September 29, 2024 • 53 mins
Kamala economics. Illegal immigration will ruin America. Ryan Girdusky with polling data. Dinesh D'Souza on “Vindicating Trump.”
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
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 (00:01):
This is twenty four, a weekly highlight reel from the
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show featuring all things the
election coverage.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Let's get started. Here are Clay and Buck.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
I want to play a couple more cuts of the
disastrous MSNBC interview with Stephanie Rule that Kamala did last night,
and I want to continue to emphasize to all of
you that you should go watch it for yourself. And
I know it's painful, but I do think it's important
for you to listen to what she's saying because maybe
(00:34):
there's persuadable people in your friend or family group who
are buying in to the Kamala Harris word salad, or
to the idea of brat summer, or the idea that
somehow she is going to be able to manage the
United States government. Here she is, Buck, Let's have it.
These are a couple of fun, ridiculous, ridiculous answers. Kamala
(00:57):
has evidently learned the word holistic.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
She uses it.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
I want to play this for you three times in
twenty six seconds, all within a nonsensical word salad talking
about working people.
Speaker 4 (01:11):
Listen, some of the work is going to be through
what we do in terms of giving benefits and assistance
to state local governments around transit dollars and looking holistically
at the connection between that and housing, and looking holistically
at the incentives we in the federal government can create
for local and state governments to actually engage in planning
(01:32):
in a holistic manner that includes prioritizing affordable housing for
working people.
Speaker 5 (01:38):
I want to show yourself in the head when I
mean this book holistically.
Speaker 6 (01:41):
Her campaign is a disaster, and if the Republicans can't
defeat her with Donald Trump, we need to do some
profound soul.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Searching as a party. That's where I am.
Speaker 6 (01:53):
That's why I've been so confident every day of this election,
ever since they've nominated kam Law I was You'll notice
I was not celebrating early when he was up against Biden,
even though I knew he had dementia and all that stuff,
just because of what's going to make the difference in
the key states. As we've discussed many times on the show,
Kamala's a weaker. I know the polls with Biden, but
(02:16):
I really believe that they could have trodded him out
there for debate. He would have done better and he
would have had a rebound. I think Kamala is a
weaker matchup for Trump and Joe Biden. Was Kamala with
using the word holistic reminds me. We used to do
something called the vocabulary.
Speaker 5 (02:32):
Work word of the day.
Speaker 6 (02:33):
Yeah, I hope to see you not sporadically from clueless, remember.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Yes, And we had to use we had to write
sentences and every now and then a teacher would be like,
you guys are just mailing it in because you know,
you would use you know, we discussed the whatever the
word was, you would use it in a sentence and
it would be like using the definition of the word
in the sentence and we would get, you know, marked
off or whatever. It is definitely the case that she
(03:02):
is trying to pretend to be intelligent by using a
word that she just learned as many times as she could.
Now there's another.
Speaker 5 (03:09):
It's just one thing just to be oh, did you
want to go to a call?
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Or I've got another I've got another funny way.
Speaker 6 (03:15):
We'll do the other clip and then I'll tell you
what I'm what I'm thinking here, go ahead.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
There has been a discussion about whether Kamala actually worked
at McDonald's. There is no evidence that she did work
at McDonald's. By the way, you would think there'd be
a pay stub out there. You would think there would
be some coworker. I don't know about you, Buck, I've
had multiple jobs in my life that were like retail
kind of focused. I worked at American Eagle, I mentioned
(03:39):
Abercrombie and Fitch before I worked at Media Play. Okay,
all three of those jobs I.
Speaker 6 (03:46):
Just a Clay and my wife both worked at Abercrombie,
which people who work there. I love to tell you
because back in the day you had to be good
looking to work at Abercromby.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
Producer Ali worked at McDonald's. Let me just say this, Buck,
I believe today you could find a coworker of mine
at all three of those places and they would say, yes,
I worked with Clay Travis, we had you know, like X,
Y and Z Right.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
There would be.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
Multiple coworkers that would remember working there. If I were
running for president of the United States, they would be
super easy to find. Right on social media to be
coming out. Why has no one who worked with Kamala
Harris she's a good looking girl. When she was working
at McDonald's buck you, if you're a teenager, you would
remember a pretty girl that worked alongside of you at
(04:35):
a place like McDonald's. I'm just gonna say, if you're
a dude, if you're a straight guy, none of them
have come out and said, oh yeah, a unique name
like Kamala, none of them can remember working alongside of
her at McDonald's. That would be an interesting question. I
would just point out here is Stephanie rule quit a
questioning Kamala about her McDonald's job.
Speaker 4 (04:57):
Listen, first, one, just a fact check because your opponent
there is a literal day, there's no such thing.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
As a little job.
Speaker 4 (05:03):
Okay, fair, fair, because your opponent almost every day seems
to be talking about this.
Speaker 7 (05:08):
So I just want to ask you, yes or no?
Speaker 4 (05:10):
At any point in your life.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Have you served to all beef patties, special sauce, let
us cheese pick those onions on.
Speaker 4 (05:18):
But I'm looking at a McDonald's yes or no, that's it.
I have Okay, now the other job, but it was
not a small job like I do guys.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
I mean, you know, okay, she worked at the fries.
That's a ridiculous way to ask a question. That's not
a fact check. A fact check would be that is
Kamala's story. I just think it's important even in the
way that that question is asked. That's important fact check.
That's not a fact check. That is asking Kamala the
same story that she's already told in asking her to
(05:46):
reinforce that that is her story.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
That is not a fact check.
Speaker 6 (05:50):
But I also think that the Kamala that you are
seeing in this campaign, whether it's in the most puff
piece interview or the fact that you know they're hiding her,
I have like a little a little bit of sympathy
for her position Clay, because she's she's playing a role
that is not how she has thought as an adult
(06:13):
for her entire life in public. Certainly, what I mean
is when she speaks about these things, I think part
of why she's falling back so heavily on like holistically
and fair share and and and these things is because
she's not telling people. You know, if if someone asked
you a question, or you asked me a question, we
don't think about how this will sound to them. We
(06:35):
just answered the question, right, because I'll tell them what
we think. She can't tell people what she thinks. Put
aside that she's not particularly cognitively elite.
Speaker 5 (06:45):
She can't.
Speaker 6 (06:46):
She's she's always you know, it would be like if
someone asked you something, Clay and you were having or
you know, ask me something and said Buck, you know,
as a communist, like as a leftist, what do you
think about this? And I'd have to translate that. I
could do it, but I'd have to stop and think
and translate it into the response that I'm.
Speaker 5 (07:03):
Supposed to give. She's doing that this whole campaign. She's not. Really.
Speaker 6 (07:07):
The only thing where she's authentic is abortion. That's the
only issue where she's able to give her real opinion.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
You know, it's fascinating because what you're really hitting is
what I think is the essence of this race. Whatever
you think about him, Donald Trump is an authentic version
of himself. He's not being something that he's not. I
think Kamala is the most fundamentally inauthentic candidate that we
have ever seen in a presidential race. And she is
trying to play the role of moderate, which requires her
(07:37):
to pretend that she never has told us anything else
about her past, even things simple Like we talked about
this a little bit earlier in the week. She's saying Oh,
I've got a gun. You come in my house, I'll
shoot you, right. I mean, I'm paraphrasing the things that
she has said.
Speaker 5 (07:51):
Buck.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
When she was in San Francisco, she tried to pass
a measure, work to help pass a measure that would
have led to the seizure of all handguns in San Francisco.
That is who she is, and so she has defined
herself in left wing politics throughout her entire career in California,
and now when she tries to introduce herself on the
(08:14):
national stage, she has all this past history and she
now has to claim that she doesn't mean any of
the things that she said she believed in before.
Speaker 6 (08:23):
That's why she's particularly, you know, not unfluid in the
way that she's speaking about these things. She's having to
think back to what did my handlers say. It's just
like she was in the debate. People said, oh, she
did such a good job in the debate. Well, I mean, yeah,
if you think that giving if you think that reciting speeches,
not answering questions and not having to be pressed on
(08:45):
the answers you give makes you a good debater, I mean,
anyone can get up there. You know, we had something
in the speech and debate Team Clay.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
It's very cool. Obviously it was a very cool guy.
In high school, they.
Speaker 6 (08:56):
Called a declamation, and that was for people who memorize,
like Pericles funeral oration or something, or you know, they'd
usually do like a funny speech, but it was a
memorized speech, very different from debate. Kamala Harris is doing
declamation piecemeal. She's talking of she's saying things that she
has learned her memories. It's not what she believes, it's
(09:17):
not what she thinks, it's what she's been told to say.
And you're always going it's almost like if you're somebody
who isn't fluent in another language and you're having to
translate it. Yeah, you know, like I could figure out
how to ask where do I get Clay's really expensive
steak in French? But it's going to take me a minute.
You know, it's not just going to come out of,
you know, come flying out. So that's what Kamala's that's
(09:38):
her challenge is that she's presenting herself.
Speaker 5 (09:40):
If she was able to be full leftist.
Speaker 6 (09:43):
I mean, wouldn't that be amazing if she was able
to really just say what she wanted to say about
all this stuff.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Obviously, she would get destroyed in the.
Speaker 5 (09:50):
Election, but I think she would sound better.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
I do think she would sound better. Buck here's the challenge.
I think she would still run into even if she
was going full leftist. I don't think she's smart enough
to articulate full leftist opinions. And by the way, I
don't think Tim Walls is either. I think that's the
reason you haven't even seen him do a single interview basically.
But look, I disagree with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
They're not morons, right, Those are intelligent people who could
(10:16):
at least try to advocate for what they believe.
Speaker 6 (10:19):
But remember leftism. One of the great benefits of leftism
for those who are its adherents is that it is
all emotion and slogans, right. I mean, if you talk
to Bernie Sanders about what will really happen when you
get into some of his policies, he's like.
Speaker 5 (10:33):
Well, you know, it's what's the right thing to do,
or whatever.
Speaker 6 (10:36):
He doesn't it's like, well, Bernie, you're gonna have a
lot of businesses closed down, You're gonna have a lot
less growth, you're gonna have people pour or across the board.
He's like, well, yeah, that's the cost of doing business,
you know what I'm saying, Like leftists, I mean, look
at look at AOC. Look at AOC. Does she understand economics? No,
but she is fluent in communism.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
Yeah, And we should talk in the next hour. We're
going to talk with Ran Paul, but we need to
talk about all the maneuverings going on New York City mayor. Wise,
Oh we're talking about is AOC potentially going to make
a run for mayor of New York City?
Speaker 2 (11:11):
Is Oh?
Speaker 3 (11:11):
God, Drew Cuomo, Like, there are a lot of Democrat
decisions to be made.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
If you're listening to twenty four The Year of Impact
with Clay and Buck, I.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
Think these charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams
are super, super interesting. And the New York Post today
Buck had a cover art that essentially said that Eric
Adams was being charged because he had been too critical
of the migrant crisis brought on by the Biden and
(11:48):
Kamala Harris administrations. And you and I were two of
the first people I heard pointing this out. And I
think many people now, even who were initially critical of
that idea that the full indictment has come out, and
we went through some of the indictment allegations, but a
big part of it, essentially is he got upgrades on
(12:09):
Turkish airlines and he got better hotel rooms. Then he
would have gotten based on his stature as a prominent politician.
And I would just say this, buck, if getting airline
upgrades in better hotel rooms, then you would otherwise get
is grounds for politicians to be charged with felonies. I
(12:30):
think almost every politician in America could be charged with
a felony, a Republican Democrat, anybody, because I don't know
about you. I've gotten on a lot of airplanes over
the years and seen a lot of politicians sitting in
first class seats. And if you're only making one hundred
and seventy five thousand dollars a year those upgrades, it
seems like you may be getting a little bit of
(12:51):
beneficial treatment. I'll just say that, because or you're paying
for your camp with your public funds for those first
class seats. Anyway, saying that, I think that's perfectly okay.
Certainly I don't like the idea of people trading on
their political power, but.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
In the grand scheme of things. This is not.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
Menendez taking gold bars to help Egypt.
Speaker 6 (13:15):
Well, there's a difference between gross and a crime for
which you should lose your freedom and your reputation, right,
I mean, Morning Joe is gross, But I don't want
them sent to prison. They might want us sent to prison.
But I was watching it this morning, of course, That's
why that's on my mind. There's a big difference. And
I think that when you're talking about these kinds of
(13:39):
of soft benefits, I guess you could call them. This
reminds me of the like I said, the Conrad blackcase,
who was a conservative media mogul, a very very smart writer.
He still I think publishers sometimes National Review in other places,
and they sent him to federal prison under the Honest
Services Frauds Statute, saying that I mean, I can't even
(14:02):
get in all the details right now, but the Supreme
Court nine to oh said, if you guys take this
statute for what it says, you've committed fraud. If you
take a better seat at a restaurant that you're doing
business with, let's say, or better table, because you know
it's influencing you and you're not going to give your
honest services to the company that you're working for because
(14:24):
they gave you a better table. It's insane and the
stuff that with Look, we're not he I'm not like
some huge mayor Eric Adams fan. Right, He's been a terrible.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
Mayor and a joker at best, only decent by the
standard of not as bad as better than Deblasio.
Speaker 6 (14:41):
Deblasio was a straight up f tried to ruin the
city and did as much damage to New York City
as he could. Deblasio is an F. He was a
cancer on the city of New York as the mayor.
And anybody who voted for him in New York to
my former fellow New Yorkers or people like me that
you used to live in New York, you should feel
ashamed of voting for the bla. Anyone who voted for
Deblasio should feel shame. But anyway, you know, Adams is
(15:05):
like a D plus maybe a C minus. You know
if the Blasio is an F. But Clay they're going
after him. This is the thing that people said, oh, well,
this crime has been going on for a long time. Yeah,
they're talking about when he was Brooklyn Borough president in
twenty sixteen, that's almost a decade ago. They're talking about
(15:25):
business class upgrades on Turk Apparently one of our VIPs
sent and Turkish airlines very nice. I didn't know that,
very very nice, world class airline.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Who knew?
Speaker 5 (15:33):
Who knew?
Speaker 2 (15:33):
I'm just saying Clay was talking some smack about Turkey.
I came in.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
You just said Turkey wouldn't be in the top twenty
five countries that I would want to visit.
Speaker 6 (15:42):
He's like, the only Turkey I like comes on Thanksgiving.
I'm just saying Clay was taking some shots to Wan audience.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
He positioned, unless you aren't, maybe we have a huge
Turkish audience.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
I apologize to everyone out there, is anybody like you
know what I really want to do. You know what
dream vacation I've had my whole life. I want to
go to Istanbul. I mean, maybe there are some of
you out there that are like istan You know there
is nobody listening.
Speaker 6 (16:08):
The number one vacation is Istanbul Constantinople. Now, Istanbul is
one of the most historically rich and significant locations of
any city on the planet.
Speaker 5 (16:20):
I'm just telling you the truth, man, I'm just laying
it down for you.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
It is now I'm going to end up there somehow,
and people are going to blow me up on social
media because I'm.
Speaker 5 (16:28):
Playing buck go to Turkey. Well, has so much fun, dude.
Speaker 6 (16:31):
A lot of guys with mustaches serving a steak is
all I can tell you.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
It'll be a great guy.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
Not in my top twenty five, but if the standard.
But you mentioned the services investigation, the court and the
way they examined it. Remember they wouldn't even allow anything
that was probably ten x this from the Republican governor
of Virginia. They convicted him basically of the bribery and
(16:56):
then they were like, this is garbage.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
The Supreme Court tossed it back.
Speaker 6 (17:00):
That's right, And that was that was Governor Bob McDonald
and even some conservatives. You know, I was doing solo
rate at the time, Clay, and I was like, this
is crazy, this is over itat some conservatives like, no,
like we can't stand for corruption. I'm like corruption. This
guy's like, hey, here's a Rolex and then yeah, if
he signs a law that says that this guy's company
gets some special tax break, that's corruption. But he was
(17:21):
just hanging out with him.
Speaker 3 (17:22):
Yeah, they were like longtime friends. And again there was
also they've come after like Clarence Thomas for flying on
private jets, right, Like, this is ridiculous a lot.
Speaker 6 (17:33):
There was never even an allegation that he did something
as governor for the person who gave him the gift.
Speaker 5 (17:40):
Now you could say, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
Like Buck, the quid pro quo in the Eric Adams
case is that he helped them deal with challenges associated
with firearms in the Turkish consulate. I mean, are you
really arguing that that this was some ma I mean,
that is what That's the only real thing they're able
to peg of his behavior, Like what did they get
(18:04):
back for this?
Speaker 6 (18:06):
I just better fire alarm treatment. But here's where people
have started to really hone in on this. You're gonna
tell me that if Eric Adams hadn't ticked off the
White House and hadn't spoken out and became a national
news story multiple days, multiple news cycles over the last
(18:27):
year in the election year, talking about how the migrants
are swamping a city, talking about the migrant crime, how
they're attacking NYPD officers, et cetera, et cetera. All these
different stories that they had had that a federal prosecutor
who works for Biden's DOJ would bring this case now.
The only reason they're bringing this case now is because
(18:50):
Eric Adams has been cast out, if you will, from
the Democrat faithful and no longer has the protection of
King Biden. That's what And it sends a message to
any other Democrats who, by the way, also Clay have
their cities overham with migrants. You better shut your mouth.
(19:10):
Look what we can do to Adams.
Speaker 5 (19:12):
Because otherwise this is they're going back to twenty sixteen.
Speaker 6 (19:15):
Like I said, you're bringing this now. You couldn't wait
until late November to bring this case.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
How about just wait until the election, which is in
June of next year, and let people decide whether they
want Eric Adams to remain the mayor. But I want
to play to your point, Buck, this is when he
really kind of a game, became persona non grata with
the Biden White House when he back in September of
(19:41):
twenty twenty three, in a public setting, said hey, this
is going to destroy the city and the city's budget.
The migrant surge in New York City cut fourteen.
Speaker 8 (19:53):
Let me tell you something, New York is never in
my life. Have I had a problem that I I'm
not seeing ended.
Speaker 5 (20:01):
Two, I don't see an ending to this.
Speaker 8 (20:04):
I don't see an ending to this. This issue will
destroy New York City. Destroy New York City. We get
in ten thousand migrants a month. One time we were
just in Venezuela. Now we get Ecuador. Now we get
Russia speaking coming through Mexico. Now we get Western Africa.
(20:27):
Now we get people from all over the globe that
made their minds up that they're going to come through
the southern part of the border and come into New
York City.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
Okay, that was when it started.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
Listen to this book, Karine Jean Pierre was asked about this.
Hey was the mayor targeted because of his criticisms of
the Biden administra immigration policy?
Speaker 2 (20:49):
This is cut eight. Listen to her.
Speaker 9 (20:50):
Dodge Mayor Eric Adams suggests that he's being targeted by
the Biden administration over his criticism of the migrant crisis. Now,
this is the kind of accusation that's similar to what
we've heard from former President Donald Trump. So what is
the President's reaction to that kind of language being used
from a Democrat.
Speaker 10 (21:09):
Look, we have been always very clear The President was
clear even when he was running in twenty twenty that
he was going to make sure that DOJ is independent
and the DOJ is handling this case independently. I'm not
going to go beyond that.
Speaker 9 (21:22):
And Adams was also at a reception last night with
the President at the net.
Speaker 11 (21:26):
Did they talk.
Speaker 10 (21:27):
I can confirm to you that the President did not
see the mayor and they did not speak.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
Oh that's good, Bed, And I didn't know they were
both at a met gala last night.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Buck. Here's Donald Trump. Yesterday.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
We talked about the fact that we thought he would
potentially raise this as an issue at his press conference
in New York City, Trump said Eric Adams is being
targeted because he spoke out on the migrant crisis.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Listen to cut nine.
Speaker 6 (21:50):
I watched about a year ago when he talked about
how the illegal migrants are hurting our city and the
federal government should pay us and we shouldn't have to
take him.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
And I say, you know what, He'll be indicted.
Speaker 5 (22:01):
Within a year.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
And I was exactly right, because that's what we have.
Speaker 1 (22:05):
We have people that use the Justice Department and the
FBI at levels that have never been seen before.
Speaker 5 (22:13):
So I wish him luck. I don't know anything about
what he did.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
Okay, Buck, that was I think kind of many people
across America recognizing that it's not even necessarily the party name,
it's are you in good standing with the Biden Department
of Justice or not, because even if you've got a
D by your name, if you cross them, they want
(22:39):
to send a message that there is pain and punishment
coming your way.
Speaker 6 (22:43):
Look at how the Democrats operate, Clay. As a general rule,
they operate like a mafia family.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
I mean they you know, as.
Speaker 6 (22:51):
Long as you do what the apparatus wants, you will
be protected and you'll be taken care of, even if
you got a you know, on your sword, so to speak,
and maybe go away for all whatever. But if you
step out of line with the powers that be, they
want to make an example of you. I mean, listen
to what Eric Adams said there. He said, they're destroying
(23:12):
New York City. He didn't say like, hey, we could
use a little more money like for the they're destroying
New York City. And that SoundBite really resonated across the
country because the same thing's happening in Chicago. The same
thing's happening in, you know, a whole range of cities
all across America right now where you're getting all these
migrants that are being busted in or flown in, and
(23:34):
there's just no way to see this, I think other
than this is a huge vulnerability for the Democrats going
into the midterms, and bringing this case when they did
is a shot across the bow to any mayor any
governor any Democrat who thinks they're going to get a
little uh, you know, a little huffy about the migrant issues.
Speaker 5 (23:54):
How shut up?
Speaker 3 (23:55):
How about just honest. I mean, he didn't say anything
out landish. It's all just the truth.
Speaker 5 (24:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (24:01):
You basically it's hey, Democrats, you better go along and
pretend like Kamala Harris hasn't destroyed the border with Joe
Biden and hasn't completely made our sovereignty a joke. Or
we'll come for you too. And that's clay in a sense.
Why is the Eric Adams prosecution right now so powerful
as that messaging, Because first of all, he's got Republicans
(24:22):
basically defending him like you and me. I mean, yeah,
it's like a little slimy some of the stuff he
did fine, but I mean it's not big stuff. I mean,
this isn't like, oh my gosh, lock him up, like
people's businesses were ruined because of this Clay. The message
is sent very powerfully to Democrats. We can get you
two if we can get Eric Adams on business class upgrades.
Who do you think you are?
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Business class? I just can't play.
Speaker 3 (24:44):
And even the print quote quid pro quote what they
got help with fire awarms? I mean, this is this
is one of the craziest cases I've ever seen. You
got a better airplane and a better hotel room and
what did Okay, well, what did they get?
Speaker 2 (24:59):
What did they get him?
Speaker 3 (25:00):
That to you four so you could call and help,
get fire alarm help.
Speaker 6 (25:05):
And he didn't get ten million that This is what
we have to really nail this down. I think he
got ten thousand dollars of straw donations, which is not good.
I mean, you're not allowed to do that. That's a crime,
but it's ten it's a ten thousand dollars crime. They
keep saying ten million dollars because he then like leveraged
that to access state funds. And I'm like, hold hold
on a second. It feels like they're puffing things up
a little bit.
Speaker 2 (25:24):
On this one.
Speaker 1 (25:27):
You're listening to twenty four The Most Important Tier in
Politics with Clay Travis and buck Sexton.
Speaker 3 (25:36):
Welcome back in Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. We are
joined now by Ryan Gerdusky, National Populist Newsletter, founder of
the seventeen seventy six Project Pack, and I've been reading
his substack I believe it is, which has a lot
of data and analytics as it pertains to election date
out there. And Ryan, I want to start with this.
(25:58):
I think I read this on Friday of Life last
week or thereabouts, maybe over the weekend. You went into
the cross tabs and kind of looked at the data
coming out of Pennsylvania and you've compared it to twenty
sixteen and twenty twenty, and your theory of why these
polls have drastically under reported Donald Trump's strength and sixteen
(26:20):
and twenty is older white voters being underrepresented and not
accurately reflected in poll results. Walk our audience through it.
I found it to be a really persuasive argument.
Speaker 7 (26:34):
Right so on the National Populous Newsletter on Substack, which
is my substack. Nate Cohen, who runs the New York
Times polling stuff at the Sanna University. They had Trump
tied nationally but losing Pennsylvania by four. And the big
question was why Nate Cohen even went through Twitter and
said again was responding to people saying, well, it's not
through this sub group. It's not through this subgroup. And
(26:56):
the group you never mentioned was seniors. In the New
York Times, nationally, Trump is winning seniors by six. This
is a group that he won them by four last time,
and he won them by I think it was nine
the time. Before then, republic seniors had voted Republican in
every election, majority in every election going back at least
twenty five years. So it is a very good assumption
(27:18):
to say seniors will be voting Republican this time as well.
Seniors in Pennsylvania vote to the right of seniors nationally.
So in twenty twelve, Romney won seniors nationally by twelve.
He won seniors in Pennsylvania by fourteen. In sixteen, Trump
won them by nine nationally, ten in Pennsylvania. In twenty
Trump won them by four nationally seven in Pennsylvania, so
(27:39):
they vote to the right. In the New York Times
Siena poll, Trump is winning seniors nationally by six but
losing seniors in Pennsylvania by three. Now I know they say,
don't get sit there, don't get so tied up in
in cross tabs. But at the same exact time, this
is not a crosshub of like Hispanics, which make a
five percent of Pennsylvania, so they have stremely high margins
(28:00):
of error. Seniors in Pennsylvania are a third of voters.
The margin of error is fairly low. He probably will
be winning seniors by close to ten points, which is
a if the national poll is correct at six, they'll
probably win close to ten points among seniors, and that
thirteen point difference is the margin between him winning or losing.
And I only made a big point of the New
(28:22):
York Times poll is because in all these polling aggregators,
Nate Silva wrote to the White House, the economists, the
New York Times, Cenapol puts a lot, They put a
lot of weight into that polling institution. So when they
all sit there and say, well, Harris's favor to win Pennsylvania,
a lot of it is because of the New York
Times Sanapol, which I think personally has this flaw of
(28:43):
not correctly waiting the senior vote. And it's the same mistake,
I mind you, that they made in twenty twenty and
in twenty sixteen, but more especially in twenty twenty when
they were looking at how Biden and Trump were going
to do. It was the same exact group. Because liberal seniors,
older liberals who like listen Rachel Mattow every day and
thinks she's the voice of God, really love to tell
(29:04):
strangers their opinions on Donald Trump.
Speaker 6 (29:07):
Ryan, if you had to assess whether the Kamala campaign
is based on the data aware that they are behind,
they obviously won't say that.
Speaker 5 (29:20):
Is it clear enough?
Speaker 6 (29:21):
You think that even that they would know, even if
they won't say it publicly, that they're trailing. And also,
what's your assessment of Kamala with women?
Speaker 7 (29:31):
So that's a really great question about Kamala of women,
because the perception out in the media, and I guess
the perception for even myself as a voter, was that
Kamala is going to break all these numbers with women,
record breaking support among women. And I decided on the
Substack national populist newsletter Substack to break down all the polling,
and I broke it down between two sets of polls
(29:51):
polls that have Kamala surging with more than a four
percent margin of victory nationwide and polls that have a
very very close election, And shockingly, Kamala performs with women
the same exact way. In both sets of polls. She
beats Donald Trump on average by fifteen points, no matter
if the race shows at being very tied or the
(30:13):
race shows that kam Wala blowout the polling. The polling
difference is not among women. She does not perform any
better with women than Joe Biden did or Hillary Clinton did.
It's they both had about a fifteen point margin over
Donald Trump in twenty twenty and twenty sixteen, respectively. So
she is not winning over many new women voters. This
(30:34):
whole perception that there's this army of pro choice women
who never voted before and they're voting for the very
first time. That one isn't true historically, but true, it's
not even in the data this time. The entire difference
is among men. The big question is is Donald Trump
going to perform his Joe Biden numbers among men when
he won men by a four point margin or somewhere
(30:55):
around there, or is going to perform among men like
he did against Hillary Clinton, which was at eleven point margin.
That's the entire really difference. And they break into different
subcategories like black men, Hispanic men, YadA, YadA, YadA. But
it's the question of men is how well is Donald
Trump performed with men? Is this the men the main election?
Because with women it seems fairly unchanged completely. When it
(31:18):
comes to the voting data, look, we're starting to see
early votes come in. A lot of states do not
have voter registration by political party, like Virginia. Virginia has
already had one hundred and fifty thousand people vote in it,
but we don't know if the Republicans or Democrats because
they don't register voters by party. We just know if
their conservative districts or their liberal districts. And a lot
of conservative districts voting. Early voting turnout is over one
(31:40):
hundred percent of where it was in twenty twentieth this time,
and in some liberal districts they have hit that point
and they've even surpassed it, like in fair Fact City.
But what we're looking at right now is a lot
of mail in data, and the mail in data in
the ballot requests in Pennsylvania, Democrats are down fairly large.
The numbers are about four percentage points than they were
(32:01):
back in twenty twenty. In North Carolina they were down
a big, big, big time. As far as people with
early mailer ballot requests, does that mean that they won't
vote at all because they didn't get the early ballot requests?
I don't know. But the early ballot requests for Democrats
where they're going to mail in tons of votes and
basically have these votes ready to account it on election day,
(32:23):
that doesn't look like it's happening so far.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
We're talking to Ryan Gardusky. Okay, two parter here for you.
Speaker 3 (32:28):
Ryan Buck and I both believe that Joe Biden is
going to outperform Kamala. That is, Biden's twenty twenty numbers
are going to outperform Kamalas twenty twenty four numbers. I'm
curious if you would agree with that. That's nationwide, not
on an individual state basis. Second part of this question,
if you had to place a wager right now, would
(32:50):
you place a wager on Trump to win in twenty
twenty four based on the data analytics as you see it,
or would you place a wager on Kamala to win.
It's too I think, kind of essence of the election questions.
But first, how will Kamala do compared to Biden.
Speaker 7 (33:07):
Well, she's almost certain to get lower because Trump's numbers
have basically been stagnant. I think he got forty six
point two percent the first time, forty six point eight
percent the second time. Trump's numbers are fairly fixed. I
have a very difficult time seeing how if you voted
for him in sixteen, and how you voted for him
in twenty that to all of a sudden, you're not
going to vote for him in twenty four. That's when
(33:27):
they show these huge swings away from college educated whites.
I think to myself, and now I don't have any
data to prove this, but I think he when forty
four percent of that group in two straight elections. I
don't really see how many of them are going to
sit there and be like, oh, you know, this third
time that got gone, you know, a bridge too far.
So she's most certainly going to be doing worse. The
question is how much of the independent vote, the third
(33:48):
party vote is going to be taken up of her.
Of her numbers the third party vote was detrimental to
Hillary in twenty sixteen, there was a much smaller part
of it, and a lot of those anti Hillary voters
just went to o'biden. I would say She's probably run
forty nine percent in the polls, and Trump's are forty
seven or forty eight percent, but that's really where it is.
So yeah, she'll be much lower. She'll be lower by
(34:10):
a good point point and a half percent. What Buck
was saying in the previous segment of Hispanic support increasing
or Black support increasing. If the numbers are real and
Hispanic supporters are increasing, you may see a situation where
New York or Los Angeles are significantly tighter, but that
does not bear out into an electoral victory. The only
state that really matters right now is Pennsylvania, because if
(34:33):
Trump wins North Carolina and Georgia, as he's favored to,
Pennsylvania flips the entire map. So judging based on Pennsylvania,
I think based on the Mullerberg poll that just was
released and the Washington Post poll, and I think of
the era in the New York Times poll, I think
I would say Trump, in my opinion, is probably favored
to win Pennsylvania, not by much. It's not going to
be a landslide, but that number in Pennsylvania would give
(34:56):
him the electoral college two seventy he needs.
Speaker 6 (34:58):
And who would the votes be he assuming Trump is
ahead and does end up winning in Pennsylvania, Ryan, is
it again that basically white guys, white guys who are
non college educated, who are the difference makers.
Speaker 7 (35:12):
You're gonna see an uptick in places like Yes One.
The white vote in Pennsylvania matters immensely, especially the senior vote.
But you see the numbers and registrations moving significantly. I
think in one county they say there's four thousand more
registered people that they've not tabulated yet. You're going to
see Trump uppick in Hispanic cities and secondary cities like Redding,
like Lancaster, like Bethlehem. These are huge Hispanic populations. They
(35:36):
experienced fifteen to twenty point swings from sixteen to twenty.
You'll see that again, probably maybe at a smaller level,
but you'll still see an upswing in those areas. You
won't see the numbers coming out of Pittsburgh and Philly
that I think people are expecting to sit there and
see and then Trump is going to have to do
his sixteen numbers in rural counties and manage to have
(35:56):
enough medium to big size county victories Eerie County, Landcaster County,
York County to upset and upstage the numbers coming out
of the coller counties Delaware County, for example, or Montgomery County.
Montgomery County is the big one. It's it's an absolute
Republican killer, is Montgomery County. So if if Kamala breaks
(36:16):
out of Montgomery County with you know, a forty forty
five point victory, that would be a very very hard
number to overcome.
Speaker 5 (36:24):
But this is the Virginia stuff.
Speaker 6 (36:26):
By the way Ryan started started to interpret at the end,
this is really I'm very curious. Virginia seems much closer
than a lot of people would have anticipated at this point.
I believe Governor Youngkin has a sixty percent approval rating
in the state, which the Republican in state like Virginia
is really solid. Is Virginia a long shot for Trump
(36:47):
or is it not a shot for Trump?
Speaker 7 (36:50):
It's still a long shot because of how the liberal
counties outside of Washington, DC, those super blue counties Fairfax
for example, had four times the amount of early voters
in twenty twenty four for the first day of early voting,
then they did in twenty twenty However, the Red counties,
the Red counties in smaller areas, they're experiencing overall one
hundred percent increase in early voter turnout. So it's not
(37:12):
like just the left is mobilized and the right is
and they both are equally mobilized. We have to just
see where those key demographics are breaking. How much are
hispanics breaking, are Black men breaking, and how much are
men period breaking? Because the women numbers are very, very
fairly even as I said the top of the segment,
the women numbers aren't where it's moving. It's about men.
Do men come out for Trump in the numbers at
(37:34):
some of the polls that say it's a tied election,
do or do they kind of la are their lackluster?
Are the Joe Biden levels where they underperform what expectations
or hopes would be from the trumpet.
Speaker 3 (37:44):
We're talking to Ryan Gardeski. By the way, My theory
on that is just there's a lot of people fed
up with election advertising and as soon as they can
get their vote in, whether it's red or blue. They
just want to get the ballots done, and then they're like,
I'm out, I'm not paying attention to this anymore. That's
one theory that I have. Okay, Ryan, question for you,
will we get any data prior to election day that
(38:05):
you think could be important in giving it us an indication?
You mentioned early voting in Virginia. Is there any state
where we're going to get data that's reliable in any
way to kind of give us a sense for what
might be coming prior to election day? Is there anything
you're waiting for or watching for.
Speaker 7 (38:22):
So the Republican early vote right now in Pennsylvania's twenty
six percent. It was lower, I think it was maybe
twenty seven percent, but the Democratic vote went from seventy
to sixty three. So I think those are the numbers.
They're roughly around the numbers. So the numbers in the
early mail in votes in Pennsylvania are five points more
fareable to Republicans than they were four years ago. I
(38:45):
want to see where that trend is moving. If Republicans
can easily cross thirty or maybe thirty one percent and
Democrats in full under sixty percent, that's an extremely extremely
good sign for Trump he's winning in the early mail
in ballot request and a number of small counties. I
also want to see partially where the Amish counties are heavily.
Amish areas are pulling up because they apparently I'm this
(39:08):
big and get out the vote effort on the part
of Amish voters. Pennsylvania is where it's all at. So
that's why I want to see Pennsylvania's early ballad request.
There's already a million. I want to see how far
it goes and how high percentage wise Republicans go up
and Democrats go down.
Speaker 2 (39:23):
Ryan appreciate the time.
Speaker 3 (39:24):
I man encourage all of you to go follow Ryan
on Twitter, by the way, and even mentioned it. Great
job of late on CNN. It's been fun to see
you taking a sore into some of these awful arguments.
So you've been killing it there.
Speaker 7 (39:34):
Pank you hell Ya appreciate.
Speaker 3 (39:37):
So check out check out Ryan's work at at a
substaff and go follow in on social media. We'll share
that certainly on clayanbuck dot com. Thanks Ryan, thank you.
Speaker 1 (39:47):
You're listening to twenty four The Year of Impact with
Clay and Buck.
Speaker 3 (39:54):
Welcome back in Clay Travis Buck Sexton Show. Appreciate all
of you hanging out with us. We roll through the Friday.
Speaker 2 (40:00):
Edition of the show.
Speaker 3 (40:02):
If some of you were looking for things to check
out this weekend, maybe you're not going to be like
me watching a ton of college football, including the Georgia
Alabama game. Maybe you want to balance out your football
viewing with some documentary viewing. It is a good way
to spend your time. And the movie is called Vindicating
Trump and it is by Denesh Desuza. Denesh, appreciate you
(40:25):
coming on with us. Why don't you just make the pitch?
Why should people watch this? What will they learn? What
surprised you while making this film?
Speaker 2 (40:34):
If anything?
Speaker 11 (40:37):
I began with the premise that Donald Trump is a
very strange figure because he is so intensely loved and
so intensely hated. There's one group of people that would
be willing to take a bullet for him, and there's
another group of people that will cheer, maybe silently cheer,
(40:57):
when someone tries to put a bullet in. You have
to like go back to Lincoln to find a figure
who is produces this kind of disparate reaction. So how
do you explain it? What is it about Trump that
causes some people to become undyingly loyal to him, and
(41:18):
other people to hate him with such a passion that
they will stop at nothing to get rid of him,
all the way from character assassination to political assassination to
law fair, which is a kind of legal assassination, to well,
now we have two actual assassination attempts. So what we
do in this film, the centerpiece of the film is
(41:40):
a one on one with Trump, in which I set
myself the task of trying to bring out a certain
hidden or private dimension of his personality and character that
he himself tries not to show you. He has a
kind of a manly aversion to showing you his his feelings,
(42:01):
his vulnerability, even the way that his inner mind works.
And so I try very hard, and I think I
succeed in this film and showing you an aspect of
Donald Trump that hasn't been widely seen.
Speaker 6 (42:13):
Speaking of Denessh Desuza vindicating Trump as his movie out
in theaters now in Denesh. To that end, my understanding
is Alena Haba and Laura Trump, his daughter in law,
feature pretty prominently to present some of that broader picture
of Trump. And one thing that Clay and I from
our interactions with him professionally and denish, I can tell
(42:34):
you I met Trump in New York the first time.
I think I was thirteen years old. I knew his
kids a little bit growing up in the city, and
I've talked to him, you know, many times since then.
He is actually a very warm and engaging and charismatic guy,
particularly in person.
Speaker 11 (42:54):
This is a key point, Buck, because you know, Trump
has certain public qualities and in fact is kind of famous,
and this some people off. He's very egotistical in public.
You know, his economy isn't just good, it's like the
best economy ever. His crowds aren't simply big, they're like
bigger than any crowd ever assembled in human history. So
(43:14):
when people listen to that, they think, well, this guy
must be totally insufferable. But not really. In private, he's
self deprecating. Is he pays attention to you. Even though
he seems in some senses in public to be a
kind of a bully. He never bullies people who are
beneath him. You'll never see him bully a waiter or
bully a doorman in one of his hotels. He only
(43:36):
bullies other eight hundred pound gorillas and usually ones that
are trying to get them. And then the other thing
is that Trump has the supreme virtue of courage. Any
other Republican facing ninety one criminal charges would have long
well facing two criminal charges, would have long fled from
the field. Trump not only hangs in there, he does
(43:57):
his own legal ropodope. He ignores orders, somehow he pushes forward.
And then look at his spectacular reaction to the two
assassination attempts. I don't think there's a man alive who
would have responded to either assassination attempt and the way
that Trump did.
Speaker 3 (44:14):
We talked about a denesh right after it happened that
even in a Hollywood movie, the person playing president of
the United States would not have been as much of
a badass as Trump was right after that first assassination attempt.
And what you said, I think is so important. Buck
and I have been fortunate to get to know Trump
(44:35):
behind the scenes. I mean, we've had him on the
show a bunch seven or eight times, but we've gotten
to do that at mar A Lago, We've gotten to
do that at Bedminster. And I'll just give you two examples.
I bet that will connect with you based on this movie,
and I would encourage people to go see it.
Speaker 2 (44:49):
One buck.
Speaker 3 (44:50):
Do you remember when his granddaughter came in at Bedminster
and he wanted her to go out. She now has
committed to the University of Miami. But he was such
a normal, every day grandpa. It was just so striking
to me how excited he was to take her out
golfing with him. And you would have never known that
he was the president of the United States formerly, or
(45:10):
that he was running for president of the United States.
His full attention was on her and wanting to know
how her golf game was going, and wanting to get
out and play with her. The other one, and we've
talked about it on the show, but for people out
there who say, oh my goodness, he's Hitler Denash, you
talked about his ability to focus on people and think
about them. When we finished the last mar A Lago interview,
(45:31):
both of our wives were there and our staff. He
insisted that we take milkshakes with us for the drive
back to Miami from mar A Lago because mar A
Lago had the best milkshakes on the planet, and he
was afraid that.
Speaker 2 (45:45):
We hadn't had anything to eat.
Speaker 3 (45:48):
I just the guy is actually really charismatic and very
likable one on one. And also, I would say d
Nash and I bet you saw this with the family
as well. The kids all seem to really adore grandkids
seem to adore him. It's hard to be an awful
person if your kids and your grandkids like you.
Speaker 11 (46:05):
Right, Absolutely true, And we do bring out one reason
to have Laura Trump in the program was to have
her talk about this kind of personal side of Trump,
you know, with regard to Trump being a hitler or
a dictator. And by the way, that's the kind of
poisonous rhetoric that convinces would be assassins. Hey, I can
(46:25):
be a hero if I take this guy out, you know.
But the left really says that about him. And yet
what did he do that was dictatorial in his first term.
I mean, he had the opportunity. If he was going
to be a dictator, you think he would have shown
his dictatorial colors. How many prominent Democrats did he indict, prosecute,
(46:45):
lock up? None? So there's no dictatorial stuff coming out
of Trump.
Speaker 10 (46:50):
Now.
Speaker 11 (46:50):
Trump will joke and say things like, well, I won't
be a dictator, but maybe on the first day now
this guy, this is a shtick. He's a little bit
of a stand up comedian. And for anyone to take
that seriously, there you go. He said he's going to
be a dictator. He said it himself. I mean this
is called pretending to take Trump in a completely different sense,
(47:10):
in which he means normal words, and the dictatorial threat
is coming from the other side. I mean, if you
look at the signature features of totalitarian societies, they have
mass surveillance, they have widespread censorship, they have criminalization of
political differences, political prisoners, trying to lock up the leader
(47:34):
of the opposition party. Well, guess what, it's the Democrats
that are doing all of that. So they accuse Trump
of being a dictator, but I think what they really
mean is that he is the guy that they fear
will foil their dictatorial schemes.
Speaker 6 (47:50):
I'll at clanbuck dot com now you can watch the
trailer for Denesh's movie Vindicating Trump and Denesh. I do
think part of what has pushed some very prominent, very wealthy,
and influential Silicon Valley folks. I think this was part
of Elon's move right as well. You know, there are
(48:12):
a few things but has been the lawfair against Trump,
because anybody who understands how totalitarian societies work, anyone who
understands how free societies on the other side have to work,
I think, recognizes that they didn't just discover all these
crimes that Trump committed in the seventy sixth year of
his life, never having had been charged with any crime
(48:36):
for seventy six years. It's clearly lawfair, and if lawfair
is the future of this country, we actually don't have
rule of law.
Speaker 11 (48:45):
This is a critical point. I've been reading Selganned since
Gulag Archipelago, and he talks about what he calls the
Vishinski doctrine, which is this is the one that the
Soviets used. Vishinsky is this guy who basically said, listen,
we since we aren't resent when something happens, or crime happens,
we can never be absolutely sure, so we shouldn't try
(49:06):
to be absolutely sure. What we basically want to do
is basically figure out we can use some fairly elastic rules,
the manipulation of bending of laws to basically get what
we want out of this trial, out of this process,
and think about it, That's exactly what the Democrats do.
They shop around for a blue jurisdiction, they find a
(49:27):
kind of vengeful mob of jurors who kind of want
to get Trump in the first place. They find a
sympathetic judge, so it becomes a wink wink operation between
the judge and the prosecution. So, you know, to the
naive American, they might think, well, there's an actual court.
It looks like a court. You know, they're following the
outward trappings of law. Objections sustained, and therefore it must
(49:50):
be a legitimate process. No, it's not a legitimate process.
And anyone who's looking closely can see that they're going
after Trump for things that they would never go after
anyone else. Of course, one interesting question is why Trump,
Like why only Trump? Why is he the very scary guy?
And I think the answer is that he is a
very strong guy. This came out in the courage that
(50:13):
he displayed with the assassination attempts. Other Republicans are much
more weak need than Trump. So the Democrats don't fear Romney,
they don't fear Paul Ryan. What they do fear is Trump.
Speaker 3 (50:25):
Denesh I've said that the most important decision Trump would
have to make if he wins is who he picks
his attorney general. For what you're laying out here, I'm
a lawyer. I believe you're a lawyer as well. What
has been allowed to occur with our Department of Justice
and the targeting of political adversaries has never occurred in
the history of any of our lives, and frankly, never
really in the history of the United States. How do
(50:47):
we get back some measure of trust in our Department
of Justice? And do you agree with me that who
Trump picks as his attorney general might well be his
most consequential pick of all when it comes to stocking
his cabinet and his administration.
Speaker 11 (51:03):
I agree completely. And my solution to it is somewhat controversial,
I will admit. And here's what it is. It is
essentially the solution of how do you tame a rogue
operation a kind? How do you tame a bully in
a schoolyard? And the answer is you can't do it
unless you ambush the bully, unless you respond in kind,
(51:25):
unless you show the bully that bullying tactics don't pay off.
You might remember when Elon Musk banned some leftist journalists
on Twitter on x for one single day if you
watch the reaction when that happened, Suddenly all these people
who were champions of censorship and champions of shutting down
disinformation and removing millions of accounts, they became great defenders
(51:48):
of free speech. I mean they were quoting the First Amendments,
citing John Stuart Mill. So the moment their free speech
was threatened, they rediscovered the value of the principle. So
I think that the way to ultimately force the left
to stop doing this kind of stuff is to start
doing it to them.
Speaker 3 (52:06):
It's basically why we have nuclear weapons in multiple countries, right,
there has to be a deterrence and a threat factor
or else whoever the most powerful is just keeps doing
whatever they.
Speaker 2 (52:15):
Want exactly right.
Speaker 11 (52:17):
And there are many laws, by the way, I'm not
talking about unleashing some sort of plague of lawlessness. There
are for example, in the Rico Statutes, it says that
anyone who is involved in any way in collaborating or
participating in an election fraud scheme is committing a serious felony.
Now my point is, all right, so let's take a
(52:38):
look at that. Generally, Republican attorneys general take a look
at that. They go, well, This hasn't really been used,
so we're not going to focus on it. Let it
be the Democrats of pulling out every opportunity from the
Large Accordion Book of Federal Statutes to go after conservatives.
But they got to realize the two can play at
this game.
Speaker 2 (52:56):
No doubt.
Speaker 3 (52:57):
Denesh Desuza, the book is the document to Revindicating Trump.
Speaker 2 (53:01):
Encourage all of you to go check it out.
Speaker 3 (53:02):
Eight hundred and fifty theaters nationwide, many different ways to
be consuming it. To Nash, we appreciate the time, good
luck with the film.
Speaker 11 (53:10):
If I could say so, guys. Vindicating Trump dot com
is sort of the one stop shop to get tickets.
You put in your city or your town and boom,
the theaters will pop right up. See it this weekend
if you can
This is twenty four, a weekly highlight reel from the
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show featuring all things the
election coverage.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Let's get started. Here are Clay and Buck.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
I want to play a couple more cuts of the
disastrous MSNBC interview with Stephanie Rule that Kamala did last night,
and I want to continue to emphasize to all of
you that you should go watch it for yourself. And
I know it's painful, but I do think it's important
for you to listen to what she's saying because maybe
(00:34):
there's persuadable people in your friend or family group who
are buying in to the Kamala Harris word salad, or
to the idea of brat summer, or the idea that
somehow she is going to be able to manage the
United States government. Here she is, Buck, Let's have it.
These are a couple of fun, ridiculous, ridiculous answers. Kamala
(00:57):
has evidently learned the word holistic.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
She uses it.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
I want to play this for you three times in
twenty six seconds, all within a nonsensical word salad talking
about working people.
Speaker 4 (01:11):
Listen, some of the work is going to be through
what we do in terms of giving benefits and assistance
to state local governments around transit dollars and looking holistically
at the connection between that and housing, and looking holistically
at the incentives we in the federal government can create
for local and state governments to actually engage in planning
(01:32):
in a holistic manner that includes prioritizing affordable housing for
working people.
Speaker 5 (01:38):
I want to show yourself in the head when I
mean this book holistically.
Speaker 6 (01:41):
Her campaign is a disaster, and if the Republicans can't
defeat her with Donald Trump, we need to do some
profound soul.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Searching as a party. That's where I am.
Speaker 6 (01:53):
That's why I've been so confident every day of this election,
ever since they've nominated kam Law I was You'll notice
I was not celebrating early when he was up against Biden,
even though I knew he had dementia and all that stuff,
just because of what's going to make the difference in
the key states. As we've discussed many times on the show,
Kamala's a weaker. I know the polls with Biden, but
(02:16):
I really believe that they could have trodded him out
there for debate. He would have done better and he
would have had a rebound. I think Kamala is a
weaker matchup for Trump and Joe Biden. Was Kamala with
using the word holistic reminds me. We used to do
something called the vocabulary.
Speaker 5 (02:32):
Work word of the day.
Speaker 6 (02:33):
Yeah, I hope to see you not sporadically from clueless, remember.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Yes, And we had to use we had to write
sentences and every now and then a teacher would be like,
you guys are just mailing it in because you know,
you would use you know, we discussed the whatever the
word was, you would use it in a sentence and
it would be like using the definition of the word
in the sentence and we would get, you know, marked
off or whatever. It is definitely the case that she
(03:02):
is trying to pretend to be intelligent by using a
word that she just learned as many times as she could.
Now there's another.
Speaker 5 (03:09):
It's just one thing just to be oh, did you
want to go to a call?
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Or I've got another I've got another funny way.
Speaker 6 (03:15):
We'll do the other clip and then I'll tell you
what I'm what I'm thinking here, go ahead.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
There has been a discussion about whether Kamala actually worked
at McDonald's. There is no evidence that she did work
at McDonald's. By the way, you would think there'd be
a pay stub out there. You would think there would
be some coworker. I don't know about you, Buck, I've
had multiple jobs in my life that were like retail
kind of focused. I worked at American Eagle, I mentioned
(03:39):
Abercrombie and Fitch before I worked at Media Play. Okay,
all three of those jobs I.
Speaker 6 (03:46):
Just a Clay and my wife both worked at Abercrombie,
which people who work there. I love to tell you
because back in the day you had to be good
looking to work at Abercromby.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
Producer Ali worked at McDonald's. Let me just say this, Buck,
I believe today you could find a coworker of mine
at all three of those places and they would say, yes,
I worked with Clay Travis, we had you know, like X,
Y and Z Right.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
There would be.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
Multiple coworkers that would remember working there. If I were
running for president of the United States, they would be
super easy to find. Right on social media to be
coming out. Why has no one who worked with Kamala
Harris she's a good looking girl. When she was working
at McDonald's buck you, if you're a teenager, you would
remember a pretty girl that worked alongside of you at
(04:35):
a place like McDonald's. I'm just gonna say, if you're
a dude, if you're a straight guy, none of them
have come out and said, oh yeah, a unique name
like Kamala, none of them can remember working alongside of
her at McDonald's. That would be an interesting question. I
would just point out here is Stephanie rule quit a
questioning Kamala about her McDonald's job.
Speaker 4 (04:57):
Listen, first, one, just a fact check because your opponent
there is a literal day, there's no such thing.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
As a little job.
Speaker 4 (05:03):
Okay, fair, fair, because your opponent almost every day seems
to be talking about this.
Speaker 7 (05:08):
So I just want to ask you, yes or no?
Speaker 4 (05:10):
At any point in your life.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Have you served to all beef patties, special sauce, let
us cheese pick those onions on.
Speaker 4 (05:18):
But I'm looking at a McDonald's yes or no, that's it.
I have Okay, now the other job, but it was
not a small job like I do guys.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
I mean, you know, okay, she worked at the fries.
That's a ridiculous way to ask a question. That's not
a fact check. A fact check would be that is
Kamala's story. I just think it's important even in the
way that that question is asked. That's important fact check.
That's not a fact check. That is asking Kamala the
same story that she's already told in asking her to
(05:46):
reinforce that that is her story.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
That is not a fact check.
Speaker 6 (05:50):
But I also think that the Kamala that you are
seeing in this campaign, whether it's in the most puff
piece interview or the fact that you know they're hiding her,
I have like a little a little bit of sympathy
for her position Clay, because she's she's playing a role
that is not how she has thought as an adult
(06:13):
for her entire life in public. Certainly, what I mean
is when she speaks about these things, I think part
of why she's falling back so heavily on like holistically
and fair share and and and these things is because
she's not telling people. You know, if if someone asked
you a question, or you asked me a question, we
don't think about how this will sound to them. We
(06:35):
just answered the question, right, because I'll tell them what
we think. She can't tell people what she thinks. Put
aside that she's not particularly cognitively elite.
Speaker 5 (06:45):
She can't.
Speaker 6 (06:46):
She's she's always you know, it would be like if
someone asked you something, Clay and you were having or
you know, ask me something and said Buck, you know,
as a communist, like as a leftist, what do you
think about this? And I'd have to translate that. I
could do it, but I'd have to stop and think
and translate it into the response that I'm.
Speaker 5 (07:03):
Supposed to give. She's doing that this whole campaign. She's not. Really.
Speaker 6 (07:07):
The only thing where she's authentic is abortion. That's the
only issue where she's able to give her real opinion.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
You know, it's fascinating because what you're really hitting is
what I think is the essence of this race. Whatever
you think about him, Donald Trump is an authentic version
of himself. He's not being something that he's not. I
think Kamala is the most fundamentally inauthentic candidate that we
have ever seen in a presidential race. And she is
trying to play the role of moderate, which requires her
(07:37):
to pretend that she never has told us anything else
about her past, even things simple Like we talked about
this a little bit earlier in the week. She's saying Oh,
I've got a gun. You come in my house, I'll
shoot you, right. I mean, I'm paraphrasing the things that
she has said.
Speaker 5 (07:51):
Buck.
Speaker 3 (07:51):
When she was in San Francisco, she tried to pass
a measure, work to help pass a measure that would
have led to the seizure of all handguns in San Francisco.
That is who she is, and so she has defined
herself in left wing politics throughout her entire career in California,
and now when she tries to introduce herself on the
(08:14):
national stage, she has all this past history and she
now has to claim that she doesn't mean any of
the things that she said she believed in before.
Speaker 6 (08:23):
That's why she's particularly, you know, not unfluid in the
way that she's speaking about these things. She's having to
think back to what did my handlers say. It's just
like she was in the debate. People said, oh, she
did such a good job in the debate. Well, I mean, yeah,
if you think that giving if you think that reciting speeches,
not answering questions and not having to be pressed on
(08:45):
the answers you give makes you a good debater, I mean,
anyone can get up there. You know, we had something
in the speech and debate Team Clay.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
It's very cool. Obviously it was a very cool guy.
In high school, they.
Speaker 6 (08:56):
Called a declamation, and that was for people who memorize,
like Pericles funeral oration or something, or you know, they'd
usually do like a funny speech, but it was a
memorized speech, very different from debate. Kamala Harris is doing
declamation piecemeal. She's talking of she's saying things that she
has learned her memories. It's not what she believes, it's
(09:17):
not what she thinks, it's what she's been told to say.
And you're always going it's almost like if you're somebody
who isn't fluent in another language and you're having to
translate it. Yeah, you know, like I could figure out
how to ask where do I get Clay's really expensive
steak in French? But it's going to take me a minute.
You know, it's not just going to come out of,
you know, come flying out. So that's what Kamala's that's
(09:38):
her challenge is that she's presenting herself.
Speaker 5 (09:40):
If she was able to be full leftist.
Speaker 6 (09:43):
I mean, wouldn't that be amazing if she was able
to really just say what she wanted to say about
all this stuff.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
Obviously, she would get destroyed in the.
Speaker 5 (09:50):
Election, but I think she would sound better.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
I do think she would sound better. Buck here's the challenge.
I think she would still run into even if she
was going full leftist. I don't think she's smart enough
to articulate full leftist opinions. And by the way, I
don't think Tim Walls is either. I think that's the
reason you haven't even seen him do a single interview basically.
But look, I disagree with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
They're not morons, right, Those are intelligent people who could
(10:16):
at least try to advocate for what they believe.
Speaker 6 (10:19):
But remember leftism. One of the great benefits of leftism
for those who are its adherents is that it is
all emotion and slogans, right. I mean, if you talk
to Bernie Sanders about what will really happen when you
get into some of his policies, he's like.
Speaker 5 (10:33):
Well, you know, it's what's the right thing to do,
or whatever.
Speaker 6 (10:36):
He doesn't it's like, well, Bernie, you're gonna have a
lot of businesses closed down, You're gonna have a lot
less growth, you're gonna have people pour or across the board.
He's like, well, yeah, that's the cost of doing business,
you know what I'm saying, Like leftists, I mean, look
at look at AOC. Look at AOC. Does she understand economics? No,
but she is fluent in communism.
Speaker 3 (10:57):
Yeah, And we should talk in the next hour. We're
going to talk with Ran Paul, but we need to
talk about all the maneuverings going on New York City mayor. Wise,
Oh we're talking about is AOC potentially going to make
a run for mayor of New York City?
Speaker 2 (11:11):
Is Oh?
Speaker 3 (11:11):
God, Drew Cuomo, Like, there are a lot of Democrat
decisions to be made.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
If you're listening to twenty four The Year of Impact
with Clay and Buck, I.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
Think these charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams
are super, super interesting. And the New York Post today
Buck had a cover art that essentially said that Eric
Adams was being charged because he had been too critical
of the migrant crisis brought on by the Biden and
(11:48):
Kamala Harris administrations. And you and I were two of
the first people I heard pointing this out. And I
think many people now, even who were initially critical of
that idea that the full indictment has come out, and
we went through some of the indictment allegations, but a
big part of it, essentially is he got upgrades on
(12:09):
Turkish airlines and he got better hotel rooms. Then he
would have gotten based on his stature as a prominent politician.
And I would just say this, buck, if getting airline
upgrades in better hotel rooms, then you would otherwise get
is grounds for politicians to be charged with felonies. I
(12:30):
think almost every politician in America could be charged with
a felony, a Republican Democrat, anybody, because I don't know
about you. I've gotten on a lot of airplanes over
the years and seen a lot of politicians sitting in
first class seats. And if you're only making one hundred
and seventy five thousand dollars a year those upgrades, it
seems like you may be getting a little bit of
(12:51):
beneficial treatment. I'll just say that, because or you're paying
for your camp with your public funds for those first
class seats. Anyway, saying that, I think that's perfectly okay.
Certainly I don't like the idea of people trading on
their political power, but.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
In the grand scheme of things. This is not.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
Menendez taking gold bars to help Egypt.
Speaker 6 (13:15):
Well, there's a difference between gross and a crime for
which you should lose your freedom and your reputation, right,
I mean, Morning Joe is gross, But I don't want
them sent to prison. They might want us sent to prison.
But I was watching it this morning, of course, That's
why that's on my mind. There's a big difference. And
I think that when you're talking about these kinds of
(13:39):
of soft benefits, I guess you could call them. This
reminds me of the like I said, the Conrad blackcase,
who was a conservative media mogul, a very very smart writer.
He still I think publishers sometimes National Review in other places,
and they sent him to federal prison under the Honest
Services Frauds Statute, saying that I mean, I can't even
(14:02):
get in all the details right now, but the Supreme
Court nine to oh said, if you guys take this
statute for what it says, you've committed fraud. If you
take a better seat at a restaurant that you're doing
business with, let's say, or better table, because you know
it's influencing you and you're not going to give your
honest services to the company that you're working for because
(14:24):
they gave you a better table. It's insane and the
stuff that with Look, we're not he I'm not like
some huge mayor Eric Adams fan. Right, He's been a terrible.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
Mayor and a joker at best, only decent by the
standard of not as bad as better than Deblasio.
Speaker 6 (14:41):
Deblasio was a straight up f tried to ruin the
city and did as much damage to New York City
as he could. Deblasio is an F. He was a
cancer on the city of New York as the mayor.
And anybody who voted for him in New York to
my former fellow New Yorkers or people like me that
you used to live in New York, you should feel
ashamed of voting for the bla. Anyone who voted for
Deblasio should feel shame. But anyway, you know, Adams is
(15:05):
like a D plus maybe a C minus. You know
if the Blasio is an F. But Clay they're going
after him. This is the thing that people said, oh, well,
this crime has been going on for a long time. Yeah,
they're talking about when he was Brooklyn Borough president in
twenty sixteen, that's almost a decade ago. They're talking about
(15:25):
business class upgrades on Turk Apparently one of our VIPs
sent and Turkish airlines very nice. I didn't know that,
very very nice, world class airline.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Who knew?
Speaker 5 (15:33):
Who knew?
Speaker 2 (15:33):
I'm just saying Clay was talking some smack about Turkey.
I came in.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
You just said Turkey wouldn't be in the top twenty
five countries that I would want to visit.
Speaker 6 (15:42):
He's like, the only Turkey I like comes on Thanksgiving.
I'm just saying Clay was taking some shots to Wan audience.
Speaker 3 (15:49):
He positioned, unless you aren't, maybe we have a huge
Turkish audience.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
I apologize to everyone out there, is anybody like you
know what I really want to do. You know what
dream vacation I've had my whole life. I want to
go to Istanbul. I mean, maybe there are some of
you out there that are like istan You know there
is nobody listening.
Speaker 6 (16:08):
The number one vacation is Istanbul Constantinople. Now, Istanbul is
one of the most historically rich and significant locations of
any city on the planet.
Speaker 5 (16:20):
I'm just telling you the truth, man, I'm just laying
it down for you.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
It is now I'm going to end up there somehow,
and people are going to blow me up on social
media because I'm.
Speaker 5 (16:28):
Playing buck go to Turkey. Well, has so much fun, dude.
Speaker 6 (16:31):
A lot of guys with mustaches serving a steak is
all I can tell you.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
It'll be a great guy.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
Not in my top twenty five, but if the standard.
But you mentioned the services investigation, the court and the
way they examined it. Remember they wouldn't even allow anything
that was probably ten x this from the Republican governor
of Virginia. They convicted him basically of the bribery and
(16:56):
then they were like, this is garbage.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
The Supreme Court tossed it back.
Speaker 6 (17:00):
That's right, And that was that was Governor Bob McDonald
and even some conservatives. You know, I was doing solo
rate at the time, Clay, and I was like, this
is crazy, this is over itat some conservatives like, no,
like we can't stand for corruption. I'm like corruption. This
guy's like, hey, here's a Rolex and then yeah, if
he signs a law that says that this guy's company
gets some special tax break, that's corruption. But he was
(17:21):
just hanging out with him.
Speaker 3 (17:22):
Yeah, they were like longtime friends. And again there was
also they've come after like Clarence Thomas for flying on
private jets, right, Like, this is ridiculous a lot.
Speaker 6 (17:33):
There was never even an allegation that he did something
as governor for the person who gave him the gift.
Speaker 5 (17:40):
Now you could say, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
Like Buck, the quid pro quo in the Eric Adams
case is that he helped them deal with challenges associated
with firearms in the Turkish consulate. I mean, are you
really arguing that that this was some ma I mean,
that is what That's the only real thing they're able
to peg of his behavior, Like what did they get
(18:04):
back for this?
Speaker 6 (18:06):
I just better fire alarm treatment. But here's where people
have started to really hone in on this. You're gonna
tell me that if Eric Adams hadn't ticked off the
White House and hadn't spoken out and became a national
news story multiple days, multiple news cycles over the last
(18:27):
year in the election year, talking about how the migrants
are swamping a city, talking about the migrant crime, how
they're attacking NYPD officers, et cetera, et cetera. All these
different stories that they had had that a federal prosecutor
who works for Biden's DOJ would bring this case now.
The only reason they're bringing this case now is because
(18:50):
Eric Adams has been cast out, if you will, from
the Democrat faithful and no longer has the protection of
King Biden. That's what And it sends a message to
any other Democrats who, by the way, also Clay have
their cities overham with migrants. You better shut your mouth.
(19:10):
Look what we can do to Adams.
Speaker 5 (19:12):
Because otherwise this is they're going back to twenty sixteen.
Speaker 6 (19:15):
Like I said, you're bringing this now. You couldn't wait
until late November to bring this case.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
How about just wait until the election, which is in
June of next year, and let people decide whether they
want Eric Adams to remain the mayor. But I want
to play to your point, Buck, this is when he
really kind of a game, became persona non grata with
the Biden White House when he back in September of
(19:41):
twenty twenty three, in a public setting, said hey, this
is going to destroy the city and the city's budget.
The migrant surge in New York City cut fourteen.
Speaker 8 (19:53):
Let me tell you something, New York is never in
my life. Have I had a problem that I I'm
not seeing ended.
Speaker 5 (20:01):
Two, I don't see an ending to this.
Speaker 8 (20:04):
I don't see an ending to this. This issue will
destroy New York City. Destroy New York City. We get
in ten thousand migrants a month. One time we were
just in Venezuela. Now we get Ecuador. Now we get
Russia speaking coming through Mexico. Now we get Western Africa.
(20:27):
Now we get people from all over the globe that
made their minds up that they're going to come through
the southern part of the border and come into New
York City.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
Okay, that was when it started.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
Listen to this book, Karine Jean Pierre was asked about this.
Hey was the mayor targeted because of his criticisms of
the Biden administra immigration policy?
Speaker 2 (20:49):
This is cut eight. Listen to her.
Speaker 9 (20:50):
Dodge Mayor Eric Adams suggests that he's being targeted by
the Biden administration over his criticism of the migrant crisis. Now,
this is the kind of accusation that's similar to what
we've heard from former President Donald Trump. So what is
the President's reaction to that kind of language being used
from a Democrat.
Speaker 10 (21:09):
Look, we have been always very clear The President was
clear even when he was running in twenty twenty that
he was going to make sure that DOJ is independent
and the DOJ is handling this case independently. I'm not
going to go beyond that.
Speaker 9 (21:22):
And Adams was also at a reception last night with
the President at the net.
Speaker 11 (21:26):
Did they talk.
Speaker 10 (21:27):
I can confirm to you that the President did not
see the mayor and they did not speak.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
Oh that's good, Bed, And I didn't know they were
both at a met gala last night.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Buck. Here's Donald Trump. Yesterday.
Speaker 3 (21:38):
We talked about the fact that we thought he would
potentially raise this as an issue at his press conference
in New York City, Trump said Eric Adams is being
targeted because he spoke out on the migrant crisis.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Listen to cut nine.
Speaker 6 (21:50):
I watched about a year ago when he talked about
how the illegal migrants are hurting our city and the
federal government should pay us and we shouldn't have to
take him.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
And I say, you know what, He'll be indicted.
Speaker 5 (22:01):
Within a year.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
And I was exactly right, because that's what we have.
Speaker 1 (22:05):
We have people that use the Justice Department and the
FBI at levels that have never been seen before.
Speaker 5 (22:13):
So I wish him luck. I don't know anything about
what he did.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
Okay, Buck, that was I think kind of many people
across America recognizing that it's not even necessarily the party name,
it's are you in good standing with the Biden Department
of Justice or not, because even if you've got a
D by your name, if you cross them, they want
(22:39):
to send a message that there is pain and punishment
coming your way.
Speaker 6 (22:43):
Look at how the Democrats operate, Clay. As a general rule,
they operate like a mafia family.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
I mean they you know, as.
Speaker 6 (22:51):
Long as you do what the apparatus wants, you will
be protected and you'll be taken care of, even if
you got a you know, on your sword, so to speak,
and maybe go away for all whatever. But if you
step out of line with the powers that be, they
want to make an example of you. I mean, listen
to what Eric Adams said there. He said, they're destroying
(23:12):
New York City. He didn't say like, hey, we could
use a little more money like for the they're destroying
New York City. And that SoundBite really resonated across the
country because the same thing's happening in Chicago. The same
thing's happening in, you know, a whole range of cities
all across America right now where you're getting all these
migrants that are being busted in or flown in, and
(23:34):
there's just no way to see this, I think other
than this is a huge vulnerability for the Democrats going
into the midterms, and bringing this case when they did
is a shot across the bow to any mayor any
governor any Democrat who thinks they're going to get a
little uh, you know, a little huffy about the migrant issues.
Speaker 5 (23:54):
How shut up?
Speaker 3 (23:55):
How about just honest. I mean, he didn't say anything
out landish. It's all just the truth.
Speaker 5 (24:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (24:01):
You basically it's hey, Democrats, you better go along and
pretend like Kamala Harris hasn't destroyed the border with Joe
Biden and hasn't completely made our sovereignty a joke. Or
we'll come for you too. And that's clay in a sense.
Why is the Eric Adams prosecution right now so powerful
as that messaging, Because first of all, he's got Republicans
(24:22):
basically defending him like you and me. I mean, yeah,
it's like a little slimy some of the stuff he
did fine, but I mean it's not big stuff. I mean,
this isn't like, oh my gosh, lock him up, like
people's businesses were ruined because of this Clay. The message
is sent very powerfully to Democrats. We can get you
two if we can get Eric Adams on business class upgrades.
Who do you think you are?
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Business class? I just can't play.
Speaker 3 (24:44):
And even the print quote quid pro quote what they
got help with fire awarms? I mean, this is this
is one of the craziest cases I've ever seen. You
got a better airplane and a better hotel room and
what did Okay, well, what did they get?
Speaker 2 (24:59):
What did they get him?
Speaker 3 (25:00):
That to you four so you could call and help,
get fire alarm help.
Speaker 6 (25:05):
And he didn't get ten million that This is what
we have to really nail this down. I think he
got ten thousand dollars of straw donations, which is not good.
I mean, you're not allowed to do that. That's a crime,
but it's ten it's a ten thousand dollars crime. They
keep saying ten million dollars because he then like leveraged
that to access state funds. And I'm like, hold hold
on a second. It feels like they're puffing things up
a little bit.
Speaker 2 (25:24):
On this one.
Speaker 1 (25:27):
You're listening to twenty four The Most Important Tier in
Politics with Clay Travis and buck Sexton.
Speaker 3 (25:36):
Welcome back in Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. We are
joined now by Ryan Gerdusky, National Populist Newsletter, founder of
the seventeen seventy six Project Pack, and I've been reading
his substack I believe it is, which has a lot
of data and analytics as it pertains to election date
out there. And Ryan, I want to start with this.
(25:58):
I think I read this on Friday of Life last
week or thereabouts, maybe over the weekend. You went into
the cross tabs and kind of looked at the data
coming out of Pennsylvania and you've compared it to twenty
sixteen and twenty twenty, and your theory of why these
polls have drastically under reported Donald Trump's strength and sixteen
(26:20):
and twenty is older white voters being underrepresented and not
accurately reflected in poll results. Walk our audience through it.
I found it to be a really persuasive argument.
Speaker 7 (26:34):
Right so on the National Populous Newsletter on Substack, which
is my substack. Nate Cohen, who runs the New York
Times polling stuff at the Sanna University. They had Trump
tied nationally but losing Pennsylvania by four. And the big
question was why Nate Cohen even went through Twitter and
said again was responding to people saying, well, it's not
through this sub group. It's not through this subgroup. And
(26:56):
the group you never mentioned was seniors. In the New
York Times, nationally, Trump is winning seniors by six. This
is a group that he won them by four last time,
and he won them by I think it was nine
the time. Before then, republic seniors had voted Republican in
every election, majority in every election going back at least
twenty five years. So it is a very good assumption
(27:18):
to say seniors will be voting Republican this time as well.
Seniors in Pennsylvania vote to the right of seniors nationally.
So in twenty twelve, Romney won seniors nationally by twelve.
He won seniors in Pennsylvania by fourteen. In sixteen, Trump
won them by nine nationally, ten in Pennsylvania. In twenty
Trump won them by four nationally seven in Pennsylvania, so
(27:39):
they vote to the right. In the New York Times
Siena poll, Trump is winning seniors nationally by six but
losing seniors in Pennsylvania by three. Now I know they say,
don't get sit there, don't get so tied up in
in cross tabs. But at the same exact time, this
is not a crosshub of like Hispanics, which make a
five percent of Pennsylvania, so they have stremely high margins
(28:00):
of error. Seniors in Pennsylvania are a third of voters.
The margin of error is fairly low. He probably will
be winning seniors by close to ten points, which is
a if the national poll is correct at six, they'll
probably win close to ten points among seniors, and that
thirteen point difference is the margin between him winning or losing.
And I only made a big point of the New
(28:22):
York Times poll is because in all these polling aggregators,
Nate Silva wrote to the White House, the economists, the
New York Times, Cenapol puts a lot, They put a
lot of weight into that polling institution. So when they
all sit there and say, well, Harris's favor to win Pennsylvania,
a lot of it is because of the New York
Times Sanapol, which I think personally has this flaw of
(28:43):
not correctly waiting the senior vote. And it's the same mistake,
I mind you, that they made in twenty twenty and
in twenty sixteen, but more especially in twenty twenty when
they were looking at how Biden and Trump were going
to do. It was the same exact group. Because liberal seniors,
older liberals who like listen Rachel Mattow every day and
thinks she's the voice of God, really love to tell
(29:04):
strangers their opinions on Donald Trump.
Speaker 6 (29:07):
Ryan, if you had to assess whether the Kamala campaign
is based on the data aware that they are behind,
they obviously won't say that.
Speaker 5 (29:20):
Is it clear enough?
Speaker 6 (29:21):
You think that even that they would know, even if
they won't say it publicly, that they're trailing. And also,
what's your assessment of Kamala with women?
Speaker 7 (29:31):
So that's a really great question about Kamala of women,
because the perception out in the media, and I guess
the perception for even myself as a voter, was that
Kamala is going to break all these numbers with women,
record breaking support among women. And I decided on the
Substack national populist newsletter Substack to break down all the polling,
and I broke it down between two sets of polls
(29:51):
polls that have Kamala surging with more than a four
percent margin of victory nationwide and polls that have a
very very close election, And shockingly, Kamala performs with women
the same exact way. In both sets of polls. She
beats Donald Trump on average by fifteen points, no matter
if the race shows at being very tied or the
(30:13):
race shows that kam Wala blowout the polling. The polling
difference is not among women. She does not perform any
better with women than Joe Biden did or Hillary Clinton did.
It's they both had about a fifteen point margin over
Donald Trump in twenty twenty and twenty sixteen, respectively. So
she is not winning over many new women voters. This
(30:34):
whole perception that there's this army of pro choice women
who never voted before and they're voting for the very
first time. That one isn't true historically, but true, it's
not even in the data this time. The entire difference
is among men. The big question is is Donald Trump
going to perform his Joe Biden numbers among men when
he won men by a four point margin or somewhere
(30:55):
around there, or is going to perform among men like
he did against Hillary Clinton, which was at eleven point margin.
That's the entire really difference. And they break into different
subcategories like black men, Hispanic men, YadA, YadA, YadA. But
it's the question of men is how well is Donald
Trump performed with men? Is this the men the main election?
Because with women it seems fairly unchanged completely. When it
(31:18):
comes to the voting data, look, we're starting to see
early votes come in. A lot of states do not
have voter registration by political party, like Virginia. Virginia has
already had one hundred and fifty thousand people vote in it,
but we don't know if the Republicans or Democrats because
they don't register voters by party. We just know if
their conservative districts or their liberal districts. And a lot
of conservative districts voting. Early voting turnout is over one
(31:40):
hundred percent of where it was in twenty twentieth this time,
and in some liberal districts they have hit that point
and they've even surpassed it, like in fair Fact City.
But what we're looking at right now is a lot
of mail in data, and the mail in data in
the ballot requests in Pennsylvania, Democrats are down fairly large.
The numbers are about four percentage points than they were
(32:01):
back in twenty twenty. In North Carolina they were down
a big, big, big time. As far as people with
early mailer ballot requests, does that mean that they won't
vote at all because they didn't get the early ballot requests?
I don't know. But the early ballot requests for Democrats
where they're going to mail in tons of votes and
basically have these votes ready to account it on election day,
(32:23):
that doesn't look like it's happening so far.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
We're talking to Ryan Gardusky. Okay, two parter here for you.
Speaker 3 (32:28):
Ryan Buck and I both believe that Joe Biden is
going to outperform Kamala. That is, Biden's twenty twenty numbers
are going to outperform Kamalas twenty twenty four numbers. I'm
curious if you would agree with that. That's nationwide, not
on an individual state basis. Second part of this question,
if you had to place a wager right now, would
(32:50):
you place a wager on Trump to win in twenty
twenty four based on the data analytics as you see it,
or would you place a wager on Kamala to win.
It's too I think, kind of essence of the election questions.
But first, how will Kamala do compared to Biden.
Speaker 7 (33:07):
Well, she's almost certain to get lower because Trump's numbers
have basically been stagnant. I think he got forty six
point two percent the first time, forty six point eight
percent the second time. Trump's numbers are fairly fixed. I
have a very difficult time seeing how if you voted
for him in sixteen, and how you voted for him
in twenty that to all of a sudden, you're not
going to vote for him in twenty four. That's when
(33:27):
they show these huge swings away from college educated whites.
I think to myself, and now I don't have any
data to prove this, but I think he when forty
four percent of that group in two straight elections. I
don't really see how many of them are going to
sit there and be like, oh, you know, this third
time that got gone, you know, a bridge too far.
So she's most certainly going to be doing worse. The
question is how much of the independent vote, the third
(33:48):
party vote is going to be taken up of her.
Of her numbers the third party vote was detrimental to
Hillary in twenty sixteen, there was a much smaller part
of it, and a lot of those anti Hillary voters
just went to o'biden. I would say She's probably run
forty nine percent in the polls, and Trump's are forty
seven or forty eight percent, but that's really where it is.
So yeah, she'll be much lower. She'll be lower by
(34:10):
a good point point and a half percent. What Buck
was saying in the previous segment of Hispanic support increasing
or Black support increasing. If the numbers are real and
Hispanic supporters are increasing, you may see a situation where
New York or Los Angeles are significantly tighter, but that
does not bear out into an electoral victory. The only
state that really matters right now is Pennsylvania, because if
(34:33):
Trump wins North Carolina and Georgia, as he's favored to,
Pennsylvania flips the entire map. So judging based on Pennsylvania,
I think based on the Mullerberg poll that just was
released and the Washington Post poll, and I think of
the era in the New York Times poll, I think
I would say Trump, in my opinion, is probably favored
to win Pennsylvania, not by much. It's not going to
be a landslide, but that number in Pennsylvania would give
(34:56):
him the electoral college two seventy he needs.
Speaker 6 (34:58):
And who would the votes be he assuming Trump is
ahead and does end up winning in Pennsylvania, Ryan, is
it again that basically white guys, white guys who are
non college educated, who are the difference makers.
Speaker 7 (35:12):
You're gonna see an uptick in places like Yes One.
The white vote in Pennsylvania matters immensely, especially the senior vote.
But you see the numbers and registrations moving significantly. I
think in one county they say there's four thousand more
registered people that they've not tabulated yet. You're going to
see Trump uppick in Hispanic cities and secondary cities like Redding,
like Lancaster, like Bethlehem. These are huge Hispanic populations. They
(35:36):
experienced fifteen to twenty point swings from sixteen to twenty.
You'll see that again, probably maybe at a smaller level,
but you'll still see an upswing in those areas. You
won't see the numbers coming out of Pittsburgh and Philly
that I think people are expecting to sit there and
see and then Trump is going to have to do
his sixteen numbers in rural counties and manage to have
(35:56):
enough medium to big size county victories Eerie County, Landcaster County,
York County to upset and upstage the numbers coming out
of the coller counties Delaware County, for example, or Montgomery County.
Montgomery County is the big one. It's it's an absolute
Republican killer, is Montgomery County. So if if Kamala breaks
(36:16):
out of Montgomery County with you know, a forty forty
five point victory, that would be a very very hard
number to overcome.
Speaker 5 (36:24):
But this is the Virginia stuff.
Speaker 6 (36:26):
By the way Ryan started started to interpret at the end,
this is really I'm very curious. Virginia seems much closer
than a lot of people would have anticipated at this point.
I believe Governor Youngkin has a sixty percent approval rating
in the state, which the Republican in state like Virginia
is really solid. Is Virginia a long shot for Trump
(36:47):
or is it not a shot for Trump?
Speaker 7 (36:50):
It's still a long shot because of how the liberal
counties outside of Washington, DC, those super blue counties Fairfax
for example, had four times the amount of early voters
in twenty twenty four for the first day of early voting,
then they did in twenty twenty However, the Red counties,
the Red counties in smaller areas, they're experiencing overall one
hundred percent increase in early voter turnout. So it's not
(37:12):
like just the left is mobilized and the right is
and they both are equally mobilized. We have to just
see where those key demographics are breaking. How much are
hispanics breaking, are Black men breaking, and how much are
men period breaking? Because the women numbers are very, very
fairly even as I said the top of the segment,
the women numbers aren't where it's moving. It's about men.
Do men come out for Trump in the numbers at
(37:34):
some of the polls that say it's a tied election,
do or do they kind of la are their lackluster?
Are the Joe Biden levels where they underperform what expectations
or hopes would be from the trumpet.
Speaker 3 (37:44):
We're talking to Ryan Gardeski. By the way, My theory
on that is just there's a lot of people fed
up with election advertising and as soon as they can
get their vote in, whether it's red or blue. They
just want to get the ballots done, and then they're like,
I'm out, I'm not paying attention to this anymore. That's
one theory that I have. Okay, Ryan, question for you,
will we get any data prior to election day that
(38:05):
you think could be important in giving it us an indication?
You mentioned early voting in Virginia. Is there any state
where we're going to get data that's reliable in any
way to kind of give us a sense for what
might be coming prior to election day? Is there anything
you're waiting for or watching for.
Speaker 7 (38:22):
So the Republican early vote right now in Pennsylvania's twenty
six percent. It was lower, I think it was maybe
twenty seven percent, but the Democratic vote went from seventy
to sixty three. So I think those are the numbers.
They're roughly around the numbers. So the numbers in the
early mail in votes in Pennsylvania are five points more
fareable to Republicans than they were four years ago. I
(38:45):
want to see where that trend is moving. If Republicans
can easily cross thirty or maybe thirty one percent and
Democrats in full under sixty percent, that's an extremely extremely
good sign for Trump he's winning in the early mail
in ballot request and a number of small counties. I
also want to see partially where the Amish counties are heavily.
Amish areas are pulling up because they apparently I'm this
(39:08):
big and get out the vote effort on the part
of Amish voters. Pennsylvania is where it's all at. So
that's why I want to see Pennsylvania's early ballad request.
There's already a million. I want to see how far
it goes and how high percentage wise Republicans go up
and Democrats go down.
Speaker 2 (39:23):
Ryan appreciate the time.
Speaker 3 (39:24):
I man encourage all of you to go follow Ryan
on Twitter, by the way, and even mentioned it. Great
job of late on CNN. It's been fun to see
you taking a sore into some of these awful arguments.
So you've been killing it there.
Speaker 7 (39:34):
Pank you hell Ya appreciate.
Speaker 3 (39:37):
So check out check out Ryan's work at at a
substaff and go follow in on social media. We'll share
that certainly on clayanbuck dot com. Thanks Ryan, thank you.
Speaker 1 (39:47):
You're listening to twenty four The Year of Impact with
Clay and Buck.
Speaker 3 (39:54):
Welcome back in Clay Travis Buck Sexton Show. Appreciate all
of you hanging out with us. We roll through the Friday.
Speaker 2 (40:00):
Edition of the show.
Speaker 3 (40:02):
If some of you were looking for things to check
out this weekend, maybe you're not going to be like
me watching a ton of college football, including the Georgia
Alabama game. Maybe you want to balance out your football
viewing with some documentary viewing. It is a good way
to spend your time. And the movie is called Vindicating
Trump and it is by Denesh Desuza. Denesh, appreciate you
(40:25):
coming on with us. Why don't you just make the pitch?
Why should people watch this? What will they learn? What
surprised you while making this film?
Speaker 2 (40:34):
If anything?
Speaker 11 (40:37):
I began with the premise that Donald Trump is a
very strange figure because he is so intensely loved and
so intensely hated. There's one group of people that would
be willing to take a bullet for him, and there's
another group of people that will cheer, maybe silently cheer,
(40:57):
when someone tries to put a bullet in. You have
to like go back to Lincoln to find a figure
who is produces this kind of disparate reaction. So how
do you explain it? What is it about Trump that
causes some people to become undyingly loyal to him, and
(41:18):
other people to hate him with such a passion that
they will stop at nothing to get rid of him,
all the way from character assassination to political assassination to
law fair, which is a kind of legal assassination, to well,
now we have two actual assassination attempts. So what we
do in this film, the centerpiece of the film is
(41:40):
a one on one with Trump, in which I set
myself the task of trying to bring out a certain
hidden or private dimension of his personality and character that
he himself tries not to show you. He has a
kind of a manly aversion to showing you his his feelings,
(42:01):
his vulnerability, even the way that his inner mind works.
And so I try very hard, and I think I
succeed in this film and showing you an aspect of
Donald Trump that hasn't been widely seen.
Speaker 6 (42:13):
Speaking of Denessh Desuza vindicating Trump as his movie out
in theaters now in Denesh. To that end, my understanding
is Alena Haba and Laura Trump, his daughter in law,
feature pretty prominently to present some of that broader picture
of Trump. And one thing that Clay and I from
our interactions with him professionally and denish, I can tell
(42:34):
you I met Trump in New York the first time.
I think I was thirteen years old. I knew his
kids a little bit growing up in the city, and
I've talked to him, you know, many times since then.
He is actually a very warm and engaging and charismatic guy,
particularly in person.
Speaker 11 (42:54):
This is a key point, Buck, because you know, Trump
has certain public qualities and in fact is kind of famous,
and this some people off. He's very egotistical in public.
You know, his economy isn't just good, it's like the
best economy ever. His crowds aren't simply big, they're like
bigger than any crowd ever assembled in human history. So
(43:14):
when people listen to that, they think, well, this guy
must be totally insufferable. But not really. In private, he's
self deprecating. Is he pays attention to you. Even though
he seems in some senses in public to be a
kind of a bully. He never bullies people who are
beneath him. You'll never see him bully a waiter or
bully a doorman in one of his hotels. He only
(43:36):
bullies other eight hundred pound gorillas and usually ones that
are trying to get them. And then the other thing
is that Trump has the supreme virtue of courage. Any
other Republican facing ninety one criminal charges would have long
well facing two criminal charges, would have long fled from
the field. Trump not only hangs in there, he does
(43:57):
his own legal ropodope. He ignores orders, somehow he pushes forward.
And then look at his spectacular reaction to the two
assassination attempts. I don't think there's a man alive who
would have responded to either assassination attempt and the way
that Trump did.
Speaker 3 (44:14):
We talked about a denesh right after it happened that
even in a Hollywood movie, the person playing president of
the United States would not have been as much of
a badass as Trump was right after that first assassination attempt.
And what you said, I think is so important. Buck
and I have been fortunate to get to know Trump
(44:35):
behind the scenes. I mean, we've had him on the
show a bunch seven or eight times, but we've gotten
to do that at mar A Lago, We've gotten to
do that at Bedminster. And I'll just give you two examples.
I bet that will connect with you based on this movie,
and I would encourage people to go see it.
Speaker 2 (44:49):
One buck.
Speaker 3 (44:50):
Do you remember when his granddaughter came in at Bedminster
and he wanted her to go out. She now has
committed to the University of Miami. But he was such
a normal, every day grandpa. It was just so striking
to me how excited he was to take her out
golfing with him. And you would have never known that
he was the president of the United States formerly, or
(45:10):
that he was running for president of the United States.
His full attention was on her and wanting to know
how her golf game was going, and wanting to get
out and play with her. The other one, and we've
talked about it on the show, but for people out
there who say, oh my goodness, he's Hitler Denash, you
talked about his ability to focus on people and think
about them. When we finished the last mar A Lago interview,
(45:31):
both of our wives were there and our staff. He
insisted that we take milkshakes with us for the drive
back to Miami from mar A Lago because mar A
Lago had the best milkshakes on the planet, and he
was afraid that.
Speaker 2 (45:45):
We hadn't had anything to eat.
Speaker 3 (45:48):
I just the guy is actually really charismatic and very
likable one on one. And also, I would say d
Nash and I bet you saw this with the family
as well. The kids all seem to really adore grandkids
seem to adore him. It's hard to be an awful
person if your kids and your grandkids like you.
Speaker 11 (46:05):
Right, Absolutely true, And we do bring out one reason
to have Laura Trump in the program was to have
her talk about this kind of personal side of Trump,
you know, with regard to Trump being a hitler or
a dictator. And by the way, that's the kind of
poisonous rhetoric that convinces would be assassins. Hey, I can
(46:25):
be a hero if I take this guy out, you know.
But the left really says that about him. And yet
what did he do that was dictatorial in his first term.
I mean, he had the opportunity. If he was going
to be a dictator, you think he would have shown
his dictatorial colors. How many prominent Democrats did he indict, prosecute,
(46:45):
lock up? None? So there's no dictatorial stuff coming out
of Trump.
Speaker 10 (46:50):
Now.
Speaker 11 (46:50):
Trump will joke and say things like, well, I won't
be a dictator, but maybe on the first day now
this guy, this is a shtick. He's a little bit
of a stand up comedian. And for anyone to take
that seriously, there you go. He said he's going to
be a dictator. He said it himself. I mean this
is called pretending to take Trump in a completely different sense,
(47:10):
in which he means normal words, and the dictatorial threat
is coming from the other side. I mean, if you
look at the signature features of totalitarian societies, they have
mass surveillance, they have widespread censorship, they have criminalization of
political differences, political prisoners, trying to lock up the leader
(47:34):
of the opposition party. Well, guess what, it's the Democrats
that are doing all of that. So they accuse Trump
of being a dictator, but I think what they really
mean is that he is the guy that they fear
will foil their dictatorial schemes.
Speaker 6 (47:50):
I'll at clanbuck dot com now you can watch the
trailer for Denesh's movie Vindicating Trump and Denesh. I do
think part of what has pushed some very prominent, very wealthy,
and influential Silicon Valley folks. I think this was part
of Elon's move right as well. You know, there are
(48:12):
a few things but has been the lawfair against Trump,
because anybody who understands how totalitarian societies work, anyone who
understands how free societies on the other side have to work,
I think, recognizes that they didn't just discover all these
crimes that Trump committed in the seventy sixth year of
his life, never having had been charged with any crime
(48:36):
for seventy six years. It's clearly lawfair, and if lawfair
is the future of this country, we actually don't have
rule of law.
Speaker 11 (48:45):
This is a critical point. I've been reading Selganned since
Gulag Archipelago, and he talks about what he calls the
Vishinski doctrine, which is this is the one that the
Soviets used. Vishinsky is this guy who basically said, listen,
we since we aren't resent when something happens, or crime happens,
we can never be absolutely sure, so we shouldn't try
(49:06):
to be absolutely sure. What we basically want to do
is basically figure out we can use some fairly elastic rules,
the manipulation of bending of laws to basically get what
we want out of this trial, out of this process,
and think about it, That's exactly what the Democrats do.
They shop around for a blue jurisdiction, they find a
(49:27):
kind of vengeful mob of jurors who kind of want
to get Trump in the first place. They find a
sympathetic judge, so it becomes a wink wink operation between
the judge and the prosecution. So, you know, to the
naive American, they might think, well, there's an actual court.
It looks like a court. You know, they're following the
outward trappings of law. Objections sustained, and therefore it must
(49:50):
be a legitimate process. No, it's not a legitimate process.
And anyone who's looking closely can see that they're going
after Trump for things that they would never go after
anyone else. Of course, one interesting question is why Trump,
Like why only Trump? Why is he the very scary guy?
And I think the answer is that he is a
very strong guy. This came out in the courage that
(50:13):
he displayed with the assassination attempts. Other Republicans are much
more weak need than Trump. So the Democrats don't fear Romney,
they don't fear Paul Ryan. What they do fear is Trump.
Speaker 3 (50:25):
Denesh I've said that the most important decision Trump would
have to make if he wins is who he picks
his attorney general. For what you're laying out here, I'm
a lawyer. I believe you're a lawyer as well. What
has been allowed to occur with our Department of Justice
and the targeting of political adversaries has never occurred in
the history of any of our lives, and frankly, never
really in the history of the United States. How do
(50:47):
we get back some measure of trust in our Department
of Justice? And do you agree with me that who
Trump picks as his attorney general might well be his
most consequential pick of all when it comes to stocking
his cabinet and his administration.
Speaker 11 (51:03):
I agree completely. And my solution to it is somewhat controversial,
I will admit. And here's what it is. It is
essentially the solution of how do you tame a rogue
operation a kind? How do you tame a bully in
a schoolyard? And the answer is you can't do it
unless you ambush the bully, unless you respond in kind,
(51:25):
unless you show the bully that bullying tactics don't pay off.
You might remember when Elon Musk banned some leftist journalists
on Twitter on x for one single day if you
watch the reaction when that happened, Suddenly all these people
who were champions of censorship and champions of shutting down
disinformation and removing millions of accounts, they became great defenders
(51:48):
of free speech. I mean they were quoting the First Amendments,
citing John Stuart Mill. So the moment their free speech
was threatened, they rediscovered the value of the principle. So
I think that the way to ultimately force the left
to stop doing this kind of stuff is to start
doing it to them.
Speaker 3 (52:06):
It's basically why we have nuclear weapons in multiple countries, right,
there has to be a deterrence and a threat factor
or else whoever the most powerful is just keeps doing
whatever they.
Speaker 2 (52:15):
Want exactly right.
Speaker 11 (52:17):
And there are many laws, by the way, I'm not
talking about unleashing some sort of plague of lawlessness. There
are for example, in the Rico Statutes, it says that
anyone who is involved in any way in collaborating or
participating in an election fraud scheme is committing a serious felony.
Now my point is, all right, so let's take a
(52:38):
look at that. Generally, Republican attorneys general take a look
at that. They go, well, This hasn't really been used,
so we're not going to focus on it. Let it
be the Democrats of pulling out every opportunity from the
Large Accordion Book of Federal Statutes to go after conservatives.
But they got to realize the two can play at
this game.
Speaker 2 (52:56):
No doubt.
Speaker 3 (52:57):
Denesh Desuza, the book is the document to Revindicating Trump.
Speaker 2 (53:01):
Encourage all of you to go check it out.
Speaker 3 (53:02):
Eight hundred and fifty theaters nationwide, many different ways to
be consuming it. To Nash, we appreciate the time, good
luck with the film.
Speaker 11 (53:10):
If I could say so, guys. Vindicating Trump dot com
is sort of the one stop shop to get tickets.
You put in your city or your town and boom,
the theaters will pop right up. See it this weekend
if you can
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
1. 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.
2. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
3. Crime Junkie
If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people.