June 13, 2024 • 35 mins
Ryan Gorman is filling in for Michael DelGiorno this week.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hey, it's Michael reminding you that your morning show can
be heard live each weekday morning five to eighth Central,
six to nine Eastern and great cities like Nashville, Tennessee
two below, Mississippi, and Sacramento, California. We'd love to be
a part of your morning routine and take the drive
to work with you, but better late than never. We're
grateful you're here now. Enjoy the podcast two.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Three, starting your morning off right. A new way of talk,
a new way of understanding because we're in this toget.
This is your morning show with Michael del Chrono.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Welcome to the show on this Thursday, June thirteenth, I'm
Ryan Gorman with Dana McKay and Chris Trankman from our newsroom.
Speaker 4 (00:44):
We're live on airon on your iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Coming up this how we're going to talk to the
editorial director of data Analytics for five thirty eight about
their new presidential race forecast, including who they predict will
win the presidential election. So that's coming out in about
a half a half hour and Dan, it just so
you can understand what we're talking about there. It's kind
of like baseball analytics, which I know you're very well
(01:07):
versed in that's essentially what they're doing there. Five thing
to me.
Speaker 5 (01:12):
That actually is man's plaining, because you're explaining things to
me like in a man's term of baseball that I
don't understand.
Speaker 6 (01:20):
Thank you for doing that.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
It's political data analytics just like baseball analytics.
Speaker 7 (01:25):
You know.
Speaker 5 (01:26):
Okay, thanks understand because I'm a woman, got it? Okay,
that's cool.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Yeah, I didn't start more off.
Speaker 6 (01:33):
Yeah, why are you picking on me? You don't usually
do that.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Off and running this morning. All right, let's shift right
over to today's Top stories now with Chris Trankman, who never
man explains what's going on. Chris, Good Morning.
Speaker 8 (01:45):
The House voted to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in
contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over audio of
President Biden's interview with Special Counsel Robert Hurt. Now, the
vote's unlikely to result in Garland facing prosecution, but Republicans
are whole thing it'll strengthen their subpoena for those audio files,
now Her said in his report in February, Biden suffered
(02:07):
from repeated memory lapses in his interview, leading prosecutors to
think the President would come across to a jury as
a sympathetic, well meaning elderly man with a poor memory.
In other words, if they took it to trial, the
jury would feel sorry for President Biden, and prosecutors would
lose the case.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
It's not the campaign slogan that you want. What is
that sympathetic, well meaning elderly Yeah, that's poor poor memory. Yeah,
that's to close it out. It's not what you wanted
the bumper sticker for your campaign. There's a couple of
things going on here, and I think it's pretty obvious
the White House doesn't want to stay about because while
the transcript I thought was better than the initial reports
(02:49):
in terms of the context of the answers that Biden
gave and the questions that were asked of him, what
the transcript leaves out are the stumbles, the pause is,
you know, all of that kind of stuff, the repeating.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
It's cleaned up of slurring.
Speaker 5 (03:06):
If there was any events inability to get words out.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Right, so you're not going to see that in the transcript.
So I thought the transcript was better than the initial reports. Still,
you know, there were some parts that were not great.
The tape can't be great. It's not like he came
out and gave this, you know, brilliant soliloquy of an answer.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Otherwise, I think I.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
Think they wanted out, and then of course Republicans in
Congress they want to because they want to use it
for the election.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
I mean, that's clear, right.
Speaker 5 (03:34):
But we've had all these people who say that behind
closed doors, he's totally with it, he's totally together. We
haven't seen any video, and now that there's a video
of him behind closed doors, they don't want to release it.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
Yeah, or at least audio.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Remember John Stewart when I think it was like the
first show that he came back with the Daily Show,
he said he said that, you know, people keep saying
that he's really on top of it behind closed doors,
maybe he should do that in public.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
Can see that.
Speaker 8 (04:01):
But it kind of reminds me the difference between TV
and radio and newspapers. If you see interviews in the newspaper,
they clean up all the grammar, Yes, they clean up
all the like you said, pauses and stumbles. But if
you see the same interview on television or hear it
on the radio, you're going to hear all of that,
and you're going to hear how the person sounds for real.
Speaker 4 (04:18):
Yeah, and sometimes that makes a difference.
Speaker 8 (04:20):
It makes a big difference, I think, and that's maybe
one of the reasons why those tapes aren't being released.
Speaker 7 (04:25):
Now.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
The question here is, and I don't have the answer
to this, The question here is whether or not the
Attorney General and the Department of Justice or within their
legal rights to withhold the tapes from Congress. And that's
what this is partly about Congress pushing them to release them.
And then you also have to think, and I think
this was a point that the Attorney General made, and
(04:46):
it's not necessarily an unfair point.
Speaker 4 (04:48):
What would that mean if the tapes were released?
Speaker 3 (04:51):
What would that mean for future instances where you had
the Department of Justice and they needed to interview President
for something. Would they maybe not be as willing to
cooperate or do that sit down with a special Council
in fear of, you know, the tape eventually being released
or something like that. So there's a lot going on here,
(05:12):
but we'll see where it all goes. The US is
in a heightened threat alert for both foreign and domestic
terrorism following two arrests this week, the latest occurring on Wednesday,
during a traffic stop in New York City, officers found
a cache of weapons in a man's car.
Speaker 8 (05:29):
It's quite a cache. It included knives, axes, a machete,
a gun, ballistic vests, and.
Speaker 4 (05:36):
A mass that stuff we all carry in our car.
What are you talking about? It's suspicious about that.
Speaker 8 (05:40):
No, Yeah, especially the axes is achety. The NYPD says
they are investigating the suspect for possible terrorist ties. Although
those weapons not necessarily the most effective in you know,
mass casualties, however, still extremely dangerous.
Speaker 4 (05:56):
Yeah, and big crowd in New York.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
You start swinging around the machete and acts, I mean,
it's gonna do some damage. So luckily they were able
to prevent that. We're going to talk to News Nation
senior correspondent Laura Ingle coming up towards the end of
this hour and get her report on all of this.
But there are a lot of unanswered questions here. You know,
how were these migrants vetted and allowed to just get
(06:20):
into the country. What does that say about our vetting process?
I think that raises a ton of questions about that,
because we're releasing a lot of people into the country
these days.
Speaker 8 (06:33):
Yeah, they're still investigating those eight people from Tajikistan, Yeah,
with suspected ties to the Islamic State. They were arrested
in New York, Philly and LA and they supposedly entered
through the southern US border, right, so we've got a
lot of questions there, and then you know, what are
what were they potentially looking to do with their ISIS ties?
Speaker 3 (06:54):
What was this person potentially looking to do? So a
scary moment.
Speaker 6 (06:58):
And these are just the people that they've.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
Caught, yeah, right, And there were warned, there have been warnings,
especially it was tied to Pride events.
Speaker 4 (07:06):
I remember.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
There were warnings issued about potential attacks on Pride events
throughout the country and around the world. And clearly there
is some intelligence that they have that there are those
who are looking to do us harm. Right now, they
had the heads up on what was going to happen
in Moscow with that ISIS related attack. They warned Russia
(07:32):
and Vladimir couldn't stop it them Now, Hey, this is
coming and it's going to be at like you know,
one of those types of venues at an event just
like that, and it happened anyway, So definitely some concern
right now. About potential terrorist attacks on US soil.
Speaker 4 (07:48):
The logo is dead at the age of eighty six.
Speaker 8 (07:52):
NBA legend Jerry West, whose silhouette is featured on the
league's red, white and blue logo, a star with the
LA Lakers and an executive, and he was in the
front office also for the LA Clippers. Wes part of
some great teams for LA, including the nineteen seventy two
team when he won the championship. And he was so
good in the NBA Finals in nineteen sixty nine. Even
(08:13):
though the Lakers lost to the Celtics that year, he
was still awarded the Finals.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
MVP's that's rare, very rare. I don't recall ever seeing that, Yeah,
when the player for the losing team gets the MVP.
But it's just so cool being the logo. Yeah, you
know that's I mean, how awesome is that?
Speaker 8 (08:33):
Well, you know, as far as NBA players go, at
least for his time, he was one of the best
as far as fundamentals and was just a pleasure to
watch with his style. You know, you talk about it
in baseball too, you know they you know, people with
like that great swing, Stan Yustil, some of those kind
of players and Jerry West was that guy.
Speaker 4 (08:51):
He was just awesome to watch.
Speaker 8 (08:53):
And yeah, they decided to use that one shot of him,
say said, he's sort of leaning with the basketball scribbling.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
Yeah, it wasn't even him shooting or anything like that
or like the famous Air Jordan logo. It's not it's
not like that. It's just him dribbling. But it became
the NBA logo. Yeah, and it's it's iconic. And he
will obviously live on for eternity and not just a
great player, but a tremendous front office executive, you know,
putting together some championship Lakers teams. He was involved with
(09:23):
that organization for a long long time. And he's featured
in there was a show what streaming service maybe it
was I think it was Max, and they have a
show on the Showtime Lakers, and Jerry West wasn't portrayed that.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
Great in that series.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
He's portrayed as a kind of a jerk, to be
honest with you, And there was a lot of pushback
to how they portrayed him in that show.
Speaker 4 (09:51):
But that that came out, I think I watched it. It
was pretty good.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
It was interesting, you know, learning about Magic Johnson and
the team and all of that. But Jerry West, you
know again, people you think of his playing days, but
also as a front off of his executive an all
time great there too.
Speaker 4 (10:05):
Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 8 (10:05):
In fact, you know, he was part of those those
sixties teams for the Lakers that just couldn't get past
the Celtics. I don't remember the Celtics with what do
they win? We lost ten in a row, eleven in
a row. It was like impossible to win the NBA
title in those years. But it was his time as
an executive where he was like the undisputed best front
office guy found Yeah. Well yeah, but way before that
(10:28):
obviously talked about the showtime years. I mean, those nineteen
eighties Lakers teams are still considered one of the most
entertaining to watch ever, and he was the architect of
all that. You know, he took a risk I think
in some ways with Magic Johnson putting you know him
in there at such a young age, and what happened.
I mean, the guy turned into one of the best
players his rookie year. Yeah, and went to the NBA Finals.
(10:49):
So a lot of you know, great moves as a
as a front office executive, but also a great player,
and certainly somebody the NBA, as far as its history
goes will miss.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
So had Bill Walton pass away recently? Now Jerry West
and they say that's coming threes. If you're an NBA legend.
Speaker 6 (11:10):
You're awful.
Speaker 4 (11:11):
I'm just terrible. Do you have one in mind?
Speaker 3 (11:13):
No, I'm saying the house right now, no concern. Chris
Trankman with today's top Stories. Chris, thanks so much, appreciate it.
Still to come this hour. Former Trump prosecutor Nathan Wade's
CNN interview was interrupted right as he was commenting on
his relationship with Georgia Da Fannie Willis. We're going to
(11:34):
tell you why in a bit, So stick around for that.
I'm Ryan Gorman with Dana McKay in for Michael del
Jorno this week. And right now, let's get to a
trending story that is I think good news for teachers.
Speaker 5 (11:45):
Yeah, apparently teaching second graders while drunk is totally legal
in California anyway. So a second grade teacher who was
arrested in California for being drunk in class last October
is no longer facing any charges because the prosecutors determined
they just couldn't find any law that she actually broke,
so she was arrested in the middle of first period
(12:07):
at around eight thirty in the morning after a coworker
noticed that she appeared to be wasted while teaching second graders,
and so this coworker called the police. She failed a
sobriety test and her blood alcohol level was twice the
legal limit nearly two.
Speaker 6 (12:23):
Hours after she was arrested.
Speaker 5 (12:26):
So she was initially charged with drunk driving and child
abuse with the possibility of great bodily injury, but despite
having surveillance video of her driving into the school's parking
lot when she was most likely already drunk, they decided
that would be too hard to prove. And then they
also knew that they couldn't prove that she was going
to do any bodily injury to children because she was
(12:47):
just drunk in the classroom, but she wasn't hurting anyone.
So they just decided to let the case go and
they dropped all the charges, and the teacher came in
to teach second graders completely hammered, and yeah.
Speaker 9 (12:59):
Nothing could do.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
And now you got teachers all across the country bringing
their flask to work.
Speaker 6 (13:04):
Can't blame them.
Speaker 5 (13:04):
Right the way schools are, you can't blame the teachers
for one tie one on in the middle of the day.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
They needed teaching a bunch of second graders like that,
You need a couple of shots to get through the day.
And now that they know that, they can apparently do
that with no consequences. Yeah, that's good news for our
school system here in the US.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
This is your morning show with Michael del Chona.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
There's nothing new about fundraising emails from politicians, but the
tone of them seems to be a bit different these days.
It used to be like, you know, join me in
my campaign and we can create change, or you know,
something optimistic and uplifting like that. I've noticed, especially with
(13:48):
the Trump fundraising emails, they've adjusted and shifted over the
past few days, from one that was titled I love
you yeah one to one that said I'm okay with
going to jail. I'd go to jail again and again
(14:09):
if that's what it took to save America.
Speaker 6 (14:10):
Oh please.
Speaker 3 (14:12):
Then we got this my first rally as a political prisoner.
Speaker 6 (14:17):
Yeah, he's a political prisoner, yep.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
And then this was the one that came out yesterday
that I thought was maybe a little much.
Speaker 4 (14:25):
Haul out the guillotine.
Speaker 5 (14:27):
Oh my goodness, Yeah, that's a bit much. It actually
got that one in my email box.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
Yeah yeah, remember when that sicko Kathy Griffin made the
rounds parading my beheaded head when I was president.
Speaker 6 (14:42):
Rember.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
That a little graphic so you can see where these are.
I can only imagine what the one today is going
to be.
Speaker 7 (14:48):
Like.
Speaker 3 (14:49):
I have not been getting nearly as many political fundraising
emails and especially texts as I had a couple of
weeks ago.
Speaker 4 (14:58):
I don't know why.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
I've been trying really hard hard to hit stop and
unsubscribe and all that crap. I wasn't making much of
a difference. But I haven't gotten very many lately. You
still get them, though.
Speaker 5 (15:07):
So I got a couple of text messages. One says
Lara Trump viewed your profile yesterday and nominated you for
living legend status.
Speaker 4 (15:16):
Wow, legend status?
Speaker 6 (15:19):
What an honor? And then I got this one that
freaked me out.
Speaker 5 (15:23):
It says it is with a heavy heart that I
send this, And like, you see that pop up and
you don't know who's sending it.
Speaker 6 (15:29):
So I'm like, wait a minute, what's going on?
Speaker 9 (15:31):
You know?
Speaker 6 (15:31):
Like, did somebody die?
Speaker 5 (15:33):
And then I got this one, Dana, what are you wearing?
Speaker 4 (15:37):
Wow?
Speaker 5 (15:39):
That and it says it's Trump and I'm wearing my
brand new MAGA shirts.
Speaker 4 (15:45):
Oh ok, that one caught me.
Speaker 6 (15:49):
I'm like, who is this?
Speaker 4 (15:51):
Trump?
Speaker 6 (15:52):
Like that?
Speaker 4 (15:52):
And Trump messaging you that. I think that was directly
from Trump. Yeah, what are you wearing right now?
Speaker 3 (16:00):
Now? I mean the text and the emails they've gotten
a little ridiculous, but I guess they have to be
working because doing and.
Speaker 5 (16:09):
I've taken courses before on like email marketing and text marketing,
and that's what they tell you to do anything it
takes to get attention.
Speaker 3 (16:16):
Right, to get that click, to get them to open it,
and then you see where it goes from there. The
emails are one thing. The emails do annoy me. It's
the text messages though. That is just a really, really
freaking annoying development over the past couple of years.
Speaker 6 (16:33):
Yeah, the text is so much more invasive.
Speaker 4 (16:35):
It really is.
Speaker 5 (16:36):
Like the email is kind of just it's like your mailbox,
it's just kind of sitting there whatever.
Speaker 6 (16:39):
But the text messages feels very intrusive.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
And I can't seem to stop them for whatever reason
they've let up over the past few weeks. But when
you type back, stop or unsubscribe, then they just send
you one from a different number and it never ends.
Speaker 5 (16:54):
Yeah, I get them from all different numbers, and I
block them, and then I get another one.
Speaker 3 (16:58):
For somebody who is generally pretty lonely and doesn't have
very many friends. When my phone goes off and I
get a text message, I get super excited, and then
I say.
Speaker 6 (17:05):
You don't want to hear from anyone, No, you don't,
don't lie.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
Hey, it's me Michael.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
Your morning show has heard live from five to eight
am Central, six to nine am Eastern, three to six
am Pacific on great radio stations like News Radio eleven
ninety k EX in Portland, News Talk five fifty k FYI,
and Phoenix, Arizona coming soon to Freedom one oh four
seven at Washington, d C. We'd love to have you
join us live in the morning, even take us along
(17:29):
on the drive to work. But better late than never
enjoyed the podcast.
Speaker 4 (17:33):
Ryan Gorman here with Danna McKay.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
And now let's go to the hotline and bring in
the editorial director of data analytics for ABC News and
five thirty eight Elliott Morris. You can follow on x
at g Elliott Morris. Elliott, thanks so much for taking
a few minutes to come on the show. So I
was talking about this on the show yesterday, the five
thirty eight forecast for the twenty twenty four presidential election.
(17:55):
And before we get into the numbers, let's start with
how you put this together?
Speaker 4 (18:00):
What goes into this forecast?
Speaker 7 (18:02):
Yeah, So for the election forecast, we are really trying
to answer one big question, and that is, if if
we had a historical election that that matches what we're
seeing today, who would win? So today, those those conditions
are you know, a growing or a recovering but uh,
(18:23):
you know we're covering from a very deep hole economy, uh,
and very tight poles and an incumbent on the ballot.
So we can look at historical elections to see how
how presidents would those similar conditions have fired historically, and
we can look at other data elect polls and economics
to try to answer that big question. What's you know,
what's going to happen in the election? Uh? And importantly,
(18:46):
what could happen if if the polls or or our
other indicators are wrong.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
How does having essentially a second incumbent in a way
on the ballot factor.
Speaker 7 (18:59):
In Yeah, Well, empirically speaking, we don't know. It hasn't happened.
This hasn't happened before, So we make a pretty good guess.
I think that the incumbents the advantage that President Biden
would normally normally get if he were running in the seventies.
You know, for example, a left bowl arrized time against
(19:19):
an unown incumbent. We think Biden gets left less of
a bump than he would have got back in about half.
So that is just a guess.
Speaker 4 (19:26):
Though the model.
Speaker 7 (19:29):
It simulates many thousand election outcomes, and so every time
it can ask a question like, oh, what if he
gets this poll bump? What if he gets an incumbency
bonus that's larger than average, But on average, we think
it's going to be less about about one percentage point
instead of four or five.
Speaker 3 (19:45):
One thing that we often know when we're talking about
polls is that they are a snapshot in time. Is
that what this forecast is.
Speaker 4 (19:56):
No, so the polls right.
Speaker 7 (19:59):
If I if I I am called by a polster
today and they asked me how I'm going to vote?
The polster reports that number, as you say, as a
snapshot in time. But the reason we do this forecast
is because, of course the election is not held today,
as polsters say, but it will be held five months
from now. And we also know that polls have been
(20:19):
wrong in the past. So we want to answer the
second order question, which is, you know, how much could
the race change, either by a candidate gaining ground just
as a function of time, or because our indicators are
statistically biased that have to too many Democrats or Republicans
answering the polls, for example. So our forecast is kind
(20:41):
of a step beyond the polls, a layer on top
of the poles, if you will, that helps you read
then understand the race a little bit better.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
We're joined by editorial director of data analytics for ABC
News and five thirty eight, Elliott Morris, talking about five
thirty eight new official forecast for the twenty twenty four
presidential election. Let's get to the results from the forecast,
and they're a little bit different from what we've been
seeing in terms of the polling, where it seems like
(21:10):
former President Donald Trump is in the lead, maybe by
just a tiny bit. It's a tight race, but a
lot of people would consider him the favorite at this point,
your forecasting showed something a little bit different.
Speaker 4 (21:23):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 7 (21:24):
So the national polls today, according to the five thirty
eight polling average, not our forecast, is that Donald Trump
leads the national polls by about one percentage point. That's
very small. And our forecast, which also looks at economic
indicators and how well the incumbent is approved of or
in this case not very well approved of, and also
(21:48):
predict yeah, how they might share without the polls, and
today that prediction is for Donald sorry for Joe Biden
actually to win by about three percentage points. So our
forecast splits the difference between those, it picks a number
between them based on yeah, based on how reliable those
(22:08):
predictions are. Again, it's early, so the polls are not
very reliable, So the forecast moves closer to that three
percentage point or so Biden leads, and it ends up
somewhere around it two to two and a half percentage
point lead for the incomb and president on average, with
a very very tight, sorry, very very wide uncertainty interval.
(22:30):
Basically that the model is throwing up you know, the
little emoji with that's shrugging with the stands of bat shoulders.
That's sort of what the model's doing today.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
And then, of course, this forecast you really can't take
into a kind of assuming or you don't if Biden
bombs during the first debate, if you know something were
to happen, if Trump were sentenced to prison, you know,
just those kinds of variables, those could shift things, right, Yeah.
Speaker 7 (22:58):
Those sorts of it's statements are exactly we do the forecast,
or those if questions. I think I don't have a
good idea of how Biden bombing in the debate would
impact him, but I can have my model ask the
question how much have polls moved after debates historically? Or
(23:18):
if a Canada is involved in a scandal, how much
book share have they lost nationally historically? And then the
model can sort of do that rationalization for us, and
it can ask a lot of those if questions, hundreds
of thousands of them in fact, if it wanted to,
and then compile all of the results for us. So
(23:38):
we're kind of relying on the power of computers today
to try to answer the question of just how much
we can trust the polls today and other indicators today.
If we're trying to forecast in an election that's going
to happen five months from now.
Speaker 3 (23:53):
And let me ask you this because I'm sure there
are some people who are listening who are a bit
skeptical of all of this. And again we're joined by
editorial director of data analytics for ABC News and five
thirty eight, Elliott Morris. You're looking back at how polls
and racists have shifted based on things that have happened
in the past, like say, a scandal. Is that difficult
(24:14):
to do in today's political environment where some things that
mattered before don't seem to matter today.
Speaker 7 (24:22):
Yeah, that is very difficult. That is kind of the
chief difficulty really is forecasting the future using relationships from
the past. So one thing that we do five thirty
eight is we account for the polarization of the electric
As you suggest, people change their minds less now than
(24:42):
they used to, or they're impacted by new information less
than they used to be because their parties and allegiances
are so strong. So our forecast does take that into accounts.
So we've been talking about incumbency advantages and scandals, debates,
and really essentially our model thinks that, yeah, the effects
(25:05):
of all of these things is cut in half versus
what it would have been in the seventies or the eighties,
and a less polarized political time.
Speaker 3 (25:13):
And final question for you, I saw your electoral vote breakdown.
You've got Biden at two seventy six, Trump at two
sixty two. When I look at the map where I
see it right now, is Biden at two twenty six,
Trump at two sixty eight, And I just view Wisconsin, Michigan,
and Pennsylvania's toss ups. What are you seeing from the map?
(25:34):
How does that differ from what I'm seeing? Uh?
Speaker 7 (25:37):
Yeah, I mean we we are just pricing in a
lot of uncertainty. So although we have Trump with a
slight lead in Arizona, for example, there's a lot of
uncertainty left in the election. So a roughly half a
percentage point lead for the president there or for the
former president only translates to a fifty three percent chance
(26:00):
to win at this point. So what our model does
is it repeats that process in all the states, and
it tells us how sure we can be of any
candidates lead this far ahead of the election, or even
if it was on election day, given the past error
in those polls. So I think the disconnect here is
(26:21):
just that our model is much more uncertain than a
strict breakdown of the polls would suggest.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
All right, Elliott Morris, editorial director of Analytics for ABC
News and five thirty eight. You can follow him for
the latest on X at G Elliott Morris, Elliott really
appreciate time and insight.
Speaker 4 (26:41):
Very interesting, Thanks so much.
Speaker 10 (26:42):
Thanks.
Speaker 3 (26:43):
You know, I do find all of that interesting. I
don't know how much I'd necessarily buy it. And just
to give an example, there are a couple of other
models out there. The Economist they did a forecast two
and they found that Trump has a two to three
chants of winning. So that model showed Trump winning sixty
six out of one hundred times while Biden wins thirty
(27:04):
three out of one hundred. And then there's another model,
another forecast, this one from Decision Desk, HQ and The Hill,
that found Trump holds a fifty six in one hundred
chance of winning while Biden has a forty four in
one hundred chance. So you got three different models. Two
of them say Trump is gonna win, one of them
says Biden's gonna win. I think again, this is all
(27:26):
gonna come down to handful of states, probably the ross
spelt Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and a couple thousand votes in
each of those states. I think that's where we're at.
But again, the data analytics and how they put all
this stuff together interesting much.
Speaker 4 (27:40):
I necessarily buy into all of it.
Speaker 3 (27:41):
Though still the com the White House isn't quite ruling
out commuting Hunter Biden's sentence. We're gonna get to that
within the next twenty five minutes or so, so keep
it here. I'm Ryan Gorman with Dana McKay in for
Michael dil Jorno this weekend. Right now, let's get to
another trending story. Not the best TV appearance for former
Trump secutor Nathan Wade.
Speaker 6 (28:01):
No, this was actually pretty hilarious.
Speaker 5 (28:03):
Nathan Wade, the former Fulton County prosecutor who was in
charge of the Trump election fraud case, who was having
an affair with the da Fanny Willis. He sat down
for an interview with Caitlyn Collins on CNN and when
she asked him about when their relationship started, he stumbled
and then his team stopped the interview.
Speaker 6 (28:22):
Listen to this.
Speaker 11 (28:23):
These exact dates are are are at issue in these
exact dates are I'm getting.
Speaker 4 (28:31):
I'm getting, so that means she walked over. It seems like,
shut your mouth.
Speaker 6 (28:39):
They take his mic off, stop.
Speaker 4 (28:42):
Talking, got yourself in trouble.
Speaker 5 (28:47):
Camera doesn't stop ruly, and so they walk over to
like a bookshelf with their backs to the camera for
like a whole minute, and then he comes back and
sits down. Now, the video of this is on our
Facebook page at Ryan Gorman Show if you want to
watch it, because the facial expressions Caitlyn Collins sitting there
looking so bad, and then he comes back and he
(29:09):
has this weird smile on his face and then it
picks up again.
Speaker 11 (29:16):
Everything okay, Just to the question, it was to clarify
when the romantic relationship started and when it ended. Sure,
So you know, I believe that the public has uh
through the testimony and other interviews. The public has a
(29:36):
clear snapshot that this is clearly just a distraction. It
is not a relevant issue in this case.
Speaker 4 (29:43):
So they said, go back over there and don't answer
the question.
Speaker 6 (29:46):
This is what you need to say. It's not relevant.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
Just be asked there for a minute and do that again.
Check out that video because it's pretty funny.
Speaker 4 (29:52):
I'm Jeff Eddie with Efficient Hating and Cooling, and my
morning show is your Morning Show with Michael Dell Jorna,
Ryan Borman here with Dan McKay.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
And now let's go back to the hotline and bring
in News Nation Senior correspondent Laura Ingle. You can watch
her on News Nation, find her reporting at newsnationnow dot com,
and follow her on x for the latest at Laura Ingle. Laura,
thanks so much for coming on this morning, and you've
been following this story involving the arrest of eight migrants
with suspected ISIS ties.
Speaker 4 (30:22):
What have we learned over the past twenty four hours
about this.
Speaker 9 (30:25):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 12 (30:27):
We have learned that there are these eight individuals from
Tajikistan who had come across the southern border in the
last year, several of them, it appears last spring, they
did pass the screening process getting across.
Speaker 9 (30:43):
The border coming in.
Speaker 12 (30:44):
But then there was according to several reports here in
New York, there was a surveillance that was put on
on even a wire tap on two of them, and
there seemed to be some kind of a slot going
on there were the words was made and so because
of that, the surveillance continued, and it sounds as though
(31:06):
the FEDS wanted to move in instead of you know,
waiting to see what was going to happen, pull them
into custody. Then they found out as they ran sets
on these eight individuals. We believe they're all male, but
we don't have their names and their ages, but they
all have ties and reported ties to ISIS, some even
possibly ISIS K, which is another division of ices which
(31:27):
is known to be more violent. So right now, these
eight individuals are being held in.
Speaker 9 (31:33):
Ice detention pending.
Speaker 10 (31:36):
You know, the next court hearing that they'll have or
you know, they'll have a procedural event with the Feds,
and then they may be deported, they may be sent
back and just so no, but it is through the
great work of a multi agency task force that these
individuals were identified, surveiled, taken into custody, and off the
streets in New York, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles before anything happened.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
We have any idea how they were initially vetted and
allowed to be released in the country.
Speaker 12 (32:07):
You know, as far as we know from the reporting
that has come from the southern border, it sounds as
though they made it across that procedure pretty easily.
Speaker 9 (32:18):
There were no red flags.
Speaker 12 (32:19):
There was nothing that came up in the screening that
would have indicated anything suspicious of Actually, one of my colleagues,
Brian Intons, a lot of people know his work, spoke
with the director of ICE.
Speaker 9 (32:32):
In Florida and he explained how the.
Speaker 12 (32:35):
Individuals bypassed the government screening process, saying, quote, sometimes there's
just no information on these individuals, saying it's quite common
where there's just nothing. You don't have anything, so any
criminal convictions to look at, there's no threat information or
whatever these individuals may have going on.
Speaker 9 (32:53):
These individuals are from an.
Speaker 12 (32:54):
Area that are particularly concerned that maybe pops up later.
I'm reading his quote right now, and then you get
information later on. So it sounds like they came through
they didn't have any priors, they didn't have anything that
connected them, and off they went into the United States.
But then something was surveilled that there was something going on,
and that's when I said, the sense of debt.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
And we don't have any sense yet as to what
they were potentially planning.
Speaker 9 (33:22):
We don't.
Speaker 12 (33:23):
I mean, the thing is is they don't want to
tell us any specific information for a variety of reasons.
Speaker 9 (33:29):
But like I had.
Speaker 12 (33:30):
Mentioned, there are several reports here in New York that
there was a wire tap on two of these individuals,
and there was a discussion about a bomb and whatever.
Speaker 9 (33:39):
There was a source that talked to the New York Post.
Whatever source that was that talked to the New York
Post said it sounded like.
Speaker 12 (33:46):
It might have been something like the marathon, the Boston Marathon,
something like that, like an open air event. So as
we move into the summer months and as we go
to events that, you know, we heard about it at
the holidays with high amount of travelers, and we hear
out these terror concerns in the summer when there's so
many people outdoors gathered at large events, you know, sporting
(34:07):
events and concerts and open air markets, and those are
the types of things that we have a lot of
eyeballs in yours and a lot of surveillance going on
to keep us all safe. But it can't be said enough.
If something doesn't feel right, if you see something, say something.
No matter where you are, if you live in a
small town and you think it can't happen, say something.
Speaker 9 (34:27):
It's better to be safe than sorry.
Speaker 3 (34:29):
News Nation Senior correspondent Laura Ingle again. You can watch
her on News Nation, find her reporting at newsnationnow dot com,
and follow her on x for the latest at Laura Ingle.
Speaker 4 (34:39):
Laura really appreciate the update. Thanks so much.
Speaker 9 (34:42):
Thank you for having me. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (34:44):
I said recently we should change the protocol for those
tours at the Capitol and the White House to reflect
how we handle things at the border, where when people
show up to get the tour of the White House,
they don't have to prove who they are or show
any information or.
Speaker 6 (34:58):
You know, go through any sort of security process.
Speaker 12 (35:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (35:01):
Yeah, they could just go right in, get released right
into the CEE. How quickly you know that would.
Speaker 6 (35:08):
Shange they realized that's a bad idea.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
Yeah, exactly. But that's kind of what we're doing along
the southern border.
Speaker 4 (35:13):
We're all in this together.
Speaker 2 (35:14):
This is your Morning Show with Michael held Joe No
Hey, it's Michael reminding you that your morning show can
be heard live each weekday morning five to eighth Central,
six to nine Eastern and great cities like Nashville, Tennessee
two below, Mississippi, and Sacramento, California. We'd love to be
a part of your morning routine and take the drive
to work with you, but better late than never. We're
grateful you're here now. Enjoy the podcast two.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Three, starting your morning off right. A new way of talk,
a new way of understanding because we're in this toget.
This is your morning show with Michael del Chrono.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Welcome to the show on this Thursday, June thirteenth, I'm
Ryan Gorman with Dana McKay and Chris Trankman from our newsroom.
Speaker 4 (00:44):
We're live on airon on your iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Coming up this how we're going to talk to the
editorial director of data Analytics for five thirty eight about
their new presidential race forecast, including who they predict will
win the presidential election. So that's coming out in about
a half a half hour and Dan, it just so
you can understand what we're talking about there. It's kind
of like baseball analytics, which I know you're very well
(01:07):
versed in that's essentially what they're doing there. Five thing
to me.
Speaker 5 (01:12):
That actually is man's plaining, because you're explaining things to
me like in a man's term of baseball that I
don't understand.
Speaker 6 (01:20):
Thank you for doing that.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
It's political data analytics just like baseball analytics.
Speaker 7 (01:25):
You know.
Speaker 5 (01:26):
Okay, thanks understand because I'm a woman, got it? Okay,
that's cool.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Yeah, I didn't start more off.
Speaker 6 (01:33):
Yeah, why are you picking on me? You don't usually
do that.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Off and running this morning. All right, let's shift right
over to today's Top stories now with Chris Trankman, who never
man explains what's going on. Chris, Good Morning.
Speaker 8 (01:45):
The House voted to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in
contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over audio of
President Biden's interview with Special Counsel Robert Hurt. Now, the
vote's unlikely to result in Garland facing prosecution, but Republicans
are whole thing it'll strengthen their subpoena for those audio files,
now Her said in his report in February, Biden suffered
(02:07):
from repeated memory lapses in his interview, leading prosecutors to
think the President would come across to a jury as
a sympathetic, well meaning elderly man with a poor memory.
In other words, if they took it to trial, the
jury would feel sorry for President Biden, and prosecutors would
lose the case.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
It's not the campaign slogan that you want. What is
that sympathetic, well meaning elderly Yeah, that's poor poor memory. Yeah,
that's to close it out. It's not what you wanted
the bumper sticker for your campaign. There's a couple of
things going on here, and I think it's pretty obvious
the White House doesn't want to stay about because while
the transcript I thought was better than the initial reports
(02:49):
in terms of the context of the answers that Biden
gave and the questions that were asked of him, what
the transcript leaves out are the stumbles, the pause is,
you know, all of that kind of stuff, the repeating.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
It's cleaned up of slurring.
Speaker 5 (03:06):
If there was any events inability to get words out.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
Right, so you're not going to see that in the transcript.
So I thought the transcript was better than the initial reports. Still,
you know, there were some parts that were not great.
The tape can't be great. It's not like he came
out and gave this, you know, brilliant soliloquy of an answer.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Otherwise, I think I.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
Think they wanted out, and then of course Republicans in
Congress they want to because they want to use it
for the election.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
I mean, that's clear, right.
Speaker 5 (03:34):
But we've had all these people who say that behind
closed doors, he's totally with it, he's totally together. We
haven't seen any video, and now that there's a video
of him behind closed doors, they don't want to release it.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
Yeah, or at least audio.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Remember John Stewart when I think it was like the
first show that he came back with the Daily Show,
he said he said that, you know, people keep saying
that he's really on top of it behind closed doors,
maybe he should do that in public.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
Can see that.
Speaker 8 (04:01):
But it kind of reminds me the difference between TV
and radio and newspapers. If you see interviews in the newspaper,
they clean up all the grammar, Yes, they clean up
all the like you said, pauses and stumbles. But if
you see the same interview on television or hear it
on the radio, you're going to hear all of that,
and you're going to hear how the person sounds for real.
Speaker 4 (04:18):
Yeah, and sometimes that makes a difference.
Speaker 8 (04:20):
It makes a big difference, I think, and that's maybe
one of the reasons why those tapes aren't being released.
Speaker 7 (04:25):
Now.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
The question here is, and I don't have the answer
to this, The question here is whether or not the
Attorney General and the Department of Justice or within their
legal rights to withhold the tapes from Congress. And that's
what this is partly about Congress pushing them to release them.
And then you also have to think, and I think
this was a point that the Attorney General made, and
(04:46):
it's not necessarily an unfair point.
Speaker 4 (04:48):
What would that mean if the tapes were released?
Speaker 3 (04:51):
What would that mean for future instances where you had
the Department of Justice and they needed to interview President
for something. Would they maybe not be as willing to
cooperate or do that sit down with a special Council
in fear of, you know, the tape eventually being released
or something like that. So there's a lot going on here,
(05:12):
but we'll see where it all goes. The US is
in a heightened threat alert for both foreign and domestic
terrorism following two arrests this week, the latest occurring on Wednesday,
during a traffic stop in New York City, officers found
a cache of weapons in a man's car.
Speaker 8 (05:29):
It's quite a cache. It included knives, axes, a machete,
a gun, ballistic vests, and.
Speaker 4 (05:36):
A mass that stuff we all carry in our car.
What are you talking about? It's suspicious about that.
Speaker 8 (05:40):
No, Yeah, especially the axes is achety. The NYPD says
they are investigating the suspect for possible terrorist ties. Although
those weapons not necessarily the most effective in you know,
mass casualties, however, still extremely dangerous.
Speaker 4 (05:56):
Yeah, and big crowd in New York.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
You start swinging around the machete and acts, I mean,
it's gonna do some damage. So luckily they were able
to prevent that. We're going to talk to News Nation
senior correspondent Laura Ingle coming up towards the end of
this hour and get her report on all of this.
But there are a lot of unanswered questions here. You know,
how were these migrants vetted and allowed to just get
(06:20):
into the country. What does that say about our vetting process?
I think that raises a ton of questions about that,
because we're releasing a lot of people into the country
these days.
Speaker 8 (06:33):
Yeah, they're still investigating those eight people from Tajikistan, Yeah,
with suspected ties to the Islamic State. They were arrested
in New York, Philly and LA and they supposedly entered
through the southern US border, right, so we've got a
lot of questions there, and then you know, what are
what were they potentially looking to do with their ISIS ties?
Speaker 3 (06:54):
What was this person potentially looking to do? So a
scary moment.
Speaker 6 (06:58):
And these are just the people that they've.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
Caught, yeah, right, And there were warned, there have been warnings,
especially it was tied to Pride events.
Speaker 4 (07:06):
I remember.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
There were warnings issued about potential attacks on Pride events
throughout the country and around the world. And clearly there
is some intelligence that they have that there are those
who are looking to do us harm. Right now, they
had the heads up on what was going to happen
in Moscow with that ISIS related attack. They warned Russia
(07:32):
and Vladimir couldn't stop it them Now, Hey, this is
coming and it's going to be at like you know,
one of those types of venues at an event just
like that, and it happened anyway, So definitely some concern
right now. About potential terrorist attacks on US soil.
Speaker 4 (07:48):
The logo is dead at the age of eighty six.
Speaker 8 (07:52):
NBA legend Jerry West, whose silhouette is featured on the
league's red, white and blue logo, a star with the
LA Lakers and an executive, and he was in the
front office also for the LA Clippers. Wes part of
some great teams for LA, including the nineteen seventy two
team when he won the championship. And he was so
good in the NBA Finals in nineteen sixty nine. Even
(08:13):
though the Lakers lost to the Celtics that year, he
was still awarded the Finals.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
MVP's that's rare, very rare. I don't recall ever seeing that, Yeah,
when the player for the losing team gets the MVP.
But it's just so cool being the logo. Yeah, you
know that's I mean, how awesome is that?
Speaker 8 (08:33):
Well, you know, as far as NBA players go, at
least for his time, he was one of the best
as far as fundamentals and was just a pleasure to
watch with his style. You know, you talk about it
in baseball too, you know they you know, people with
like that great swing, Stan Yustil, some of those kind
of players and Jerry West was that guy.
Speaker 4 (08:51):
He was just awesome to watch.
Speaker 8 (08:53):
And yeah, they decided to use that one shot of him,
say said, he's sort of leaning with the basketball scribbling.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
Yeah, it wasn't even him shooting or anything like that
or like the famous Air Jordan logo. It's not it's
not like that. It's just him dribbling. But it became
the NBA logo. Yeah, and it's it's iconic. And he
will obviously live on for eternity and not just a
great player, but a tremendous front office executive, you know,
putting together some championship Lakers teams. He was involved with
(09:23):
that organization for a long long time. And he's featured
in there was a show what streaming service maybe it
was I think it was Max, and they have a
show on the Showtime Lakers, and Jerry West wasn't portrayed that.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
Great in that series.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
He's portrayed as a kind of a jerk, to be
honest with you, And there was a lot of pushback
to how they portrayed him in that show.
Speaker 4 (09:51):
But that that came out, I think I watched it. It
was pretty good.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
It was interesting, you know, learning about Magic Johnson and
the team and all of that. But Jerry West, you
know again, people you think of his playing days, but
also as a front off of his executive an all
time great there too.
Speaker 4 (10:05):
Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 8 (10:05):
In fact, you know, he was part of those those
sixties teams for the Lakers that just couldn't get past
the Celtics. I don't remember the Celtics with what do
they win? We lost ten in a row, eleven in
a row. It was like impossible to win the NBA
title in those years. But it was his time as
an executive where he was like the undisputed best front
office guy found Yeah. Well yeah, but way before that
(10:28):
obviously talked about the showtime years. I mean, those nineteen
eighties Lakers teams are still considered one of the most
entertaining to watch ever, and he was the architect of
all that. You know, he took a risk I think
in some ways with Magic Johnson putting you know him
in there at such a young age, and what happened.
I mean, the guy turned into one of the best
players his rookie year. Yeah, and went to the NBA Finals.
(10:49):
So a lot of you know, great moves as a
as a front office executive, but also a great player,
and certainly somebody the NBA, as far as its history
goes will miss.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
So had Bill Walton pass away recently? Now Jerry West
and they say that's coming threes. If you're an NBA legend.
Speaker 6 (11:10):
You're awful.
Speaker 4 (11:11):
I'm just terrible. Do you have one in mind?
Speaker 3 (11:13):
No, I'm saying the house right now, no concern. Chris
Trankman with today's top Stories. Chris, thanks so much, appreciate it.
Still to come this hour. Former Trump prosecutor Nathan Wade's
CNN interview was interrupted right as he was commenting on
his relationship with Georgia Da Fannie Willis. We're going to
(11:34):
tell you why in a bit, So stick around for that.
I'm Ryan Gorman with Dana McKay in for Michael del
Jorno this week. And right now, let's get to a
trending story that is I think good news for teachers.
Speaker 5 (11:45):
Yeah, apparently teaching second graders while drunk is totally legal
in California anyway. So a second grade teacher who was
arrested in California for being drunk in class last October
is no longer facing any charges because the prosecutors determined
they just couldn't find any law that she actually broke,
so she was arrested in the middle of first period
(12:07):
at around eight thirty in the morning after a coworker
noticed that she appeared to be wasted while teaching second graders,
and so this coworker called the police. She failed a
sobriety test and her blood alcohol level was twice the
legal limit nearly two.
Speaker 6 (12:23):
Hours after she was arrested.
Speaker 5 (12:26):
So she was initially charged with drunk driving and child
abuse with the possibility of great bodily injury, but despite
having surveillance video of her driving into the school's parking
lot when she was most likely already drunk, they decided
that would be too hard to prove. And then they
also knew that they couldn't prove that she was going
to do any bodily injury to children because she was
(12:47):
just drunk in the classroom, but she wasn't hurting anyone.
So they just decided to let the case go and
they dropped all the charges, and the teacher came in
to teach second graders completely hammered, and yeah.
Speaker 9 (12:59):
Nothing could do.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
And now you got teachers all across the country bringing
their flask to work.
Speaker 6 (13:04):
Can't blame them.
Speaker 5 (13:04):
Right the way schools are, you can't blame the teachers
for one tie one on in the middle of the day.
Speaker 3 (13:09):
They needed teaching a bunch of second graders like that,
You need a couple of shots to get through the day.
And now that they know that, they can apparently do
that with no consequences. Yeah, that's good news for our
school system here in the US.
Speaker 2 (13:23):
This is your morning show with Michael del Chona.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
There's nothing new about fundraising emails from politicians, but the
tone of them seems to be a bit different these days.
It used to be like, you know, join me in
my campaign and we can create change, or you know,
something optimistic and uplifting like that. I've noticed, especially with
(13:48):
the Trump fundraising emails, they've adjusted and shifted over the
past few days, from one that was titled I love
you yeah one to one that said I'm okay with
going to jail. I'd go to jail again and again
(14:09):
if that's what it took to save America.
Speaker 6 (14:10):
Oh please.
Speaker 3 (14:12):
Then we got this my first rally as a political prisoner.
Speaker 6 (14:17):
Yeah, he's a political prisoner, yep.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
And then this was the one that came out yesterday
that I thought was maybe a little much.
Speaker 4 (14:25):
Haul out the guillotine.
Speaker 5 (14:27):
Oh my goodness, Yeah, that's a bit much. It actually
got that one in my email box.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
Yeah yeah, remember when that sicko Kathy Griffin made the
rounds parading my beheaded head when I was president.
Speaker 6 (14:42):
Rember.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
That a little graphic so you can see where these are.
I can only imagine what the one today is going
to be.
Speaker 7 (14:48):
Like.
Speaker 3 (14:49):
I have not been getting nearly as many political fundraising
emails and especially texts as I had a couple of
weeks ago.
Speaker 4 (14:58):
I don't know why.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
I've been trying really hard hard to hit stop and
unsubscribe and all that crap. I wasn't making much of
a difference. But I haven't gotten very many lately. You
still get them, though.
Speaker 5 (15:07):
So I got a couple of text messages. One says
Lara Trump viewed your profile yesterday and nominated you for
living legend status.
Speaker 4 (15:16):
Wow, legend status?
Speaker 6 (15:19):
What an honor? And then I got this one that
freaked me out.
Speaker 5 (15:23):
It says it is with a heavy heart that I
send this, And like, you see that pop up and
you don't know who's sending it.
Speaker 6 (15:29):
So I'm like, wait a minute, what's going on?
Speaker 9 (15:31):
You know?
Speaker 6 (15:31):
Like, did somebody die?
Speaker 5 (15:33):
And then I got this one, Dana, what are you wearing?
Speaker 4 (15:37):
Wow?
Speaker 5 (15:39):
That and it says it's Trump and I'm wearing my
brand new MAGA shirts.
Speaker 4 (15:45):
Oh ok, that one caught me.
Speaker 6 (15:49):
I'm like, who is this?
Speaker 4 (15:51):
Trump?
Speaker 6 (15:52):
Like that?
Speaker 4 (15:52):
And Trump messaging you that. I think that was directly
from Trump. Yeah, what are you wearing right now?
Speaker 3 (16:00):
Now? I mean the text and the emails they've gotten
a little ridiculous, but I guess they have to be
working because doing and.
Speaker 5 (16:09):
I've taken courses before on like email marketing and text marketing,
and that's what they tell you to do anything it
takes to get attention.
Speaker 3 (16:16):
Right, to get that click, to get them to open it,
and then you see where it goes from there. The
emails are one thing. The emails do annoy me. It's
the text messages though. That is just a really, really
freaking annoying development over the past couple of years.
Speaker 6 (16:33):
Yeah, the text is so much more invasive.
Speaker 4 (16:35):
It really is.
Speaker 5 (16:36):
Like the email is kind of just it's like your mailbox,
it's just kind of sitting there whatever.
Speaker 6 (16:39):
But the text messages feels very intrusive.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
And I can't seem to stop them for whatever reason
they've let up over the past few weeks. But when
you type back, stop or unsubscribe, then they just send
you one from a different number and it never ends.
Speaker 5 (16:54):
Yeah, I get them from all different numbers, and I
block them, and then I get another one.
Speaker 3 (16:58):
For somebody who is generally pretty lonely and doesn't have
very many friends. When my phone goes off and I
get a text message, I get super excited, and then
I say.
Speaker 6 (17:05):
You don't want to hear from anyone, No, you don't,
don't lie.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
Hey, it's me Michael.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
Your morning show has heard live from five to eight
am Central, six to nine am Eastern, three to six
am Pacific on great radio stations like News Radio eleven
ninety k EX in Portland, News Talk five fifty k FYI,
and Phoenix, Arizona coming soon to Freedom one oh four
seven at Washington, d C. We'd love to have you
join us live in the morning, even take us along
(17:29):
on the drive to work. But better late than never
enjoyed the podcast.
Speaker 4 (17:33):
Ryan Gorman here with Danna McKay.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
And now let's go to the hotline and bring in
the editorial director of data analytics for ABC News and
five thirty eight Elliott Morris. You can follow on x
at g Elliott Morris. Elliott, thanks so much for taking
a few minutes to come on the show. So I
was talking about this on the show yesterday, the five
thirty eight forecast for the twenty twenty four presidential election.
(17:55):
And before we get into the numbers, let's start with
how you put this together?
Speaker 4 (18:00):
What goes into this forecast?
Speaker 7 (18:02):
Yeah, So for the election forecast, we are really trying
to answer one big question, and that is, if if
we had a historical election that that matches what we're
seeing today, who would win? So today, those those conditions
are you know, a growing or a recovering but uh,
(18:23):
you know we're covering from a very deep hole economy, uh,
and very tight poles and an incumbent on the ballot.
So we can look at historical elections to see how
how presidents would those similar conditions have fired historically, and
we can look at other data elect polls and economics
to try to answer that big question. What's you know,
what's going to happen in the election? Uh? And importantly,
(18:46):
what could happen if if the polls or or our
other indicators are wrong.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
How does having essentially a second incumbent in a way
on the ballot factor.
Speaker 7 (18:59):
In Yeah, Well, empirically speaking, we don't know. It hasn't happened.
This hasn't happened before, So we make a pretty good guess.
I think that the incumbents the advantage that President Biden
would normally normally get if he were running in the seventies.
You know, for example, a left bowl arrized time against
(19:19):
an unown incumbent. We think Biden gets left less of
a bump than he would have got back in about half.
So that is just a guess.
Speaker 4 (19:26):
Though the model.
Speaker 7 (19:29):
It simulates many thousand election outcomes, and so every time
it can ask a question like, oh, what if he
gets this poll bump? What if he gets an incumbency
bonus that's larger than average, But on average, we think
it's going to be less about about one percentage point
instead of four or five.
Speaker 3 (19:45):
One thing that we often know when we're talking about
polls is that they are a snapshot in time. Is
that what this forecast is.
Speaker 4 (19:56):
No, so the polls right.
Speaker 7 (19:59):
If I if I I am called by a polster
today and they asked me how I'm going to vote?
The polster reports that number, as you say, as a
snapshot in time. But the reason we do this forecast
is because, of course the election is not held today,
as polsters say, but it will be held five months
from now. And we also know that polls have been
(20:19):
wrong in the past. So we want to answer the
second order question, which is, you know, how much could
the race change, either by a candidate gaining ground just
as a function of time, or because our indicators are
statistically biased that have to too many Democrats or Republicans
answering the polls, for example. So our forecast is kind
(20:41):
of a step beyond the polls, a layer on top
of the poles, if you will, that helps you read
then understand the race a little bit better.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
We're joined by editorial director of data analytics for ABC
News and five thirty eight, Elliott Morris, talking about five
thirty eight new official forecast for the twenty twenty four
presidential election. Let's get to the results from the forecast,
and they're a little bit different from what we've been
seeing in terms of the polling, where it seems like
(21:10):
former President Donald Trump is in the lead, maybe by
just a tiny bit. It's a tight race, but a
lot of people would consider him the favorite at this point,
your forecasting showed something a little bit different.
Speaker 4 (21:23):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 7 (21:24):
So the national polls today, according to the five thirty
eight polling average, not our forecast, is that Donald Trump
leads the national polls by about one percentage point. That's
very small. And our forecast, which also looks at economic
indicators and how well the incumbent is approved of or
in this case not very well approved of, and also
(21:48):
predict yeah, how they might share without the polls, and
today that prediction is for Donald sorry for Joe Biden
actually to win by about three percentage points. So our
forecast splits the difference between those, it picks a number
between them based on yeah, based on how reliable those
(22:08):
predictions are. Again, it's early, so the polls are not
very reliable, So the forecast moves closer to that three
percentage point or so Biden leads, and it ends up
somewhere around it two to two and a half percentage
point lead for the incomb and president on average, with
a very very tight, sorry, very very wide uncertainty interval.
(22:30):
Basically that the model is throwing up you know, the
little emoji with that's shrugging with the stands of bat shoulders.
That's sort of what the model's doing today.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
And then, of course, this forecast you really can't take
into a kind of assuming or you don't if Biden
bombs during the first debate, if you know something were
to happen, if Trump were sentenced to prison, you know,
just those kinds of variables, those could shift things, right, Yeah.
Speaker 7 (22:58):
Those sorts of it's statements are exactly we do the forecast,
or those if questions. I think I don't have a
good idea of how Biden bombing in the debate would
impact him, but I can have my model ask the
question how much have polls moved after debates historically? Or
(23:18):
if a Canada is involved in a scandal, how much
book share have they lost nationally historically? And then the
model can sort of do that rationalization for us, and
it can ask a lot of those if questions, hundreds
of thousands of them in fact, if it wanted to,
and then compile all of the results for us. So
(23:38):
we're kind of relying on the power of computers today
to try to answer the question of just how much
we can trust the polls today and other indicators today.
If we're trying to forecast in an election that's going
to happen five months from now.
Speaker 3 (23:53):
And let me ask you this because I'm sure there
are some people who are listening who are a bit
skeptical of all of this. And again we're joined by
editorial director of data analytics for ABC News and five
thirty eight, Elliott Morris. You're looking back at how polls
and racists have shifted based on things that have happened
in the past, like say, a scandal. Is that difficult
(24:14):
to do in today's political environment where some things that
mattered before don't seem to matter today.
Speaker 7 (24:22):
Yeah, that is very difficult. That is kind of the
chief difficulty really is forecasting the future using relationships from
the past. So one thing that we do five thirty
eight is we account for the polarization of the electric
As you suggest, people change their minds less now than
(24:42):
they used to, or they're impacted by new information less
than they used to be because their parties and allegiances
are so strong. So our forecast does take that into accounts.
So we've been talking about incumbency advantages and scandals, debates,
and really essentially our model thinks that, yeah, the effects
(25:05):
of all of these things is cut in half versus
what it would have been in the seventies or the eighties,
and a less polarized political time.
Speaker 3 (25:13):
And final question for you, I saw your electoral vote breakdown.
You've got Biden at two seventy six, Trump at two
sixty two. When I look at the map where I
see it right now, is Biden at two twenty six,
Trump at two sixty eight, And I just view Wisconsin, Michigan,
and Pennsylvania's toss ups. What are you seeing from the map?
(25:34):
How does that differ from what I'm seeing? Uh?
Speaker 7 (25:37):
Yeah, I mean we we are just pricing in a
lot of uncertainty. So although we have Trump with a
slight lead in Arizona, for example, there's a lot of
uncertainty left in the election. So a roughly half a
percentage point lead for the president there or for the
former president only translates to a fifty three percent chance
(26:00):
to win at this point. So what our model does
is it repeats that process in all the states, and
it tells us how sure we can be of any
candidates lead this far ahead of the election, or even
if it was on election day, given the past error
in those polls. So I think the disconnect here is
(26:21):
just that our model is much more uncertain than a
strict breakdown of the polls would suggest.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
All right, Elliott Morris, editorial director of Analytics for ABC
News and five thirty eight. You can follow him for
the latest on X at G Elliott Morris, Elliott really
appreciate time and insight.
Speaker 4 (26:41):
Very interesting, Thanks so much.
Speaker 10 (26:42):
Thanks.
Speaker 3 (26:43):
You know, I do find all of that interesting. I
don't know how much I'd necessarily buy it. And just
to give an example, there are a couple of other
models out there. The Economist they did a forecast two
and they found that Trump has a two to three
chants of winning. So that model showed Trump winning sixty
six out of one hundred times while Biden wins thirty
(27:04):
three out of one hundred. And then there's another model,
another forecast, this one from Decision Desk, HQ and The Hill,
that found Trump holds a fifty six in one hundred
chance of winning while Biden has a forty four in
one hundred chance. So you got three different models. Two
of them say Trump is gonna win, one of them
says Biden's gonna win. I think again, this is all
(27:26):
gonna come down to handful of states, probably the ross
spelt Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and a couple thousand votes in
each of those states. I think that's where we're at.
But again, the data analytics and how they put all
this stuff together interesting much.
Speaker 4 (27:40):
I necessarily buy into all of it.
Speaker 3 (27:41):
Though still the com the White House isn't quite ruling
out commuting Hunter Biden's sentence. We're gonna get to that
within the next twenty five minutes or so, so keep
it here. I'm Ryan Gorman with Dana McKay in for
Michael dil Jorno this weekend. Right now, let's get to
another trending story. Not the best TV appearance for former
Trump secutor Nathan Wade.
Speaker 6 (28:01):
No, this was actually pretty hilarious.
Speaker 5 (28:03):
Nathan Wade, the former Fulton County prosecutor who was in
charge of the Trump election fraud case, who was having
an affair with the da Fanny Willis. He sat down
for an interview with Caitlyn Collins on CNN and when
she asked him about when their relationship started, he stumbled
and then his team stopped the interview.
Speaker 6 (28:22):
Listen to this.
Speaker 11 (28:23):
These exact dates are are are at issue in these
exact dates are I'm getting.
Speaker 4 (28:31):
I'm getting, so that means she walked over. It seems like,
shut your mouth.
Speaker 6 (28:39):
They take his mic off, stop.
Speaker 4 (28:42):
Talking, got yourself in trouble.
Speaker 5 (28:47):
Camera doesn't stop ruly, and so they walk over to
like a bookshelf with their backs to the camera for
like a whole minute, and then he comes back and
sits down. Now, the video of this is on our
Facebook page at Ryan Gorman Show if you want to
watch it, because the facial expressions Caitlyn Collins sitting there
looking so bad, and then he comes back and he
(29:09):
has this weird smile on his face and then it
picks up again.
Speaker 11 (29:16):
Everything okay, Just to the question, it was to clarify
when the romantic relationship started and when it ended. Sure,
So you know, I believe that the public has uh
through the testimony and other interviews. The public has a
(29:36):
clear snapshot that this is clearly just a distraction. It
is not a relevant issue in this case.
Speaker 4 (29:43):
So they said, go back over there and don't answer
the question.
Speaker 6 (29:46):
This is what you need to say. It's not relevant.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
Just be asked there for a minute and do that again.
Check out that video because it's pretty funny.
Speaker 4 (29:52):
I'm Jeff Eddie with Efficient Hating and Cooling, and my
morning show is your Morning Show with Michael Dell Jorna,
Ryan Borman here with Dan McKay.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
And now let's go back to the hotline and bring
in News Nation Senior correspondent Laura Ingle. You can watch
her on News Nation, find her reporting at newsnationnow dot com,
and follow her on x for the latest at Laura Ingle. Laura,
thanks so much for coming on this morning, and you've
been following this story involving the arrest of eight migrants
with suspected ISIS ties.
Speaker 4 (30:22):
What have we learned over the past twenty four hours
about this.
Speaker 9 (30:25):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 12 (30:27):
We have learned that there are these eight individuals from
Tajikistan who had come across the southern border in the
last year, several of them, it appears last spring, they
did pass the screening process getting across.
Speaker 9 (30:43):
The border coming in.
Speaker 12 (30:44):
But then there was according to several reports here in
New York, there was a surveillance that was put on
on even a wire tap on two of them, and
there seemed to be some kind of a slot going
on there were the words was made and so because
of that, the surveillance continued, and it sounds as though
(31:06):
the FEDS wanted to move in instead of you know,
waiting to see what was going to happen, pull them
into custody. Then they found out as they ran sets
on these eight individuals. We believe they're all male, but
we don't have their names and their ages, but they
all have ties and reported ties to ISIS, some even
possibly ISIS K, which is another division of ices which
(31:27):
is known to be more violent. So right now, these
eight individuals are being held in.
Speaker 9 (31:33):
Ice detention pending.
Speaker 10 (31:36):
You know, the next court hearing that they'll have or
you know, they'll have a procedural event with the Feds,
and then they may be deported, they may be sent
back and just so no, but it is through the
great work of a multi agency task force that these
individuals were identified, surveiled, taken into custody, and off the
streets in New York, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles before anything happened.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
We have any idea how they were initially vetted and
allowed to be released in the country.
Speaker 12 (32:07):
You know, as far as we know from the reporting
that has come from the southern border, it sounds as
though they made it across that procedure pretty easily.
Speaker 9 (32:18):
There were no red flags.
Speaker 12 (32:19):
There was nothing that came up in the screening that
would have indicated anything suspicious of Actually, one of my colleagues,
Brian Intons, a lot of people know his work, spoke
with the director of ICE.
Speaker 9 (32:32):
In Florida and he explained how the.
Speaker 12 (32:35):
Individuals bypassed the government screening process, saying, quote, sometimes there's
just no information on these individuals, saying it's quite common
where there's just nothing. You don't have anything, so any
criminal convictions to look at, there's no threat information or
whatever these individuals may have going on.
Speaker 9 (32:53):
These individuals are from an.
Speaker 12 (32:54):
Area that are particularly concerned that maybe pops up later.
I'm reading his quote right now, and then you get
information later on. So it sounds like they came through
they didn't have any priors, they didn't have anything that
connected them, and off they went into the United States.
But then something was surveilled that there was something going on,
and that's when I said, the sense of debt.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
And we don't have any sense yet as to what
they were potentially planning.
Speaker 9 (33:22):
We don't.
Speaker 12 (33:23):
I mean, the thing is is they don't want to
tell us any specific information for a variety of reasons.
Speaker 9 (33:29):
But like I had.
Speaker 12 (33:30):
Mentioned, there are several reports here in New York that
there was a wire tap on two of these individuals,
and there was a discussion about a bomb and whatever.
Speaker 9 (33:39):
There was a source that talked to the New York Post.
Whatever source that was that talked to the New York
Post said it sounded like.
Speaker 12 (33:46):
It might have been something like the marathon, the Boston Marathon,
something like that, like an open air event. So as
we move into the summer months and as we go
to events that, you know, we heard about it at
the holidays with high amount of travelers, and we hear
out these terror concerns in the summer when there's so
many people outdoors gathered at large events, you know, sporting
(34:07):
events and concerts and open air markets, and those are
the types of things that we have a lot of
eyeballs in yours and a lot of surveillance going on
to keep us all safe. But it can't be said enough.
If something doesn't feel right, if you see something, say something.
No matter where you are, if you live in a
small town and you think it can't happen, say something.
Speaker 9 (34:27):
It's better to be safe than sorry.
Speaker 3 (34:29):
News Nation Senior correspondent Laura Ingle again. You can watch
her on News Nation, find her reporting at newsnationnow dot com,
and follow her on x for the latest at Laura Ingle.
Speaker 4 (34:39):
Laura really appreciate the update. Thanks so much.
Speaker 9 (34:42):
Thank you for having me. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (34:44):
I said recently we should change the protocol for those
tours at the Capitol and the White House to reflect
how we handle things at the border, where when people
show up to get the tour of the White House,
they don't have to prove who they are or show
any information or.
Speaker 6 (34:58):
You know, go through any sort of security process.
Speaker 12 (35:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (35:01):
Yeah, they could just go right in, get released right
into the CEE. How quickly you know that would.
Speaker 6 (35:08):
Shange they realized that's a bad idea.
Speaker 3 (35:10):
Yeah, exactly. But that's kind of what we're doing along
the southern border.
Speaker 4 (35:13):
We're all in this together.
Speaker 2 (35:14):
This is your Morning Show with Michael held Joe No
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!