In this episode of It's a Numbers Game, Ryan Girdusky breaks down the looming Social Security crisis, revealing why the program could face insolvency by 2032 and what potential reforms may be necessary to avoid benefit cuts for millions of retirees. Ryan examines competing Republican and Democratic proposals, explains the history behind Social Security, and discusses why Congress continues to avoid making difficult decisions.
Ryan also dives into new polling from Texas and across the country, analyzing President Trump's approval ratings, the battle for control of the U.S. Senate, and the surprising strength of Democratic candidates in key races. Plus, he explores how inflation, the Iran conflict, AI concerns, and shifting voter demographics could shape the 2026 midterm elections.
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 (00:01):
Welcome back to a Numbers game with Ryan Grodwski. Thank
you guys for being here. We have a great program
today because we have new polling information that is really
interesting on the midterms, and I have a start with
Social Security that I want to address because if you've
seen the news, social Security, probably the least sexy issue
known to man, has makeing a lot of headway, and
(00:22):
I've even had conversations with my own family about it
that I think there's a lot of misunderstanding and I
want to kind of address because there's a bunch of
people who listen to the show who are either social
Security age or about to be Social Security agent. For
those of you who don't know, there was a report
by the Social Security Trustee that says the program is
on track to become insolvent by twenty thirty two. The
(00:42):
end of twenty thirty two, and for those of you
counting at home who sometimes forget what a year it
is and think it's only two thousand and ten at most,
like myself, that's only six years away. Beneficiaries are expected
to see a twenty two percent monthly cut if this happens.
That's an average cover about five hundred dollars a month,
(01:03):
which would devastate millions of senior citizens who count on
Social Security to you know, keep them hope and keep
keep their lives running, keep themselves fed in there, you know,
pay their bills. That's according to report. By the way,
the five hundred dollars are report published by the Committee
for Responsible Federal Budget in case you want to look
that up. Democrats are saying that the only path forward
(01:25):
would be to eliminate the payroll tax break currently for
people who earn more than one hundred and eighty four thousand,
five hundred dollars a year. If you don't know, the
way that social securities pay is through the payroll tax.
People only pay for the first one hundred and eighty
four thousand, five hundred dollars of their pay of their payroll.
(01:46):
So if you earn a million dollars, ten million dollars,
one hundred billion dollars, if your elon musk, you're only
paying that first one hundred and eighty four thousand, five
hundred dollars. But according to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation,
a limit dating that tax break and saying you get
taxed as far as much as you earn. That would
only solve a seventy percent of the issue. It would
(02:08):
not close the budget gap that we're facing. A proposed
by Republicans is that we should extend the age you
can collect for time into sixty seven. Remember when Social
Security was created by Franklin Roosevelt during the New Deal
in the nineteen thirties, the life expectancy for men was
sixty and for women it was sixty four. So the
(02:29):
idea of collecting social Security in nineteen forty was for
people who were sixty five and older, when you had
lived past life expectancy. In other words, it would be
like today, if you know, the average life expectancy for
men is seventy seven, for women it's eighty one, So
you could only collect social Security if you were eighty two. Like,
(02:49):
it's only for people who at the time had lived
past you know, not evenly their working age, but their
life expectancy. So that way, when you were very old,
and back then sixty five was very very old. Now
that would not solve the program.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Either.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Extending the age of retirement it would reduce the budget
long term deficit by about twenty five percent. So neither
party is being very honest about how deep the hole
for social security is, and they really want to only
address the issue in the ways that their party ideology says,
reduce benefits or raise taxes. And this is true, by
the way, the fact that we are in a deficit
(03:26):
for most western countries in the world when it comes
to their welfare program for senior citizens. All across Europe,
they are dealing with this exact same issue. Part of
the reason that they're dealing with this issue, part of
the reason that we're dealing with this issue, is because
when it was created one hundred years ago, the idea
was that everyone was going to have tons of kids,
(03:47):
like they've always been having tons of kids, and those
kids would then work and pay for their grandparents or
their parents social Security checks. And if you've been paying
attention to this podcast or the news in general, you're
knowing people don't have a lot of kids anymore. So
I am currently paying for my grandma and my grandpa's
social Security check. My two grandmas and my grandpa were
still alive their social Security check. My children will pay
(04:10):
for my moms and eventually mine all the rest of it. Well, everyone,
this only works if everyone's having three or more kids.
When you're looking at fertility rates that are in the
low ones in America, in Europe, and the mid ones,
like one point five in America, at one point one,
one point two in Western Europe and Eastern Europe. That
(04:31):
doesn't work. Most of the world is seeing birth rates
way too low, except for parts of you know, the
Middle Eastern countries and parts of Africa. Even parts of Africa,
by the way, have birth rates below for chilly levels,
not even just South America and East Asia anymore. Now.
I was having this conversation with my dad, and I'm
sure he was tuning me out, because that's whatever he
(04:52):
does when I'm making a really good point that he
had disagrees with. But he's almost social security age. I
want to preference that, And he said something along the
lines of like, if they cut my social Security benefits,
I would sue for my social Security money. That's not
how this works, because you don't actually have a right
to your Social Security check. I think that's a very
(05:14):
important thing that people misunderstand. Once upon a time, there
was a man. This is for the our kids who
listened to the show. Once upon a time there was
a man named Ronald Reagan. If you don't know him,
look him up. He gave great speeches, and one of
his most famous speeches was a speech called A Time
for Choosing, and he kind of let it slip about
your right to social security.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
We're for a provision the destitution should not follow unemployment
by reason of old age, and to that end, we've
accepted social security as a step toward meeting the problem.
But we're against those entrusted with this program when they
practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that
any criticism of the program means that we want to
end payments to those people who depend on them for
(05:57):
a livelihood. They've called it insurance to us in one
hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before
the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program.
They only used the term insurance to sell it to
the people, and they said social security dues are a
tax for the general use of the government, and the
government has used that tex there is no fund because
(06:19):
Robert Buyers, the actuarial head, appeared before a Congressional committee
and admitted that social Security as of this moment is
two hundred and ninety eight billion dollars in the hole.
But he said there should be no cause for worry
because as long as they had the power to tax,
they could always take away from the people whatever they
needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing
(06:42):
just that.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
What was Reagan talking about? Reagan was referencing a Supreme
Court decision in nineteen sixty This was the speech was
given in nineteen sixty four when he was endorsing Barry Goldwater.
The case was called Fleming the Nester, a case that
really doesn't get reference very much or at all, and
it was about a man named Efrem Nestor who had
immigrated to the US from Bulgaria, paidon's social security for
(07:07):
nineteen years, but was deported for being a former member
of the Communist Party. So he sued that it was
an infringement on his due process because his wife, who
had still remained in America, should have been eligible for
those social Security benefits that were denied to him since
being deported. The Supreme Court ruled, in a five to
four decision that workers do not have a contractual or
property right to social security benefits. The Court rule that
(07:30):
Congress can alter, reduce, or eliminate these benefits at any
times without violating the Constitution. And it's just a tax.
You have no contractual right to get Social Security benefits.
Obviously Congress would that wouldn't be popular. They probably wouldn't
let people just suffer. But they don't have an obligation
(07:53):
to give you a Social Security check. I think it's
very important people understand that. So how do we get
rich of this shortfall? Well, the first option would be
to go into a time machine and support the reforms
that George W. Bush try to put forward in two
thousand and five, which would allowed younger workers to voluntarily
divert a portion of their payroll tax into a personal
(08:13):
investment account. According to Andrew Biggs of AI, lower income
workers would have seen a ten percent higher return from
Social Security than socialecurity currently pays ten percent higher return
on a private investment, and middle class workers would have
seen a five percent increase turnout increase payout from what
Social Security currently pays. So that would have been a
(08:34):
great option. We would have been able to have a
better living standard for people had that happen. Of course,
the idea of a time machine being invented seems very
very small. Right now, So we're not going to I'm
going to bet that that's not going to happen. So
how do we do it in a realistic way? How
do we make sure that social security is solvent, which
(08:56):
is important for a lot of people who have lived
their lives with this expectation from the government using the
current tax and benefit structure. There are a number of
ways to do it. None of them are great. None
of them are going to be easypasy for everybody. First
as you'd probably have to eliminate the one hundred and
eighty four thousand, five hundred dollars ceiling on payroll tax
(09:18):
is what Democrats want to do. Secondly, you'd have to
raise the retirement age to probably sixty nine, not just
sixty seven, but sixty nine. People are living longer and
that's just what happens. And third is you'd have to
change the concept of social security when it comes to
high income earners. It's crazy that people like Oprah, Bill Gates,
(09:39):
Warren Buffett, they get as much of security as your grandma.
They don't need it they I mean, it doesn't even
pay for their lunches. They would have to have something
called their cola, their cost of Living Adjustment CATS, so
they would still collect the security, but it would not
change based upon their you know, net worth, based on
(10:00):
inflation because of their net worth. That would fully fund
the program and be the least painful of all the
options I have explored, and let me tell you I've
been looking. Other other options are very painful for people.
It includes taxing health care benefits, which will probably raise
the cost of overall healthcare, which is already crazy expensive.
(10:23):
And the idea that they're going to find a new
tax like maybe like an AI tax or a data
tax or something else that probably should have already happened,
but it hasn't happened because we let the tech companies
do whatever they want. That that doesn't seem like it's
in the cards. To be completely honest, everybody doesn't seem
like it's actually going to happen. So using the current structure,
(10:43):
you'd have to do both change the way that benefits
are given, increase the retirement age, increase the taxes, and
change the way that billionaires receive Social Security checks. That's
that's that's that's it. I mean, not billionaires, people with
like maybe a hundred million dollars net worth and above
something insane where soci security really doesn't mean much to them,
(11:05):
but they feel entitled to it, so they'll get to
They'll get it, but it won't be adjusted because of Colon.
What Congress is likely to do is nothing, because that's
what Congress does best in an increasingly partisan environment. The
idea that ten Republicans and ten Democratic centers are going
to hold hands and say, you know what, we need
to do something that's very unpopular for the sake of
(11:27):
the country, to protect a program that helps a lot
of elderly people and people of a certain age avoid
mass amounts of poverty and keep themselves fed. I don't
know if if there's ten, if there's twenty senators willing
to do that, I mean, maybe maybe there is, but
(11:47):
I haven't seen it. Because we become in an age
where working together is considered, you know, frowned upon, and
in this environment it thinks have gotten worse, not going
to be better. I would love to see that happen.
I'm just not super hope if it does. Default. What
Congress is likely to do is they're going to take
They're going to not let benefits be slash. They're going
(12:07):
to find other ways to find it using other parts
of the budget, which are already have a massive deficit,
increase to our debt, and that leads to inflation, which
is the invisible tax you all feel but you can't see.
So you think, oh, Congress, things are you know, chumming along.
I don't know, But man, are things getting more expensive?
Is because Congress cannot spend, not stop spending over their limits.
(12:32):
I know, I don't sound too happy, it's too optimistic.
It's a bad problem. And the thing is, it's so
easily fixable. So many of our budget problems, if Democrats
and Republicans were more serious in the two thousands, could
have been taken care of. Have Bush not done the
Iraq war and the Bush tax cuts, which I know
were popular for a lot of people, But had he
(12:53):
not done those two things, we would have paid off
our national debt by the year twenty twelve. Think about it.
It's really remarkable how many things got screwed up in
the mid two thousands. You know, I don't know. Paris
Sultan came on the scene, in the whole country went
to hell. I like parasital I don't like it, I
don't hate it. I'm just making a joke, all right,
that is social security. Let's get to the midterms that
(13:16):
is coming up next. Now, there are two polls out
that I want to talk about the midterms. The first
comes from Siana University. They connected a pole in Texas
with Texas A and M University. Here are some findings
that are really important for the lone star state, the
biggest Republicans state in the country. First, Trump is underwater
in Texas. He's underwater by four points. That's in a
(13:38):
state that he won by about fourteen points last time.
Not good. Trump's underwater by twenty three points among independents.
Holy cow, that's a big number. And he's only up
by eleven points among Texan and White Texans. That's a
group that supported him by huge numbers last time. Texans
approve of the job Trump is doing when it comes
(13:59):
to curing the border. Vast support for securing the border
in Texas now surprise, even a majority of Latinos are
very happy with the job that Trump has done with
the border. And they also give him approval on the
question of does he make you proud to be an American?
With all the issues. This is why I hate polsters
sometimes with all the issues facing the country that I
would like to know about, specifically a good polster like
(14:23):
Siana University with an important state. That's not the question
I would have asked, like, it's great to know, but
who cares? They give him disapproval ratings on the other
two big issues, which is bringing down prices and ending
foreign wars. The biggest issues facing voters no shock, number one,
cost of loving forty percent. Number two is border security,
(14:44):
and the crazy thing is border security is the number
one issue for Republicans in Texas. Thirty one percent of
Republicans say border securities number one issue. Zero percent of
Democrats said border security is the number one issue. Immigration
is not only a lot side of issue for which
party wants to secure the border and enforce immigration laws,
(15:05):
it's which party even cares about immigration to a large degree.
Republicans care about it a lot, and Democrats really don't
as much as they say they do. When you ask
the other questions.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Number three was water supply, which is a big issue.
I'm sure it feeds into AI And number four is
the worthy ram. The poll found that Ken Paxson is
as unpopular among Texans as John Cornyn, which is a
big rebuke to all the established Republicans who said, no,
John Cornyn is going to walk through this election. Not
so Democratic sending kend James tell Rico is largely unknown.
(15:40):
This is a fascinating thing. One in four Texans, including
one in three Republicans, really don't know who he is.
Republicans have a lot to work with. That means they
have the ability to define him because a lot of
people don't know who he is. To define, you know,
it hasn't defined himself. That's very interesting. Now here's the
run down of the head to head matchups. Governor Ray
(16:02):
Abbott is leading his Democratic opponent by six points forty
nine to forty three. Republican Attorney General candet Mayez Middleton
is leading his Democratic opponent by five points forty five
to forty. Republican Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick leads his Democratic
opponent by five points forty nine to forty four. So
all the state government elected positions, they look like they're
(16:23):
fairly secure in Republican hands. It's very unlikely that any
of them, any of the candidates running statewide for state jobs,
are going to lose. The big question comes down to
the Senate. They found the race between Ken Paxson and
James Talerrico is tied forty six to forty six. I
actually invited Ken pax on this podcast talk about the race.
I hope he accepts. Other time, James tell Rico come
(16:45):
on too if he wants to come on, I love
to talk to him. But tall Rico leads packs by
fourteen points among independents and more Republicans say they're going
to vote for tall Rico, then Democrats say they're going
to support Paxton. Talla Rico is also leading with voters
under the aid age of fifty, with voters young voters
eighteen to twenty nine supporting Tallery Goo by forty points.
(17:06):
This is not I mean, I know demn Republicans like
to say, oh, young people don't vote. There was a
man named Barack Obama at one point who said I
can get elected with the support of young people. A
man named Zora Mundani whos that I can get elected
with the support of young people. Young people do vote
at times, especially when they're galvanized by certain politicians. Do
not dismiss young people for the sake they historically don't vote.
(17:29):
Sometimes they do, and they surprise everybody Paxson has a
ten point advantage among men, and a seventeen point advantage
among voters without a college degree, fourteen points among white voters,
and a small advantage among voters who earn less than
one hundred thousand dollars a year. He needs to get
all those numbers up to win. Tall Rico has a
twelve point lead among Latino's not very much. I mean
(17:51):
it's more than Kamala had I think is kind of
lost to Hispanics in Texas. But twelve points is not
a huge lead. Fifty nine point lead among the blacks.
Also terrible lead among black voters. Remember Jasmine Crockett had
a bad reaction to los in the primary, and a
lot of black voters that they are not voting in
(18:12):
this election for Teller Rego. They're not voting at all
because they feel like tall Rico did not do right
by the black community when he ran his primary. Now
there is something working in Paxton's favor, which is this,
more Republicans are undecided in this election than Democrats, as
are more low income Texans. That is good because that
(18:34):
is Ken Paxton's base. Ken Paxson has more to work
with to get another point. Or two to secure and
win this election seventeen percent. Remember I said about Jason
and Crockett, seventeen percent of black voters say they're either
not voting or undecided who they are voting for. So
it's very simple and very easy for Republicans to really
(18:58):
a Republican pack to really muddy the waters even more
between Tall Rico and black voters. Seventeen percent if they
don't show up, is dead the stating to Talla Rico.
There's a lot of uncertainty with Tall Rico also by
the fact of what he said about trans kids, about
the Bible. There's a lot of religious Black people in
Texas that's not sticking too well, Like that doesn't do
(19:20):
too well with those communities. Being a white, you know,
very far liberal person doesn't work in large parts of
the country. And tall Rico is very very liberal. I
know he's changing his what he's saying. He's saying, oh,
I don't support you know, trans surgeries on minors he
did thirty seconds ago. Like, I mean, you can't flip
that much. The other poll I want to talk to
(19:41):
you guys about is a poll that comes from the argument,
which is a very smart liberal a popular. It's a
like a newsletter on most I read it. The host
of it, the person who writes most of it. I've
asked on the show many times, but he's too afraid
of the liberal mob attacking him to come on. Which whatever,
it's fine, it's fine. I'm sure that that's great anyway, whatever,
(20:05):
he won't come on. But I do read his stuff,
and his stuff is interesting. Now he asked both issues
and elections. And here's what you need to know. Republicans
continue to dominate on the issue of foreign policy and crime.
But Democrats not only lead on healthcare, they also now
lead on the economy. And neither party, and this is important,
neither party is trusted on the issue of AI. This
(20:27):
is such a huge opportunity for someone to take. It's
driving me bananas. Nearly thirty percent of voters nationwide feel
that AI will end humanity in their lifetimes. And I
mean thirty percent is not a majority, but that's a
big number. And a majority believe that AI will bring
large scale This is a majority. This is not thirty percent.
(20:48):
A majority of voters believe that AI will bring large
scale job laws, increase economic inequality, be bad for the environment,
and make it easier for the government to surveil citizens.
A majority voters do not believe that AI will break
widespread accurate information to the population, improve education, or boost
the economy and raise living standards. Guys, the internal polling
(21:09):
for AI is even worse than this. I've seen some
of it. I can't overemphasize how unpopular AI is. Like
talking to Republicans on the Hill about this. They live
in an alternate reality, like they don't live in this world. All.
They'll say, I know, but what do you want me
to do? It's crazy. Voters support an AI automation ban
(21:29):
on the industries of software engineering and manufactoring they really like.
Also the idea of a federal jobs guarantee, the fact
that the federal government will just hire people who are
displaced by AI. Who is going to fund those jobs
when there's no one paying into the tax payroll because
incomes are down? Who knows? It's all I mean, this
(21:50):
is monopoly money. This is crazy. Now onto the election.
Democrats have a six point generic ballot lead among all
registered voters, fifty three to forty seven, but they among
eight points among very likely voters. This is basically on
average with almost all the generic ballots that are all
around this according to the Real Clear Politics polling average.
A big part of this is that Trump is so
(22:12):
deeply unpopular. Trump only has a positive net appropriating in
twelve states. That is not good. And here's the thing,
very very interesting. This is what I found fascinating. They
looked at the Democratic coalition among voters by demographics between
twenty twelve, twenty twenty four, and twenty twenty six. Why
(22:33):
they pick those three years, I'm not exactly short, because
it's a midterm election. Whatever, we'll go with it. Compared
to twenty twenty. Compared to twenty twelve, when Obama was elected,
Democrats had a generic ballot advantage of four points. Democrats today,
even though they have a higher generic ballot, they are
doing way worse among Latinos by ten points, among blacks
(22:57):
by ten points, and among whites with a college without
a college degree by three points. The entire gain of
the Democratic Party over the last fourteen years has been
college educated whites. It is a twenty four point swing
among whites with a college degree. They modeled how this
would look as far as where the generic ballad lays
(23:19):
in every single state. Democratic turnout is eclipsing Republicans in
three critical states with center races, Ohio, North Carolina, and Maine,
but Republicans still hold an advantage in Texas, Iowa, and Alaska.
So I told you all that I was in Washington
last week, and when I was there, I was meeting
with a few senators and they were talking about some
internal polling and Republican senators are worried about places in
(23:44):
the Midwest. They're saying that they had bad internal numbers
in places even like Kansas and Nebraska and Iowa. And
they all privately told me it was the Iran War.
The Iran War is killing them because the high gas
prices and higher costs of living and more food. People
are really souring on the overall GP, especially in those
plane states where prices are very very high. And also
(24:06):
the tariffs. They didn't start at a good places with
the tariffs. It's only gotten worse. And they were like, listen,
the Iran war continues. It's killing us, which makes the
fact that Iran is making it impossible to get a
peace negotiation going because they continue to bombing us. Bibing
Yahoo also doesn't seem like he wants one. It's a
very difficult situation. The President has found himself in more
(24:27):
of the stories. This Republicans are because they have a
huge cap cash advantage and because the map is so
good Ohio, Iowa, Alaska, Texas, all Trump plus ten states
are more. They're still favored to keep the Senate, but
it is going to be tight, and they're up to
spend that big cash reserve and really get really hope
(24:48):
that Susan Collins can once again be political gravity, be
able to beat the odds like she always has. Okay,
next up is Ask Me Anything. Stay tuned. It was
time for the Ask Me Anything segment. If your money
part of the Ask Me Anything segment only Ryan at
Numbers Gamepodcasts dot com. That's Ryan at Plural Numbers gamepodcast
dot Com. First question comes from Bill. He says, I
(25:10):
love the show and the focus on facts and figures
about the Minnesota election. With all the focus on democratic
fraud and ways of taxpayer moneies, what does the numbers
look like? I know it's a little far out yet
for electing Republicans in the governor's office. My hopes is
that Kendall Qualls is my hope. My hopes are high
for Kendall Qualls just saying, also, how does it look
(25:31):
for the election for the national office, the Senate and
the House. I love for Michelle to Foya to be
in Capitol Hill. Thank you Bill for that. So have
the Had Tim Waltz been running for reelection, there was
a real possibility Democrats are going to lose in the
generic ballad with Tim Waltz versus a generic republic and
he was down six points, which is why Waltz is
(25:52):
not running anymore. It's why Waltz dropped out. Amy Klobashar
is running for governor and she's extraordinarily pop in that state,
and I don't think anyone's going to beat here. I
think that it's it's a suicide mission. The only goal
is to keep the margins tight enough that Republican Republicans
can keep the State House or the State Senate one
(26:13):
of the two they control one of the two chambers.
They have to keep the chamber like that's that is,
that is the entire kit and kaboodle, because if they
don't keep that one chamber, Democrats are going to redistrict
Republicans in the House out of existence. Maybe like one
or two will survive, but it will be very, very tough.
The only state in the only race in Minnesota that
(26:34):
Republicans have a real chance of winning is the attorney
general's race where republic where Democrats can come and Keith
Ellison is running again. Ellison, for those who don't remember,
is a very controversial figure. He was credibly accused of
domestic violence not once but twice, very far left activists.
He has got a lot of opinions from his Muslim
background that are considered extremists. Ellison won by less than
(26:57):
one point in twenty twenty two and by only three
points against a very right wing Candida from Minnesota in
twenty eighteen. So there's a race that Republicans can shock
everybody and win a statewide race in Minnesota. It is
the attorney general race that is that's where you should
put your effort and also trying to keep the Republicans
ahead in the legislature so Democrats can't redistrict all the
(27:20):
Republicans out of Congress. Next question comes from Stephanie she
who asked a bunch of questions. Stephanie, but there's a
general gist. You say, why aren't feminist Republicans? Why don't
Republicans court women votes based on these issues. Rampant sexual
assault and sex trafficking attribute to open borders, cultural shift
resulting from immigration from countries where women aren't treated well.
(27:41):
Men pretending to be women in girls' sports like bathrooms,
overcrowding in schools by illegal immigrants, some of whom have
never been in this country or in a school whatsoever,
are illiterate even in their own native language. That is true,
and more immigration countries where FGM female at general mutle
is performed means FCHMS be performed here on American Girls.
(28:04):
Thank you love the podcast. Thank you for listening to
the podcast. So you know, some Republicans have they've tried
to address these issues to women voters. There's a big
divide and a big part of it is based off
of marriage. Let's just say like white and Hispanic women,
because blackomen are the most Democratic voters there are. They're
so loyal to the Democratic Party there's really no moving them,
(28:25):
even as black men have moved away from the Democratic Party.
Among white and Latino women, there is a big divide
over marriage and children. If you are a mother, if
you are married, you are more likely to consider those things.
If you are single, you have almost a toxic level
of compassion towards those you consider otherized and those you
(28:48):
consider to be more worthy of your compassion. There's also this.
There's this. It's been studied by social scientists. White liberals,
especially women, are the only group known to man to
see white people and fellow white people and not have
(29:10):
feelings of warmth to them. So, in other words, Black
Americans will look at other Black Americans and have a
natural feeling of warmth. Same with Asians, same with Hispanics,
same with whites who are not or moderate or conservative.
White liberals are the only group to look at their
own demographic group and have a feeling of disdain among them,
(29:32):
almost as if they don't care. Like I can't emphasize
enough it is. It's a weird thing of who they
think deserves compassion. I'm reading a book right now. I'm
listening to an audiobook. I shouldn't sy I'm reading it
because I do like an audiobook. I'm reading an audiobook
right now. Are listening to an audiobook called Dangerous, Dirty, Violent,
and Young about the about from Zaide Airs Dorn. It's
(29:57):
Bernadee Dorn and William Ayres's son. And it's so interesting
because their mother wasn't a liberal. She was a communist
and she tried to overthrow the government. But what's interesting
about her story, and this gets back to the whole
white liberal female thing, is her father was the son
of an immigrant from Jewish immigrant from I think somewhere
(30:18):
in Eastern Europe, abused by his father. Had to move
out of fifteen, no education, find a job. First wife
dies during childbirth, you know, has to rebuild his whole
life a second time. Finds his second wife. She struggles
during the childbirth, almost dies, you know, giving birth to Bernadine,
and has a really tough life, but is so patriotic,
(30:40):
loves America, says this is the greatest country in the world.
And he's able to cobble together and build together some
form of middle class life, especially by the end of
his life when he owns his own home, a small
little bungalow home in Florida, and he's able to retire
and have like some security, like he achieves his version
of the American dream that he wants for his own.
(31:00):
And the way that Zade Dorn writes about his mother,
his mother has uttered disdain for her father. She feels
immense compassion and immens sympathy for like black nationals and
Latino nationals and people committing terrorism, and she ingraines in
her son, but she feels no compassion and no sympathy
(31:23):
for her very own father, whose life was rough, who
really struggled. And there's something about this that is a
strain within white progressive patterns. I don't know. And there's
another thing within feminism going on right now. When there
was a lot of fighting in the seventies and the
(31:43):
eighties and the nineties over feminism, there were two competing narratives,
and one that blamed men and that one that said, no,
it's not men's fault for your problems. One of those
thingers was Camille Polly. I want to play clip too
right now to hear her talk about that.
Speaker 3 (31:57):
Each sex has the right to define itself right, and
we're in a period now where men are the targets
of heart too much blaming. I want to get the
male bashing out of feminism, and I want women to
acknowledge that men have a right to determine their own
identities too. What's happened today is upper middle class career
women want to redefine men, okay, into what is is
(32:20):
what WI operates smoothly in their own now quite affluent
career system. But I'm saying, stop women, stop blaming men
for your feeling of unhappiness. Okay. What's happened is you've
lost that old era okay, where there was elder care
and infant care and cooking and doing the laundry. Everything
(32:41):
was together. Women were together for tens of thousands of years, right.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
So you want women to go back to you.
Speaker 3 (32:47):
I'm saying, stop blaming men. I'm saying, stop blaming men,
okay for your unhappiness. Stop looking to daddy figures and
mommy figures okay, on grievance committees and so on, or
the government okay, to get you out of jams. Life
is difficult, okay, you know, step up, step up to
the plate. Why are we coddling young women? Okay to say,
(33:08):
go on being you know, children, because mommy and daddy
will be there to pick up the pieces for you afterward.
Women must realize they are now free. The sexual revolution
has been one. It's up to them to decide what
do they want. I'm extreme free speech militant.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
That is, I mean, yeah, her branch of feminism loss
though as far as what is dominant for feminist theory,
and there is a lot of them that say the
structures are constantly built against women despite all the success
women have had. And part of and I have, I
know women like this in my own family, and part
of it is just endless male bashing. And they see
(33:48):
the Republican Party as part of the patriarchy. And that
these groups that you've described, people who commit you know,
female general mutilation can just be changed if you just
hug them enough, and you see, and there's just like
a loss there. And I can't emphasize enough, like, if
you're a parent, your goal is to, I guess, make
sure your daughter, if your father, make sure your daughter
(34:10):
doesn't grow up hating you and like and hating men.
And that is a big, big part of it. And
there's a lot of anger in that male bashing dominance
of feminist thought. It's the truth anyway, that's my opinion
about that. Thank you for your question, Thank you for
listening this podcast. Last question comes from Patrick. He says,
I don't live in Ohio, but I have a family that do.
(34:31):
They were asking me about them back while I do
think he's actually going to be a good governor overall,
much better than Acting, or even to Wine. I simply
cannot stand him. His questional business history, his views of immigration,
h one B's AI data centers are straight up disqualifying
in my opinion. His Christmas crash out was the final
nail in the coffin, where he's essentially saying Americans are
too lazy. I don't think you would advocate for voting
(34:53):
for a Democrat. I'm not suggesting they do. But my
question is how much damage can act and do in
four years in a deep bread state like Ohio. Acting
could do whatever she can do visa the executive order,
which I don't know the limitations of executive orders from
the Governor's office. I'm sure there are some. But the
thing is is that Acting would have to contest the
(35:14):
Ohio State Senate, which is seventy three percent Republican, and
an Ohio State House is sixty six percent Republican. So
the legislature is so Republican that she can't She's not
going to be able to make Ohio New York or
Penncil or anywhere. I mean, she's just not. She'll be
able to get where she can negotiate and where she
(35:35):
can get from executive order, and she'll probably be able
to veto certain things, although I think Republicans are either
close to bet a proof majority or they have a
Vieta proper majority, So she might end up being like
Laura Kelly in Kansas or you know, yeah, like Loria
Kelly in Kansas, who she's She's a Democratic governor, but
she's not able to get everything she wants to. Andy
(35:55):
Basheer sad thing in Kentucky, Democratic governor red state can't
get a lot of the stuff through. Rarely do Republican
democratic governors or Republican governors in vice versas state get
their full agenda done. I mean, Kelly aot is really
a special case where she's a Republican governor with a
Republican legislature and a democratic state. That's the only one
(36:19):
I can really think of that is so unique because
everybody else it's it's like fifty to fifty or the
legislature's one way and the governors the other way. So yeah,
it's very very difficult. It be very difficult to get
most verge into through executive orders. Maybe the reditioning fight
that might be something if Ohio loses or gains a seat,
that could be something that she'd be able to fight over.
But the legislature is so overwhelmingly Republican, I think that
(36:41):
they would have They definitely have a legal fight in
the Supreme Court republican as well. So that's it. I mean,
I don't I don't think that she'd be able to
get very much throw in my opinion as of right now,
because she'd have to have the legislature to go with her,
and the Republican the legislature is super republican. I believe
the Ohio legislature is more republican and the Texas legislatures,
(37:01):
So think about that. I'm not advocating from voting for
a Democrat, but I feel you on the back. All right,
thank you for coming on this podcast. I really appreciate
you all. If you like this podcast, please like and
subscribe on the iHeartRadio app podcast. We'll get this podcast
and on YouTube. Throw me a subscribe on YouTube. It
means a lot. Thank you guys. Have a great day.
Welcome back to a Numbers game with Ryan Grodwski. Thank
you guys for being here. We have a great program
today because we have new polling information that is really
interesting on the midterms, and I have a start with
Social Security that I want to address because if you've
seen the news, social Security, probably the least sexy issue
known to man, has makeing a lot of headway, and
(00:22):
I've even had conversations with my own family about it
that I think there's a lot of misunderstanding and I
want to kind of address because there's a bunch of
people who listen to the show who are either social
Security age or about to be Social Security agent. For
those of you who don't know, there was a report
by the Social Security Trustee that says the program is
on track to become insolvent by twenty thirty two. The
(00:42):
end of twenty thirty two, and for those of you
counting at home who sometimes forget what a year it
is and think it's only two thousand and ten at most,
like myself, that's only six years away. Beneficiaries are expected
to see a twenty two percent monthly cut if this happens.
That's an average cover about five hundred dollars a month,
(01:03):
which would devastate millions of senior citizens who count on
Social Security to you know, keep them hope and keep
keep their lives running, keep themselves fed in there, you know,
pay their bills. That's according to report. By the way,
the five hundred dollars are report published by the Committee
for Responsible Federal Budget in case you want to look
that up. Democrats are saying that the only path forward
(01:25):
would be to eliminate the payroll tax break currently for
people who earn more than one hundred and eighty four thousand,
five hundred dollars a year. If you don't know, the
way that social securities pay is through the payroll tax.
People only pay for the first one hundred and eighty
four thousand, five hundred dollars of their pay of their payroll.
(01:46):
So if you earn a million dollars, ten million dollars,
one hundred billion dollars, if your elon musk, you're only
paying that first one hundred and eighty four thousand, five
hundred dollars. But according to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation,
a limit dating that tax break and saying you get
taxed as far as much as you earn. That would
only solve a seventy percent of the issue. It would
(02:08):
not close the budget gap that we're facing. A proposed
by Republicans is that we should extend the age you
can collect for time into sixty seven. Remember when Social
Security was created by Franklin Roosevelt during the New Deal
in the nineteen thirties, the life expectancy for men was
sixty and for women it was sixty four. So the
(02:29):
idea of collecting social Security in nineteen forty was for
people who were sixty five and older, when you had
lived past life expectancy. In other words, it would be
like today, if you know, the average life expectancy for
men is seventy seven, for women it's eighty one, So
you could only collect social Security if you were eighty two. Like,
(02:49):
it's only for people who at the time had lived
past you know, not evenly their working age, but their
life expectancy. So that way, when you were very old,
and back then sixty five was very very old. Now
that would not solve the program.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Either.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Extending the age of retirement it would reduce the budget
long term deficit by about twenty five percent. So neither
party is being very honest about how deep the hole
for social security is, and they really want to only
address the issue in the ways that their party ideology says,
reduce benefits or raise taxes. And this is true, by
the way, the fact that we are in a deficit
(03:26):
for most western countries in the world when it comes
to their welfare program for senior citizens. All across Europe,
they are dealing with this exact same issue. Part of
the reason that they're dealing with this issue, part of
the reason that we're dealing with this issue, is because
when it was created one hundred years ago, the idea
was that everyone was going to have tons of kids,
(03:47):
like they've always been having tons of kids, and those
kids would then work and pay for their grandparents or
their parents social Security checks. And if you've been paying
attention to this podcast or the news in general, you're
knowing people don't have a lot of kids anymore. So
I am currently paying for my grandma and my grandpa's
social Security check. My two grandmas and my grandpa were
still alive their social Security check. My children will pay
(04:10):
for my moms and eventually mine all the rest of it. Well, everyone,
this only works if everyone's having three or more kids.
When you're looking at fertility rates that are in the
low ones in America, in Europe, and the mid ones,
like one point five in America, at one point one,
one point two in Western Europe and Eastern Europe. That
(04:31):
doesn't work. Most of the world is seeing birth rates
way too low, except for parts of you know, the
Middle Eastern countries and parts of Africa. Even parts of Africa,
by the way, have birth rates below for chilly levels,
not even just South America and East Asia anymore. Now.
I was having this conversation with my dad, and I'm
sure he was tuning me out, because that's whatever he
(04:52):
does when I'm making a really good point that he
had disagrees with. But he's almost social security age. I
want to preference that, And he said something along the
lines of like, if they cut my social Security benefits,
I would sue for my social Security money. That's not
how this works, because you don't actually have a right
to your Social Security check. I think that's a very
(05:14):
important thing that people misunderstand. Once upon a time, there
was a man. This is for the our kids who
listened to the show. Once upon a time there was
a man named Ronald Reagan. If you don't know him,
look him up. He gave great speeches, and one of
his most famous speeches was a speech called A Time
for Choosing, and he kind of let it slip about
your right to social security.
Speaker 2 (05:35):
We're for a provision the destitution should not follow unemployment
by reason of old age, and to that end, we've
accepted social security as a step toward meeting the problem.
But we're against those entrusted with this program when they
practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that
any criticism of the program means that we want to
end payments to those people who depend on them for
(05:57):
a livelihood. They've called it insurance to us in one
hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before
the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program.
They only used the term insurance to sell it to
the people, and they said social security dues are a
tax for the general use of the government, and the
government has used that tex there is no fund because
(06:19):
Robert Buyers, the actuarial head, appeared before a Congressional committee
and admitted that social Security as of this moment is
two hundred and ninety eight billion dollars in the hole.
But he said there should be no cause for worry
because as long as they had the power to tax,
they could always take away from the people whatever they
needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing
(06:42):
just that.
Speaker 1 (06:44):
What was Reagan talking about? Reagan was referencing a Supreme
Court decision in nineteen sixty This was the speech was
given in nineteen sixty four when he was endorsing Barry Goldwater.
The case was called Fleming the Nester, a case that
really doesn't get reference very much or at all, and
it was about a man named Efrem Nestor who had
immigrated to the US from Bulgaria, paidon's social security for
(07:07):
nineteen years, but was deported for being a former member
of the Communist Party. So he sued that it was
an infringement on his due process because his wife, who
had still remained in America, should have been eligible for
those social Security benefits that were denied to him since
being deported. The Supreme Court ruled, in a five to
four decision that workers do not have a contractual or
property right to social security benefits. The Court rule that
(07:30):
Congress can alter, reduce, or eliminate these benefits at any
times without violating the Constitution. And it's just a tax.
You have no contractual right to get Social Security benefits.
Obviously Congress would that wouldn't be popular. They probably wouldn't
let people just suffer. But they don't have an obligation
(07:53):
to give you a Social Security check. I think it's
very important people understand that. So how do we get
rich of this shortfall? Well, the first option would be
to go into a time machine and support the reforms
that George W. Bush try to put forward in two
thousand and five, which would allowed younger workers to voluntarily
divert a portion of their payroll tax into a personal
(08:13):
investment account. According to Andrew Biggs of AI, lower income
workers would have seen a ten percent higher return from
Social Security than socialecurity currently pays ten percent higher return
on a private investment, and middle class workers would have
seen a five percent increase turnout increase payout from what
Social Security currently pays. So that would have been a
(08:34):
great option. We would have been able to have a
better living standard for people had that happen. Of course,
the idea of a time machine being invented seems very
very small. Right now, So we're not going to I'm
going to bet that that's not going to happen. So
how do we do it in a realistic way? How
do we make sure that social security is solvent, which
(08:56):
is important for a lot of people who have lived
their lives with this expectation from the government using the
current tax and benefit structure. There are a number of
ways to do it. None of them are great. None
of them are going to be easypasy for everybody. First
as you'd probably have to eliminate the one hundred and
eighty four thousand, five hundred dollars ceiling on payroll tax
(09:18):
is what Democrats want to do. Secondly, you'd have to
raise the retirement age to probably sixty nine, not just
sixty seven, but sixty nine. People are living longer and
that's just what happens. And third is you'd have to
change the concept of social security when it comes to
high income earners. It's crazy that people like Oprah, Bill Gates,
(09:39):
Warren Buffett, they get as much of security as your grandma.
They don't need it they I mean, it doesn't even
pay for their lunches. They would have to have something
called their cola, their cost of Living Adjustment CATS, so
they would still collect the security, but it would not
change based upon their you know, net worth, based on
(10:00):
inflation because of their net worth. That would fully fund
the program and be the least painful of all the
options I have explored, and let me tell you I've
been looking. Other other options are very painful for people.
It includes taxing health care benefits, which will probably raise
the cost of overall healthcare, which is already crazy expensive.
(10:23):
And the idea that they're going to find a new
tax like maybe like an AI tax or a data
tax or something else that probably should have already happened,
but it hasn't happened because we let the tech companies
do whatever they want. That that doesn't seem like it's
in the cards. To be completely honest, everybody doesn't seem
like it's actually going to happen. So using the current structure,
(10:43):
you'd have to do both change the way that benefits
are given, increase the retirement age, increase the taxes, and
change the way that billionaires receive Social Security checks. That's
that's that's that's it. I mean, not billionaires, people with
like maybe a hundred million dollars net worth and above
something insane where soci security really doesn't mean much to them,
(11:05):
but they feel entitled to it, so they'll get to
They'll get it, but it won't be adjusted because of Colon.
What Congress is likely to do is nothing, because that's
what Congress does best in an increasingly partisan environment. The
idea that ten Republicans and ten Democratic centers are going
to hold hands and say, you know what, we need
to do something that's very unpopular for the sake of
(11:27):
the country, to protect a program that helps a lot
of elderly people and people of a certain age avoid
mass amounts of poverty and keep themselves fed. I don't
know if if there's ten, if there's twenty senators willing
to do that, I mean, maybe maybe there is, but
(11:47):
I haven't seen it. Because we become in an age
where working together is considered, you know, frowned upon, and
in this environment it thinks have gotten worse, not going
to be better. I would love to see that happen.
I'm just not super hope if it does. Default. What
Congress is likely to do is they're going to take
They're going to not let benefits be slash. They're going
(12:07):
to find other ways to find it using other parts
of the budget, which are already have a massive deficit,
increase to our debt, and that leads to inflation, which
is the invisible tax you all feel but you can't see.
So you think, oh, Congress, things are you know, chumming along.
I don't know, But man, are things getting more expensive?
Is because Congress cannot spend, not stop spending over their limits.
(12:32):
I know, I don't sound too happy, it's too optimistic.
It's a bad problem. And the thing is, it's so
easily fixable. So many of our budget problems, if Democrats
and Republicans were more serious in the two thousands, could
have been taken care of. Have Bush not done the
Iraq war and the Bush tax cuts, which I know
were popular for a lot of people, But had he
(12:53):
not done those two things, we would have paid off
our national debt by the year twenty twelve. Think about it.
It's really remarkable how many things got screwed up in
the mid two thousands. You know, I don't know. Paris
Sultan came on the scene, in the whole country went
to hell. I like parasital I don't like it, I
don't hate it. I'm just making a joke, all right,
that is social security. Let's get to the midterms that
(13:16):
is coming up next. Now, there are two polls out
that I want to talk about the midterms. The first
comes from Siana University. They connected a pole in Texas
with Texas A and M University. Here are some findings
that are really important for the lone star state, the
biggest Republicans state in the country. First, Trump is underwater
in Texas. He's underwater by four points. That's in a
(13:38):
state that he won by about fourteen points last time.
Not good. Trump's underwater by twenty three points among independents.
Holy cow, that's a big number. And he's only up
by eleven points among Texan and White Texans. That's a
group that supported him by huge numbers last time. Texans
approve of the job Trump is doing when it comes
(13:59):
to curing the border. Vast support for securing the border
in Texas now surprise, even a majority of Latinos are
very happy with the job that Trump has done with
the border. And they also give him approval on the
question of does he make you proud to be an American?
With all the issues. This is why I hate polsters
sometimes with all the issues facing the country that I
would like to know about, specifically a good polster like
(14:23):
Siana University with an important state. That's not the question
I would have asked, like, it's great to know, but
who cares? They give him disapproval ratings on the other
two big issues, which is bringing down prices and ending
foreign wars. The biggest issues facing voters no shock, number one,
cost of loving forty percent. Number two is border security,
(14:44):
and the crazy thing is border security is the number
one issue for Republicans in Texas. Thirty one percent of
Republicans say border securities number one issue. Zero percent of
Democrats said border security is the number one issue. Immigration
is not only a lot side of issue for which
party wants to secure the border and enforce immigration laws,
(15:05):
it's which party even cares about immigration to a large degree.
Republicans care about it a lot, and Democrats really don't
as much as they say they do. When you ask
the other questions.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Number three was water supply, which is a big issue.
I'm sure it feeds into AI And number four is
the worthy ram. The poll found that Ken Paxson is
as unpopular among Texans as John Cornyn, which is a
big rebuke to all the established Republicans who said, no,
John Cornyn is going to walk through this election. Not
so Democratic sending kend James tell Rico is largely unknown.
(15:40):
This is a fascinating thing. One in four Texans, including
one in three Republicans, really don't know who he is.
Republicans have a lot to work with. That means they
have the ability to define him because a lot of
people don't know who he is. To define, you know,
it hasn't defined himself. That's very interesting. Now here's the
run down of the head to head matchups. Governor Ray
(16:02):
Abbott is leading his Democratic opponent by six points forty
nine to forty three. Republican Attorney General candet Mayez Middleton
is leading his Democratic opponent by five points forty five
to forty. Republican Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick leads his Democratic
opponent by five points forty nine to forty four. So
all the state government elected positions, they look like they're
(16:23):
fairly secure in Republican hands. It's very unlikely that any
of them, any of the candidates running statewide for state jobs,
are going to lose. The big question comes down to
the Senate. They found the race between Ken Paxson and
James Talerrico is tied forty six to forty six. I
actually invited Ken pax on this podcast talk about the race.
I hope he accepts. Other time, James tell Rico come
(16:45):
on too if he wants to come on, I love
to talk to him. But tall Rico leads packs by
fourteen points among independents and more Republicans say they're going
to vote for tall Rico, then Democrats say they're going
to support Paxton. Talla Rico is also leading with voters
under the aid age of fifty, with voters young voters
eighteen to twenty nine supporting Tallery Goo by forty points.
(17:06):
This is not I mean, I know demn Republicans like
to say, oh, young people don't vote. There was a
man named Barack Obama at one point who said I
can get elected with the support of young people. A
man named Zora Mundani whos that I can get elected
with the support of young people. Young people do vote
at times, especially when they're galvanized by certain politicians. Do
not dismiss young people for the sake they historically don't vote.
(17:29):
Sometimes they do, and they surprise everybody Paxson has a
ten point advantage among men, and a seventeen point advantage
among voters without a college degree, fourteen points among white voters,
and a small advantage among voters who earn less than
one hundred thousand dollars a year. He needs to get
all those numbers up to win. Tall Rico has a
twelve point lead among Latino's not very much. I mean
(17:51):
it's more than Kamala had I think is kind of
lost to Hispanics in Texas. But twelve points is not
a huge lead. Fifty nine point lead among the blacks.
Also terrible lead among black voters. Remember Jasmine Crockett had
a bad reaction to los in the primary, and a
lot of black voters that they are not voting in
(18:12):
this election for Teller Rego. They're not voting at all
because they feel like tall Rico did not do right
by the black community when he ran his primary. Now
there is something working in Paxton's favor, which is this,
more Republicans are undecided in this election than Democrats, as
are more low income Texans. That is good because that
(18:34):
is Ken Paxton's base. Ken Paxson has more to work
with to get another point. Or two to secure and
win this election seventeen percent. Remember I said about Jason
and Crockett, seventeen percent of black voters say they're either
not voting or undecided who they are voting for. So
it's very simple and very easy for Republicans to really
(18:58):
a Republican pack to really muddy the waters even more
between Tall Rico and black voters. Seventeen percent if they
don't show up, is dead the stating to Talla Rico.
There's a lot of uncertainty with Tall Rico also by
the fact of what he said about trans kids, about
the Bible. There's a lot of religious Black people in
Texas that's not sticking too well, Like that doesn't do
(19:20):
too well with those communities. Being a white, you know,
very far liberal person doesn't work in large parts of
the country. And tall Rico is very very liberal. I
know he's changing his what he's saying. He's saying, oh,
I don't support you know, trans surgeries on minors he
did thirty seconds ago. Like, I mean, you can't flip
that much. The other poll I want to talk to
(19:41):
you guys about is a poll that comes from the argument,
which is a very smart liberal a popular. It's a
like a newsletter on most I read it. The host
of it, the person who writes most of it. I've
asked on the show many times, but he's too afraid
of the liberal mob attacking him to come on. Which whatever,
it's fine, it's fine. I'm sure that that's great anyway, whatever,
(20:05):
he won't come on. But I do read his stuff,
and his stuff is interesting. Now he asked both issues
and elections. And here's what you need to know. Republicans
continue to dominate on the issue of foreign policy and crime.
But Democrats not only lead on healthcare, they also now
lead on the economy. And neither party, and this is important,
neither party is trusted on the issue of AI. This
(20:27):
is such a huge opportunity for someone to take. It's
driving me bananas. Nearly thirty percent of voters nationwide feel
that AI will end humanity in their lifetimes. And I
mean thirty percent is not a majority, but that's a
big number. And a majority believe that AI will bring
large scale This is a majority. This is not thirty percent.
(20:48):
A majority of voters believe that AI will bring large
scale job laws, increase economic inequality, be bad for the environment,
and make it easier for the government to surveil citizens.
A majority voters do not believe that AI will break
widespread accurate information to the population, improve education, or boost
the economy and raise living standards. Guys, the internal polling
(21:09):
for AI is even worse than this. I've seen some
of it. I can't overemphasize how unpopular AI is. Like
talking to Republicans on the Hill about this. They live
in an alternate reality, like they don't live in this world. All.
They'll say, I know, but what do you want me
to do? It's crazy. Voters support an AI automation ban
(21:29):
on the industries of software engineering and manufactoring they really like.
Also the idea of a federal jobs guarantee, the fact
that the federal government will just hire people who are
displaced by AI. Who is going to fund those jobs
when there's no one paying into the tax payroll because
incomes are down? Who knows? It's all I mean, this
(21:50):
is monopoly money. This is crazy. Now onto the election.
Democrats have a six point generic ballot lead among all
registered voters, fifty three to forty seven, but they among
eight points among very likely voters. This is basically on
average with almost all the generic ballots that are all
around this according to the Real Clear Politics polling average.
A big part of this is that Trump is so
(22:12):
deeply unpopular. Trump only has a positive net appropriating in
twelve states. That is not good. And here's the thing,
very very interesting. This is what I found fascinating. They
looked at the Democratic coalition among voters by demographics between
twenty twelve, twenty twenty four, and twenty twenty six. Why
(22:33):
they pick those three years, I'm not exactly short, because
it's a midterm election. Whatever, we'll go with it. Compared
to twenty twenty. Compared to twenty twelve, when Obama was elected,
Democrats had a generic ballot advantage of four points. Democrats today,
even though they have a higher generic ballot, they are
doing way worse among Latinos by ten points, among blacks
(22:57):
by ten points, and among whites with a college without
a college degree by three points. The entire gain of
the Democratic Party over the last fourteen years has been
college educated whites. It is a twenty four point swing
among whites with a college degree. They modeled how this
would look as far as where the generic ballad lays
(23:19):
in every single state. Democratic turnout is eclipsing Republicans in
three critical states with center races, Ohio, North Carolina, and Maine,
but Republicans still hold an advantage in Texas, Iowa, and Alaska.
So I told you all that I was in Washington
last week, and when I was there, I was meeting
with a few senators and they were talking about some
internal polling and Republican senators are worried about places in
(23:44):
the Midwest. They're saying that they had bad internal numbers
in places even like Kansas and Nebraska and Iowa. And
they all privately told me it was the Iran War.
The Iran War is killing them because the high gas
prices and higher costs of living and more food. People
are really souring on the overall GP, especially in those
plane states where prices are very very high. And also
(24:06):
the tariffs. They didn't start at a good places with
the tariffs. It's only gotten worse. And they were like, listen,
the Iran war continues. It's killing us, which makes the
fact that Iran is making it impossible to get a
peace negotiation going because they continue to bombing us. Bibing
Yahoo also doesn't seem like he wants one. It's a
very difficult situation. The President has found himself in more
(24:27):
of the stories. This Republicans are because they have a
huge cap cash advantage and because the map is so
good Ohio, Iowa, Alaska, Texas, all Trump plus ten states
are more. They're still favored to keep the Senate, but
it is going to be tight, and they're up to
spend that big cash reserve and really get really hope
(24:48):
that Susan Collins can once again be political gravity, be
able to beat the odds like she always has. Okay,
next up is Ask Me Anything. Stay tuned. It was
time for the Ask Me Anything segment. If your money
part of the Ask Me Anything segment only Ryan at
Numbers Gamepodcasts dot com. That's Ryan at Plural Numbers gamepodcast
dot Com. First question comes from Bill. He says, I
(25:10):
love the show and the focus on facts and figures
about the Minnesota election. With all the focus on democratic
fraud and ways of taxpayer moneies, what does the numbers
look like? I know it's a little far out yet
for electing Republicans in the governor's office. My hopes is
that Kendall Qualls is my hope. My hopes are high
for Kendall Qualls just saying, also, how does it look
(25:31):
for the election for the national office, the Senate and
the House. I love for Michelle to Foya to be
in Capitol Hill. Thank you Bill for that. So have
the Had Tim Waltz been running for reelection, there was
a real possibility Democrats are going to lose in the
generic ballad with Tim Waltz versus a generic republic and
he was down six points, which is why Waltz is
(25:52):
not running anymore. It's why Waltz dropped out. Amy Klobashar
is running for governor and she's extraordinarily pop in that state,
and I don't think anyone's going to beat here. I
think that it's it's a suicide mission. The only goal
is to keep the margins tight enough that Republican Republicans
can keep the State House or the State Senate one
(26:13):
of the two they control one of the two chambers.
They have to keep the chamber like that's that is,
that is the entire kit and kaboodle, because if they
don't keep that one chamber, Democrats are going to redistrict
Republicans in the House out of existence. Maybe like one
or two will survive, but it will be very, very tough.
The only state in the only race in Minnesota that
(26:34):
Republicans have a real chance of winning is the attorney
general's race where republic where Democrats can come and Keith
Ellison is running again. Ellison, for those who don't remember,
is a very controversial figure. He was credibly accused of
domestic violence not once but twice, very far left activists.
He has got a lot of opinions from his Muslim
background that are considered extremists. Ellison won by less than
(26:57):
one point in twenty twenty two and by only three
points against a very right wing Candida from Minnesota in
twenty eighteen. So there's a race that Republicans can shock
everybody and win a statewide race in Minnesota. It is
the attorney general race that is that's where you should
put your effort and also trying to keep the Republicans
ahead in the legislature so Democrats can't redistrict all the
(27:20):
Republicans out of Congress. Next question comes from Stephanie she
who asked a bunch of questions. Stephanie, but there's a
general gist. You say, why aren't feminist Republicans? Why don't
Republicans court women votes based on these issues. Rampant sexual
assault and sex trafficking attribute to open borders, cultural shift
resulting from immigration from countries where women aren't treated well.
(27:41):
Men pretending to be women in girls' sports like bathrooms,
overcrowding in schools by illegal immigrants, some of whom have
never been in this country or in a school whatsoever,
are illiterate even in their own native language. That is true,
and more immigration countries where FGM female at general mutle
is performed means FCHMS be performed here on American Girls.
(28:04):
Thank you love the podcast. Thank you for listening to
the podcast. So you know, some Republicans have they've tried
to address these issues to women voters. There's a big
divide and a big part of it is based off
of marriage. Let's just say like white and Hispanic women,
because blackomen are the most Democratic voters there are. They're
so loyal to the Democratic Party there's really no moving them,
(28:25):
even as black men have moved away from the Democratic Party.
Among white and Latino women, there is a big divide
over marriage and children. If you are a mother, if
you are married, you are more likely to consider those things.
If you are single, you have almost a toxic level
of compassion towards those you consider otherized and those you
(28:48):
consider to be more worthy of your compassion. There's also this.
There's this. It's been studied by social scientists. White liberals,
especially women, are the only group known to man to
see white people and fellow white people and not have
(29:10):
feelings of warmth to them. So, in other words, Black
Americans will look at other Black Americans and have a
natural feeling of warmth. Same with Asians, same with Hispanics,
same with whites who are not or moderate or conservative.
White liberals are the only group to look at their
own demographic group and have a feeling of disdain among them,
(29:32):
almost as if they don't care. Like I can't emphasize
enough it is. It's a weird thing of who they
think deserves compassion. I'm reading a book right now. I'm
listening to an audiobook. I shouldn't sy I'm reading it
because I do like an audiobook. I'm reading an audiobook
right now. Are listening to an audiobook called Dangerous, Dirty, Violent,
and Young about the about from Zaide Airs Dorn. It's
(29:57):
Bernadee Dorn and William Ayres's son. And it's so interesting
because their mother wasn't a liberal. She was a communist
and she tried to overthrow the government. But what's interesting
about her story, and this gets back to the whole
white liberal female thing, is her father was the son
of an immigrant from Jewish immigrant from I think somewhere
(30:18):
in Eastern Europe, abused by his father. Had to move
out of fifteen, no education, find a job. First wife
dies during childbirth, you know, has to rebuild his whole
life a second time. Finds his second wife. She struggles
during the childbirth, almost dies, you know, giving birth to Bernadine,
and has a really tough life, but is so patriotic,
(30:40):
loves America, says this is the greatest country in the world.
And he's able to cobble together and build together some
form of middle class life, especially by the end of
his life when he owns his own home, a small
little bungalow home in Florida, and he's able to retire
and have like some security, like he achieves his version
of the American dream that he wants for his own.
(31:00):
And the way that Zade Dorn writes about his mother,
his mother has uttered disdain for her father. She feels
immense compassion and immens sympathy for like black nationals and
Latino nationals and people committing terrorism, and she ingraines in
her son, but she feels no compassion and no sympathy
(31:23):
for her very own father, whose life was rough, who
really struggled. And there's something about this that is a
strain within white progressive patterns. I don't know. And there's
another thing within feminism going on right now. When there
was a lot of fighting in the seventies and the
(31:43):
eighties and the nineties over feminism, there were two competing narratives,
and one that blamed men and that one that said, no,
it's not men's fault for your problems. One of those
thingers was Camille Polly. I want to play clip too
right now to hear her talk about that.
Speaker 3 (31:57):
Each sex has the right to define itself right, and
we're in a period now where men are the targets
of heart too much blaming. I want to get the
male bashing out of feminism, and I want women to
acknowledge that men have a right to determine their own
identities too. What's happened today is upper middle class career
women want to redefine men, okay, into what is is
(32:20):
what WI operates smoothly in their own now quite affluent
career system. But I'm saying, stop women, stop blaming men
for your feeling of unhappiness. Okay. What's happened is you've
lost that old era okay, where there was elder care
and infant care and cooking and doing the laundry. Everything
(32:41):
was together. Women were together for tens of thousands of years, right.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
So you want women to go back to you.
Speaker 3 (32:47):
I'm saying, stop blaming men. I'm saying, stop blaming men,
okay for your unhappiness. Stop looking to daddy figures and
mommy figures okay, on grievance committees and so on, or
the government okay, to get you out of jams. Life
is difficult, okay, you know, step up, step up to
the plate. Why are we coddling young women? Okay to say,
(33:08):
go on being you know, children, because mommy and daddy
will be there to pick up the pieces for you afterward.
Women must realize they are now free. The sexual revolution
has been one. It's up to them to decide what
do they want. I'm extreme free speech militant.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
That is, I mean, yeah, her branch of feminism loss
though as far as what is dominant for feminist theory,
and there is a lot of them that say the
structures are constantly built against women despite all the success
women have had. And part of and I have, I
know women like this in my own family, and part
of it is just endless male bashing. And they see
(33:48):
the Republican Party as part of the patriarchy. And that
these groups that you've described, people who commit you know,
female general mutilation can just be changed if you just
hug them enough, and you see, and there's just like
a loss there. And I can't emphasize enough, like, if
you're a parent, your goal is to, I guess, make
sure your daughter, if your father, make sure your daughter
(34:10):
doesn't grow up hating you and like and hating men.
And that is a big, big part of it. And
there's a lot of anger in that male bashing dominance
of feminist thought. It's the truth anyway, that's my opinion
about that. Thank you for your question, Thank you for
listening this podcast. Last question comes from Patrick. He says,
I don't live in Ohio, but I have a family that do.
(34:31):
They were asking me about them back while I do
think he's actually going to be a good governor overall,
much better than Acting, or even to Wine. I simply
cannot stand him. His questional business history, his views of immigration,
h one B's AI data centers are straight up disqualifying
in my opinion. His Christmas crash out was the final
nail in the coffin, where he's essentially saying Americans are
too lazy. I don't think you would advocate for voting
(34:53):
for a Democrat. I'm not suggesting they do. But my
question is how much damage can act and do in
four years in a deep bread state like Ohio. Acting
could do whatever she can do visa the executive order,
which I don't know the limitations of executive orders from
the Governor's office. I'm sure there are some. But the
thing is is that Acting would have to contest the
(35:14):
Ohio State Senate, which is seventy three percent Republican, and
an Ohio State House is sixty six percent Republican. So
the legislature is so Republican that she can't She's not
going to be able to make Ohio New York or
Penncil or anywhere. I mean, she's just not. She'll be
able to get where she can negotiate and where she
(35:35):
can get from executive order, and she'll probably be able
to veto certain things, although I think Republicans are either
close to bet a proof majority or they have a
Vieta proper majority, So she might end up being like
Laura Kelly in Kansas or you know, yeah, like Loria
Kelly in Kansas, who she's She's a Democratic governor, but
she's not able to get everything she wants to. Andy
(35:55):
Basheer sad thing in Kentucky, Democratic governor red state can't
get a lot of the stuff through. Rarely do Republican
democratic governors or Republican governors in vice versas state get
their full agenda done. I mean, Kelly aot is really
a special case where she's a Republican governor with a
Republican legislature and a democratic state. That's the only one
(36:19):
I can really think of that is so unique because
everybody else it's it's like fifty to fifty or the
legislature's one way and the governors the other way. So yeah,
it's very very difficult. It be very difficult to get
most verge into through executive orders. Maybe the reditioning fight
that might be something if Ohio loses or gains a seat,
that could be something that she'd be able to fight over.
But the legislature is so overwhelmingly Republican, I think that
(36:41):
they would have They definitely have a legal fight in
the Supreme Court republican as well. So that's it. I mean,
I don't I don't think that she'd be able to
get very much throw in my opinion as of right now,
because she'd have to have the legislature to go with her,
and the Republican the legislature is super republican. I believe
the Ohio legislature is more republican and the Texas legislatures,
(37:01):
So think about that. I'm not advocating from voting for
a Democrat, but I feel you on the back. All right,
thank you for coming on this podcast. I really appreciate
you all. If you like this podcast, please like and
subscribe on the iHeartRadio app podcast. We'll get this podcast
and on YouTube. Throw me a subscribe on YouTube. It
means a lot. Thank you guys. Have a great day.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com