December 19, 2025 • 45 mins
Josh pulls no punches as he breaks down the opening night of TPUSA's AmFest conference in Phoenix, where Ben Shapiro delivered a memorable speech. He explains why Team Sanity is on the rise, why Team Crazy keeps exposing itself, and what this moment says about the future of the movement. Josh then brings on CNN’s chief data analyst, Harry Enten, for a wide-ranging conversation about the 2026 midterms and beyond. Josh and Harry asks the big question: Does it all come down to the economy, or is something deeper driving voter sentiment?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Turning Point USA launches their Amfest conference, too much fanfare
(00:04):
and too much controversy out in Phoenix, Arizona. We've got
the details for you, as well as Harry Enton, the
chief data analyst at CNN, who stops by Josh Hammer Show,
making his third appearance on the show. We're going to
go deep on the current polls and all they need
to know to make sense of the twenty twenty six
midterms and beyond. I'm Josh Hammer and this is the
Josh Hammer Show. Turning Point USA, their first conference since
(00:32):
the horrific assassination of their founder, my late friend, Charlie Kirk.
Amfest got underway in Phoenix on Thursday evening, and right
out of the gate there were some headlines. You had
Erica Kirk, the widow of Charlie Kirk, who took something
of a soft dig at Candice Owens, the unhinged conspiracist,
the one time Charlie Kirk friend and ally turned hyper conspiratorial,
(00:57):
narcissist and frankly just a neo Kno disseminator. So Erk
Karr taking a slight dig at canvas Owens where she
mentioned Egypt and Egyptian airlines kind of a light poking
a canvass conspiracy theories about Charlie's assassination.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
But the.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
Real crux of the opening of this conference, and I
think that this is really what folks are going to
remember about this particular conference, maybe above all, is the
back and forth that Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson had
on the opening night of this particular conference, because it
was really no holes bart. There's been a lot of
talk about this so called civil war within Mango then
(01:34):
the American right, and that's not necessarily how I view it.
I view there as being just a generally decent and
sane sign and then there being a side of provocateurs,
provocateurs who are simultaneously trying to make your brain rotten,
who are also trying to rewrite what it means to
be on the right in the first place.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
That's how I view it.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
I prefer not to view it as a quote unquote
civil war, because to grant the premise of a civil
war would seemingly to be to grant that there are
two equivalent forces that are kind of just butting heads monoamano.
But to the extend that you believe that there was
a full fledged Civil War, I think that the opening
nights of anfest really would have dispelled that notion pretty seriously.
(02:15):
So Ben Shapiro, who we talked about a little bit
on Thursday show because of his talk at the Heritage
Foundation also on the topic of Tucker Carlson one day
prior and Wednesday, he was actually the first speaker directly
after Erica Kirk on the opening night of the conference,
and Ben was really not mincing words in this particular speech.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
Go ahead and watch this clib.
Speaker 4 (02:36):
So if Candice Owens decides to spend every day since
the murder of Charlie Kirk casting aspersions at TPUSA and
the people who work here who worked with Charlie every
single day, his best friends, to cast aspersions at Mikey
McCoy and Andrew Colvin and Blake Neff and Tyler Boyer
and yes, at Erica Kirk, and to imply or outright
claim complicity in a cover up over Charlie's murder, spew
(03:00):
absolutely baseless crash implicating everyone from French intelligence to Masad
to members of TPUSA in Charlie's murder or a cover
up in that murder, than we as people with a microphone,
have a moral obligation to call that out by name.
(03:26):
Erica Kirk and TPUSA never never should have put it,
never should have been put in the position to have
to defend themselves against such specious and evil attacks, particularly
in a time of morning. And the people who refuse
to condemn Candace's truly vicious attacks, and some of them
(03:49):
are speaking here, are guilty of cowardice, Yes, cowardice.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
The fact that they have.
Speaker 4 (03:59):
Said nothing, well, Candas has been vomiting all sorts of
hideous and conspiratorial nonsense into the public square for years,
is just as cowardly, all right.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
So a lots of a pat there, obviously, as someone
who has been put personally in the crosshairs of Candis
Oons's unhinged conspiracy theories. Frankly, she was saying that I
had fore knowledge and complicity in Charlie karssassination. She was
targeting me, ludicrously, insanely targeting me before she was targeting
any of the folks that been mentioned there, Andrew Kolovitz,
(04:28):
Blake Knath, Mikey McCoy, the turningpoint USA staffers. So I
was one of the first victims, frankly of Canis Oones's
post charliekirk assassination unhinged conspiracism. By the way, he's talking
there about other folks speaking at this conference and their
failure to call out candiez Oons as being cowed. There,
he's talking about not just Tucker Carlson, but also it
was not lost on her. He's talking there very clearly
(04:50):
also about Megan Kelly, who we talked about earlier on
the show this week and referred to, referred to her
as the dictionary definition, literally the act actual definition of
a coward, because she is the likeliest of this whole
crew of frauds and griffters and Charlton's. She's the likeliest
to actually know the difference between truth and lies, between
(05:12):
right and wrong, between.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
Justice and justice.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
She is the likeliest of this whole wretched Motley crew
to actually know the difference, and yet she still fails
to do so because she is literally scared, As a
source with knowledge told me, she is literally scared of
Tucker Carlson and Candie Owns as followers. So Ben Shapiro
not mincing words when it comes to any of these individuals,
Tucker Carlson, Candis Owens, Megan Kelly and so forth. Now,
(05:36):
I saw a lot of people talk about, oh me,
this was you know, a lot of the usual critics
of Bench Protective or my perspective or Team Sanity. A
lot of the critics of Team Sanity's perspective were really
blowing up Ben Shapiro and saying, oh, we took to
Charlie Kirk stage to launch fire inside the tent. But
the relevant question is this, what is the tent? The
(05:58):
relevant question is what is the conservative tent? What is
being on the rights. I'm all for unity, I am
all for getting along to the extent that we're actually
on the same page. What I've been saying for months
now is that a lot of these folks Tucker Carlson,
Cande owns above all are not on the same page.
(06:21):
As Charlie himself would have put it. They're not on
team Civilization. They are on Team Barbarism. They're on Team Islamism,
on Team Russia, Ron Katar. They're not on team Biblical jail,
Christian Western civilization.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
They're not. They're just not there, not on team America.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
When Tucker Carlson interviews the Chinese Communist Party puppet Jeffrey
Saxon when he gives puff interviews to put in the
president of Iran the Amir of Qatar.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
This is not Western sentiment. It's just not so Tark Carlson.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
Then on Thursday night, after Ben Shapiro speech, a couple
of speakers later gets on stage. Unlike Ben, he clearly
did not really prepare remarks, so he was what incoherent
and rambling. Frankly came across as looking a little drunk
or any grade. I'm not saying that he literally was drunk,
but that was kind of just the impression that I
got of watching him with someone who just didn't really
it was kind of a bit of a deer in
(07:11):
the headlights phenomenon, And he's rambling incoherently, and he's vaguely
trying to take some shots about America first, and by
the way, to stay at the obvious America first, which
is one of these slogans of the Trump movements ought
to be the lowest common denominator possible. I am America first.
I presume you are too. Why because we're Americans. If
(07:31):
you are Americans, you obviously put your country first. The
reason that the slogan, you know, really didn't do it
necessarily a whole lot there, and that MAGA. I think
the MAGA slogan make America go great again. The reason
that that, I think has been more emotionally resonant emploignant
over the past decade or so of Donald Trump's political rise.
The reason that is because America First isn't actually saying
(07:52):
a whole lot again. If we're in America, we're America first. Period.
So Tucker was on this a little bit. I don't
think he was scoring many points there. Things got really
weird towards the end of his speech. So he spent
some time towards the beginning of his speech trying to
fend off allegations that he is anti Semitic, something that
(08:14):
we firmly believe here on the show. I have said repeatedly,
I think Tucker Carlson is actually the most dangerous anti
Semlite in the history of the United States. To his
mildest of mild credit, I guess he at least spouted
the rhetoric of condemning any Semitism as being immoral and
contrary to his own professor religion, Christianity. I don't believe
him for a second. I think he is lying through
his teeth, but he at least felt the need to
(08:36):
say that. But what's interesting. What's interesting is that in
the second half of his speech he started focusing a
little bit on Islam, and he started to call out
Republicans for being his lomophobic. It was really really weird.
Go ahead and watch this what you're watching.
Speaker 5 (08:52):
Now, attacking people on the attacking millions of Americans because
they're Muslims.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
It's disgusting.
Speaker 5 (08:59):
And I'm not a Muslim imer I know there's a
lot of effort to claim I'm a secret gee Hoti.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
I'm not.
Speaker 5 (09:04):
You should not attack people on those grounds. And you're
seeing it from republic What the hell are you doing.
What you're doing is trying to divide the country. And
I've lived through fifty years of this craft, all these
fake race wars that they're always promoting.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Oh, go hate each.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Other while we loot the treasury.
Speaker 5 (09:21):
That's exactly what's going on. And most people are totally
sick of that.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Okay, So Tum Carlson, who just told the Mirror of
Qatar over in Doha speaking out the Doha Forum, Jungant
who just told him that he's going to buy a
house there tum Carlson, who want to show a few
months ago was downplaying sharia law because he's had that
the skidelines of Abu Dhabi and Riot are so beautiful
a Shria law, How.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
Menacing can it be?
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Now he is getting on his moral preening on his
butt and is accusing Republicans of being Islamophobic, seeing that
they are sowing the seeds of discord.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
Screw you, dude, Screw you.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
The one who's been sowing discord is you, because you
are trying to drive a stake, a little stake through
the very beating heart of the contemporary American right, the
very beating heart of the MAGA movement, which, contrary to
your purpored opinions, you actually hate deep down. You were
trying to drive a stake through the beating heart of
the ecumenical Jewish Christian biblical alliance that birthed Western civilization,
(10:14):
ultimately culminated in the greatest government ever created, the Constitution
of the United States, and this great country today. You
were the divider, not the other way around. The good news,
the good news, as anfest Gut underway, is that Ben's
electric speech had massive applause lines. Tucker the crowd was
very silent there. I think Tucker totally beclowned himself. He
exposed himself as being the lesser participants here in this
(10:38):
particular conversation there, and frankly, if anything, it was a
first round knockout for a Team Civilizational Sanity thanks to
the speech from Ben Shapir. We'll see how this conversation
plays out in subsequent months, but for now things are
looking pretty good, I would say for Team Civilizational Sanity. Well,
what a delight to welcome back to the Josh Ammer Show.
For I believe the third time in the history of
(11:00):
this show, my old friend Harry Enton. Has been amazing
to watch Harry's meteoric rise through the political media ecosystem
in recent years. Harry is the chief data analyst. I
think of him just as the polling guru in general
over at CNN. He's also the host of a new
show you can access at CNN's streaming on cnn dot
Com called The Entin Scale. Harry, you're a mensch, which
(11:24):
is a happy honic. I think you've joined the Josh
Ammer Show.
Speaker 6 (11:26):
Well, you know what the third time is the charm?
I spell Hanukah with a C because you know, I'm
just a strange individual and there's no correct way to
spell it, but happy Hanakh consume my friend.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
You as well.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
I've never heard of the Q spelling, but I saw
it on Google.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
I'm going with it. I'm going with it.
Speaker 6 (11:41):
And it's a nice small amount of font I can
fit it on a screen easily, and plus it just
adds a little bit of spice to my already quite
spicy personality.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
Yes, well, I've known you for a very long time.
In spicy, I think is definitely one of the many
adjitives that comes to mind to describe Harry Enon's personality. So,
for those of you who are listening on radio or
as the audio podcast, you can't quite see, but Harry's
currently talking to us wearing a buffalo bills beaming, And
before we get into our conversation about political data and
analytics and all the things that Harry specialize him, I
(12:11):
think it's worth kind of starting off on a light
or no, because among the things that Harry is, he's
a weather enthusiast. Harry, a lot of folks I know,
used to do his own meteorological modeling. I was actually
an avid reader of his weather emails back in the day.
He's also a hardcore Buffalo Bills fan, So, Harry, you
and I are both big sports fans. Addition to all
this political stuff that we do. How are you feeling
(12:33):
about the Buffalo Bills right now? It looks like they're
probably going to get into the playoffs there not quite
as dominant maybe as some recent years. The Patriots are
doing quite well there. How are you feeling about the
NFL playoffs this year?
Speaker 6 (12:43):
I got to tell you, I think I feel about
it as good as I've ever felt, because, yeah, New
England's a good team. Drake Mey good quarterback. We obviously
beat New England up in New England. Great comeback by
the Bills. But look, Patrick Mahomes out of the playoffs.
We don't know if Lamar Jackson is going to be
in the playoffs. Joe Burrow of the playoffs. We beat
both Burrow and Mahomes this season. We also beat Lamar Jackson.
(13:05):
So it's not necessarily just about how good the team is.
It's also how good the competition is. And at this
point I think this is a more wide open AFC
East than I've ever seen. Josh Allen is as good
as he's ever been. I mean, you put the ball
in his hands, you don't know what's going to happen.
I mean, up in New England we scored five touchdowns
(13:25):
in what five possessions I think in a row. Essentially
it was it was nuts. We are a second half team.
The defense does seem to get takeaways at least in
recent weeks when you need them to.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
And we're a second half team.
Speaker 6 (13:40):
And of course I don't know if you know this,
but you know I run stats for a living. The
second half comes after the first half and tends to
be the end of the game. So I'd much rather
be a good second half team than a first half team.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
Well, no disagreement there.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
And you know one thing that's always struck me as
funny about you, Harry, is you are one of the
most iconic the Yorkers ever mad You have this wonderful
New York accent. You're from Riverdale in the Bronx, if
memory serves there, and you chose to root for Buffalo
not for the Jets of the Giants. Do you have
any other allegiances that are not necessarily loyal to your
hometown or is this really the only one?
Speaker 6 (14:14):
Well, I will note that the Bills, of course, are
the only team that played their games in the state
of New York. If I wanted to root for I
dare say you're going for the Jets or Giants. Of
course I'd be rooting for teams that were not based
in the state of New York. My allegiances and essentially
right at the Hudson river line, right, So if you
are if you're west of the Hudson, you're in Jersey,
then I'm sorry I can't partake in that.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
I guess.
Speaker 6 (14:37):
The only other thing I'll note, which perhaps is a
little bit more surprising, would be that I hate the
New York Yankees. I call them the Yank Gays, despite
being from the Bronx. But you know what, I'd rather
root for the government in an income tax suit over
the New York Yankees. I wish them nothing but fourteen
inning games played in rain.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
I don't even know how to respond to that one, but
fair enough, I do respect it.
Speaker 3 (15:01):
Certainly.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
You're an old school baseball fan, an old school sports
fan general.
Speaker 6 (15:04):
There.
Speaker 1 (15:04):
I know you have all these fond records that you've
kept from the old New York Giants. Will he may
is the Old Brooklyn Dodgers and.
Speaker 6 (15:10):
Oh, very good, very good. My father was a huge
New York Giant fan. He would literally go into his car.
He would go into his car on random Saturdays, pop
in a cassette tape of Game three of the nineteen
fifty one playoff Giants versus Dodgers, listen to the entire game,
and you can come back smiling like nobody's business. So yes,
I would say old school in that way.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
You know we're gonna move on to zefter this.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
But I will say, Harry that my freshman yre, I
think it was in college to the class called History
of Baseball, and I wrote my final paper for this
class the Golden ERAa, the Golden erascuse me of New
York City baseball from the late nineteen forties to late
fifties before the Giants and Dodgers uproots go to California.
There I forgot the exactitisset there. I think the three
(15:52):
teams New York won like aid of the ten World
Series and decades span nine to ten. It was a
shockingly high number. Of course, the Yankees You're hated Yankees
were the more dominant of the of the three teams
there but an event you and I couldn't nerd out
about this stuff pretty much all day.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Launch Wait, was the series? The forty eight? Was the
series they didn't win?
Speaker 6 (16:09):
That was the Cleveland Indians over the Boston Braves, and
I think five games. I think Feller lost one of
the games or did not get the win in that game,
and he didn't get a winning a World Series game,
and they Cleveland fans were always upset about. That's still
the last World Series Cleveland has ever won.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
That's right, No, that's absolutely right, the Cleveland cavol years,
of course, ending the city's sports draut with Lebron James
past decade where the baseball drought still stands. Okay, you
know you and I could nerd about this stuff all
day long.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
Go on.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
I'm not sure necessarily what the audience wants to hear
all day. So, Harry, your your actual job and my
actual job are two varying shades of analyzing politics. I
come in more from a commentary angle. You come in
more from a raw data analytics angle. And I've known
you for a long time. I know you to be
one of the most most honest, straight shooters. I don't
think you particularly care I necessary about taking commentary your
(17:02):
opinions or policy or whatever. You're a numbers guy. You
are a true rough arms guy. That is why I
appreciate you. I think that's why a lot of people
in this space have noticed you and have kind of
glommed onto your rising star.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
So let's start talking some numbers.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
So the real kind of thing that I let me
to reach out to you and bring you on the show, Harry,
was the off off your elections now a month and
a half ago, where we have Zora Mamdani breaking the
fifty percent barrier in New York City. He is now
the mayor elect there in the Big Apple in your hometown.
We have the Virginia elections and the New Jersey elections,
among some other elections as well. There's been a couple
(17:36):
of elections since then, by the way, there was a Tennis,
Tennessee seventh Congressional District and a couple of other elections
that come to mind as well. The broader theme of
this is that there seemed to be not necessarily five
alarm fire warning signs, but maybe four alarm fire. I mean,
there's there are some pretty serious warning signs. I think
(17:57):
at this point for Republicans for the Trump at this
point in the term before I kind of dive in
a little deeper. Is that kind of the more broad trend?
Is that how you see it as well?
Speaker 6 (18:07):
I think yeah, I think when voters have been voting
during Trump's second term, Democrats have been doing well, and
I think they've been doing very well. So I think
I agree with your overall analysis there. Maybe you can
join me in the numerical space.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
Well see, I mean, I don't know, it's something to
kind of keep on the on the back burner. I
guesslet's kind of just go a little little deeper then.
I mean in Virginia, which comes to mind there maybe Virginia,
what was it was they stay where you have Glenn Younkin,
who is now phasing out of the gooonatorial mansion. They
have this utterly stupid law, in my humble opinion, where
the governor is term limited to one term. I don't
get it. I think it makes no sense. But that's
(18:40):
not here North. The ever present purpose is there. So
Democrats are coming in in a sweeping victory there in
the old dominion. Also, even in the attorney general race,
there's a race a lot of people kind of are
paying very close attention to because of the the the
somewhat infamous test messages of j Jones, the now attorney
general elect. He ends up defeating Jason Yare. I think
a wider margin that many of us thought Virginia was
(19:03):
the swingiest states to vote on a state wide level
of the more recent elections there, What do you make
of all the events happening there in the old dominu.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
I think you're right.
Speaker 6 (19:14):
Look, Abigail Spamberger, who you know, obviously is the incoming governor,
was long favorite to win that race. It wasn't on
a surprise she won the race. I think the margin
by which she won it, you know, mid teens. I
think that surprised a lot of people, and significantly better
than Kamala Harris's you know margin back in twenty twenty four.
I think that is always what we're talking about here, right,
(19:35):
We'll get into perhaps some of those other races, but
really what we're talking about is a comparison to that
twenty twenty four baseline, and what we saw was Spamberger
outperforming Kamala Harris by what nine ten points whatever the
exact number, was a significant overperformance So that was part
of it, right, the overperformance there. But then it was
also dragging across as Jay Jones in the in the
(19:58):
Attorney General's race, who was tre in many of the polls.
Then you saw right at the very end him start
to pick up a lead, but a small lead, but
dragging him over the finish line. I often think of waves,
as you know, not that you get the candidate that
you know who was recruited and was well funded and
was widely expected to win winning, But it's those surprises
(20:21):
or those candidates who are seen as weaker candidates being
dragged across the finish line. And the fact was that
ag race wasn't even close to them. What was it
a six point mark? Yeah, round that it wasn't. It
wasn't even close, And that to me is more indicative
than anything else of how strong Democrats were doing in
that in that sting.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
You also saw it.
Speaker 6 (20:40):
Obviously in the delegate races as well down ballot.
Speaker 7 (20:43):
Right.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
Yeah, and you say you've seen in other elections too.
I mean this special election in Tennessee seventh Congressional district.
There the woman who was billed as the AOC of Tennessee.
It's true it was not a margin of error race,
but she ends up losing by what eight and a
half nine points, which is roughly thirteen points if I
Amercare act the ahead of what Kamala Harris did in
that district versus Donald Trump there. And then you look
(21:06):
at New Jersey where you have a pretty clear twenty
twenty one versus twenty twenty five remac the same Republican
gubernatorial candidate who lost by three points in Change four
years ago, and now he's getting blown out by a
similar Spamburger esque double digit margin.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
That was a shoka.
Speaker 3 (21:21):
That was a genuine shakra.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
I mean, Harry, I thought that New Jersey was actually
starting to become, not mean a swing state, but at
least getting more competitive. The Trump Harris margin there was
what five to six points somewhere in that range. It
ends up being a similar margin. Yeah, it's a similar
margin in New Jersey than out like in Arizona, which
is one of the big swing states there. So is
New Jersey just solidly Democrat for now?
Speaker 6 (21:40):
I mean, look, I think there are a few things
to keep in mind, One which is, you know who
was the when was the last time a Republican candidate
won a group of natorial race in New Jersey with
a Republican president. What was it Tom Kane in nineteen
eighty five. The last time it was an open seat
would have been Kane again, but an eighty one under Reagan.
(22:00):
These are both races. While I know you and I
are getting older and older and older, we were not
alive during those races. So that gives you an idea
that it's been a long period of time. So I
think you have to take that into account. You also
have to take into account that Donald Trump is not
a popular guy in New Jersey's at this.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
Point a popular guy nationwide.
Speaker 6 (22:19):
He's more popular than he was in term one at
this point, but overall he's not a popular guy. So look,
and Kamala Howard still won a New Jersey right, She's
still won despite losing nationwide, So she ran seven points
ahead of where she ran nationally.
Speaker 2 (22:33):
I think New.
Speaker 6 (22:34):
Jersey is more swingy than it was maybe a decade ago.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Right.
Speaker 6 (22:39):
Barack Obama still put up the best performance of any
Democrat running for president. I think, I think in terms
of his percentage of the vote, since like LBJ, I think
that's what it was, and that was of course coming
off of hurricane or superstorm standy, But no, I don't
think it's a swing. I think it's becoming more swingy.
But I wouldn't necessarily jug judge whether it's swing. It's
(23:01):
based upon the election in twenty twenty five, given that
Donald Trump was in power, given that Donald Trump was
not popular in New Jersey.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
So I think it's kind of a combination of both.
Speaker 1 (23:14):
I dare say, no, fair enough, and then that makes
lots sen to me. So again, folks, Harry Eton is
the chief data analyst at CNN is New show the
ind and scale available from CNN Full Access.
Speaker 6 (23:24):
Harry, let's do all access, all access. If we're gonna
do the plug, Josh Ammer, we're gonna do it right.
It's CNN All Access. You can get a subscription. You
can find it streaming on CNN dot com. Thank you
so much. It's been a wonderful time. Thank you to
your audience.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Well, the audience appreciates you very much, Harry Eton. They
look forward to checking out the end and scale on
CNN All Access. But I have that correctly this time.
So let's let's zoom out now from these state wide
elections and talk about the broader national trends. I've seen
you do some some of your of your now patented
sendnature graphics on CNN talking about how Donald Trump's second
term popularity is historically low at this point in a
(24:01):
second term. But you also had a recent semm in
where you described Congressional Democrats's popularity as being lower than
the dead Sea, a clip that we actually played on
Thursday show, right here on the Josh Hammer Show. So,
I mean, what is what's happening, Harry? Basically that Americans
hate everyone? I mean, is that essentially what's happening is
that are we yearing up for a midterm fight next
(24:22):
fall and potentially dare I say even twenty twenty eight,
but at least a midterm fight for now that's basically
a battle of who is less unpopular?
Speaker 3 (24:29):
Or is that how you see it?
Speaker 2 (24:30):
Yeah, I think that's fair. I think that's fair.
Speaker 6 (24:32):
And I should note I basically make all my graphics
by by hand. We have, you know, we have a
little bit of a template, but I'm going in there
every night with my producer making those by hand. So
I appreciate the patent and graphic that's actually true. Here's
what I would say yes, to some degree. It's a
battle of you know, who is less well liked. You
(24:52):
look at the generic battle, I think, you know, part
of that segment, the sort of tail end of it,
kind of gets to what I think is most important here,
which is Democrats are ahead on the generic ballot, but
they're head by four. They're head by four that is
significantly less by their lead at this point in either
Donald Trump's first term or George W. Bush's second term
(25:13):
back in two thousand and five, the last two times
we had a Republican presidents heading into a midterm election,
and I think that's notable, right, especially given those special
election results. And I think the question is why, given
where Donald Trump's you know, net approval rating is being underwater,
and I think it can in large part be attributed
(25:33):
to the fact that Democrats themselves are not that well liked.
I think it's also partisanship is even stronger than it's
really ever been, even during Trump's first term.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
I think that's playing role.
Speaker 6 (25:43):
But I do think the fact that Democrats are not
all that popular is definitely hurting them.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
I think the question is the question.
Speaker 6 (25:51):
Is whether or not there's almost a mirage going on
that is when people actually go out and vote, whether
that will show up on election date.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
That didn't show up on election day in Virginia and
New Jersey.
Speaker 6 (26:03):
But I can't dismiss that it won't show up on
election day come twenty twenty six. And that's why, you know,
as I think I said in that segment, you know,
sort of hold the foam for a second, pump the brakes. Yes,
Democrats are favored, but it's not a sealed done deal
at this point.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
And is the is the trumdministration struggling in the approver
rings now because of the economy. I mean, I mean
that is our working thesis on the show. I mean
we think it's the WHLD Jimmy Carvell, it's still the
e commy stupid kind of thing. And there was a
Maris College Paul this week. The show's Americans have a
thirty six percent approval rating of Trump's handley on the coming.
The reason that I pause is because a lot of
the macroeconomic metrics are really not that ban actually, but
(26:41):
it seems to me that that is the lowest hanging
fruit as to what could explain the fact that the administration
still has these these lower approver rings. Is that your
thesis as well?
Speaker 6 (26:50):
I think so, I wouldn't overcomplicate it too much, right,
I wouldn't.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
You know.
Speaker 6 (26:57):
Related to the economy is trade and tariffs, which you
know people are certainly making that connection, and his approval
rating on trade in tarris is very similar to his
ratings on the economy.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
I would go a little bit deeper.
Speaker 6 (27:08):
I'd say, you know, it's the cost of living the
president doesn't, you know, He's said many things about affordability,
but you look at the inflation, you know, approval ratings
for Trump, and they're not good. Now, I will note
that CPI, you know, the Consumer Price Index, you know,
comes out earlier this week, and it shows that inflation
(27:30):
actually had dropped, you know, year over year versus where
we were in September. It is actually dropped from where
we were in January. But the truth is the prices
are so high still compared to where we were four
years ago, four or five years ago, that I think
that there's just this great voter frustration and perception can
(27:51):
often become.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
Reality pretty gosh darn quickly.
Speaker 6 (27:54):
You see that employment rate rising, obviously not a historically
high lightlevels or anything close to that.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
But certainly rising.
Speaker 6 (28:02):
And I think you just put it all together in
kind of a blender and it just becomes this just
this sort of situation where the voter, the American populace,
feels like they can't catch a break. And some of that,
you know, I think can be assigned to Trump insofar
as I said, you know, the trade and the tariffs,
but much of it can't be. And you know, this
is something we called it. My colleague Dave Goldman called it.
(28:26):
I think the wind chill economy, which is it feels
worse than it actually is, right, And I do think
that that is definitely true to some extent. But again,
in politics, perception is reality, and right now the perception
is is that the economy ain't so good. And and
pollie after pol who's more responsible the economy? Joe biden Er,
Donald Trump, while the buck stops with the man in
(28:48):
the office, it's Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
Accordingly, Yeah, right, I mean, whether it's fair or unfair,
and I personally do think it's technically speaking mostly unfair,
made on mostly unfair. But you know, he hasn't present
now for almost to year, and if Americans are not
feeling the success, they're going to blame the guy behind
the resolute desk. I mean, that's kind of just the
way it works. And you know what we've said in
the show over and over again is you know, the
(29:10):
metrics might be what they are, the stock market might
be reaching all time highs now still on like a
weeklier monthly basis, but if the people aren't feeling it,
then you still do have to empathize them and kind
of and kind of emphasize that this whole economic thing
is still a work in progress. So I hope to
see a little more of that move where we've seen
someone that already. To be clear, he did have some
lines to that effect in his nationally televised speech on
(29:32):
Wednesday evening, but perhaps a little more where that came
from would be nice. I want to ask you this, though, Harry,
because we're kind of comparing now the trumpministration their second
term with these middle improved ratings, with the catastrophically and
popular congressional Democrats, getting away from the area of apprower rating,
kind of talking more about the two parties' brands right
now in general, who do you think has the bigger
(29:55):
brand problem at this time in the year. As we
appros twenty twenty six. Do you think it's the trust
there are Republican Party you already think it's the current
iteration of the Democratic Party, which has the biggest, bigger
brand problem with the American people at large.
Speaker 6 (30:07):
Well, I think there are two ways you can kind
of break it down, right, which is within their own party.
The Democratic Party is a mess. There's no clear leader
of that party. There's a reason why you look at
the you know, the presidential polling heading in the twenty
twenty six and while Gavin Newsom has certainly made a
name for himself in twenty twenty five, and you know,
you look at the prediction markets and you can see
he's the favorite now though so well south of fifty percent.
(30:29):
You look at the national polling, he has certainly elevated
his game, but no one really is north of twenty
percent often times. And that means there's not anywhere close
to being a clear front runner. And that makes it
the weakest Democratic Party, at least internally in terms of
leadership since you know, essentially Bill Clinton back in nineteen
(30:50):
hundred and ninety two, you look, you know, we were
mentioning the Democrats sort of approval rating one of the
big reasons why Congress Democrats have a low approviating is
the plurality of their own party disapproved at least in
that Quinnipiac University poll.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
And you see it, you know, sort of over and
over and over and over again.
Speaker 6 (31:09):
You know, I go, for example, to you know, New
York's tenth district if I'm recalling my numbers correctly, and
you know, Dan Goldman, who is a prominent voice on
you know, cable news circuits. You know, what was it,
one of the lead investigators or lawyers during the Trump
one Trump impeachment trial.
Speaker 2 (31:27):
He's in a real fight.
Speaker 6 (31:28):
He's in a real fight against Brad Lander, who you know,
of course, is the outgoing New York City controller who
ran for mayor.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
I dare say Goldman might be an underdog. That doesn't happen.
Speaker 6 (31:40):
That doesn't happen unless there is a clear problem within
within your own party. Okay, So I think that's part
of it. The other part of it is, you know,
look independence in that Quinnipiac University poll, what are we
talking about. We're talking about fifteen percent approval. I think
the net approval rating was something like minus sixty one.
If I'm remembering my segment correct, And there's a reason why,
(32:02):
you know, I think Democrats are seen this weak to
you know, the Republican strength, and there's a reason why.
You look at the polling and yeah, now Democrats seem
to have jumped to a very small marginal lead on
costs of living. But if your lead is like five points,
I think it was four in the average, and Donald
Trump's net approval rating on cost of living is something
(32:24):
like thirty points underwater, and the best you can do
is lead by six. I mean that to me indicate
it's a pretty gosh darm bad brand problem. Now that
might not be enough to hurt Democrats too much to
keep them from getting control of the House in twenty
twenty six, but it could be enough to keep their
gains down to a lower level, and you might expect,
given Trump's approval rating, and more than that, I think
(32:46):
it's going to be very interesting to see how they
address it going into twenty twenty eight. Look, twenty twenty
eight is a long, long long time away. But you
know what, I've found that at my elder age, that
that years tend to go by faster and faster and faster.
Speaker 1 (33:05):
You know, as they say, Harry, especially now our dargest
turn one years old. It's the days that feel like
they go on for a very long time. The days
last forever, but the years just fly by. And that's
very much the sentiment that I feel. I think you
feel that way sometimes as well. So twenty twenty eight
is a very very long ways away. But I can't
(33:25):
help myself. You probably can't help yourself out of there.
I do want to at least touch on a little bit,
so you know. On Thursday night, Erica Kerk Trolie kers
Widow leading off Turning Point USA's Amfest conference, essentially formalizing
that Turning Point USA is going to be galvanizing towards
trying to elect Jdevans in twenty twenty eight. Marco Rubio,
(33:46):
the Secretary of State, similarly saying earlier this past week,
as he has reiterated numerous times that if Jdevance does run,
then he's not going to get involved again. Maybe Marco
has to say that, but he is viewed as as
the likeliest challenger to JD.
Speaker 3 (34:02):
Evans.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
Now, I am not personally anti Jdvans. On the contrary,
I actually is probably one of the earliest opinion columnists
to write a column in early twenty twenty four encouraging
to become the vice presidential nominee. I've known JD personally
for a long time. I am not anti JD. Evans,
but the point that I'd meet on the show is
I'm not buying the inevitability. I'm just not buying it
if you look at it at his own approval ratings,
if you look at the fact that the vice president
(34:24):
is by definition tied and tethered to the President Harry,
it kind of reminds me of Kamala Harris and the
struggles that she had trying to distance herself from the
unpopular parts of the Biden president. She really couldn't do
it right. And if the trudministration continues to be unpopular,
which as a partisan, as a conservative, I hope that
they're not, But if that does continue, it can very
(34:45):
easily see a world in which Jade Vans struggles similarly
to distance himself as Kamala Harris did. So does that
resonate with you? Does that make sense or do you
view JD. Evans as being inevitable at this particular juncture.
Speaker 6 (34:57):
Inevitable is a strong word. Strong word. I think it's interesting.
I think there are almost two things you said there
and one. And the reason I say that is there's
the primary electorate, and then there's the general election electorate.
And at this point and again we'll see where they are.
I have an old friend who will playfully mock me
(35:21):
for saying at this particular time in segments, but that's
what you gotta do.
Speaker 2 (35:25):
You got to do it right.
Speaker 6 (35:27):
At this particular time, Donald Trump is while he may
not be nearly as popular for Republicans as he once was,
at least when it comes to the strongly approved ratings,
his approval rating of Republicans is still what eighty five ninety.
I find it tough to believe that come primary time
twenty twenty eight, that JD. Vans will be hurt, at
(35:50):
least to any great degree for his ties to Trump
among the Republican electorate. Okay, that doesn't mean that in
the general election it won't hurt him. It may hurt
him from getting the ultimate prize that is the presidency, which,
of course, assuming he runs, is what he's after. But
(36:10):
I don't think it will necessarily hurt him in the primary.
And I'll throw a few stats out at you. You know,
right now, you look at the early primary polling and
you see nationally that jd Vance is what about fifty
percent in the average poll, depending on which poll you
look at. There are very very few people going back
(36:33):
since we elected nominees through primaries who are at that level.
I think, really Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, a little bit
later on, George W.
Speaker 2 (36:43):
Bush, a little bit later on Bob Dole ninety six.
Speaker 6 (36:47):
Those were the people who were hitting that mark, and
more than that, had forty plus point leads over the competition,
and they all won their party's nomination. Now, the sample
size here is small, it is small all but it's
large enough to say that JD Vance is a clear,
my mind, heavy favorite. I think right now the prediction
(37:09):
markets have them at a fifty percent chance around there
of being, yeah, being the nominee. I think that's probably low.
I think it's probably close to the seventy five to
eighty at this point. Again, that's not inevitable, it's not inevitable,
but to me, that is, you know, that's a that's
pretty close to a runway runaway train, and more than that,
(37:30):
as you noted in your intro to this part of
our lovely dialogue together and it's been a wonderful time.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
I hope that the listeners and viewers have joined with
us in our love life.
Speaker 3 (37:41):
Sure they have.
Speaker 2 (37:41):
I'm sure they have that.
Speaker 6 (37:45):
To me, this just strikes me as at this point
something that is more likely than not going to happen,
and we'll just have to wait and see. But you
can't beat somebody with nothing. And who is going to
run against him if it's not Rubio, maybe it's your
(38:06):
old friend Ted Cruise. I don't know, but it looks
to me like JD. Vance. There's a reason why he
should be regarded as a heavy favorite.
Speaker 3 (38:16):
Fair enough, no, fair enough.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
You know, I was looking at those same predicted market
polls recently myself. I saw JD around fifty f fifty
five percent, I said in this show, I thought that
was actually anything at this juncture, given the administration's popularity issues,
anything slightly too high. To be honest with you, but
I hear you a lot and clear here line clear, alav.
It just depends on whether or not a Rubio, for instance,
would even throw his hat in the ring in the
first place.
Speaker 2 (38:36):
There.
Speaker 1 (38:36):
So, yeah, there's a lot of factors that are kind
of just outside of of our easily foreseeble future. Real quick, Harry,
before I let you go. And it has been a
lovely conversation. By the way, ill I will emphasize that
I have to turn the tables to talk about Democrats
twenty twenty eight. Is there any particular individual whose name
is currently being floated, whether it's a Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris,
I'm not even sure who else is being mentioned at
(38:56):
this point, honesty, the Alexandroo cosy Ortez, I mean, anyone
else who Joshapiro whose name is being floated that strikes
you as being more formidable on a national level than
the others.
Speaker 2 (39:06):
When we say national level, we talk in primary general election.
Speaker 3 (39:09):
I think in general election.
Speaker 6 (39:11):
I mean, look, Josh Shapiro, in my mind, is the
most formidable in a general election. I think he's well
on his way to easily winning reelection for a second
term in Pennsylvania. He obviously crushed Doug Mastriano back in
twenty twenty two. He was the only Democrat state why
when he was the attorney general who was able to
win reelection back in twenty twenty obviously wide in one
(39:33):
at the top of the ticket, but Shapiro even outran him,
which is very tough to do in a presidential year,
you know, because normally the races are so polarized. So
you know, he's from the ultimate swing state, right, He's
from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I do still believe ideology matters.
There is a bit of a debate within political science
(39:55):
how much it matters. But you know what, I'll take
the point or two each and every day of the
week given out closer elections are so to me, he
strikes me as the most formidable in a general election.
Home state advantage, moderation, good electoral track record. Whether he
can ever get past the primary field, that's that that
to me as a whole whole of the question. Uh.
(40:15):
And we'll just have to wait and see where the
Democratic Party is in two years time.
Speaker 1 (40:21):
Well, it's gonna be a long two years, but very fun.
In two years, I know that I will be paying
very close attention to your own patented, your own hand
creative sounds graphics on CNN over the course of these
next two years. Harry, you are a gentleman and a
quasi skoll or, much as I can clad Joan Scoll,
You're a gentleman in a quasi skoll. You can follow
Harry on x at forecast or enter and make sure
(40:41):
to check out his new show, The endin Scale at
CNN All Access. I got it correctly, see and streaming
at all Access. There you go, okay, well I kind
of sort of got it correctly this time.
Speaker 2 (40:51):
I got there. You're you're You're fine. You're fine, Harry Eton,
You're you can just google it. That's good.
Speaker 1 (40:55):
You can google The endin Scale, Harry, You're you're a
longtime friend, wishing you a oneful end of your Hanakah holiday.
Speaker 3 (41:01):
Stop by against him.
Speaker 2 (41:02):
Sounds good, my friend, A pleasure to be with you.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
And now it's time for our weekend review Hammertime segment.
Tulsi Gabbert the Director of National Intelligence. She's explaining how
intelligence analysts were previously spending fifty percent of the time
furthering DEI initiatives in order to be considered for promotion
within the office of the DNI. You can't make this
stuff up. Go ahead and watch, Tulsa Gabbert.
Speaker 7 (41:23):
I heard from some folks who are careerists in the workforce,
saying that they had to dedicate fifty percent of their day,
fifty percent of their time towards promoting DEI initiatives. We
saw people who embraced it wholeheartedly, to the point where
they're saying, hey, look, you can't have people who happen
to be Caucasian intelligence analysts going and doing work in
(41:48):
places like the continent of Africa because their white privilege
will taint their bias, so they cannot be objective intelligence
and as insanity and how disrespectful to those professional analysts
who've dedicated their life to this craft. In other cases,
(42:10):
we had people reporting examples of intelligence professionals driving in
to work every day, parking their truck in the parking
garage and being reported for extremism because they had don't
tread on me stickers.
Speaker 3 (42:25):
Okay, so told you, Garet.
Speaker 1 (42:26):
They're talking about the explosion of DEI within the bureaucracy
of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. This
is what Donald Trump was broughn to office to do. Okay,
there absolutely has been a war on white men. There's
actually an amazing essay this past week at Compact magazine,
the magazine that was initially founded almost four years ago
by Matthew Schmitz, who was still there and so Mari
(42:47):
who is not there a wonderful essay talking about how
so called DEI is really just anti white, especially anti
white male racism, which, by the way, who could have
told you that, Oh, I don't know who saw that
one coming?
Speaker 3 (42:59):
Oh yeah, this and like a million others.
Speaker 1 (43:01):
So DEI is toxic is the reason that the trudministration
among the reason that the Truminstration came into power in
the first place. There and Tolsy Gabbert is rooting it
out at the office of the d and I by
the way, speaking of rooting out DNI. Another piece that
was published just a week ago or so at the
Spectator of the Bridge publication by doctor J. Bacharia and
(43:22):
Matthew Memerley talking about how they cured DEI at NIH,
at the National Institutes of Health. There were all sorts
of mission creep there, the explosion of DEI really working
its way, argues doctor J. Bacharia, who was a COVID
skeptical doctor out at Stanford prior to the Truminstration, and
now he is back in the second time there as
the head of NIH. Jabachari talking about how DEI had
(43:45):
managed to creep into all aspects of the NIH including
hiring practices, promotion, ten year employee training, performance reviews. There
it's all racist. It's all racist, it's all evil, and
it all has to end. It's really not that complicated,
you know. Frankly, Look, I don't work in the government,
but a lot of this should have been done within
the first week or two, and I think a lot
(44:05):
of actually was within the first week or two, which
is why that you have Tulcy Gabbert J. Bochari who
are now currently taking victory laps and explaining frankly, how
they did it. The problem is that what's done by
executive order can be rescinded by executive worriers. You're going
to need some more binding Office of Legal Counsel opinions
when it comes to DOJ that will bind the constitut
(44:25):
interpretation of one administration from one to the other, and
also more binding US Supreme Court case as well. That, frankly,
is what is what we need. Finally, white men are
currently being urged to file discrimination claims in an anti
dei escalation, so the federal agency known as the EEOC,
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The chair of the EEOC,
Andrew Lucas, said on X earlier this month that the
(44:49):
EEOC is quote committed to identifying, attacking limiting all race
and sex discrimination, including against white male employees and applicants. Frankly,
if you take the definition of racism that it was
universe accepted until the Black Lives Matter George Floyd revolution
five and a half years ago, was by the time
racism meant that you had animus because of someone's race
(45:09):
against someone else. They try then to redefine racism to
include this element of structural hierarchical power, that you can't
be racist unless you're actually part of the oppressor class,
which conveniently allows black racist people who are black but
a race against white people. It allows them come to
get off the hook. And that's kind of the whole
point there. Thankfully, it looks like the Trump era EOC
is trying to restore the actual definition of racist, which
(45:31):
really never should have been done away with in the
first place.
Speaker 3 (45:33):
Good stuff all around.
Speaker 1 (45:34):
When it comes to Jay Bachario, when it comes to
Tulsey Gabern, when it comes to the chair of the
EOC as well, Andrea Lucas.
Speaker 5 (45:45):
The Josh Amber Show is a member of the Trust
Project
Turning Point USA launches their Amfest conference, too much fanfare
(00:04):
and too much controversy out in Phoenix, Arizona. We've got
the details for you, as well as Harry Enton, the
chief data analyst at CNN, who stops by Josh Hammer Show,
making his third appearance on the show. We're going to
go deep on the current polls and all they need
to know to make sense of the twenty twenty six
midterms and beyond. I'm Josh Hammer and this is the
Josh Hammer Show. Turning Point USA, their first conference since
(00:32):
the horrific assassination of their founder, my late friend, Charlie Kirk.
Amfest got underway in Phoenix on Thursday evening, and right
out of the gate there were some headlines. You had
Erica Kirk, the widow of Charlie Kirk, who took something
of a soft dig at Candice Owens, the unhinged conspiracist,
the one time Charlie Kirk friend and ally turned hyper conspiratorial,
(00:57):
narcissist and frankly just a neo Kno disseminator. So Erk
Karr taking a slight dig at canvas Owens where she
mentioned Egypt and Egyptian airlines kind of a light poking
a canvass conspiracy theories about Charlie's assassination.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
But the.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
Real crux of the opening of this conference, and I
think that this is really what folks are going to
remember about this particular conference, maybe above all, is the
back and forth that Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson had
on the opening night of this particular conference, because it
was really no holes bart. There's been a lot of
talk about this so called civil war within Mango then
(01:34):
the American right, and that's not necessarily how I view it.
I view there as being just a generally decent and
sane sign and then there being a side of provocateurs,
provocateurs who are simultaneously trying to make your brain rotten,
who are also trying to rewrite what it means to
be on the right in the first place.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
That's how I view it.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
I prefer not to view it as a quote unquote
civil war, because to grant the premise of a civil
war would seemingly to be to grant that there are
two equivalent forces that are kind of just butting heads monoamano.
But to the extend that you believe that there was
a full fledged Civil War, I think that the opening
nights of anfest really would have dispelled that notion pretty seriously.
(02:15):
So Ben Shapiro, who we talked about a little bit
on Thursday show because of his talk at the Heritage
Foundation also on the topic of Tucker Carlson one day
prior and Wednesday, he was actually the first speaker directly
after Erica Kirk on the opening night of the conference,
and Ben was really not mincing words in this particular speech.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
Go ahead and watch this clib.
Speaker 4 (02:36):
So if Candice Owens decides to spend every day since
the murder of Charlie Kirk casting aspersions at TPUSA and
the people who work here who worked with Charlie every
single day, his best friends, to cast aspersions at Mikey
McCoy and Andrew Colvin and Blake Neff and Tyler Boyer
and yes, at Erica Kirk, and to imply or outright
claim complicity in a cover up over Charlie's murder, spew
(03:00):
absolutely baseless crash implicating everyone from French intelligence to Masad
to members of TPUSA in Charlie's murder or a cover
up in that murder, than we as people with a microphone,
have a moral obligation to call that out by name.
(03:26):
Erica Kirk and TPUSA never never should have put it,
never should have been put in the position to have
to defend themselves against such specious and evil attacks, particularly
in a time of morning. And the people who refuse
to condemn Candace's truly vicious attacks, and some of them
(03:49):
are speaking here, are guilty of cowardice, Yes, cowardice.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
The fact that they have.
Speaker 4 (03:59):
Said nothing, well, Candas has been vomiting all sorts of
hideous and conspiratorial nonsense into the public square for years,
is just as cowardly, all right.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
So a lots of a pat there, obviously, as someone
who has been put personally in the crosshairs of Candis
Oons's unhinged conspiracy theories. Frankly, she was saying that I
had fore knowledge and complicity in Charlie karssassination. She was
targeting me, ludicrously, insanely targeting me before she was targeting
any of the folks that been mentioned there, Andrew Kolovitz,
(04:28):
Blake Knath, Mikey McCoy, the turningpoint USA staffers. So I
was one of the first victims, frankly of Canis Oones's
post charliekirk assassination unhinged conspiracism. By the way, he's talking
there about other folks speaking at this conference and their
failure to call out candiez Oons as being cowed. There,
he's talking about not just Tucker Carlson, but also it
was not lost on her. He's talking there very clearly
(04:50):
also about Megan Kelly, who we talked about earlier on
the show this week and referred to, referred to her
as the dictionary definition, literally the act actual definition of
a coward, because she is the likeliest of this whole
crew of frauds and griffters and Charlton's. She's the likeliest
to actually know the difference between truth and lies, between
(05:12):
right and wrong, between.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
Justice and justice.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
She is the likeliest of this whole wretched Motley crew
to actually know the difference, and yet she still fails
to do so because she is literally scared, As a
source with knowledge told me, she is literally scared of
Tucker Carlson and Candie Owns as followers. So Ben Shapiro
not mincing words when it comes to any of these individuals,
Tucker Carlson, Candis Owens, Megan Kelly and so forth. Now,
(05:36):
I saw a lot of people talk about, oh me,
this was you know, a lot of the usual critics
of Bench Protective or my perspective or Team Sanity. A
lot of the critics of Team Sanity's perspective were really
blowing up Ben Shapiro and saying, oh, we took to
Charlie Kirk stage to launch fire inside the tent. But
the relevant question is this, what is the tent? The
(05:58):
relevant question is what is the conservative tent? What is
being on the rights. I'm all for unity, I am
all for getting along to the extent that we're actually
on the same page. What I've been saying for months
now is that a lot of these folks Tucker Carlson,
Cande owns above all are not on the same page.
(06:21):
As Charlie himself would have put it. They're not on
team Civilization. They are on Team Barbarism. They're on Team Islamism,
on Team Russia, Ron Katar. They're not on team Biblical jail,
Christian Western civilization.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
They're not. They're just not there, not on team America.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
When Tucker Carlson interviews the Chinese Communist Party puppet Jeffrey
Saxon when he gives puff interviews to put in the
president of Iran the Amir of Qatar.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
This is not Western sentiment. It's just not so Tark Carlson.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
Then on Thursday night, after Ben Shapiro speech, a couple
of speakers later gets on stage. Unlike Ben, he clearly
did not really prepare remarks, so he was what incoherent
and rambling. Frankly came across as looking a little drunk
or any grade. I'm not saying that he literally was drunk,
but that was kind of just the impression that I
got of watching him with someone who just didn't really
it was kind of a bit of a deer in
(07:11):
the headlights phenomenon, And he's rambling incoherently, and he's vaguely
trying to take some shots about America first, and by
the way, to stay at the obvious America first, which
is one of these slogans of the Trump movements ought
to be the lowest common denominator possible. I am America first.
I presume you are too. Why because we're Americans. If
(07:31):
you are Americans, you obviously put your country first. The
reason that the slogan, you know, really didn't do it
necessarily a whole lot there, and that MAGA. I think
the MAGA slogan make America go great again. The reason
that that, I think has been more emotionally resonant emploignant
over the past decade or so of Donald Trump's political rise.
The reason that is because America First isn't actually saying
(07:52):
a whole lot again. If we're in America, we're America first. Period.
So Tucker was on this a little bit. I don't
think he was scoring many points there. Things got really
weird towards the end of his speech. So he spent
some time towards the beginning of his speech trying to
fend off allegations that he is anti Semitic, something that
(08:14):
we firmly believe here on the show. I have said repeatedly,
I think Tucker Carlson is actually the most dangerous anti
Semlite in the history of the United States. To his
mildest of mild credit, I guess he at least spouted
the rhetoric of condemning any Semitism as being immoral and
contrary to his own professor religion, Christianity. I don't believe
him for a second. I think he is lying through
his teeth, but he at least felt the need to
(08:36):
say that. But what's interesting. What's interesting is that in
the second half of his speech he started focusing a
little bit on Islam, and he started to call out
Republicans for being his lomophobic. It was really really weird.
Go ahead and watch this what you're watching.
Speaker 5 (08:52):
Now, attacking people on the attacking millions of Americans because
they're Muslims.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
It's disgusting.
Speaker 5 (08:59):
And I'm not a Muslim imer I know there's a
lot of effort to claim I'm a secret gee Hoti.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
I'm not.
Speaker 5 (09:04):
You should not attack people on those grounds. And you're
seeing it from republic What the hell are you doing.
What you're doing is trying to divide the country. And
I've lived through fifty years of this craft, all these
fake race wars that they're always promoting.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
Oh, go hate each.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Other while we loot the treasury.
Speaker 5 (09:21):
That's exactly what's going on. And most people are totally
sick of that.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Okay, So Tum Carlson, who just told the Mirror of
Qatar over in Doha speaking out the Doha Forum, Jungant
who just told him that he's going to buy a
house there tum Carlson, who want to show a few
months ago was downplaying sharia law because he's had that
the skidelines of Abu Dhabi and Riot are so beautiful
a Shria law, How.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
Menacing can it be?
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Now he is getting on his moral preening on his
butt and is accusing Republicans of being Islamophobic, seeing that
they are sowing the seeds of discord.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
Screw you, dude, Screw you.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
The one who's been sowing discord is you, because you
are trying to drive a stake, a little stake through
the very beating heart of the contemporary American right, the
very beating heart of the MAGA movement, which, contrary to
your purpored opinions, you actually hate deep down. You were
trying to drive a stake through the beating heart of
the ecumenical Jewish Christian biblical alliance that birthed Western civilization,
(10:14):
ultimately culminated in the greatest government ever created, the Constitution
of the United States, and this great country today. You
were the divider, not the other way around. The good news,
the good news, as anfest Gut underway, is that Ben's
electric speech had massive applause lines. Tucker the crowd was
very silent there. I think Tucker totally beclowned himself. He
exposed himself as being the lesser participants here in this
(10:38):
particular conversation there, and frankly, if anything, it was a
first round knockout for a Team Civilizational Sanity thanks to
the speech from Ben Shapir. We'll see how this conversation
plays out in subsequent months, but for now things are
looking pretty good, I would say for Team Civilizational Sanity. Well,
what a delight to welcome back to the Josh Ammer Show.
For I believe the third time in the history of
(11:00):
this show, my old friend Harry Enton. Has been amazing
to watch Harry's meteoric rise through the political media ecosystem
in recent years. Harry is the chief data analyst. I
think of him just as the polling guru in general
over at CNN. He's also the host of a new
show you can access at CNN's streaming on cnn dot
Com called The Entin Scale. Harry, you're a mensch, which
(11:24):
is a happy honic. I think you've joined the Josh
Ammer Show.
Speaker 6 (11:26):
Well, you know what the third time is the charm?
I spell Hanukah with a C because you know, I'm
just a strange individual and there's no correct way to
spell it, but happy Hanakh consume my friend.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
You as well.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
I've never heard of the Q spelling, but I saw
it on Google.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
I'm going with it. I'm going with it.
Speaker 6 (11:41):
And it's a nice small amount of font I can
fit it on a screen easily, and plus it just
adds a little bit of spice to my already quite
spicy personality.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
Yes, well, I've known you for a very long time.
In spicy, I think is definitely one of the many
adjitives that comes to mind to describe Harry Enon's personality. So,
for those of you who are listening on radio or
as the audio podcast, you can't quite see, but Harry's
currently talking to us wearing a buffalo bills beaming, And
before we get into our conversation about political data and
analytics and all the things that Harry specialize him, I
(12:11):
think it's worth kind of starting off on a light
or no, because among the things that Harry is, he's
a weather enthusiast. Harry, a lot of folks I know,
used to do his own meteorological modeling. I was actually
an avid reader of his weather emails back in the day.
He's also a hardcore Buffalo Bills fan, So, Harry, you
and I are both big sports fans. Addition to all
this political stuff that we do. How are you feeling
(12:33):
about the Buffalo Bills right now? It looks like they're
probably going to get into the playoffs there not quite
as dominant maybe as some recent years. The Patriots are
doing quite well there. How are you feeling about the
NFL playoffs this year?
Speaker 6 (12:43):
I got to tell you, I think I feel about
it as good as I've ever felt, because, yeah, New
England's a good team. Drake Mey good quarterback. We obviously
beat New England up in New England. Great comeback by
the Bills. But look, Patrick Mahomes out of the playoffs.
We don't know if Lamar Jackson is going to be
in the playoffs. Joe Burrow of the playoffs. We beat
both Burrow and Mahomes this season. We also beat Lamar Jackson.
(13:05):
So it's not necessarily just about how good the team is.
It's also how good the competition is. And at this
point I think this is a more wide open AFC
East than I've ever seen. Josh Allen is as good
as he's ever been. I mean, you put the ball
in his hands, you don't know what's going to happen.
I mean, up in New England we scored five touchdowns
(13:25):
in what five possessions I think in a row. Essentially
it was it was nuts. We are a second half team.
The defense does seem to get takeaways at least in
recent weeks when you need them to.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
And we're a second half team.
Speaker 6 (13:40):
And of course I don't know if you know this,
but you know I run stats for a living. The
second half comes after the first half and tends to
be the end of the game. So I'd much rather
be a good second half team than a first half team.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
Well, no disagreement there.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
And you know one thing that's always struck me as
funny about you, Harry, is you are one of the
most iconic the Yorkers ever mad You have this wonderful
New York accent. You're from Riverdale in the Bronx, if
memory serves there, and you chose to root for Buffalo
not for the Jets of the Giants. Do you have
any other allegiances that are not necessarily loyal to your
hometown or is this really the only one?
Speaker 6 (14:14):
Well, I will note that the Bills, of course, are
the only team that played their games in the state
of New York. If I wanted to root for I
dare say you're going for the Jets or Giants. Of
course I'd be rooting for teams that were not based
in the state of New York. My allegiances and essentially
right at the Hudson river line, right, So if you
are if you're west of the Hudson, you're in Jersey,
then I'm sorry I can't partake in that.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
I guess.
Speaker 6 (14:37):
The only other thing I'll note, which perhaps is a
little bit more surprising, would be that I hate the
New York Yankees. I call them the Yank Gays, despite
being from the Bronx. But you know what, I'd rather
root for the government in an income tax suit over
the New York Yankees. I wish them nothing but fourteen
inning games played in rain.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
I don't even know how to respond to that one, but
fair enough, I do respect it.
Speaker 3 (15:01):
Certainly.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
You're an old school baseball fan, an old school sports
fan general.
Speaker 6 (15:04):
There.
Speaker 1 (15:04):
I know you have all these fond records that you've
kept from the old New York Giants. Will he may
is the Old Brooklyn Dodgers and.
Speaker 6 (15:10):
Oh, very good, very good. My father was a huge
New York Giant fan. He would literally go into his car.
He would go into his car on random Saturdays, pop
in a cassette tape of Game three of the nineteen
fifty one playoff Giants versus Dodgers, listen to the entire game,
and you can come back smiling like nobody's business. So yes,
I would say old school in that way.
Speaker 3 (15:30):
You know we're gonna move on to zefter this.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
But I will say, Harry that my freshman yre, I
think it was in college to the class called History
of Baseball, and I wrote my final paper for this
class the Golden ERAa, the Golden erascuse me of New
York City baseball from the late nineteen forties to late
fifties before the Giants and Dodgers uproots go to California.
There I forgot the exactitisset there. I think the three
(15:52):
teams New York won like aid of the ten World
Series and decades span nine to ten. It was a
shockingly high number. Of course, the Yankees You're hated Yankees
were the more dominant of the of the three teams
there but an event you and I couldn't nerd out
about this stuff pretty much all day.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Launch Wait, was the series? The forty eight? Was the
series they didn't win?
Speaker 6 (16:09):
That was the Cleveland Indians over the Boston Braves, and
I think five games. I think Feller lost one of
the games or did not get the win in that game,
and he didn't get a winning a World Series game,
and they Cleveland fans were always upset about. That's still
the last World Series Cleveland has ever won.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
That's right, No, that's absolutely right, the Cleveland cavol years,
of course, ending the city's sports draut with Lebron James
past decade where the baseball drought still stands. Okay, you
know you and I could nerd about this stuff all
day long.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
Go on.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
I'm not sure necessarily what the audience wants to hear
all day. So, Harry, your your actual job and my
actual job are two varying shades of analyzing politics. I
come in more from a commentary angle. You come in
more from a raw data analytics angle. And I've known
you for a long time. I know you to be
one of the most most honest, straight shooters. I don't
think you particularly care I necessary about taking commentary your
(17:02):
opinions or policy or whatever. You're a numbers guy. You
are a true rough arms guy. That is why I
appreciate you. I think that's why a lot of people
in this space have noticed you and have kind of
glommed onto your rising star.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
So let's start talking some numbers.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
So the real kind of thing that I let me
to reach out to you and bring you on the show, Harry,
was the off off your elections now a month and
a half ago, where we have Zora Mamdani breaking the
fifty percent barrier in New York City. He is now
the mayor elect there in the Big Apple in your hometown.
We have the Virginia elections and the New Jersey elections,
among some other elections as well. There's been a couple
(17:36):
of elections since then, by the way, there was a Tennis,
Tennessee seventh Congressional District and a couple of other elections
that come to mind as well. The broader theme of
this is that there seemed to be not necessarily five
alarm fire warning signs, but maybe four alarm fire. I mean,
there's there are some pretty serious warning signs. I think
(17:57):
at this point for Republicans for the Trump at this
point in the term before I kind of dive in
a little deeper. Is that kind of the more broad trend?
Is that how you see it as well?
Speaker 6 (18:07):
I think yeah, I think when voters have been voting
during Trump's second term, Democrats have been doing well, and
I think they've been doing very well. So I think
I agree with your overall analysis there. Maybe you can
join me in the numerical space.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
Well see, I mean, I don't know, it's something to
kind of keep on the on the back burner. I
guesslet's kind of just go a little little deeper then.
I mean in Virginia, which comes to mind there maybe Virginia,
what was it was they stay where you have Glenn Younkin,
who is now phasing out of the gooonatorial mansion. They
have this utterly stupid law, in my humble opinion, where
the governor is term limited to one term. I don't
get it. I think it makes no sense. But that's
(18:40):
not here North. The ever present purpose is there. So
Democrats are coming in in a sweeping victory there in
the old dominion. Also, even in the attorney general race,
there's a race a lot of people kind of are
paying very close attention to because of the the the
somewhat infamous test messages of j Jones, the now attorney
general elect. He ends up defeating Jason Yare. I think
a wider margin that many of us thought Virginia was
(19:03):
the swingiest states to vote on a state wide level
of the more recent elections there, What do you make
of all the events happening there in the old dominu.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
I think you're right.
Speaker 6 (19:14):
Look, Abigail Spamberger, who you know, obviously is the incoming governor,
was long favorite to win that race. It wasn't on
a surprise she won the race. I think the margin
by which she won it, you know, mid teens. I
think that surprised a lot of people, and significantly better
than Kamala Harris's you know margin back in twenty twenty four.
I think that is always what we're talking about here, right,
(19:35):
We'll get into perhaps some of those other races, but
really what we're talking about is a comparison to that
twenty twenty four baseline, and what we saw was Spamberger
outperforming Kamala Harris by what nine ten points whatever the
exact number, was a significant overperformance So that was part
of it, right, the overperformance there. But then it was
also dragging across as Jay Jones in the in the
(19:58):
Attorney General's race, who was tre in many of the polls.
Then you saw right at the very end him start
to pick up a lead, but a small lead, but
dragging him over the finish line. I often think of waves,
as you know, not that you get the candidate that
you know who was recruited and was well funded and
was widely expected to win winning, But it's those surprises
(20:21):
or those candidates who are seen as weaker candidates being
dragged across the finish line. And the fact was that
ag race wasn't even close to them. What was it
a six point mark? Yeah, round that it wasn't. It
wasn't even close, And that to me is more indicative
than anything else of how strong Democrats were doing in
that in that sting.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
You also saw it.
Speaker 6 (20:40):
Obviously in the delegate races as well down ballot.
Speaker 7 (20:43):
Right.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
Yeah, and you say you've seen in other elections too.
I mean this special election in Tennessee seventh Congressional district.
There the woman who was billed as the AOC of Tennessee.
It's true it was not a margin of error race,
but she ends up losing by what eight and a
half nine points, which is roughly thirteen points if I
Amercare act the ahead of what Kamala Harris did in
that district versus Donald Trump there. And then you look
(21:06):
at New Jersey where you have a pretty clear twenty
twenty one versus twenty twenty five remac the same Republican
gubernatorial candidate who lost by three points in Change four
years ago, and now he's getting blown out by a
similar Spamburger esque double digit margin.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
That was a shoka.
Speaker 3 (21:21):
That was a genuine shakra.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
I mean, Harry, I thought that New Jersey was actually
starting to become, not mean a swing state, but at
least getting more competitive. The Trump Harris margin there was
what five to six points somewhere in that range. It
ends up being a similar margin. Yeah, it's a similar
margin in New Jersey than out like in Arizona, which
is one of the big swing states there. So is
New Jersey just solidly Democrat for now?
Speaker 6 (21:40):
I mean, look, I think there are a few things
to keep in mind, One which is, you know who
was the when was the last time a Republican candidate
won a group of natorial race in New Jersey with
a Republican president. What was it Tom Kane in nineteen
eighty five. The last time it was an open seat
would have been Kane again, but an eighty one under Reagan.
(22:00):
These are both races. While I know you and I
are getting older and older and older, we were not
alive during those races. So that gives you an idea
that it's been a long period of time. So I
think you have to take that into account. You also
have to take into account that Donald Trump is not
a popular guy in New Jersey's at this.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
Point a popular guy nationwide.
Speaker 6 (22:19):
He's more popular than he was in term one at
this point, but overall he's not a popular guy. So look,
and Kamala Howard still won a New Jersey right, She's
still won despite losing nationwide, So she ran seven points
ahead of where she ran nationally.
Speaker 2 (22:33):
I think New.
Speaker 6 (22:34):
Jersey is more swingy than it was maybe a decade ago.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Right.
Speaker 6 (22:39):
Barack Obama still put up the best performance of any
Democrat running for president. I think, I think in terms
of his percentage of the vote, since like LBJ, I think
that's what it was, and that was of course coming
off of hurricane or superstorm standy, But no, I don't
think it's a swing. I think it's becoming more swingy.
But I wouldn't necessarily jug judge whether it's swing. It's
(23:01):
based upon the election in twenty twenty five, given that
Donald Trump was in power, given that Donald Trump was
not popular in New Jersey.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
So I think it's kind of a combination of both.
Speaker 1 (23:14):
I dare say, no, fair enough, and then that makes
lots sen to me. So again, folks, Harry Eton is
the chief data analyst at CNN is New show the
ind and scale available from CNN Full Access.
Speaker 6 (23:24):
Harry, let's do all access, all access. If we're gonna
do the plug, Josh Ammer, we're gonna do it right.
It's CNN All Access. You can get a subscription. You
can find it streaming on CNN dot com. Thank you
so much. It's been a wonderful time. Thank you to
your audience.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Well, the audience appreciates you very much, Harry Eton. They
look forward to checking out the end and scale on
CNN All Access. But I have that correctly this time.
So let's let's zoom out now from these state wide
elections and talk about the broader national trends. I've seen
you do some some of your of your now patented
sendnature graphics on CNN talking about how Donald Trump's second
term popularity is historically low at this point in a
(24:01):
second term. But you also had a recent semm in
where you described Congressional Democrats's popularity as being lower than
the dead Sea, a clip that we actually played on
Thursday show, right here on the Josh Hammer Show. So,
I mean, what is what's happening, Harry? Basically that Americans
hate everyone? I mean, is that essentially what's happening is
that are we yearing up for a midterm fight next
(24:22):
fall and potentially dare I say even twenty twenty eight,
but at least a midterm fight for now that's basically
a battle of who is less unpopular?
Speaker 3 (24:29):
Or is that how you see it?
Speaker 2 (24:30):
Yeah, I think that's fair. I think that's fair.
Speaker 6 (24:32):
And I should note I basically make all my graphics
by by hand. We have, you know, we have a
little bit of a template, but I'm going in there
every night with my producer making those by hand. So
I appreciate the patent and graphic that's actually true. Here's
what I would say yes, to some degree. It's a
battle of you know, who is less well liked. You
(24:52):
look at the generic battle, I think, you know, part
of that segment, the sort of tail end of it,
kind of gets to what I think is most important here,
which is Democrats are ahead on the generic ballot, but
they're head by four. They're head by four that is
significantly less by their lead at this point in either
Donald Trump's first term or George W. Bush's second term
(25:13):
back in two thousand and five, the last two times
we had a Republican presidents heading into a midterm election,
and I think that's notable, right, especially given those special
election results. And I think the question is why, given
where Donald Trump's you know, net approval rating is being underwater,
and I think it can in large part be attributed
(25:33):
to the fact that Democrats themselves are not that well liked.
I think it's also partisanship is even stronger than it's
really ever been, even during Trump's first term.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
I think that's playing role.
Speaker 6 (25:43):
But I do think the fact that Democrats are not
all that popular is definitely hurting them.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
I think the question is the question.
Speaker 6 (25:51):
Is whether or not there's almost a mirage going on
that is when people actually go out and vote, whether
that will show up on election date.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
That didn't show up on election day in Virginia and
New Jersey.
Speaker 6 (26:03):
But I can't dismiss that it won't show up on
election day come twenty twenty six. And that's why, you know,
as I think I said in that segment, you know,
sort of hold the foam for a second, pump the brakes. Yes,
Democrats are favored, but it's not a sealed done deal
at this point.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
And is the is the trumdministration struggling in the approver
rings now because of the economy. I mean, I mean
that is our working thesis on the show. I mean
we think it's the WHLD Jimmy Carvell, it's still the
e commy stupid kind of thing. And there was a
Maris College Paul this week. The show's Americans have a
thirty six percent approval rating of Trump's handley on the coming.
The reason that I pause is because a lot of
the macroeconomic metrics are really not that ban actually, but
(26:41):
it seems to me that that is the lowest hanging
fruit as to what could explain the fact that the administration
still has these these lower approver rings. Is that your
thesis as well?
Speaker 6 (26:50):
I think so, I wouldn't overcomplicate it too much, right,
I wouldn't.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
You know.
Speaker 6 (26:57):
Related to the economy is trade and tariffs, which you
know people are certainly making that connection, and his approval
rating on trade in tarris is very similar to his
ratings on the economy.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
I would go a little bit deeper.
Speaker 6 (27:08):
I'd say, you know, it's the cost of living the
president doesn't, you know, He's said many things about affordability,
but you look at the inflation, you know, approval ratings
for Trump, and they're not good. Now, I will note
that CPI, you know, the Consumer Price Index, you know,
comes out earlier this week, and it shows that inflation
(27:30):
actually had dropped, you know, year over year versus where
we were in September. It is actually dropped from where
we were in January. But the truth is the prices
are so high still compared to where we were four
years ago, four or five years ago, that I think
that there's just this great voter frustration and perception can
(27:51):
often become.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
Reality pretty gosh darn quickly.
Speaker 6 (27:54):
You see that employment rate rising, obviously not a historically
high lightlevels or anything close to that.
Speaker 2 (28:01):
But certainly rising.
Speaker 6 (28:02):
And I think you just put it all together in
kind of a blender and it just becomes this just
this sort of situation where the voter, the American populace,
feels like they can't catch a break. And some of that,
you know, I think can be assigned to Trump insofar
as I said, you know, the trade and the tariffs,
but much of it can't be. And you know, this
is something we called it. My colleague Dave Goldman called it.
(28:26):
I think the wind chill economy, which is it feels
worse than it actually is, right, And I do think
that that is definitely true to some extent. But again,
in politics, perception is reality, and right now the perception
is is that the economy ain't so good. And and
pollie after pol who's more responsible the economy? Joe biden Er,
Donald Trump, while the buck stops with the man in
(28:48):
the office, it's Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
Accordingly, Yeah, right, I mean, whether it's fair or unfair,
and I personally do think it's technically speaking mostly unfair,
made on mostly unfair. But you know, he hasn't present
now for almost to year, and if Americans are not
feeling the success, they're going to blame the guy behind
the resolute desk. I mean, that's kind of just the
way it works. And you know what we've said in
the show over and over again is you know, the
(29:10):
metrics might be what they are, the stock market might
be reaching all time highs now still on like a
weeklier monthly basis, but if the people aren't feeling it,
then you still do have to empathize them and kind
of and kind of emphasize that this whole economic thing
is still a work in progress. So I hope to
see a little more of that move where we've seen
someone that already. To be clear, he did have some
lines to that effect in his nationally televised speech on
(29:32):
Wednesday evening, but perhaps a little more where that came
from would be nice. I want to ask you this, though, Harry,
because we're kind of comparing now the trumpministration their second
term with these middle improved ratings, with the catastrophically and
popular congressional Democrats, getting away from the area of apprower rating,
kind of talking more about the two parties' brands right
now in general, who do you think has the bigger
(29:55):
brand problem at this time in the year. As we
appros twenty twenty six. Do you think it's the trust
there are Republican Party you already think it's the current
iteration of the Democratic Party, which has the biggest, bigger
brand problem with the American people at large.
Speaker 6 (30:07):
Well, I think there are two ways you can kind
of break it down, right, which is within their own party.
The Democratic Party is a mess. There's no clear leader
of that party. There's a reason why you look at
the you know, the presidential polling heading in the twenty
twenty six and while Gavin Newsom has certainly made a
name for himself in twenty twenty five, and you know,
you look at the prediction markets and you can see
he's the favorite now though so well south of fifty percent.
(30:29):
You look at the national polling, he has certainly elevated
his game, but no one really is north of twenty
percent often times. And that means there's not anywhere close
to being a clear front runner. And that makes it
the weakest Democratic Party, at least internally in terms of
leadership since you know, essentially Bill Clinton back in nineteen
(30:50):
hundred and ninety two, you look, you know, we were
mentioning the Democrats sort of approval rating one of the
big reasons why Congress Democrats have a low approviating is
the plurality of their own party disapproved at least in
that Quinnipiac University poll.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
And you see it, you know, sort of over and
over and over and over again.
Speaker 6 (31:09):
You know, I go, for example, to you know, New
York's tenth district if I'm recalling my numbers correctly, and
you know, Dan Goldman, who is a prominent voice on
you know, cable news circuits. You know, what was it,
one of the lead investigators or lawyers during the Trump
one Trump impeachment trial.
Speaker 2 (31:27):
He's in a real fight.
Speaker 6 (31:28):
He's in a real fight against Brad Lander, who you know,
of course, is the outgoing New York City controller who
ran for mayor.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
I dare say Goldman might be an underdog. That doesn't happen.
Speaker 6 (31:40):
That doesn't happen unless there is a clear problem within
within your own party. Okay, So I think that's part
of it. The other part of it is, you know,
look independence in that Quinnipiac University poll, what are we
talking about. We're talking about fifteen percent approval. I think
the net approval rating was something like minus sixty one.
If I'm remembering my segment correct, And there's a reason why,
(32:02):
you know, I think Democrats are seen this weak to
you know, the Republican strength, and there's a reason why.
You look at the polling and yeah, now Democrats seem
to have jumped to a very small marginal lead on
costs of living. But if your lead is like five points,
I think it was four in the average, and Donald
Trump's net approval rating on cost of living is something
(32:24):
like thirty points underwater, and the best you can do
is lead by six. I mean that to me indicate
it's a pretty gosh darm bad brand problem. Now that
might not be enough to hurt Democrats too much to
keep them from getting control of the House in twenty
twenty six, but it could be enough to keep their
gains down to a lower level, and you might expect,
given Trump's approval rating, and more than that, I think
(32:46):
it's going to be very interesting to see how they
address it going into twenty twenty eight. Look, twenty twenty
eight is a long, long long time away. But you
know what, I've found that at my elder age, that
that years tend to go by faster and faster and faster.
Speaker 1 (33:05):
You know, as they say, Harry, especially now our dargest
turn one years old. It's the days that feel like
they go on for a very long time. The days
last forever, but the years just fly by. And that's
very much the sentiment that I feel. I think you
feel that way sometimes as well. So twenty twenty eight
is a very very long ways away. But I can't
(33:25):
help myself. You probably can't help yourself out of there.
I do want to at least touch on a little bit,
so you know. On Thursday night, Erica Kerk Trolie kers
Widow leading off Turning Point USA's Amfest conference, essentially formalizing
that Turning Point USA is going to be galvanizing towards
trying to elect Jdevans in twenty twenty eight. Marco Rubio,
(33:46):
the Secretary of State, similarly saying earlier this past week,
as he has reiterated numerous times that if Jdevance does run,
then he's not going to get involved again. Maybe Marco
has to say that, but he is viewed as as
the likeliest challenger to JD.
Speaker 3 (34:02):
Evans.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
Now, I am not personally anti Jdvans. On the contrary,
I actually is probably one of the earliest opinion columnists
to write a column in early twenty twenty four encouraging
to become the vice presidential nominee. I've known JD personally
for a long time. I am not anti JD. Evans,
but the point that I'd meet on the show is
I'm not buying the inevitability. I'm just not buying it
if you look at it at his own approval ratings,
if you look at the fact that the vice president
(34:24):
is by definition tied and tethered to the President Harry,
it kind of reminds me of Kamala Harris and the
struggles that she had trying to distance herself from the
unpopular parts of the Biden president. She really couldn't do
it right. And if the trudministration continues to be unpopular,
which as a partisan, as a conservative, I hope that
they're not, But if that does continue, it can very
(34:45):
easily see a world in which Jade Vans struggles similarly
to distance himself as Kamala Harris did. So does that
resonate with you? Does that make sense or do you
view JD. Evans as being inevitable at this particular juncture.
Speaker 6 (34:57):
Inevitable is a strong word. Strong word. I think it's interesting.
I think there are almost two things you said there
and one. And the reason I say that is there's
the primary electorate, and then there's the general election electorate.
And at this point and again we'll see where they are.
I have an old friend who will playfully mock me
(35:21):
for saying at this particular time in segments, but that's
what you gotta do.
Speaker 2 (35:25):
You got to do it right.
Speaker 6 (35:27):
At this particular time, Donald Trump is while he may
not be nearly as popular for Republicans as he once was,
at least when it comes to the strongly approved ratings,
his approval rating of Republicans is still what eighty five ninety.
I find it tough to believe that come primary time
twenty twenty eight, that JD. Vans will be hurt, at
(35:50):
least to any great degree for his ties to Trump
among the Republican electorate. Okay, that doesn't mean that in
the general election it won't hurt him. It may hurt
him from getting the ultimate prize that is the presidency, which,
of course, assuming he runs, is what he's after. But
(36:10):
I don't think it will necessarily hurt him in the primary.
And I'll throw a few stats out at you. You know,
right now, you look at the early primary polling and
you see nationally that jd Vance is what about fifty
percent in the average poll, depending on which poll you
look at. There are very very few people going back
(36:33):
since we elected nominees through primaries who are at that level.
I think, really Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, a little bit
later on, George W.
Speaker 2 (36:43):
Bush, a little bit later on Bob Dole ninety six.
Speaker 6 (36:47):
Those were the people who were hitting that mark, and
more than that, had forty plus point leads over the competition,
and they all won their party's nomination. Now, the sample
size here is small, it is small all but it's
large enough to say that JD Vance is a clear,
my mind, heavy favorite. I think right now the prediction
(37:09):
markets have them at a fifty percent chance around there
of being, yeah, being the nominee. I think that's probably low.
I think it's probably close to the seventy five to
eighty at this point. Again, that's not inevitable, it's not inevitable,
but to me, that is, you know, that's a that's
pretty close to a runway runaway train, and more than that,
(37:30):
as you noted in your intro to this part of
our lovely dialogue together and it's been a wonderful time.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
I hope that the listeners and viewers have joined with
us in our love life.
Speaker 3 (37:41):
Sure they have.
Speaker 2 (37:41):
I'm sure they have that.
Speaker 6 (37:45):
To me, this just strikes me as at this point
something that is more likely than not going to happen,
and we'll just have to wait and see. But you
can't beat somebody with nothing. And who is going to
run against him if it's not Rubio, maybe it's your
(38:06):
old friend Ted Cruise. I don't know, but it looks
to me like JD. Vance. There's a reason why he
should be regarded as a heavy favorite.
Speaker 3 (38:16):
Fair enough, no, fair enough.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
You know, I was looking at those same predicted market
polls recently myself. I saw JD around fifty f fifty
five percent, I said in this show, I thought that
was actually anything at this juncture, given the administration's popularity issues,
anything slightly too high. To be honest with you, but
I hear you a lot and clear here line clear, alav.
It just depends on whether or not a Rubio, for instance,
would even throw his hat in the ring in the
first place.
Speaker 2 (38:36):
There.
Speaker 1 (38:36):
So, yeah, there's a lot of factors that are kind
of just outside of of our easily foreseeble future. Real quick, Harry,
before I let you go. And it has been a
lovely conversation. By the way, ill I will emphasize that
I have to turn the tables to talk about Democrats
twenty twenty eight. Is there any particular individual whose name
is currently being floated, whether it's a Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris,
I'm not even sure who else is being mentioned at
(38:56):
this point, honesty, the Alexandroo cosy Ortez, I mean, anyone
else who Joshapiro whose name is being floated that strikes
you as being more formidable on a national level than
the others.
Speaker 2 (39:06):
When we say national level, we talk in primary general election.
Speaker 3 (39:09):
I think in general election.
Speaker 6 (39:11):
I mean, look, Josh Shapiro, in my mind, is the
most formidable in a general election. I think he's well
on his way to easily winning reelection for a second
term in Pennsylvania. He obviously crushed Doug Mastriano back in
twenty twenty two. He was the only Democrat state why
when he was the attorney general who was able to
win reelection back in twenty twenty obviously wide in one
(39:33):
at the top of the ticket, but Shapiro even outran him,
which is very tough to do in a presidential year,
you know, because normally the races are so polarized. So
you know, he's from the ultimate swing state, right, He's
from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I do still believe ideology matters.
There is a bit of a debate within political science
(39:55):
how much it matters. But you know what, I'll take
the point or two each and every day of the
week given out closer elections are so to me, he
strikes me as the most formidable in a general election.
Home state advantage, moderation, good electoral track record. Whether he
can ever get past the primary field, that's that that
to me as a whole whole of the question. Uh.
(40:15):
And we'll just have to wait and see where the
Democratic Party is in two years time.
Speaker 1 (40:21):
Well, it's gonna be a long two years, but very fun.
In two years, I know that I will be paying
very close attention to your own patented, your own hand
creative sounds graphics on CNN over the course of these
next two years. Harry, you are a gentleman and a
quasi skoll or, much as I can clad Joan Scoll,
You're a gentleman in a quasi skoll. You can follow
Harry on x at forecast or enter and make sure
(40:41):
to check out his new show, The endin Scale at
CNN All Access. I got it correctly, see and streaming
at all Access. There you go, okay, well I kind
of sort of got it correctly this time.
Speaker 2 (40:51):
I got there. You're you're You're fine. You're fine, Harry Eton,
You're you can just google it. That's good.
Speaker 1 (40:55):
You can google The endin Scale, Harry, You're you're a
longtime friend, wishing you a oneful end of your Hanakah holiday.
Speaker 3 (41:01):
Stop by against him.
Speaker 2 (41:02):
Sounds good, my friend, A pleasure to be with you.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
And now it's time for our weekend review Hammertime segment.
Tulsi Gabbert the Director of National Intelligence. She's explaining how
intelligence analysts were previously spending fifty percent of the time
furthering DEI initiatives in order to be considered for promotion
within the office of the DNI. You can't make this
stuff up. Go ahead and watch, Tulsa Gabbert.
Speaker 7 (41:23):
I heard from some folks who are careerists in the workforce,
saying that they had to dedicate fifty percent of their day,
fifty percent of their time towards promoting DEI initiatives. We
saw people who embraced it wholeheartedly, to the point where
they're saying, hey, look, you can't have people who happen
to be Caucasian intelligence analysts going and doing work in
(41:48):
places like the continent of Africa because their white privilege
will taint their bias, so they cannot be objective intelligence
and as insanity and how disrespectful to those professional analysts
who've dedicated their life to this craft. In other cases,
(42:10):
we had people reporting examples of intelligence professionals driving in
to work every day, parking their truck in the parking
garage and being reported for extremism because they had don't
tread on me stickers.
Speaker 3 (42:25):
Okay, so told you, Garet.
Speaker 1 (42:26):
They're talking about the explosion of DEI within the bureaucracy
of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. This
is what Donald Trump was broughn to office to do. Okay,
there absolutely has been a war on white men. There's
actually an amazing essay this past week at Compact magazine,
the magazine that was initially founded almost four years ago
by Matthew Schmitz, who was still there and so Mari
(42:47):
who is not there a wonderful essay talking about how
so called DEI is really just anti white, especially anti
white male racism, which, by the way, who could have
told you that, Oh, I don't know who saw that
one coming?
Speaker 3 (42:59):
Oh yeah, this and like a million others.
Speaker 1 (43:01):
So DEI is toxic is the reason that the trudministration
among the reason that the Truminstration came into power in
the first place. There and Tolsy Gabbert is rooting it
out at the office of the d and I by
the way, speaking of rooting out DNI. Another piece that
was published just a week ago or so at the
Spectator of the Bridge publication by doctor J. Bacharia and
(43:22):
Matthew Memerley talking about how they cured DEI at NIH,
at the National Institutes of Health. There were all sorts
of mission creep there, the explosion of DEI really working
its way, argues doctor J. Bacharia, who was a COVID
skeptical doctor out at Stanford prior to the Truminstration, and
now he is back in the second time there as
the head of NIH. Jabachari talking about how DEI had
(43:45):
managed to creep into all aspects of the NIH including
hiring practices, promotion, ten year employee training, performance reviews. There
it's all racist. It's all racist, it's all evil, and
it all has to end. It's really not that complicated,
you know. Frankly, Look, I don't work in the government,
but a lot of this should have been done within
the first week or two, and I think a lot
(44:05):
of actually was within the first week or two, which
is why that you have Tulcy Gabbert J. Bochari who
are now currently taking victory laps and explaining frankly, how
they did it. The problem is that what's done by
executive order can be rescinded by executive worriers. You're going
to need some more binding Office of Legal Counsel opinions
when it comes to DOJ that will bind the constitut
(44:25):
interpretation of one administration from one to the other, and
also more binding US Supreme Court case as well. That, frankly,
is what is what we need. Finally, white men are
currently being urged to file discrimination claims in an anti
dei escalation, so the federal agency known as the EEOC,
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The chair of the EEOC,
Andrew Lucas, said on X earlier this month that the
(44:49):
EEOC is quote committed to identifying, attacking limiting all race
and sex discrimination, including against white male employees and applicants. Frankly,
if you take the definition of racism that it was
universe accepted until the Black Lives Matter George Floyd revolution
five and a half years ago, was by the time
racism meant that you had animus because of someone's race
(45:09):
against someone else. They try then to redefine racism to
include this element of structural hierarchical power, that you can't
be racist unless you're actually part of the oppressor class,
which conveniently allows black racist people who are black but
a race against white people. It allows them come to
get off the hook. And that's kind of the whole
point there. Thankfully, it looks like the Trump era EOC
is trying to restore the actual definition of racist, which
(45:31):
really never should have been done away with in the
first place.
Speaker 3 (45:33):
Good stuff all around.
Speaker 1 (45:34):
When it comes to Jay Bachario, when it comes to
Tulsey Gabern, when it comes to the chair of the
EOC as well, Andrea Lucas.
Speaker 5 (45:45):
The Josh Amber Show is a member of the Trust
Project
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 Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.