September 24, 2024 • 38 mins
This week, the gang discusses the state of the presidential race, the problem with 2024 polling samples, the new documentary War Game and the potential for another post-election insurrection, and the raging wars between Russian and Ukraine and Israel and Hezbollah.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-more-perfect-union--3292862/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-more-perfect-union--3292862/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:14):
Welcome to the More Perfect Union, the podcast that offers
real debate without the hate. I'm Kevin Calton and I'm
pleased as always to be sharing the mic with Rebecca Kushmeiter.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
I am Rebecca Kushmeier, and I am here with Aurra.
I have transcended Riz and I am bringing the Aura.
I am Sigma, I am Sigma.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
What language is that?
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Jen Alpha? Which is you know your current middle schoolers?
These are words that they're using. Skibbety ohio, Kevin, That's
all I can say. Or skibbity toilet.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
I mean, I don't know what you just said to me,
but I'm going.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
To neither do I Actually?
Speaker 1 (01:03):
And if you're about Aura's this week, DJ maguire is
about apple sauce. Hello, DJ, good evening. I do have
to correct Rebecca on one thing. Or is actually downstairs?
She is not here with us.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Now, ara A, you are a not a lovely spouse
my wife?
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Okay, all right, but yes, greetings from Hampton Roads, Virginia, everybody.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
And DJ, do you want to share with people why
you might be eating a little apple sauce as we
do the podcast tonight?
Speaker 4 (01:33):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (01:34):
Yes, I am recovering from a tonsile ectomy. So I'm
still on the soft food diet, which means absolutely I
am not allowed to eat any pets.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Oh good, that will come as a relief to the
citizens of Springfield, Oh DJ, DJ, you're right about something.
Speaking of things that say feel good to hear, I
saw today that there was something about Polish residents of
Pennsylvania or endorsing Kamala Harris over Ukraine. So you're right,
(02:07):
people care about Ukraine. I thought it might just be
you surprise.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
So let's talk about the state of the race. As
everyone who's watched any cable news knows, over the last
week or so, Harris has seemingly made some steady gains
and favorability, although the polls, depending on which one you
look at, some are very positive for her, some seem
more positive for her opponent, Donald Trump, or at least
(02:36):
show maybe a little bit more tightness in some of
the swing states. But we're going to dive into that. DJ.
Let's start with Poles. You are, of course, our resident
expert in all things statistical, and you have quite a
bit of knowledge about polling, and you found some what
you consider and I consider, and I'm going to imagine
(02:58):
that Rebecca considers some fascinating questions in the subtabs of
the New York Times poll that didn't seem quite as
positive for Kamala Harris as some might have expected. So
what did you find?
Speaker 3 (03:12):
So? And I've been complaining about this on this podcast
and on our substack site, that the New York Times,
which cien a pole, which has been arguably the most
favorable to Trump outside of partisan polling, also shows us
how they sample by aera type, and I mean urban,
(03:32):
suburban or rural. Now, a number of pulsters won't tell
you how they do it. Number of pulsars won't sample it,
won't sample it that way at all. They'll they have
numerous other way you know, education, gender, age, all the
normal things. But the Times also shows the area types,
and the area types have little if anything in common
(03:53):
with what the Edison Research twenty twenty exit pole showed
of the population and to get.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
The population of actual vote to vote.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
The voters, the voting, the folks who came to vote,
and in particular, they oversample. The Times over samples rural
voters in every national poll they've had and in every
state pole they've had. And the reason this is important
is because urban voters are much more likely to vote democratic.
Suburban voters either lean Democratic or lean Republican, and manyon
(04:27):
what state you're in, and rural voters across the country
are very heavily Republican. So if you have a poll
that over samples rural voters, it's going to look more
your voting group is going to look more Republican than
it actually should be. And that's something I've been complaining
about for some time with the time seeing a poll
(04:48):
and a couple of other pollsters give their area type divisions,
and some are a little more urban than they should be,
and some are less urban than they should be if
they're comparing to twenty twenty. But the New York Times,
ye only one that is that, in my mind, is
consistently bad. Now, I'm not saying the twenty twenty four
electorate will look exactly like the twenty twenty electorate. That's silly.
(05:09):
We all know it's not the case. But given what
has happened between twenty twenty and twenty twenty four, given
what has happened over the last four years, the last
thing that I would expect would be an electorate that
is less suburban and more rural, particularly an electorate less
suburban and more rural than any week than any electorate
we have seen going back at least fifteen to twenty years.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Well, not only that, and I spent some time digging
into other metrics, including census data. The sample of rural
voters that The Times is attributing to a the national
population and B state populations such as North Carolina is
larger than what there's rural populations are. So to suggest
(05:53):
that thirty five percent of the national electorate is rural
when only twenty percent of the national population is rural
seems like giving a lot more credit to rural voters
than to suburban and urban voters. And it's but it
also seems like, from what Nate Cohen was saying on
Twitter today, that they have redefined the word rural to
(06:13):
include things that are not rural. But even accounting for that,
and you know, sort of splitting their suburban number and
you know, and taking back some rural votes into their
suburban number, it still doesn't come close to what the
actual exit polls from twenty twenty and twenty twenty two were,
or verified voter data that Pew has been collecting since
(06:34):
twenty sixteen.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Right, and just as just one example I think is
the best example, then Kevin, you can jump in. In Georgia,
they assume eleven percent urban. For eleven percent urban, forty
nine percent suburban, and forty percent rural. The Cab and
Fulton Counties, the two counties that the two counties that
encompass the city of Atlanta, had roughly twelve percent of
(06:59):
the entire Georgia electric in twenty twenty. The New York
Times would have us believe that there are no urban
voters anywhere outside of Fulton, Indicab County, in Atlanta, in
the state of Georgia.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
And again they might they might be defining rural as
towns with only a Walmart, not a Walmart and a Target.
I don't know the towns you know that don't have
enough stop lights. It's it's not clear.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
Yeah, I mean that there was someone, whether it was
Nate Cohen and Ate Silver, I forget who I saw,
but they did say that, Yes, they have redefined rural
to include small towns that some people might call suburban.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
Right, So what we're saying is these definitions are a
little bit meaningless.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
Yes, Yeah, basically and.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
The New York Times should take them out of their
sampling or out of their waiting at.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Least and at the end, at the end of the day,
what this is all about is we have gone through
so much various political trauma over the last nine years
that you know, people who are people who have soffered
trauma run to safety, and a good poll is the
closest thing we have to safety until the election is over.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Right, and and it all comes down to day of turnout.
Of course, there's there's a large contingent of early voting,
absentee voting, but it's all going to come down to turnout,
and it's it's all a guessing game. No one knows.
There are so many variables in this election that are
different than previous elections that you know, I've always felt
(08:33):
and by the way I have used and we have
discussed polling in our debates before, but you know, really
polling should be used by campaigns to decide which states
to contest, which states not to spend resources in how
to refine their message. It really is not supposed to
be something that voters use as a tool to try
(08:56):
to predetermine the outcome of an election.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Yeah, and I think there is internal polling commissioned by campaigns,
commissioned by parties that I think gets a lot more
granular and a lot more detailed. And I don't know
if you remember after twenty sixteen, there was someone who
commented there was no one less surprised than Hillary Clinton
that she lost that night because she had seen the
door to door data that her posters were bringing her
(09:20):
and she knew that the path to sue seventy was closed.
So the polling we're seeing is a very different animal,
and I think it is to some degree ego driven
by these people who've created these models, who are creating
these waiting structures, and are determined to be right or
at the very least not wrong, and so they've created
polls in which they are never wrong because there is
(09:42):
no actual right answer.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
Now, let me ask you guys this famously, one of
the mistakes that the Clinton campaign made in twenty sixteen
was they saw an opportunity in Arizona, and in the
last couple of days they moved some resources, including the
candidate's time you Arizona to try to nail down one
more state. And some people think that might have cost
(10:05):
her one or more of the Rust Belt states, because
if you're in Arizona, you can't be in Wisconsin, you
can't be in Pennsylvania. Is it possible that the Harris
campaign might fall prey to that same mistake this time
that in trying to flip North Carolina, in trying to
flip Georgia, they might not put enough resources, let's say,
(10:26):
into Pennsylvania that maybe would be wiser.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
From what I'm hearing, They're not skimping on Pennsylvania. It's
right now the most campaigned in state in the nation.
I think the airwaves are wall to wall political ads
from both campaigns, and they've got a ton of field offices,
They've got volunteers out at the union, and we're busting
people up to Pennsylvania every weekend from my county.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
Won't say that, don't say that we're not supposed to
bust people in.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
Donald meget they're just there to like knock on doors.
They're not there to vote.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
As far as I know, Yeah, I don't think given
the tremendous amount of resources that that Harris has that
in many respects Clinton did not have, and even Bid
did not have. I'm not really sure you can sure
you can say that she's at the risk of underinvesting
really in any of the states. I think it's clear
(11:19):
that their priorities, that their three priorities are Wisconsin, Michigan,
and Pennsylvania, and I do not think they are underinvested
underinvesting in any of those three. So I don't think
that is necessarily a worry.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
And I mean, but I mean, actually, Kevin, I think
you do have a point in that it is a worry.
It's always a worry. Are we reading the tea leaves wrong?
Are we sending people to the wrong place? Is Tim
Walls getting off with the wrong bus stop? We can't
know until it's over in the final analysis, and we
just kind of have to do the best we have
with the polling data, with the headlines, and you know,
(11:58):
with the electoral math, see what we can do.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
So let me bring up this meme that is out there,
especially in the media, that people are saying they need
to know more about Kamala Harris. They need to know
more about her policy positions before they can make a
determination to vote for her. They've already maybe decided they
(12:22):
don't want to vote for Donald Trump, but this woman
is a blank slate to them. Now, I'm not saying that.
I'm kind of putting into words what I'm hearing in
the media, and I want to discuss that with you, folks.
So who wants to start on that? Do you have
any opinions on that?
Speaker 3 (12:39):
For the folks most likely to come to her side,
these are folks who are center right or even hard
right on economic issues, but who are very much of
the Reagan, Bush McCain view on international affairs. So when
they are saying this kind of thing, she does not
(13:00):
have to bring up domestic issues. They're not going to
agree with her onw domestic issues. It will only cause
unnecessary friction. She needs to talk foreign policy. She needs
to talk Ukraine, she needs to talk NATO. She needs
to talk about how she will continue what the Biden
administration is doing, how she will improve on what the
Biden administration is doing. She can talk more about what
(13:23):
is happening in East Asia, how she will you know,
how she will continue to help Taiwan, how she can
tell her allies there. Those are the kinds of issues
that can win over the largest group of this I'm
not sure if I can vote for Kamala Harris yet.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
I mean, I think her website has gotten a lot
more robust. She has published policy opinions. If you want
to see all of them screenshot it helpfully, you can
go to my twitter feed. My pinned post is a
thread leading to every single Kamala Harris policy position. You
can bookmarket throw it at trolls if you need to.
But I do think that there is something to be
said for some sort of national televised event, because it's
(14:04):
unclear if she'll get another debate, but a TV town
hall or something like that, where she could go on
television for forty five minutes or an hour and take
questions from an audience of voters, similar to what she
just did with Oprah, but without your boomer parents having
to figure out how to stream things. I think that
(14:24):
would be valuable. Anyway, I think there comes a point where,
even though you know, I know, we all know that
it's your two clicks away from any information you want
for her to appear responsive to an audience, that it
is asking her to spoon feed them information the way
DJ is spoon feeding himself apple sauce right now. Has value.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
First all, I agree with that, not so much the
DJ apples, but I agree with what your overall premise
is that yes, the information is available, but you know,
I'm not sure that the correct answer is to say
to people go google it. This is going to be
one area where I am going to give some advice
(15:03):
to the Harris campaign. Now I have to preface this
by saying, I think they are running an absolutely brilliant campaign,
and I give them very very high marks for everything
they've done up to this point.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
But the campaign is full sigma. It is aura. It
is aura, it is it is not mid It is
skibity toilets my friend. Actually, I don't know if I
used that last one right, Sorry, But there.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
Is no campaign is one hundred percent perfect. And there
is one thing that she did in the debate. I
heard her do it again in the local television interview
that she did late last week, which is when they
ask her a policy question. She has been programmed, I assume,
by her advisors to start with a two minute biographical
(15:51):
essay or two and a half minutes about her growing
up in a middle class home and what her mom
said and what she wore to school and where she
ate dinner. And I think it's a legitimate critique to say,
get to the answer, quicker, get to the policy. Off
(16:12):
the question. Not two and a half minutes later, and
I was watching Morning Joe this morning, as I like
to do, and Joe Scarborough was addressing this issue, and
he said, you know, when I ran for Congress and
I was asked a question about jobs, I would go
on and hidden. He talked about the biographical and the
(16:33):
premise part of the question that he would talk on
for a minute or more before he answered the specifics
of the question. And he said, politicians have been doing
this for one hundred years, and she's no different than
anyone else. And my answer to that is, and that's
why it's hurting her, because people are sick of traditional
(16:54):
politicians and the way they speak. And I am convinced
that of Kamala Harus would answer a policy question very
quickly with her specific policy answer, she could put that
criticism behind her.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
I once heard an analysis of advertising campaigns and they
talked specifically about a McDonald's jingle and it used.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
To be Bada Da Da da, I'm loving it, and
then it was just Bada da da da McDonald's, and
then Bada da da da, and then eventually just the
smile that had been the animated graphic, and she needs
to get away from the full jingle and say, well,
you know, I've told the story I grew up in
a middle class household, which is.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Why I know boom. She can truncate the introduction part
because that's been clipped, it's been memed, we've all shared
it on TikTok, so she can get to the meat
of it a little bit faster at this point, and
it's probably time for that pivot. I'm hopeful that we'll
see it soon. Great, So sure she's listening to the
podcast because she and I are besties, despite what my
(17:55):
daughter says, so being her bestie.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
How do you think the get out the vote part
of the campaign is being handled by each of the
two parties?
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Now, this is fascinating because, as you all know, I
am a huge proponent of, you know, get out there
and do something, and I've been a big fan of
text banking. I've done postcard writing campaigns, I put out
yard signs, I talk about everything on social media, you know,
the whole part about being a citizen campaigner for candidates
that I support, and the Democratic Party in the past
(18:33):
few cycles has made it really easy. There are at
least two websites that I know of that are interconnected
that are clearinghouses for volunteer opportunities all across the country
candidates at all levels, everything from very generalized get out
the vote campaigns to phone calls for a school board
candidate in a particular town. And then there are also
entities like Vote Save America, Swing Left, Indivisible, the Women
(18:58):
for Kamala groups that are all putting together opportunities and
forwarding them out at a national level. And I got
curious and went to see if the Republicans are doing
anything similar, and I couldn't find anything. I found state
parties they're like, if you want to get involved, email
us at this, and they didn't have a list of
events that you could show up at, or virtual phone
banks or text banks that you could go to for
(19:20):
stuff outside your district. And just today there were two
big articles about this, one in the AP and I
think one on NBC about how the RNC is essentially
outsourced the ground game to Turning Point and whatever Elon
Musk's shady ass pack is to try and convert unlikely voters,
(19:42):
like newly registered or voters who sat out prior cycles
to try and convert those into Trump voters, particularly I
think young white men is what they're going for. But
there's concerns among kind of the old guard of the
Republican Party that these efforts are a not a f
effective and be the traditional base of volunteers are being
(20:04):
shut out of the process. They are not getting guidance
and they're not getting resources. So what does that mean?
What is the upshot? It means the Democrats are on
the ground doing a lot, and Republicans are being very targeted,
very specific and also infiltrating boards of elections all over
the country, probably to try and stop certification or at
(20:24):
least come up the works pretty badly, and it remains
to be seen what that will turn into in the
final countdowns. But that gets, I think to one of
your ongoing concerns, Kevin, about malfeasance the day of the
election and then the weeks afterwards.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
So yeah, So to take your lead and make a segue,
the next topic on our rundown is election day and
the day after and the days after that. Before I
get into the meat of that, I want to bring
up a movie I've told you guys about it in
our little PM thread that we share between shows, but
(21:06):
our audience may not know about it. It's a new
documentary called Wargame, and it shows a simulation that was
done by an agency that's associated with the federal government,
not an actual federal agency, but one that has done
some wargame like simulations before for the Department of Defense.
(21:30):
And they got former Montana Governor Steve Bullock to play
the president, and they got Wesley Clark to play a
national security advisor of sorts, former Senator Heidi Hidekamp to
play another national security advisor, and about ten or twelve
people like that to fill out the cast in this simulation.
(21:53):
And the simulation was what happens if Honor around January sixth,
twenty twenty five Vibe there is another insurrection, but the
insurrection is much more organized and it starts to infiltrate
the US military. It's a fascinating documentary. If you can
(22:14):
find it in your city, I promise you will not
be bored it is. It plays actually like a drama
and it's the edge of your seat kind of viewing.
I don't think any either of you have had a
chance to see it. Maybe you've read about it. But
with that as the as the precursor to this conversation,
(22:35):
what are your concerns?
Speaker 3 (22:36):
Now?
Speaker 1 (22:37):
We've seen so far already the attempt in Nebraska to
change how they dole out their electoral votes, and that
still remains to be seen what's going to happen there,
And we're seeing attempts in Georgia to change how they
count and how they certify the count in various counties.
(23:00):
With that said, what are your thoughts about where we're going,
not just with the actual election, but with how the
election is counted and certified.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
I'm a lot more worried about the Georgia Nebraska type
things than I am the potential for a well organized
January sixth, just because I think that is what possibly
the Trump campaign is counting on you. I think a
lot of the type of people who would have rallied
(23:29):
to Trump's call are counting on lawyers to do the
dirty work. And I don't know how easy it is
to create a coalescing event when you do not have
the power of the presidency to come into your freedom plaza.
Speaker 3 (23:44):
Did Jack yet so far from I think just this.
I think it was just this morning that one of
the one of the state senator in Nebraska. Is it's
one house, it's a senate that one of the senators
who needed to flip in order for them to change
the way their electro votes accounted said, no, I don't
(24:05):
think it's a good idea six weeks out from an election.
I don't think we should do it.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
So, but the concern is that we were banking on
that one thoughtful, honest broker in some states to be
between us in disaster, which.
Speaker 3 (24:19):
Is, well, I try, I actually, I actually trust more
a guy who actually wants to be mayor of the
largest city in that district and who knows damn well
if the accidentally disenfranchises and it will never happens the
skin of the games.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Yeah, but again, like counting on that one person to
be there to take the stance for whatever reason, is
that's a risky game.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
Yeah, no, it is. It is risky. I agree.
Speaker 2 (24:45):
It's almost like buying trunk social stock and out a
play out.
Speaker 3 (24:50):
Yeah, exactly. Georgia is very concerning. Although there will be.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
Lawsuits the Georgians there already are.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
Yeah, there already are. The Georgia Attorney General put out
a statement saying, you know that this is a violation
of the law. But the Georgia Republican Party is very,
very weird in that regard.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
So let me let me ask this specific question. And
again we're just people. We're just speculating like everybody else.
Let's say Kamala Harris wins Georgia that within a few
days after the election, all the votes are in. AP says,
Kamala Harris has carried the state. But for whatever reason,
(25:28):
because one or two of these counties, or one or
two of these electoral commissions don't certify their vote count,
Brian Kemp cannot certify the state. What happens on January sixth,
It goes to the House, it goes to the Senate.
We know that according to AP and according to all
(25:50):
the factual data that is available to us, the Democratic
candidate won the state, but it hasn't been certified. Can
the House still count those electoral votes?
Speaker 3 (26:04):
That's not going to be the question that's asked. The
question you can to be asked is who is declared
the official winner if Fulton County's vote is never certified, right,
or if Fulton County's voters throw into dispute the name
of the game here, the purpose of this is to
find some kind of technicality that can wipe out an
entire urban counties vote. That's the endgame, that's what they're
(26:27):
looking to do. If these bizarre laws, the bizarre rules
that they're talking about, actually stay in place, there is
a very good chance that they could do that. That
Fulton County could slip on something that it takes them
twenty five hours, that have twenty four hours to complete
this count and this board could say, this board could
(26:48):
step in and say, well, then all of Fulton County's
vote is invalid, and that's going to have to go
through the state courts. Yeah, that's going to have to
go through the state courts especially, and possibly even the
federal courts, or we can before we can have any
kind of determination.
Speaker 2 (27:04):
The thing is, we won't be doing this on January fifth.
I'm looking right now at this this is what I'm
looking at. Yeah, I'm looking at Georgia's calendar, and they
have to certify county results by mid November and you know,
conduct audits by mid November. So if these county boards
(27:25):
are going to try and be in disaccord with the
black Letter Law, this is codified calendar that is out
of a legislative process, and you know as opposed to
these promulgated rules that the election board is putting out
right now. If we get to a point where these
county election authorities are missing legally binding deadlines, that's the
(27:49):
point that the Harris campaign is going to have to
start dropping lawsuits. And we'll have you know eight, Well, well, we.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
Know there's going to be lawsuits, but we also know
there's a potent for them not to be litigated, not
to be resolved.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
And at the end of six and at the end
of the day, the states that are the larger concern
are Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. And the
reason I named those five states in particular, and only
those five states, is because those are the five states
that have either Republican controlled legislature or split legislature like
(28:27):
Pennsylvania has. If things go to hell, and Nevada, for example,
Nevada has a democratic state legislature that something will step
inis go Alright, you idiots know that Kamala Harra won
this state. But if we have to actually pass a
law saying give the electoral votes to her, because she
got more votes then I guess we'll do it, you
(28:50):
freaking morons. But North Carolina's legislature has been shown to
be black forgiven by language, A bunch of dicks. Legislature
created this whole electro board nonsense in the first place,
so they have shown themselves to be a bunch of dicks.
Those are the two states that I think have the
biggest problems because they have very heavy Republican and Trump
(29:14):
Estate legislatures who are very willing to stick their fingers
at the rest of us and say, we don't really
care what you want. This is what we want, and
we're going to get it.
Speaker 1 (29:24):
Okay, let's say, in the last few minutes, change our
focus to foreign relations, not so much to the domestic
election situation. The two questions that we wanted to bounce
around between the three of US is should Ukraine be
allowed to bomb Russia? And should Israel keep bombing Hesbela.
So dj I'll give you the first shot at.
Speaker 3 (29:46):
Those yes to both. Ukraine is already hitting targets deep
inside Russia. They're just doing it with high power drones
instead of the missiles that they want to use that
can create much more damage to Russia's milit her industrial complex,
and they should have they should have the authority in
the ability to do that.
Speaker 2 (30:04):
Wait, did a former Republican just say military industrial complex.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
I have never had a trouble with that.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
I I you are in a military industrial.
Speaker 4 (30:15):
Think I have?
Speaker 3 (30:20):
He was mad at it. I'm not so. Just so
we're clear here, But but you know, Ukraine should not
have to fight with with a hand tie behind their back.
I think the fear I can understand the fear of
Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, but frankly, Russia invaded Ukraine
(30:42):
in the first place because they assumed mutually assured destruction.
Assumed mutually sure destruction meant that we would not ever
engage in a nuclear response if he was doing too
well in Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
The assumption, if I'm understanding you correctly, DJ and I
may not have heard it quite the way you meant it,
but you're talking about him using nuclear weapons against the
West or against the United States. I think the fear
is that he might use a tactical nuclear weapon in
Ukraine on the gamble that the United States would not
(31:20):
respond in kind with any type of nuclear attack or
even any type of direct attack, because they do not
want to escalate to a nuclear exchange.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
I think that is. I think that is one of
the most likely scenario that he was talking about tactical nukes,
you know, but I think he would also, you know,
keep them just inside the border with Poland so that
we're not That's what I'm saying, NTO, is it triggered.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
Yeah, he would use it in and I don't think
this is going to happen. By the way, I'm not
one of those people that thinks that we have to
treat this man with kick gloves. I think that Ukraine
should be allowed to fight the war and try to win,
because that's the only way that you could win a
war is to try to do damage to the other side.
You can't fight with one arm tied behind your back.
(32:05):
But I think the concern is that he might make
a bad, you know, strategic decision and see if he
could get away with something, and that might put NATO
in an awkward situation.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
The trouble with that is we saw what happened to
the nuclear fallout from the Chernobyl disaster in nineteen eighty
six and how much that actually affected Eastern Europe and
parts of Western Europe. A tactical nuclear weapon would likely
have similar environmental impacts, and that could be seen as
(32:37):
an attack on NATO, and that could be some damaging
to NATO and the people and the people around him,
who many of whom are old enough to remember Chernobyl
will remember that. And I think we'll we'll we'll tell
him and are telling him that is too much of
a risk, too much of usk to him. Internally. I
don't think he can get the regime behind him to
(33:01):
launch a tactical nocay weapon against Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (33:05):
Okay, Rebecca, did you have anything before I mouth off?
Speaker 2 (33:10):
I mean, you know, it goes back to what we
were just saying about Nebraska, like, yeah, it's great when
the one guy stands up and make sure the bad
thing doesn't happen. I don't know that we necessarily want
to credit anybody in Putin's regime with being willing to
stand up and make sure the bad thing doesn't happen.
But that being said, I am in support of Ukraine
being able to take offensive measures.
Speaker 1 (33:31):
Yeah, so am I. And in terms of Israel, should
they keep bombing Hezbolah. You know I've formulated a peace
plan for the Middle East. I know people have been
trying this for centuries, and certainly it's one of the
most difficult international quagmires that we face. But I believe
(33:52):
I've got the solution to the Middle East problem. I
believe I've got the solution to the problems that Hesbelah
and Hamas and Iran have with Israel. And it boils
down to a very elegant solution. Stop attacking Israel. You
want peace in the Middle East. Stop sending missiles into Israel.
(34:18):
You want peace in Israel between the Palestinians and the
non Palestinians. Stop sending terrorists into Jewish settlements. It is
so fucking simple, And I have empathy and sadness in
(34:38):
my heart for the lost lives of innocence. But this
war will only end when Hesbela stops raining missiles into
Israel and when Hamas stops trying to take over Israel
from the river to the sea.
Speaker 3 (34:56):
And I think with Hesbelah, I think the rest of
the world sort of held its breath, like is there
going to be a shootout war with Hesbela is Blah?
Hesbelah has a lot of political disadvantages visa Vijamas one.
Hesbelah is not trying to liberate anyone. Lebanon is its own.
In fact, Lebanon is its own country, much of which
(35:18):
would like to be liberated from Hesbelah rather than the
other way around. Israel is not stepping, is not occupying
any part of leban of Lebanon. They haven't for twenty
five years. So anything Israel does visa vi Hesbelah, yes,
there are Lebanese that will be hurt, there are citizens
(35:39):
that will be hurt, but there will also be Lebanese
who are outside of hesbloc control who will be very
happy to loudly say this is all Hesbela's fault, which
is something that the people of Gaza can't do because
they are Hamas is in much greater control of Gaza
than Hesbela is over Lebanon. So Israel absolutely canon should
(36:04):
defend itself against Hesbelah, and I think what they will
find is that it is much easier politically to defend
themselves against Hesbelah because Hezblah is not a Palestinian organization
that is take you, that is holding Palestinian sovereignty as
a hostage. They are very clearly an irridentist terrorist, tyrannical
(36:27):
group that wants to impose violent, tyrannical Shia Islam on everybody.
You know, Hamas can hide under. We're just doing this
for Gaza. Hez Blah can't what you're saying. It's it's
pure aggression.
Speaker 1 (36:45):
It's pure.
Speaker 3 (36:46):
Yes, it's pure aggression, and it is much. It's much.
It's much easier for people to see. People should be
able to see it in Hamas too. But Hamas has
PR cards to play, that has Blah does not have.
Speaker 2 (36:59):
Yeah, well, Hamas had PR cards to play until they
abandoned the citizens of Gaza.
Speaker 1 (37:08):
Well, with that, we want to thank everybody for listening.
If you enjoy what we do here, please follow us
on Instagram at MPU podcast and on our substack page,
which I believe is the MPU substack or the more
Perfect Union substack. Does anybody know for sure what our
name is?
Speaker 2 (37:25):
One of those? It definitely has the word substack.
Speaker 1 (37:29):
Where DJ posts some wonderful articles. I occasionally try to
keep up with him. There.
Speaker 3 (37:35):
It's MPU podcast dot substack dot com.
Speaker 2 (37:40):
Can't be more than none of us know what it
was called. That's amazing. We're so good at this.
Speaker 1 (37:46):
And of course don't forget to share our link on
your Facebook timeline so your friends can discover us as well.
Of course, we always thank Alan Keeney for our theme music.
And with that, how do you guys plan to spend
the rest of September.
Speaker 2 (38:04):
I'm going to be drinking hot apple cider and uh
waiting for it to actually get cold and it's still
eighty degrees here.
Speaker 3 (38:14):
More apple sauce, more pain meds. That's that's my week.
Speaker 1 (38:18):
Sounds good to me. Okay, that's a podcast.
Welcome to the More Perfect Union, the podcast that offers
real debate without the hate. I'm Kevin Calton and I'm
pleased as always to be sharing the mic with Rebecca Kushmeiter.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
I am Rebecca Kushmeier, and I am here with Aurra.
I have transcended Riz and I am bringing the Aura.
I am Sigma, I am Sigma.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
What language is that?
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Jen Alpha? Which is you know your current middle schoolers?
These are words that they're using. Skibbety ohio, Kevin, That's
all I can say. Or skibbity toilet.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
I mean, I don't know what you just said to me,
but I'm going.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
To neither do I Actually?
Speaker 1 (01:03):
And if you're about Aura's this week, DJ maguire is
about apple sauce. Hello, DJ, good evening. I do have
to correct Rebecca on one thing. Or is actually downstairs?
She is not here with us.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Now, ara A, you are a not a lovely spouse
my wife?
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Okay, all right, but yes, greetings from Hampton Roads, Virginia, everybody.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
And DJ, do you want to share with people why
you might be eating a little apple sauce as we
do the podcast tonight?
Speaker 4 (01:33):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (01:34):
Yes, I am recovering from a tonsile ectomy. So I'm
still on the soft food diet, which means absolutely I
am not allowed to eat any pets.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Oh good, that will come as a relief to the
citizens of Springfield, Oh DJ, DJ, you're right about something.
Speaking of things that say feel good to hear, I
saw today that there was something about Polish residents of
Pennsylvania or endorsing Kamala Harris over Ukraine. So you're right,
(02:07):
people care about Ukraine. I thought it might just be
you surprise.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
So let's talk about the state of the race. As
everyone who's watched any cable news knows, over the last
week or so, Harris has seemingly made some steady gains
and favorability, although the polls, depending on which one you
look at, some are very positive for her, some seem
more positive for her opponent, Donald Trump, or at least
(02:36):
show maybe a little bit more tightness in some of
the swing states. But we're going to dive into that. DJ.
Let's start with Poles. You are, of course, our resident
expert in all things statistical, and you have quite a
bit of knowledge about polling, and you found some what
you consider and I consider, and I'm going to imagine
(02:58):
that Rebecca considers some fascinating questions in the subtabs of
the New York Times poll that didn't seem quite as
positive for Kamala Harris as some might have expected. So
what did you find?
Speaker 3 (03:12):
So? And I've been complaining about this on this podcast
and on our substack site, that the New York Times,
which cien a pole, which has been arguably the most
favorable to Trump outside of partisan polling, also shows us
how they sample by aera type, and I mean urban,
(03:32):
suburban or rural. Now, a number of pulsters won't tell
you how they do it. Number of pulsars won't sample it,
won't sample it that way at all. They'll they have
numerous other way you know, education, gender, age, all the
normal things. But the Times also shows the area types,
and the area types have little if anything in common
(03:53):
with what the Edison Research twenty twenty exit pole showed
of the population and to get.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
The population of actual vote to vote.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
The voters, the voting, the folks who came to vote,
and in particular, they oversample. The Times over samples rural
voters in every national poll they've had and in every
state pole they've had. And the reason this is important
is because urban voters are much more likely to vote democratic.
Suburban voters either lean Democratic or lean Republican, and manyon
(04:27):
what state you're in, and rural voters across the country
are very heavily Republican. So if you have a poll
that over samples rural voters, it's going to look more
your voting group is going to look more Republican than
it actually should be. And that's something I've been complaining
about for some time with the time seeing a poll
(04:48):
and a couple of other pollsters give their area type divisions,
and some are a little more urban than they should be,
and some are less urban than they should be if
they're comparing to twenty twenty. But the New York Times,
ye only one that is that, in my mind, is
consistently bad. Now, I'm not saying the twenty twenty four
electorate will look exactly like the twenty twenty electorate. That's silly.
(05:09):
We all know it's not the case. But given what
has happened between twenty twenty and twenty twenty four, given
what has happened over the last four years, the last
thing that I would expect would be an electorate that
is less suburban and more rural, particularly an electorate less
suburban and more rural than any week than any electorate
we have seen going back at least fifteen to twenty years.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
Well, not only that, and I spent some time digging
into other metrics, including census data. The sample of rural
voters that The Times is attributing to a the national
population and B state populations such as North Carolina is
larger than what there's rural populations are. So to suggest
(05:53):
that thirty five percent of the national electorate is rural
when only twenty percent of the national population is rural
seems like giving a lot more credit to rural voters
than to suburban and urban voters. And it's but it
also seems like, from what Nate Cohen was saying on
Twitter today, that they have redefined the word rural to
(06:13):
include things that are not rural. But even accounting for that,
and you know, sort of splitting their suburban number and
you know, and taking back some rural votes into their
suburban number, it still doesn't come close to what the
actual exit polls from twenty twenty and twenty twenty two were,
or verified voter data that Pew has been collecting since
(06:34):
twenty sixteen.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Right, and just as just one example I think is
the best example, then Kevin, you can jump in. In Georgia,
they assume eleven percent urban. For eleven percent urban, forty
nine percent suburban, and forty percent rural. The Cab and
Fulton Counties, the two counties that the two counties that
encompass the city of Atlanta, had roughly twelve percent of
(06:59):
the entire Georgia electric in twenty twenty. The New York
Times would have us believe that there are no urban
voters anywhere outside of Fulton, Indicab County, in Atlanta, in
the state of Georgia.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
And again they might they might be defining rural as
towns with only a Walmart, not a Walmart and a Target.
I don't know the towns you know that don't have
enough stop lights. It's it's not clear.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
Yeah, I mean that there was someone, whether it was
Nate Cohen and Ate Silver, I forget who I saw,
but they did say that, Yes, they have redefined rural
to include small towns that some people might call suburban.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
Right, So what we're saying is these definitions are a
little bit meaningless.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
Yes, Yeah, basically and.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
The New York Times should take them out of their
sampling or out of their waiting at.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Least and at the end, at the end of the day,
what this is all about is we have gone through
so much various political trauma over the last nine years
that you know, people who are people who have soffered
trauma run to safety, and a good poll is the
closest thing we have to safety until the election is over.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Right, and and it all comes down to day of turnout.
Of course, there's there's a large contingent of early voting,
absentee voting, but it's all going to come down to turnout,
and it's it's all a guessing game. No one knows.
There are so many variables in this election that are
different than previous elections that you know, I've always felt
(08:33):
and by the way I have used and we have
discussed polling in our debates before, but you know, really
polling should be used by campaigns to decide which states
to contest, which states not to spend resources in how
to refine their message. It really is not supposed to
be something that voters use as a tool to try
(08:56):
to predetermine the outcome of an election.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Yeah, and I think there is internal polling commissioned by campaigns,
commissioned by parties that I think gets a lot more
granular and a lot more detailed. And I don't know
if you remember after twenty sixteen, there was someone who
commented there was no one less surprised than Hillary Clinton
that she lost that night because she had seen the
door to door data that her posters were bringing her
(09:20):
and she knew that the path to sue seventy was closed.
So the polling we're seeing is a very different animal,
and I think it is to some degree ego driven
by these people who've created these models, who are creating
these waiting structures, and are determined to be right or
at the very least not wrong, and so they've created
polls in which they are never wrong because there is
(09:42):
no actual right answer.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
Now, let me ask you guys this famously, one of
the mistakes that the Clinton campaign made in twenty sixteen
was they saw an opportunity in Arizona, and in the
last couple of days they moved some resources, including the
candidate's time you Arizona to try to nail down one
more state. And some people think that might have cost
(10:05):
her one or more of the Rust Belt states, because
if you're in Arizona, you can't be in Wisconsin, you
can't be in Pennsylvania. Is it possible that the Harris
campaign might fall prey to that same mistake this time
that in trying to flip North Carolina, in trying to
flip Georgia, they might not put enough resources, let's say,
(10:26):
into Pennsylvania that maybe would be wiser.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
From what I'm hearing, They're not skimping on Pennsylvania. It's
right now the most campaigned in state in the nation.
I think the airwaves are wall to wall political ads
from both campaigns, and they've got a ton of field offices,
They've got volunteers out at the union, and we're busting
people up to Pennsylvania every weekend from my county.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
Won't say that, don't say that we're not supposed to
bust people in.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
Donald meget they're just there to like knock on doors.
They're not there to vote.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
As far as I know, Yeah, I don't think given
the tremendous amount of resources that that Harris has that
in many respects Clinton did not have, and even Bid
did not have. I'm not really sure you can sure
you can say that she's at the risk of underinvesting
really in any of the states. I think it's clear
(11:19):
that their priorities, that their three priorities are Wisconsin, Michigan,
and Pennsylvania, and I do not think they are underinvested
underinvesting in any of those three. So I don't think
that is necessarily a worry.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
And I mean, but I mean, actually, Kevin, I think
you do have a point in that it is a worry.
It's always a worry. Are we reading the tea leaves wrong?
Are we sending people to the wrong place? Is Tim
Walls getting off with the wrong bus stop? We can't
know until it's over in the final analysis, and we
just kind of have to do the best we have
with the polling data, with the headlines, and you know,
(11:58):
with the electoral math, see what we can do.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
So let me bring up this meme that is out there,
especially in the media, that people are saying they need
to know more about Kamala Harris. They need to know
more about her policy positions before they can make a
determination to vote for her. They've already maybe decided they
(12:22):
don't want to vote for Donald Trump, but this woman
is a blank slate to them. Now, I'm not saying that.
I'm kind of putting into words what I'm hearing in
the media, and I want to discuss that with you, folks.
So who wants to start on that? Do you have
any opinions on that?
Speaker 3 (12:39):
For the folks most likely to come to her side,
these are folks who are center right or even hard
right on economic issues, but who are very much of
the Reagan, Bush McCain view on international affairs. So when
they are saying this kind of thing, she does not
(13:00):
have to bring up domestic issues. They're not going to
agree with her onw domestic issues. It will only cause
unnecessary friction. She needs to talk foreign policy. She needs
to talk Ukraine, she needs to talk NATO. She needs
to talk about how she will continue what the Biden
administration is doing, how she will improve on what the
Biden administration is doing. She can talk more about what
(13:23):
is happening in East Asia, how she will you know,
how she will continue to help Taiwan, how she can
tell her allies there. Those are the kinds of issues
that can win over the largest group of this I'm
not sure if I can vote for Kamala Harris yet.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
I mean, I think her website has gotten a lot
more robust. She has published policy opinions. If you want
to see all of them screenshot it helpfully, you can
go to my twitter feed. My pinned post is a
thread leading to every single Kamala Harris policy position. You
can bookmarket throw it at trolls if you need to.
But I do think that there is something to be
said for some sort of national televised event, because it's
(14:04):
unclear if she'll get another debate, but a TV town
hall or something like that, where she could go on
television for forty five minutes or an hour and take
questions from an audience of voters, similar to what she
just did with Oprah, but without your boomer parents having
to figure out how to stream things. I think that
(14:24):
would be valuable. Anyway, I think there comes a point where,
even though you know, I know, we all know that
it's your two clicks away from any information you want
for her to appear responsive to an audience, that it
is asking her to spoon feed them information the way
DJ is spoon feeding himself apple sauce right now. Has value.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
First all, I agree with that, not so much the
DJ apples, but I agree with what your overall premise
is that yes, the information is available, but you know,
I'm not sure that the correct answer is to say
to people go google it. This is going to be
one area where I am going to give some advice
(15:03):
to the Harris campaign. Now I have to preface this
by saying, I think they are running an absolutely brilliant campaign,
and I give them very very high marks for everything
they've done up to this point.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
But the campaign is full sigma. It is aura. It
is aura, it is it is not mid It is
skibity toilets my friend. Actually, I don't know if I
used that last one right, Sorry, But there.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
Is no campaign is one hundred percent perfect. And there
is one thing that she did in the debate. I
heard her do it again in the local television interview
that she did late last week, which is when they
ask her a policy question. She has been programmed, I assume,
by her advisors to start with a two minute biographical
(15:51):
essay or two and a half minutes about her growing
up in a middle class home and what her mom
said and what she wore to school and where she
ate dinner. And I think it's a legitimate critique to say,
get to the answer, quicker, get to the policy. Off
(16:12):
the question. Not two and a half minutes later, and
I was watching Morning Joe this morning, as I like
to do, and Joe Scarborough was addressing this issue, and
he said, you know, when I ran for Congress and
I was asked a question about jobs, I would go
on and hidden. He talked about the biographical and the
(16:33):
premise part of the question that he would talk on
for a minute or more before he answered the specifics
of the question. And he said, politicians have been doing
this for one hundred years, and she's no different than
anyone else. And my answer to that is, and that's
why it's hurting her, because people are sick of traditional
(16:54):
politicians and the way they speak. And I am convinced
that of Kamala Harus would answer a policy question very
quickly with her specific policy answer, she could put that
criticism behind her.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
I once heard an analysis of advertising campaigns and they
talked specifically about a McDonald's jingle and it used.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
To be Bada Da Da da, I'm loving it, and
then it was just Bada da da da McDonald's, and
then Bada da da da, and then eventually just the
smile that had been the animated graphic, and she needs
to get away from the full jingle and say, well,
you know, I've told the story I grew up in
a middle class household, which is.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Why I know boom. She can truncate the introduction part
because that's been clipped, it's been memed, we've all shared
it on TikTok, so she can get to the meat
of it a little bit faster at this point, and
it's probably time for that pivot. I'm hopeful that we'll
see it soon. Great, So sure she's listening to the
podcast because she and I are besties, despite what my
(17:55):
daughter says, so being her bestie.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
How do you think the get out the vote part
of the campaign is being handled by each of the
two parties?
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Now, this is fascinating because, as you all know, I
am a huge proponent of, you know, get out there
and do something, and I've been a big fan of
text banking. I've done postcard writing campaigns, I put out
yard signs, I talk about everything on social media, you know,
the whole part about being a citizen campaigner for candidates
that I support, and the Democratic Party in the past
(18:33):
few cycles has made it really easy. There are at
least two websites that I know of that are interconnected
that are clearinghouses for volunteer opportunities all across the country
candidates at all levels, everything from very generalized get out
the vote campaigns to phone calls for a school board
candidate in a particular town. And then there are also
entities like Vote Save America, Swing Left, Indivisible, the Women
(18:58):
for Kamala groups that are all putting together opportunities and
forwarding them out at a national level. And I got
curious and went to see if the Republicans are doing
anything similar, and I couldn't find anything. I found state
parties they're like, if you want to get involved, email
us at this, and they didn't have a list of
events that you could show up at, or virtual phone
banks or text banks that you could go to for
(19:20):
stuff outside your district. And just today there were two
big articles about this, one in the AP and I
think one on NBC about how the RNC is essentially
outsourced the ground game to Turning Point and whatever Elon
Musk's shady ass pack is to try and convert unlikely voters,
(19:42):
like newly registered or voters who sat out prior cycles
to try and convert those into Trump voters, particularly I
think young white men is what they're going for. But
there's concerns among kind of the old guard of the
Republican Party that these efforts are a not a f
effective and be the traditional base of volunteers are being
(20:04):
shut out of the process. They are not getting guidance
and they're not getting resources. So what does that mean?
What is the upshot? It means the Democrats are on
the ground doing a lot, and Republicans are being very targeted,
very specific and also infiltrating boards of elections all over
the country, probably to try and stop certification or at
(20:24):
least come up the works pretty badly, and it remains
to be seen what that will turn into in the
final countdowns. But that gets, I think to one of
your ongoing concerns, Kevin, about malfeasance the day of the
election and then the weeks afterwards.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
So yeah, So to take your lead and make a segue,
the next topic on our rundown is election day and
the day after and the days after that. Before I
get into the meat of that, I want to bring
up a movie I've told you guys about it in
our little PM thread that we share between shows, but
(21:06):
our audience may not know about it. It's a new
documentary called Wargame, and it shows a simulation that was
done by an agency that's associated with the federal government,
not an actual federal agency, but one that has done
some wargame like simulations before for the Department of Defense.
(21:30):
And they got former Montana Governor Steve Bullock to play
the president, and they got Wesley Clark to play a
national security advisor of sorts, former Senator Heidi Hidekamp to
play another national security advisor, and about ten or twelve
people like that to fill out the cast in this simulation.
(21:53):
And the simulation was what happens if Honor around January sixth,
twenty twenty five Vibe there is another insurrection, but the
insurrection is much more organized and it starts to infiltrate
the US military. It's a fascinating documentary. If you can
(22:14):
find it in your city, I promise you will not
be bored it is. It plays actually like a drama
and it's the edge of your seat kind of viewing.
I don't think any either of you have had a
chance to see it. Maybe you've read about it. But
with that as the as the precursor to this conversation,
(22:35):
what are your concerns?
Speaker 3 (22:36):
Now?
Speaker 1 (22:37):
We've seen so far already the attempt in Nebraska to
change how they dole out their electoral votes, and that
still remains to be seen what's going to happen there,
And we're seeing attempts in Georgia to change how they
count and how they certify the count in various counties.
(23:00):
With that said, what are your thoughts about where we're going,
not just with the actual election, but with how the
election is counted and certified.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
I'm a lot more worried about the Georgia Nebraska type
things than I am the potential for a well organized
January sixth, just because I think that is what possibly
the Trump campaign is counting on you. I think a
lot of the type of people who would have rallied
(23:29):
to Trump's call are counting on lawyers to do the
dirty work. And I don't know how easy it is
to create a coalescing event when you do not have
the power of the presidency to come into your freedom plaza.
Speaker 3 (23:44):
Did Jack yet so far from I think just this.
I think it was just this morning that one of
the one of the state senator in Nebraska. Is it's
one house, it's a senate that one of the senators
who needed to flip in order for them to change
the way their electro votes accounted said, no, I don't
(24:05):
think it's a good idea six weeks out from an election.
I don't think we should do it.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
So, but the concern is that we were banking on
that one thoughtful, honest broker in some states to be
between us in disaster, which.
Speaker 3 (24:19):
Is, well, I try, I actually, I actually trust more
a guy who actually wants to be mayor of the
largest city in that district and who knows damn well
if the accidentally disenfranchises and it will never happens the
skin of the games.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Yeah, but again, like counting on that one person to
be there to take the stance for whatever reason, is
that's a risky game.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
Yeah, no, it is. It is risky. I agree.
Speaker 2 (24:45):
It's almost like buying trunk social stock and out a
play out.
Speaker 3 (24:50):
Yeah, exactly. Georgia is very concerning. Although there will be.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
Lawsuits the Georgians there already are.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
Yeah, there already are. The Georgia Attorney General put out
a statement saying, you know that this is a violation
of the law. But the Georgia Republican Party is very,
very weird in that regard.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
So let me let me ask this specific question. And
again we're just people. We're just speculating like everybody else.
Let's say Kamala Harris wins Georgia that within a few
days after the election, all the votes are in. AP says,
Kamala Harris has carried the state. But for whatever reason,
(25:28):
because one or two of these counties, or one or
two of these electoral commissions don't certify their vote count,
Brian Kemp cannot certify the state. What happens on January sixth,
It goes to the House, it goes to the Senate.
We know that according to AP and according to all
(25:50):
the factual data that is available to us, the Democratic
candidate won the state, but it hasn't been certified. Can
the House still count those electoral votes?
Speaker 3 (26:04):
That's not going to be the question that's asked. The
question you can to be asked is who is declared
the official winner if Fulton County's vote is never certified, right,
or if Fulton County's voters throw into dispute the name
of the game here, the purpose of this is to
find some kind of technicality that can wipe out an
entire urban counties vote. That's the endgame, that's what they're
(26:27):
looking to do. If these bizarre laws, the bizarre rules
that they're talking about, actually stay in place, there is
a very good chance that they could do that. That
Fulton County could slip on something that it takes them
twenty five hours, that have twenty four hours to complete
this count and this board could say, this board could
(26:48):
step in and say, well, then all of Fulton County's
vote is invalid, and that's going to have to go
through the state courts. Yeah, that's going to have to
go through the state courts especially, and possibly even the
federal courts, or we can before we can have any
kind of determination.
Speaker 2 (27:04):
The thing is, we won't be doing this on January fifth.
I'm looking right now at this this is what I'm
looking at. Yeah, I'm looking at Georgia's calendar, and they
have to certify county results by mid November and you know,
conduct audits by mid November. So if these county boards
(27:25):
are going to try and be in disaccord with the
black Letter Law, this is codified calendar that is out
of a legislative process, and you know as opposed to
these promulgated rules that the election board is putting out
right now. If we get to a point where these
county election authorities are missing legally binding deadlines, that's the
(27:49):
point that the Harris campaign is going to have to
start dropping lawsuits. And we'll have you know eight, Well, well, we.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
Know there's going to be lawsuits, but we also know
there's a potent for them not to be litigated, not
to be resolved.
Speaker 3 (28:03):
And at the end of six and at the end
of the day, the states that are the larger concern
are Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. And the
reason I named those five states in particular, and only
those five states, is because those are the five states
that have either Republican controlled legislature or split legislature like
(28:27):
Pennsylvania has. If things go to hell, and Nevada, for example,
Nevada has a democratic state legislature that something will step
inis go Alright, you idiots know that Kamala Harra won
this state. But if we have to actually pass a
law saying give the electoral votes to her, because she
got more votes then I guess we'll do it, you
(28:50):
freaking morons. But North Carolina's legislature has been shown to
be black forgiven by language, A bunch of dicks. Legislature
created this whole electro board nonsense in the first place,
so they have shown themselves to be a bunch of dicks.
Those are the two states that I think have the
biggest problems because they have very heavy Republican and Trump
(29:14):
Estate legislatures who are very willing to stick their fingers
at the rest of us and say, we don't really
care what you want. This is what we want, and
we're going to get it.
Speaker 1 (29:24):
Okay, let's say, in the last few minutes, change our
focus to foreign relations, not so much to the domestic
election situation. The two questions that we wanted to bounce
around between the three of US is should Ukraine be
allowed to bomb Russia? And should Israel keep bombing Hesbela.
So dj I'll give you the first shot at.
Speaker 3 (29:46):
Those yes to both. Ukraine is already hitting targets deep
inside Russia. They're just doing it with high power drones
instead of the missiles that they want to use that
can create much more damage to Russia's milit her industrial complex,
and they should have they should have the authority in
the ability to do that.
Speaker 2 (30:04):
Wait, did a former Republican just say military industrial complex.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
I have never had a trouble with that.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
I I you are in a military industrial.
Speaker 4 (30:15):
Think I have?
Speaker 3 (30:20):
He was mad at it. I'm not so. Just so
we're clear here, But but you know, Ukraine should not
have to fight with with a hand tie behind their back.
I think the fear I can understand the fear of
Russia resorting to nuclear weapons, but frankly, Russia invaded Ukraine
(30:42):
in the first place because they assumed mutually assured destruction.
Assumed mutually sure destruction meant that we would not ever
engage in a nuclear response if he was doing too
well in Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
The assumption, if I'm understanding you correctly, DJ and I
may not have heard it quite the way you meant it,
but you're talking about him using nuclear weapons against the
West or against the United States. I think the fear
is that he might use a tactical nuclear weapon in
Ukraine on the gamble that the United States would not
(31:20):
respond in kind with any type of nuclear attack or
even any type of direct attack, because they do not
want to escalate to a nuclear exchange.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
I think that is. I think that is one of
the most likely scenario that he was talking about tactical nukes,
you know, but I think he would also, you know,
keep them just inside the border with Poland so that
we're not That's what I'm saying, NTO, is it triggered.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
Yeah, he would use it in and I don't think
this is going to happen. By the way, I'm not
one of those people that thinks that we have to
treat this man with kick gloves. I think that Ukraine
should be allowed to fight the war and try to win,
because that's the only way that you could win a
war is to try to do damage to the other side.
You can't fight with one arm tied behind your back.
(32:05):
But I think the concern is that he might make
a bad, you know, strategic decision and see if he
could get away with something, and that might put NATO
in an awkward situation.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
The trouble with that is we saw what happened to
the nuclear fallout from the Chernobyl disaster in nineteen eighty
six and how much that actually affected Eastern Europe and
parts of Western Europe. A tactical nuclear weapon would likely
have similar environmental impacts, and that could be seen as
(32:37):
an attack on NATO, and that could be some damaging
to NATO and the people and the people around him,
who many of whom are old enough to remember Chernobyl
will remember that. And I think we'll we'll we'll tell
him and are telling him that is too much of
a risk, too much of usk to him. Internally. I
don't think he can get the regime behind him to
(33:01):
launch a tactical nocay weapon against Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (33:05):
Okay, Rebecca, did you have anything before I mouth off?
Speaker 2 (33:10):
I mean, you know, it goes back to what we
were just saying about Nebraska, like, yeah, it's great when
the one guy stands up and make sure the bad
thing doesn't happen. I don't know that we necessarily want
to credit anybody in Putin's regime with being willing to
stand up and make sure the bad thing doesn't happen.
But that being said, I am in support of Ukraine
being able to take offensive measures.
Speaker 1 (33:31):
Yeah, so am I. And in terms of Israel, should
they keep bombing Hezbolah. You know I've formulated a peace
plan for the Middle East. I know people have been
trying this for centuries, and certainly it's one of the
most difficult international quagmires that we face. But I believe
(33:52):
I've got the solution to the Middle East problem. I
believe I've got the solution to the problems that Hesbelah
and Hamas and Iran have with Israel. And it boils
down to a very elegant solution. Stop attacking Israel. You
want peace in the Middle East. Stop sending missiles into Israel.
(34:18):
You want peace in Israel between the Palestinians and the
non Palestinians. Stop sending terrorists into Jewish settlements. It is
so fucking simple, And I have empathy and sadness in
(34:38):
my heart for the lost lives of innocence. But this
war will only end when Hesbela stops raining missiles into
Israel and when Hamas stops trying to take over Israel
from the river to the sea.
Speaker 3 (34:56):
And I think with Hesbelah, I think the rest of
the world sort of held its breath, like is there
going to be a shootout war with Hesbela is Blah?
Hesbelah has a lot of political disadvantages visa Vijamas one.
Hesbelah is not trying to liberate anyone. Lebanon is its own.
In fact, Lebanon is its own country, much of which
(35:18):
would like to be liberated from Hesbelah rather than the
other way around. Israel is not stepping, is not occupying
any part of leban of Lebanon. They haven't for twenty
five years. So anything Israel does visa vi Hesbelah, yes,
there are Lebanese that will be hurt, there are citizens
(35:39):
that will be hurt, but there will also be Lebanese
who are outside of hesbloc control who will be very
happy to loudly say this is all Hesbela's fault, which
is something that the people of Gaza can't do because
they are Hamas is in much greater control of Gaza
than Hesbela is over Lebanon. So Israel absolutely canon should
(36:04):
defend itself against Hesbelah, and I think what they will
find is that it is much easier politically to defend
themselves against Hesbelah because Hezblah is not a Palestinian organization
that is take you, that is holding Palestinian sovereignty as
a hostage. They are very clearly an irridentist terrorist, tyrannical
(36:27):
group that wants to impose violent, tyrannical Shia Islam on everybody.
You know, Hamas can hide under. We're just doing this
for Gaza. Hez Blah can't what you're saying. It's it's
pure aggression.
Speaker 1 (36:45):
It's pure.
Speaker 3 (36:46):
Yes, it's pure aggression, and it is much. It's much.
It's much easier for people to see. People should be
able to see it in Hamas too. But Hamas has
PR cards to play, that has Blah does not have.
Speaker 2 (36:59):
Yeah, well, Hamas had PR cards to play until they
abandoned the citizens of Gaza.
Speaker 1 (37:08):
Well, with that, we want to thank everybody for listening.
If you enjoy what we do here, please follow us
on Instagram at MPU podcast and on our substack page,
which I believe is the MPU substack or the more
Perfect Union substack. Does anybody know for sure what our
name is?
Speaker 2 (37:25):
One of those? It definitely has the word substack.
Speaker 1 (37:29):
Where DJ posts some wonderful articles. I occasionally try to
keep up with him. There.
Speaker 3 (37:35):
It's MPU podcast dot substack dot com.
Speaker 2 (37:40):
Can't be more than none of us know what it
was called. That's amazing. We're so good at this.
Speaker 1 (37:46):
And of course don't forget to share our link on
your Facebook timeline so your friends can discover us as well.
Of course, we always thank Alan Keeney for our theme music.
And with that, how do you guys plan to spend
the rest of September.
Speaker 2 (38:04):
I'm going to be drinking hot apple cider and uh
waiting for it to actually get cold and it's still
eighty degrees here.
Speaker 3 (38:14):
More apple sauce, more pain meds. That's that's my week.
Speaker 1 (38:18):
Sounds good to me. Okay, that's a podcast.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!