November 20, 2025 • 44 mins
Krystal and Saagar discuss Dems shatter polling ahead of midterms, Trump prosecutor bungles Comey case, Zohran to meet with Trump in the White House.
Ross Barkan:https://x.com/RossBarkan?s=20
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, Saga and Crystal here. Independent media just played
a truly massive role in this election, and we are
so excited about what that means for the future of
this show.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
So this was an extraordinary poll that came out. It's
an outlier, all caveats, but this was pretty eye opening.
Put d one up on the screen. This new Marist
pole has Democrats with a fourteen point lead on the
twenty twenty six generic ballot. That would be equivalent to
something like a seventy seat pickup and is the highest
(00:56):
you know, generic ballot deficit that they've read a share
for the Democrats and I don't know how many years. So,
like I said, definitely an outlier. However, if you look
at the average of the generic ballot polling over the
past even just over the past month, it has shifted
more and more towards the Democratic side. And of course
we saw what happened in the off Your elections were
(01:18):
not only in Virginia did you have insane margins for Spanberger,
in New Jersey, for Cheryl you had in states like
Georgia and states like Mississippi, In you know, states like Pennsylvania,
you had this huge shift towards the Democrats. And so
there seems to be somewhat of a bottom falling out
right now for Republicans over a whole variety of concerns.
(01:40):
And at the same time, Trump's own approval rating has
also been falling significantly, including in this recent Fox News poll.
Let's go ahead and take a listen to them covering.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
That President Trump's approval rating falling to thirty eight percent.
That is the lowest it's been in his second term.
People are unhappy with Trump's handling of consumer prizes, and yes,
the Epstein five Kim Strassele joining us this morning, Does
this mean Trump's affordability messaging isn't working yet?
Speaker 4 (02:08):
Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. Stewart, And this is
a huge wake up call for Republicans. And if you
actually look at Trump's approval rating, it actually has been
sliding for a while. And I think what happened here
is voters had a lot of optimism that he really
was going to turn around the economy, and they've given him,
you know, nine months now, and they've been waiting. But
(02:30):
suddenly they've been looking around and things really haven't improved
to the degree that they thought they would on cost
of living.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
And I think there's a variety of factors that go
into this. By the way, I think Epstein is part
of the numbers and the you know, sort of discussed
You've seen a decline of Trump's improve approval rating even
among Republicans. The last all I saw had him down
around eighty seven percent, which is still like obviously the
vast majority of Republicans, but typically on that metric, he
has almost universal support within the Republican Party. So even
(02:57):
that amount of slippage within the Republican part already is significant.
But sagara, if you look at that first Maris pool,
where Democrats have such an incredible edge, they ask people, Okay, well,
what should the Trump administration be focused on? The number
one thing that they said. Fifty seven percent a voter
said that the number one thing they should be concerned
about is lowering prices. So I really think it's the
sense of, you know, a betrayal on some promises that
(03:19):
were made on the campaign trail about being focused on
the bottom line for families. The sense groceries just this
week hit another all time high as we head into
the holiday season, we're just talking about AI and the
electric bills, healthcare skyrocketing. There's not going to be any
extension of the ACA subsidies, so those premiums are just
absolutely going through the roof. And I think, you know,
(03:40):
there are a lot of things that people are disatisfied
with the Trump administration about, but if you had to
pick one, this sense that I thought you would do
well on the economy for me, and instead you're building
yourself a ballroom and you don't really seem to give
a shit about the fact that I can't afford enough
food to feed my family and make it to the
end of the month. And by the way, you know,
this whole war on food stamps I don't think helps
that whole picture as well. That would be the core
(04:01):
of the major problems that they have.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Right now, Yeah, that groceries. Let's stick on the grocery thing.
One thousand dollars a month now on groceries, So that's
twelve k a year after tax income. Take a look
at the you know, average salary currently. But this is
really what struck me, and this is the whole story.
Grocery prices are up thirty seven percent in twenty seventeen.
And this is why I got so frustrated when Biden
did it. Whenever he's like, whoa, we went down by
(04:24):
five percent, I'm like, still up twenty five dude, saying
now with Trump? Right when Trump is like, oh, well
they recently did this thing with gas prices, They're like, look,
gas is three dollars a gallon. It's five cents lower
than it was last year. I'm like, you're expecting me
to celebrate here, right, come on, you you know, in
terms of the promises that were made, it should be
a dollar cheaper. Same thing whenever it comes to the
grocery price. That is an additional two hundred and fifty
(04:45):
dollars in monthly expenses for a family of four from
twenty seventeen, every single one of us knows it. In fact,
you know, I mean, think the sticker shock these you
ever walked, if you walked by the stake section in
the grocery store lately, get us might as well be
a pass Good Luck Christmas, you know, for real, though,
this is happening, I think, and it's organic to the
point where I even hear and you know, no friends
(05:07):
who are telling stories about going to the grocery store
and just for the first time being like, nope, we're
moving on. You know, we're going to the bargain bin
where a lot of other people have been now for
quite some time. That's not the way that we were
supposed to live, and at least in my opinion, and
it's one of those where it's not just the promise,
it's about the focus on the other stuff. Trump is
wrapped up in himself in the ballroom. It doesn't seem
(05:30):
like it cares enough about the everyday average person. That
was the same curse that doom Biden. And that's why
I think they have the identical poll numbers. It really
is kind of shocking. If you go back to November
of this same time period four years ago, the concern
was is he cares more about foreign policy. He's not
even very good at foreign policy.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
That's all he spends most of his time about.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
He's not doing anything about all of these problems that
are compounding in my life. It feels like the president is,
you know, out to lunch, and all of these issues
that a year ago we elected or so to do
so are there's no progress, and you're not doing anything
to fight against it. It's the same exact political circumstance
and it's not you know all that. And the sad
(06:10):
part is the party apparatus around Trump is, in my opinion,
basically the same like the Democratic party apparatus around Biden.
They're all just posting about this bullshit from charts, like, oh,
actually the economy is good, the stock market is at
record how It's like, you know, there's no ability to
have any internal dissent. There's a little bit Marjorie Taylor Green,
a few others, but not really. And then you add
(06:31):
the Trump kind of culture personality on top of that.
It's impossible to get away from. So they're gonna sink.
They're gonna sink. I don't, and there's no internal mechanism
until the midterms to make them ship by that time,
it's too late, as George W. Bush, Okay, by that point,
you're a joke. And then now the twenty twenty eight
election has.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
Begun, let's take a look at this next element. This
was a Marquette Law School pole now on their generic
congressional ballot, just to again give you a sense that
the other one is definitely an outlier. But they have
Democrats with a five point lead in the popular vote
on the general on the generic battle, which also would
be indicative of a significant victory for the Democrats. And
they have Trump's approval rating down at forty three percent
(07:08):
and disapproval up at fifty seven percent. On the individual
issues here, the thing people give them the most credit
for is the Israel Hamas cease fire, which you know,
he gets a lot of credit for that one. There's
still a lot of problems, there's still a lot of violence,
a lot of suffering, etc. But people right now feel like, Okay, well,
at least he's secured this deal. It drops pretty precipitously
(07:29):
from there though. Border security, he's still above water plus eight.
Immigration overall though minus ten, tariffs minus twenty six, economy
minus twenty eight. Russia, Ukraine War minus thirty four, inflation
and cost of living, which again that's like the number
one issue for most people minus forty four, information about
Jeffrey Epstein minus forty eight, shut down of the federal
(07:51):
government minus fifty And the least popular issue that they
tested was providing twenty to forty billion dollars to stabilize
Argentina's economy. Everyone hated that one at minus fifty eight.
But I mean the big categories here, when you're looking
at inflation and cost of living, that he's underwater by
forty four points. I mean, that is a devastating indictment
(08:15):
of this administration and their lack of care for ordinary
people going about their day to day lives and just
trying to make it paycheck to paycheck. And you know,
I just I have to bring it back to AI
as well, because as much as things are very difficult
economically now, and you have seventy plus percent of people
that say the economy is poor, the whole goal of
AI is to make that so much worse for you,
(08:35):
is to eliminate jobs. We've played Kevin Hassett talking about
how it's going to be a quote unquote quiet time
in the labor market because ai AI improves productivity. That's
their positive framing of it. What that means is layoffs.
What that means is people coming out of college not
being able to find work. That's what this whole policy
push is aiming for. That is the goal. The goal
(08:57):
of their policy approach on AI is to spike unemployment,
to massively surge layoffs. So as challenging as things are now,
the whole thrust of their policy agenda in their partnership
with this tech oligarchs is to make things worse. There's
also one more significant piece. I think Ryan and Emiley
touched on this yesterday about worth mentioning here as well.
(09:19):
So Trump realized seemingly a while ago, like things were
not looking super hot for the midterms, and so he
decided to do this big redistricting push pressured a bunch
of states. Some of those states, Indiana said no, we're
not going to actually do it because some of our
seats in jeopardy and we don't really want to. Texas, however,
went through with redrawing their congressional map. Well, now you
(09:40):
have a federal judge that has come to the last
element Guy's Politico tear sheet. You have a federal judge
that came in and is saying, actually, this map is illegal.
So what you could end up with now, this will
go through appeals blah blah blah. This isn't the final say,
but you could theoretically end up with a situation where
Texas's map gets blood in California because they went to
(10:02):
the voters and go through their process. California actually goes
through their redistricting. So it is actually possible at this
point that the whole redistricting push from the Trump administration
backfires and Democrats end up gaining ground. Now there's a
lot of caveats to that. You also have this potential
Supreme Court decision which will put a number of other
seats on the table. As I said, this isn't final,
(10:23):
et cetera, but certainly the redistricting push is not going
as well at this point as Republicans and Trump had
hoped that it would be.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
A Yeah, I know, it's the jerrymandering thing. I mean,
one of the ironies I've said this too is I
actually think that jerrymandering would backfire tremendously in Texas because
it presumes that all these South Texas Latinos and other
constituencies for Republican just in twenty twenty four are going
to stay Republican. Why Like, if we lived through which
we did twenty sixteen to twenty twenty, it was not
(10:50):
uncommon to see forty or fifty point swings. And in fact,
if the factory in twenty twenty four, twenty sixteen to
twenty twenty four, literally fifty points swings from Hillary like
plus fifty to Trump plus you know, I don't even know,
like Trump plus ten or something like that. It's craziness.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
So why couldn't it shift back? Well, it actually did
in this election, Like you look at some of the
Union City, New Jersey, for example, went from like Trump
plus ten to I don't know, have Democrats plus forties.
I mean, it was like crazy. So that's that's fair.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
It is not as big of an election, right, you know,
it's much we're talking about. No, you're totally right, But
I'm saying not just midterms, but in general, because these
districts are locked for years, right, So it'll be five
years now. So in the next presidential election, in a
high turnout, low propensity election, what makes you possibly think
that you're gonna win that you know, you could get nuked,
which I think you're hot this point. I think you're
(11:39):
on track. So they may have done themselves a favor.
Speaker 1 (11:42):
They may yeah, they may actually be like you know,
you're right those we should get rid of those maps
because I mean they are definitely in danger because inherently,
when you redraw these maps, you make some of the
districts that are still Republican districts, you make them close.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Yeah, like fifty two forty eight, which is a death now.
I mean, look a Tea Party. Just to give you know,
an anim My congressman, his name was Chet Edwards.
Speaker 5 (12:02):
From where I was from.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
He was always famous for being a Democrat who represented
the most Republican district and he won for twenty some
years and then in twenty ten, twenty ten, you know,
even though he'd faced multiple election challenges, he got blown
out by I don't even remember the margin. It was unbelievable.
It didn't even have a chance. So if it's a
Tea Party style wave that's coming, I mean these districts,
(12:28):
it's not unheard of to see two, five, ten, fifteen
point swings, which is what happened in his case. This
is a guy who literally survived multiple even in the
Bush era post nine to eleven, he was able to
win and then the Tea party wave case wiped out.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
Yeah, two thousand and eight was like that. On the
Democratic side, there were kinds of people who like raise
no money and nobody thought would win and then suddenly
they're like being sworn into Congress.
Speaker 6 (12:51):
You know.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
And Tom Perryello lennot down in Virginia Beach was another
one of those where it was like, oh, we didn't
think that was even a possibility. Here you are, so yeah,
they are kind of playing with fire with that, And
I was just thinking back, so, like, you know, we
started the block with the generic ballot, which is just
you say, okay, if your choice is a Democrat or Republican,
who do you pick for Congress? And so if we
(13:14):
think about in Virginia, Abigail Spanberger won by like by
thirteen points roughly, and Kamala Harris had won the state
of a Virginia by six points. So that's like a
seven point Democratic improvement over Kamala Harris's performance. So I mean,
I think a Democrats with a maybe a five point
(13:35):
generic ballot lead, like that's about where I would put it,
right now, and that's roughly where the averages have it.
I think they have it somewhere between four and five.
That other pole that I mentioned, the Marquette Law School
poll has it a generic ballot plus five. That would
be enough that even if they do all their gerrymandering
and the Supreme Court comes in and they do whatever
they're mess they're doing with the voter rolls, which is
all stuff that's really happening, like, it would still be
(13:57):
a large enough popular vote victory that Democrats would get
control of the House. Now, they have tilted the landscape
enough that it will require significant popular vote victory from
the Democrats in order to get control of the House.
But I think it's looking like it's going to be
too big to rig. It's at this point, given the
disgust and the dissatisfaction with the Trump administration and how
(14:18):
weak he is right now, how disgusted people are, how
unhappy they are with the economy, and the fact that
those trends are probably going to continue, It's looking like
a pretty pretty heavy reckoning that is headed for the
Republican Party.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Yeah, let me give a shout out to People's pundit
Rich Barris. I've talked about him before. He's like a
maga pundit polster. Honestly, it was actually pretty accurate if
going back into twenty twenty and to twenty twenty four.
But he's been on Steve Bannon's show sounding the alarm
about this. So the smart maga set, they know the
ones who aren't complete sick of fans, like they get
the deal with this.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Stuff on the asarment number of times as he really
I haven't seen he did leading into the off year,
this year's election, oh right, in terms of registration.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
I mean, look, anybody really think Pennsylvania is not going
to go be a massive wipeout Like they barely won
it in twenty twenty four, and in twenty sixteen Biden
won it by like what a point something like that.
It's always been a it's just a swingey state. And
so yeah, I don't know. I mean, they're gonna look
midterms again. Barring a black Swan event, anything gonna happen. Obviously,
(15:17):
rovers's way came out of nowhere, say the Democrats, not
saying it couldn't happen, certainly could but for where things
are right now.
Speaker 5 (15:24):
It's bad.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
Well let's get to another one of the Trump administration's
finest hours here with regard to their prosecution of Jim Comey.
This is hilario. Put the second tar sheet, guys, the
New York Times tear sheet up on the screen. I'm
gonna read from a good bit of this. So you guys, remember, Okay,
the US attorney in the eastern Eastern District of Virginia
resigned because he did not was pushed out whatever. He
(15:50):
did not want to charge Kombe because he did not
think there was enough there there. So instead they put
in this total Trump loyalist hack named Lindsay Halligan, who
has never tried She's never been involved in a criminal case, okay,
never done this before. They put her in and then
she has to go present this case to a grand
jury and secure indictment like days after she's put into
(16:12):
this office again having never done this before. So Cally,
of course, has the best legal team you could possibly have.
His lawyer on his side has presented over one hundred
different cases to the Supreme Court, you know, knowledgeable, experienced, etc.
And they are making the case that this prosecution of
(16:32):
him is a vindictive prosecution ship to be thrown out
entirely and of course you've got Trump's words in the
past and putting this Lindsay Halligan person in and all
of that. But in addition to that, we are now
learning that she failed to present the whole case to
the grand jury. So let me read from the courtroom
(16:52):
exchange here, just you know, so you can get how
extraordinary this is. They say, Trump loyalist admits grandjury never
saw final Comy indictment. A federal judge grilled the prosecutors
pursuing charges against James Comy, the former FBI Director, on Wednesday,
interrogating them with a series of questions that underscored irregularities
in the case, including that the full grand jury did
(17:12):
not see the indictment it was supposed to have approved.
The questioning by the judge, Michael Knachmanoff took place at
an excruciatingly awkward hearing in Federal District Court in Alexandria,
Virginia that was nominally held to consider the narrow issue
of whether the charges against Comy had been filed as
an act of vindictive retribution by President Trump, But Judge
(17:33):
Nachmanoff peppered prosecutors with questions on a range of topics,
including mister Trump's own statements about wanting Comy to be indicted,
and an earlier decision by career members of the US
Attorney's Office in Alexandria to forego bringing charges. In one
remarkable moment, the judge posed some of his questions directly
to Lindsay Halligan, the US attorney handpicked by Trump to
(17:55):
bring the case, quizzing her on how she had presented
it to the Grand Jury US this week. That subject
led another judge involved in the case to suggest she
may have engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. Judge Nachmanov's inquiries were
extraordinary by almost any measure, but the ANSWER's prosecutors gave
him in return were even more so. At one point,
Miss Halligan admitted she had never shown the second and
(18:18):
final version of the Komy indictment to the full grand
jury before the four persons signed the charging document. Mister
Comy's lawyers immediately seized on that irregularity, calling it another
reason to dismiss the case entirely. At another point, one
of Miss Halligan's subordinates, Tyler Lemons, acknowledged that someone in
the Deputy Attorney General's office had instructed him not to
(18:38):
discuss in open court whether his predecessors had or had
not written a memo laying out their reasons for not
bringing charges, because that was privileged information. In the end,
mister Lemmons, appearing unnerved under questioning, confessed that the prosecutors
who had previously handled the case had indeed written a
draft of a memo declining prosecution. They say, the spectacle
played down over ninety minutes. So TLDR. Here you've got
(19:02):
Trump who has said plainly, we can put the next
I think this is the third element in this block,
has said plainly that he wanted to see Komy prosecuted.
So that's pretty indicative of a vindictive retribution here. Then
you have Halligan, who has no idea what she's doing,
who screws up the grand jury presentation and effectly effectively soccer.
(19:22):
What happened here is they wanted to indict him on
three charges. The government did. One of those charges got rejected.
So what you have to do in that case is
you have to represent the you know, the indictment with
just the two charges you're going forward with. She didn't
do that. She just had the four person who is
just an ordinary citizen and doesn't know better sign off
(19:44):
on the two charges that they did accept, so she
screwed up the grand jury process. And then you have
also hanging over this these other you know, two individuals
who I think had to be sourced from other offices
because you couldn't get anyone, you know, who was reasonable
to go along with this, to be forced to admit
that their colleagues previously had said we shouldn't actually charge
this guy, which again is indicative of this was a
(20:06):
vindictive prosecution. It's supposedly a very high bar to meet.
You have to show that there would not have been charges,
that this case would not have gone forward if you
didn't have this, you know, vindictive drive from the President
of the United States. But it's looking increasingly like even
that high bar they're likely to meet. So you have
the attempted you know, authoritarian prosecution, retribution against the enemies.
(20:29):
And then you also have just classic Trump administration clownish,
clownish incompetence, and buffoonish behavior where they have someone who
has never been involved in a criminal case before now
in this extraordinarily high pressure role and absolutely blowing.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
It and they are It's this is like the latest
example of you know, somebody called it, you know, the
authoritarian of Duncis, and I thought.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
That was it. I actually thought that was very apt.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
Because this has now been the Halligan case against Komi.
Then you have previously like Sandwich Guy or any of
these other things that have fallen apart completely in court
and judges literally laughing at them. And look, I mean,
I'm not defending James Comy. I think James Comy is
a sack of shit. All right, We've covered it here before,
even in terms of the charges against him. I'm like, look,
(21:17):
I actually think there might be something there, and especially
with the way that he handled himself, not just with Trump,
with Hillary, that whole thing I was there. I covered
it was insane, the way that he handled that entire
case Russiagate as well, Like, this is not a man
whose hands are clean, of course, though they go after him,
you know, in the most clownish, buffoonish way possible, and
are now making it so that the judge very may
(21:39):
well throw out this entire thing because of their own idiocy.
And so this kind of gets to I remember Liberals
would always be upset with Merrit Garland and others for
incompetently pursuing those cases against Trump. This is the same
if you are upset with Comy about Russiagate, at which
I am still am.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
It was bad.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
Yeah, it's horrible, the Hillary thing, the emails case. I
will never forget that press conference about Hillary in October.
If you're a Hillary supporter, you should be mad. I mean,
by the way, she clearly was guilty of sin in
the fact that in charge, he is still ridiculous. Whatever
it's been, you know, eight or so years, but the
way he handled that way he handled everything. If you're
(22:17):
gonna go after him, then you have to do it right.
He's a multi millionaire with great lawyers in the entire
liberal establishment behind him. He can't fuck things up with
basic rudimentary errors which literally make it bit clownish and
have it so a federal judge, by the way, in Alexandria, Virginia,
where already you know, look, I literally live there. Okay,
none of my neighbors are voting to convict James Comb.
He could be guilty as shit, they still wouldn't convicted her.
(22:38):
But even if you know so, you were going up
against strong hit headwinds. Anyways, and now you know, looking
at the way that this is, it probably won't even
make it to.
Speaker 1 (22:47):
Trial, So yeah, what it's looking platic And look, on
the other hand, you know, maybe they always thought that
this would fail or didn't really care and just wanted
to like send a signal. You know, if you are
less of a media figure and less wealthy than Jim Comey,
and this is I'm sure not fun for Jim Comy either,
by the way, but he's going to be fine. You know,
(23:07):
if you're someone who is less well positioned and can't
get the guy who you know, presented over one hundred
cases of the Supreme Court to be your lawyer, if
you're not in that position, then you still see their
behavior and the way you know they're digging up. They're
now trying to charge Eric Swalwell with this mortgage broad
stuff and Letitia James and obviously they already went after
Comy for this thing, which, by the to be honest
(23:28):
with you, the way this case has come out has
made me feel like there was less there there with
Jim Comy, Like it's making me, in my opinion, him
look more innocent than he actually looked before that before
they tried to charge him and tried to indict him here.
But in any case, you know, maybe the message is
just an attempt to send a message. Maybe it's just
an attempt to scare people. And they didn't even really
care that much whether it succeeded at trial. They just
(23:49):
wanted to like exact as much pain on him as
they could and send a message to their opposition. But
it doesn't look like this is going to get too
far onto the gates here, which is I guess a
good thing to see.
Speaker 2 (24:01):
Looking bad looking bad indeed, And it's one of those
where you know, this big clownish behavior just makes it
so that I mean, first of all, you know what
about double Jeopardy all the other things you know that
you could look previously if you actually do care about
accountability for these types of individuals, doing it this way.
Speaker 5 (24:17):
Just the worst possible.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
All right, we got a good guest standing by Ross Barkin.
Let's get to it, all right, guys.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
So there's a whole lot of zoron stuff going on.
He's supposed to meet with President Trump, he's blocking endorsements,
all kinds of things that are happening. Also, other New
York City primary challenges coming from the left. So to
break all of this down the perfect person, Ross Barkin,
who is an expert on all of these things and
is a calmness for New York magazine. Great to see you, Ross,
Good to see you man.
Speaker 5 (24:44):
Excited to be on.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
Yeah, of course, So let's put the Trump truth up
on the screen. Here the announcement that he's meeting with
the communist mayor of New York City. He says Zoron,
Kwame Mamdani has asked for a meeting. We've agreed that
this meeting will take place at the Oval Office on Friday,
November twenty first, That would be tomorrow. Further details to follow.
Zoron was on with Chris Hayes over on MSNBC and
(25:07):
he was asked about this visit. Let's go ahead and
take a listen to that. Mo'm Donnie, and nice to
have you here, mister mayor elect.
Speaker 7 (25:11):
Good to vig here, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 5 (25:13):
Is the is the Trump? Is the White House meeting real?
Who knows what's real these days? But do you understand
it as a real thing.
Speaker 7 (25:19):
We did reach out to the White House, and my
team reached out because of a commitment that I made
to New Yorkers that I would be willing to meet
with anyone and everyone, so long as it was to
the benefit of eight and a half million people who
call the city home and their struggle to afford the
most expensive city United States of America.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
So Ross, what do you think about this move from Zoran?
Speaker 6 (25:35):
Do you have to do it right? I think it
makes sense. You know, he is the incoming mayor. Donald
Trump is the president of the United States, and I
think you know, there are ways to deal with Trump,
and I think one of the ways to do it
is to really.
Speaker 5 (25:48):
Hit him head on.
Speaker 6 (25:49):
I think you meet with him, you can certainly stand
up to in public. I think the governor of New York,
Kathy Hokels, had some success wrangling with Trump and that
they talk on the phone fairly frequently. And at least
for now, there hasn't been a National Guard encourasion into
New York City. I mean see having ice agents running around,
So you know, I think it's a natural move to
(26:10):
make you have the meeting. You see where it goes.
You check, you check Trump's temperature, and of course they're
going to be fights. It's going to get volatile. But
I do think you at least start off from a place
of some cordiality. You hope that Trump will not make
your life overly difficult, though the reality is he probably
will anyway.
Speaker 5 (26:28):
But it doesn't hurt to take a meeting.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
I wonder if how Cole advised him. Actually, yeah, mentioned that.
I wonder about this.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
Ross. I feel like it could be to his political
benefit to get into a fight with Trump. I mean,
he made a big portion of his campaign speech Trump
turn up the volume and.
Speaker 5 (26:42):
All of that.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
Why, you know be you know, look what happened with Whitmer,
Look what happened with all of these other politicians who
have met with Trump and kind of seen is kissing
his ass. I mean going in there and you know,
quote confronting him or making a scene would almost certainly
backfire on the city.
Speaker 5 (26:56):
I'm not sure I really understand this well. I think
it's there's two factors of play.
Speaker 6 (27:01):
One hand, Yes, you know, battling Trump can lift your
political standing. You start with Karen Bass in Los Angeles,
where her career is really recessitated after the guards showed
up there, and the same can happen for Zorn Bomdani
as well. I think at least having a meeting with
the President at the outset before you take office.
Speaker 5 (27:20):
Is not hurtful to his brand.
Speaker 6 (27:23):
It's not destructive, and maybe it pays some dividends, maybe
not at all.
Speaker 5 (27:27):
It may pay nothing.
Speaker 6 (27:29):
But I think you know that Kathy Holkl has spoken
with Trump on the phone many times, she's gone to
the old office. She still combats them in public. They're
not friendly. But I think it's it's an inside outside strategy.
I think Zorn is not going to stop being anti
Trump banning means, or stop calling out his many destructive policies.
(27:50):
But I think, you know, pursuing insider outsider strategy is
not the worst thing to do.
Speaker 5 (27:56):
I mean, we'll see what comes.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
Up comes up. A Scheinbaum in Mexico is another one
who's you know, played this game and you know has
it seems to have. Trump seems to like her. They
seem to have a good working relationship, even though you
know she stands up for Mexico sovereignty when and how
she needs to. I also think, you know, it could
be kind of a political ploy to show, look, I
(28:17):
reached out, I was ready to work together. My bottom
line is, I don't care whether we're political adversaries. I'm
just trying to deliver for the people of New York.
So I think that maybe how he's trying to play it.
But it's going to be very very interesting to see
what comes out of this meeting and what impression is
given by the present what he has to say about
the meeting after this. I also wanted to to ask
you about the latest with regard to Zoron and ch Osa,
(28:42):
who is a DSA member, although my Er Shay is
relatively new DSA member who's announced a primary challenge against
Hakeem Jeffries. And you might think that Zoron, being the
insurgent leftist, would be like, let's go and they have
a you know, a relationship as well of trust from
the past to build on. But instead, not only has
he not endorsed Cheese bid, but he actively went to
(29:05):
a DSA meeting last night to speak out against DSA
endorsing Chi in his bid against Hakim Jeffries. Zorn was
asked about this recently. This was before he went to
that meeting, by the way, but about why he is
backing Hikim Jeffries in this primary fight. This is F three.
Let's go ahead and listen to that.
Speaker 8 (29:25):
Let me talk about Haike Jeffries for a moment, who
now may face a challenge from Chosa, who is a
member of the DSA. You said that there are local
issues that mister Osa should be focused on, maybe should
remain a counselman. Are you saying he should not run
against Hakim Jeffries?
Speaker 7 (29:37):
Now, I'm saying that I think the focus should be
right here on New York City. I respect the work
that Council Member Osa has done.
Speaker 5 (29:42):
It what does that mean should he not run?
Speaker 7 (29:44):
I think that right now is not the time to
be engaging in that kind of a primary. I think
the focus should be on delivering on this affordability agenda.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
So tell us about this perspective. Tell us about this
meeting last night, Like, what the hell is going on here? U?
Speaker 5 (29:57):
I do you think Zoron was being a little mealy mouthed.
Speaker 6 (30:00):
I'll speak in a way where I'll speak having spoken
to members of DSA myself and getting a sense of
how they feel, longtime members, it's that they don't feel
Chosa is a genuine member of the essay to start with,
he only joined a few months ago. There's a feeling
that he's somewhat I don't want to use the word usurper.
(30:21):
But he's someone who's glombing on very recently. You look
at also the Primarychosa was a bit of a late
backer Zorn. He actually co endorsed with Brad Lander. You know,
he hopped on the bandwagon. That's fine.
Speaker 5 (30:34):
I think talking to the members I've talked to.
Speaker 6 (30:37):
The way they look at it is they want to
focus on the state legislature or potentially on Dan Goldman,
and they feel like Kakeen Jeffries, while they would love
to get rid of him, it's not really a winnable fight.
It's a district where Zorn did well in the primary,
but not He won that district, but not overwhelmingly. So
(30:59):
there's a real strategic question of can you defeat Hakim Jeffries,
who is not scandal scarred right, who does not have really,
you know, true weaknesses beyond the politics themselves, in a
pretty diverse district where he has to support for a
middle class, working class black voters, can you go in
and beat him. There's a faction of DSA that says, yes,
(31:19):
we have to do this. Hakim Jeffries is against us.
There's another faction that feels this isn't that strategic, and
I do think Zoron is, you know, using his early
clout to try to steer the DSAY more strategically. I
do expect him to back other insurgents, other primary challengers.
You know, the reality is he's going to be mayor
of New York. Hakim Jeffries could be Speaker at the
(31:40):
House in twenty twenty seven, sitting there in Brooklyn. And
while Hakim Jeffries is in Share Your Politics, he's got
to represent the entire Democratic Caucus, and you know, like
a Pelosi, he could be pushed in different directions.
Speaker 5 (31:53):
So I get it. I get where he's coming from.
Speaker 6 (31:55):
I don't think he's messaging it publicly the best way
I would say for Zoron, but.
Speaker 5 (31:59):
I think there's logic to.
Speaker 6 (32:01):
Dissuading OSAY or at least saying you can run, but
the DSSAY is not going to support you.
Speaker 5 (32:06):
You run, Let's see what happens.
Speaker 6 (32:07):
And the reality is he probably won't win, and Zoron
needs Jeffries.
Speaker 5 (32:13):
He heeds at least the Democratic leadership.
Speaker 6 (32:16):
He's in a strong but also vulnerable position as a
thirty four year old new mayor, so I understand where
he's coming from.
Speaker 5 (32:25):
But I also see why a lot on the left
would question it for it that way.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
Yeah, these are the realities of power. Yeah, I mean,
I also I understand his logic. However, I disagree with
it strategically because you know, I think we've seen some
similar calculus from AOC where it's like, Okay, I'm here,
I'm going to play the inside game, and I don't
think that that has really borne fruit. So from my perspective,
you have to use the power that you have to
(32:51):
effectively sort of like coerce and bully these people because
they will stab you in the back the moment that
they have the chance. Like heem, Jefferies does not endorse
or on until what like two days before the primary.
It was incredibly passive aggressive. And so even if you
think thatsa can't win and we could go and put
F four up on the screen, Micha Lang did a
bunch of analysis backing up what you're saying that this
(33:12):
would be very very difficult in order to be able
to actually pull up the upset here. But even if
you think that he can't win, the fact of him
being in the primary pushes Jeffries. I mean, we see
the way Hochel has had to like sort of bend
and adjust and accommodate Zorn's politics for herself in order to,
(33:33):
you know, make sure that Antonio Delgado doesn't have a
shot at taking her in a primary. So I feel
like that primary is really valuable, even if you think
it's a long shot to be able to win. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (33:45):
I think that's a fair point.
Speaker 6 (33:47):
I think it's two schools of thought, right that there's
the school I just gave, which is sort of maybe
the more moderate DSA members plus they're on have you know,
you're giving the view that it's kind of the the
in a way that the Trump approached the Republican Party,
which has largely been successful for Trump. I mean, leftists
can only dream of dominating the Democratic Party the way
(34:08):
MAGA still holds total sway over Republicans.
Speaker 5 (34:12):
So it's a fair counter argument.
Speaker 6 (34:16):
I think I see it that if you run Osay,
you can really pressure Jeffries. My sense is there's just
some skepticism of Osay himself within DSA. It almost may
even come down to that thatsa were as they say,
cadre DSA, where he's someone who like Zoron or other
members who had been a part of it for many years.
(34:38):
They feel more enthusiastic about him. I think there's a
feeling that he's a bit of a you know, he's
coming to the party very late, doesn't really share the
values of the organization. He wants the endorsement because he
wants to run and he wants the attention. But I
think you're also right in that OS could be a
valuable piece of leverage over someone like Jeffrey, enforce them
(35:00):
to the left. And there's no doubt politicians response to
power that is true.
Speaker 2 (35:04):
I'm also curious, you know, Ross, I saw a report
that Zoran was kind of dealing with some of the
anti Zionists within DSA. I'm just curious, you know, how
that's manifesting in terms of staffing, Like, what does the
current selection process this is when you know, the nitty
gritty gets real, the transition team, the staffers, who's coming
into the administration.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
What's that looking like right now?
Speaker 5 (35:27):
So so far, you've seen a mix.
Speaker 6 (35:29):
You've seen him reappoint Jessica Tish, who was appointed by
Eric Adams and is at best a political moderate. You know,
she's certainly a Zionist and she's a billionaire and she's
very well liked by the business community. So there you
have a you know, concession capitulationever you want to call
it to moderates in the business faction. At the same time,
(35:51):
he's appointed as his chief of staff el Viscard Church,
who is his age, who is his old Assembly chief
of staff, who is in every way cadre DSA. You know,
she's a believer. He's appointed a first mayor in Dean Foolhan.
Who splits the difference, I would say between Tish and
(36:11):
Elle where fool a hand. He was Deblasio's first deputy mayor.
He also worked for the Assembly Speaker, Shelley Silver for
many years. He's very much a man of institutions. He's
in the seventies. He has a lot of experience with budgets,
but he also has a progressive streak. He's sort of
more center left. So I think so far you're seeing
a real mix. I think you're going to see members
(36:33):
of DSA elevate in this administration.
Speaker 5 (36:35):
That is inarguable.
Speaker 6 (36:36):
At the same time you going to see an administration
I do believe of experience and competence, and that is
very important for a young mayor like him, especially coming
off of four years of chaos and corruption with Eric Adams.
Speaker 5 (36:49):
You've got to run clean, good government.
Speaker 6 (36:51):
The Left has had very few chances at executive choule
executive power, so of all eyes across the country, world
will be on him. So it's very important to avoid scandal,
to not get tripped up, to not be self defeating,
like Brandon Johnson in Chicago for example. So I do
expect a pretty strong and confident administration, and so far
(37:13):
you've seen his appointments a real ideological mix the left,
i'd say, sort of center left and on the right
with Jessica Tish.
Speaker 1 (37:21):
Yeah, I mean the stakes. I'm sure he feels the
stakes are very high for his political project because you know,
if when it's Eric Adams and he's you know, center
right effectively and he sucks and he fails, no one says,
oh well, centrists can't govern. But when it's the left,
if they fail, and especially with Oran being so high profile,
(37:41):
then it's oh see, you can't trust these people with power,
and this is an indictment of the entire political project.
So you know, the stakes are I think he's right
to perceive the stakes here are incredibly high, not just
obviously for the City of New York, but more broadly
for DSA and DSA aligned candidates. I wanted to ask
you more broadly about what's going on in New York City.
There's so many primary challengers that are jumping in. I'm
(38:02):
having trouble keeping track. Richie Torus has drawn a couple
of primary challengers. You have the primary challenge pi Keen Jeffries.
I saw Espayet is expected to get a challenger. I
think Grace meng is that her name has also gotten
a challenger. Very likely Brad Lander is going to get
in against Dan Goldman, and I think Goldman will get crushed.
You can tell me if you think that I'm wrong
about that. I may be missing others. But you know,
(38:22):
what do you make of this? This has got to
be a Zorn effect in New York specifically, and we're
seeing echoes of this truly across the country in so
many races. Again, I can't keep track of the number
of people that I'm seeing who have very similar politics,
who are coming out of nowhere to jump into primaries
and challenge power. So what do you see there in
(38:42):
New York in terms of the energy on the ground.
Speaker 5 (38:45):
There's no doubt.
Speaker 6 (38:46):
It's a Zorn effect that actually reminds me the thought
from AOC in twenty eighteen, where you saw in twenty
twenty a lot of primary challengers, and you saw even
you know, the state legislative primary candidates in twenty eight
team get a real boost from AOC's victory over Crowley.
So I think that those currents are back. The challenges
are a mix. I think the most viable by far
(39:09):
as the one against Dan Goldman. I believe if Lander
gets in, he will win. There is some consternation that
there could be vote splitting. If also there's a DSA
City council member, Lexa Vilis who is interested in running,
they'll probably, my guess is Lander and her will come
to an arrangement and one of them will run. Because
(39:29):
there is no rank choice voting for congressional primaries, there
will be votes wasted if you have two insurgent challengers.
So you know, Goldman just sitting on a district that
is much more progressive than he is.
Speaker 5 (39:40):
That's the reality of it.
Speaker 6 (39:41):
And I do expect Lander in the end to be
his sole prominent challenger, and I do expect him to
win the others are more interesting. I mean Richie Torres
in one hand, certainly to the right of his district.
His challenger, Michael Blake, has run for office many times,
including a run for mayor, including a run for that district.
He's largely been uns successful, so the question is can he,
(40:03):
you know, find momentum and win.
Speaker 5 (40:06):
Grace may is interesting out in central Queens.
Speaker 6 (40:08):
Her district is actually fairly moderate, so I'm not convinced
she can get beaten from the left. I don't know
much about the spot challenge yet. That's an interesting one too.
I mean, he's fairly strong in his district and he
endorsed her on in the general, so hard to see
him taking too much heat from the left.
Speaker 5 (40:25):
I think the key race will be the Dan Goldman race.
I think that one.
Speaker 6 (40:29):
There is a real pickup opportunity for progressives. I do
think it will happen. The rest are trickier.
Speaker 5 (40:35):
And more long shot. That's how I've described them right now.
Speaker 2 (40:39):
But you messed George Conway.
Speaker 1 (40:42):
Ye oh, yeah, well that's New York twelve. That's that's
an open one.
Speaker 6 (40:46):
That's not a chal hiring seat where everyone everyone is running,
including Jack Schlosberg, and yeah, it's going to be a
real mess.
Speaker 2 (40:54):
We've got We've got a Kennedy, We've got George Conway.
Speaker 5 (40:56):
It's just a you know, it's going to be a
great race.
Speaker 1 (40:59):
Well, we actually called it's cam Caaski, who's trying to
lock down sort of like the left or progressive lane
in that primary, who just launched young guy activists. Let's
go ahead and take a listen. This is F six.
Let's go ahead and look at his launch video.
Speaker 9 (41:13):
My name is Cameron Caski, and I'm running for Congress
because there's no real path forward for most Americans.
Speaker 1 (41:18):
You and your family are.
Speaker 9 (41:19):
Working all week just to spend most of your paycheck
on rent and healthcare. Meanwhile, the richest people in our
country are telling us that we can't afford real solutions
like social housing and medicare for all. No, we can
only afford genocide, pollunteer, mass surveillance contracts, and ice ducks.
I'm running because we need people in Congress who are
going to do something about it and work on laws
that help all Americans. Isn't that crazy and radical? Turns
(41:43):
out we actually can build a society. We're feeding children
instead of tearing them away for their families where streets
are lined with federal housing and small businesses instead of
the National Guard.
Speaker 1 (41:53):
So what do you make specifically of Cameron Caski? But
this broader I mean it's I don't know how many
candidates have jumped, like eight different can have jumped in
this race, and I think it is more it's Upper
west Side and Upper east Side? Am I correct about that?
With Jerry Nadler.
Speaker 6 (42:06):
Plus midtown plus some of the village, a little bit
of downtown.
Speaker 5 (42:09):
Yeah, it's kind of good.
Speaker 1 (42:10):
Yeah, And so tangle in the middle of Manhattan, more
moderate district Upper east Side went for Cuomo, for example.
I think Zorn did win the Upper west Side if memory.
Speaker 5 (42:19):
Said ginarily want to in the general.
Speaker 1 (42:21):
But in any case, I mean Caski's bet seems to
be that these other people are gonna split the more
moderate vote and I can just carve out maybe I
can win with like thirty percent of the vote of
more progressives in the district. How does this thing? How
is this shaking out?
Speaker 5 (42:34):
Look, it's a bad bet.
Speaker 6 (42:36):
I think the front runner right now for me is
the assemblyman from the Upper west Side, Michael Lasher, who's
grown up in the district, been there his whole life,
and he's got the Nadler endorsement effectively, and he's very
much center left. He's pro Israel, he's progressive on most
other policy. But yeah, it would be more of a
conventional center left Democrat. There's an assemblyman Alex Sport on
(43:00):
the Upper east Side. There's Eric Botcher, the city councilman
down in the village, Caskie, Jack Flossberg. Of course the
JFK Grandson is running in many others.
Speaker 1 (43:10):
So yeah, it's going to be a split field.
Speaker 6 (43:12):
George Conway is trying to move all the way with
the district. I think Caski's challenge will be like Conway's
is lack of roots in the district. I mean New
York now New York. You can come from elsewhere and succeed.
Speaker 5 (43:26):
Build A.
Speaker 6 (43:26):
Blasio is not from New York City, Michael Bloomberg was
not from New York City. But the key is you
can come from anywhere, but then you've got to establish
yourself in New York City and kind of spend time
building yourself up in New York City.
Speaker 5 (43:39):
So Caski, he's.
Speaker 6 (43:40):
Twenty five, obviously, is from Florida. I don't know if
he's going to have the roots in that district to succeed. Now,
we'll see in a split field, you never know. I
think it's a fair point. If you've got ten candidates
and you know one candidates coming in with you know,
thirty two percent, and they win, you become the congressman.
My expectation for now is last year is the favorite
(44:04):
with the endorsement Nadler, with the west side being so
vote rich and that is the highest turnout part of
the district.
Speaker 5 (44:10):
My guess is he's the favorite.
Speaker 6 (44:12):
But look they almost try to tear him down and
that creates no big for someone else. So you truly
never know in these kinds of races.
Speaker 1 (44:19):
Democracy gotta love it.
Speaker 2 (44:21):
There you go, thanks for joining us, man, appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (44:23):
Thanks for as great to see you having me.
Speaker 2 (44:25):
Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate it.
We will see you all later and there'll be a
Friday's show tomorrow
Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here. Independent media just played
a truly massive role in this election, and we are
so excited about what that means for the future of
this show.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
So this was an extraordinary poll that came out. It's
an outlier, all caveats, but this was pretty eye opening.
Put d one up on the screen. This new Marist
pole has Democrats with a fourteen point lead on the
twenty twenty six generic ballot. That would be equivalent to
something like a seventy seat pickup and is the highest
(00:56):
you know, generic ballot deficit that they've read a share
for the Democrats and I don't know how many years. So,
like I said, definitely an outlier. However, if you look
at the average of the generic ballot polling over the
past even just over the past month, it has shifted
more and more towards the Democratic side. And of course
we saw what happened in the off Your elections were
(01:18):
not only in Virginia did you have insane margins for Spanberger,
in New Jersey, for Cheryl you had in states like
Georgia and states like Mississippi, In you know, states like Pennsylvania,
you had this huge shift towards the Democrats. And so
there seems to be somewhat of a bottom falling out
right now for Republicans over a whole variety of concerns.
(01:40):
And at the same time, Trump's own approval rating has
also been falling significantly, including in this recent Fox News poll.
Let's go ahead and take a listen to them covering.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
That President Trump's approval rating falling to thirty eight percent.
That is the lowest it's been in his second term.
People are unhappy with Trump's handling of consumer prizes, and yes,
the Epstein five Kim Strassele joining us this morning, Does
this mean Trump's affordability messaging isn't working yet?
Speaker 4 (02:08):
Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. Stewart, And this is
a huge wake up call for Republicans. And if you
actually look at Trump's approval rating, it actually has been
sliding for a while. And I think what happened here
is voters had a lot of optimism that he really
was going to turn around the economy, and they've given him,
you know, nine months now, and they've been waiting. But
(02:30):
suddenly they've been looking around and things really haven't improved
to the degree that they thought they would on cost
of living.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
And I think there's a variety of factors that go
into this. By the way, I think Epstein is part
of the numbers and the you know, sort of discussed
You've seen a decline of Trump's improve approval rating even
among Republicans. The last all I saw had him down
around eighty seven percent, which is still like obviously the
vast majority of Republicans, but typically on that metric, he
has almost universal support within the Republican Party. So even
(02:57):
that amount of slippage within the Republican part already is significant.
But sagara, if you look at that first Maris pool,
where Democrats have such an incredible edge, they ask people, Okay, well,
what should the Trump administration be focused on? The number
one thing that they said. Fifty seven percent a voter
said that the number one thing they should be concerned
about is lowering prices. So I really think it's the
sense of, you know, a betrayal on some promises that
(03:19):
were made on the campaign trail about being focused on
the bottom line for families. The sense groceries just this
week hit another all time high as we head into
the holiday season, we're just talking about AI and the
electric bills, healthcare skyrocketing. There's not going to be any
extension of the ACA subsidies, so those premiums are just
absolutely going through the roof. And I think, you know,
(03:40):
there are a lot of things that people are disatisfied
with the Trump administration about, but if you had to
pick one, this sense that I thought you would do
well on the economy for me, and instead you're building
yourself a ballroom and you don't really seem to give
a shit about the fact that I can't afford enough
food to feed my family and make it to the
end of the month. And by the way, you know,
this whole war on food stamps I don't think helps
that whole picture as well. That would be the core
(04:01):
of the major problems that they have.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Right now, Yeah, that groceries. Let's stick on the grocery thing.
One thousand dollars a month now on groceries, So that's
twelve k a year after tax income. Take a look
at the you know, average salary currently. But this is
really what struck me, and this is the whole story.
Grocery prices are up thirty seven percent in twenty seventeen.
And this is why I got so frustrated when Biden
did it. Whenever he's like, whoa, we went down by
(04:24):
five percent, I'm like, still up twenty five dude, saying
now with Trump? Right when Trump is like, oh, well
they recently did this thing with gas prices, They're like, look,
gas is three dollars a gallon. It's five cents lower
than it was last year. I'm like, you're expecting me
to celebrate here, right, come on, you you know, in
terms of the promises that were made, it should be
a dollar cheaper. Same thing whenever it comes to the
grocery price. That is an additional two hundred and fifty
(04:45):
dollars in monthly expenses for a family of four from
twenty seventeen, every single one of us knows it. In fact,
you know, I mean, think the sticker shock these you
ever walked, if you walked by the stake section in
the grocery store lately, get us might as well be
a pass Good Luck Christmas, you know, for real, though,
this is happening, I think, and it's organic to the
point where I even hear and you know, no friends
(05:07):
who are telling stories about going to the grocery store
and just for the first time being like, nope, we're
moving on. You know, we're going to the bargain bin
where a lot of other people have been now for
quite some time. That's not the way that we were
supposed to live, and at least in my opinion, and
it's one of those where it's not just the promise,
it's about the focus on the other stuff. Trump is
wrapped up in himself in the ballroom. It doesn't seem
(05:30):
like it cares enough about the everyday average person. That
was the same curse that doom Biden. And that's why
I think they have the identical poll numbers. It really
is kind of shocking. If you go back to November
of this same time period four years ago, the concern
was is he cares more about foreign policy. He's not
even very good at foreign policy.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
That's all he spends most of his time about.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
He's not doing anything about all of these problems that
are compounding in my life. It feels like the president is,
you know, out to lunch, and all of these issues
that a year ago we elected or so to do
so are there's no progress, and you're not doing anything
to fight against it. It's the same exact political circumstance
and it's not you know all that. And the sad
(06:10):
part is the party apparatus around Trump is, in my opinion,
basically the same like the Democratic party apparatus around Biden.
They're all just posting about this bullshit from charts, like, oh,
actually the economy is good, the stock market is at
record how It's like, you know, there's no ability to
have any internal dissent. There's a little bit Marjorie Taylor Green,
a few others, but not really. And then you add
(06:31):
the Trump kind of culture personality on top of that.
It's impossible to get away from. So they're gonna sink.
They're gonna sink. I don't, and there's no internal mechanism
until the midterms to make them ship by that time,
it's too late, as George W. Bush, Okay, by that point,
you're a joke. And then now the twenty twenty eight
election has.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
Begun, let's take a look at this next element. This
was a Marquette Law School pole now on their generic
congressional ballot, just to again give you a sense that
the other one is definitely an outlier. But they have
Democrats with a five point lead in the popular vote
on the general on the generic battle, which also would
be indicative of a significant victory for the Democrats. And
they have Trump's approval rating down at forty three percent
(07:08):
and disapproval up at fifty seven percent. On the individual
issues here, the thing people give them the most credit
for is the Israel Hamas cease fire, which you know,
he gets a lot of credit for that one. There's
still a lot of problems, there's still a lot of violence,
a lot of suffering, etc. But people right now feel like, Okay, well,
at least he's secured this deal. It drops pretty precipitously
(07:29):
from there though. Border security, he's still above water plus eight.
Immigration overall though minus ten, tariffs minus twenty six, economy
minus twenty eight. Russia, Ukraine War minus thirty four, inflation
and cost of living, which again that's like the number
one issue for most people minus forty four, information about
Jeffrey Epstein minus forty eight, shut down of the federal
(07:51):
government minus fifty And the least popular issue that they
tested was providing twenty to forty billion dollars to stabilize
Argentina's economy. Everyone hated that one at minus fifty eight.
But I mean the big categories here, when you're looking
at inflation and cost of living, that he's underwater by
forty four points. I mean, that is a devastating indictment
(08:15):
of this administration and their lack of care for ordinary
people going about their day to day lives and just
trying to make it paycheck to paycheck. And you know,
I just I have to bring it back to AI
as well, because as much as things are very difficult
economically now, and you have seventy plus percent of people
that say the economy is poor, the whole goal of
AI is to make that so much worse for you,
(08:35):
is to eliminate jobs. We've played Kevin Hassett talking about
how it's going to be a quote unquote quiet time
in the labor market because ai AI improves productivity. That's
their positive framing of it. What that means is layoffs.
What that means is people coming out of college not
being able to find work. That's what this whole policy
push is aiming for. That is the goal. The goal
(08:57):
of their policy approach on AI is to spike unemployment,
to massively surge layoffs. So as challenging as things are now,
the whole thrust of their policy agenda in their partnership
with this tech oligarchs is to make things worse. There's
also one more significant piece. I think Ryan and Emiley
touched on this yesterday about worth mentioning here as well.
(09:19):
So Trump realized seemingly a while ago, like things were
not looking super hot for the midterms, and so he
decided to do this big redistricting push pressured a bunch
of states. Some of those states, Indiana said no, we're
not going to actually do it because some of our
seats in jeopardy and we don't really want to. Texas, however,
went through with redrawing their congressional map. Well, now you
(09:40):
have a federal judge that has come to the last
element Guy's Politico tear sheet. You have a federal judge
that came in and is saying, actually, this map is illegal.
So what you could end up with now, this will
go through appeals blah blah blah. This isn't the final say,
but you could theoretically end up with a situation where
Texas's map gets blood in California because they went to
(10:02):
the voters and go through their process. California actually goes
through their redistricting. So it is actually possible at this
point that the whole redistricting push from the Trump administration
backfires and Democrats end up gaining ground. Now there's a
lot of caveats to that. You also have this potential
Supreme Court decision which will put a number of other
seats on the table. As I said, this isn't final,
(10:23):
et cetera, but certainly the redistricting push is not going
as well at this point as Republicans and Trump had
hoped that it would be.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
A Yeah, I know, it's the jerrymandering thing. I mean,
one of the ironies I've said this too is I
actually think that jerrymandering would backfire tremendously in Texas because
it presumes that all these South Texas Latinos and other
constituencies for Republican just in twenty twenty four are going
to stay Republican. Why Like, if we lived through which
we did twenty sixteen to twenty twenty, it was not
(10:50):
uncommon to see forty or fifty point swings. And in fact,
if the factory in twenty twenty four, twenty sixteen to
twenty twenty four, literally fifty points swings from Hillary like
plus fifty to Trump plus you know, I don't even know,
like Trump plus ten or something like that. It's craziness.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
So why couldn't it shift back? Well, it actually did
in this election, Like you look at some of the
Union City, New Jersey, for example, went from like Trump
plus ten to I don't know, have Democrats plus forties.
I mean, it was like crazy. So that's that's fair.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
It is not as big of an election, right, you know,
it's much we're talking about. No, you're totally right, But
I'm saying not just midterms, but in general, because these
districts are locked for years, right, So it'll be five
years now. So in the next presidential election, in a
high turnout, low propensity election, what makes you possibly think
that you're gonna win that you know, you could get nuked,
which I think you're hot this point. I think you're
(11:39):
on track. So they may have done themselves a favor.
Speaker 1 (11:42):
They may yeah, they may actually be like you know,
you're right those we should get rid of those maps
because I mean they are definitely in danger because inherently,
when you redraw these maps, you make some of the
districts that are still Republican districts, you make them close.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Yeah, like fifty two forty eight, which is a death now.
I mean, look a Tea Party. Just to give you know,
an anim My congressman, his name was Chet Edwards.
Speaker 5 (12:02):
From where I was from.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
He was always famous for being a Democrat who represented
the most Republican district and he won for twenty some
years and then in twenty ten, twenty ten, you know,
even though he'd faced multiple election challenges, he got blown
out by I don't even remember the margin. It was unbelievable.
It didn't even have a chance. So if it's a
Tea Party style wave that's coming, I mean these districts,
(12:28):
it's not unheard of to see two, five, ten, fifteen
point swings, which is what happened in his case. This
is a guy who literally survived multiple even in the
Bush era post nine to eleven, he was able to
win and then the Tea party wave case wiped out.
Speaker 1 (12:43):
Yeah, two thousand and eight was like that. On the
Democratic side, there were kinds of people who like raise
no money and nobody thought would win and then suddenly
they're like being sworn into Congress.
Speaker 6 (12:51):
You know.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
And Tom Perryello lennot down in Virginia Beach was another
one of those where it was like, oh, we didn't
think that was even a possibility. Here you are, so yeah,
they are kind of playing with fire with that, And
I was just thinking back, so, like, you know, we
started the block with the generic ballot, which is just
you say, okay, if your choice is a Democrat or Republican,
who do you pick for Congress? And so if we
(13:14):
think about in Virginia, Abigail Spanberger won by like by
thirteen points roughly, and Kamala Harris had won the state
of a Virginia by six points. So that's like a
seven point Democratic improvement over Kamala Harris's performance. So I mean,
I think a Democrats with a maybe a five point
(13:35):
generic ballot lead, like that's about where I would put it,
right now, and that's roughly where the averages have it.
I think they have it somewhere between four and five.
That other pole that I mentioned, the Marquette Law School
poll has it a generic ballot plus five. That would
be enough that even if they do all their gerrymandering
and the Supreme Court comes in and they do whatever
they're mess they're doing with the voter rolls, which is
all stuff that's really happening, like, it would still be
(13:57):
a large enough popular vote victory that Democrats would get
control of the House. Now, they have tilted the landscape
enough that it will require significant popular vote victory from
the Democrats in order to get control of the House.
But I think it's looking like it's going to be
too big to rig. It's at this point, given the
disgust and the dissatisfaction with the Trump administration and how
(14:18):
weak he is right now, how disgusted people are, how
unhappy they are with the economy, and the fact that
those trends are probably going to continue, It's looking like
a pretty pretty heavy reckoning that is headed for the
Republican Party.
Speaker 2 (14:29):
Yeah, let me give a shout out to People's pundit
Rich Barris. I've talked about him before. He's like a
maga pundit polster. Honestly, it was actually pretty accurate if
going back into twenty twenty and to twenty twenty four.
But he's been on Steve Bannon's show sounding the alarm
about this. So the smart maga set, they know the
ones who aren't complete sick of fans, like they get
the deal with this.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Stuff on the asarment number of times as he really
I haven't seen he did leading into the off year,
this year's election, oh right, in terms of registration.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
I mean, look, anybody really think Pennsylvania is not going
to go be a massive wipeout Like they barely won
it in twenty twenty four, and in twenty sixteen Biden
won it by like what a point something like that.
It's always been a it's just a swingey state. And
so yeah, I don't know. I mean, they're gonna look
midterms again. Barring a black Swan event, anything gonna happen. Obviously,
(15:17):
rovers's way came out of nowhere, say the Democrats, not
saying it couldn't happen, certainly could but for where things
are right now.
Speaker 5 (15:24):
It's bad.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
Well let's get to another one of the Trump administration's
finest hours here with regard to their prosecution of Jim Comey.
This is hilario. Put the second tar sheet, guys, the
New York Times tear sheet up on the screen. I'm
gonna read from a good bit of this. So you guys, remember, Okay,
the US attorney in the eastern Eastern District of Virginia
resigned because he did not was pushed out whatever. He
(15:50):
did not want to charge Kombe because he did not
think there was enough there there. So instead they put
in this total Trump loyalist hack named Lindsay Halligan, who
has never tried She's never been involved in a criminal case, okay,
never done this before. They put her in and then
she has to go present this case to a grand
jury and secure indictment like days after she's put into
(16:12):
this office again having never done this before. So Cally,
of course, has the best legal team you could possibly have.
His lawyer on his side has presented over one hundred
different cases to the Supreme Court, you know, knowledgeable, experienced, etc.
And they are making the case that this prosecution of
(16:32):
him is a vindictive prosecution ship to be thrown out
entirely and of course you've got Trump's words in the
past and putting this Lindsay Halligan person in and all
of that. But in addition to that, we are now
learning that she failed to present the whole case to
the grand jury. So let me read from the courtroom
(16:52):
exchange here, just you know, so you can get how
extraordinary this is. They say, Trump loyalist admits grandjury never
saw final Comy indictment. A federal judge grilled the prosecutors
pursuing charges against James Comy, the former FBI Director, on Wednesday,
interrogating them with a series of questions that underscored irregularities
in the case, including that the full grand jury did
(17:12):
not see the indictment it was supposed to have approved.
The questioning by the judge, Michael Knachmanoff took place at
an excruciatingly awkward hearing in Federal District Court in Alexandria,
Virginia that was nominally held to consider the narrow issue
of whether the charges against Comy had been filed as
an act of vindictive retribution by President Trump, But Judge
(17:33):
Nachmanoff peppered prosecutors with questions on a range of topics,
including mister Trump's own statements about wanting Comy to be indicted,
and an earlier decision by career members of the US
Attorney's Office in Alexandria to forego bringing charges. In one
remarkable moment, the judge posed some of his questions directly
to Lindsay Halligan, the US attorney handpicked by Trump to
(17:55):
bring the case, quizzing her on how she had presented
it to the Grand Jury US this week. That subject
led another judge involved in the case to suggest she
may have engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. Judge Nachmanov's inquiries were
extraordinary by almost any measure, but the ANSWER's prosecutors gave
him in return were even more so. At one point,
Miss Halligan admitted she had never shown the second and
(18:18):
final version of the Komy indictment to the full grand
jury before the four persons signed the charging document. Mister
Comy's lawyers immediately seized on that irregularity, calling it another
reason to dismiss the case entirely. At another point, one
of Miss Halligan's subordinates, Tyler Lemons, acknowledged that someone in
the Deputy Attorney General's office had instructed him not to
(18:38):
discuss in open court whether his predecessors had or had
not written a memo laying out their reasons for not
bringing charges, because that was privileged information. In the end,
mister Lemmons, appearing unnerved under questioning, confessed that the prosecutors
who had previously handled the case had indeed written a
draft of a memo declining prosecution. They say, the spectacle
played down over ninety minutes. So TLDR. Here you've got
(19:02):
Trump who has said plainly, we can put the next
I think this is the third element in this block,
has said plainly that he wanted to see Komy prosecuted.
So that's pretty indicative of a vindictive retribution here. Then
you have Halligan, who has no idea what she's doing,
who screws up the grand jury presentation and effectly effectively soccer.
(19:22):
What happened here is they wanted to indict him on
three charges. The government did. One of those charges got rejected.
So what you have to do in that case is
you have to represent the you know, the indictment with
just the two charges you're going forward with. She didn't
do that. She just had the four person who is
just an ordinary citizen and doesn't know better sign off
(19:44):
on the two charges that they did accept, so she
screwed up the grand jury process. And then you have
also hanging over this these other you know, two individuals
who I think had to be sourced from other offices
because you couldn't get anyone, you know, who was reasonable
to go along with this, to be forced to admit
that their colleagues previously had said we shouldn't actually charge
this guy, which again is indicative of this was a
(20:06):
vindictive prosecution. It's supposedly a very high bar to meet.
You have to show that there would not have been charges,
that this case would not have gone forward if you
didn't have this, you know, vindictive drive from the President
of the United States. But it's looking increasingly like even
that high bar they're likely to meet. So you have
the attempted you know, authoritarian prosecution, retribution against the enemies.
(20:29):
And then you also have just classic Trump administration clownish,
clownish incompetence, and buffoonish behavior where they have someone who
has never been involved in a criminal case before now
in this extraordinarily high pressure role and absolutely blowing.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
It and they are It's this is like the latest
example of you know, somebody called it, you know, the
authoritarian of Duncis, and I thought.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
That was it. I actually thought that was very apt.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
Because this has now been the Halligan case against Komi.
Then you have previously like Sandwich Guy or any of
these other things that have fallen apart completely in court
and judges literally laughing at them. And look, I mean,
I'm not defending James Comy. I think James Comy is
a sack of shit. All right, We've covered it here before,
even in terms of the charges against him. I'm like, look,
(21:17):
I actually think there might be something there, and especially
with the way that he handled himself, not just with Trump,
with Hillary, that whole thing I was there. I covered
it was insane, the way that he handled that entire
case Russiagate as well, Like, this is not a man
whose hands are clean, of course, though they go after him,
you know, in the most clownish, buffoonish way possible, and
are now making it so that the judge very may
(21:39):
well throw out this entire thing because of their own idiocy.
And so this kind of gets to I remember Liberals
would always be upset with Merrit Garland and others for
incompetently pursuing those cases against Trump. This is the same
if you are upset with Comy about Russiagate, at which
I am still am.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
It was bad.
Speaker 2 (21:55):
Yeah, it's horrible, the Hillary thing, the emails case. I
will never forget that press conference about Hillary in October.
If you're a Hillary supporter, you should be mad. I mean,
by the way, she clearly was guilty of sin in
the fact that in charge, he is still ridiculous. Whatever
it's been, you know, eight or so years, but the
way he handled that way he handled everything. If you're
(22:17):
gonna go after him, then you have to do it right.
He's a multi millionaire with great lawyers in the entire
liberal establishment behind him. He can't fuck things up with
basic rudimentary errors which literally make it bit clownish and
have it so a federal judge, by the way, in Alexandria, Virginia,
where already you know, look, I literally live there. Okay,
none of my neighbors are voting to convict James Comb.
He could be guilty as shit, they still wouldn't convicted her.
(22:38):
But even if you know so, you were going up
against strong hit headwinds. Anyways, and now you know, looking
at the way that this is, it probably won't even
make it to.
Speaker 1 (22:47):
Trial, So yeah, what it's looking platic And look, on
the other hand, you know, maybe they always thought that
this would fail or didn't really care and just wanted
to like send a signal. You know, if you are
less of a media figure and less wealthy than Jim Comey,
and this is I'm sure not fun for Jim Comy either,
by the way, but he's going to be fine. You know,
(23:07):
if you're someone who is less well positioned and can't
get the guy who you know, presented over one hundred
cases of the Supreme Court to be your lawyer, if
you're not in that position, then you still see their
behavior and the way you know they're digging up. They're
now trying to charge Eric Swalwell with this mortgage broad
stuff and Letitia James and obviously they already went after
Comy for this thing, which, by the to be honest
(23:28):
with you, the way this case has come out has
made me feel like there was less there there with
Jim Comy, Like it's making me, in my opinion, him
look more innocent than he actually looked before that before
they tried to charge him and tried to indict him here.
But in any case, you know, maybe the message is
just an attempt to send a message. Maybe it's just
an attempt to scare people. And they didn't even really
care that much whether it succeeded at trial. They just
(23:49):
wanted to like exact as much pain on him as
they could and send a message to their opposition. But
it doesn't look like this is going to get too
far onto the gates here, which is I guess a
good thing to see.
Speaker 2 (24:01):
Looking bad looking bad indeed, And it's one of those
where you know, this big clownish behavior just makes it
so that I mean, first of all, you know what
about double Jeopardy all the other things you know that
you could look previously if you actually do care about
accountability for these types of individuals, doing it this way.
Speaker 5 (24:17):
Just the worst possible.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
All right, we got a good guest standing by Ross Barkin.
Let's get to it, all right, guys.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
So there's a whole lot of zoron stuff going on.
He's supposed to meet with President Trump, he's blocking endorsements,
all kinds of things that are happening. Also, other New
York City primary challenges coming from the left. So to
break all of this down the perfect person, Ross Barkin,
who is an expert on all of these things and
is a calmness for New York magazine. Great to see you, Ross,
Good to see you man.
Speaker 5 (24:44):
Excited to be on.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
Yeah, of course, So let's put the Trump truth up
on the screen. Here the announcement that he's meeting with
the communist mayor of New York City. He says Zoron,
Kwame Mamdani has asked for a meeting. We've agreed that
this meeting will take place at the Oval Office on Friday,
November twenty first, That would be tomorrow. Further details to follow.
Zoron was on with Chris Hayes over on MSNBC and
(25:07):
he was asked about this visit. Let's go ahead and
take a listen to that. Mo'm Donnie, and nice to
have you here, mister mayor elect.
Speaker 7 (25:11):
Good to vig here, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 5 (25:13):
Is the is the Trump? Is the White House meeting real?
Who knows what's real these days? But do you understand
it as a real thing.
Speaker 7 (25:19):
We did reach out to the White House, and my
team reached out because of a commitment that I made
to New Yorkers that I would be willing to meet
with anyone and everyone, so long as it was to
the benefit of eight and a half million people who
call the city home and their struggle to afford the
most expensive city United States of America.
Speaker 1 (25:32):
So Ross, what do you think about this move from Zoran?
Speaker 6 (25:35):
Do you have to do it right? I think it
makes sense. You know, he is the incoming mayor. Donald
Trump is the president of the United States, and I
think you know, there are ways to deal with Trump,
and I think one of the ways to do it
is to really.
Speaker 5 (25:48):
Hit him head on.
Speaker 6 (25:49):
I think you meet with him, you can certainly stand
up to in public. I think the governor of New York,
Kathy Hokels, had some success wrangling with Trump and that
they talk on the phone fairly frequently. And at least
for now, there hasn't been a National Guard encourasion into
New York City. I mean see having ice agents running around,
So you know, I think it's a natural move to
(26:10):
make you have the meeting. You see where it goes.
You check, you check Trump's temperature, and of course they're
going to be fights. It's going to get volatile. But
I do think you at least start off from a place
of some cordiality. You hope that Trump will not make
your life overly difficult, though the reality is he probably
will anyway.
Speaker 5 (26:28):
But it doesn't hurt to take a meeting.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
I wonder if how Cole advised him. Actually, yeah, mentioned that.
I wonder about this.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
Ross. I feel like it could be to his political
benefit to get into a fight with Trump. I mean,
he made a big portion of his campaign speech Trump
turn up the volume and.
Speaker 5 (26:42):
All of that.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
Why, you know be you know, look what happened with Whitmer,
Look what happened with all of these other politicians who
have met with Trump and kind of seen is kissing
his ass. I mean going in there and you know,
quote confronting him or making a scene would almost certainly
backfire on the city.
Speaker 5 (26:56):
I'm not sure I really understand this well. I think
it's there's two factors of play.
Speaker 6 (27:01):
One hand, Yes, you know, battling Trump can lift your
political standing. You start with Karen Bass in Los Angeles,
where her career is really recessitated after the guards showed
up there, and the same can happen for Zorn Bomdani
as well. I think at least having a meeting with
the President at the outset before you take office.
Speaker 5 (27:20):
Is not hurtful to his brand.
Speaker 6 (27:23):
It's not destructive, and maybe it pays some dividends, maybe
not at all.
Speaker 5 (27:27):
It may pay nothing.
Speaker 6 (27:29):
But I think you know that Kathy Holkl has spoken
with Trump on the phone many times, she's gone to
the old office. She still combats them in public. They're
not friendly. But I think it's it's an inside outside strategy.
I think Zorn is not going to stop being anti
Trump banning means, or stop calling out his many destructive policies.
(27:50):
But I think, you know, pursuing insider outsider strategy is
not the worst thing to do.
Speaker 5 (27:56):
I mean, we'll see what comes.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
Up comes up. A Scheinbaum in Mexico is another one
who's you know, played this game and you know has
it seems to have. Trump seems to like her. They
seem to have a good working relationship, even though you
know she stands up for Mexico sovereignty when and how
she needs to. I also think, you know, it could
be kind of a political ploy to show, look, I
(28:17):
reached out, I was ready to work together. My bottom
line is, I don't care whether we're political adversaries. I'm
just trying to deliver for the people of New York.
So I think that maybe how he's trying to play it.
But it's going to be very very interesting to see
what comes out of this meeting and what impression is
given by the present what he has to say about
the meeting after this. I also wanted to to ask
you about the latest with regard to Zoron and ch Osa,
(28:42):
who is a DSA member, although my Er Shay is
relatively new DSA member who's announced a primary challenge against
Hakeem Jeffries. And you might think that Zoron, being the
insurgent leftist, would be like, let's go and they have
a you know, a relationship as well of trust from
the past to build on. But instead, not only has
he not endorsed Cheese bid, but he actively went to
(29:05):
a DSA meeting last night to speak out against DSA
endorsing Chi in his bid against Hakim Jeffries. Zorn was
asked about this recently. This was before he went to
that meeting, by the way, but about why he is
backing Hikim Jeffries in this primary fight. This is F three.
Let's go ahead and listen to that.
Speaker 8 (29:25):
Let me talk about Haike Jeffries for a moment, who
now may face a challenge from Chosa, who is a
member of the DSA. You said that there are local
issues that mister Osa should be focused on, maybe should
remain a counselman. Are you saying he should not run
against Hakim Jeffries?
Speaker 7 (29:37):
Now, I'm saying that I think the focus should be
right here on New York City. I respect the work
that Council Member Osa has done.
Speaker 5 (29:42):
It what does that mean should he not run?
Speaker 7 (29:44):
I think that right now is not the time to
be engaging in that kind of a primary. I think
the focus should be on delivering on this affordability agenda.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
So tell us about this perspective. Tell us about this
meeting last night, Like, what the hell is going on here? U?
Speaker 5 (29:57):
I do you think Zoron was being a little mealy mouthed.
Speaker 6 (30:00):
I'll speak in a way where I'll speak having spoken
to members of DSA myself and getting a sense of
how they feel, longtime members, it's that they don't feel
Chosa is a genuine member of the essay to start with,
he only joined a few months ago. There's a feeling
that he's somewhat I don't want to use the word usurper.
(30:21):
But he's someone who's glombing on very recently. You look
at also the Primarychosa was a bit of a late
backer Zorn. He actually co endorsed with Brad Lander. You know,
he hopped on the bandwagon. That's fine.
Speaker 5 (30:34):
I think talking to the members I've talked to.
Speaker 6 (30:37):
The way they look at it is they want to
focus on the state legislature or potentially on Dan Goldman,
and they feel like Kakeen Jeffries, while they would love
to get rid of him, it's not really a winnable fight.
It's a district where Zorn did well in the primary,
but not He won that district, but not overwhelmingly. So
(30:59):
there's a real strategic question of can you defeat Hakim Jeffries,
who is not scandal scarred right, who does not have really,
you know, true weaknesses beyond the politics themselves, in a
pretty diverse district where he has to support for a
middle class, working class black voters, can you go in
and beat him. There's a faction of DSA that says, yes,
(31:19):
we have to do this. Hakim Jeffries is against us.
There's another faction that feels this isn't that strategic, and
I do think Zoron is, you know, using his early
clout to try to steer the DSAY more strategically. I
do expect him to back other insurgents, other primary challengers.
You know, the reality is he's going to be mayor
of New York. Hakim Jeffries could be Speaker at the
(31:40):
House in twenty twenty seven, sitting there in Brooklyn. And
while Hakim Jeffries is in Share Your Politics, he's got
to represent the entire Democratic Caucus, and you know, like
a Pelosi, he could be pushed in different directions.
Speaker 5 (31:53):
So I get it. I get where he's coming from.
Speaker 6 (31:55):
I don't think he's messaging it publicly the best way
I would say for Zoron, but.
Speaker 5 (31:59):
I think there's logic to.
Speaker 6 (32:01):
Dissuading OSAY or at least saying you can run, but
the DSSAY is not going to support you.
Speaker 5 (32:06):
You run, Let's see what happens.
Speaker 6 (32:07):
And the reality is he probably won't win, and Zoron
needs Jeffries.
Speaker 5 (32:13):
He heeds at least the Democratic leadership.
Speaker 6 (32:16):
He's in a strong but also vulnerable position as a
thirty four year old new mayor, so I understand where
he's coming from.
Speaker 5 (32:25):
But I also see why a lot on the left
would question it for it that way.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
Yeah, these are the realities of power. Yeah, I mean,
I also I understand his logic. However, I disagree with
it strategically because you know, I think we've seen some
similar calculus from AOC where it's like, Okay, I'm here,
I'm going to play the inside game, and I don't
think that that has really borne fruit. So from my perspective,
you have to use the power that you have to
(32:51):
effectively sort of like coerce and bully these people because
they will stab you in the back the moment that
they have the chance. Like heem, Jefferies does not endorse
or on until what like two days before the primary.
It was incredibly passive aggressive. And so even if you
think thatsa can't win and we could go and put
F four up on the screen, Micha Lang did a
bunch of analysis backing up what you're saying that this
(33:12):
would be very very difficult in order to be able
to actually pull up the upset here. But even if
you think that he can't win, the fact of him
being in the primary pushes Jeffries. I mean, we see
the way Hochel has had to like sort of bend
and adjust and accommodate Zorn's politics for herself in order to,
(33:33):
you know, make sure that Antonio Delgado doesn't have a
shot at taking her in a primary. So I feel
like that primary is really valuable, even if you think
it's a long shot to be able to win. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (33:45):
I think that's a fair point.
Speaker 6 (33:47):
I think it's two schools of thought, right that there's
the school I just gave, which is sort of maybe
the more moderate DSA members plus they're on have you know,
you're giving the view that it's kind of the the
in a way that the Trump approached the Republican Party,
which has largely been successful for Trump. I mean, leftists
can only dream of dominating the Democratic Party the way
(34:08):
MAGA still holds total sway over Republicans.
Speaker 5 (34:12):
So it's a fair counter argument.
Speaker 6 (34:16):
I think I see it that if you run Osay,
you can really pressure Jeffries. My sense is there's just
some skepticism of Osay himself within DSA. It almost may
even come down to that thatsa were as they say,
cadre DSA, where he's someone who like Zoron or other
members who had been a part of it for many years.
(34:38):
They feel more enthusiastic about him. I think there's a
feeling that he's a bit of a you know, he's
coming to the party very late, doesn't really share the
values of the organization. He wants the endorsement because he
wants to run and he wants the attention. But I
think you're also right in that OS could be a
valuable piece of leverage over someone like Jeffrey, enforce them
(35:00):
to the left. And there's no doubt politicians response to
power that is true.
Speaker 2 (35:04):
I'm also curious, you know, Ross, I saw a report
that Zoran was kind of dealing with some of the
anti Zionists within DSA. I'm just curious, you know, how
that's manifesting in terms of staffing, Like, what does the
current selection process this is when you know, the nitty
gritty gets real, the transition team, the staffers, who's coming
into the administration.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
What's that looking like right now?
Speaker 5 (35:27):
So so far, you've seen a mix.
Speaker 6 (35:29):
You've seen him reappoint Jessica Tish, who was appointed by
Eric Adams and is at best a political moderate. You know,
she's certainly a Zionist and she's a billionaire and she's
very well liked by the business community. So there you
have a you know, concession capitulationever you want to call
it to moderates in the business faction. At the same time,
(35:51):
he's appointed as his chief of staff el Viscard Church,
who is his age, who is his old Assembly chief
of staff, who is in every way cadre DSA. You know,
she's a believer. He's appointed a first mayor in Dean Foolhan.
Who splits the difference, I would say between Tish and
(36:11):
Elle where fool a hand. He was Deblasio's first deputy mayor.
He also worked for the Assembly Speaker, Shelley Silver for
many years. He's very much a man of institutions. He's
in the seventies. He has a lot of experience with budgets,
but he also has a progressive streak. He's sort of
more center left. So I think so far you're seeing
a real mix. I think you're going to see members
(36:33):
of DSA elevate in this administration.
Speaker 5 (36:35):
That is inarguable.
Speaker 6 (36:36):
At the same time you going to see an administration
I do believe of experience and competence, and that is
very important for a young mayor like him, especially coming
off of four years of chaos and corruption with Eric Adams.
Speaker 5 (36:49):
You've got to run clean, good government.
Speaker 6 (36:51):
The Left has had very few chances at executive choule
executive power, so of all eyes across the country, world
will be on him. So it's very important to avoid scandal,
to not get tripped up, to not be self defeating,
like Brandon Johnson in Chicago for example. So I do
expect a pretty strong and confident administration, and so far
(37:13):
you've seen his appointments a real ideological mix the left,
i'd say, sort of center left and on the right
with Jessica Tish.
Speaker 1 (37:21):
Yeah, I mean the stakes. I'm sure he feels the
stakes are very high for his political project because you know,
if when it's Eric Adams and he's you know, center
right effectively and he sucks and he fails, no one says,
oh well, centrists can't govern. But when it's the left,
if they fail, and especially with Oran being so high profile,
(37:41):
then it's oh see, you can't trust these people with power,
and this is an indictment of the entire political project.
So you know, the stakes are I think he's right
to perceive the stakes here are incredibly high, not just
obviously for the City of New York, but more broadly
for DSA and DSA aligned candidates. I wanted to ask
you more broadly about what's going on in New York City.
There's so many primary challengers that are jumping in. I'm
(38:02):
having trouble keeping track. Richie Torus has drawn a couple
of primary challengers. You have the primary challenge pi Keen Jeffries.
I saw Espayet is expected to get a challenger. I
think Grace meng is that her name has also gotten
a challenger. Very likely Brad Lander is going to get
in against Dan Goldman, and I think Goldman will get crushed.
You can tell me if you think that I'm wrong
about that. I may be missing others. But you know,
(38:22):
what do you make of this? This has got to
be a Zorn effect in New York specifically, and we're
seeing echoes of this truly across the country in so
many races. Again, I can't keep track of the number
of people that I'm seeing who have very similar politics,
who are coming out of nowhere to jump into primaries
and challenge power. So what do you see there in
(38:42):
New York in terms of the energy on the ground.
Speaker 5 (38:45):
There's no doubt.
Speaker 6 (38:46):
It's a Zorn effect that actually reminds me the thought
from AOC in twenty eighteen, where you saw in twenty
twenty a lot of primary challengers, and you saw even
you know, the state legislative primary candidates in twenty eight
team get a real boost from AOC's victory over Crowley.
So I think that those currents are back. The challenges
are a mix. I think the most viable by far
(39:09):
as the one against Dan Goldman. I believe if Lander
gets in, he will win. There is some consternation that
there could be vote splitting. If also there's a DSA
City council member, Lexa Vilis who is interested in running,
they'll probably, my guess is Lander and her will come
to an arrangement and one of them will run. Because
(39:29):
there is no rank choice voting for congressional primaries, there
will be votes wasted if you have two insurgent challengers.
So you know, Goldman just sitting on a district that
is much more progressive than he is.
Speaker 5 (39:40):
That's the reality of it.
Speaker 6 (39:41):
And I do expect Lander in the end to be
his sole prominent challenger, and I do expect him to
win the others are more interesting. I mean Richie Torres
in one hand, certainly to the right of his district.
His challenger, Michael Blake, has run for office many times,
including a run for mayor, including a run for that district.
He's largely been uns successful, so the question is can he,
(40:03):
you know, find momentum and win.
Speaker 5 (40:06):
Grace may is interesting out in central Queens.
Speaker 6 (40:08):
Her district is actually fairly moderate, so I'm not convinced
she can get beaten from the left. I don't know
much about the spot challenge yet. That's an interesting one too.
I mean, he's fairly strong in his district and he
endorsed her on in the general, so hard to see
him taking too much heat from the left.
Speaker 5 (40:25):
I think the key race will be the Dan Goldman race.
I think that one.
Speaker 6 (40:29):
There is a real pickup opportunity for progressives. I do
think it will happen. The rest are trickier.
Speaker 5 (40:35):
And more long shot. That's how I've described them right now.
Speaker 2 (40:39):
But you messed George Conway.
Speaker 1 (40:42):
Ye oh, yeah, well that's New York twelve. That's that's
an open one.
Speaker 6 (40:46):
That's not a chal hiring seat where everyone everyone is running,
including Jack Schlosberg, and yeah, it's going to be a
real mess.
Speaker 2 (40:54):
We've got We've got a Kennedy, We've got George Conway.
Speaker 5 (40:56):
It's just a you know, it's going to be a
great race.
Speaker 1 (40:59):
Well, we actually called it's cam Caaski, who's trying to
lock down sort of like the left or progressive lane
in that primary, who just launched young guy activists. Let's
go ahead and take a listen. This is F six.
Let's go ahead and look at his launch video.
Speaker 9 (41:13):
My name is Cameron Caski, and I'm running for Congress
because there's no real path forward for most Americans.
Speaker 1 (41:18):
You and your family are.
Speaker 9 (41:19):
Working all week just to spend most of your paycheck
on rent and healthcare. Meanwhile, the richest people in our
country are telling us that we can't afford real solutions
like social housing and medicare for all. No, we can
only afford genocide, pollunteer, mass surveillance contracts, and ice ducks.
I'm running because we need people in Congress who are
going to do something about it and work on laws
that help all Americans. Isn't that crazy and radical? Turns
(41:43):
out we actually can build a society. We're feeding children
instead of tearing them away for their families where streets
are lined with federal housing and small businesses instead of
the National Guard.
Speaker 1 (41:53):
So what do you make specifically of Cameron Caski? But
this broader I mean it's I don't know how many
candidates have jumped, like eight different can have jumped in
this race, and I think it is more it's Upper
west Side and Upper east Side? Am I correct about that?
With Jerry Nadler.
Speaker 6 (42:06):
Plus midtown plus some of the village, a little bit
of downtown.
Speaker 5 (42:09):
Yeah, it's kind of good.
Speaker 1 (42:10):
Yeah, And so tangle in the middle of Manhattan, more
moderate district Upper east Side went for Cuomo, for example.
I think Zorn did win the Upper west Side if memory.
Speaker 5 (42:19):
Said ginarily want to in the general.
Speaker 1 (42:21):
But in any case, I mean Caski's bet seems to
be that these other people are gonna split the more
moderate vote and I can just carve out maybe I
can win with like thirty percent of the vote of
more progressives in the district. How does this thing? How
is this shaking out?
Speaker 5 (42:34):
Look, it's a bad bet.
Speaker 6 (42:36):
I think the front runner right now for me is
the assemblyman from the Upper west Side, Michael Lasher, who's
grown up in the district, been there his whole life,
and he's got the Nadler endorsement effectively, and he's very
much center left. He's pro Israel, he's progressive on most
other policy. But yeah, it would be more of a
conventional center left Democrat. There's an assemblyman Alex Sport on
(43:00):
the Upper east Side. There's Eric Botcher, the city councilman
down in the village, Caskie, Jack Flossberg. Of course the
JFK Grandson is running in many others.
Speaker 1 (43:10):
So yeah, it's going to be a split field.
Speaker 6 (43:12):
George Conway is trying to move all the way with
the district. I think Caski's challenge will be like Conway's
is lack of roots in the district. I mean New
York now New York. You can come from elsewhere and succeed.
Speaker 5 (43:26):
Build A.
Speaker 6 (43:26):
Blasio is not from New York City, Michael Bloomberg was
not from New York City. But the key is you
can come from anywhere, but then you've got to establish
yourself in New York City and kind of spend time
building yourself up in New York City.
Speaker 5 (43:39):
So Caski, he's.
Speaker 6 (43:40):
Twenty five, obviously, is from Florida. I don't know if
he's going to have the roots in that district to succeed. Now,
we'll see in a split field, you never know. I
think it's a fair point. If you've got ten candidates
and you know one candidates coming in with you know,
thirty two percent, and they win, you become the congressman.
My expectation for now is last year is the favorite
(44:04):
with the endorsement Nadler, with the west side being so
vote rich and that is the highest turnout part of
the district.
Speaker 5 (44:10):
My guess is he's the favorite.
Speaker 6 (44:12):
But look they almost try to tear him down and
that creates no big for someone else. So you truly
never know in these kinds of races.
Speaker 1 (44:19):
Democracy gotta love it.
Speaker 2 (44:21):
There you go, thanks for joining us, man, appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (44:23):
Thanks for as great to see you having me.
Speaker 2 (44:25):
Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate it.
We will see you all later and there'll be a
Friday's show tomorrow
Popular Podcasts
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.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.