October 2, 2024 • 35 mins
As expected, J.D. Vance shined in the Vice Presidential debate format against Tim Walz. And as expected, liberal pundits were losing their minds in the post-debate analysis.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Dan Caplis, and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Kaplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download, and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
How great was that? I mean it was.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
It was even better than I thought it would be.
Ran We've been talking about how Vance was going to
win and all that good stuff. But the way he won,
I think is more than the cherry on top. I
think it's it's going to combine with everything else, including
some things swirling around the debate, to make this debate
really matter, really matter long term.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Now, Hey, you know.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
My belief, my belief is that barring something mega, and
there may well be something mega.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
I mean, we know.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Israel at this point is probably in that stretch run
of regime change in Iran, whatever form that takes. But
that this election is locked. You know, the cake is baked,
I believe. And then yeah, that assumes that Trump, you know,
finish as strong as he has in sixteen and twenty.
But I think Americans are are done with it at
(01:08):
this point. I think they figured it out. I think
last night was kind of the you know, official kind
of bow on top for the most part, and again,
barring something seismic, I think it's locked in.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
But what a great way to end it.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
And by it I mean kind of this more formal
political season, right, because there's nothing at this point, nothing
out there major that one would expect to be able
to stop Harris's fall. And it's not like she's falling
off a cliff, right, But you don't have to fall
off a cliff to lose this election. The sugar high ended,
then she started to drop, and just nothing else left.
(01:44):
And last night, I think any honest observer would have
to agree, was a very good night for Team Trump.
But if you disagree, hey, we will send the limo.
We will make you the first caller, treat you with
tremendous respect, as we always do those who disagree with
those who agree. But I also want to talk about
not just the who won and who lost, but the why.
(02:07):
And I want to talk about what I view as
the multiplier, say that the way the advance one I
think multiplies the benefit of this, and want to talk
about why I think this has a bigger impact than
even expected. Let me start with that, as we go
to the sound and what I love to do. You
probably know this if you've been kind enough to listen
to the show over the years. What I love to
(02:28):
do after these debates is I love to play the
sound of the opponent. Love to play the sound of
the left and their media outlets and their reaction to it,
because to me, I had no interest last night after
that debate ended in turning on Fox Right.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
I wanted to hear CNN. I wanted to hear that piece.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
I want to hear them all just kind of wallowing
their misery because they have really got to be freaked.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
So we'll start with that.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
But then before the end of this first segment, I
want to give you my take on what I think
the most powerful currents are going to be coming out
of last night's debate. Now, if you watched it, I
mean you already know what the key highs were in
all of them. We'll play some of that sound just
for fun. But I'm a big believer. I'm a big
believer in this from just life. I'm a big believer
in this from forty years of trying cases in court,
(03:24):
big believer in this from watching politics, that it can
be fun but it's too easy to get sucked into
the micro stuff, and it's so important to back off
and to just look at the major currents, look at
the big impact, big picture dynamics, and because those almost
always control the outcome. And I think there's some big
(03:47):
picture stuff from last night that isn't being talked about
that I think is going to make the benefit of
this debate, you know, at least doubler triple what it
otherwise would be. But anyway, let's have some fun first
with the folks on the left. And then I get
to some text I was getting last night just on
my phone from friends of mine on the left. How
(04:09):
about this one? And I asked people if I could
use these anonymously, and they said I could use them anonymously.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
So I can't even hint at who these.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
People are or what they do, but they are solidly
on the left, very good humans, but solidly on the left.
Your guy did great tonight and the moderators were the
worst of all time. That's fair, right, And again the left,
they just don't get this because they look down on
the American people. They if you're not an elite, the
(04:37):
left looks down on you. And the media left really
looks down on you, which is ironic because so many
of them are paper tigers, so many of.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Them are living a lie.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
You take them locally and nationally, and there're some noble exceptions,
but you take these these media lefties who primp and
preen and pretend to be so powerful and influential, they'll
never get in the arena. They will ever get into
a debate themselves. They would fall apart. They probably need diapers.
You know, they'll take it, they'll snark and they'll take
(05:07):
their shots. But yeah, so what the left doesn't get
is is the American people across party lines. I'm not
talking about the extremists on the left, but the American
people have a strong sense of fairness. And in both,
you know, the Trump debate on ABC and the Vance
debate last.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Night, everybody could see it was rigged. It was rigged.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
It was one against three and both of those debates.
And we can debate whether last night was even worse
than ABC, but obviously Advance was able to handle it
very well and take it to his advantage. But well, yeah,
we'll get into some of that moderator stuff. But here
is Abby Philip on CNN not at all pleased at
the end of this debate.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
I think we shouldn't lose track. I think, even in
the civility of the fact that JD. Vance came to
this debate to land a bunch of punches, and he did.
He landed a lot of punches in between all the
niceties and all of that. And the thing that really
stood out to me was that Tim Walls did not
seem prepared for it. He didn't respond to a lot
(06:11):
of the criticisms and attacks that Vance put on the table.
He allowed some clear falsehoods to just go completely unanswered.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
He allowed JD.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
Vance essentially to dodge on a whole host of issues
on climate change, on the issue of his flip flopping
on Donald Trump. He allowed Vance initially to claim that Trump.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
Salvaged the Affordable Care Act.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
It took him several sentences to get to the part
of his answer Walt's answer where he actually responded to that.
I mean, I think there was a clear lack of
preparation and execution here. I think he did.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Now Danna Bash is going to come back and see
the opposite. He was over prepared.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
But before we get to that, that's the way CNN
started their post came okay, so you know how the
real world works. That the largest audience would have been
in the beginning of that debate, and the largest audience
for the postgame and the most impact are the first
comments in the post game.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
So that is the message that.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
CNN wanted to send, which was that Walls lost. And
why do you think they wanted to send that message?
Now Bash comes back and I think makes a good
point that the Walls's failure, if it had anything to
do with preparation, would have been over preparation. I think
his failure had to do with something else.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
I think actually it's the opposite. I think he had
too much preparation.
Speaker 4 (07:30):
Maybe he had so many lines.
Speaker 5 (07:32):
That he was clearly trying to say that he didn't
listen and said when Jadie Vance said one of the many,
many things he really hit Kamala Harris on, not Tim Wallas,
but Kamala Harris, he didn't respond because he clearly had
things in his mind. I think the lack of interviews
that he has done with national media with local media,
(07:54):
it showed.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
He needed more dual.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
Yeah, let me disagree with that last point for this reason.
The reason he hasn't been doing the interviews is he
doesn't have the ability to do them well. And so
the cabal that runs the Harris campaign that had are installed,
if they went out there and put him out in
a bunch of interviews, they've done the calculation.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
It's going to hurt them. Because here's the point.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
And I'm really glad Trump is on this point now,
and I hope he uses the right words for it.
But the point is, for this kind of job, whether
you're talking about president or vice president, we as a nation,
across party lines, we need somebody with superior mental capacity.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
We really do need that.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
Now, if your principles and morals aren't right, then that
superior mental capacity is probably either wasted or leads to
bad things. But we need somebody with superior mental capacity.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
And clearly it Waltz doesn't have that, and JD does.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
No matter what you think of JD's politics, and obviously
I'm going to vote for him, he has superior mental capacity.
And I know Donald Trump props a lot of strong
feelings because of some personality stuff, but clearly you look
at his life, the success in his first term getting
himself elected on the verge of a second term. Trump
has superior mental capacity. I don't think anybody can obviously
(09:19):
and honestly say that Harris or Walls have superior mental capacity.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
And there are very grave doubts about whether they have
the type of mental capability it would take to do
the job.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
So that's why Walls wasn't out there doing more interviews,
and that's why he failed the way that he failed
last night.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
He doesn't mean he's a dumb guy.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
It just means he doesn't have that superior mental capacity
to excel in that kind of job.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
A fib to five for zero five eight two five
five the numbers. So that was fun. How about this
one from Kristin Welker?
Speaker 6 (09:55):
And so I was getting texts from Democrats panicked quite frankly,
who were saying, Wow, he's really moderating himself on.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
A lot of these issues.
Speaker 6 (10:02):
He's the most likable he has ever been.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Yeah, and their panic goes beyond Trump winning, right, just
a little over a month from now. Hard to believe
we're saying that, all right, and I know we have
to hit this break, but their panic goes far beyond
that because what they're seeing in jd Vance is a
young brilliant, attractive, put the emphasis on young, next generation
(10:25):
of MAGA president eight five five for zero five A
two five to five the number.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Hey, when we come back, I'll talk about.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
Those big currents that I think were at work last
night that so favored Trump and really haven't been discussed
yet here on The Dankpla Show.
Speaker 7 (10:40):
And now back to the Dan Kaplass Show podcast.
Speaker 8 (10:44):
John King at the beginning, the two issues driving the
campaign right now are Harris has a big depicit out
of the economy, Harris has a big depicit of immigration.
And Republicans were happy tonight and Democrats a little bit
nervous that on those two issues.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
Vance carried it well and I think it was more
than that, But those two matter.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
And I loved Ryan's music, not just because I love
that song, but also it was one of the big
dynamics last night, one of these big currents, and that
is you go beyond the Q and the A and
the this and the that.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
But JD.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
Vance is so much younger than anybody in the race,
and I think there's this big craving in America right
now for really young leadership. Now, Kamala Harris is younger
than Donald Trump, but she's not young. I think there's
craving for the next kind of Kennedy esque generation of
young leadership.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
And jd.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
Vance showed last night that he has these special abilities.
Now I understand there are still plenty of people don't
like him, don't like his politics, they buy into the
lies about him whatever.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
And he hasn't been perfect, none of us have.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
But he showed last night he's brilliant and he handled
himself on that stage. And here's where here's where the
rigged debate really helped him, because he was able to
handle it so well. He ended up gaining even more
respect and esteem, even grudgingly from people who don't like
his politics. And we're hoping he'd go out there with
this fly open and just flop down on the floor.
(12:11):
So so there is this hunger for that kind of leadership.
Is that going to be the controlling dynamic in the race? No,
because he's not the nominee, But it is a plus.
And I think in the big dynamic, big current category
it's even more of a plus because and this is
never pulled upon, and I understand why, but there have
got to be a lot of people out there who
(12:33):
are thinking that Okay, I'm going to vote for President Trump.
President Trump wins, or I'm thinking of voting for Trump.
Trump wins. But you clearly at this point have all
these evil forces aligned to try to harm him. So
you know you have a lot of voters thinking, well, shoot,
what happens if you know these evil people are able
(12:54):
to hurt President Trump? Well, now I think there's going
to be and obviously we hope and we pray that
now happens, right, But I think there are going to
be more people thinking, Okay, if something horrific like that happened,
you know jd Vance would be able to handle the job.
This is another big current from last night. Honestly, Ryan,
(13:14):
as I go to the phone lines in the text,
I don't think there was one person in America who
went home last night, including Tim Walls, and said, boy,
I'd really love to see Tim Walls as president. Not
one anywhere. I think there were a lot of people
who went home saying I'd like to see J. D
Vance's president, right, I mean, really, who would have gone
(13:37):
to bed last night? Pillow Tuck said, man, I'd really
like to see love to see timp on Tim as president,
or I'd love to see governor. Really, who would say that,
but vance you could get excited about that. Let's go
to Brian and Arvada. You're on the Dan Kaplis Show.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Welcome Brian.
Speaker 4 (13:56):
Hey, I thought Waltz actually exceeded my expectations.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
What do you expect?
Speaker 9 (14:03):
Well, I didn't expect anything. I mean, this is the
guy that run around, flow in his arms around. You know,
he let minneapples burned for a few days, he put
camp ons and boys' restrooms. But he actually sounded a
little bit more reasonable than you know, all his policies before.
So I've given maybe a two out of a ten.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Oh that's generous.
Speaker 4 (14:26):
Yeah, I think that hold. I think I'm hoping that
what it did is we got a lot of these
women or in Cherry Hills, you know, they're in nice,
safe communities. They're completely disconnected from reality. I'm hoping that
(14:48):
he was able to pick up a couple of those,
you know, the people that they'd just get to live
in their little secure area, don't care about what's happening
or are not, and why would they?
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Hey, Brian, let me ask you, and just a kind
of background question, have you ever met a suburban woman.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
Yeah, okay, Yeah, I.
Speaker 9 (15:10):
Have a litery that's a suburban woman.
Speaker 4 (15:12):
I argue with all the time. She got the vaccine.
Speaker 9 (15:14):
We're so arguing about.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Okay now, but I'm glad she's still alive. So tell me, though,
And that's not an endorsement of the vaccine. I wish
I'd never gotten mine. So, but but tell me this,
is that really your stereotype of suburban women, because if
it is, your your analysis model is fundamentally flawed.
Speaker 4 (15:33):
No, it's not, Dan, because I met a lot of them.
They're they're they're living in a pony world where usually
the husband makes a lot of money. Their biggest problem is, hey,
I got to make my hair appointment. They're totally separated.
These are the people that would go see Michelle or something.
Speaker 6 (15:49):
You know.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Okay, and I know you're probably alluding to my wife, But.
Speaker 9 (15:53):
But tell me I'm not in general.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
Okay, and that's.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Fine, But with the point being, have you actually met
one of them and drawn your conclusions from that?
Speaker 4 (16:06):
Yeah, my sister was friends in the same way.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Brian, Thanks the call, Thank you, Brian.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
Okay, because all I can tell you and I do
know a little something about suburban women I'm married to one,
and and you know I met a lot of them,
and that stereotype does not fit at all at all.
Speaker 10 (16:29):
Dan, was there any communication between you and Amy about JD.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
Vanceas my Last.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
Night we sat down together, she made this great spaghetti pie.
Have you ever had spaghetti pie? Now I'm sounding like
I'm sounding like Vance and Walls. Last night you asked
me a question. You know, I grew up in a
log cabin. But anyway, so she makes this great spaghetti pie.
We sit at the bar counter to watch it on
the bar TV. And how long do you think we
(16:58):
lasted there together?
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Six minutes?
Speaker 1 (17:02):
It's about right, all right, It's about right, Okay, Yeah,
because I just couldn't help myself. It was my fault,
one hundred percent of my fault. I could not help
myself with the Walls comments. And you know, they just
wouldn't stop. Even when I tried to stop him so
my wife would stay, they wouldn't stop. But that's how
(17:23):
deeply I feel about this guy. He's such a fraud,
he's such a liar. He is so completely unprepared and
incapable of being president. And I just I'm so thankful
she picked him because I was sitting there last night
thinking I even said this to Amy, which she agreed with.
Can you imagine if she had picked Josh Shapiro and
(17:44):
that was Josh Shapiro up there last night. Now, jd
Vance would have won because jd Vance is that good,
but Josh Shapiro is really good. Horrible idea. It would
be a terrible president because of ideology. But like Vance,
Shapiro is a super smart guy who has the skill
set to be president. The Democrats have a lot of
really smart people at the top who have the skill
(18:05):
set to be president. They just have horrible ideology that
would ruin the country. Walls is not one of those
people who has that skill set. He's like three or
four tiers down. So you can see why she lasted
about six minutes. Won we come back so much fun.
Sound of the left freaking out after the Vance win.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
You're on the Dan Kaplas Show.
Speaker 7 (18:27):
You're listening to the Dan Kapliss Show podcast.
Speaker 11 (18:30):
I think the Walls did team unsteady and frankly, what
I saw in Walls is somebody who has not faced
questions on a national stage since he became the Democratic knowledge.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
He was simply out of practice.
Speaker 11 (18:44):
I mean, I don't know why they've done it, but
they've no out of depth.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Out of depth doesn't have the ability.
Speaker 11 (18:50):
Helped him out of the limelight.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
They've kept him away from reporters. They haven't had him
do it for a good reason.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
Don't you think if letting him talk would help them win?
Talk all day and night.
Speaker 11 (19:01):
He interviews, and he was clearly unsteady through much of
that debate. And in contrast, JD. Vance was very smooth.
He took the arguments not to Walls, he was very
respectful of Walls, took it to Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
Yeah, big picture, strong currents, strong currents. The American people
know this, and this is where the left misses it
because there's such elitists. They think that anybody who doesn't
have huge money or isn't in the media elite or
this elite or that that elite is stupid. And they
got it backwards. So many of the people who are
in the elite are stupid or at least lack common
(19:37):
sense or experience or mentally or emotionally. I meant to
say stupid, but there are so many people who don't
have much money, who don't have fancy jobs, whatever, who
are frigging brilliant. But the left doesn't get that. Here's
the point. The point is who do Americans go to,
whether people make good money, no money, bad money, Who
(20:00):
do you go to when you're sick or when your
kid sick, or who do you go to when the
pipes are bursting or whatever? You try to find the
smartest person you can. Americans value intelligence. They value intelligence,
and that's why I think it's become a big sleeper
(20:21):
issue in this campaign. Jade Vance is obviously highly intelligent,
highly articulate, highly organized, and I think everybody honest watching
last night would say, you know what, if he ended
up as a president, he could handle it and he'd
look the part, and our enemies would have to take
him seriously. Who could say that about Tim Wats Which
(20:42):
brings me back to another kind of big current point,
and that is when you go back to that June
twenty seventh debate. Obviously, you know we'd been talking about
it for many, many moons before, but Biden should have
been taken out with the twenty fifth Amendment long before
that debate. But the point being, it wasn't just his
(21:02):
inability to answer questions that night, etc.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
That sunk Biden.
Speaker 4 (21:06):
It was what.
Speaker 2 (21:08):
It was, the facial expressions. It was those images that.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
People saw that night as they watched, but then saw
day after day on social or in mainstream news or whatever.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
It was those facial expressions.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
And last night, I mean, Waltz had a lot of
those same facial expressions. I'd submit even worse. And I'm
not trying to be playground, pejorative anything like that. I'm
just trying to be honest and real about what effects
and should affect American voters. Nobody wants a president who
who has the kind of facial expressions in public on
(21:43):
a big stage that that just scream confusion and dullness
and weakness and weirdness. And you had so many of
those from Walls, and Vance was the polar opposite. And
I think that's a big fact. It's a big factor
on multiple levels. First, we're all wired, right, I think
(22:03):
God created all of us, you know, with this instinct
to protect our loved ones, our family, our community in
US and people, et cetera. We're all wired for self protection.
And we live in a very dangerous world now. And
people on levels, even subliminal levels, they want a strong
leader who looks the part. It doesn't mean they have
to be white or black, or handsome or ugly, but
(22:24):
they just look the part. And Walts was the opposite
of that, just like those Biden images.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
You know, the look on his face.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
That's not what Americans want and a leader now, Trump
good strong look during his debate. Vance was perfect. Kamala
Harris had a good look in her debate. It's part
of what helped create this perception that she won. I
think I've been proven right long term that in the
ways that mattered, she lost. But she looked good and
she didn't have any of those weird faces or anything else.
(22:58):
She looked good. Trump looked good, and Vance look good.
But Biden and Walls those faces, everything else. It's not
superficial at all. This is where people's survival and self
protection instinct kick in.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
Just weird. Kevin in Boulder, you're on the dan Kaplash'll welcome.
Speaker 1 (23:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 12 (23:19):
I caught it on the radio, But I didn't care
much for the debate. If I was a Democrat voter,
I don't think Vance would have said much to make
me change my vote. If I was answering those questions,
I would have attacked with almost every answer, the specifics,
the specific details of the evil and the commonest factors
(23:43):
of the Democrat Party and what they're doing, what they've
been doing, and what they wanted to do.
Speaker 4 (23:48):
He didn't do that hardly at all.
Speaker 12 (23:49):
And I would have attacked, attacked, so that the Democrat
voters along with Republicans would know or at least hear
the truth about what's really going on. And he didn't
do much to change that.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
In my opinion, Kevin, this is such an important call
because you're bringing up a counter approach to this that
a lot of smart people could argue in favor of.
And obviously Jade Vance and his team and the Trump
team thought long and hard about this and chose to
take the approach they did last night. And whether you
(24:25):
agree with it or not, it was obviously very carefully
calculated to give Trump the best chance to win. And
so why do you think they chose rightly or wrongly?
And I think they chose correctly, But why do you
think they chose to take that approach rather than you know, okay,
gloves are off. From the minute that bell rings, I'm
going right for the throat.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
I'm not going to stop pummeling for two hours.
Speaker 12 (24:50):
Okay, Well, when I say that, I don't mean there
should be any yelling or screaming, no, anything like that.
But Trump, to me, a Trump seems very naive when
he got into office. He should have got rid of
all those people in the deep state that are still
there working for Obama. And he attacked better in my
(25:12):
opinion when I heard parts of his speeches and debates.
But to me, the debate last night sounded by the radio,
sounded like two old gentlemen sitting on the porch in
their rocking chairs, and.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
It was.
Speaker 4 (25:31):
Just too low key.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
It was interesting they didn't go after this.
Speaker 12 (25:34):
They should have gone for the throat, not in a mean,
nasty way.
Speaker 4 (25:38):
Sure, so people know what's really the truth is.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
You know, I got it, And.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
That's very intelligent argument you're making. I think the reason
they chose to go the other way, and I'm really
glad that they did, is, as you know, politics is
a game of addition, and I think what they concluded
was that their best chance to reach the people who
they don't already have was to take that kind of tone.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
Because, as you know, JD.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
Vance's approval numbers have been bizarrely low, and his disapproval
numbers have been oddly high. So I think from an
electoral math standpoint, they went in saying, you know what, what,
we just have to approve improve his likability, and.
Speaker 12 (26:23):
They made the right choice. Yeah, I'm not saying they didn't.
I'm saying I wouldn't do it that way. I don't think. Yeah,
but I'm not running for president.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
So no, Well, really smart call, really smart call Kevin. Hey,
very much appreciate that, Thank you, And that leads us
into another part of the conversation. I can't wait to
get your take on, which is all right, Hey, you know,
if you do know me, thank you for listening to
the show. Right to life, protection of innocent human life
in all of its forms, at all of its stages,
(26:52):
is the foundational issue for me. And because guess what
if they kill you before you're born, the other stuff
doesn't matter that much, right, So foundational issue for me.
And obviously last night JD. Vance took a much softer
approach to that than Republicans normally take. When we come back,
I'm going to play some sound from somebody who wants
(27:13):
Trump to win. Very prominent guy wants Trump to win,
but was very upset with that lighter touch on the
life issue last night. And then I want to get
your take on that. Do you think that was a
smart or a dumb move by JD and the Trump campaign?
I have strong feelings out of myself. Eight f five
for zero five eight two to five five will continue
a plenty of sound of the left losing their minds,
(27:35):
which I think is the very best proof that the
Trump campaign made the right decision in the type of
tone they wanted to strike last night, and we'll replay
that instant class There were so many instant classics. I
don't know whether it was Walls and he's friends with
school shooters, or whether it was a brilliant job Vance
did of fact checking the so called fact checkers.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Who were wrong and cheated. They broke the rules that
they had agreed to.
Speaker 7 (28:01):
You're on the Dan Caplis Show, and now back to
the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
There was so many nice to be on that day
station night.
Speaker 6 (28:11):
I am just kind of like, well, if you agree
so much with JD. Vance, why should they vote for you.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
I fully believe that Governor.
Speaker 6 (28:18):
Watson out there tonight and did what was practicing debate
prep did what the strategy was that that the team
put together.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
That was not the governor walls.
Speaker 6 (28:26):
That we that I had seen out on the campaign traip.
That's not the governor walls that I had seen during
the beepstakes, right, that was not the JD Vance that
I know to be true. I mean, goodness. Jd Vance
was on that stage. He was sorry about Emma Thurman.
He was he was sorry about a boy, He was
sorry about.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
A lot of stuff.
Speaker 6 (28:41):
We get things wrong, but do you give it the policy?
And then I just you know, that's not the Margaret
and nor that I know Margaret, don't do that on
Sunday morning?
Speaker 1 (28:50):
What more did you want from her? Pull a gun,
shoot fans? I mean, what more did she want from
the moderators? They were so corrupt And I don't use
that word lightly. The ABC moderator we're corrupt. I'm not
talking about you could go legally prosecute them. I'm talking
about something even more important when it comes to journalism.
You think about that sacred trust. Okay, I mean this
democracy and the founders envisioned this when they formed the country.
Speaker 2 (29:13):
We have to have an informed electric. People have to
know the truth.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
So you know, people can make an informed decision on
how to vote, and however they interpret those facts fine.
But when you have people who come into journalism and
they're operating at a high level and they're in a
position to moderate a presidential debate or VP that may
decide the outcome of the race, and they decide to
go in and throw their whole bodies on the scale,
(29:36):
and they decide to go in and cheat, They decide
to go in and to try to defeat one of
the two candidates. That's corruption. That is journalistic corruption. And
that's what we saw last night. The good news is
it backfired on them when they did it to Trump,
and it backfired on them last night because the American
people are fair people and they saw what was happening.
(29:57):
And in Vance's case, it allowed to get n A
plus instead of an A because he did so great
in the face of three on one A five five
five A two five five the number. I'll get to
the phone shortly, but I really want to get some
of these text in. Let's see Dan, don't be so
picky walsay and he's friends with school shooters. He meant
(30:18):
to say victims of school shooters and everybody knows that,
et cetera. Listen, of course, people know he didn't mean
to say he's actually friends with school shooters.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
But let me put a little last trick on that.
I assume he misspoke.
Speaker 1 (30:30):
But Ryan, have you seen today has his camp stated
that he misspoke.
Speaker 10 (30:36):
I was trying to figure that out earlier myself, Dan
even listening to it in context, it didn't make sense
unless he meant he's friends of victims of school shooters.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
But right, I can't really make heads or tails of it.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
Yeah, and I assume he misspoke. I assume every American
assumes he misspoke. I'm just wondering, though this did his
camp cannot that he missed. I'll have Kelly looking at
this because again, and I am not suggesting or assuming
that he's friends with school shooters, but you look at
all the bizarrely weird things.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
He has done.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
I'm just looking to see if his camp confirmed he misspoke.
But assuming as I do, that he misspoke, the point
is still the same. You know, this isn't like a
middle school debating society. You know, this is the leader
of the free world, the person a heartbeat away from
the leader of the free world. And mental capacity matters,
(31:29):
and the smartest person in the world can misspeak, right.
It happens to all of us. It can happen to anybody.
But the point is he said it. He had no
awareness that he said it. He didn't remember later that
he said it. He didn't try to combay, you know,
And it tied together with other things. It tied together
with me to me rather with a pattern. That just
(31:52):
showed that he doesn't have that very high end mental
capacity that we want in our leaders.
Speaker 4 (31:58):
Now.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
Even if he did, I wouldn't want him because he
doesn't have the right morals, He doesn't have the right principles,
he doesn't have the right ideology. But I think there
are an awful lot of Americans who who they want
that mental horsepower. And I think they're not seeing it
in walls. They're not seeing it in Kamala Harris eight
five was there? Five eight two five five. Let's bounce
over to Denver. Talk to Robert.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
You're on the Dan caplish. I don't know what Robert
shove on. How you doing, my friend?
Speaker 13 (32:24):
Good?
Speaker 2 (32:25):
You live in the dream?
Speaker 4 (32:28):
Oh?
Speaker 13 (32:28):
Yes, I think it's want to bring your attention. An
article entitled yes late term abortions and realpen every day.
It's on the hill and it's try a year ago.
Oh yeah, and it says it says that there's over
ten thousand abortions every year. Late term abortions, you bet
(32:49):
dozens of.
Speaker 4 (32:50):
Them every day.
Speaker 13 (32:51):
And you know, then see Davis the moderator at the
Trump she lied, she lied, And when Trump brought up
Governor Norten a Virginia and the left office in twenty two,
she said that.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
May I jump in on this for a second, Robert,
you're one hundred percent right about that. And those stats
are absolutely verified. There aren't thousands a day, but there's
about ten thousand a year. And the Democrats, like Walls
last night, they lie and they deny it's true because
what they know is that if people knew the truth,
they wouldn't vote for the Democrats because the Democrats would
(33:38):
look like monsters, because it is monstrous to do that
ten thousand times a year. Now, when I say, Lindsay
Davis lied, that's obviously my opinion, but it was a
clever lie in this sense. The issue that was being
discussed obviously pertained the late term abortion, and what she
threw in as a so called fact check. At the
end is that it's not legal any we're in America
(34:01):
to kill the child after the child's born. Now, even that,
I would argue is false, but certainly the starting point
is what Democrats always try to deny. Starting point is yes,
Democrats want it, Democrats fight for it, Democrats get it,
Democrats put it in law, including Colorado's law, which they're
(34:21):
now trying to put savagely in the constitution. That yeah,
they can kill they can kill that child. Mother's dilated,
she's about to deliver, they can kill that child. Then
that that is what the law says in eight states
in America right now, including Colorado. And so now you
get to the next part, which is, okay, where is
(34:42):
it legal to kill the child after the child's born. Well,
the way I look at it is these states that
have laws that allow the doctor and the mother to
just leave the child who's been born alive after a
failed abortion, just leave the child without any aid, flopping
on the table to die. That's the same as killing
(35:02):
that child. What's the difference A five five for zero five?
A two five five the number when we come back
more sound of lefty heads exploding over Vance's big win.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
You're on the Dan Kapler Show.
This is Dan Caplis, and welcome to today's online podcast
edition of The Dan Kaplis Show. Please be sure to
give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
and to subscribe, download, and listen to the show every
single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
How great was that? I mean it was.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
It was even better than I thought it would be.
Ran We've been talking about how Vance was going to
win and all that good stuff. But the way he won,
I think is more than the cherry on top. I
think it's it's going to combine with everything else, including
some things swirling around the debate, to make this debate
really matter, really matter long term.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Now, Hey, you know.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
My belief, my belief is that barring something mega, and
there may well be something mega.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
I mean, we know.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Israel at this point is probably in that stretch run
of regime change in Iran, whatever form that takes. But
that this election is locked. You know, the cake is baked,
I believe. And then yeah, that assumes that Trump, you know,
finish as strong as he has in sixteen and twenty.
But I think Americans are are done with it at
(01:08):
this point. I think they figured it out. I think
last night was kind of the you know, official kind
of bow on top for the most part, and again,
barring something seismic, I think it's locked in.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
But what a great way to end it.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
And by it I mean kind of this more formal
political season, right, because there's nothing at this point, nothing
out there major that one would expect to be able
to stop Harris's fall. And it's not like she's falling
off a cliff, right, But you don't have to fall
off a cliff to lose this election. The sugar high ended,
then she started to drop, and just nothing else left.
(01:44):
And last night, I think any honest observer would have
to agree, was a very good night for Team Trump.
But if you disagree, hey, we will send the limo.
We will make you the first caller, treat you with
tremendous respect, as we always do those who disagree with
those who agree. But I also want to talk about
not just the who won and who lost, but the why.
(02:07):
And I want to talk about what I view as
the multiplier, say that the way the advance one I
think multiplies the benefit of this, and want to talk
about why I think this has a bigger impact than
even expected. Let me start with that, as we go
to the sound and what I love to do. You
probably know this if you've been kind enough to listen
to the show over the years. What I love to
(02:28):
do after these debates is I love to play the
sound of the opponent. Love to play the sound of
the left and their media outlets and their reaction to it,
because to me, I had no interest last night after
that debate ended in turning on Fox Right.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
I wanted to hear CNN. I wanted to hear that piece.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
I want to hear them all just kind of wallowing
their misery because they have really got to be freaked.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
So we'll start with that.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
But then before the end of this first segment, I
want to give you my take on what I think
the most powerful currents are going to be coming out
of last night's debate. Now, if you watched it, I
mean you already know what the key highs were in
all of them. We'll play some of that sound just
for fun. But I'm a big believer. I'm a big
believer in this from just life. I'm a big believer
in this from forty years of trying cases in court,
(03:24):
big believer in this from watching politics, that it can
be fun but it's too easy to get sucked into
the micro stuff, and it's so important to back off
and to just look at the major currents, look at
the big impact, big picture dynamics, and because those almost
always control the outcome. And I think there's some big
(03:47):
picture stuff from last night that isn't being talked about
that I think is going to make the benefit of
this debate, you know, at least doubler triple what it
otherwise would be. But anyway, let's have some fun first
with the folks on the left. And then I get
to some text I was getting last night just on
my phone from friends of mine on the left. How
(04:09):
about this one? And I asked people if I could
use these anonymously, and they said I could use them anonymously.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
So I can't even hint at who these.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
People are or what they do, but they are solidly
on the left, very good humans, but solidly on the left.
Your guy did great tonight and the moderators were the
worst of all time. That's fair, right, And again the left,
they just don't get this because they look down on
the American people. They if you're not an elite, the
(04:37):
left looks down on you. And the media left really
looks down on you, which is ironic because so many
of them are paper tigers, so many of.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Them are living a lie.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
You take them locally and nationally, and there're some noble exceptions,
but you take these these media lefties who primp and
preen and pretend to be so powerful and influential, they'll
never get in the arena. They will ever get into
a debate themselves. They would fall apart. They probably need diapers.
You know, they'll take it, they'll snark and they'll take
(05:07):
their shots. But yeah, so what the left doesn't get
is is the American people across party lines. I'm not
talking about the extremists on the left, but the American
people have a strong sense of fairness. And in both,
you know, the Trump debate on ABC and the Vance
debate last.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Night, everybody could see it was rigged. It was rigged.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
It was one against three and both of those debates.
And we can debate whether last night was even worse
than ABC, but obviously Advance was able to handle it
very well and take it to his advantage. But well, yeah,
we'll get into some of that moderator stuff. But here
is Abby Philip on CNN not at all pleased at
the end of this debate.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
I think we shouldn't lose track. I think, even in
the civility of the fact that JD. Vance came to
this debate to land a bunch of punches, and he did.
He landed a lot of punches in between all the
niceties and all of that. And the thing that really
stood out to me was that Tim Walls did not
seem prepared for it. He didn't respond to a lot
(06:11):
of the criticisms and attacks that Vance put on the table.
He allowed some clear falsehoods to just go completely unanswered.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
He allowed JD.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
Vance essentially to dodge on a whole host of issues
on climate change, on the issue of his flip flopping
on Donald Trump. He allowed Vance initially to claim that Trump.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
Salvaged the Affordable Care Act.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
It took him several sentences to get to the part
of his answer Walt's answer where he actually responded to that.
I mean, I think there was a clear lack of
preparation and execution here. I think he did.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Now Danna Bash is going to come back and see
the opposite. He was over prepared.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
But before we get to that, that's the way CNN
started their post came okay, so you know how the
real world works. That the largest audience would have been
in the beginning of that debate, and the largest audience
for the postgame and the most impact are the first
comments in the post game.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
So that is the message that.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
CNN wanted to send, which was that Walls lost. And
why do you think they wanted to send that message?
Now Bash comes back and I think makes a good
point that the Walls's failure, if it had anything to
do with preparation, would have been over preparation. I think
his failure had to do with something else.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
I think actually it's the opposite. I think he had
too much preparation.
Speaker 4 (07:30):
Maybe he had so many lines.
Speaker 5 (07:32):
That he was clearly trying to say that he didn't
listen and said when Jadie Vance said one of the many,
many things he really hit Kamala Harris on, not Tim Wallas,
but Kamala Harris, he didn't respond because he clearly had
things in his mind. I think the lack of interviews
that he has done with national media with local media,
(07:54):
it showed.
Speaker 2 (07:54):
He needed more dual.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
Yeah, let me disagree with that last point for this reason.
The reason he hasn't been doing the interviews is he
doesn't have the ability to do them well. And so
the cabal that runs the Harris campaign that had are installed,
if they went out there and put him out in
a bunch of interviews, they've done the calculation.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
It's going to hurt them. Because here's the point.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
And I'm really glad Trump is on this point now,
and I hope he uses the right words for it.
But the point is, for this kind of job, whether
you're talking about president or vice president, we as a nation,
across party lines, we need somebody with superior mental capacity.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
We really do need that.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
Now, if your principles and morals aren't right, then that
superior mental capacity is probably either wasted or leads to
bad things. But we need somebody with superior mental capacity.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
And clearly it Waltz doesn't have that, and JD does.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
No matter what you think of JD's politics, and obviously
I'm going to vote for him, he has superior mental capacity.
And I know Donald Trump props a lot of strong
feelings because of some personality stuff, but clearly you look
at his life, the success in his first term getting
himself elected on the verge of a second term. Trump
has superior mental capacity. I don't think anybody can obviously
(09:19):
and honestly say that Harris or Walls have superior mental capacity.
Speaker 2 (09:25):
And there are very grave doubts about whether they have
the type of mental capability it would take to do
the job.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
So that's why Walls wasn't out there doing more interviews,
and that's why he failed the way that he failed
last night.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
He doesn't mean he's a dumb guy.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
It just means he doesn't have that superior mental capacity
to excel in that kind of job.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
A fib to five for zero five eight two five
five the numbers. So that was fun. How about this
one from Kristin Welker?
Speaker 6 (09:55):
And so I was getting texts from Democrats panicked quite frankly,
who were saying, Wow, he's really moderating himself on.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
A lot of these issues.
Speaker 6 (10:02):
He's the most likable he has ever been.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Yeah, and their panic goes beyond Trump winning, right, just
a little over a month from now. Hard to believe
we're saying that, all right, and I know we have
to hit this break, but their panic goes far beyond
that because what they're seeing in jd Vance is a
young brilliant, attractive, put the emphasis on young, next generation
(10:25):
of MAGA president eight five five for zero five A
two five to five the number.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Hey, when we come back, I'll talk about.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
Those big currents that I think were at work last
night that so favored Trump and really haven't been discussed
yet here on The Dankpla Show.
Speaker 7 (10:40):
And now back to the Dan Kaplass Show podcast.
Speaker 8 (10:44):
John King at the beginning, the two issues driving the
campaign right now are Harris has a big depicit out
of the economy, Harris has a big depicit of immigration.
And Republicans were happy tonight and Democrats a little bit
nervous that on those two issues.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
Vance carried it well and I think it was more
than that, But those two matter.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
And I loved Ryan's music, not just because I love
that song, but also it was one of the big
dynamics last night, one of these big currents, and that
is you go beyond the Q and the A and
the this and the that.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
But JD.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
Vance is so much younger than anybody in the race,
and I think there's this big craving in America right
now for really young leadership. Now, Kamala Harris is younger
than Donald Trump, but she's not young. I think there's
craving for the next kind of Kennedy esque generation of
young leadership.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
And jd.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
Vance showed last night that he has these special abilities.
Now I understand there are still plenty of people don't
like him, don't like his politics, they buy into the
lies about him whatever.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
And he hasn't been perfect, none of us have.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
But he showed last night he's brilliant and he handled
himself on that stage. And here's where here's where the
rigged debate really helped him, because he was able to
handle it so well. He ended up gaining even more
respect and esteem, even grudgingly from people who don't like
his politics. And we're hoping he'd go out there with
this fly open and just flop down on the floor.
(12:11):
So so there is this hunger for that kind of leadership.
Is that going to be the controlling dynamic in the race? No,
because he's not the nominee, But it is a plus.
And I think in the big dynamic, big current category
it's even more of a plus because and this is
never pulled upon, and I understand why, but there have
got to be a lot of people out there who
(12:33):
are thinking that Okay, I'm going to vote for President Trump.
President Trump wins, or I'm thinking of voting for Trump.
Trump wins. But you clearly at this point have all
these evil forces aligned to try to harm him. So
you know you have a lot of voters thinking, well, shoot,
what happens if you know these evil people are able
(12:54):
to hurt President Trump? Well, now I think there's going
to be and obviously we hope and we pray that
now happens, right, But I think there are going to
be more people thinking, Okay, if something horrific like that happened,
you know jd Vance would be able to handle the job.
This is another big current from last night. Honestly, Ryan,
(13:14):
as I go to the phone lines in the text,
I don't think there was one person in America who
went home last night, including Tim Walls, and said, boy,
I'd really love to see Tim Walls as president. Not
one anywhere. I think there were a lot of people
who went home saying I'd like to see J. D
Vance's president, right, I mean, really, who would have gone
(13:37):
to bed last night? Pillow Tuck said, man, I'd really
like to see love to see timp on Tim as president,
or I'd love to see governor. Really, who would say that,
but vance you could get excited about that. Let's go
to Brian and Arvada. You're on the Dan Kaplis Show.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Welcome Brian.
Speaker 4 (13:56):
Hey, I thought Waltz actually exceeded my expectations.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
What do you expect?
Speaker 9 (14:03):
Well, I didn't expect anything. I mean, this is the
guy that run around, flow in his arms around. You know,
he let minneapples burned for a few days, he put
camp ons and boys' restrooms. But he actually sounded a
little bit more reasonable than you know, all his policies before.
So I've given maybe a two out of a ten.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Oh that's generous.
Speaker 4 (14:26):
Yeah, I think that hold. I think I'm hoping that
what it did is we got a lot of these
women or in Cherry Hills, you know, they're in nice,
safe communities. They're completely disconnected from reality. I'm hoping that
(14:48):
he was able to pick up a couple of those,
you know, the people that they'd just get to live
in their little secure area, don't care about what's happening
or are not, and why would they?
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Hey, Brian, let me ask you, and just a kind
of background question, have you ever met a suburban woman.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
Yeah, okay, Yeah, I.
Speaker 9 (15:10):
Have a litery that's a suburban woman.
Speaker 4 (15:12):
I argue with all the time. She got the vaccine.
Speaker 9 (15:14):
We're so arguing about.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Okay now, but I'm glad she's still alive. So tell me, though,
And that's not an endorsement of the vaccine. I wish
I'd never gotten mine. So, but but tell me this,
is that really your stereotype of suburban women, because if
it is, your your analysis model is fundamentally flawed.
Speaker 4 (15:33):
No, it's not, Dan, because I met a lot of them.
They're they're they're living in a pony world where usually
the husband makes a lot of money. Their biggest problem is, hey,
I got to make my hair appointment. They're totally separated.
These are the people that would go see Michelle or something.
Speaker 6 (15:49):
You know.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Okay, and I know you're probably alluding to my wife, But.
Speaker 9 (15:53):
But tell me I'm not in general.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
Okay, and that's.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Fine, But with the point being, have you actually met
one of them and drawn your conclusions from that?
Speaker 4 (16:06):
Yeah, my sister was friends in the same way.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Brian, Thanks the call, Thank you, Brian.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
Okay, because all I can tell you and I do
know a little something about suburban women I'm married to one,
and and you know I met a lot of them,
and that stereotype does not fit at all at all.
Speaker 10 (16:29):
Dan, was there any communication between you and Amy about JD.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
Vanceas my Last.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
Night we sat down together, she made this great spaghetti pie.
Have you ever had spaghetti pie? Now I'm sounding like
I'm sounding like Vance and Walls. Last night you asked
me a question. You know, I grew up in a
log cabin. But anyway, so she makes this great spaghetti pie.
We sit at the bar counter to watch it on
the bar TV. And how long do you think we
(16:58):
lasted there together?
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Six minutes?
Speaker 1 (17:02):
It's about right, all right, It's about right, Okay, Yeah,
because I just couldn't help myself. It was my fault,
one hundred percent of my fault. I could not help
myself with the Walls comments. And you know, they just
wouldn't stop. Even when I tried to stop him so
my wife would stay, they wouldn't stop. But that's how
(17:23):
deeply I feel about this guy. He's such a fraud,
he's such a liar. He is so completely unprepared and
incapable of being president. And I just I'm so thankful
she picked him because I was sitting there last night
thinking I even said this to Amy, which she agreed with.
Can you imagine if she had picked Josh Shapiro and
(17:44):
that was Josh Shapiro up there last night. Now, jd
Vance would have won because jd Vance is that good,
but Josh Shapiro is really good. Horrible idea. It would
be a terrible president because of ideology. But like Vance,
Shapiro is a super smart guy who has the skill
set to be president. The Democrats have a lot of
really smart people at the top who have the skill
(18:05):
set to be president. They just have horrible ideology that
would ruin the country. Walls is not one of those
people who has that skill set. He's like three or
four tiers down. So you can see why she lasted
about six minutes. Won we come back so much fun.
Sound of the left freaking out after the Vance win.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
You're on the Dan Kaplas Show.
Speaker 7 (18:27):
You're listening to the Dan Kapliss Show podcast.
Speaker 11 (18:30):
I think the Walls did team unsteady and frankly, what
I saw in Walls is somebody who has not faced
questions on a national stage since he became the Democratic knowledge.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
He was simply out of practice.
Speaker 11 (18:44):
I mean, I don't know why they've done it, but
they've no out of depth.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Out of depth doesn't have the ability.
Speaker 11 (18:50):
Helped him out of the limelight.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
They've kept him away from reporters. They haven't had him
do it for a good reason.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
Don't you think if letting him talk would help them win?
Talk all day and night.
Speaker 11 (19:01):
He interviews, and he was clearly unsteady through much of
that debate. And in contrast, JD. Vance was very smooth.
He took the arguments not to Walls, he was very
respectful of Walls, took it to Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1 (19:15):
Yeah, big picture, strong currents, strong currents. The American people
know this, and this is where the left misses it
because there's such elitists. They think that anybody who doesn't
have huge money or isn't in the media elite or
this elite or that that elite is stupid. And they
got it backwards. So many of the people who are
in the elite are stupid or at least lack common
(19:37):
sense or experience or mentally or emotionally. I meant to
say stupid, but there are so many people who don't
have much money, who don't have fancy jobs, whatever, who
are frigging brilliant. But the left doesn't get that. Here's
the point. The point is who do Americans go to,
whether people make good money, no money, bad money, Who
(20:00):
do you go to when you're sick or when your
kid sick, or who do you go to when the
pipes are bursting or whatever? You try to find the
smartest person you can. Americans value intelligence. They value intelligence,
and that's why I think it's become a big sleeper
(20:21):
issue in this campaign. Jade Vance is obviously highly intelligent,
highly articulate, highly organized, and I think everybody honest watching
last night would say, you know what, if he ended
up as a president, he could handle it and he'd
look the part, and our enemies would have to take
him seriously. Who could say that about Tim Wats Which
(20:42):
brings me back to another kind of big current point,
and that is when you go back to that June
twenty seventh debate. Obviously, you know we'd been talking about
it for many, many moons before, but Biden should have
been taken out with the twenty fifth Amendment long before
that debate. But the point being, it wasn't just his
(21:02):
inability to answer questions that night, etc.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
That sunk Biden.
Speaker 4 (21:06):
It was what.
Speaker 2 (21:08):
It was, the facial expressions. It was those images that.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
People saw that night as they watched, but then saw
day after day on social or in mainstream news or whatever.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
It was those facial expressions.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
And last night, I mean, Waltz had a lot of
those same facial expressions. I'd submit even worse. And I'm
not trying to be playground, pejorative anything like that. I'm
just trying to be honest and real about what effects
and should affect American voters. Nobody wants a president who
who has the kind of facial expressions in public on
(21:43):
a big stage that that just scream confusion and dullness
and weakness and weirdness. And you had so many of
those from Walls, and Vance was the polar opposite. And
I think that's a big fact. It's a big factor
on multiple levels. First, we're all wired, right, I think
(22:03):
God created all of us, you know, with this instinct
to protect our loved ones, our family, our community in
US and people, et cetera. We're all wired for self protection.
And we live in a very dangerous world now. And
people on levels, even subliminal levels, they want a strong
leader who looks the part. It doesn't mean they have
to be white or black, or handsome or ugly, but
(22:24):
they just look the part. And Walts was the opposite
of that, just like those Biden images.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
You know, the look on his face.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
That's not what Americans want and a leader now, Trump
good strong look during his debate. Vance was perfect. Kamala
Harris had a good look in her debate. It's part
of what helped create this perception that she won. I
think I've been proven right long term that in the
ways that mattered, she lost. But she looked good and
she didn't have any of those weird faces or anything else.
(22:58):
She looked good. Trump looked good, and Vance look good.
But Biden and Walls those faces, everything else. It's not
superficial at all. This is where people's survival and self
protection instinct kick in.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
Just weird. Kevin in Boulder, you're on the dan Kaplash'll welcome.
Speaker 1 (23:18):
Yeah.
Speaker 12 (23:19):
I caught it on the radio, But I didn't care
much for the debate. If I was a Democrat voter,
I don't think Vance would have said much to make
me change my vote. If I was answering those questions,
I would have attacked with almost every answer, the specifics,
the specific details of the evil and the commonest factors
(23:43):
of the Democrat Party and what they're doing, what they've
been doing, and what they wanted to do.
Speaker 4 (23:48):
He didn't do that hardly at all.
Speaker 12 (23:49):
And I would have attacked, attacked, so that the Democrat
voters along with Republicans would know or at least hear
the truth about what's really going on. And he didn't
do much to change that.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
In my opinion, Kevin, this is such an important call
because you're bringing up a counter approach to this that
a lot of smart people could argue in favor of.
And obviously Jade Vance and his team and the Trump
team thought long and hard about this and chose to
take the approach they did last night. And whether you
(24:25):
agree with it or not, it was obviously very carefully
calculated to give Trump the best chance to win. And
so why do you think they chose rightly or wrongly?
And I think they chose correctly, But why do you
think they chose to take that approach rather than you know, okay,
gloves are off. From the minute that bell rings, I'm
going right for the throat.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
I'm not going to stop pummeling for two hours.
Speaker 12 (24:50):
Okay, Well, when I say that, I don't mean there
should be any yelling or screaming, no, anything like that.
But Trump, to me, a Trump seems very naive when
he got into office. He should have got rid of
all those people in the deep state that are still
there working for Obama. And he attacked better in my
(25:12):
opinion when I heard parts of his speeches and debates.
But to me, the debate last night sounded by the radio,
sounded like two old gentlemen sitting on the porch in
their rocking chairs, and.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
It was.
Speaker 4 (25:31):
Just too low key.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
It was interesting they didn't go after this.
Speaker 12 (25:34):
They should have gone for the throat, not in a mean,
nasty way.
Speaker 4 (25:38):
Sure, so people know what's really the truth is.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
You know, I got it, And.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
That's very intelligent argument you're making. I think the reason
they chose to go the other way, and I'm really
glad that they did, is, as you know, politics is
a game of addition, and I think what they concluded
was that their best chance to reach the people who
they don't already have was to take that kind of tone.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
Because, as you know, JD.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
Vance's approval numbers have been bizarrely low, and his disapproval
numbers have been oddly high. So I think from an
electoral math standpoint, they went in saying, you know what, what,
we just have to approve improve his likability, and.
Speaker 12 (26:23):
They made the right choice. Yeah, I'm not saying they didn't.
I'm saying I wouldn't do it that way. I don't think. Yeah,
but I'm not running for president.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
So no, Well, really smart call, really smart call Kevin. Hey,
very much appreciate that, Thank you, And that leads us
into another part of the conversation. I can't wait to
get your take on, which is all right, Hey, you know,
if you do know me, thank you for listening to
the show. Right to life, protection of innocent human life
in all of its forms, at all of its stages,
(26:52):
is the foundational issue for me. And because guess what
if they kill you before you're born, the other stuff
doesn't matter that much, right, So foundational issue for me.
And obviously last night JD. Vance took a much softer
approach to that than Republicans normally take. When we come back,
I'm going to play some sound from somebody who wants
(27:13):
Trump to win. Very prominent guy wants Trump to win,
but was very upset with that lighter touch on the
life issue last night. And then I want to get
your take on that. Do you think that was a
smart or a dumb move by JD and the Trump campaign?
I have strong feelings out of myself. Eight f five
for zero five eight two to five five will continue
a plenty of sound of the left losing their minds,
(27:35):
which I think is the very best proof that the
Trump campaign made the right decision in the type of
tone they wanted to strike last night, and we'll replay
that instant class There were so many instant classics. I
don't know whether it was Walls and he's friends with
school shooters, or whether it was a brilliant job Vance
did of fact checking the so called fact checkers.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Who were wrong and cheated. They broke the rules that
they had agreed to.
Speaker 7 (28:01):
You're on the Dan Caplis Show, and now back to
the Dan Kaplis Show podcast.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
There was so many nice to be on that day
station night.
Speaker 6 (28:11):
I am just kind of like, well, if you agree
so much with JD. Vance, why should they vote for you.
Speaker 2 (28:17):
I fully believe that Governor.
Speaker 6 (28:18):
Watson out there tonight and did what was practicing debate
prep did what the strategy was that that the team
put together.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
That was not the governor walls.
Speaker 6 (28:26):
That we that I had seen out on the campaign traip.
That's not the governor walls that I had seen during
the beepstakes, right, that was not the JD Vance that
I know to be true. I mean, goodness. Jd Vance
was on that stage. He was sorry about Emma Thurman.
He was he was sorry about a boy, He was
sorry about.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
A lot of stuff.
Speaker 6 (28:41):
We get things wrong, but do you give it the policy?
And then I just you know, that's not the Margaret
and nor that I know Margaret, don't do that on
Sunday morning?
Speaker 1 (28:50):
What more did you want from her? Pull a gun,
shoot fans? I mean, what more did she want from
the moderators? They were so corrupt And I don't use
that word lightly. The ABC moderator we're corrupt. I'm not
talking about you could go legally prosecute them. I'm talking
about something even more important when it comes to journalism.
You think about that sacred trust. Okay, I mean this
democracy and the founders envisioned this when they formed the country.
Speaker 2 (29:13):
We have to have an informed electric. People have to
know the truth.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
So you know, people can make an informed decision on
how to vote, and however they interpret those facts fine.
But when you have people who come into journalism and
they're operating at a high level and they're in a
position to moderate a presidential debate or VP that may
decide the outcome of the race, and they decide to
go in and throw their whole bodies on the scale,
(29:36):
and they decide to go in and cheat, They decide
to go in and to try to defeat one of
the two candidates. That's corruption. That is journalistic corruption. And
that's what we saw last night. The good news is
it backfired on them when they did it to Trump,
and it backfired on them last night because the American
people are fair people and they saw what was happening.
(29:57):
And in Vance's case, it allowed to get n A
plus instead of an A because he did so great
in the face of three on one A five five
five A two five five the number. I'll get to
the phone shortly, but I really want to get some
of these text in. Let's see Dan, don't be so
picky walsay and he's friends with school shooters. He meant
(30:18):
to say victims of school shooters and everybody knows that,
et cetera. Listen, of course, people know he didn't mean
to say he's actually friends with school shooters.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
But let me put a little last trick on that.
I assume he misspoke.
Speaker 1 (30:30):
But Ryan, have you seen today has his camp stated
that he misspoke.
Speaker 10 (30:36):
I was trying to figure that out earlier myself, Dan
even listening to it in context, it didn't make sense
unless he meant he's friends of victims of school shooters.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
But right, I can't really make heads or tails of it.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
Yeah, and I assume he misspoke. I assume every American
assumes he misspoke. I'm just wondering, though this did his
camp cannot that he missed. I'll have Kelly looking at
this because again, and I am not suggesting or assuming
that he's friends with school shooters, but you look at
all the bizarrely weird things.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
He has done.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
I'm just looking to see if his camp confirmed he misspoke.
But assuming as I do, that he misspoke, the point
is still the same. You know, this isn't like a
middle school debating society. You know, this is the leader
of the free world, the person a heartbeat away from
the leader of the free world. And mental capacity matters,
(31:29):
and the smartest person in the world can misspeak, right.
It happens to all of us. It can happen to anybody.
But the point is he said it. He had no
awareness that he said it. He didn't remember later that
he said it. He didn't try to combay, you know,
And it tied together with other things. It tied together
with me to me rather with a pattern. That just
(31:52):
showed that he doesn't have that very high end mental
capacity that we want in our leaders.
Speaker 4 (31:58):
Now.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
Even if he did, I wouldn't want him because he
doesn't have the right morals, He doesn't have the right principles,
he doesn't have the right ideology. But I think there
are an awful lot of Americans who who they want
that mental horsepower. And I think they're not seeing it
in walls. They're not seeing it in Kamala Harris eight
five was there? Five eight two five five. Let's bounce
over to Denver. Talk to Robert.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
You're on the Dan caplish. I don't know what Robert
shove on. How you doing, my friend?
Speaker 13 (32:24):
Good?
Speaker 2 (32:25):
You live in the dream?
Speaker 4 (32:28):
Oh?
Speaker 13 (32:28):
Yes, I think it's want to bring your attention. An
article entitled yes late term abortions and realpen every day.
It's on the hill and it's try a year ago.
Oh yeah, and it says it says that there's over
ten thousand abortions every year. Late term abortions, you bet
(32:49):
dozens of.
Speaker 4 (32:50):
Them every day.
Speaker 13 (32:51):
And you know, then see Davis the moderator at the
Trump she lied, she lied, And when Trump brought up
Governor Norten a Virginia and the left office in twenty two,
she said that.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
May I jump in on this for a second, Robert,
you're one hundred percent right about that. And those stats
are absolutely verified. There aren't thousands a day, but there's
about ten thousand a year. And the Democrats, like Walls
last night, they lie and they deny it's true because
what they know is that if people knew the truth,
they wouldn't vote for the Democrats because the Democrats would
(33:38):
look like monsters, because it is monstrous to do that
ten thousand times a year. Now, when I say, Lindsay
Davis lied, that's obviously my opinion, but it was a
clever lie in this sense. The issue that was being
discussed obviously pertained the late term abortion, and what she
threw in as a so called fact check. At the
end is that it's not legal any we're in America
(34:01):
to kill the child after the child's born. Now, even that,
I would argue is false, but certainly the starting point
is what Democrats always try to deny. Starting point is yes,
Democrats want it, Democrats fight for it, Democrats get it,
Democrats put it in law, including Colorado's law, which they're
(34:21):
now trying to put savagely in the constitution. That yeah,
they can kill they can kill that child. Mother's dilated,
she's about to deliver, they can kill that child. Then
that that is what the law says in eight states
in America right now, including Colorado. And so now you
get to the next part, which is, okay, where is
(34:42):
it legal to kill the child after the child's born. Well,
the way I look at it is these states that
have laws that allow the doctor and the mother to
just leave the child who's been born alive after a
failed abortion, just leave the child without any aid, flopping
on the table to die. That's the same as killing
(35:02):
that child. What's the difference A five five for zero five?
A two five five the number when we come back
more sound of lefty heads exploding over Vance's big win.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
You're on the Dan Kapler Show.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.