that.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
He also was talking about Arnold Palmer Stick for some reason,
we'll show you that as well, for whatever that's worth.
Elon is out potentially breaking election law. Will break that
down for you. Kamala was on a SEBC with Reverend
Al Sharpton, clearly trying to make a pitch to black
men in particular.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
Some interesting moments there.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
She continues to struggle with Arab American voters and gave
a just in my opinion, horrendous answer about whether she
could lose the election over October seventh and her signing
with Joe Biden and not breaking with him whatsoever. We
also have some updates for you out of the Middle East.
Israel Know assassinated successfully, Yeah yah Sinoir. They released the
(01:36):
video of you know as a drone video of the
moments leading up to his death and really in certain
ways provided a propaganda final propaganda win for him, even
outlets like Wall Street Journal writing it up as such.
So we'll break those details down for you. And Ken
Clippenstein is going to join us. He just posted some
documents that were leaked to a telegram channel that was
(01:59):
the you who us is assessment of how Israel may
retaliate against Iran. A lot that's interesting there. Both the
substance of the documents, also details about, you know, our
relationship with Israel and the media's relationship to reporting on
these type of leak documents. So Ken will join us
to break all of that down.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Yeah, it's going to be a great show today. Make
sure you go ahead and subscribe Breakingpoints dot Com. You're
going to get access to part of our conversation with Logan.
That's what you guys get, as well as the show
Early Ama, etc. I think we're going to be doing
that tomorrow, So go ahead and subscribe Breakingpoints dot Com.
Become a premiumbscriber. But let's get to Logan joining us
now is Logan Phillips. Great to see you, sir, our
exclusive partner here at Breakingpoints. Always glad to have you.
Speaker 5 (02:41):
He always great to be on.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
Awesome.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
All right, let's talk a little bit about the early vote.
So some interesting analysis that we flagged on ABC News
want to get your reaction to.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
Let's go ahead and take a listen.
Speaker 6 (02:50):
Based on the likely partisanship of the voters that we've
seen so far, we're seeing more Republicans as a share
of the electorate than Democrats. Take a look at that
four years ago than the third, only thirty two percent
of people that had voted so far were Republicans. That's
up six points so far this cycle. Now that could
be a sign of enthusiasm among Republicans. That could because
Donald Trump is sometimes at least supporting early voting, and
(03:12):
it may be that these are voters they're going to
vote anyway on election day. But the bottom line is
that people are voting and they're enthusiastic about this race.
In Pennsylvania, we've seen Republicans so far ahead of the
twenty twenty pace. Again, Democrats are still a larger share
of early voters, but there are more Republicans in just
about all of the states.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
We've seen significant votes so far.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
So that is aggregated data. We also have this we
can put up there on the screen. L two is
doing a job. They're aggregating all of this early ballots
that are actually been returned. So logan, what can we
glean from this? I know it's a little bit like alchemy,
you're not supposed to dig too much, but this is
all we got. These are actual voters that we've got
votes like the in the bank. So what do you
(03:51):
see so far? That's different and perhaps interesting to you, I.
Speaker 5 (03:54):
See, the biggest thing is that the American elector is engaged.
Twenty twenty saw the biggest turnout in American history. In
twenty twenty four, I don't think we're going to reach
those levels. Is going to be a lot higher. It
makes sense when someone votes once, they're a lot more
likely to vote a second time.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
Right, good point.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
So you don't think it will reach twenty twenty four levels,
but it will be I mean twenty twenty levels, but
it will be higher than say, twenty sixteen in previous elections.
Speaker 5 (04:16):
That's what I think. I can't say it should be
number two, but I think it's going to be high
up there.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
So I heard someone making the case for actually digging
into the early voting data, because I know traditionally averyone says, listen,
you can't really read too much into this. On the
other hand, post COVID, you do have such a large
share of the electorate that are actually voting, and given
the fact that you've had polling misses in a variety
of different directions, isn't there actually a case for taking
(04:41):
seriously you know who is actually turning out and trying
to glean from that. Okay, we know the Democratic strategies
really to excite young women. We know the Republican strategies
try to turn out some of these infrequent voters, especially
among young men. Can't we glean from this whether they're
being successful in some of those strategies or not.
Speaker 5 (04:59):
Yeh, as long as you do fair amount of caution,
because you know normally the stuff I use. For example,
I can go back to the nineteen sixties and say, hey,
this is how accurate it is. Right, you were kind
of flying by the seat of our pants and everyone.
If you come in with any sort of bias, you're
going to be looking for the things that support your side,
or if you're cynical, the things that go against your side, right,
and they're going to stand out to you. Yeah, So
to find like a fair balanced account, like you have
(05:20):
to have an absolute mastery level knowledge of a county
by county, precinct by precinct what's going on, Like this
guy John Ralston, reporter Nevada has right. Most people don't
have that, and so you got to be really careful
who you listen to here. Well, it's largely yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
No, I was going to say, that's a good segue
we actually have Ralston's piece about early voting. Let's go
and put that up there please on the screen. So
what really he flagged logan was just the major difference
in turnout amongst Republicans. Some of the data is quite
Striking't believe chrystals you have in front of that.
Speaker 7 (05:49):
I have it.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
So Dev's won the mail in ballot in Clark County
as they're expected to buy two to one about thirty
th eighteen thousand, but they only now have at an
eighteen hundred vote lead over the Republicans. Last time they
led at the same point we're talking about after one day.
So keep in mind this is after one day. But
(06:11):
last time after one day they had a forty.
Speaker 4 (06:13):
Thousand vote lead, and this time they have an.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Eighteen hundred vote lead. So he's flagging that as potentially
very significant and goes on to say, if, as expected,
there's a five point or so Republican turnout edge after
election day, that means Democrats will have to win Independence
by somewhere around five points to win the state, which
is roughly what Biden won independence by. He won Independence
by six points in twenty twenty, but that was twenty twenty.
Speaker 4 (06:37):
That was Joe Biden.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
This is Kamala Harris, your response to mister Ralston, who
everybody does feel like has earned his credibility in the
early vote analysis arena.
Speaker 5 (06:46):
He's like the only guy trusting this stuff. I would
say it is a mildly good sign for Republicans. He's
very hard for us to know what's going to happen
on election day. It's also expected, I don't mean specifically
in the dividen numbers, but absolutely expected Republicans to vote
a higher share because one Donald Trump was warning everyone
out to do it, Democrats were encouraging everyone to do it,
and Democrats disproportionately care were viewed COVID as a bigger threat,
(07:09):
and therefore we're using vote by mail and voting at
much higher rates than Republicans. So it was never going
to be repeated to the same degree. Twenty twenty is
going to be the biggest key you will probably ever have.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
Yeah, the biggest distance between the two parties in terms
of the modes of voting exactly. So to go back
to that first SoundBite that we played with what was
at ABC talking about how there's maybe a ten point
margin that Republicans have closed the gap between Democrats. That
doesn't strike you as particularly significant given that twenty twenty
was such an anomalous year with COVID.
Speaker 5 (07:39):
Yeah, I would say it' slightly get used Republicans, but
how much it's hard to say. I mean, if you
think about it like this, right, if you're looking at
the twenty twenty vote, we would think Democrats were heading
towards a massive landside, which is what the poll suggested too,
because they were had so many votes early. But then
Trump arguably had to even better turnout on election day
than Dems did. Democrats just won the swing voters and
that's why they won the election.
Speaker 4 (07:58):
Yeah, very narrowly.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
Yeah, I mean, if we look a little bit at
the highly engaged populace, can we put what is it
a two please up on the screen? Because I was
looking at that Crystal and I really struck out to
us that if you look at that sixty five plus
number of old people like to vote early, they certainly do.
You got a lot of ballots that have been returned.
It's also pretty white. You got sixty seven percent there
people who are white. If you look at the gender
(08:22):
gap though, and that was I was like, maybe it
could be a good sign for Democrats. You've got what
is it, fifty four percent of early voters who are women,
So that could certainly be good considering this is going
to be one of the larger gender gap elections, or
at least that's what it's currently projected. So can you
give us the bull and the bar case for both
parties within this at least?
Speaker 3 (08:41):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (08:41):
I think both caase Republicans is they're turning us some
of their votes early. That means they could focus on
the other voters swing selection day, right. Bothcase for Dems
is that they're doing a great job of turning out
black voters in major cities. Atlanta Democrats have been very
happy about what they've seen with really you know, I've
heard good things from my friends. Yeah who the Democratic
side of Milwaukee.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Yeah, similar in Michigan. I think Detroit has had one
of the highest turnout rates, if not the highest turnout
rate in the state of Michigan. So yeah, like you said,
there's kind of something for everybody to take a look
at and be like, Yay, we're doing our thing right exactly.
All right, let's go and put a four up on
the screen. You mentioned that the one thing we can
clearly say is that voters are quite engaged and turnout
(09:24):
will be relatively high. In North Carolina, Day one early
voting set another record, narrowly beating out I think the
twenty twenty was the previous record.
Speaker 4 (09:34):
They say there was no clear partisan edge.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
This is also obviously really significant because North Carolina, Western
North Carolina was just walloped by Hurricane Helene. People still
digging out, still recovering. So it's good to see so
many folks being able to turn out to the polls here.
But one of the things I wanted to ask you about,
Logan is one of the theories is that Republicans are relying
on these less frequent voters to turn out, and so
(09:58):
in prior election cycles you might have said, Okay, high
turnout probably means that's good for Democrats. We can't necessarily
say that anymore. In fact, it could very well be
the reverse.
Speaker 5 (10:06):
It could very well be the reverse. I think that's
the thing about these elections. We have this crystal clear
image of what the election is supposed to be, and
then the election actually happens and there's going to be
some real differences. We have those narratives that go on
for months and so it kind of makes us view
it through a prism. In twenty sixteen, Boy, did people
under count the voters who supported Trump, who were white
and didn't have a college education, blue collar who turned
(10:27):
on in big numbers. And you know, for Democrats, President
Obama was incredibly successful getting none why voters and young
voters out who didn't historically vote before. So we didn't
necessarily know what it's going to be right there. It
really depends on who those people are right that end
up turning out. And I haven't seen enough analysis on this,
but I'm also curious with the early vote, how many
of these are people that haven't voted before?
Speaker 3 (10:47):
Yes, such a key point.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Well, this is part of the problem with early voter
and even state by state is they don't necessarily break
it down all the time. You know, we're lucky when
we even get partisan identification. So some of them is
just demographic or sometimes early ballots requested versus return. So
in the swing states? Do we have early voting now
in all of the swing states that is opened? So
(11:09):
will we get more data in this week? How should
we look for the week going forward?
Speaker 5 (11:13):
I believe so ye, one hundred percent. Soon I know,
we definitely haven't started in Georgia. Yeah, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan.
So yeah, I guess they just don't know about Arizona, if.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
The gos right. Pretty interesting, interesting.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
Certainly absolutely all right, let's turn to how the parties
are making their closing pitch. Premium subscribers. That's going to
be posted for you guys exclusively now. Everybody else will
get it for free later in the week, but definitely
subscribe if you want to hear what Logan has to
say about the closing pitch that both of the parties
are making. So we found this really fascinating. Put this
up on the screen.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
Donald Trump took to the campaign trail yesterday. He started
to work at McDonald's. Quite a few meme tastic moments
that came out of it. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 8 (11:55):
I'm going for a job right now at McDonald's.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
I've had I really.
Speaker 9 (12:00):
Wanted to do this all my Life's.
Speaker 10 (12:06):
A wealthy guy. He owns a lot of McDonald's.
Speaker 9 (12:11):
That's great, thank you. I like every ounce and everything.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
But I do like the French rise.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
Who I'll be working?
Speaker 10 (12:23):
I listened to Kamale.
Speaker 6 (12:25):
She said it was so hot.
Speaker 9 (12:26):
It was so hot. It was such a tough job.
Speaker 8 (12:29):
But till you have a man that's been doing it
for many years of the French.
Speaker 9 (12:32):
French by a human head, nice and clean.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
My hands are nice and king.
Speaker 9 (12:44):
This guy's a good instructor.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
I appreciate it.
Speaker 9 (12:47):
I'm going to give a really big one. So that
was pouring out of the good looking family. How did
you produce those good looking kids? Oh, they look like
the they look like them. How are you nice to
see you? That's way? Thank you, I mean appreciate, thank you,
thank you. It's an amazing business, it's an amazing gun change,
and it's gonna make American greater than ever.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
I mean, you know, what do you even say about that?
It's pretty extraordinary. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
So what I saw Crystal was that in the back
of his head for years, he's wondered, do they get
their grubby hands on my fries? And so he finally
found it was like a moment of clarity for him
to see that nobody touched him.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
But I mean, look, meme wise, come on that it's everywhere.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
It's it's one of the biggest campaign photos, I would say,
outside of the assassination photo.
Speaker 3 (13:35):
I've seen that one spread like wildfire. Yeah, you know,
literally everywhere. Look there you go.
Speaker 4 (13:39):
I might hate the man. This is a brilliant bit
of political theater.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
It is.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
I mean, you know, we'll get to the substance the
fact that I won't brace them, that I'm wage that
during his administration he undercut the ability of workers like
these ones to be able to organize. But just on
the level of like pure political theater. Yeah, he positions
himself as like the working class fans billionaire. There he
is working at McDonald's. It's also like a nice stop
(14:03):
to the base. He didn't talk too much about this,
but he got this in somewhat. He doesn't believe that
Kamala ever actually worked at McDonald's, so it's like throwing
some red meat to the base as well. I mean,
what can you say? The man has an authentic love
for McDonald's food. Do you definitely know that much?
Speaker 3 (14:18):
It's true.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Let me allow me to read Andy Warhol quote apparently
from the nineteen sixties, says, I always thought the president
would do so much to help change images. If president
would go to a public bathroom in the Capitol and
have TV cameras film him cleaning the toilets and saying,
why not, somebody's got to do it. It would do
so much for the morale of the people who would
do wonderful job of keeping the toilets clean.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
It's a wonderful thing that they're doing.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
So people were like, oh, this is the Trump's apotheosis
of Andy Warhol political theory that was going around. I
don't think it's that deep. It's like you said, I mean,
really what it is? And I saw a friend of mine,
Reuben on Twitter, made an interesting point, I'm curious what
you think is that Trump's camp actively helps to dispense
a lot of the negative imagery of him by Democrats,
(15:03):
as in, it's very hard to imagine like a Trump
dictator when he's also like McDonald's just serving fries.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
And I thought that actually might be the most astute
part of it.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
We're about to show the whole Arnold Palmer thing, but like,
there's something hilarious about a guy talking about Arnold Palmer's
penis and working at McDonald's, you know, and obviously having
the time of his life that dispels this, like, oh,
Trump was going to do all these X, Y and
Z bad things and I was like, you know, that
might be probably the best like analytical framework for why
(15:37):
this stuff matters at all.
Speaker 3 (15:39):
I think that's true.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
I think that's correct because not only the McDonald's thing,
but I mean that's the part of the podcast strategy,
like the bro strategy is aimed at a specific voting
demographic group, but part.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
Of it is also just to you.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
Know, humanize, humanize him and make him seem like he's
one of the guys that can just hang out.
Speaker 4 (15:58):
And then it makes it.
Speaker 1 (15:59):
Hard for you to take seriously, even though you should
take seriously. Sagur and I had a whole debate about this,
but you know, his enemy within I want to call
out the military against them comments it makes it easier
for people to just kind of handwave that away. And
I think between those efforts and the multiple assassination attempts,
I do think that's part of why his favorability rating
(16:20):
is so much higher now than it's really ever been
before in politics. And you know, I think that's a
very important part of why he has such a strong
chance of ultimately winning the selection. You know, the other
thing that I saw is, you know, it is worth
pointing out if people didn't know that this obviously was
like stage in the cars preselected and of course and
all of that. But it's like, of course, like you
(16:41):
think they're just going to let random people go through
the drive through with Donald Trump there, I mean, so
the security could of course, it was a stage campaign
of waiting.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
People were like, wait, just so you know stage, Yes,
the president can't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
I know, I know, but I mean, I mean, I
do think there were people who thought these were like
authentic exchanges that the drive through as well, but just
for anyone out there who needed to know, yes, it
was a stage campaign event, because of course it was
a stage campaign event, like very obviously, do you think you.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
Can interact with the president or the forum president on
the campaign trail after an assassination attempt and not be
pre screened by secret service?
Speaker 3 (17:16):
How could?
Speaker 11 (17:16):
How?
Speaker 2 (17:17):
When what scenario would some random be able to roll
up to McDonald's and get their order.
Speaker 3 (17:22):
From Donald Trump? What if they had a gun? That's nuts.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
Yeah, So anyway, it was not just like random voters
who were there being like maga, we love you. These
were pre screen people by the campaign, et cetera, et cetera.
Just so everyone understands that's the reality of how campaigns work.
Speaker 4 (17:36):
There were a couple of questions that he was.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Asked that ended up being relevant, especially I thought the
best question was about, you know, would you raise them
in the wage and he won't say yes.
Speaker 4 (17:45):
He also got asked a question.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
About you know, will you will you accept the results
of the election, and he won't really commit to that either.
So let's take a listen to those exchanges on wag
should be raised.
Speaker 4 (17:55):
Well, I think this.
Speaker 9 (17:56):
I think these people work hard, they're great.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
And I just saw something you process. It's beautiful.
Speaker 9 (18:01):
It's a beautiful thing to see. These are great franchises
and produce a lot of jobs, and it's good and
great people working here too.
Speaker 4 (18:09):
Leading for you, Yes either way. Will you accept the
results of the election?
Speaker 9 (18:14):
Yeah, sure, if it's a fair election.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Always I would always accept.
Speaker 9 (18:17):
Different ways to be a fair election. We're leading in
all the balls, then we're leading in every swing state,
doing well, and it's now and I.
Speaker 5 (18:25):
Think so think so.
Speaker 4 (18:26):
In fact, I just had an RCP.
Speaker 9 (18:28):
I said, you're ninety three point percent chance of winning,
and I think that's pretty good.
Speaker 4 (18:32):
So if it's a fair election, Hill support it.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
Also, you we're going to talk tomorrow about polymarket and
the way that that the numbers there have been juiced
by basically one or potentially for four.
Speaker 4 (18:43):
Yeah, well, well there are.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
Some intentions one, but yeah, that it.
Speaker 4 (18:47):
May be one bord of it in any case.
Speaker 1 (18:49):
And then you know, and you can see how this
is useful to Trump in terms of and then he
points to you know this, I don't know what he
was pointing to, says we have a ninety three percent
chance of winning. And this is what he did last
time too. Is especially he used that red mirage effect
where it looked like Republicans were winning early in the
night to say like it must have been stolen, and
he's already laying some of the groundwork for that.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
Now.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
Of course he has a very good chance of winning
the election outright, but this is also laying the groundwork
for if he doesn't get a result that he if
he doesn't get the result that he wants, saying, look
at polymarket, look at this analysis. This that I had
a ninety three percent chance of winning wherever that comes from.
Speaker 4 (19:25):
And of course, of course.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
It had to have been stolen because I was I
was a lock, I was ashoe in So you're that
rhetoric and then of course you know can't even commit
to raising the minimum wage.
Speaker 4 (19:35):
This is the guy who made you.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
Guys may remember Andy Puster, the former CEO of Hardy's,
the labor secretary who was like horrible for workers' rights,
both in his capacity as the CEO of Hardy's but
also in his capacity of labor secretary. So on the substance,
obviously I think he's a total fraud. But again on
the political theater, I think it's a major win for
as well.
Speaker 11 (19:55):
Well.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
Look, one of the lessons is that people don't care
about that, right.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
Unfortunately, we live in a world where people or like
you've got more people who are voting Trump or at
least seem to be voting Trump pro Trump who are
low wage workers and or unions, mostly on the issue
of immigration.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
And look, I've said this before too.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
For Republicans, all you have to do is look at
the minimum wage numbers that passed. It was at twenty twenty.
I think it was a super majority. I want to say,
in the state of Florida that passed fifteen dollars minimum
wage at the same time that Trump won the state
by three So actually more people both voted for the
minimum wage and voted for Donald Trump in the state
of Florida. You can actually have a red state that
(20:34):
did that. Arkansas, I believe, also raised I think twelve
dollars an hour. So anyway, if anybody wants to go
out there and look at the data on all this
for minimum wage and whether you can be like a
real Republican, there's plenty of real Republicans out there who
vote for it all the time.
Speaker 3 (20:48):
So just put that.
Speaker 1 (20:48):
Let me just preview a segment we're going to have
in the show probably tomorrow with Matt carp from Jackman
in the Center for Working Class Politics.
Speaker 4 (20:55):
They did a big poll of voters.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
In Pennsylvania, and you know, they have a class so
they were looking very specifically at number one, what type
of occupations are people in versus what candidate they're supporting,
and also where do they fall in terms of income level.
And what was interesting is actually the lowest wage individuals
were more Democratics supporters. It was those you know, blue
collar working class individuals who tended to be strongly in
(21:22):
the Donald Trump camp. And then if there's also a
big divide between you know, the sort of like hard
hat using your hands. Type of blue collar workers versus
service sector workers tended to be more democratic. So there's
some some interesting fishers there. But just stay tuned for that,
because I think looking at some of those numbers, someone
confirms what you might have suspected, but showed a you know,
(21:44):
an interesting breakdown between the different class statuses and occupational
statuses amongst voters.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
Well, that's important, and we talk here.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
I just said low wage work, it doesn't really mean anything,
you know, in terms of what type of wage what
you do for a living. There's a big difference actually
between like the bottom quinn and then the second lowest quintile.
So that's like people were basically below the poverty line
and then you've got people flirting with the poverty line
slash lower to slash lower to middle class. Those are
very different economic realities. They're very different people buy and
(22:14):
large for people who like actually work and what type
of jobs they do, whether they have a permanent career
or not. So anyway, stay tuned for that. As you said,
let's get to the Arnold Palmer thing on this one
took over the airwaves. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 8 (22:27):
This guy, this is a guy that was old man.
This man was strong and tough, and I refused to
say it. But when he took showers with the other
pros they came out of there, they said, oh my god,
that's unbelievable.
Speaker 3 (22:49):
I had to say it. It was actually longer than that.
For anyone asking about strategy, there is no strategy. To
the extent that there is a strategy.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
It goes back to what we were talking about with
the whole camp and making jokes about it. I mean,
this thing was all over cable news of a Speaker
of the House get asked about it.
Speaker 3 (23:06):
I don't know. I don't have anything deeper to say.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
That's the deepest I can go is that the camp
e er he gets, the more funny or whatever he is,
the harder it is to imagine him as like some
dictator who's going to take over the country.
Speaker 4 (23:16):
This is why the weird framing was good for Democrats.
Speaker 3 (23:19):
You think so, yes, I don't even know that's weird.
I think it's funny.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
I mean, talking like objectively, he talked for like ten
minutes about Arnold Palmer and then you know, got into
the sidetrack about the size of a stick. By the way,
there was a you know, very serious journalist who looked
into the size of Arnold Palmer stick and says, the
evidence suggests this is actually false misinformation. Don't they possibly
get that apparently there was some sex, Yeah, but they
(23:46):
got a lot.
Speaker 3 (23:47):
Maybe he shorted them. You know, you never know.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
You could do your own investigation if you'd like soccer
and debunk the debunking.
Speaker 4 (23:54):
I had a Palmer Dick's story.
Speaker 3 (23:55):
As the guy.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
I've been to the Arnold Palmer But can you shout
out to a restaurant, the Arnold Palmer Restaurant in Palm Springs, California.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
Absolutely fantastic, Highly recommend it.
Speaker 4 (24:03):
But what did you have to say about his guys?
Speaker 3 (24:05):
Well, I'll ask him. I'll next time I go, I'm
going to ask him.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
In any case, this is part of why I think
the weird framing that Democrats have kind of abandoned was
more effective in a sense. I mean, I think you
have to also lay on that the legitimate dangerous, but
also people already sort.
Speaker 4 (24:20):
Of feel that.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
But yeah, this is like, this is just kind of
a weird thing to be talking about a campaign rally
going on an extended die tribe about a guy that
died how many years ago this golfer.
Speaker 4 (24:29):
I guess he was from the area where he was
speaking in or something like that. Is how this armor,
I don't know. In any case, there you go.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
If it's domind Trump talking about some dude stick for
an extended period of time whatever, right, well, you.
Speaker 2 (24:41):
Know it's not a first brand me off. Of course,
Marco Rubio started it. I guess to be fair, that's
what we have. If you remember from the twenty sixteen campaign.
At the same time, there was something that the campaign,
the Harris campaign, has been seizing on. Let's put this
up there on the screen. This was a report from
Politico and it said, quote an exhausted Trump said know
to another interview. So they highlighted and we talked about
(25:04):
this as well. Trump had planned sit downs with NBC
in Philadelphia, squakbox and sixty minutes.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
Why does it keep happening?
Speaker 2 (25:11):
The Trump campaign had backed out of a couple In response,
a Trump advisor apparently told the Shade Room producers, that's
one of those black audience. We showed a clip for everybody. Yeah,
from that where they said he quote was exhausted and
refused some interviews. But that could change at any time.
So yeah, I mean you could take from that what
(25:33):
it is. They don't name the person, but I do
certainly think it's a I don't know. I mean, there's
been a lot of I've seen Democrats try to rehab
the whole like Trump Age conversation, and this really shows me.
I've been trying to do some retrospectives in my head.
I'm like, well, what does it mean if Biden or
sorry I Kamala loses, if Trump loses. And I've been
really thinking about how much damage we almost have memory
(25:54):
hold it that the Biden remaining in the race really
did to the Democratic ticket. And I think that that
conversation age would be so dramatically different if there had
been a real primary on the Democratic side and if
Biden had dropped out earlier. And you know, so much
of this We're going to talk a lot about Harris's failures,
et cetera, if she does lose, but I mean, so
much of this is on Biden man to wait until
the last minute to drop out. No real democratic process
(26:17):
anointed Kamala ninety day sprint to the campaign trail, and
the age, I mean, he nuked the vibe for the
country for three and a half years, Like you can't
really get over that. So I really think that a
lot of this like retrospective Trump age conversation is just nuked.
With so much of the populace, they have not forgotten
what the Biden conversation looked like at that time, so
(26:37):
they don't want to hear it. You know, they were
comparatively strong, right.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
I think that it's that comparison that's important. And I
do think this is important conversation because I mean, he
is almost he's seventy eight. Yeah, he's going to be
eighty years old in you know, less than two years.
Like this is an old man. No one should fool
themselves about that. He will be the oldest person to
take the office in history. He's older than Joe Biden
was when Biden, you know, was sworn in back in
(27:01):
early twenty twenty one. So, you know, it is an
important substantive conversation. But I agree with you, Saga, I
don't think it really moves the needle because you know,
in contrast to Biden, he seems so much more vigorous,
et cetera. And even as he has legitimately bailed on
a bunch of interviews, you know, obviously didn't do another debate,
bailed on that sixty minutes interview, bailed on some kind
of a town hall such a way like there have
(27:22):
been a bunch of things, and you get his campaign
even saying like the dude's exhausted, but he's still out
there doing a bunch of stuff. So I don't think
people have the sense of like, oh, he's exhausted and
he you know, can barely function, et cetera, the way
that it was very manifestly clear with Joe Biden. So
you know, if Trump wins, I think this will be
an extremely important storyline because I do think there are
(27:43):
some signs of decline and age fatigue in all of that.
I mean, you know, time's a bit like he is
getting older. He is an old man, that is reality,
and not a particularly healthy one either. So I think
if he wins, it will probably be an important next
four year story. Do I think it's moving a lot
of people in terms of the polls?
Speaker 4 (28:00):
Doubt it, But you never know.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
We may look back after election day and say, hey,
people decided like, hey, maybe we shouldn't vote for another
really super old guy and went with Kamlin part because
she is she just turned sixty, you know, which is
and she seemed vital and whatever for her age. So
who the hell knows at this point, But I tend
to agree with you in that analysis. And also I
(28:22):
do think we can't lose sight of the fact that
because Democrats were so terrified of an actual democratic process,
they really screwed themselves.
Speaker 4 (28:31):
Now many of us, some of us were saying that.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
Along, right and arguing that they would be better off
if they had an actual democratic primary process from the beginnings,
they took seriously the competitors who did come into that
race to challenge Joe Biden if they had, you know,
not just totally put the kebash on any of the
we're leading democratic policies, to the Gretchen Whimer's, the Gavin
Newsom's whatever, entering that process, and then even failing that,
(28:57):
coming down to it, when they pushed Biden out doing
what Pelosi and Obama reportedly wanted them to do, but
didn't expend any effort to force them in this direction,
which was to at least have like a contested convention
where you have people making speeches and making their cases.
Because Kamala Harris is not the strongest competitor. I think
everyone knew that on the Democratic side going in, but
they rather just sort of default to her to avoid
(29:20):
I guess, ruffling various feathers because it was the path
of least resistance at that point, and now they're in
an extremely precarious position, really truly of their own makings.
Speaker 3 (29:29):
Absolutely know.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
I've been watching some swing state tape from the governors,
because all the de governors have been going through. Gavin
is so good on the stump it's unbelievable. As people know,
I'm not a fan of Gavin Newsom. There's a lot
I could say about the guy, but he's a talented
politician man, and if he had fought for it, I
think he would have won. I certainly do Shapiro, Obviously,
I still think the whole Obama thing is really annoying.
But he's a swing state governor. He won by thirteen points. Okay,
(29:51):
you can't look past that, even waltst Frankly, I think
he's a better politician than Kamali Marris, definitely, no doubt
about it. Gretchen Whitmer, she is so utterly cringeworthy to me.
She's talented. Whenever she started doing an interview where she
was going back and forth about why Democrats are bad
in the swing states, and she's like, you're talking to
somebody who won by almost twenty points in the last stay.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
So she's like, don't tell me that people can't win big.
And then I was like, hey, it's a good answer,
and it's true, Midel.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
I think mayor Pete hatred is you know, I have
studied solid credibility in that department, way better than common. Absolutely,
he's gotten better too over the years, like him mixing
it up on Fox and whatever.
Speaker 4 (30:29):
Yeah, he's very effectual.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
Poli just saying five people were better than the current
Democratic nominee, which is wild. Yeah, they never really state
their case. Keeping in the Trump vane he had. Elon
must have really gone all in on the state of Pennsylvania.
Elon is basically like running the campaign outreach there. He's
got a new scheme currently happening where he's handing out
million dollar checks at town.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
Halls that he's holding across the state. Let's take a listen, all.
Speaker 12 (30:54):
Right, So, uh, tonight's person is shown prayer. So by
the way, John had no idea. So uh, anyway, you're welcome,
(31:15):
Uh and uh yeah.
Speaker 13 (31:24):
So so so the only the only, the only thing
we ask for the million dollars is that you'll be
a spokesperson for for the petition.
Speaker 12 (31:33):
And uh, that's it.
Speaker 3 (31:34):
Really, that's the whole.
Speaker 13 (31:35):
That's it.
Speaker 3 (31:36):
So there we go at these events.
Speaker 2 (31:38):
Elon is now handing out one million dollar checks from
the Super pac America pack. This has caused quite a
bit of consternation as to whether it is real election
law or not. But do you want to do you
want to talk about it before we play?
Speaker 3 (31:50):
Shapiro?
Speaker 1 (31:51):
Yeah, I mean, to me, this gives like hunger games.
I mean that the spectacle of the richest man on
the planet dangling million dollar checks to get people to
vote for his preferred candidate. As he's also you know,
I mean Elon Musk himself is the recipient of tens
of billions of dollars annually in federal government contracts. He
(32:14):
also is entangled in all sorts of legal messes viz.
A VI the federal government. He has been promised a
high level government job that would basically put him above
those regulators who are trying to regulate his companies. He
runs one of the top social media platforms in the
world for the service of this candidate. And I just
(32:34):
would say, you know, if you like Elon, if you
like Trump, that's fine.
Speaker 4 (32:39):
Just imagine if the shoe.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
Was on the other foot and it was George Soros
on stage dangling million dollar checks to people to vote
for Kamala Harris, or it was you know, Jeff Bezos.
Speaker 4 (32:50):
Or it was Bill Gates, or it was whoever.
Speaker 1 (32:53):
Right, I think this should not be a partisan point
that having the wealthiest man on the planet this involved
in shaping our national conversation, funding one of the two
presidential candidates, and then being put in a position to
effectively run significant parts of the government to his own benefit.
(33:14):
Both from a business and an ideological perspective, I think
everyone should be deeply, deeply disturbed by that. I'm very
happy for these people who are getting this cash. I'm
sure they're very happy. But again, the idea of dangling
million dollar checks to coerce you know, the masses into
voting for as preferred candidate, yeah, I think it's it's
(33:35):
quite dystopian, and it is also possibly illegal.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Right, So let's get to that. Well, let's say, Okay,
so I don't disagree with the word you said.
Speaker 3 (33:42):
I don't like dangling.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
Money, especially you know, if people, if people are going
to come out to this, it's like it's like this
weird lottery mentality.
Speaker 3 (33:49):
I just don't. I think it's gross to send it.
It's like squid game vibe.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
Yeah, it's just in general, like I don't like people like,
you know, going just having that dynamic going on. I do,
in some way almost just appreciate the nakedness of like,
here's a million bucks if you go ahead and you
sign this petition. We've seen some campaigns implement that previously,
not near to the tune of million, but what was
it Doug Burgham, He's like, I'll give you twenty seven
dollars if you donate one dollar to my campaign.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
Yeah, that's right, to get dollars to ge get on
the debate stage.
Speaker 3 (34:18):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
And so just to lay on the mechanics of this
before we get and so the legal argument about whether
or not this is legal. So the idea is, if
you sign this petition that supports First Amendment and Second
Amendment rights, then you're entered into this lottery to win
a million dollars. But the reason why it is potentially
(34:39):
election fraud is because you have to be registered to
vote in order.
Speaker 4 (34:44):
To sign the petition.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
So it's effectively, you know, getting people to register to
vote using, you know, the promise of this lottery, the
promise of these funds, and that's what puts it on
very shaky legal ground. The governor of the state of Pennsylvania, Joshapeia,
of course, as a Democrat, is and this is all happening,
by the way, in the state of Pennsylvania. He says
that this needs to be investigated for potential election fraud.
(35:06):
Let's take a listen to him making that case.
Speaker 10 (35:09):
I think there are real questions with how he is
spending money in this race, how the dark money is
flowing not just into Pennsylvania, but apparently now into the
pockets of Pennsylvanians. That is deeply concerning. Look, Musk obviously
has a right to be able to express his views.
He's made it very very clear that he supports Donald Trump.
(35:31):
I don't obviously we have a difference of opinion. I
don't deny him that right. But when you start flowing
this kind of money into politics, I think it raises
serious questions that folks may want to take a look at.
Speaker 4 (35:44):
So you think it might not be legal, yes or no.
Speaker 10 (35:49):
I think it's something that law enforcement could take a
look at. I'm not the attorney general anymore of Pennsylvania.
I'm the governor. But it does raise some serious questions.
Speaker 2 (35:57):
All right, So, Chris Lely, you flagged this it up
there on the screen from the Election Law blog. This
is Rick Hassen. He's got an analysis here. He says,
there are some other some in terms of the actual legality.
As you said, it's all a question about whether this
is interpreted as forcing people to register to vote or not.
Speaker 3 (36:16):
So Section fifty two USC to what is it.
Speaker 2 (36:18):
One zero three zero seven c Whoever knowingly or wilfully
gives false information as to his name blah blah blah,
or pays or offers to pay, or accepts payments either
for registration to vote or voting, shall be fined not
more than ten thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than
five years, or both.
Speaker 3 (36:36):
Emphasis added there.
Speaker 4 (36:38):
I don't think the ten thousand dollars is going to
be a big free.
Speaker 3 (36:42):
I mean, in some ways, maybe that's the perfect thing.
Speaker 6 (36:44):
Right.
Speaker 2 (36:44):
You're like, well, it's a ten thousand dollars fine, you
pay a million bucks. So these just have to pay
like what is that like less than one percent interest
or something on top of that to make sure that
you can pay the fine. They look at it this
in terms of the DOJ says that any bribe can
be anything having monetary value, including cash, liquor, lottery chances,
(37:05):
welfare benefits, et cetera, and continues and says that it
must have been intended to induce or reward the voter
for engaging in one or more acts necessary to cast
a ballot. However, such payments become actionable under that section
I previously said if they are shared with the person
that are being registered. So it all comes down to
whether this was an act of registration to vote or
(37:27):
an act of signing a petition, which would appear legal.
Probably has got the legal sign over from his campaign
or from his people because it's an act of a petition,
and I guess they could argue it in federal court.
But it is an interesting electionized I mean, the other.
Speaker 1 (37:43):
Thing you said maybe true too, which is maybe illegal
and is a ten thousand all of fine. So who
freaking cares?
Speaker 3 (37:48):
Right, Yeah, I mean a lot of I mean that
works out.
Speaker 1 (37:52):
That's how CEOs think right, They think about these like,
you know, SEC fines and whatever is just like a
cost of doing business. And so it would not be
crazy if he was like, yeah, it's probably illegal, but
I'll just pay the fine and whatever.
Speaker 4 (38:03):
Who cares.
Speaker 1 (38:03):
Yeah, there was another story I just wanted to flag
for you guys, because I do think this.
Speaker 4 (38:08):
You know, I've come to see.
Speaker 1 (38:10):
Obviously, billionaire influence in politics we cover extensively. We cover
on both sides of the aisle. We've been talking about
Mark Cuban and Reid Hoffman on the Kammala side. But
I do think it's fair to say there is nothing
equivalent to what Elon Musk is doing in this election,
not only in this election, but potentially in American history,
really is pushing the bounds of you know, billionaire influence
(38:31):
in American politics. He is a saber reference. He's effectively
running the ground game for Trump in a lot of
key states, Pennsylvania in particular.
Speaker 4 (38:39):
We may cover tomorrow. That may not that that may
not work out.
Speaker 1 (38:42):
Because there are some indications that that ground game effort
is not going all that well. We'll put that to
the side for now. But in addition to this million
dollar check effort. His super pac that he funded is
also running this this so they put up a website
that is meant to look like Kamala's answer to Project
(39:04):
twenty twenty five. It's called Progress twenty twenty eight, and
again if you look at it, it appears.
Speaker 4 (39:09):
To be making the case for KAMMLA.
Speaker 1 (39:11):
But then they use these like, you know, caricaturist versions
of her least popular policies to try to like low
key show people like, oh, she's going to do all
this crazy stuff when she gets elected. And they're also
funding a text message campaign that does the same where
if you just look at the text message, it seems
like it's coming from the Harris campaign, but it's actually
coming from this Elon Musk funded super pack. So they
(39:34):
can put this up on the screen. Open Secrets did
the reporting here. Their headline is pro Trump dark money
network tied to Elon Musk behind fake pro Harris campaign scheme.
Now this one because they disclose that you know, it's
paid for by I think the thing is called building
America's Future. So since they do the proper disclosures, it's
(39:54):
probably not illegal, but it is, you know, it's pretty
skeazy thing. To do to sort of posture like your
your opponent's campaign and then put out this caricaturist view
that's meant to dissuade people. So this is one of
the other efforts that he's involved in, and we'll talk
later in the show in one of the latter segments
about how he's also funding these ad campaigns where if
(40:15):
you are a Jewish pro Israel voter, he's funding targeted
ads that are like, Kama's not sufficiently pro Israel. And
then if you're a pro Palestine voter, he's funding these
ads that are like Kamala stands strongly with Israel and
always will blah blah blah.
Speaker 4 (40:29):
So these are some of the tactics that he is engaged.
Speaker 3 (40:32):
Here you go. The latter one is smart, the former one.
Speaker 12 (40:35):
What is it?
Speaker 2 (40:35):
I remember this has always been this is part of
the problem with the election. Low Why is any stuff
even legal? What was I think that read Hoffman did
and it was it was like some fake newspaper that
read Hoffman funded Alabama. I'm thinking that was it was completely.
Speaker 1 (40:49):
It was a bunch of them actually all over all
over the place that were meant to look like they
were legitimate news sources, but were just like you know.
Speaker 3 (40:55):
Parts, yeah, like literal press releases.
Speaker 1 (40:59):
So yeah, I mean, I I do think a lot
of this stuff should be a lot more should be
illegal than actually is. But the Elon Musk million dollar
thing may actually.
Speaker 3 (41:07):
And the loophole of it should.
Speaker 2 (41:09):
Be right, and the loophole of it all so it's
all coming through super PACs, and so then you're outsourcing
stuff to these super PACs, so none of it makes
any sense. It makes it a lot less regulated, and
we don't even be really insight into even who's funding
some of this.
Speaker 3 (41:20):
So anyway, that's exactly right.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
Yeah, a lot of these super pat they're called dark
money super PACs because the election is such that if
you're not actively making the case for a candidate, then
you can avoid any sort of scrutiny. And also some
of the disclosion disclosure laws are such that if you
jump in a bunch of money in the waning days
of a campaign, it's not even disclosed till after the campaign.
So these are always that billionaires get around, you know,
(41:45):
the public really knowing how much they're in. But I mean,
we don't know the exact dollar figures for Elon Musk,
but we know it's a preposterously large amount, and obviously
it's very visible. So to your Pointzager, it is quite naked,
is quite brazen. There's really no how much he is
trying personally to win this election for Donald Trump through
(42:05):
whatever levers he possibly can.
Speaker 3 (42:09):
All right, let's go to Kamala.
Speaker 2 (42:10):
She appeared on MSNBC last night with Al Sharp and
she was pressed on the blackmail agenda and whether they
should vote for her.
Speaker 3 (42:17):
Again, let's take a lesson.
Speaker 7 (42:19):
Do you think some of the resistance of some men
black and white is misogynists? And are you proud to
see that most Americans, even being pold, have no problem
supporting a woman at all. And I'm one that lived
from Shirley to Kamala in terms of these campaigns, and.
Speaker 11 (42:40):
I have an emotional reaction to raising the point of
Shirley Chisholm because it is on her broad shoulders that
I stand and so many of us stand. And we
have come a long way to your point, and on
your specific point about including the fact that I have
the support of countless black men who are in elected positions,
(43:03):
including I'm just this afternoon and two church visits today
with the mayor of Atlanta.
Speaker 3 (43:09):
That being said, I think that you.
Speaker 11 (43:13):
Are absolutely right that there is this narrative about what
kind of support we are receiving from black men that
is just not panning out in reality in terms of
when I go to last night Atlanta and had I
think ten thousand people at a rally, I will also
say this, Rev. I am very clear, I must earn
(43:37):
earn the vote of everyone, regardless of their race or gender.
And what can be frustrating sometimes is to have journalists
ask me this question as though one should assume that
I would just be able to take for granted the
vote of black men.
Speaker 3 (43:55):
I think that's actually.
Speaker 4 (43:58):
An uninformed perspective.
Speaker 3 (44:00):
So yeah, she's doing a pretty good job on that answers.
Speaker 2 (44:02):
She refuses to take the bait and have any of
the Hillary stuff. So on the one hand, we have
that from Kamala about I'm not going to take anybody
for granted. That's obviously way better than Hillary. The deplorables,
they made a couple of efforts. Look with that, we
saw it with Charlemagne, was shot with here with al Sharpton.
She refuses to break I think with President Obama or sorry,
refuses to do what President Obama did very much. Lecturing
(44:26):
the brothers in his language still wild. I can't believe
he gets her away with this and this, and the
media is are just like, oh, yeah, it's totally fun.
Speaker 3 (44:34):
It's actually quite normal to lecture people that way.
Speaker 2 (44:37):
But look, clearly the black commentariat that I've seen from
Al Sharpton, Obama and others, they are worried about this
issue and all of them are like grappling with it
with Kamala in general and how that shape could be
one of the central stories of the election.
Speaker 1 (44:53):
I do hate the way this is framed around like
black men specifically having a problem with women. It is gross.
I think she handles this question very well, and I
think she is.
Speaker 3 (45:02):
Better than the commentators, right, that's the interague.
Speaker 1 (45:04):
Yeah, I mean better than most of the commentators. We
have a wonderful Nina turner On who handles this better
than anyone. But yeah, she has done well on these
identity questions from the beginning. She really has. I think
she learned from Hillary's mistakes. I think she learned from
some of the overreaches of like peak wocism, et cetera.
I think she doesn't she even learned from her own missay,
(45:25):
remember when she was introduced as Joe Biden's vice president,
you know, at the DNC in twenty twenty, I hated
her speech because it was.
Speaker 4 (45:33):
All me, me, me. It was very narcissistic.
Speaker 1 (45:35):
It was that very like, it's all about my personal
path to glory and my trailblazing status.
Speaker 4 (45:40):
And she's dropped all of that.
Speaker 1 (45:43):
But you know, to me, the choice of the interview
venues over the past couple of weeks do display a
sense of nervousness around you know, this particular demographic group,
so they feel like they're having a harder time. Some
of the some of the like registration data, some of
the early vote data, which of course we should take
with a million grains of salt, shows that their black
(46:04):
women are really turning out very strongly, and there is
less of a sense of that momentum with black men,
so they're clearly trying to shore that up. How much
choice reference Sharpton has at this point to help in
that regard is a separate question, but you know, they're
doing whatever they can figure out to do.
Speaker 4 (46:20):
She also got asked about, you.
Speaker 1 (46:22):
Know, an issue that may dog her in the black community,
which is this idea that you know, she's calm of
the cop, that she's too tough on crime, that she
you know, there was a lot of discussion during the
twenty twenty primary, in particular about her locking up parents
whose kids were truant, throwing people in jail for marijuana youth.
(46:43):
Let's take a listen to how Reverend Sharpton asked.
Speaker 7 (46:45):
Her about this, and let's talk about blacks in general,
because one of the things, you know, I've been on
a non prodestan toured National Action Networking and Central Flog
five Yes and others. And one of the things that
reporters act said, we don't get it from the audiences,
what about the Kamala the cop? And I said, well,
I knew her as da you and I go with that.
(47:08):
She was one that wanted people with marijuana arrest not
to go to jails exactly. And the Attorney General wasn't
even under your purview. I mean, do you think that
this is orchestrated, that they're trying to find some way
to separate you from some elements because you used to
be attack for being too progressive as a district attorney.
Speaker 11 (47:27):
I know, you know. And here's the thing, Rev. We are,
as of today's Sunday, sixteen days away from the election
for President of the United States, and there are all
sorts of people who are going to throw a bunch
of things out that will include missing disinformation with the
intention to dissuade certain people from voting. And that's not new.
Speaker 3 (47:49):
Yesterday I was in Michigan.
Speaker 11 (47:51):
Tomorrow be in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, and I'm leaving
nothing on the field.
Speaker 2 (47:56):
At the same time, with Kamala we see here going
in on the character question against Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (48:00):
Let's take a listen.
Speaker 7 (48:01):
I have to ask you about your opponent. He used
a very ugly term about you last night, using the
S word as vice president, and how do you react
to this kind of street talk from someone who wants
to be president? Again? That was president. I've known you
(48:22):
a long time and I know you have thick skin.
But I'm not asking you as a person because i
know you're used to that. But what does it do
in your opinion to the standards we're setting for our
young people all over the country when we're using this
kind of locker room street talk about an opponent for
president of the United States.
Speaker 11 (48:44):
So the American people deserve so much better. That's how
I come at it. And to your point, the President
of the United States must set a standard not only
for our nation, but understanding the standard that we as
a nation must set for the world. You know, we
(49:05):
we as representing the United States of America, walk into
rooms around the world with the earned and self appointed
authority to talk about the importance of democracy rule of law.
Speaker 2 (49:17):
So that's what we've got right now, Crystal. That fits
very much with the spending that we talked previously with Logan.
That'll be for premusubscribers today, but for others tomorrow, specifically
about that character question on Trump.
Speaker 3 (49:28):
It just give me a little bit of Hillary vibes.
I'm curious what you think.
Speaker 1 (49:31):
I think the way she always makes this question is
make it about you deserve better.
Speaker 4 (49:35):
Is the best way to handle it.
Speaker 1 (49:37):
Yeah, you know, versus she could take a lot of
umbrage and I'm not even sure. I think he said
she's like a shitty vice presidenter or something like that,
but she.
Speaker 4 (49:44):
Could take a lot of umbrage at it.
Speaker 1 (49:45):
I think that was more the Hillary route and to say,
you all deserve better than someone who talks this way
and demeans all of us. That way, I think is
probably the best way to go about it. That being said, again,
you know, I think that the Harris campaign has been
intuited that people basically feel the way they're going to
feel about Donald Trump. They're leaning most heavily into ads
(50:10):
about taxation, which are less about his you know, like
democracy and his character in that regard, his like dictatorial tendencies,
and more about him being in the pocket a bunch
of billionaires and looking out for their interests over yours.
And you know, I think that's a pretty smart place
for them to land and emphasize in these final weeks.
(50:31):
How much any of it matters remains to be seen,
how much paid communication. They have a massive fundraising advantage,
not just the presidential level, but at the Senate level
and the House level. Republicans are getting massively outspent in
almost every race, every swing race across the board. I
think it probably matters the further down you go down
(50:51):
the ballot, you know, when you get to those house races,
I think it probably matters a lot more than at
the presidential race. So much it really is determined by
just like that national meta narrative about how people feel
about these candidates for whom they already have a lot
of information and experience with.
Speaker 3 (51:05):
Definitely totally agree
Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent coverage.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
That is possible.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
If you like what we're all about, it just means
the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody,
Happy Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.
What do we have, Crystal, indeed we do.
Speaker 4 (00:30):
How many days are we till day?
Speaker 3 (00:31):
Fifteen days?
Speaker 4 (00:31):
Oh my god, super close.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
We've got new early voting data out of Nevada that
is quite interesting to dig into with our friend Logan,
so we will do that. We also have some new
numbers about how both campaigns are making their closing pitch.
They clearly both have very different analyzes of how to
move voters here in the final days that we'll dig
into that as well. We also have a lot of
activity on the campaign trail, Donald Trump working at McDonald's.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
We'll show you that.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
He also was talking about Arnold Palmer Stick for some reason,
we'll show you that as well, for whatever that's worth.
Elon is out potentially breaking election law. Will break that
down for you. Kamala was on a SEBC with Reverend
Al Sharpton, clearly trying to make a pitch to black
men in particular.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
Some interesting moments there.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
She continues to struggle with Arab American voters and gave
a just in my opinion, horrendous answer about whether she
could lose the election over October seventh and her signing
with Joe Biden and not breaking with him whatsoever. We
also have some updates for you out of the Middle East.
Israel Know assassinated successfully, Yeah yah Sinoir. They released the
(01:36):
video of you know as a drone video of the
moments leading up to his death and really in certain
ways provided a propaganda final propaganda win for him, even
outlets like Wall Street Journal writing it up as such.
So we'll break those details down for you. And Ken
Clippenstein is going to join us. He just posted some
documents that were leaked to a telegram channel that was
(01:59):
the you who us is assessment of how Israel may
retaliate against Iran. A lot that's interesting there. Both the
substance of the documents, also details about, you know, our
relationship with Israel and the media's relationship to reporting on
these type of leak documents. So Ken will join us
to break all of that down.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Yeah, it's going to be a great show today. Make
sure you go ahead and subscribe Breakingpoints dot Com. You're
going to get access to part of our conversation with Logan.
That's what you guys get, as well as the show
Early Ama, etc. I think we're going to be doing
that tomorrow, So go ahead and subscribe Breakingpoints dot Com.
Become a premiumbscriber. But let's get to Logan joining us
now is Logan Phillips. Great to see you, sir, our
exclusive partner here at Breakingpoints. Always glad to have you.
Speaker 5 (02:41):
He always great to be on.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
Awesome.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
All right, let's talk a little bit about the early vote.
So some interesting analysis that we flagged on ABC News
want to get your reaction to.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
Let's go ahead and take a listen.
Speaker 6 (02:50):
Based on the likely partisanship of the voters that we've
seen so far, we're seeing more Republicans as a share
of the electorate than Democrats. Take a look at that
four years ago than the third, only thirty two percent
of people that had voted so far were Republicans. That's
up six points so far this cycle. Now that could
be a sign of enthusiasm among Republicans. That could because
Donald Trump is sometimes at least supporting early voting, and
(03:12):
it may be that these are voters they're going to
vote anyway on election day. But the bottom line is
that people are voting and they're enthusiastic about this race.
In Pennsylvania, we've seen Republicans so far ahead of the
twenty twenty pace. Again, Democrats are still a larger share
of early voters, but there are more Republicans in just
about all of the states.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
We've seen significant votes so far.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
So that is aggregated data. We also have this we
can put up there on the screen. L two is
doing a job. They're aggregating all of this early ballots
that are actually been returned. So logan, what can we
glean from this? I know it's a little bit like alchemy,
you're not supposed to dig too much, but this is
all we got. These are actual voters that we've got
votes like the in the bank. So what do you
(03:51):
see so far? That's different and perhaps interesting to you, I.
Speaker 5 (03:54):
See, the biggest thing is that the American elector is engaged.
Twenty twenty saw the biggest turnout in American history. In
twenty twenty four, I don't think we're going to reach
those levels. Is going to be a lot higher. It
makes sense when someone votes once, they're a lot more
likely to vote a second time.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
Right, good point.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
So you don't think it will reach twenty twenty four levels,
but it will be I mean twenty twenty levels, but
it will be higher than say, twenty sixteen in previous elections.
Speaker 5 (04:16):
That's what I think. I can't say it should be
number two, but I think it's going to be high
up there.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
So I heard someone making the case for actually digging
into the early voting data, because I know traditionally averyone says, listen,
you can't really read too much into this. On the
other hand, post COVID, you do have such a large
share of the electorate that are actually voting, and given
the fact that you've had polling misses in a variety
of different directions, isn't there actually a case for taking
(04:41):
seriously you know who is actually turning out and trying
to glean from that. Okay, we know the Democratic strategies
really to excite young women. We know the Republican strategies
try to turn out some of these infrequent voters, especially
among young men. Can't we glean from this whether they're
being successful in some of those strategies or not.
Speaker 5 (04:59):
Yeh, as long as you do fair amount of caution,
because you know normally the stuff I use. For example,
I can go back to the nineteen sixties and say, hey,
this is how accurate it is. Right, you were kind
of flying by the seat of our pants and everyone.
If you come in with any sort of bias, you're
going to be looking for the things that support your side,
or if you're cynical, the things that go against your side, right,
and they're going to stand out to you. Yeah, So
to find like a fair balanced account, like you have
(05:20):
to have an absolute mastery level knowledge of a county
by county, precinct by precinct what's going on, Like this
guy John Ralston, reporter Nevada has right. Most people don't
have that, and so you got to be really careful
who you listen to here. Well, it's largely yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
No, I was going to say, that's a good segue
we actually have Ralston's piece about early voting. Let's go
and put that up there please on the screen. So
what really he flagged logan was just the major difference
in turnout amongst Republicans. Some of the data is quite
Striking't believe chrystals you have in front of that.
Speaker 7 (05:49):
I have it.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
So Dev's won the mail in ballot in Clark County
as they're expected to buy two to one about thirty
th eighteen thousand, but they only now have at an
eighteen hundred vote lead over the Republicans. Last time they
led at the same point we're talking about after one day.
So keep in mind this is after one day. But
(06:11):
last time after one day they had a forty.
Speaker 4 (06:13):
Thousand vote lead, and this time they have an.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Eighteen hundred vote lead. So he's flagging that as potentially
very significant and goes on to say, if, as expected,
there's a five point or so Republican turnout edge after
election day, that means Democrats will have to win Independence
by somewhere around five points to win the state, which
is roughly what Biden won independence by. He won Independence
by six points in twenty twenty, but that was twenty twenty.
Speaker 4 (06:37):
That was Joe Biden.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
This is Kamala Harris, your response to mister Ralston, who
everybody does feel like has earned his credibility in the
early vote analysis arena.
Speaker 5 (06:46):
He's like the only guy trusting this stuff. I would
say it is a mildly good sign for Republicans. He's
very hard for us to know what's going to happen
on election day. It's also expected, I don't mean specifically
in the dividen numbers, but absolutely expected Republicans to vote
a higher share because one Donald Trump was warning everyone
out to do it, Democrats were encouraging everyone to do it,
and Democrats disproportionately care were viewed COVID as a bigger threat,
(07:09):
and therefore we're using vote by mail and voting at
much higher rates than Republicans. So it was never going
to be repeated to the same degree. Twenty twenty is
going to be the biggest key you will probably ever have.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
Yeah, the biggest distance between the two parties in terms
of the modes of voting exactly. So to go back
to that first SoundBite that we played with what was
at ABC talking about how there's maybe a ten point
margin that Republicans have closed the gap between Democrats. That
doesn't strike you as particularly significant given that twenty twenty
was such an anomalous year with COVID.
Speaker 5 (07:39):
Yeah, I would say it' slightly get used Republicans, but
how much it's hard to say. I mean, if you
think about it like this, right, if you're looking at
the twenty twenty vote, we would think Democrats were heading
towards a massive landside, which is what the poll suggested too,
because they were had so many votes early. But then
Trump arguably had to even better turnout on election day
than Dems did. Democrats just won the swing voters and
that's why they won the election.
Speaker 4 (07:58):
Yeah, very narrowly.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
Yeah, I mean, if we look a little bit at
the highly engaged populace, can we put what is it
a two please up on the screen? Because I was
looking at that Crystal and I really struck out to
us that if you look at that sixty five plus
number of old people like to vote early, they certainly do.
You got a lot of ballots that have been returned.
It's also pretty white. You got sixty seven percent there
people who are white. If you look at the gender
(08:22):
gap though, and that was I was like, maybe it
could be a good sign for Democrats. You've got what
is it, fifty four percent of early voters who are women,
So that could certainly be good considering this is going
to be one of the larger gender gap elections, or
at least that's what it's currently projected. So can you
give us the bull and the bar case for both
parties within this at least?
Speaker 3 (08:41):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (08:41):
I think both caase Republicans is they're turning us some
of their votes early. That means they could focus on
the other voters swing selection day, right. Bothcase for Dems
is that they're doing a great job of turning out
black voters in major cities. Atlanta Democrats have been very
happy about what they've seen with really you know, I've
heard good things from my friends. Yeah who the Democratic
side of Milwaukee.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Yeah, similar in Michigan. I think Detroit has had one
of the highest turnout rates, if not the highest turnout
rate in the state of Michigan. So yeah, like you said,
there's kind of something for everybody to take a look
at and be like, Yay, we're doing our thing right exactly.
All right, let's go and put a four up on
the screen. You mentioned that the one thing we can
clearly say is that voters are quite engaged and turnout
(09:24):
will be relatively high. In North Carolina, Day one early
voting set another record, narrowly beating out I think the
twenty twenty was the previous record.
Speaker 4 (09:34):
They say there was no clear partisan edge.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
This is also obviously really significant because North Carolina, Western
North Carolina was just walloped by Hurricane Helene. People still
digging out, still recovering. So it's good to see so
many folks being able to turn out to the polls here.
But one of the things I wanted to ask you about,
Logan is one of the theories is that Republicans are relying
on these less frequent voters to turn out, and so
(09:58):
in prior election cycles you might have said, Okay, high
turnout probably means that's good for Democrats. We can't necessarily
say that anymore. In fact, it could very well be
the reverse.
Speaker 5 (10:06):
It could very well be the reverse. I think that's
the thing about these elections. We have this crystal clear
image of what the election is supposed to be, and
then the election actually happens and there's going to be
some real differences. We have those narratives that go on
for months and so it kind of makes us view
it through a prism. In twenty sixteen, Boy, did people
under count the voters who supported Trump, who were white
and didn't have a college education, blue collar who turned
(10:27):
on in big numbers. And you know, for Democrats, President
Obama was incredibly successful getting none why voters and young
voters out who didn't historically vote before. So we didn't
necessarily know what it's going to be right there. It
really depends on who those people are right that end
up turning out. And I haven't seen enough analysis on this,
but I'm also curious with the early vote, how many
of these are people that haven't voted before?
Speaker 3 (10:47):
Yes, such a key point.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Well, this is part of the problem with early voter
and even state by state is they don't necessarily break
it down all the time. You know, we're lucky when
we even get partisan identification. So some of them is
just demographic or sometimes early ballots requested versus return. So
in the swing states? Do we have early voting now
in all of the swing states that is opened? So
(11:09):
will we get more data in this week? How should
we look for the week going forward?
Speaker 5 (11:13):
I believe so ye, one hundred percent. Soon I know,
we definitely haven't started in Georgia. Yeah, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan.
So yeah, I guess they just don't know about Arizona, if.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
The gos right. Pretty interesting, interesting.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
Certainly absolutely all right, let's turn to how the parties
are making their closing pitch. Premium subscribers. That's going to
be posted for you guys exclusively now. Everybody else will
get it for free later in the week, but definitely
subscribe if you want to hear what Logan has to
say about the closing pitch that both of the parties
are making. So we found this really fascinating. Put this
up on the screen.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
Donald Trump took to the campaign trail yesterday. He started
to work at McDonald's. Quite a few meme tastic moments
that came out of it. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 8 (11:55):
I'm going for a job right now at McDonald's.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
I've had I really.
Speaker 9 (12:00):
Wanted to do this all my Life's.
Speaker 10 (12:06):
A wealthy guy. He owns a lot of McDonald's.
Speaker 9 (12:11):
That's great, thank you. I like every ounce and everything.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
But I do like the French rise.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
Who I'll be working?
Speaker 10 (12:23):
I listened to Kamale.
Speaker 6 (12:25):
She said it was so hot.
Speaker 9 (12:26):
It was so hot. It was such a tough job.
Speaker 8 (12:29):
But till you have a man that's been doing it
for many years of the French.
Speaker 9 (12:32):
French by a human head, nice and clean.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
My hands are nice and king.
Speaker 9 (12:44):
This guy's a good instructor.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
I appreciate it.
Speaker 9 (12:47):
I'm going to give a really big one. So that
was pouring out of the good looking family. How did
you produce those good looking kids? Oh, they look like
the they look like them. How are you nice to
see you? That's way? Thank you, I mean appreciate, thank you,
thank you. It's an amazing business, it's an amazing gun change,
and it's gonna make American greater than ever.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
I mean, you know, what do you even say about that?
It's pretty extraordinary. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
So what I saw Crystal was that in the back
of his head for years, he's wondered, do they get
their grubby hands on my fries? And so he finally
found it was like a moment of clarity for him
to see that nobody touched him.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
But I mean, look, meme wise, come on that it's everywhere.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
It's it's one of the biggest campaign photos, I would say,
outside of the assassination photo.
Speaker 3 (13:35):
I've seen that one spread like wildfire. Yeah, you know,
literally everywhere. Look there you go.
Speaker 4 (13:39):
I might hate the man. This is a brilliant bit
of political theater.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
It is.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
I mean, you know, we'll get to the substance the
fact that I won't brace them, that I'm wage that
during his administration he undercut the ability of workers like
these ones to be able to organize. But just on
the level of like pure political theater. Yeah, he positions
himself as like the working class fans billionaire. There he
is working at McDonald's. It's also like a nice stop
(14:03):
to the base. He didn't talk too much about this,
but he got this in somewhat. He doesn't believe that
Kamala ever actually worked at McDonald's, so it's like throwing
some red meat to the base as well. I mean,
what can you say? The man has an authentic love
for McDonald's food. Do you definitely know that much?
Speaker 3 (14:18):
It's true.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Let me allow me to read Andy Warhol quote apparently
from the nineteen sixties, says, I always thought the president
would do so much to help change images. If president
would go to a public bathroom in the Capitol and
have TV cameras film him cleaning the toilets and saying,
why not, somebody's got to do it. It would do
so much for the morale of the people who would
do wonderful job of keeping the toilets clean.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
It's a wonderful thing that they're doing.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
So people were like, oh, this is the Trump's apotheosis
of Andy Warhol political theory that was going around. I
don't think it's that deep. It's like you said, I mean,
really what it is? And I saw a friend of mine,
Reuben on Twitter, made an interesting point, I'm curious what
you think is that Trump's camp actively helps to dispense
a lot of the negative imagery of him by Democrats,
(15:03):
as in, it's very hard to imagine like a Trump
dictator when he's also like McDonald's just serving fries.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
And I thought that actually might be the most astute
part of it.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
We're about to show the whole Arnold Palmer thing, but like,
there's something hilarious about a guy talking about Arnold Palmer's
penis and working at McDonald's, you know, and obviously having
the time of his life that dispels this, like, oh,
Trump was going to do all these X, Y and
Z bad things and I was like, you know, that
might be probably the best like analytical framework for why
(15:37):
this stuff matters at all.
Speaker 3 (15:39):
I think that's true.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
I think that's correct because not only the McDonald's thing,
but I mean that's the part of the podcast strategy,
like the bro strategy is aimed at a specific voting
demographic group, but part.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
Of it is also just to you.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
Know, humanize, humanize him and make him seem like he's
one of the guys that can just hang out.
Speaker 4 (15:58):
And then it makes it.
Speaker 1 (15:59):
Hard for you to take seriously, even though you should
take seriously. Sagur and I had a whole debate about this,
but you know, his enemy within I want to call
out the military against them comments it makes it easier
for people to just kind of handwave that away. And
I think between those efforts and the multiple assassination attempts,
I do think that's part of why his favorability rating
(16:20):
is so much higher now than it's really ever been
before in politics. And you know, I think that's a
very important part of why he has such a strong
chance of ultimately winning the selection. You know, the other
thing that I saw is, you know, it is worth
pointing out if people didn't know that this obviously was
like stage in the cars preselected and of course and
all of that. But it's like, of course, like you
(16:41):
think they're just going to let random people go through
the drive through with Donald Trump there, I mean, so
the security could of course, it was a stage campaign
of waiting.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
People were like, wait, just so you know stage, Yes,
the president can't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
I know, I know, but I mean, I mean, I
do think there were people who thought these were like
authentic exchanges that the drive through as well, but just
for anyone out there who needed to know, yes, it
was a stage campaign event, because of course it was
a stage campaign event, like very obviously, do you think you.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
Can interact with the president or the forum president on
the campaign trail after an assassination attempt and not be
pre screened by secret service?
Speaker 3 (17:16):
How could?
Speaker 11 (17:16):
How?
Speaker 2 (17:17):
When what scenario would some random be able to roll
up to McDonald's and get their order.
Speaker 3 (17:22):
From Donald Trump? What if they had a gun? That's nuts.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
Yeah, So anyway, it was not just like random voters
who were there being like maga, we love you. These
were pre screen people by the campaign, et cetera, et cetera.
Just so everyone understands that's the reality of how campaigns work.
Speaker 4 (17:36):
There were a couple of questions that he was.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Asked that ended up being relevant, especially I thought the
best question was about, you know, would you raise them
in the wage and he won't say yes.
Speaker 4 (17:45):
He also got asked a question.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
About you know, will you will you accept the results
of the election, and he won't really commit to that either.
So let's take a listen to those exchanges on wag
should be raised.
Speaker 4 (17:55):
Well, I think this.
Speaker 9 (17:56):
I think these people work hard, they're great.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
And I just saw something you process. It's beautiful.
Speaker 9 (18:01):
It's a beautiful thing to see. These are great franchises
and produce a lot of jobs, and it's good and
great people working here too.
Speaker 4 (18:09):
Leading for you, Yes either way. Will you accept the
results of the election?
Speaker 9 (18:14):
Yeah, sure, if it's a fair election.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Always I would always accept.
Speaker 9 (18:17):
Different ways to be a fair election. We're leading in
all the balls, then we're leading in every swing state,
doing well, and it's now and I.
Speaker 5 (18:25):
Think so think so.
Speaker 4 (18:26):
In fact, I just had an RCP.
Speaker 9 (18:28):
I said, you're ninety three point percent chance of winning,
and I think that's pretty good.
Speaker 4 (18:32):
So if it's a fair election, Hill support it.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
Also, you we're going to talk tomorrow about polymarket and
the way that that the numbers there have been juiced
by basically one or potentially for four.
Speaker 4 (18:43):
Yeah, well, well there are.
Speaker 3 (18:44):
Some intentions one, but yeah, that it.
Speaker 4 (18:47):
May be one bord of it in any case.
Speaker 1 (18:49):
And then you know, and you can see how this
is useful to Trump in terms of and then he
points to you know this, I don't know what he
was pointing to, says we have a ninety three percent
chance of winning. And this is what he did last
time too. Is especially he used that red mirage effect
where it looked like Republicans were winning early in the
night to say like it must have been stolen, and
he's already laying some of the groundwork for that.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
Now.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
Of course he has a very good chance of winning
the election outright, but this is also laying the groundwork
for if he doesn't get a result that he if
he doesn't get the result that he wants, saying, look
at polymarket, look at this analysis. This that I had
a ninety three percent chance of winning wherever that comes from.
Speaker 4 (19:25):
And of course, of course.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
It had to have been stolen because I was I
was a lock, I was ashoe in So you're that
rhetoric and then of course you know can't even commit
to raising the minimum wage.
Speaker 4 (19:35):
This is the guy who made you.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
Guys may remember Andy Puster, the former CEO of Hardy's,
the labor secretary who was like horrible for workers' rights,
both in his capacity as the CEO of Hardy's but
also in his capacity of labor secretary. So on the substance,
obviously I think he's a total fraud. But again on
the political theater, I think it's a major win for
as well.
Speaker 11 (19:55):
Well.
Speaker 3 (19:55):
Look, one of the lessons is that people don't care
about that, right.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
Unfortunately, we live in a world where people or like
you've got more people who are voting Trump or at
least seem to be voting Trump pro Trump who are
low wage workers and or unions, mostly on the issue
of immigration.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
And look, I've said this before too.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
For Republicans, all you have to do is look at
the minimum wage numbers that passed. It was at twenty twenty.
I think it was a super majority. I want to say,
in the state of Florida that passed fifteen dollars minimum
wage at the same time that Trump won the state
by three So actually more people both voted for the
minimum wage and voted for Donald Trump in the state
of Florida. You can actually have a red state that
(20:34):
did that. Arkansas, I believe, also raised I think twelve
dollars an hour. So anyway, if anybody wants to go
out there and look at the data on all this
for minimum wage and whether you can be like a
real Republican, there's plenty of real Republicans out there who
vote for it all the time.
Speaker 3 (20:48):
So just put that.
Speaker 1 (20:48):
Let me just preview a segment we're going to have
in the show probably tomorrow with Matt carp from Jackman
in the Center for Working Class Politics.
Speaker 4 (20:55):
They did a big poll of voters.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
In Pennsylvania, and you know, they have a class so
they were looking very specifically at number one, what type
of occupations are people in versus what candidate they're supporting,
and also where do they fall in terms of income level.
And what was interesting is actually the lowest wage individuals
were more Democratics supporters. It was those you know, blue
collar working class individuals who tended to be strongly in
(21:22):
the Donald Trump camp. And then if there's also a
big divide between you know, the sort of like hard
hat using your hands. Type of blue collar workers versus
service sector workers tended to be more democratic. So there's
some some interesting fishers there. But just stay tuned for that,
because I think looking at some of those numbers, someone
confirms what you might have suspected, but showed a you know,
(21:44):
an interesting breakdown between the different class statuses and occupational
statuses amongst voters.
Speaker 3 (21:50):
Well, that's important, and we talk here.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
I just said low wage work, it doesn't really mean anything,
you know, in terms of what type of wage what
you do for a living. There's a big difference actually
between like the bottom quinn and then the second lowest quintile.
So that's like people were basically below the poverty line
and then you've got people flirting with the poverty line
slash lower to slash lower to middle class. Those are
very different economic realities. They're very different people buy and
(22:14):
large for people who like actually work and what type
of jobs they do, whether they have a permanent career
or not. So anyway, stay tuned for that. As you said,
let's get to the Arnold Palmer thing on this one
took over the airwaves. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 8 (22:27):
This guy, this is a guy that was old man.
This man was strong and tough, and I refused to
say it. But when he took showers with the other
pros they came out of there, they said, oh my god,
that's unbelievable.
Speaker 3 (22:49):
I had to say it. It was actually longer than that.
For anyone asking about strategy, there is no strategy. To
the extent that there is a strategy.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
It goes back to what we were talking about with
the whole camp and making jokes about it. I mean,
this thing was all over cable news of a Speaker
of the House get asked about it.
Speaker 3 (23:06):
I don't know. I don't have anything deeper to say.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
That's the deepest I can go is that the camp
e er he gets, the more funny or whatever he is,
the harder it is to imagine him as like some
dictator who's going to take over the country.
Speaker 4 (23:16):
This is why the weird framing was good for Democrats.
Speaker 3 (23:19):
You think so, yes, I don't even know that's weird.
I think it's funny.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
I mean, talking like objectively, he talked for like ten
minutes about Arnold Palmer and then you know, got into
the sidetrack about the size of a stick. By the way,
there was a you know, very serious journalist who looked
into the size of Arnold Palmer stick and says, the
evidence suggests this is actually false misinformation. Don't they possibly
get that apparently there was some sex, Yeah, but they
(23:46):
got a lot.
Speaker 3 (23:47):
Maybe he shorted them. You know, you never know.
Speaker 1 (23:50):
You could do your own investigation if you'd like soccer
and debunk the debunking.
Speaker 4 (23:54):
I had a Palmer Dick's story.
Speaker 3 (23:55):
As the guy.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
I've been to the Arnold Palmer But can you shout
out to a restaurant, the Arnold Palmer Restaurant in Palm Springs, California.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
Absolutely fantastic, Highly recommend it.
Speaker 4 (24:03):
But what did you have to say about his guys?
Speaker 3 (24:05):
Well, I'll ask him. I'll next time I go, I'm
going to ask him.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
In any case, this is part of why I think
the weird framing that Democrats have kind of abandoned was
more effective in a sense. I mean, I think you
have to also lay on that the legitimate dangerous, but
also people already sort.
Speaker 4 (24:20):
Of feel that.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
But yeah, this is like, this is just kind of
a weird thing to be talking about a campaign rally
going on an extended die tribe about a guy that
died how many years ago this golfer.
Speaker 4 (24:29):
I guess he was from the area where he was
speaking in or something like that. Is how this armor,
I don't know. In any case, there you go.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
If it's domind Trump talking about some dude stick for
an extended period of time whatever, right, well, you.
Speaker 2 (24:41):
Know it's not a first brand me off. Of course,
Marco Rubio started it. I guess to be fair, that's
what we have. If you remember from the twenty sixteen campaign.
At the same time, there was something that the campaign,
the Harris campaign, has been seizing on. Let's put this
up there on the screen. This was a report from
Politico and it said, quote an exhausted Trump said know
to another interview. So they highlighted and we talked about
(25:04):
this as well. Trump had planned sit downs with NBC
in Philadelphia, squakbox and sixty minutes.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
Why does it keep happening?
Speaker 2 (25:11):
The Trump campaign had backed out of a couple In response,
a Trump advisor apparently told the Shade Room producers, that's
one of those black audience. We showed a clip for everybody. Yeah,
from that where they said he quote was exhausted and
refused some interviews. But that could change at any time.
So yeah, I mean you could take from that what
(25:33):
it is. They don't name the person, but I do
certainly think it's a I don't know. I mean, there's
been a lot of I've seen Democrats try to rehab
the whole like Trump Age conversation, and this really shows me.
I've been trying to do some retrospectives in my head.
I'm like, well, what does it mean if Biden or
sorry I Kamala loses, if Trump loses. And I've been
really thinking about how much damage we almost have memory
(25:54):
hold it that the Biden remaining in the race really
did to the Democratic ticket. And I think that that
conversation age would be so dramatically different if there had
been a real primary on the Democratic side and if
Biden had dropped out earlier. And you know, so much
of this We're going to talk a lot about Harris's failures,
et cetera, if she does lose, but I mean, so
much of this is on Biden man to wait until
the last minute to drop out. No real democratic process
(26:17):
anointed Kamala ninety day sprint to the campaign trail, and
the age, I mean, he nuked the vibe for the
country for three and a half years, Like you can't
really get over that. So I really think that a
lot of this like retrospective Trump age conversation is just nuked.
With so much of the populace, they have not forgotten
what the Biden conversation looked like at that time, so
(26:37):
they don't want to hear it. You know, they were
comparatively strong, right.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
I think that it's that comparison that's important. And I
do think this is important conversation because I mean, he
is almost he's seventy eight. Yeah, he's going to be
eighty years old in you know, less than two years.
Like this is an old man. No one should fool
themselves about that. He will be the oldest person to
take the office in history. He's older than Joe Biden
was when Biden, you know, was sworn in back in
(27:01):
early twenty twenty one. So, you know, it is an
important substantive conversation. But I agree with you, Saga, I
don't think it really moves the needle because you know,
in contrast to Biden, he seems so much more vigorous,
et cetera. And even as he has legitimately bailed on
a bunch of interviews, you know, obviously didn't do another debate,
bailed on that sixty minutes interview, bailed on some kind
of a town hall such a way like there have
(27:22):
been a bunch of things, and you get his campaign
even saying like the dude's exhausted, but he's still out
there doing a bunch of stuff. So I don't think
people have the sense of like, oh, he's exhausted and
he you know, can barely function, et cetera, the way
that it was very manifestly clear with Joe Biden. So
you know, if Trump wins, I think this will be
an extremely important storyline because I do think there are
(27:43):
some signs of decline and age fatigue in all of that.
I mean, you know, time's a bit like he is
getting older. He is an old man, that is reality,
and not a particularly healthy one either. So I think
if he wins, it will probably be an important next
four year story. Do I think it's moving a lot
of people in terms of the polls?
Speaker 4 (28:00):
Doubt it, But you never know.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
We may look back after election day and say, hey,
people decided like, hey, maybe we shouldn't vote for another
really super old guy and went with Kamlin part because
she is she just turned sixty, you know, which is
and she seemed vital and whatever for her age. So
who the hell knows at this point, But I tend
to agree with you in that analysis. And also I
(28:22):
do think we can't lose sight of the fact that
because Democrats were so terrified of an actual democratic process,
they really screwed themselves.
Speaker 4 (28:31):
Now many of us, some of us were saying that.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
Along, right and arguing that they would be better off
if they had an actual democratic primary process from the beginnings,
they took seriously the competitors who did come into that
race to challenge Joe Biden if they had, you know,
not just totally put the kebash on any of the
we're leading democratic policies, to the Gretchen Whimer's, the Gavin
Newsom's whatever, entering that process, and then even failing that,
(28:57):
coming down to it, when they pushed Biden out doing
what Pelosi and Obama reportedly wanted them to do, but
didn't expend any effort to force them in this direction,
which was to at least have like a contested convention
where you have people making speeches and making their cases.
Because Kamala Harris is not the strongest competitor. I think
everyone knew that on the Democratic side going in, but
they rather just sort of default to her to avoid
(29:20):
I guess, ruffling various feathers because it was the path
of least resistance at that point, and now they're in
an extremely precarious position, really truly of their own makings.
Speaker 3 (29:29):
Absolutely know.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
I've been watching some swing state tape from the governors,
because all the de governors have been going through. Gavin
is so good on the stump it's unbelievable. As people know,
I'm not a fan of Gavin Newsom. There's a lot
I could say about the guy, but he's a talented
politician man, and if he had fought for it, I
think he would have won. I certainly do Shapiro, Obviously,
I still think the whole Obama thing is really annoying.
But he's a swing state governor. He won by thirteen points. Okay,
(29:51):
you can't look past that, even waltst Frankly, I think
he's a better politician than Kamali Marris, definitely, no doubt
about it. Gretchen Whitmer, she is so utterly cringeworthy to me.
She's talented. Whenever she started doing an interview where she
was going back and forth about why Democrats are bad
in the swing states, and she's like, you're talking to
somebody who won by almost twenty points in the last stay.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
So she's like, don't tell me that people can't win big.
And then I was like, hey, it's a good answer,
and it's true, Midel.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
I think mayor Pete hatred is you know, I have
studied solid credibility in that department, way better than common. Absolutely,
he's gotten better too over the years, like him mixing
it up on Fox and whatever.
Speaker 4 (30:29):
Yeah, he's very effectual.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
Poli just saying five people were better than the current
Democratic nominee, which is wild. Yeah, they never really state
their case. Keeping in the Trump vane he had. Elon
must have really gone all in on the state of Pennsylvania.
Elon is basically like running the campaign outreach there. He's
got a new scheme currently happening where he's handing out
million dollar checks at town.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
Halls that he's holding across the state. Let's take a listen, all.
Speaker 12 (30:54):
Right, So, uh, tonight's person is shown prayer. So by
the way, John had no idea. So uh, anyway, you're welcome,
(31:15):
Uh and uh yeah.
Speaker 13 (31:24):
So so so the only the only, the only thing
we ask for the million dollars is that you'll be
a spokesperson for for the petition.
Speaker 12 (31:33):
And uh, that's it.
Speaker 3 (31:34):
Really, that's the whole.
Speaker 13 (31:35):
That's it.
Speaker 3 (31:36):
So there we go at these events.
Speaker 2 (31:38):
Elon is now handing out one million dollar checks from
the Super pac America pack. This has caused quite a
bit of consternation as to whether it is real election
law or not. But do you want to do you
want to talk about it before we play?
Speaker 3 (31:50):
Shapiro?
Speaker 1 (31:51):
Yeah, I mean, to me, this gives like hunger games.
I mean that the spectacle of the richest man on
the planet dangling million dollar checks to get people to
vote for his preferred candidate. As he's also you know,
I mean Elon Musk himself is the recipient of tens
of billions of dollars annually in federal government contracts. He
(32:14):
also is entangled in all sorts of legal messes viz.
A VI the federal government. He has been promised a
high level government job that would basically put him above
those regulators who are trying to regulate his companies. He
runs one of the top social media platforms in the
world for the service of this candidate. And I just
(32:34):
would say, you know, if you like Elon, if you
like Trump, that's fine.
Speaker 4 (32:39):
Just imagine if the shoe.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
Was on the other foot and it was George Soros
on stage dangling million dollar checks to people to vote
for Kamala Harris, or it was you know, Jeff Bezos.
Speaker 4 (32:50):
Or it was Bill Gates, or it was whoever.
Speaker 1 (32:53):
Right, I think this should not be a partisan point
that having the wealthiest man on the planet this involved
in shaping our national conversation, funding one of the two
presidential candidates, and then being put in a position to
effectively run significant parts of the government to his own benefit.
(33:14):
Both from a business and an ideological perspective, I think
everyone should be deeply, deeply disturbed by that. I'm very
happy for these people who are getting this cash. I'm
sure they're very happy. But again, the idea of dangling
million dollar checks to coerce you know, the masses into
voting for as preferred candidate, yeah, I think it's it's
(33:35):
quite dystopian, and it is also possibly illegal.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Right, So let's get to that. Well, let's say, Okay,
so I don't disagree with the word you said.
Speaker 3 (33:42):
I don't like dangling.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
Money, especially you know, if people, if people are going
to come out to this, it's like it's like this
weird lottery mentality.
Speaker 3 (33:49):
I just don't. I think it's gross to send it.
It's like squid game vibe.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
Yeah, it's just in general, like I don't like people like,
you know, going just having that dynamic going on. I do,
in some way almost just appreciate the nakedness of like,
here's a million bucks if you go ahead and you
sign this petition. We've seen some campaigns implement that previously,
not near to the tune of million, but what was
it Doug Burgham, He's like, I'll give you twenty seven
dollars if you donate one dollar to my campaign.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
Yeah, that's right, to get dollars to ge get on
the debate stage.
Speaker 3 (34:18):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
And so just to lay on the mechanics of this
before we get and so the legal argument about whether
or not this is legal. So the idea is, if
you sign this petition that supports First Amendment and Second
Amendment rights, then you're entered into this lottery to win
a million dollars. But the reason why it is potentially
(34:39):
election fraud is because you have to be registered to
vote in order.
Speaker 4 (34:44):
To sign the petition.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
So it's effectively, you know, getting people to register to
vote using, you know, the promise of this lottery, the
promise of these funds, and that's what puts it on
very shaky legal ground. The governor of the state of Pennsylvania, Joshapeia,
of course, as a Democrat, is and this is all happening,
by the way, in the state of Pennsylvania. He says
that this needs to be investigated for potential election fraud.
(35:06):
Let's take a listen to him making that case.
Speaker 10 (35:09):
I think there are real questions with how he is
spending money in this race, how the dark money is
flowing not just into Pennsylvania, but apparently now into the
pockets of Pennsylvanians. That is deeply concerning. Look, Musk obviously
has a right to be able to express his views.
He's made it very very clear that he supports Donald Trump.
(35:31):
I don't obviously we have a difference of opinion. I
don't deny him that right. But when you start flowing
this kind of money into politics, I think it raises
serious questions that folks may want to take a look at.
Speaker 4 (35:44):
So you think it might not be legal, yes or no.
Speaker 10 (35:49):
I think it's something that law enforcement could take a
look at. I'm not the attorney general anymore of Pennsylvania.
I'm the governor. But it does raise some serious questions.
Speaker 2 (35:57):
All right, So, Chris Lely, you flagged this it up
there on the screen from the Election Law blog. This
is Rick Hassen. He's got an analysis here. He says,
there are some other some in terms of the actual legality.
As you said, it's all a question about whether this
is interpreted as forcing people to register to vote or not.
Speaker 3 (36:16):
So Section fifty two USC to what is it.
Speaker 2 (36:18):
One zero three zero seven c Whoever knowingly or wilfully
gives false information as to his name blah blah blah,
or pays or offers to pay, or accepts payments either
for registration to vote or voting, shall be fined not
more than ten thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than
five years, or both.
Speaker 3 (36:36):
Emphasis added there.
Speaker 4 (36:38):
I don't think the ten thousand dollars is going to
be a big free.
Speaker 3 (36:42):
I mean, in some ways, maybe that's the perfect thing.
Speaker 6 (36:44):
Right.
Speaker 2 (36:44):
You're like, well, it's a ten thousand dollars fine, you
pay a million bucks. So these just have to pay
like what is that like less than one percent interest
or something on top of that to make sure that
you can pay the fine. They look at it this
in terms of the DOJ says that any bribe can
be anything having monetary value, including cash, liquor, lottery chances,
(37:05):
welfare benefits, et cetera, and continues and says that it
must have been intended to induce or reward the voter
for engaging in one or more acts necessary to cast
a ballot. However, such payments become actionable under that section
I previously said if they are shared with the person
that are being registered. So it all comes down to
whether this was an act of registration to vote or
(37:27):
an act of signing a petition, which would appear legal.
Probably has got the legal sign over from his campaign
or from his people because it's an act of a petition,
and I guess they could argue it in federal court.
But it is an interesting electionized I mean, the other.
Speaker 1 (37:43):
Thing you said maybe true too, which is maybe illegal
and is a ten thousand all of fine. So who
freaking cares?
Speaker 3 (37:48):
Right, Yeah, I mean a lot of I mean that
works out.
Speaker 1 (37:52):
That's how CEOs think right, They think about these like,
you know, SEC fines and whatever is just like a
cost of doing business. And so it would not be
crazy if he was like, yeah, it's probably illegal, but
I'll just pay the fine and whatever.
Speaker 4 (38:03):
Who cares.
Speaker 1 (38:03):
Yeah, there was another story I just wanted to flag
for you guys, because I do think this.
Speaker 4 (38:08):
You know, I've come to see.
Speaker 1 (38:10):
Obviously, billionaire influence in politics we cover extensively. We cover
on both sides of the aisle. We've been talking about
Mark Cuban and Reid Hoffman on the Kammala side. But
I do think it's fair to say there is nothing
equivalent to what Elon Musk is doing in this election,
not only in this election, but potentially in American history,
really is pushing the bounds of you know, billionaire influence
(38:31):
in American politics. He is a saber reference. He's effectively
running the ground game for Trump in a lot of
key states, Pennsylvania in particular.
Speaker 4 (38:39):
We may cover tomorrow. That may not that that may
not work out.
Speaker 1 (38:42):
Because there are some indications that that ground game effort
is not going all that well. We'll put that to
the side for now. But in addition to this million
dollar check effort. His super pac that he funded is
also running this this so they put up a website
that is meant to look like Kamala's answer to Project
(39:04):
twenty twenty five. It's called Progress twenty twenty eight, and
again if you look at it, it appears.
Speaker 4 (39:09):
To be making the case for KAMMLA.
Speaker 1 (39:11):
But then they use these like, you know, caricaturist versions
of her least popular policies to try to like low
key show people like, oh, she's going to do all
this crazy stuff when she gets elected. And they're also
funding a text message campaign that does the same where
if you just look at the text message, it seems
like it's coming from the Harris campaign, but it's actually
coming from this Elon Musk funded super pack. So they
(39:34):
can put this up on the screen. Open Secrets did
the reporting here. Their headline is pro Trump dark money
network tied to Elon Musk behind fake pro Harris campaign scheme.
Now this one because they disclose that you know, it's
paid for by I think the thing is called building
America's Future. So since they do the proper disclosures, it's
(39:54):
probably not illegal, but it is, you know, it's pretty
skeazy thing. To do to sort of posture like your
your opponent's campaign and then put out this caricaturist view
that's meant to dissuade people. So this is one of
the other efforts that he's involved in, and we'll talk
later in the show in one of the latter segments
about how he's also funding these ad campaigns where if
(40:15):
you are a Jewish pro Israel voter, he's funding targeted
ads that are like, Kama's not sufficiently pro Israel. And
then if you're a pro Palestine voter, he's funding these
ads that are like Kamala stands strongly with Israel and
always will blah blah blah.
Speaker 4 (40:29):
So these are some of the tactics that he is engaged.
Speaker 3 (40:32):
Here you go. The latter one is smart, the former one.
Speaker 12 (40:35):
What is it?
Speaker 2 (40:35):
I remember this has always been this is part of
the problem with the election. Low Why is any stuff
even legal? What was I think that read Hoffman did
and it was it was like some fake newspaper that
read Hoffman funded Alabama. I'm thinking that was it was completely.
Speaker 1 (40:49):
It was a bunch of them actually all over all
over the place that were meant to look like they
were legitimate news sources, but were just like you know.
Speaker 3 (40:55):
Parts, yeah, like literal press releases.
Speaker 1 (40:59):
So yeah, I mean, I I do think a lot
of this stuff should be a lot more should be
illegal than actually is. But the Elon Musk million dollar
thing may actually.
Speaker 3 (41:07):
And the loophole of it should.
Speaker 2 (41:09):
Be right, and the loophole of it all so it's
all coming through super PACs, and so then you're outsourcing
stuff to these super PACs, so none of it makes
any sense. It makes it a lot less regulated, and
we don't even be really insight into even who's funding
some of this.
Speaker 3 (41:20):
So anyway, that's exactly right.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
Yeah, a lot of these super pat they're called dark
money super PACs because the election is such that if
you're not actively making the case for a candidate, then
you can avoid any sort of scrutiny. And also some
of the disclosion disclosure laws are such that if you
jump in a bunch of money in the waning days
of a campaign, it's not even disclosed till after the campaign.
So these are always that billionaires get around, you know,
(41:45):
the public really knowing how much they're in. But I mean,
we don't know the exact dollar figures for Elon Musk,
but we know it's a preposterously large amount, and obviously
it's very visible. So to your Pointzager, it is quite naked,
is quite brazen. There's really no how much he is
trying personally to win this election for Donald Trump through
(42:05):
whatever levers he possibly can.
Speaker 3 (42:09):
All right, let's go to Kamala.
Speaker 2 (42:10):
She appeared on MSNBC last night with Al Sharp and
she was pressed on the blackmail agenda and whether they
should vote for her.
Speaker 3 (42:17):
Again, let's take a lesson.
Speaker 7 (42:19):
Do you think some of the resistance of some men
black and white is misogynists? And are you proud to
see that most Americans, even being pold, have no problem
supporting a woman at all. And I'm one that lived
from Shirley to Kamala in terms of these campaigns, and.
Speaker 11 (42:40):
I have an emotional reaction to raising the point of
Shirley Chisholm because it is on her broad shoulders that
I stand and so many of us stand. And we
have come a long way to your point, and on
your specific point about including the fact that I have
the support of countless black men who are in elected positions,
(43:03):
including I'm just this afternoon and two church visits today
with the mayor of Atlanta.
Speaker 3 (43:09):
That being said, I think that you.
Speaker 11 (43:13):
Are absolutely right that there is this narrative about what
kind of support we are receiving from black men that
is just not panning out in reality in terms of
when I go to last night Atlanta and had I
think ten thousand people at a rally, I will also
say this, Rev. I am very clear, I must earn
(43:37):
earn the vote of everyone, regardless of their race or gender.
And what can be frustrating sometimes is to have journalists
ask me this question as though one should assume that
I would just be able to take for granted the
vote of black men.
Speaker 3 (43:55):
I think that's actually.
Speaker 4 (43:58):
An uninformed perspective.
Speaker 3 (44:00):
So yeah, she's doing a pretty good job on that answers.
Speaker 2 (44:02):
She refuses to take the bait and have any of
the Hillary stuff. So on the one hand, we have
that from Kamala about I'm not going to take anybody
for granted. That's obviously way better than Hillary. The deplorables,
they made a couple of efforts. Look with that, we
saw it with Charlemagne, was shot with here with al Sharpton.
She refuses to break I think with President Obama or sorry,
refuses to do what President Obama did very much. Lecturing
(44:26):
the brothers in his language still wild. I can't believe
he gets her away with this and this, and the
media is are just like, oh, yeah, it's totally fun.
Speaker 3 (44:34):
It's actually quite normal to lecture people that way.
Speaker 2 (44:37):
But look, clearly the black commentariat that I've seen from
Al Sharpton, Obama and others, they are worried about this
issue and all of them are like grappling with it
with Kamala in general and how that shape could be
one of the central stories of the election.
Speaker 1 (44:53):
I do hate the way this is framed around like
black men specifically having a problem with women. It is gross.
I think she handles this question very well, and I
think she is.
Speaker 3 (45:02):
Better than the commentators, right, that's the interague.
Speaker 1 (45:04):
Yeah, I mean better than most of the commentators. We
have a wonderful Nina turner On who handles this better
than anyone. But yeah, she has done well on these
identity questions from the beginning. She really has. I think
she learned from Hillary's mistakes. I think she learned from
some of the overreaches of like peak wocism, et cetera.
I think she doesn't she even learned from her own missay,
(45:25):
remember when she was introduced as Joe Biden's vice president,
you know, at the DNC in twenty twenty, I hated
her speech because it was.
Speaker 4 (45:33):
All me, me, me. It was very narcissistic.
Speaker 1 (45:35):
It was that very like, it's all about my personal
path to glory and my trailblazing status.
Speaker 4 (45:40):
And she's dropped all of that.
Speaker 1 (45:43):
But you know, to me, the choice of the interview
venues over the past couple of weeks do display a
sense of nervousness around you know, this particular demographic group,
so they feel like they're having a harder time. Some
of the some of the like registration data, some of
the early vote data, which of course we should take
with a million grains of salt, shows that their black
(46:04):
women are really turning out very strongly, and there is
less of a sense of that momentum with black men,
so they're clearly trying to shore that up. How much
choice reference Sharpton has at this point to help in
that regard is a separate question, but you know, they're
doing whatever they can figure out to do.
Speaker 4 (46:20):
She also got asked about, you.
Speaker 1 (46:22):
Know, an issue that may dog her in the black community,
which is this idea that you know, she's calm of
the cop, that she's too tough on crime, that she
you know, there was a lot of discussion during the
twenty twenty primary, in particular about her locking up parents
whose kids were truant, throwing people in jail for marijuana youth.
(46:43):
Let's take a listen to how Reverend Sharpton asked.
Speaker 7 (46:45):
Her about this, and let's talk about blacks in general,
because one of the things, you know, I've been on
a non prodestan toured National Action Networking and Central Flog
five Yes and others. And one of the things that
reporters act said, we don't get it from the audiences,
what about the Kamala the cop? And I said, well,
I knew her as da you and I go with that.
(47:08):
She was one that wanted people with marijuana arrest not
to go to jails exactly. And the Attorney General wasn't
even under your purview. I mean, do you think that
this is orchestrated, that they're trying to find some way
to separate you from some elements because you used to
be attack for being too progressive as a district attorney.
Speaker 11 (47:27):
I know, you know. And here's the thing, Rev. We are,
as of today's Sunday, sixteen days away from the election
for President of the United States, and there are all
sorts of people who are going to throw a bunch
of things out that will include missing disinformation with the
intention to dissuade certain people from voting. And that's not new.
Speaker 3 (47:49):
Yesterday I was in Michigan.
Speaker 11 (47:51):
Tomorrow be in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, and I'm leaving
nothing on the field.
Speaker 2 (47:56):
At the same time, with Kamala we see here going
in on the character question against Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (48:00):
Let's take a listen.
Speaker 7 (48:01):
I have to ask you about your opponent. He used
a very ugly term about you last night, using the
S word as vice president, and how do you react
to this kind of street talk from someone who wants
to be president? Again? That was president. I've known you
(48:22):
a long time and I know you have thick skin.
But I'm not asking you as a person because i
know you're used to that. But what does it do
in your opinion to the standards we're setting for our
young people all over the country when we're using this
kind of locker room street talk about an opponent for
president of the United States.
Speaker 11 (48:44):
So the American people deserve so much better. That's how
I come at it. And to your point, the President
of the United States must set a standard not only
for our nation, but understanding the standard that we as
a nation must set for the world. You know, we
(49:05):
we as representing the United States of America, walk into
rooms around the world with the earned and self appointed
authority to talk about the importance of democracy rule of law.
Speaker 2 (49:17):
So that's what we've got right now, Crystal. That fits
very much with the spending that we talked previously with Logan.
That'll be for premusubscribers today, but for others tomorrow, specifically
about that character question on Trump.
Speaker 3 (49:28):
It just give me a little bit of Hillary vibes.
I'm curious what you think.
Speaker 1 (49:31):
I think the way she always makes this question is
make it about you deserve better.
Speaker 4 (49:35):
Is the best way to handle it.
Speaker 1 (49:37):
Yeah, you know, versus she could take a lot of
umbrage and I'm not even sure. I think he said
she's like a shitty vice presidenter or something like that,
but she.
Speaker 4 (49:44):
Could take a lot of umbrage at it.
Speaker 1 (49:45):
I think that was more the Hillary route and to say,
you all deserve better than someone who talks this way
and demeans all of us. That way, I think is
probably the best way to go about it. That being said, again,
you know, I think that the Harris campaign has been
intuited that people basically feel the way they're going to
feel about Donald Trump. They're leaning most heavily into ads
(50:10):
about taxation, which are less about his you know, like
democracy and his character in that regard, his like dictatorial tendencies,
and more about him being in the pocket a bunch
of billionaires and looking out for their interests over yours.
And you know, I think that's a pretty smart place
for them to land and emphasize in these final weeks.
(50:31):
How much any of it matters remains to be seen,
how much paid communication. They have a massive fundraising advantage,
not just the presidential level, but at the Senate level
and the House level. Republicans are getting massively outspent in
almost every race, every swing race across the board. I
think it probably matters the further down you go down
(50:51):
the ballot, you know, when you get to those house races,
I think it probably matters a lot more than at
the presidential race. So much it really is determined by
just like that national meta narrative about how people feel
about these candidates for whom they already have a lot
of information and experience with.
Speaker 3 (51:05):
Definitely totally agree
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com