September 2, 2026 • 38 mins
Jasmine Crockett isn't falling in line behind James Talarico — and Ryan Girdusky explains why that could matter in an increasingly competitive Texas Senate race.
On this episode of It’s a Numbers Game with Ryan Girdusky, Ryan breaks down the growing tensions inside both parties in Texas. Crockett is refusing to campaign for Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico after their bitter primary battle, while Republican Sen. John Cornyn isn't rushing to help Ken Paxton either.
Ryan examines the voters both former candidates could influence, the controversial past comments now being used against Talarico, and why a relatively small group of Trump voters could ultimately determine whether Paxton wins the Senate seat.
Plus, Ryan turns to Michigan, where Abdul El-Sayed faces new scrutiny as his race against Republican Mike Rogers remains highly competitive. Ryan analyzes the importance of black and Jewish voters, Democratic defections and Van Jones' criticism of El-Sayed.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome back to A Numbers Game with Ryan Groduski. Happy September, everyone.
Some sad news over the beginning of the week, which
is one of my favorite writers, Wendell Berry, passed away.
He had a very long life, lived till 92, so
it's not tragic, but it's still, you know, he's no
longer here. He wrote my favorite short story of all time,
which is called Making It Home. It's about a World
(00:22):
War I soldier's journey from war back to the farms
of Kentucky. It's such a beautiful short story, and there's
actually a video of him reading it that you can
look on YouTube. I'm going to post it in the
subject link below so you can listen to him read
his short story. One of my favorite poems that he
ever wrote, he said, when they want you to buy something,
they will call you. When they want you to die
(00:43):
for profit, they will let you know. So friends, every
day do something that you won't compute. Love the Lord.
Love the world. Work for nothing. Take all that you
have and be poor. Love somebody who does not deserve it.
Denounce the government and embrace the flag. Hope to live
in that free republic for which it stands. He was
so good. He was just so good. He was a
little wacky on some of his political beliefs, especially towards
(01:04):
the end. But I loved a lot of his stuff.
And so cheers to a very long, accomplished life, Wendell Berry.
So California Democrats are up to some new nonsense on immigration.
I'm going to get to it in a little while.
But first, let's address what's going on in Texas and Michigan,
(01:25):
because there's a lot of Democrats and Republicans here. both
being sore losers and willing to not be the most
loyal soldiers for their own side, which I think is
very interesting. During the last two weeks, Senator John Cornyn,
who was defeated in the Republican primary by Ken Paxton
and Jasmine Crockett, Congressman Jasmine Crockett, who lost her Democratic
(01:45):
primary to James Tallarico, they announced in separate statements that
they will not campaign for their party's nominee. Democrats in
places like Michigan and Wisconsin have all gotten on board
with the losing candidate, have gotten on board with the
winning candidate. Same thing in Iowa for the Republican side.
So this is a little unusual for both major candidates
of their respective parties to say, no, I'm not doing it.
(02:07):
I'm not supporting the nominee. Here's what Jasmine Crockett said.
Play clip one.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Often an energy magnet when it comes to voters. We've
seen the turnout that you can produce. Talrico might very
well need that magnetism. Will you campaign with him? I
will be campaigning down ballot. I think that what matters.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
Most, because when we're looking at a state like Texas,
we've tried this where we've got one amazing candidate that's
running at the top of the ticket. Beto is a
very good example of this, raising all the money, doing
all the things, running around the entire state, but it's
not enough. So for me, I don't think that it
should be a matter of there's just one thing that
(02:47):
is getting me to the polls. I think it has
to be something a little bit more in a state
like Texas. And so for me, I think that making
sure that people that maybe are getting overshadowed because it
seems like it's only about one big race, I think
amplifying them, making sure that I can raise their profiles,
and introducing them to people, that'll give something more to
(03:09):
voters to make them say, you know what? It may
be raining outside, but I got to go get there
because I got to go get there for this person
and this person. Plus, I don't like Trump.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
I understand. But is it an either or? Either you
excite the down ballot or you.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
I think for me, it probably is. I think it
probably is. Only because I am, you know, we've got
the fire pack that's going and I'm running all over
the country. And Texas is a big state. We're not
talking about... a small little state to kind of get around.
We're talking about a really big state. And so for me,
I'm really invested in a number of candidates that I
(03:42):
didn't get to do anything for because I was running
my own Senate race. Candidates that I really do believe
can make a difference no matter what happens ultimately at
the top of the ticket. We've got to have wins.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
Okay. Number one, you're not supposed to wear bulky jewelry
on television, which is why you hear it clinging. It's
very annoying. Secondly, she is lying. She is flat out lying.
Let me tell you, this is the same woman who
called James Hilario's campaign, quote, straight up racist. She has
said the Democratic Party screwed her. She's angry about it.
(04:15):
I've worked in campaigns for 20 years. You know how
easy it is to do a multi-candidate event at the
same time? To do like an event for one down
ballot candidate and the candidate running for Senate? Super easy.
Super easy. She is... lying through her teeth. And I
looked up her fire pack, which is her sewer pack
(04:38):
for all her candidates in Texas. By the way, she's
saying all over the country. It's in two states. It's
California and Texas. Her fire pack, all the candidates in Texas,
they're all black, by the way. So just so you know,
I mean, talk about diversity, but she is endorsed Christian Minife.
He's the incumbent running in Texas 18, a seat in Houston.
(04:58):
which voted for Kamala by 55 points. She endorsed Colin Allred,
who's running in Texas's 33, which is part of Dallas
and some of its suburbs. That's a district that Kamala
won by 32 points. She endorsed incumbent state rep Fenton Jones,
who took over her seat, overwhelmingly Democratic district. Dr. Jared
Williams from Tarrant County Commissioner Precinct 2. That's actually a
(05:21):
competitive race. And the last one was Daryl Johnson for
Harris County District, which is also non-competitive. So everyone she
has to allegedly run all over the country for is
running in basically non-competitive seats, except for one that is
running next to her house. It's a good 30 minute
drive away. There is no flying everywhere that she is
(05:43):
alluding to. She just doesn't want to campaign for Tallarico.
That's basically the, you know, she doesn't want to excite
the black voters that really did like her and really
came out in droves for her and have not been
warm to James Tallarico. She does not like this man.
And what I think she wants to do is if
(06:05):
James Tallarico loses, she can go to the Democratic Party
and say, see that you turned your back on the
black vote. So black voters turn their back on you.
You have to endorse black women. That's what I think
the game plan is there. Over on the Republican side
of the aisle, John Cornyn is just making it known
that he still does not like Ken Paxton and does
not think very highly of him. He said to the
(06:26):
Texas Tribune, Paxton's a poor campaigner. He's lazy and doesn't
raise money. And he's basically not offering any compelling case
for his election. He's making this harder than it needs
to be. But it but so be it. We are
where we are. And flat out said, I will not
be campaigning with Ken Paxton. And both candidates are part
of constituencies that do matter in their respective parties. Jasmine Crockett,
(06:50):
you know, has a lot of supporters in the black vote.
That's very important for Democrats. And John Cornyn has a
lot of supporters in the moderate suburban vote. That's also
very important in a state like Texas, which has huge
populations in the suburbs. But they're both saying, you know,
if my party fails, maybe they should learn a lesson.
And look, Texas is very much in play this year.
(07:10):
It is becoming more and more in play, not just
for the Senate race, but for other races. And both
candidates are dealing with heavy blows against them. For Tallarico,
a new video has emerged that Ken Paxton's Super PAC
is spending heavily on. It's the first ad spent for
Paxton's Super PAC. It's a video from 2020, you know,
woke number one, where Tallarico described capitalism as being white
(07:34):
supremacist and needs to be dismantled. Take a listen.
Speaker 4 (07:37):
Multifaceted threat of a climate crisis and economic crisis. crisis
and a social justice crisis, I think that kind of
New Deal effort would be the only approach to start
to address all three in a thoughtful and meaningful way.
Good for you, Jim.
Speaker 5 (07:55):
Thank you very much. The second question, communities of color
receive the most harm from the impacts of climate change
and yet receive the least government support to deal with it.
Tell us about one of the committees you are on
or hope to be on and the most important actions
that committee could take to fight for climate justice and
(08:17):
mitigate the impacts of climate change for all Texans.
Speaker 4 (08:21):
Yeah, and I'm so thankful that you asked this question
and also thankful that young activists have really drawn the
link between climate change and white supremacy and capitalism in
our country. And I think only... And in the way
that all three of those oppressive systems work together, are
we going to be able to begin the process of
dismantling them?
Speaker 1 (08:41):
For those of you listening and not watching on YouTube,
almost everyone in that conference call that he was a
part of is over the age of 65 and white.
Just a bunch of old socialists just chilling with James Tallarico.
And he sounds like Zora Mondani in that. He does
not sound like a supposed Christian moderate running in a
red state. He has since said that those comments were cringy.
(09:04):
Were they cringy or is that how you felt? Because
at this point, you've backtracked on so many things. It's
kind of like, it's probably not cringy. It's probably how
you actually feel and felt in the moment. Now, this
ad is specifically targeting Republican voters who are unsure how
they feel about Ken Paxton and Tallarico. Remember the old
(09:25):
poll I cited from late June, a Siena University New
York Times poll that showed the race is essentially tied
with 87% of Trump voters saying they're voting for Paxton, 95%
of Harris voters saying they're supporting Tallarico. That 13% of
Trump voters is probably going to decide this election. If
they can move the needle for those Trump voters to
(09:47):
back Paxton against Tallarico and not sit on the couch
on election day, well, then Pam Paxton can obviously win
in a state like Texas. That 8% to 10%, that's really,
what is, of Trump voters, that's really the golden number
you need to really push Paxton over the edge. And
he needs it right now. Remember what I said about
(10:10):
spending money on ads. Candidates get a reduction in prices
over Paxton. And the earlier you book, the better. Now,
this is coming from Paxton's PAC, which is spending $ 15
million on ads recently. They've announced $ 15 million. They're going
to also highlight how Paxton was tough on Big Tech,
(10:30):
something I've been telling every Republican they should campaign on,
and how Tallarico is weak on China. But it's going
to take a lot more money than that to help
Ken Paxton out. And Republicans are saying, and they've been
saying this in D.C. for months, and I have told
you guys this. I was the first one to say this.
They are not spending for Ken Paxton. They're not going
to take money away from Michigan, Maine, and Ohio to
(10:52):
save Ken Paxton in a red state. It all really
depends on Trump's MAGA Inc. PAC if they come in.
They're saying that he needs to spend $ 100 million to
save Ken Paxton. That may seem a little high. However,
Trump has the money. I mean, he's got the money
in the super PAC, but time is running out. Tallarico
(11:14):
isn't the only candidate dealing with some negative news from
past statements. Over the last few days, Abdul El-Sayed has
had another leaked audio tape where he said to achieve
the American dream, Americans should go to Canada.
Speaker 6 (11:27):
Contrary to what we're taught, that we are the land
of opportunity where anyone with a dollar and a dream
can make it.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
In fact, too few people have that first dollar.
Speaker 6 (11:36):
Economic data shows us that if you want to achieve
the American dream, well, you should move to Canada because
it's twice as likely there. Here, where you start predicts
where you end.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
That's not true. And actually, GDP per capita in our
poorest states is better than Canada as a whole. Just
not that facts really matter, but I mean, I guess
all that matters is feelings, but it's just factually not true.
Abdul's campaign is in decent footing against Mike Rogers. He's
(12:08):
leading in six of the last seven polls with a
medium lead of four points. But according to Tony Fabrizio,
who's Trump's famed pollster, and I trust Tony Fabrizio. I've
met him many times and spoken to him many times.
And he's a brilliant pollster. He says this is actually
a one-point race. But El-Said is seeing a number of Democrats,
including former State Representative Karen Wisslet and Rabbi Asher Lubton,
(12:31):
endorse the Republican candidate, endorse Mike Rogers. And he also
saw Fred Upton. Fred Upton was a former Republican congressman
who endorsed Kamala Harris in 2024. Fred Upton endorsed Mike Rogers.
A number of moderate Republicans have said, OK, we don't
like Trump, but Mike Rogers is not Trump. But probably
the most shocking takedown of of Abdul Sayyed came from
(12:54):
a Democrat. It came from Van Jones on a podcast,
and he talked specifically about Abdul Sayyed and that his views,
especially on foreign policy, are dangerous. Listen to this entire clip.
It was a brutal takedown from a man who really
knows what he's doing when it comes to media.
Speaker 7 (13:12):
These people are incredibly dangerous. Abdul, who, you know, I
work with at CNN.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
I know Abdul.
Speaker 7 (13:21):
His positions on Israel and foreign policy are insane. They're
not reasonable reactions to anything. Look, some Democrats are going
to say that we should condition military aid, that, you know,
Israel's gone too far in Gaza and the West Bank
and Lebanon. We're going to put some conditions on you.
(13:45):
I think that's a defensible position if you're a Democrat.
That's not Abdullah's position. There are people who say we
shouldn't be paying for any of the military aid. We
shouldn't be giving military aid. Now, I think that's understandable,
(14:05):
but I think indefensible because it's not charity. We're building
a strong defense sector here, and Israel is protecting a
lot of Western interests in that region. But I can
get why you would say no more aid. They got
to pay their own way. That's not Abdul's position. Abdul's
position is a total and complete arms embargo against the
(14:28):
state of Israel. including defensive weapons. That's an insane position.
That says if Israel wants to pay for interceptors to
stop a rocket coming from Iran or coming from Hezbollah
or coming from Hamas, an interceptor, we should deny them
the right to buy the interceptors to knock down rockets
(14:50):
going at Israeli children, women, men, babies.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
That's an insane position.
Speaker 7 (14:56):
And by the way, it offends me Because that's, you know,
Barack Obama was a part of creating that iron dome.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
Barack Obama was.
Speaker 7 (15:06):
A part of creating those interceptors. Barack Obama thought that
the Israeli people were in such a tough neighborhood, they
needed to be able to knock down rockets. So you're
telling me you're smarter than Barack Obama. You have better
ideas about foreign policy than Barack Obama. And you want
to de-plug and defund and take away Israel's, half the
(15:26):
world's Jews.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
Okay, listen to how he framed it at the end.
He didn't make it about Israel. He made it about
Barack Obama. You are insulting Barack Obama by saying his
foreign policy is bad. Now, the black community, not historically
(15:49):
huge fans of the Jewish community, right? I mean, I'm
not telling you anything shocking about that, but they are
big fans of Barack Obama. And in this Senate election,
it could be a few percentage points of the black
vote sitting out an election that changes the entire course
of the election, right? If it is a one point race,
(16:12):
if Tony Fabrizio is correct, the insult to Barack Obama
and the wedge that is already in between the black
community that voted for Haley Stevens in huge numbers, and
Abdul El-Sayed, because there's other things happening in Michigan right now.
Black voters are feeling increasingly displaced in historically black communities
(16:37):
as a Muslim population is growing. There is resentment and
sentiments that are not being said in polite society. They're
absolutely part of this conversation. That's why many polls are
finding huge chunks of the male black vote, especially voting
for Mike Rogers. Now, I'm not saying Mike Rogers is
going to win the black vote. He is not going
to win the black vote. However, a marginal increase for
(17:00):
Mike Rogers and a marginal increase for people just refusing
to vote on the line, let's say they vote for
city council, Congress, whatever, governor, whatever's off the line, but
they don't vote for the Senate race, that 2% or 3%
changes the entire race if it's a one-point race. If
this is as close as the 2024 Schlotten, Senator Schlotten
race against Rogers was, 3% would have made Rogers a senator.
(17:26):
It is that close, if the numbers are right, if
Tony Fabrizio is correct. And the Black vote and the
Jewish vote, which is very against what, in Oakland County,
very against Abdul El-Sid, and they're all Democrats, could make
a significant difference in this election. And maybe we're not
(17:47):
seeing it, but the state representative I mentioned before, she
is Black. There is obviously a rabbi. They're working. There's
Democratic fundraisers that are working for Mike Rogers. It could
be the sleeper race. The biggest question will be, will
Trump's poll numbers in Michigan do more damage than everything
Abdulaziz is saying and doing? We'll see, but it's very,
(18:09):
very close. Okay, coming up next, let's talk about California
and the insanity they're doing with immigration. So remember a
few months ago, there was a YouTuber named Nick Shirley
who went to Minnesota and discovered that there was a
bunch of government-funded institutions for Somali children that were completely fraudulent.
The names of the building about learning was misspelled. There
was daycares with no children in it, and a few
(18:30):
people went to jail. Well, Democrats, they didn't like that.
And Democrats in California really didn't like that. Democratic state
lawmakers presented an expansion of a longstanding program called the
Safe at Home Act that shields the addresses of vulnerable
residents and public records to immigration aid providers. So immigration
aid providers would be part of this class of people
(18:51):
who are protected. This includes people who are using public
funds for immigrant services, and it also includes volunteers, quote
unquote volunteers, which no one really knows what that means
if you're a documented volunteer. This is, by the way,
these are organizations that are using funds, government funds, and
if they're using funds legitimately, there's really no problem. But
if there's these NGOs that they're not using legitimately, which
(19:12):
does happen a lot, there's a lot of waste, fraud,
and abuse among certain immigrant groups that There is a
problem and someone should expose it. Well, Republicans have really
jumped on this law and they're calling it the Stop
Nick Shirley Act. And it's becoming a galvanizing free speech
issue in California, which wasn't the case when they did
this a year ago, protecting doctors and medical people, people
(19:36):
working in the medical fields who were working on child transitioning.
They were they were protected and it really didn't make
any noise at all. But this has made a lot
of noise. The California bill this year was the first
in the nation to expand and address the issue of
workers and volunteers on immigration. And it says starting October 2027,
(19:57):
a person whose address is protected can sue someone to
post an image or personal information online after being asked
in writing not to share it publicly. So it's a
little there's there's a few steps there. But Democrats are
saying that any controversy on this is a big hubbub
about nothing, that it's only for violent threats. It's not
(20:18):
for intimidation. But Republicans are saying very much the opposite.
They're saying, no, this is to intimidate us, not to
ask any questions. Nick Shirley went to The New York Times.
He said they're making a protected class by specifying immigration
support service providers, which is a very broad term. We
really don't know what immigration support providers is because once again,
it could include any volunteers. It could include basically anybody.
(20:41):
And also what happens if an NGO is having their
organization in their home, which does happen quite a bit. Mr.
Shirley said he's worried that the law could be used
against him by people who hire someone to commit a
crime and then say they were incited by him. So
basically someone commits a crime, they say that they were,
(21:01):
Nick Shirley inspired them to do it, and Nick Shirley
is then responsible of paying a fine of at least $ 4, 000.
It's basically to silence any conservative with a big platform. Now,
legal experts are already saying that this clearly is unconstitutional
because they are protected groups, because these are protected groups.
One legal expert said you can single out threats and
(21:23):
incitements against immigration service providers from threats, and incitements against
others that are just as vulnerable as they are. Basically,
you can't have this protected group while all other groups
are not protected that do essentially the same thing. There's
no protected class for people who provide pro-life organizations in California.
(21:44):
And that's when it really gets murky. I think that
what could happen if this becomes a true free speech issue,
California has a law that allows a public votes on law.
So people can sign a document, enough people can, like
a million or so, several million, and submit it to Sacramento,
the state's capital, and get a proposition put on the ballot,
(22:07):
and it votes up or down by the people by
popular vote. That's why there's so many tough-on candidates. crime
and immigration hardline laws in California, it's like as the
Democrats pass it, it's because people voted for it back
in the 80s and the 90s. And it was never
undone because they are actually fairly popular with the people.
And Democrats are just not enforcing them, but they're actually
(22:28):
on the books. Something like that could happen again with
this is a free speech issue or courts can come in,
federal courts can come in and say, no, you really
have to either expense to everybody or it goes to nobody.
It's a very interesting thing how Democrats have stepped so
far over the line about illegal immigrants and the organization
(22:48):
to support illegal immigrants that they're willing to undo other
groups that are supposedly in their tent. Because this law
is always given out to Democrat organizations. Like I said,
the pro-lifers are not protected, but abortion clinics are. It's
always one way, and this could be the undoing of
this entire law. It's very fascinating. I'm going to keep
(23:09):
an eye about it. But next up is Ask Me Anything.
Stay tuned. Now it's time for the Ask Me Anything segment.
If you want a part of the Ask Me Anything segment,
email me ryan at numbersgamepodcast.com. That's ryan at numbers, plural numbersgamepodcast.com.
First question comes from Keith. Keith writes, hey, Ryan, love
the show and the Ask Me Anything segment. I think
it's everyone's favorite segment. I really do believe that. Got
(23:29):
another question for you. Clay loves to use predictive markets.
That's Clay of Buck and Clay. Loves to do predictive
markets when looking at races with a premise that someone
is putting money on the table. It's a good indicator.
RealClearPolitics now have their polling maps plus a map based
on polymarket. The RCP map seems to have all the
Senate toss-ups in the polymarket maps going one way when
(23:51):
other data says no. What are your thoughts on using
predictive markets versus polling? Any insights into the population that
is betting on these races and correlation to these bets?
Do you think predictive markets can be gamed like polls
can to over and under sample specific demographic groups. Thank
you for your question. I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate
predictive markets. Hate them beyond belief. There are some races
(24:16):
where it is very, it looks very obvious that one
person is going to win or another, like AOC is
going to win reelection. She's in a D plus 30 district.
If you're betting against her, you're probably going to lose
your money. But there are certain safe bets that Kelshi
or whatever are not, predictors of, but what people betting
on Kelshi and these other predictive markets are doing is
(24:37):
they're reading the headlines like you or I are. They're
not actually, and they're reacting in real time. Or when
there is inside information, they're shorting the markets. So like,
for example, and now he's banned there, but George Santos
is banned permanently from Kelshi because he said he took
a bet on whether he will show up at the
State of the Union, and he knew he was going
(24:58):
to show up. That is a perfect example of how
some consultants can do it. What worries me, and I
think that it's been talked about about sports, maybe I'm
wrong about this, that they're worried about players shorting the
market when it comes to whether or not how they're
going to play. And also, by the way, there's predictive
markets where people are saying, how do they know we're
(25:19):
going to strike Iran at a certain time? There were
predictive markets about other major things. Where like there's a
tech release, a new tech platform coming out from one
of the big AI companies. If you have inside information,
there's no stopping you. And I guess cows can self-regulate it,
but who knows if they actually do. So one, I
(25:40):
don't think it's actually insightful at all. I think people
have an addiction to gambling and they'll gamble on literally anything.
And I think that you can't use it for any
useful information. And for example, I looked at some recent races.
They said Francesca Hong was going to win. She had
like an 85% chance. She lost. At one point it
said Rubio was the most likely nominee for the GOP
(26:01):
in 2028. He's not even running. And then they said
John Kihiko was going to win in Hawaii's first district
against Ed Case. He lost. They don't know what they're
talking about. They absolutely have no idea what they're talking about.
It is all gut instinct. It's all headlines and it's
all addiction to gambling. And it is gambling. And I'm sorry,
it should be illegal. Like, you should not be able
to gamble on political races. I fundamentally believe that. What's
(26:24):
also stopping a consultant from putting their life savings in
a race and knowing that they could throw the race
by releasing audio of their candidates' nudes or saying the
N-word or something? Like, there's nothing. And I find the
whole institution... I've been asked... to bet in these markets.
(26:46):
When I know insider information, like I knew about Graham
Platner for a long time. And I knew about the
Graham Platner dropping out thing for quite a while. I
would never do that. I think that it's actually disgraceful
towards your profession. And I just think the entire thing
(27:06):
is completely illegal. Also, like what's stopping Graham Platner? Graham
Platner could have bet on that and said, will he
drop out and put the money on a high and
a low and made money off of it. It's wrong. Like,
it's wrong, and it's actually not insightful at all. You're
not gaining any knowledge from it. I don't think it
actually predicts elections very well in any way. That's the
disagreement me and Clyde can still look at them. I
(27:27):
do not. All right. Next question. Love the show. I
listen to every episode. I appreciate you. I received an
invitation to participate in a poll today, and it had
the question below. Quote, New Jersey voters will decide on
the following ballot initiative in November 2026. The proposal would
establish an educational program to improve literacy for cows in
(27:48):
the state. The program would be funded 99% by 97%
tax on all income over $ 1, 000. Cows would be given
food and lodging and would be compensated for lost wages
during the time. I have a screenshot and sent sent
to you. This is the type of question you use
to validate the quality of the response. What happens to
the answers of someone who says yes, that they support it? Nothing.
(28:10):
There's nothing that, that, that, Changes it. I mean, I
would love to know more about the poll. Do they
ask you other questions? Do they ask you, like, who
are you voting for or any other questions whatsoever? And
then this was the question to see if you were responding,
if you were paying attention or whatnot. But I don't.
I do not. This is probably a crowd control question
(28:32):
to see that people are actually there and we're paying
attention to the whole thing. So but nothing happens if
you vote yes. Your information is probably stored just like
everyone else, but not your name and everything like that.
So that's all that is. It's very funny, though. Next
question comes... I didn't write this person's name down. Sorry
about this. But the question I will get to. Any
chance next month you can get a Democrat you like
(28:54):
who is fair and have a debate on why people
should vote for Republican or Democrat in the midterms? But
the twist is you defend Democrats and he defends Republicans
and do a faith-based argument with minimal shots at the parties. Basically,
as much policy as possible. That could be interesting.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
Uh....
Speaker 1 (29:12):
That could be interesting. I feel like I would end
up focusing on one or two issues that I think
Democrats are decent on. But I'm not I don't have
the mind. I mean, I probably could fake it about
Medicare for all or amnesty for illegal immigrants and give
(29:34):
the generic talking points. But I don't think I could
do that with my whole heart. um i've done debates
where i don't care about the subject matter just when
i was in college for for for fun i don't
think i would do it now on the podcast but
i would like a democrats to come on i invite
democrats on the show all the time i just invited
john federman to come on the show i would love
him to be on the show i would love bernie
(29:54):
sanders to be on the show bernie sanders is one
of my dream dream guests um Yeah, I mean, I'm
very respectful, so I don't know why they won't, but
a lot of them will not. But I would love
to have more conversations with Democrats because I think it's
important just to hear someone out, even to have Republicans
that you don't agree on all the time, just to
hear them out. And I don't interrupt people. I don't
try to make a moment that's going to be clickable.
(30:17):
This is not Piers Morgan where I'm trying to make
everyone scream at each other. I don't think that's good.
I don't think it's very entertaining, although clearly other people
like it. So maybe it is entertaining, but I don't
think you learn anything from it. And I want my
audience to come away saying, wow, that was really well
informed and I'm smarter for it. And I enjoy that.
No one's yelling. I just I yell enough at home.
(30:37):
I don't need to yell anymore in real life.
Speaker 6 (30:39):
All right.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
Last question comes from Chris from Texas. Chris goes, hey, Ryan,
love the show. Listen to every episode. Chris, you're a patriot.
Noted the question from Ryan. I guess different Ryan. Your
answer a few podcasts ago asking if people would have
a better attitude about the Iran war if Trump had
delivered on a bunch of other things. That got me thinking. First,
I believe part of Trump's appeal has been his doing
(31:01):
what he said he would do. In other words, keeping
his promises. Second, not to borrow from Janet Jackson, but
you can always borrow from Janet Jackson. On this show,
that's always appropriate. I borrowed once from Janet Jackson on
a CNN hit that I did. And because Janet was
saying that Janet Jackson was saying that Kamala Harris wasn't
really black. And she doesn't make political statements. No one
(31:21):
knows her politics. So it was very unusual that she
would makes that kind of a statement. And I said
it on CNN and the people on the panel with
me exploded. Their heads blew up. The fact that I
was mentioning one of the most famous black women in
America history saying that Kamala Harris wasn't black. It was
very entertaining for me. Okay, sorry. You said second, not
to borrow from Janet Jackson, but I think Americans often
(31:44):
have attitude of what have you done for me lately?
Taking together what I think is hurting Trump are part
of his broken promises to bring down prices once elected,
to end the Ukraine war with a phone call, to
stop and not start forever wars. To this last point,
with regard to the Iran war, it is documented that
he's increasingly surrounded himself with sycophants who won't bring challenging
(32:04):
news and viewpoints. I also believe the Iran war wouldn't
have happened if Venezuela had not gone so well. It's probably,
I mean, I don't know if that's completely true, but
it definitely fed into him. All this said, I'm afraid
of Trump's failure to deliver on recently for the American people,
especially economically and starting to be proactive in protracted war
will cause a backlash for the Trump fatigue syndrome that
(32:25):
will hand Democrats, Congress and the White House and set
our country down a generational path of ruin via reopened borders,
blanket amnesty, Puerto Rico and DC as a states as
a packed courts. Do you think anyone in the administration
of the Republican Party sees this and can be especially
strategic and counteract this potential outcome while there is still time?
And if not, is there anything common folk like me
(32:48):
can do to influence this? Okay, that was a very
thoughtful question, Chris. So Trump has really been aggressive against
Iran for a while. If you listen to the Maggie Haberman,
Jonathan Swan interview, he really has problems with Venezuela going
back to the 70s, going back to when they captured
(33:08):
our people there during Carter's administration. He really doesn't like Venezuela.
So I don't know if there was any way of
getting around Iran, although the Venezuela military action really did
booster his opinions. I think that for a lot of people, yeah,
it is what have you done for me lately, but
also it's I don't remember Biden's administration, how bad it was.
(33:30):
I think people, when things are bad, memory hole them
and they don't think about them. Like, I mean, a
lot of people don't think about COVID anymore and what happened.
And they've gone back to their ways of just, you know,
believing the medical establishment, every word they say. I had
a recent conversation with a relative of mine who said
something along the lines of, we were talking about relatives
(33:52):
who did and did not follow COVID protocols and what
that did as far as seeing each other for several years.
And the relative of mine, the cousin of mine said, well,
you know, some of us were really into the science.
And I said, No, you were into the government, you
(34:14):
weren't into the science, the science said one thing, and
the government was saying something else. And you just believed
the government. That is an entirely different story than what
you think you heard. Nonetheless, and yet still, most people
don't think about that time. It's just it's almost too
difficult to, I guess, relive for a lot of people,
(34:34):
or they just have memory hold it. I think people's
problem with trump is that prices are not down and
they expect them to be down not inflation down prices
down and that did not happen we did have uh
the dry the rise in egg prices briefly under the
trump administration it's no longer a problem but it gave
uh the idea away that that he could not help
(34:56):
with the economy at all a lot of jobs have
like manufacturing jobs which just started to come back two
years in but we didn't see a rise in manufacturing
tariffs have cause a rise of some prices. And he,
while this was happening, while people were concerned with the economy,
Trump was talking about annexing Greenland and Panama Canal and Canada.
(35:19):
And it felt like he was not listening to their
concerns and their concerns were not his concerns. And I
think that really is a big part of why people
have soured so heavily on Trump. But the economy is
the main factor. Is there anyone around the president? Look,
I have spoken to senators who have privately told me,
people in the White House have probably told me they
(35:41):
think the Iran war is a disaster. That's why I
think Trump is also coming to the conclusion that a
lot of the people who, you know, telling him, go, go, go,
do it, do it, do it, were wrong. And that's
why I think he's trying to declare victory and move along,
because there is no easy end to this conflict. The
only good thing I have to say about it is
(36:03):
that While Americans are down on Trump, they are not
down on Republicans as a whole. Like, for instance, the
entire cabinet, according to a Quinnipiac poll, J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio,
Pete Heisket, they all have actually higher favorable numbers than
Trump does. So it's not even just they don't dislike
Republicans as much as they dislike Trump. They just dislike
(36:24):
Trump at a much heavier level than even his own administration.
I wouldn't be in complete despair over that. Republicans are
definitely working a very tightrope. They don't want to get
on Trump's bad side, but they do realize there are
some issues that he is not handling the best. And
I'll just say it like that. And I think that
(36:46):
some people around him have started bringing certain things to
his attention. According to the Swan Haberman interview, J.D. Vance
is the one that pushes back the most. And that's
sometimes why he's out of favorability with J.D.
Speaker 5 (36:58):
J.D.
Speaker 1 (36:59):
's out of favorability with Trump. Probably not that badly.
I think they really do get along. I know they
have very similar senses of humor. That's been told to
me by the source. So I think that they like
each other, but I think that Trump does get irritated
by being pushed back. But I think certainly it's happening
to a certain extent. And also, wait till the midterms.
A lot of people in the admin are going to
(37:20):
switch jobs. They're going to go to the private sector.
They're going to find something. And who knows who they're
replaced by? And who knows what happens afterwards? I wouldn't
completely despair and look two years into the future. and
say it's all good for Democrats. What happens if they
nominate El-Said for president? I don't know if that's going
to go over well. I don't know if an AOC
is going to go over well. We'll have to wait
and see. Also, if the market has a bigger recovery
(37:43):
and if the manufacturing jobs continue to come back, we'll see.
We'll have to wait and see for all these things.
We can't predict the future and worry about them. We
can just live in the present, do what we can
to spread the word. If you live in Texas, preventing
Tallarica from becoming the the senator and the Abbott from
losing the governorship, although I don't think he should have
run for a fourth term, is of the utmost importance.
(38:03):
And then, you know, deal what you can in your
local community, I think. That's what you should be concerned
the most of. Don't fret about all of this stuff,
because I think if Trump could have ended the war
with a snap of a finger, he would have. Truly,
at this point, I think he would have. All right,
that is this episode for a numbers game. If you
like this podcast, please like and subscribe on the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, wherever you get this podcast, and on YouTube.
(38:26):
And I will see you guys on Friday. Have a
great day.
Welcome back to A Numbers Game with Ryan Groduski. Happy September, everyone.
Some sad news over the beginning of the week, which
is one of my favorite writers, Wendell Berry, passed away.
He had a very long life, lived till 92, so
it's not tragic, but it's still, you know, he's no
longer here. He wrote my favorite short story of all time,
which is called Making It Home. It's about a World
(00:22):
War I soldier's journey from war back to the farms
of Kentucky. It's such a beautiful short story, and there's
actually a video of him reading it that you can
look on YouTube. I'm going to post it in the
subject link below so you can listen to him read
his short story. One of my favorite poems that he
ever wrote, he said, when they want you to buy something,
they will call you. When they want you to die
(00:43):
for profit, they will let you know. So friends, every
day do something that you won't compute. Love the Lord.
Love the world. Work for nothing. Take all that you
have and be poor. Love somebody who does not deserve it.
Denounce the government and embrace the flag. Hope to live
in that free republic for which it stands. He was
so good. He was just so good. He was a
little wacky on some of his political beliefs, especially towards
(01:04):
the end. But I loved a lot of his stuff.
And so cheers to a very long, accomplished life, Wendell Berry.
So California Democrats are up to some new nonsense on immigration.
I'm going to get to it in a little while.
But first, let's address what's going on in Texas and Michigan,
(01:25):
because there's a lot of Democrats and Republicans here. both
being sore losers and willing to not be the most
loyal soldiers for their own side, which I think is
very interesting. During the last two weeks, Senator John Cornyn,
who was defeated in the Republican primary by Ken Paxton
and Jasmine Crockett, Congressman Jasmine Crockett, who lost her Democratic
(01:45):
primary to James Tallarico, they announced in separate statements that
they will not campaign for their party's nominee. Democrats in
places like Michigan and Wisconsin have all gotten on board
with the losing candidate, have gotten on board with the
winning candidate. Same thing in Iowa for the Republican side.
So this is a little unusual for both major candidates
of their respective parties to say, no, I'm not doing it.
(02:07):
I'm not supporting the nominee. Here's what Jasmine Crockett said.
Play clip one.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Often an energy magnet when it comes to voters. We've
seen the turnout that you can produce. Talrico might very
well need that magnetism. Will you campaign with him? I
will be campaigning down ballot. I think that what matters.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
Most, because when we're looking at a state like Texas,
we've tried this where we've got one amazing candidate that's
running at the top of the ticket. Beto is a
very good example of this, raising all the money, doing
all the things, running around the entire state, but it's
not enough. So for me, I don't think that it
should be a matter of there's just one thing that
(02:47):
is getting me to the polls. I think it has
to be something a little bit more in a state
like Texas. And so for me, I think that making
sure that people that maybe are getting overshadowed because it
seems like it's only about one big race, I think
amplifying them, making sure that I can raise their profiles,
and introducing them to people, that'll give something more to
(03:09):
voters to make them say, you know what? It may
be raining outside, but I got to go get there
because I got to go get there for this person
and this person. Plus, I don't like Trump.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
I understand. But is it an either or? Either you
excite the down ballot or you.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
I think for me, it probably is. I think it
probably is. Only because I am, you know, we've got
the fire pack that's going and I'm running all over
the country. And Texas is a big state. We're not
talking about... a small little state to kind of get around.
We're talking about a really big state. And so for me,
I'm really invested in a number of candidates that I
(03:42):
didn't get to do anything for because I was running
my own Senate race. Candidates that I really do believe
can make a difference no matter what happens ultimately at
the top of the ticket. We've got to have wins.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
Okay. Number one, you're not supposed to wear bulky jewelry
on television, which is why you hear it clinging. It's
very annoying. Secondly, she is lying. She is flat out lying.
Let me tell you, this is the same woman who
called James Hilario's campaign, quote, straight up racist. She has
said the Democratic Party screwed her. She's angry about it.
(04:15):
I've worked in campaigns for 20 years. You know how
easy it is to do a multi-candidate event at the
same time? To do like an event for one down
ballot candidate and the candidate running for Senate? Super easy.
Super easy. She is... lying through her teeth. And I
looked up her fire pack, which is her sewer pack
(04:38):
for all her candidates in Texas. By the way, she's
saying all over the country. It's in two states. It's
California and Texas. Her fire pack, all the candidates in Texas,
they're all black, by the way. So just so you know,
I mean, talk about diversity, but she is endorsed Christian Minife.
He's the incumbent running in Texas 18, a seat in Houston.
(04:58):
which voted for Kamala by 55 points. She endorsed Colin Allred,
who's running in Texas's 33, which is part of Dallas
and some of its suburbs. That's a district that Kamala
won by 32 points. She endorsed incumbent state rep Fenton Jones,
who took over her seat, overwhelmingly Democratic district. Dr. Jared
Williams from Tarrant County Commissioner Precinct 2. That's actually a
(05:21):
competitive race. And the last one was Daryl Johnson for
Harris County District, which is also non-competitive. So everyone she
has to allegedly run all over the country for is
running in basically non-competitive seats, except for one that is
running next to her house. It's a good 30 minute
drive away. There is no flying everywhere that she is
(05:43):
alluding to. She just doesn't want to campaign for Tallarico.
That's basically the, you know, she doesn't want to excite
the black voters that really did like her and really
came out in droves for her and have not been
warm to James Tallarico. She does not like this man.
And what I think she wants to do is if
(06:05):
James Tallarico loses, she can go to the Democratic Party
and say, see that you turned your back on the
black vote. So black voters turn their back on you.
You have to endorse black women. That's what I think
the game plan is there. Over on the Republican side
of the aisle, John Cornyn is just making it known
that he still does not like Ken Paxton and does
not think very highly of him. He said to the
(06:26):
Texas Tribune, Paxton's a poor campaigner. He's lazy and doesn't
raise money. And he's basically not offering any compelling case
for his election. He's making this harder than it needs
to be. But it but so be it. We are
where we are. And flat out said, I will not
be campaigning with Ken Paxton. And both candidates are part
of constituencies that do matter in their respective parties. Jasmine Crockett,
(06:50):
you know, has a lot of supporters in the black vote.
That's very important for Democrats. And John Cornyn has a
lot of supporters in the moderate suburban vote. That's also
very important in a state like Texas, which has huge
populations in the suburbs. But they're both saying, you know,
if my party fails, maybe they should learn a lesson.
And look, Texas is very much in play this year.
(07:10):
It is becoming more and more in play, not just
for the Senate race, but for other races. And both
candidates are dealing with heavy blows against them. For Tallarico,
a new video has emerged that Ken Paxton's Super PAC
is spending heavily on. It's the first ad spent for
Paxton's Super PAC. It's a video from 2020, you know,
woke number one, where Tallarico described capitalism as being white
(07:34):
supremacist and needs to be dismantled. Take a listen.
Speaker 4 (07:37):
Multifaceted threat of a climate crisis and economic crisis. crisis
and a social justice crisis, I think that kind of
New Deal effort would be the only approach to start
to address all three in a thoughtful and meaningful way.
Good for you, Jim.
Speaker 5 (07:55):
Thank you very much. The second question, communities of color
receive the most harm from the impacts of climate change
and yet receive the least government support to deal with it.
Tell us about one of the committees you are on
or hope to be on and the most important actions
that committee could take to fight for climate justice and
(08:17):
mitigate the impacts of climate change for all Texans.
Speaker 4 (08:21):
Yeah, and I'm so thankful that you asked this question
and also thankful that young activists have really drawn the
link between climate change and white supremacy and capitalism in
our country. And I think only... And in the way
that all three of those oppressive systems work together, are
we going to be able to begin the process of
dismantling them?
Speaker 1 (08:41):
For those of you listening and not watching on YouTube,
almost everyone in that conference call that he was a
part of is over the age of 65 and white.
Just a bunch of old socialists just chilling with James Tallarico.
And he sounds like Zora Mondani in that. He does
not sound like a supposed Christian moderate running in a
red state. He has since said that those comments were cringy.
(09:04):
Were they cringy or is that how you felt? Because
at this point, you've backtracked on so many things. It's
kind of like, it's probably not cringy. It's probably how
you actually feel and felt in the moment. Now, this
ad is specifically targeting Republican voters who are unsure how
they feel about Ken Paxton and Tallarico. Remember the old
(09:25):
poll I cited from late June, a Siena University New
York Times poll that showed the race is essentially tied
with 87% of Trump voters saying they're voting for Paxton, 95%
of Harris voters saying they're supporting Tallarico. That 13% of
Trump voters is probably going to decide this election. If
they can move the needle for those Trump voters to
(09:47):
back Paxton against Tallarico and not sit on the couch
on election day, well, then Pam Paxton can obviously win
in a state like Texas. That 8% to 10%, that's really,
what is, of Trump voters, that's really the golden number
you need to really push Paxton over the edge. And
he needs it right now. Remember what I said about
(10:10):
spending money on ads. Candidates get a reduction in prices
over Paxton. And the earlier you book, the better. Now,
this is coming from Paxton's PAC, which is spending $ 15
million on ads recently. They've announced $ 15 million. They're going
to also highlight how Paxton was tough on Big Tech,
(10:30):
something I've been telling every Republican they should campaign on,
and how Tallarico is weak on China. But it's going
to take a lot more money than that to help
Ken Paxton out. And Republicans are saying, and they've been
saying this in D.C. for months, and I have told
you guys this. I was the first one to say this.
They are not spending for Ken Paxton. They're not going
to take money away from Michigan, Maine, and Ohio to
(10:52):
save Ken Paxton in a red state. It all really
depends on Trump's MAGA Inc. PAC if they come in.
They're saying that he needs to spend $ 100 million to
save Ken Paxton. That may seem a little high. However,
Trump has the money. I mean, he's got the money
in the super PAC, but time is running out. Tallarico
(11:14):
isn't the only candidate dealing with some negative news from
past statements. Over the last few days, Abdul El-Sayed has
had another leaked audio tape where he said to achieve
the American dream, Americans should go to Canada.
Speaker 6 (11:27):
Contrary to what we're taught, that we are the land
of opportunity where anyone with a dollar and a dream
can make it.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
In fact, too few people have that first dollar.
Speaker 6 (11:36):
Economic data shows us that if you want to achieve
the American dream, well, you should move to Canada because
it's twice as likely there. Here, where you start predicts
where you end.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
That's not true. And actually, GDP per capita in our
poorest states is better than Canada as a whole. Just
not that facts really matter, but I mean, I guess
all that matters is feelings, but it's just factually not true.
Abdul's campaign is in decent footing against Mike Rogers. He's
(12:08):
leading in six of the last seven polls with a
medium lead of four points. But according to Tony Fabrizio,
who's Trump's famed pollster, and I trust Tony Fabrizio. I've
met him many times and spoken to him many times.
And he's a brilliant pollster. He says this is actually
a one-point race. But El-Said is seeing a number of Democrats,
including former State Representative Karen Wisslet and Rabbi Asher Lubton,
(12:31):
endorse the Republican candidate, endorse Mike Rogers. And he also
saw Fred Upton. Fred Upton was a former Republican congressman
who endorsed Kamala Harris in 2024. Fred Upton endorsed Mike Rogers.
A number of moderate Republicans have said, OK, we don't
like Trump, but Mike Rogers is not Trump. But probably
the most shocking takedown of of Abdul Sayyed came from
(12:54):
a Democrat. It came from Van Jones on a podcast,
and he talked specifically about Abdul Sayyed and that his views,
especially on foreign policy, are dangerous. Listen to this entire clip.
It was a brutal takedown from a man who really
knows what he's doing when it comes to media.
Speaker 7 (13:12):
These people are incredibly dangerous. Abdul, who, you know, I
work with at CNN.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
I know Abdul.
Speaker 7 (13:21):
His positions on Israel and foreign policy are insane. They're
not reasonable reactions to anything. Look, some Democrats are going
to say that we should condition military aid, that, you know,
Israel's gone too far in Gaza and the West Bank
and Lebanon. We're going to put some conditions on you.
(13:45):
I think that's a defensible position if you're a Democrat.
That's not Abdullah's position. There are people who say we
shouldn't be paying for any of the military aid. We
shouldn't be giving military aid. Now, I think that's understandable,
(14:05):
but I think indefensible because it's not charity. We're building
a strong defense sector here, and Israel is protecting a
lot of Western interests in that region. But I can
get why you would say no more aid. They got
to pay their own way. That's not Abdul's position. Abdul's
position is a total and complete arms embargo against the
(14:28):
state of Israel. including defensive weapons. That's an insane position.
That says if Israel wants to pay for interceptors to
stop a rocket coming from Iran or coming from Hezbollah
or coming from Hamas, an interceptor, we should deny them
the right to buy the interceptors to knock down rockets
(14:50):
going at Israeli children, women, men, babies.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
That's an insane position.
Speaker 7 (14:56):
And by the way, it offends me Because that's, you know,
Barack Obama was a part of creating that iron dome.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
Barack Obama was.
Speaker 7 (15:06):
A part of creating those interceptors. Barack Obama thought that
the Israeli people were in such a tough neighborhood, they
needed to be able to knock down rockets. So you're
telling me you're smarter than Barack Obama. You have better
ideas about foreign policy than Barack Obama. And you want
to de-plug and defund and take away Israel's, half the
(15:26):
world's Jews.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
Okay, listen to how he framed it at the end.
He didn't make it about Israel. He made it about
Barack Obama. You are insulting Barack Obama by saying his
foreign policy is bad. Now, the black community, not historically
(15:49):
huge fans of the Jewish community, right? I mean, I'm
not telling you anything shocking about that, but they are
big fans of Barack Obama. And in this Senate election,
it could be a few percentage points of the black
vote sitting out an election that changes the entire course
of the election, right? If it is a one point race,
(16:12):
if Tony Fabrizio is correct, the insult to Barack Obama
and the wedge that is already in between the black
community that voted for Haley Stevens in huge numbers, and
Abdul El-Sayed, because there's other things happening in Michigan right now.
Black voters are feeling increasingly displaced in historically black communities
(16:37):
as a Muslim population is growing. There is resentment and
sentiments that are not being said in polite society. They're
absolutely part of this conversation. That's why many polls are
finding huge chunks of the male black vote, especially voting
for Mike Rogers. Now, I'm not saying Mike Rogers is
going to win the black vote. He is not going
to win the black vote. However, a marginal increase for
(17:00):
Mike Rogers and a marginal increase for people just refusing
to vote on the line, let's say they vote for
city council, Congress, whatever, governor, whatever's off the line, but
they don't vote for the Senate race, that 2% or 3%
changes the entire race if it's a one-point race. If
this is as close as the 2024 Schlotten, Senator Schlotten
race against Rogers was, 3% would have made Rogers a senator.
(17:26):
It is that close, if the numbers are right, if
Tony Fabrizio is correct. And the Black vote and the
Jewish vote, which is very against what, in Oakland County,
very against Abdul El-Sid, and they're all Democrats, could make
a significant difference in this election. And maybe we're not
(17:47):
seeing it, but the state representative I mentioned before, she
is Black. There is obviously a rabbi. They're working. There's
Democratic fundraisers that are working for Mike Rogers. It could
be the sleeper race. The biggest question will be, will
Trump's poll numbers in Michigan do more damage than everything
Abdulaziz is saying and doing? We'll see, but it's very,
(18:09):
very close. Okay, coming up next, let's talk about California
and the insanity they're doing with immigration. So remember a
few months ago, there was a YouTuber named Nick Shirley
who went to Minnesota and discovered that there was a
bunch of government-funded institutions for Somali children that were completely fraudulent.
The names of the building about learning was misspelled. There
was daycares with no children in it, and a few
(18:30):
people went to jail. Well, Democrats, they didn't like that.
And Democrats in California really didn't like that. Democratic state
lawmakers presented an expansion of a longstanding program called the
Safe at Home Act that shields the addresses of vulnerable
residents and public records to immigration aid providers. So immigration
aid providers would be part of this class of people
(18:51):
who are protected. This includes people who are using public
funds for immigrant services, and it also includes volunteers, quote
unquote volunteers, which no one really knows what that means
if you're a documented volunteer. This is, by the way,
these are organizations that are using funds, government funds, and
if they're using funds legitimately, there's really no problem. But
if there's these NGOs that they're not using legitimately, which
(19:12):
does happen a lot, there's a lot of waste, fraud,
and abuse among certain immigrant groups that There is a
problem and someone should expose it. Well, Republicans have really
jumped on this law and they're calling it the Stop
Nick Shirley Act. And it's becoming a galvanizing free speech
issue in California, which wasn't the case when they did
this a year ago, protecting doctors and medical people, people
(19:36):
working in the medical fields who were working on child transitioning.
They were they were protected and it really didn't make
any noise at all. But this has made a lot
of noise. The California bill this year was the first
in the nation to expand and address the issue of
workers and volunteers on immigration. And it says starting October 2027,
(19:57):
a person whose address is protected can sue someone to
post an image or personal information online after being asked
in writing not to share it publicly. So it's a
little there's there's a few steps there. But Democrats are
saying that any controversy on this is a big hubbub
about nothing, that it's only for violent threats. It's not
(20:18):
for intimidation. But Republicans are saying very much the opposite.
They're saying, no, this is to intimidate us, not to
ask any questions. Nick Shirley went to The New York Times.
He said they're making a protected class by specifying immigration
support service providers, which is a very broad term. We
really don't know what immigration support providers is because once again,
it could include any volunteers. It could include basically anybody.
(20:41):
And also what happens if an NGO is having their
organization in their home, which does happen quite a bit. Mr.
Shirley said he's worried that the law could be used
against him by people who hire someone to commit a
crime and then say they were incited by him. So
basically someone commits a crime, they say that they were,
(21:01):
Nick Shirley inspired them to do it, and Nick Shirley
is then responsible of paying a fine of at least $ 4, 000.
It's basically to silence any conservative with a big platform. Now,
legal experts are already saying that this clearly is unconstitutional
because they are protected groups, because these are protected groups.
One legal expert said you can single out threats and
(21:23):
incitements against immigration service providers from threats, and incitements against
others that are just as vulnerable as they are. Basically,
you can't have this protected group while all other groups
are not protected that do essentially the same thing. There's
no protected class for people who provide pro-life organizations in California.
(21:44):
And that's when it really gets murky. I think that
what could happen if this becomes a true free speech issue,
California has a law that allows a public votes on law.
So people can sign a document, enough people can, like
a million or so, several million, and submit it to Sacramento,
the state's capital, and get a proposition put on the ballot,
(22:07):
and it votes up or down by the people by
popular vote. That's why there's so many tough-on candidates. crime
and immigration hardline laws in California, it's like as the
Democrats pass it, it's because people voted for it back
in the 80s and the 90s. And it was never
undone because they are actually fairly popular with the people.
And Democrats are just not enforcing them, but they're actually
(22:28):
on the books. Something like that could happen again with
this is a free speech issue or courts can come in,
federal courts can come in and say, no, you really
have to either expense to everybody or it goes to nobody.
It's a very interesting thing how Democrats have stepped so
far over the line about illegal immigrants and the organization
(22:48):
to support illegal immigrants that they're willing to undo other
groups that are supposedly in their tent. Because this law
is always given out to Democrat organizations. Like I said,
the pro-lifers are not protected, but abortion clinics are. It's
always one way, and this could be the undoing of
this entire law. It's very fascinating. I'm going to keep
(23:09):
an eye about it. But next up is Ask Me Anything.
Stay tuned. Now it's time for the Ask Me Anything segment.
If you want a part of the Ask Me Anything segment,
email me ryan at numbersgamepodcast.com. That's ryan at numbers, plural numbersgamepodcast.com.
First question comes from Keith. Keith writes, hey, Ryan, love
the show and the Ask Me Anything segment. I think
it's everyone's favorite segment. I really do believe that. Got
(23:29):
another question for you. Clay loves to use predictive markets.
That's Clay of Buck and Clay. Loves to do predictive
markets when looking at races with a premise that someone
is putting money on the table. It's a good indicator.
RealClearPolitics now have their polling maps plus a map based
on polymarket. The RCP map seems to have all the
Senate toss-ups in the polymarket maps going one way when
(23:51):
other data says no. What are your thoughts on using
predictive markets versus polling? Any insights into the population that
is betting on these races and correlation to these bets?
Do you think predictive markets can be gamed like polls
can to over and under sample specific demographic groups. Thank
you for your question. I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate
predictive markets. Hate them beyond belief. There are some races
(24:16):
where it is very, it looks very obvious that one
person is going to win or another, like AOC is
going to win reelection. She's in a D plus 30 district.
If you're betting against her, you're probably going to lose
your money. But there are certain safe bets that Kelshi
or whatever are not, predictors of, but what people betting
on Kelshi and these other predictive markets are doing is
(24:37):
they're reading the headlines like you or I are. They're
not actually, and they're reacting in real time. Or when
there is inside information, they're shorting the markets. So like,
for example, and now he's banned there, but George Santos
is banned permanently from Kelshi because he said he took
a bet on whether he will show up at the
State of the Union, and he knew he was going
(24:58):
to show up. That is a perfect example of how
some consultants can do it. What worries me, and I
think that it's been talked about about sports, maybe I'm
wrong about this, that they're worried about players shorting the
market when it comes to whether or not how they're
going to play. And also, by the way, there's predictive
markets where people are saying, how do they know we're
(25:19):
going to strike Iran at a certain time? There were
predictive markets about other major things. Where like there's a
tech release, a new tech platform coming out from one
of the big AI companies. If you have inside information,
there's no stopping you. And I guess cows can self-regulate it,
but who knows if they actually do. So one, I
(25:40):
don't think it's actually insightful at all. I think people
have an addiction to gambling and they'll gamble on literally anything.
And I think that you can't use it for any
useful information. And for example, I looked at some recent races.
They said Francesca Hong was going to win. She had
like an 85% chance. She lost. At one point it
said Rubio was the most likely nominee for the GOP
(26:01):
in 2028. He's not even running. And then they said
John Kihiko was going to win in Hawaii's first district
against Ed Case. He lost. They don't know what they're
talking about. They absolutely have no idea what they're talking about.
It is all gut instinct. It's all headlines and it's
all addiction to gambling. And it is gambling. And I'm sorry,
it should be illegal. Like, you should not be able
to gamble on political races. I fundamentally believe that. What's
(26:24):
also stopping a consultant from putting their life savings in
a race and knowing that they could throw the race
by releasing audio of their candidates' nudes or saying the
N-word or something? Like, there's nothing. And I find the
whole institution... I've been asked... to bet in these markets.
(26:46):
When I know insider information, like I knew about Graham
Platner for a long time. And I knew about the
Graham Platner dropping out thing for quite a while. I
would never do that. I think that it's actually disgraceful
towards your profession. And I just think the entire thing
(27:06):
is completely illegal. Also, like what's stopping Graham Platner? Graham
Platner could have bet on that and said, will he
drop out and put the money on a high and
a low and made money off of it. It's wrong. Like,
it's wrong, and it's actually not insightful at all. You're
not gaining any knowledge from it. I don't think it
actually predicts elections very well in any way. That's the
disagreement me and Clyde can still look at them. I
(27:27):
do not. All right. Next question. Love the show. I
listen to every episode. I appreciate you. I received an
invitation to participate in a poll today, and it had
the question below. Quote, New Jersey voters will decide on
the following ballot initiative in November 2026. The proposal would
establish an educational program to improve literacy for cows in
(27:48):
the state. The program would be funded 99% by 97%
tax on all income over $ 1, 000. Cows would be given
food and lodging and would be compensated for lost wages
during the time. I have a screenshot and sent sent
to you. This is the type of question you use
to validate the quality of the response. What happens to
the answers of someone who says yes, that they support it? Nothing.
(28:10):
There's nothing that, that, that, Changes it. I mean, I
would love to know more about the poll. Do they
ask you other questions? Do they ask you, like, who
are you voting for or any other questions whatsoever? And
then this was the question to see if you were responding,
if you were paying attention or whatnot. But I don't.
I do not. This is probably a crowd control question
(28:32):
to see that people are actually there and we're paying
attention to the whole thing. So but nothing happens if
you vote yes. Your information is probably stored just like
everyone else, but not your name and everything like that.
So that's all that is. It's very funny, though. Next
question comes... I didn't write this person's name down. Sorry
about this. But the question I will get to. Any
chance next month you can get a Democrat you like
(28:54):
who is fair and have a debate on why people
should vote for Republican or Democrat in the midterms? But
the twist is you defend Democrats and he defends Republicans
and do a faith-based argument with minimal shots at the parties. Basically,
as much policy as possible. That could be interesting.
Speaker 3 (29:09):
Uh....
Speaker 1 (29:12):
That could be interesting. I feel like I would end
up focusing on one or two issues that I think
Democrats are decent on. But I'm not I don't have
the mind. I mean, I probably could fake it about
Medicare for all or amnesty for illegal immigrants and give
(29:34):
the generic talking points. But I don't think I could
do that with my whole heart. um i've done debates
where i don't care about the subject matter just when
i was in college for for for fun i don't
think i would do it now on the podcast but
i would like a democrats to come on i invite
democrats on the show all the time i just invited
john federman to come on the show i would love
him to be on the show i would love bernie
(29:54):
sanders to be on the show bernie sanders is one
of my dream dream guests um Yeah, I mean, I'm
very respectful, so I don't know why they won't, but
a lot of them will not. But I would love
to have more conversations with Democrats because I think it's
important just to hear someone out, even to have Republicans
that you don't agree on all the time, just to
hear them out. And I don't interrupt people. I don't
try to make a moment that's going to be clickable.
(30:17):
This is not Piers Morgan where I'm trying to make
everyone scream at each other. I don't think that's good.
I don't think it's very entertaining, although clearly other people
like it. So maybe it is entertaining, but I don't
think you learn anything from it. And I want my
audience to come away saying, wow, that was really well
informed and I'm smarter for it. And I enjoy that.
No one's yelling. I just I yell enough at home.
(30:37):
I don't need to yell anymore in real life.
Speaker 6 (30:39):
All right.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
Last question comes from Chris from Texas. Chris goes, hey, Ryan,
love the show. Listen to every episode. Chris, you're a patriot.
Noted the question from Ryan. I guess different Ryan. Your
answer a few podcasts ago asking if people would have
a better attitude about the Iran war if Trump had
delivered on a bunch of other things. That got me thinking. First,
I believe part of Trump's appeal has been his doing
(31:01):
what he said he would do. In other words, keeping
his promises. Second, not to borrow from Janet Jackson, but
you can always borrow from Janet Jackson. On this show,
that's always appropriate. I borrowed once from Janet Jackson on
a CNN hit that I did. And because Janet was
saying that Janet Jackson was saying that Kamala Harris wasn't
really black. And she doesn't make political statements. No one
(31:21):
knows her politics. So it was very unusual that she
would makes that kind of a statement. And I said
it on CNN and the people on the panel with
me exploded. Their heads blew up. The fact that I
was mentioning one of the most famous black women in
America history saying that Kamala Harris wasn't black. It was
very entertaining for me. Okay, sorry. You said second, not
to borrow from Janet Jackson, but I think Americans often
(31:44):
have attitude of what have you done for me lately?
Taking together what I think is hurting Trump are part
of his broken promises to bring down prices once elected,
to end the Ukraine war with a phone call, to
stop and not start forever wars. To this last point,
with regard to the Iran war, it is documented that
he's increasingly surrounded himself with sycophants who won't bring challenging
(32:04):
news and viewpoints. I also believe the Iran war wouldn't
have happened if Venezuela had not gone so well. It's probably,
I mean, I don't know if that's completely true, but
it definitely fed into him. All this said, I'm afraid
of Trump's failure to deliver on recently for the American people,
especially economically and starting to be proactive in protracted war
will cause a backlash for the Trump fatigue syndrome that
(32:25):
will hand Democrats, Congress and the White House and set
our country down a generational path of ruin via reopened borders,
blanket amnesty, Puerto Rico and DC as a states as
a packed courts. Do you think anyone in the administration
of the Republican Party sees this and can be especially
strategic and counteract this potential outcome while there is still time?
And if not, is there anything common folk like me
(32:48):
can do to influence this? Okay, that was a very
thoughtful question, Chris. So Trump has really been aggressive against
Iran for a while. If you listen to the Maggie Haberman,
Jonathan Swan interview, he really has problems with Venezuela going
back to the 70s, going back to when they captured
(33:08):
our people there during Carter's administration. He really doesn't like Venezuela.
So I don't know if there was any way of
getting around Iran, although the Venezuela military action really did
booster his opinions. I think that for a lot of people, yeah,
it is what have you done for me lately, but
also it's I don't remember Biden's administration, how bad it was.
(33:30):
I think people, when things are bad, memory hole them
and they don't think about them. Like, I mean, a
lot of people don't think about COVID anymore and what happened.
And they've gone back to their ways of just, you know,
believing the medical establishment, every word they say. I had
a recent conversation with a relative of mine who said
something along the lines of, we were talking about relatives
(33:52):
who did and did not follow COVID protocols and what
that did as far as seeing each other for several years.
And the relative of mine, the cousin of mine said, well,
you know, some of us were really into the science.
And I said, No, you were into the government, you
(34:14):
weren't into the science, the science said one thing, and
the government was saying something else. And you just believed
the government. That is an entirely different story than what
you think you heard. Nonetheless, and yet still, most people
don't think about that time. It's just it's almost too
difficult to, I guess, relive for a lot of people,
(34:34):
or they just have memory hold it. I think people's
problem with trump is that prices are not down and
they expect them to be down not inflation down prices
down and that did not happen we did have uh
the dry the rise in egg prices briefly under the
trump administration it's no longer a problem but it gave
uh the idea away that that he could not help
(34:56):
with the economy at all a lot of jobs have
like manufacturing jobs which just started to come back two
years in but we didn't see a rise in manufacturing
tariffs have cause a rise of some prices. And he,
while this was happening, while people were concerned with the economy,
Trump was talking about annexing Greenland and Panama Canal and Canada.
(35:19):
And it felt like he was not listening to their
concerns and their concerns were not his concerns. And I
think that really is a big part of why people
have soured so heavily on Trump. But the economy is
the main factor. Is there anyone around the president? Look,
I have spoken to senators who have privately told me,
people in the White House have probably told me they
(35:41):
think the Iran war is a disaster. That's why I
think Trump is also coming to the conclusion that a
lot of the people who, you know, telling him, go, go, go,
do it, do it, do it, were wrong. And that's
why I think he's trying to declare victory and move along,
because there is no easy end to this conflict. The
only good thing I have to say about it is
(36:03):
that While Americans are down on Trump, they are not
down on Republicans as a whole. Like, for instance, the
entire cabinet, according to a Quinnipiac poll, J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio,
Pete Heisket, they all have actually higher favorable numbers than
Trump does. So it's not even just they don't dislike
Republicans as much as they dislike Trump. They just dislike
(36:24):
Trump at a much heavier level than even his own administration.
I wouldn't be in complete despair over that. Republicans are
definitely working a very tightrope. They don't want to get
on Trump's bad side, but they do realize there are
some issues that he is not handling the best. And
I'll just say it like that. And I think that
(36:46):
some people around him have started bringing certain things to
his attention. According to the Swan Haberman interview, J.D. Vance
is the one that pushes back the most. And that's
sometimes why he's out of favorability with J.D.
Speaker 5 (36:58):
J.D.
Speaker 1 (36:59):
's out of favorability with Trump. Probably not that badly.
I think they really do get along. I know they
have very similar senses of humor. That's been told to
me by the source. So I think that they like
each other, but I think that Trump does get irritated
by being pushed back. But I think certainly it's happening
to a certain extent. And also, wait till the midterms.
A lot of people in the admin are going to
(37:20):
switch jobs. They're going to go to the private sector.
They're going to find something. And who knows who they're
replaced by? And who knows what happens afterwards? I wouldn't
completely despair and look two years into the future. and
say it's all good for Democrats. What happens if they
nominate El-Said for president? I don't know if that's going
to go over well. I don't know if an AOC
is going to go over well. We'll have to wait
and see. Also, if the market has a bigger recovery
(37:43):
and if the manufacturing jobs continue to come back, we'll see.
We'll have to wait and see for all these things.
We can't predict the future and worry about them. We
can just live in the present, do what we can
to spread the word. If you live in Texas, preventing
Tallarica from becoming the the senator and the Abbott from
losing the governorship, although I don't think he should have
run for a fourth term, is of the utmost importance.
(38:03):
And then, you know, deal what you can in your
local community, I think. That's what you should be concerned
the most of. Don't fret about all of this stuff,
because I think if Trump could have ended the war
with a snap of a finger, he would have. Truly,
at this point, I think he would have. All right,
that is this episode for a numbers game. If you
like this podcast, please like and subscribe on the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, wherever you get this podcast, and on YouTube.
(38:26):
And I will see you guys on Friday. Have a
great day.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com