Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Three Hundred Seventeen: Sympathy For The Fraudster

Transcript

Episode Three Hundred Seventeen: Sympathy For The Fraudster · The Death Of Journalism

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Welcome to episode 317 of the Death of Journalism podcast.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: My name is John Ziegler. I'm your host on this
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: week's show. We get ready for the big midterm elections
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: with our biannual interview with MAGA commentator and pollster Steve Cortez,
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: the bizarre Brazilian presidential election. plus updates on several stories
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: we've discussed recently, the legacy media falls for another obvious hoax,
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: an AI fear factor update, and the Elizabeth Holmes movie
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: has everyone talking. Obviously, this week we have coming up
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: the midterm elections. I am not optimistic from a Republican perspective,
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: but we're going to speak with someone to start this
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: podcast who is a bit more optimistic than I am.
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: He is MAGA commentator and pollster Steve Cortez, a very
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: good friend of mine and of the show. We speak
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: to him basically twice a year and figured that obviously
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: before the midterms would be the perfect time to schedule
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: one of his two yearly interviews. And so this is
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: our discussion done on Wednesday of this week with Steve
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: Cortez looking ahead to the midterms and other issues related
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: to the political environment. Steve Cortez, welcome back to the
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: Death of Journalism podcast.
• 1:17
  Speaker 2: Thank you, John.
• 1:18
  Speaker 3: Thanks so much for having me. As you know, I
• 1:20
  Speaker 3: am such a fan of your work. I listen to
• 1:23
  Speaker 3: every single word. So I'm very pleased to be a
• 1:27
  Speaker 3: subscriber and honored to be the guest on your show.
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: And I will tell you. that you're always entertaining, always educational.
• 1:35
  Speaker 3: And I will tell you that as somebody who works
• 1:37
  Speaker 3: full-time as a professional in this world of campaigns, I
• 1:40
  Speaker 3: practically use a lot of the wisdom and knowledge that
• 1:43
  Speaker 3: you impart on your show.
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: I use it in a very tangible way in campaigns.
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: So thank you.
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: Well, I really appreciate that. And I hope it's worth
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: the $ 6 a month you pay as a subscriber to
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: the podcast.
• 1:56
  Speaker 2: Much more than that.
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: All right. So there's a lot to talk about with
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: the midterms coming up. And I want to deal with
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: the House real fast because I know most of your
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: almost all of your focus has been on the Senate.
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: And frankly, that's where I think it's way more important
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: than the House. But just to be clear, are you
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: in agreement, as I am, with the conventional wisdom that
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: Democrats are indeed going to win the House of Representatives
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: and probably by a fairly significant margin?
• 2:21
  Speaker 2: Yes, I will.
• 2:22
  Speaker 3: I think it's a foregone conclusion, a fait accompli that
• 2:24
  Speaker 3: they're going to win it. I don't see dozens and
• 2:27
  Speaker 3: dozens of seats, but not because the mood isn't set
• 2:30
  Speaker 3: up for that, but because the seats are drawn with
• 2:33
  Speaker 3: such scientific scrutiny now that it's just hard to get
• 2:36
  Speaker 3: all that many, you know, truly battleground House seats. So,
• 2:39
  Speaker 3: you know, I don't think it's that kind of way,
• 2:42
  Speaker 3: but I don't think there's any doubt that the Democrats
• 2:45
  Speaker 3: take control and not by a seat or two. But,
• 2:47
  Speaker 3: you know, I think relatively easily, yes.
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: So you don't buy my theory that the gerrymandering redistricting
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: effort by Republicans in some states could actually backfire in
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: a wave election because you've actually, in order to get
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: those extra seats, you have to at least make some
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: of them a little bit more vulnerable to take it
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: out of The theoretical into the practical, you take a
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: bunch of plus 15 or 20 Republican seats and you
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: make them plus 10 thinking that they're still safe. But
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: in a wave election, they aren't safe. You're not worried
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: about that?
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: No, no. I mean, I'm worried. I just don't think
• 3:26
  Speaker 2: it's likely, but that could happen. Absolutely.
• 3:27
  Speaker 3: And I think the place to watch there will be
• 3:29
  Speaker 3: the Hispanic areas of Texas because Texas was.
• 3:33
  Speaker 2: Very aggressive with his redraw, but it redrew them.
• 3:36
  Speaker 3: On 2024 results, which were amazing for President Trump. Of course,
• 3:41
  Speaker 3: won the state by 14, won Hispanics in that state,
• 3:45
  Speaker 3: almost won Hispanics nationwide. And that Latino vote does not
• 3:48
  Speaker 3: look like it's going to at all replicate 2024 now
• 3:52
  Speaker 3: in 2026. So, you know, in Texas in particular, were
• 3:56
  Speaker 3: they too aggressive with the redraw? That is definitely a worry. No,
• 3:59
  Speaker 3: and you could be right on that score. You know, obviously,
• 4:02
  Speaker 3: we're going to we're going to find out shortly. And,
• 4:04
  Speaker 3: you know, is it a worry? Yes, it's a worry
• 4:06
  Speaker 3: for me.
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: Is it likely in my view? No.
• 4:09
  Speaker 3: But look, if we look at the RealClearPolitics average today,
• 4:11
  Speaker 3: in terms of generic ballot. And it has had a
• 4:14
  Speaker 3: pretty good midterm success rate. I actually posted this on
• 4:17
  Speaker 3: my social media going back eight times. It's plus eight
• 4:20
  Speaker 3: right now for the Dems. And it has missed by
• 4:23
  Speaker 3: a couple percent here and there, but it hasn't missed
• 4:25
  Speaker 3: by much historically. And it has never missed directionally, you know,
• 4:28
  Speaker 3: meaning the other party didn't suddenly win. So it would
• 4:31
  Speaker 3: be massively surprising if the Democrats don't don't pick up seats,
• 4:36
  Speaker 3: don't win the national generic ballot.
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: I believe they will. I would still I see what
• 4:41
  Speaker 2: you're talking about. It's absolutely a risk for the GOP.
• 4:43
  Speaker 3: But I just don't see one of these plus 40
• 4:46
  Speaker 3: plus 35 kind of years.
• 4:47
  Speaker 2: My guess is it's probably more like a 24, which
• 4:49
  Speaker 2: is still a shellacking.
• 4:51
  Speaker 3: Right, and still obviously, you know, hands the gavel over
• 4:53
  Speaker 3: to Hakeem Jeffries, which is frightening to me.
• 4:55
  Speaker 2: But Republicans, frankly, deserve this.
• 4:57
  Speaker 3: I mean, you know, as the governing party, they have
• 4:59
  Speaker 3: not delivered on what they promised in 2024.
• 5:02
  Speaker 2: That's clear.
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: And, you know, in my opinion, the margin here really matters,
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: because if Democrats get into that 230, 240 range, which
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: I think they could, then they have to impeach Donald
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: Trump because their base will demand it and they'll have
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: plenty of votes to do it. But But I want
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: to focus mostly on the Senate. That's where you have
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: really done most of your work. You and I are
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: in agreement that basically there are about eight Senate seats
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: that are up for grabs. They are effectively coin flips.
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: You could argue that Democrats have advantage in some of
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: those states. Republicans might still have a slight advantage in
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: some of them. I have basically looked at this and said,
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: law of averages, splitting the difference. If you have eight
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: of those and Republicans win three, that's going to put
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: Republicans at 48, Democrats at 52. Before we get to
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: your actual prediction of where that's going, where do you
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: see the global Senate races right now before we get
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: to the specific states? Do you agree with that basic
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: analysis of the eight that are up for grabs?
• 6:08
  Speaker 3: I do.
• 6:10
  Speaker 2: I think eight states, maybe even nine.
• 6:12
  Speaker 3: You know, we can review which ones are essentially tied
• 6:16
  Speaker 3: and jump balls at this point. It's going to be
• 6:18
  Speaker 3: a matter of who turns people out because the persuasion
• 6:20
  Speaker 3: game this late is over.
• 6:22
  Speaker 2: So it's a turnout matter. But when I look at
• 6:25
  Speaker 2: the states, yeah, I agree.
• 6:26
  Speaker 3: And I also, for that reason, think that anybody who
• 6:29
  Speaker 3: is who is prognosticating with any degree of assuredness right
• 6:33
  Speaker 3: now or high confidence is either just not good at
• 6:36
  Speaker 3: what they do or lying, right? Because I really think
• 6:40
  Speaker 3: that those of us, you know, who are in the
• 6:41
  Speaker 3: game full time, who do this for a living, realize
• 6:44
  Speaker 3: that these states are incredibly tight. And by the way,
• 6:48
  Speaker 3: the problem for Republicans is most of them are states
• 6:51
  Speaker 3: that should be reliably Republican, you know, right? In other words,
• 6:54
  Speaker 3: we're playing defense in places where a year ago, there's
• 6:56
  Speaker 3: no way we thought we're going to be playing defense.
• 6:59
  Speaker 2: And then we thought we're winnable for the Democrats.
• 7:00
  Speaker 3: And, you know, clearly that column of if there's eight
• 7:03
  Speaker 3: or nine states, that column is a way bigger column
• 7:05
  Speaker 3: than the Democrat column. Now, having said that, I'm optimistic
• 7:08
  Speaker 3: because I think there's a couple of flips in the
• 7:09
  Speaker 3: upper Midwest, but admittedly, I'm way out of conventional wisdom
• 7:12
  Speaker 3: on that. Admittedly, I am perhaps being too rosy in
• 7:18
  Speaker 3: my optimism regarding those states.
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: Let's talk about your optimism. I love optimism, even though
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: I tend to be more of a pessimist. And whenever
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: I get optimistic, that's usually when I'm most wrong. But
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: you are optimistic about specifically the three northern states, the
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: three M's as you referenced them, Maine, Michigan, and in
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: my view, somewhat delusionally, Minnesota. But give us your argument
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: that Maine, Michigan, Maine would be a hold if Susan
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: Collins wins.
• 7:50
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: But Michigan and Minnesota could be theoretically two Republican flips.
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: Give us your argument that you think that's plausible.
• 7:57
  Speaker 2: Sure.
• 7:58
  Speaker 3: Well, the first thing I would tell you is that
• 8:00
  Speaker 3: populism has really scrambled the map. And that's both opportunity
• 8:04
  Speaker 3: and a problem for both sides, for the R's and
• 8:07
  Speaker 3: the D's. So a lot of places are in play
• 8:09
  Speaker 3: that maybe shouldn't have been or shouldn't be at least
• 8:12
  Speaker 3: given this macro backdrop. So that's sort of the first thing.
• 8:14
  Speaker 3: But then the second thing that's specific to these three states,
• 8:16
  Speaker 3: the three M's of Minnesota, Michigan, Maine, is in all
• 8:20
  Speaker 3: three cases, the Democrats nominated candidates who I think are
• 8:25
  Speaker 3: just untalented. They are not skilled political athletes. These are
• 8:28
  Speaker 3: unimpressive people. They are incredibly radical. And they have a
• 8:33
  Speaker 3: lot of problems, which make them a very, very tough
• 8:36
  Speaker 3: sell to the citizens of those three states, all of
• 8:40
  Speaker 3: which lean blue, but are not overwhelmingly blue, right? They
• 8:44
  Speaker 3: are not Massachusetts or California. They are sensible states, somewhat
• 8:50
  Speaker 3: swing states. Certainly Michigan is a swing state, less so
• 8:53
  Speaker 3: obviously Minnesota and Maine.
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: But Michigan certainly is a swing state.
• 8:56
  Speaker 3: And so I think the combination of populism as a
• 9:00
  Speaker 3: general theme and a general.
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: Reality, terrible opposition candidates.
• 9:05
  Speaker 3: Every coach who doesn't necessarily love where his team is
• 9:07
  Speaker 3: wants to play a weak opponent. We're playing terrible opponents
• 9:10
  Speaker 3: in all three of those, particularly Michigan. And I think
• 9:14
  Speaker 3: that makes those races winnable.
• 9:15
  Speaker 2: And if I'm right, then two of the three are flips.
• 9:18
  Speaker 3: And that makes the math then really hard for the Democrats,
• 9:21
  Speaker 3: even if they have a fantastic night, which they very
• 9:23
  Speaker 3: well may.
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: Well, if by some, and I do believe it would
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: be a miracle, if Republicans won in those three states,
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: then in my view, the worst they could possibly do
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: would be 50-50. And they would almost certainly... They'd almost
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: certainly hold the Senate because, well, I'm not sure you
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: can still do this in 2026. It's hard to imagine
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: a world where Republicans win in Minnesota and lose in Texas.
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: But we might be in that world, John.
• 9:52
  Speaker 3: I mean, that's my point. Like populism has scrambled the map.
• 9:55
  Speaker 3: I mean, it really has. Right.
• 9:57
  Speaker 2: And no, I agree, though. I mean, you know, theoretically that.
• 10:00
  Speaker 3: Nuts.
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: But could that happen?
• 10:01
  Speaker 3: I mean, could we lose South Carolina, right, but win Michigan? honestly,
• 10:07
  Speaker 3: right now, yeah, that's very plausible. I mean, that absolutely
• 10:10
  Speaker 3: can happen.
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: Well, I don't want to let you totally off the
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: hook on Minnesota. I mean, I like Michelle DeFoya. She's
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: been a guest on this podcast. Frankly, anybody that's been
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: a guest on this podcast is probably never going to
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: be a U.S. senator. But it's hard for me to
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: imagine how she wins in Minnesota in this environment. And
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: as unpopular as Trump is and as liberal as Minnesota is,
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: I get you know, the corruption and all that. And
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: I get to the candidate she's up against is terrible.
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: But do you really think she can win Minnesota?
• 10:43
  Speaker 2: I do. But listen, I understand. And you're right.
• 10:45
  Speaker 3: You know, at the presidential level, Republican hasn't won since 1972.
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: It's a year I was born. I'm not a young man.
• 10:52
  Speaker 3: It's been a long, long streak, right, of Minnesota voting
• 10:54
  Speaker 3: for Democrats on the national level. And at the Senate level,
• 10:58
  Speaker 3: it's going.
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: To be tough.
• 10:59
  Speaker 3: However, having said that, In Senate races, the candidates really matter.
• 11:03
  Speaker 3: I don't think they matter all that much in House
• 11:04
  Speaker 3: races because most regular voters, frankly, don't know who's on
• 11:07
  Speaker 3: the ballot in a House race.
• 11:08
  Speaker 2: They might know the incumbent.
• 11:09
  Speaker 3: They definitely don't know your average voter, doesn't know the
• 11:12
  Speaker 3: challenger in House races. So House races tend to be
• 11:14
  Speaker 3: much more of a national macro referendum. And I think
• 11:18
  Speaker 3: that's a problem, obviously, for Republicans, because nationally voters don't
• 11:22
  Speaker 3: like the economy, don't like the war, don't like Trump. OK,
• 11:25
  Speaker 3: but in state races, especially when there's a pretty good
• 11:27
  Speaker 3: amount of money spent, People do get to know the candidates.
• 11:30
  Speaker 3: And in the case of Michelle Tafoya, and this is
• 11:32
  Speaker 3: one of the reasons I think she has a fighting chance,
• 11:34
  Speaker 3: she came into the race incredibly well-known because of her
• 11:37
  Speaker 3: decades on air as, I think, one of the best
• 11:40
  Speaker 3: sports broadcasters out there. And I'm tough on sports broadcasters,
• 11:43
  Speaker 3: by the way. I'm not an easy critic of them.
• 11:45
  Speaker 3: I always thought she was a great sideline reporter and
• 11:47
  Speaker 3: just a great reporter, period. And so she brings that experience,
• 11:52
  Speaker 3: that stardom to the race. She has an incredibly unlikable
• 11:56
  Speaker 3: opponent who is closely tied to The grand larceny that
• 12:00
  Speaker 3: the Somali community has been able to inflict upon the
• 12:03
  Speaker 3: taxpayers of Minnesota. So they're very angry. So you have
• 12:06
  Speaker 3: really state specific issues there. And that tells me that
• 12:10
  Speaker 3: it's winnable. Now, on the other hand, on your side
• 12:12
  Speaker 3: of the ledger would be this new New York Times poll,
• 12:15
  Speaker 3: which just came out as we're taping this way off
• 12:18
  Speaker 3: of other polling. But and I generally think New York Times,
• 12:21
  Speaker 3: Sienna does very good polling. OK, so let me say that,
• 12:23
  Speaker 3: you know, as an admission right away. They have this
• 12:26
  Speaker 3: race at plus 14 for Peggy Flanagan. Now, I think
• 12:29
  Speaker 3: that's nuts. I have Peggy Flanagan at plus 2. Most
• 12:32
  Speaker 3: credible polling out there has anywhere from the 3 to
• 12:35
  Speaker 3: 5 range, and here they come in with a plus 14.
• 12:38
  Speaker 3: Perhaps they got a terrible sample. I don't know what's
• 12:40
  Speaker 3: going on. I follow this race really closely. I'm very
• 12:42
  Speaker 3: involved in this race actively. Nothing has changed dramatically in
• 12:46
  Speaker 3: the last few days that indicate to me the race
• 12:48
  Speaker 3: should be.
• 12:48
  Speaker 2: Moving like that.
• 12:49
  Speaker 3: But I'll be the first to say that that number
• 12:52
  Speaker 3: is definitely a problem for my theory of the case.
• 12:54
  Speaker 2: OK, I will absolutely admit that. But somebody's right here.
• 12:58
  Speaker 3: You know, either Cortez and his polling is right at
• 13:00
  Speaker 3: plus two or The New York Times at plus 14. But,
• 13:02
  Speaker 3: you know, there's no we can't we can't both be
• 13:05
  Speaker 3: somehow right and somehow, you know, nuance that. No, like
• 13:07
  Speaker 3: somebody got this really, really wrong.
• 13:09
  Speaker 2: We'll find out.
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: Well, let me ask you about your polling in Minnesota.
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: You say you have DeFoya at minus two, but what's
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: the highest percentage you have for her?
• 13:19
  Speaker 2: Do you remember? I don't recall the top of my head,
• 13:22
  Speaker 2: but not in the upper 40s. You know, I still
• 13:24
  Speaker 2: have a lot.
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: See, that's the problem.
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: See, that's the problem. No, I hear you.
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: I mean, if Michelle DeFoya was going to pull off
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: a massive upset like that, she would be at 47, 48,
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: 49 in polling. I mean, this is a two-person race.
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: And so, I mean, there's, to me, that doesn't cut it.
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: You know, being in the.
• 13:46
  Speaker 2: There.
• 13:47
  Speaker 3: Are, just so you know, too, though, there are two credible,
• 13:49
  Speaker 3: you know, independents there. Well, there's one who's actually an
• 13:51
  Speaker 3: independent and there's also a libertarian.
• 13:53
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 13:54
  Speaker 3: And Minnesota does like to vote third party way more
• 13:56
  Speaker 3: than other states.
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: So you think she could win with 46 percent?
• 13:59
  Speaker 2: No, no. I agree with you. She needs to get
• 14:01
  Speaker 2: to 47 at least. Right.
• 14:03
  Speaker 3: But she might not need to get to 48, 49.
• 14:04
  Speaker 3: And she definitely does not.
• 14:06
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: Well, look, I hope I hope you're right. But I'm very,
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: very skeptical.
• 14:10
  Speaker 2: No, I understand your skepticism.
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: You're probably right.
• 14:13
  Speaker 3: And I'll be the first to admit, John, when I
• 14:15
  Speaker 3: get really intensely involved in a race, you know, clearly
• 14:18
  Speaker 3: at times, you know, I will convince myself that what
• 14:21
  Speaker 3: I want to happen is what will happen. It's human nature.
• 14:23
  Speaker 3: I try to guard against that. But to a degree, too,
• 14:25
  Speaker 3: when you're involved in a campaign, it's not the worst
• 14:27
  Speaker 3: thing to have that mentality.
• 14:28
  Speaker 2: You know what I mean?
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: I get it. I get it.
• 14:30
  Speaker 2: I understand.
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: You got to believe. You got to believe. Now, let's
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: talk about let's talk about Maine real quick and then Michigan,
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: which has gotten a lot of attention. You think you
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: think that Susan Collins is going to hang on there?
• 14:41
  Speaker 2: I do.
• 14:42
  Speaker 3: And of any of the states in play, that is
• 14:44
  Speaker 3: the one I'm most sure of. And for this reason,
• 14:46
  Speaker 3: number one, she has not been closely identified with Trump.
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 14:49
  Speaker 2: I mean, to say the least, she's had a very
• 14:51
  Speaker 2: frosty relationship with Trump. I think Mainers know that. All right.
• 14:55
  Speaker 3: But secondly, and this is probably even more important, she
• 14:58
  Speaker 3: has just delivered for me. You know, I spent an
• 15:01
  Speaker 3: entire week up there. I filmed two documentaries in support
• 15:03
  Speaker 3: of her candidacy in Maine, talked to a lot of folks.
• 15:07
  Speaker 3: Maine's a very different kind of place, by the way.
• 15:09
  Speaker 3: I think it's almost like Alaska in a way. even
• 15:11
  Speaker 3: though it is contiguous to the United States, it's very separate.
• 15:13
  Speaker 2: It's its own entity. It's quirky. It's charming. It's weird.
• 15:17
  Speaker 2: And Maine people really know and love.
• 15:21
  Speaker 3: And appreciate Susan Collins. I think that's why she has
• 15:23
  Speaker 3: outperformed her polling in the past. I believe she will again.
• 15:27
  Speaker 3: So the combination of her distance from Trump and the
• 15:31
  Speaker 3: Mainers affinity for her and her ability as just a pragmatist,
• 15:36
  Speaker 3: Senator as effectively a lobbyist almost working for the state
• 15:40
  Speaker 3: of Maine, her effectiveness on Capitol Hill, I believe that's
• 15:42
  Speaker 3: going to deliver a.
• 15:43
  Speaker 2: Victory to her.
• 15:44
  Speaker 3: By the way, if Graham Plattner had stayed in, John,
• 15:46
  Speaker 3: I think this would be an entirely different race. Because
• 15:48
  Speaker 3: even though I think he's an absolute loon and a fraud,
• 15:51
  Speaker 3: he had charisma coming out of his ears. He had
• 15:54
  Speaker 3: some of the gift that very few politicians have. And
• 15:57
  Speaker 3: I think probably she's behind against Grant Plattner. He's not
• 16:01
  Speaker 3: the nominee, though. And Troy Jackson has all of his
• 16:03
  Speaker 3: radicalism and none of his gifts and none of his charisma.
• 16:06
  Speaker 3: He's really he's just he's just strange. And he's he's
• 16:09
  Speaker 3: an unlikable, strange, unimpressive guy. Somebody who doesn't have command
• 16:13
  Speaker 3: of facts very well, doesn't interview well at all, doesn't
• 16:16
  Speaker 3: have a lot of money. And frankly, I think some
• 16:18
  Speaker 3: of the Plattner folks are dispirited by the way that
• 16:21
  Speaker 3: went down. So you could even see some lefties choosing
• 16:24
  Speaker 3: to stay home in that race. So that's the one,
• 16:27
  Speaker 3: if I had to just bet on one, I'd bet
• 16:29
  Speaker 3: on Maine.
• 16:30
  Speaker 2: If we lose Maine, by the way.
• 16:31
  Speaker 3: Then holy cow, it's probably going to be a horrific night. And,
• 16:34
  Speaker 3: you know, we're going 0 for 8 or 0 for 9.
• 16:36
  Speaker 2: And that's possible.
• 16:37
  Speaker 3: It is.
• 16:40
  Speaker 2: Wow.
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: OK, so much for the optimism.
• 16:43
  Speaker 3: But I am. That's not my that's not my base case.
• 16:46
  Speaker 3: But I'm just saying, like, would it shock me?
• 16:48
  Speaker 2: No. I mean, that's but I guess that's my point.
• 16:50
  Speaker 2: And I'm not trying to have it both ways here, John.
• 16:52
  Speaker 3: I'm just telling you, honestly, I think all of these
• 16:54
  Speaker 3: are in play.
• 16:55
  Speaker 2: I mean, I think South Carolina and Kansas are in
• 16:57
  Speaker 2: play and they shouldn't be. Right.
• 16:59
  Speaker 3: Particularly South Carolina. I mean, and listen, let's just be blunt.
• 17:03
  Speaker 3: Trump completely screwed that up.
• 17:04
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 17:05
  Speaker 3: Right. I mean, this nepotistic move to put somebody's sister
• 17:08
  Speaker 3: in who has no credibility, who didn't work very hard
• 17:12
  Speaker 3: in the campaign. I mean, this was nuts.
• 17:14
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 17:15
  Speaker 3: If it had been Ralph Norman, the congressman, that race
• 17:17
  Speaker 3: is over. I mean, that's probably a plus four, plus five.
• 17:20
  Speaker 2: Win for the Republicans.
• 17:21
  Speaker 3: It wouldn't be double digits because of the environment, but
• 17:24
  Speaker 3: it would be a win.
• 17:25
  Speaker 2: And it's in play. That one's in play, which is
• 17:28
  Speaker 2: why Trump went there.
• 17:29
  Speaker 1: Trump put South Carolina in play. He put Texas in play.
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: By the way, just for people that are keeping score
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: at home, we're acknowledging that North Carolina is going to
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: be a flip for Democrats, that Republicans are not going
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: to be able to really contest Georgia, which is, I think,
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: a really big problem. I will make one prediction. I
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: think that if Ossoff is remotely smart and if he's
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: really running for president in 2028, he's going to be
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: able to declare victory very early on on Tuesday night
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: when the networks are all on the air with nothing
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: to talk about. And if he is able to, he
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: can give the Ron DeSantis speech from 2022, which unfortunately
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: no one but Fox News Channel carried, that should have
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: really launched his presidential campaign. And I think Ossoff could
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: end up being the big star, you know, in increasing
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: his notoriety and his name recognition because there's going to
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: be such a big audience and so many Democrats You're
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: looking for that first sign of a Democratic wave, and
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: Ossoff could take advantage of that early on. But let's
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: go back to the races that are actually in play
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: and could go either direction. A lot of focus on Michigan,
• 18:38
  Speaker 1: and understandably so. You've got Abdul-Aziz, the Democratic, radical socialist,
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: maybe Muslim extremist. who is running against a mainstream-ish Republican.
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: The polls seem to be tied. I think this one
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: comes right down to the wire, much like the presidential
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: races in Michigan have the last couple of cycles. But
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: you think that El-Sayed is probably going to lose. I
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: think he's probably going to win. Give me your argument first.
• 19:09
  Speaker 2: Yeah, well, here's why.
• 19:10
  Speaker 3: And here's why I think it's different for Minnesota and
• 19:13
  Speaker 3: even better odds for a flip. is that he has
• 19:16
  Speaker 3: lost key constituencies of the Democrat coalition. And I don't
• 19:20
  Speaker 3: think we can say that necessarily in any other state, right?
• 19:23
  Speaker 3: That the Democrats are reasonably unified in hating Trump. And
• 19:26
  Speaker 3: Michigan Democrats definitely do hate Trump. However, blacks, particularly black men,
• 19:31
  Speaker 3: and Jewish voters in Michigan, and there's a lot of
• 19:33
  Speaker 3: both in the Detroit area, right? They are scared, frankly,
• 19:37
  Speaker 3: of Al-Sayed, and they should be. They are at least suspicious,
• 19:41
  Speaker 3: if not actually antagonistic toward him because of his record.
• 19:46
  Speaker 3: I mean, you know, not not not for any prejudicial reason,
• 19:49
  Speaker 3: for tangible evidence based reasons. They realize that this is
• 19:53
  Speaker 3: a radical and extremist who hates America, who hates Israel,
• 19:57
  Speaker 3: who has significant ties to terrorists and terror loving.
• 20:01
  Speaker 2: People, even in the United States.
• 20:02
  Speaker 3: I mean, I think campaigning, if he does, in fact,
• 20:04
  Speaker 3: lose campaigning in Michigan with Assange Piker, who's one of
• 20:07
  Speaker 3: the most hateful characters in all of America. and somebody
• 20:11
  Speaker 3: who is totally unacceptable, certainly to Jewish Americans, and I
• 20:13
  Speaker 3: think also to black Americans who are traditionally stalwart Democrat voters, Democrat,
• 20:18
  Speaker 3: you know, foundational constituencies. That combined with, I think, a
• 20:23
  Speaker 3: good candidate on the Republican side, Mike Rogers, not my
• 20:25
  Speaker 3: kind of Republican, by the way, but probably the right
• 20:27
  Speaker 3: person to win that race, tells me that that is
• 20:30
  Speaker 3: going to fall.
• 20:30
  Speaker 2: A tight race, no doubt.
• 20:32
  Speaker 3: I have it tied in polling, exactly tied.
• 20:34
  Speaker 2: But I think that's a race that's going to fall
• 20:36
  Speaker 2: our way.
• 20:37
  Speaker 3: One other thing I would tell you about Al-Sayed, even
• 20:38
  Speaker 3: outside of the substantive issues, just in terms of more
• 20:42
  Speaker 3: optics and who he is as a person in campaigning,
• 20:44
  Speaker 3: he has come across incredibly cocky. And being young and
• 20:48
  Speaker 3: cocky is not a great combination, particularly when old people vote.
• 20:53
  Speaker 2: And I think they largely revolt against that.
• 20:55
  Speaker 3: But that, to me, is the is the likeliest flip
• 20:59
  Speaker 3: possible for Republicans on the board by quite a lot.
• 21:02
  Speaker 2: I think the likeliest hold is Maine, but the likeliest
• 21:05
  Speaker 2: flip is Michigan.
• 21:05
  Speaker 3: And by the way, If Haley Stevens had been the nominee,
• 21:08
  Speaker 3: that race is over. We probably wouldn't even be talking
• 21:10
  Speaker 3: about it if Haley Stevens had won the Democrat nomination.
• 21:13
  Speaker 3: But she didn't win it because she lost very narrowly.
• 21:15
  Speaker 3: And who put him over the top? Well, it was
• 21:17
  Speaker 3: Muslims in places like Dearborn, Michigan, where I went to
• 21:20
  Speaker 3: do a documentary to expose just how thorough the Islamic
• 21:23
  Speaker 3: takeover of Dearborn, Michigan has been.
• 21:25
  Speaker 2: They have de facto Sharia law in that town.
• 21:27
  Speaker 3: There are three major mosques in a town that used
• 21:30
  Speaker 3: to be most known as the home of Ford Motor Company.
• 21:32
  Speaker 3: It's now known as the most Islamic place ever. In America,
• 21:35
  Speaker 3: women are walking around with full on Islamic dress, including
• 21:39
  Speaker 3: covering their eyes and everything. Prayer calls broadcast throughout the city.
• 21:44
  Speaker 3: It's a place that I think is a warning to
• 21:46
  Speaker 3: the rest of America. And what I find in my
• 21:48
  Speaker 3: polling in Michigan and elsewhere is Americans are waking up
• 21:51
  Speaker 3: to the dangers of mass Muslim migration. And they're no
• 21:54
  Speaker 3: longer afraid to say so. They're no longer afraid that
• 21:56
  Speaker 3: they're going to be called bigots.
• 21:58
  Speaker 2: Or intolerant.
• 21:59
  Speaker 3: And they're realizing that there's nothing noble or virtuous about
• 22:02
  Speaker 3: inviting into our country masses of people who do not
• 22:05
  Speaker 3: believe in our way of life, who are not in
• 22:07
  Speaker 3: any way consistent with Western civilization, who are not compatible, frankly,
• 22:12
  Speaker 3: with Western civilization and with our constitutional values, things like
• 22:16
  Speaker 3: free speech, things like freedom of religion. And they want to,
• 22:20
  Speaker 3: and they've been pretty clear about this, they want to
• 22:21
  Speaker 3: establish Sharia law in the United States, including Al-Sayed.
• 22:25
  Speaker 2: I'm not just drawing generalities here.
• 22:26
  Speaker 3: I mean, he said in that interview with Jesse Waters
• 22:28
  Speaker 3: at Fox News, he actually defended Sharia law and he
• 22:31
  Speaker 3: tried to compare it to Catholic canon law, which of
• 22:33
  Speaker 3: course is an absolute absurdity because Catholic canon law governs
• 22:36
  Speaker 3: the church and people choose to submit to Catholic canon
• 22:40
  Speaker 3: law if they are believers, whereas Sharia law is imposed
• 22:44
  Speaker 3: via civil authority and you have no choice whether or
• 22:47
  Speaker 3: not to submit to Sharia law if you live in
• 22:49
  Speaker 3: a thoroughly Islamic society, as we can see in the
• 22:51
  Speaker 3: Middle East. They're trying to bring that to the United States.
• 22:53
  Speaker 3: They have largely brought that, or at least a big
• 22:55
  Speaker 3: foothold to Europe, And so I think all of that
• 22:58
  Speaker 3: put together tells me he's an absolutely unacceptable candidate. He's
• 23:01
  Speaker 3: unacceptable to traditional Democrat constituencies, plus a really good, solid
• 23:06
  Speaker 3: Republican challenger, somebody who is known and liked in the state,
• 23:08
  Speaker 3: who has run a really disciplined campaign, has a good
• 23:10
  Speaker 3: amount of money behind him. I think that's going to
• 23:13
  Speaker 3: be and believe that's going to be a flip for
• 23:15
  Speaker 3: the GOP.
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: The reason why I disagree and look, one of my
• 23:19
  Speaker 1: biggest rooting interests on Tuesday is El Sayed to lose. So,
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: I mean, I'm right there with you. But I said
• 23:25
  Speaker 1: on CNN last week, and I actually even used some
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: of your information you had provided me on the race
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: in my commentary on CNN, I said, I think Al
• 23:36
  Speaker 1: Sayed might pull this out because if you take a
• 23:39
  Speaker 1: look at this from the perspective of a sensible, moderate
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: Democrat in Michigan, you're probably very uncomfortable with a lot
• 23:46
  Speaker 1: of what you just said involving Al Sayed. But there's
• 23:51
  Speaker 1: more urgency in their minds to the idea that you
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: have the opportunity to take control of the U.S. Senate
• 23:57
  Speaker 1: away from Donald Trump. And I think that their disdain
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: for Trump is more immediate and may end up winning
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: the day when it comes to their motivations and I
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: don't think you can discount that. I mean, I've even
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: asked you to to poll this in Michigan, you know,
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: among moderate Democrats. Which do they have more fear of
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: extreme extreme Muslim candidate or a pro Trump candidate? And
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: so I really think that's what the race is going
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: to come down to. And I'm not optimistic about where
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: it turns out. Obviously, all of these races are seen
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: through the prism of Trump. And I have to chuckle
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: because Trump's great closing argument over the last few days
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: has been attacking Bill Maher and an unprecedentedly long social
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: media post, which I didn't even think was justified because
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: I thought Bill Maher was very nice to Trump after
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: their dinner when he went back on HBO. I didn't
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: get that at all. And then he's been focusing on
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: the ass of Nicki Minaj. And then even more bizarre
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: than that, the ass of John Husted, the Republican senator
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: in Ohio. So that leads us to Ohio. Any chance
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: for Husted in Ohio, regardless of what Trump thinks of
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: his ass?
• 25:18
  Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely. I don't think so, unfortunately.
• 25:22
  Speaker 3: And when I polled it, and I've not been involved
• 25:24
  Speaker 3: in the race, but partly because when I did poll it,
• 25:26
  Speaker 3: the most discouraging thing I found is that people just
• 25:29
  Speaker 3: didn't know who the heck he was.
• 25:30
  Speaker 2: He's a sitting U.S.
• 25:31
  Speaker 3: Senator, but of course he was appointed by Mike DeWine,
• 25:33
  Speaker 3: who I can't stand. I think is one of the
• 25:35
  Speaker 3: worst Republican governors in America. Thankfully, he's leaving, although the replacement.
• 25:40
  Speaker 2: May not be any better.
• 25:41
  Speaker 3: But anyway, getting back to Husted, not known in his state.
• 25:45
  Speaker 3: And I think he's been basically a good senator, but
• 25:48
  Speaker 3: he clearly has not been far from a great one.
• 25:50
  Speaker 3: Hasn't made himself known to his people, hasn't been remarkable
• 25:52
  Speaker 3: in any way. running against Sherrod Brown, who is very
• 25:56
  Speaker 3: well known and generally well regarded in that state. So
• 25:58
  Speaker 3: even though it's a really red state, you've got a
• 26:00
  Speaker 3: toxic national environment. You've got, you know, again, the economy
• 26:03
  Speaker 3: and war. And those two things are inextricably linked that
• 26:05
  Speaker 3: people don't like. That is causing real pain for folks
• 26:09
  Speaker 3: at the gas pump and the grocery store particularly. And
• 26:12
  Speaker 3: all of that tells me that it's a tough Senate
• 26:15
  Speaker 3: race anyway in isolation. But then you throw in the
• 26:17
  Speaker 3: governor's race, which is a dumpster fire, right? I think
• 26:20
  Speaker 3: on both sides. But a dumpster fire there, unfortunately, also
• 26:25
  Speaker 3: created by Donald Trump. Because remember, by the way, that
• 26:29
  Speaker 3: that look, you and I are both college sports nuts
• 26:31
  Speaker 3: and love college football. Jim Trestle was ready to get
• 26:34
  Speaker 3: in that race. And I don't know him personally, but
• 26:36
  Speaker 3: I know people very well who know him very well.
• 26:38
  Speaker 3: So I'm just a degree away. And he was absolutely
• 26:42
  Speaker 3: ready to get in the race. He's a thoroughly conservative candidate. He's,
• 26:45
  Speaker 3: of course, massively famous in Ohio. But he was not
• 26:49
  Speaker 3: willing to take on a Trump endorsed candidate because he
• 26:51
  Speaker 3: knew he couldn't do it.
• 26:52
  Speaker 2: He couldn't win in the end. And Vivek has high
• 26:54
  Speaker 2: name ID.
• 26:55
  Speaker 3: But anyway, Jim Trestle, I think, would have waltzed into
• 26:58
  Speaker 3: that office and been an automatic victory for the governor
• 27:02
  Speaker 3: of and for the GOP governor of Ohio.
• 27:04
  Speaker 2: So instead.
• 27:05
  Speaker 3: You know, we've got a real race there, one that
• 27:07
  Speaker 3: it looks like the GOP is going to lose. And
• 27:10
  Speaker 3: I think that Vivek's problems, which are many, are actually
• 27:13
  Speaker 3: bleeding over into the Senate race and making things problematic
• 27:16
  Speaker 3: for Huston.
• 27:17
  Speaker 2: So really a shame, self-inflicted, didn't have to be this way.
• 27:22
  Speaker 3: Mike DeWine should have never appointed a guy like this
• 27:24
  Speaker 3: in that office in the first place. Donald Trump shouldn't
• 27:27
  Speaker 3: have backed Vivek. in the primary instead of Jim Trestle.
• 27:29
  Speaker 3: So this is just, it's too bad in a roughly
• 27:34
  Speaker 3: red Republican plus eight state. We shouldn't have these kinds
• 27:37
  Speaker 3: of dual screw-ups, and I fear we're going to lose
• 27:40
  Speaker 3: both races.
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: Well, that leaves us with Texas, where Trump is the
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: reason why this is in play. He picked the wrong
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: candidate in the primary. Once again, it appears to be
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: a 50-50 race. I'm actually somewhat, and I'm not making
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: a prediction, I just think that You know, if I'm
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: looking at the map, if I had to pick a
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: place where I think Republicans might end up pulling it
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: out in the Senate, Texas would be it, mainly because
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: we've seen this narrative time and time again where Democrats
• 28:09
  Speaker 1: think that they're going to win Texas. And then the
• 28:12
  Speaker 1: results are never even that close. And so I realize, look,
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: the demographic shifts are real. The Hispanic vote is not
• 28:22
  Speaker 1: going to be there like it was in 2024. I
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: get all that. Paxton could easily lose. But it's such
• 28:27
  Speaker 1: a large state requiring so much money. Elon Musk has
• 28:31
  Speaker 1: put a boatload of cash into this race. If gun
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: to my head, I think Republicans pull it out in Texas.
• 28:38
  Speaker 2: What do you think? Yeah, I tend to think you're right.
• 28:41
  Speaker 3: And history would say you're right, because in super tight
• 28:44
  Speaker 3: races like that, generally the money wins. And you're right,
• 28:48
  Speaker 3: Texas has become sort of this almost mythical Don Quixote-like
• 28:53
  Speaker 3: quest for the Democrats that they think they're going to win.
• 28:57
  Speaker 3: And it was getting closer in presidential elections. And then
• 29:00
  Speaker 3: in 24, Trump blew the doors off and said, no,
• 29:02
  Speaker 3: we're going to reverse that trend right back in favor.
• 29:04
  Speaker 3: But again, largely based on Hispanics coming hugely to the
• 29:07
  Speaker 3: Republican Party and to the right, which doesn't seem to
• 29:10
  Speaker 3: be there this time around.
• 29:11
  Speaker 2: So My guess is Paxton does win. I will say, though,
• 29:13
  Speaker 2: in that.
• 29:14
  Speaker 3: Case, let me defend Trump on this one, even though, yes,
• 29:17
  Speaker 3: John Cornyn race is over. OK, just like Haley Stevens
• 29:20
  Speaker 3: and as a Democrat in Michigan, that race would have
• 29:22
  Speaker 3: been over. But in this case, unlike Vivek in Ohio
• 29:26
  Speaker 3: or unlike Darlene Graham in South Carolina, in this case,
• 29:30
  Speaker 3: Trump was at least rallying to the base. In other words,
• 29:33
  Speaker 3: the base detests Cornyn.
• 29:35
  Speaker 2: So he wasn't he was.
• 29:36
  Speaker 3: Not countering his base in other cases in Darlene. case,
• 29:40
  Speaker 3: in Vivek's case, he was right. He was actually going
• 29:42
  Speaker 3: against his strongest supporter. In this case, Paxton is very
• 29:46
  Speaker 3: popular with MAGA diehards. Now, he's very tough sell to
• 29:49
  Speaker 3: suburbanites in the metros, particularly women. especially given all the
• 29:53
  Speaker 3: luggage that he brings with him. And it's significant, right,
• 29:56
  Speaker 3: on the personal side.
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: Right. But I'm just talking about winning the race.
• 30:00
  Speaker 3: I'm not talking about winning the race. Cornyn would have
• 30:02
  Speaker 3: run away with it. But Cornyn is also one of
• 30:03
  Speaker 3: the people that, look, folks like me detest Cornyn in
• 30:06
  Speaker 3: the Senate.
• 30:07
  Speaker 2: And I will say this, too, about Cornyn. Even putting
• 30:08
  Speaker 2: aside what you think, but he would have walked away
• 30:10
  Speaker 2: with the race. Absolutely. You're right. In terms of winning,
• 30:13
  Speaker 2: it should have been Cornyn. But the thing about Cornyn that.
• 30:16
  Speaker 3: I really just can't stand is I think he represents
• 30:19
  Speaker 3: what people hate about politics.
• 30:21
  Speaker 2: He was kissing Trump's ass like you can't believe trying
• 30:24
  Speaker 2: to get.
• 30:24
  Speaker 3: His his endorsement during the primary.
• 30:28
  Speaker 2: I mean, it was very unseemly. Right. Posing, reading the
• 30:32
  Speaker 2: art of the deal.
• 30:33
  Speaker 3: He actually tried to put into legislation renaming one of
• 30:36
  Speaker 3: the Texas interstates after Donald Trump.
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 30:38
  Speaker 2: And then the second he loses, he's done nothing but
• 30:40
  Speaker 2: trash Trump, trash Paxton.
• 30:43
  Speaker 3: I mean, I think, you know, totally unprincipled, you know,
• 30:46
  Speaker 3: a chameleon who will become whatever color he thinks he
• 30:48
  Speaker 3: should be is a political weather vane. Which way is
• 30:50
  Speaker 3: the wind blowing right now? That's where I'm headed. Just
• 30:53
  Speaker 3: a despicable character in many ways. Having said that, he
• 30:55
  Speaker 3: would have run away with the race if.
• 30:57
  Speaker 2: He were the nominee. Clearly, I get all that, Steve.
• 31:00
  Speaker 1: But, you know, when it's this close and I mean,
• 31:03
  Speaker 1: I'm all about you got to keep the 50. And
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: and unfortunately, if you know, if they don't keep the
• 31:11
  Speaker 1: 50 Republicans in the Senate, It's going to be because
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: of decisions like that. Now, we'll see, obviously, on Tuesday.
• 31:18
  Speaker 1: So it sounds to me like you're a little bit
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: more optimistic than I am. I'm in the 48, could
• 31:25
  Speaker 1: be 49, could be 47. 50 is the absolute top
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: number that Republicans could get to. Where are you in
• 31:33
  Speaker 1: your predictions for what's going to end up being the
• 31:34
  Speaker 1: case in the Senate?
• 31:36
  Speaker 2: So I'm at 50. I think we get there.
• 31:40
  Speaker 1: And how... What would you say would be the worst-case
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: scenario and the best-case scenario for Republicans?
• 31:46
  Speaker 3: Honestly, again, I'm not trying to sort of make blanket
• 31:50
  Speaker 3: statements and act like I'm unwilling to take a stand because, no,
• 31:53
  Speaker 3: my stand is my base case.
• 31:54
  Speaker 2: Is we're going to get 50. We'll see.
• 31:56
  Speaker 3: I certainly could be wrong. But, John, we could lose
• 31:59
  Speaker 3: them all, right? I mean, we really could. We could
• 32:01
  Speaker 3: lose all of them. And if we lose Maine— I
• 32:03
  Speaker 3: suspect we are going to lose them all. It'll be
• 32:05
  Speaker 3: that kind of a night, just a Senate wave against us,
• 32:09
  Speaker 3: a bloodbath. That's absolutely plausible. If I were to try
• 32:12
  Speaker 3: to put percentages on, I was a bond trader for
• 32:14
  Speaker 3: a long time. I'd say that's a 25% chance, 30% chance.
• 32:16
  Speaker 3: It sure as heck isn't zero. It's not single digits either.
• 32:21
  Speaker 3: I'd say that's roughly a third percentage. I would say
• 32:24
  Speaker 3: roughly 40 percent to 50 percent chance, like to me,
• 32:27
  Speaker 3: a big middle would be 50, 51 for the Republicans.
• 32:32
  Speaker 3: To me, if I'm pricing that market, that's where I
• 32:35
  Speaker 3: put that. And then like roughly a 20 percent chance
• 32:37
  Speaker 3: that it's actually a good night for Republicans that we
• 32:39
  Speaker 3: come out and hold these Republican states that shouldn't even
• 32:42
  Speaker 3: be in play that are. And we only lose a
• 32:44
  Speaker 3: couple of places of these eight or nine seats there.
• 32:47
  Speaker 3: I think that's probably a 20 percent chance, maybe even
• 32:49
  Speaker 3: closer to 10.
• 32:50
  Speaker 2: It's not not big at all. But that's where I were.
• 32:53
  Speaker 3: You know, if I were to do an options pricing graph,
• 32:56
  Speaker 3: you know, I mean, that's where I would would price
• 32:57
  Speaker 3: things for a Steve Cortez model.
• 32:59
  Speaker 1: Well, what you just said there, Steve, if true, and
• 33:02
  Speaker 1: I hope it does become true, because I think we'd
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: be in a better position as a country if if
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: we did have a 50 50 Senate with J.D. Vance
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: breaking the tie, if you're right. That is incredibly significant
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: because in my view, the difference between 50 Republicans and
• 33:20
  Speaker 1: 48 Republicans could be massive in so many different ways.
• 33:25
  Speaker 1: If I'm right and it's 48, then basically, first of all,
• 33:30
  Speaker 1: Trump cannot get a Supreme Court nominee through that would
• 33:34
  Speaker 1: be worth anything. 50-50, he would have a chance to
• 33:37
  Speaker 1: do that. But most importantly, potentially, 50-50 kills any shot
• 33:44
  Speaker 1: at impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate because they never
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: bring it up, even if the House passed impeachment against Trump.
• 33:51
  Speaker 1: 48 Republicans and Democrats clearly controlling the Senate, I think
• 33:58
  Speaker 1: opens up a potential avenue here where Trump not only
• 34:02
  Speaker 1: gets impeached, Steve, I think he comes close to getting
• 34:06
  Speaker 1: removed as a lame duck. Let's just game plan this
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: out here, right? Dems take the House significantly. Their base
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: is itching, thirsting for impeachment. And they have enough votes
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: to get it done. And they control the Senate. They'll
• 34:25
  Speaker 1: have to bring it to a trial. And even though
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: you need two thirds, is it not at least theoretically
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: possible that with nothing to fear from Donald Trump in
• 34:37
  Speaker 1: the future, effectively. You could have some Republicans support impeachment
• 34:43
  Speaker 1: of Donald Trump. Is that a fantasy or is that
• 34:47
  Speaker 1: a potential reality in the difference between 48 and 50
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: Republicans in the next U.S. Senate?
• 34:56
  Speaker 2: Oh, it's absolutely potential, right?
• 34:58
  Speaker 3: I don't think it's likely, though, and here's why, but
• 35:00
  Speaker 3: not because they're afraid of Trump, right?
• 35:03
  Speaker 2: Or that they don't want to do it.
• 35:04
  Speaker 3: Because I think lots of Republicans actually would love to
• 35:07
  Speaker 3: convict and remove President Trump. However, I also think that
• 35:10
  Speaker 3: their lack of principle will play in our favor here.
• 35:13
  Speaker 3: And when I say our favor, I mean the country,
• 35:15
  Speaker 3: but I also mean Republicans and those of us in
• 35:17
  Speaker 3: the movement. I don't believe they want a President J.D.
• 35:20
  Speaker 3: Vance because I believe that they recognize that he will
• 35:23
  Speaker 3: be a more disciplined and more effective version of Trump.
• 35:27
  Speaker 3: And I also believe know that they believe that they
• 35:30
  Speaker 3: will know that elevating him to the presidency will make
• 35:32
  Speaker 3: it far easier for him to then win the 2028 election.
• 35:35
  Speaker 2: I really believe that. So my guess is.
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: Hold on. Hold on.
• 35:39
  Speaker 2: Hold on.
• 35:40
  Speaker 1: If you're right, which I think you might be, wouldn't
• 35:42
  Speaker 1: that mean that Democrats would be more or will be
• 35:45
  Speaker 1: less likely to support getting rid of Trump? Because it
• 35:47
  Speaker 1: would mean J.D. Vance would be in it. in an
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: advantage situation in 2028? That could be.
• 35:53
  Speaker 3: True as well, for sure, right? But I'm just talking
• 35:55
  Speaker 3: the Republican side, right? But I think a lot of
• 35:57
  Speaker 3: these Republican establishment folks who despise Trump, who hate the
• 36:00
  Speaker 3: America First movement, I think they are aware that they
• 36:05
  Speaker 3: would rather.
• 36:06
  Speaker 2: Deal with Trump than deal with a President Vance. That's
• 36:08
  Speaker 2: my opinion on the Republican side.
• 36:10
  Speaker 1: All right. Now, you and I have talked about this
• 36:13
  Speaker 1: off the air before, but let's talk about again, let's
• 36:17
  Speaker 1: presume I'm right for a second and Democrats control both houses, right?
• 36:22
  Speaker 1: Does Donald Trump, and you know him psychologically very well,
• 36:26
  Speaker 1: does Donald Trump understand what he's in for in that
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: world as an incredibly, maybe unprecedentedly lame duck president with
• 36:37
  Speaker 1: all the investigations and the potential impeachment and everything else
• 36:41
  Speaker 1: the Democrats are going to throw at him? And does
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: he understand the significance of that and how his last
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: two years are going to go and how awful they're
• 36:50
  Speaker 1: going to be? Do you think he gets it?
• 36:53
  Speaker 2: No. No, he does not get it.
• 36:57
  Speaker 3: And this, look, I know with a high degree of confidence,
• 37:00
  Speaker 3: I don't speak to him personally any longer. Unfortunately, I
• 37:02
  Speaker 3: wish I did because I think I could be helpful
• 37:05
  Speaker 3: to him. I talked to him quite a lot in
• 37:06
  Speaker 3: the first term. So I don't know firsthand, but I
• 37:09
  Speaker 3: do know based on extremely high level White House folks.
• 37:13
  Speaker 2: Who are in regular contact with him, daily contact with him.
• 37:16
  Speaker 3: That he is unaware. He is unaware of what he
• 37:19
  Speaker 3: truly faces. He doesn't believe the polls. He doesn't believe
• 37:22
  Speaker 3: that we're in the predicament we're in heading into elections.
• 37:25
  Speaker 3: He doesn't believe that he's in for the kind of,
• 37:28
  Speaker 3: you know, really just vicious attacks that he's going to
• 37:31
  Speaker 3: face from a Democratic House, even if it's just the House,
• 37:33
  Speaker 3: but certainly if it's both houses of Congress that he
• 37:36
  Speaker 3: will face from Capitol Hill broadly.
• 37:37
  Speaker 2: In the future. He unfortunately, I think, lives in a
• 37:41
  Speaker 2: world of blissful ignorance where he.
• 37:43
  Speaker 3: Is naive to what potentially looms for him, for his
• 37:47
  Speaker 3: family members, for a lot of folks, for a lot
• 37:49
  Speaker 3: of his allies in office and out of office.
• 37:52
  Speaker 1: Of course, no one around him has the guts to
• 37:55
  Speaker 1: tell him because if you tell the emperor that he
• 37:59
  Speaker 1: has no clothes, you might get fired.
• 38:02
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 38:03
  Speaker 3: I mean, look, I think there are people, but not enough,
• 38:06
  Speaker 3: and not enough people who have daily contact with him
• 38:09
  Speaker 3: who are willing to tell him truthfully the risks that
• 38:13
  Speaker 3: are out there. I think that's the unfortunate reality right now.
• 38:16
  Speaker 3: And that's the fault both of a lot of those advisors, frankly,
• 38:20
  Speaker 3: who are just too timid to tell him what they
• 38:23
  Speaker 3: really believe. But it's also, of course, his own fault
• 38:26
  Speaker 3: for not surrounding himself with enough capable people who don't
• 38:29
  Speaker 3: necessarily need their job and who aren't only loyal to him.
• 38:33
  Speaker 3: That has been, I think, for sure a failing of
• 38:35
  Speaker 3: this term. By the way, I would argue it's a
• 38:38
  Speaker 3: reason that we got into this war that we shouldn't
• 38:40
  Speaker 3: be in. It's because he listened to too many people
• 38:43
  Speaker 3: who gave him far too rosy projections of a very
• 38:46
  Speaker 3: insular circle of folks, didn't get enough good input. Look, ultimately,
• 38:50
  Speaker 3: the decision is his, and the fault is his, in
• 38:53
  Speaker 3: my view, for this war of choice. But I think
• 38:55
  Speaker 3: that is a an extreme example, a really profound example
• 39:00
  Speaker 3: of this continual isolation and lack of quality input into
• 39:05
  Speaker 3: his decision making process, lack of process, period, in terms
• 39:08
  Speaker 3: of a lot of the decisions. And I think it
• 39:10
  Speaker 3: absolutely portends very poorly for the potential of. of a
• 39:15
  Speaker 3: Democrat Congress on the whole. But again, I think we're
• 39:17
  Speaker 3: going to save the House, but clearly I could be
• 39:19
  Speaker 3: wrong in your scenario. Buckle up because 2027 is going
• 39:23
  Speaker 3: to be pretty wild, I think, politically speaking, in terms
• 39:26
  Speaker 3: of the constant fighting between the two ends of Pennsylvania.
• 39:29
  Speaker 2: Avenue.
• 39:30
  Speaker 1: And just to be clear, I think you misspoke. You
• 39:32
  Speaker 1: said you think you're going to save the Senate. You
• 39:34
  Speaker 1: said House, but you mean Senate. But again, let's just
• 39:39
  Speaker 1: presume he loses both houses of Congress. Maybe he wouldn't
• 39:42
  Speaker 1: even take losing both houses because the House of Representatives
• 39:45
  Speaker 1: can cause quite a bit of problems for him in
• 39:47
  Speaker 1: the investigation realm.
• 39:48
  Speaker 2: Even without the.
• 39:49
  Speaker 1: Senate, how do you think he's going to react to
• 39:52
  Speaker 1: this new reality? There's always been a theory or a
• 39:55
  Speaker 1: fear that Trump, being a lifelong Manhattan liberal in his DNA,
• 40:02
  Speaker 1: who only in the last 10 years or so has
• 40:06
  Speaker 1: taken on conservative language or whatever we want to call
• 40:09
  Speaker 1: the American First Movement in today's verbiage, that he could
• 40:13
  Speaker 1: end up making deals with Democrats, that the only avenue
• 40:17
  Speaker 1: he would have to relevance in his last two years
• 40:20
  Speaker 1: would be to essentially do what Arnold Schwarzenegger did here
• 40:23
  Speaker 1: in California and become a Democrat. And obviously there's a
• 40:27
  Speaker 1: lot of similarities in the psychology and the celebrity of
• 40:30
  Speaker 1: Schwarzenegger and Trump. Is he going to do a Schwarzenegger
• 40:34
  Speaker 1: in the last two terms in your view?
• 40:36
  Speaker 3: Right, so listen, it's a very valid question, and my
• 40:39
  Speaker 3: honest answer is I don't know, all right? You know,
• 40:41
  Speaker 3: as somebody who has spent a lot of time personally
• 40:43
  Speaker 3: with Donald Trump, although to be honest, You know, insiders
• 40:46
  Speaker 3: who claim they have particular knowledge, I don't know that
• 40:48
  Speaker 3: that's always the case because with Trump, he's such a transparent,
• 40:51
  Speaker 3: open book, right, for good and bad, that I feel
• 40:53
  Speaker 3: like the whole world, if they want to know him,
• 40:54
  Speaker 3: can absolutely know very authentically, you know, who he really is.
• 40:58
  Speaker 3: But in this case, look, I think it will go
• 41:01
  Speaker 3: one of two ways, both of which are very volatile.
• 41:03
  Speaker 3: I mean, he's either going to absolutely go to war, right,
• 41:05
  Speaker 3: and just say, okay, full-on war with the Congress. you know,
• 41:11
  Speaker 3: pardon everybody in his administration preemptively, I think probably do
• 41:14
  Speaker 3: that up front, not on the way out the door, right,
• 41:16
  Speaker 3: but do it up front. And, you know, and truly
• 41:18
  Speaker 3: just do political battle against the Democrats. And, but unfortunately,
• 41:23
  Speaker 3: nothing will get done for the country in that scenario.
• 41:26
  Speaker 3: And the two sides, you know, will just engage in,
• 41:29
  Speaker 3: in really harsh political tactics that, you know, that will
• 41:33
  Speaker 3: be very consuming for those of us who love politics,
• 41:36
  Speaker 3: but not very interesting to the To your scenario, he
• 41:41
  Speaker 3: becomes a dealmaker. And look, I think the latter is
• 41:43
  Speaker 3: more likely.
• 41:44
  Speaker 2: I really do.
• 41:45
  Speaker 3: And I think probably he says to a speaker, Hakeem Jeffries, OK,
• 41:49
  Speaker 3: let's let's play ball.
• 41:51
  Speaker 2: You know, where can we agree?
• 41:53
  Speaker 3: And my guess is where they agree essentially is on
• 41:56
  Speaker 3: so-called investment. meaning infrastructure, meaning even more profligate borrowing and spending.
• 42:03
  Speaker 3: And so that really worries me as a former bond trader.
• 42:06
  Speaker 3: I'm already very nervous about what the bond market has
• 42:08
  Speaker 3: been doing in recent months. The fact that we have
• 42:10
  Speaker 3: 10-year yield now at or above 5%, and that might
• 42:14
  Speaker 3: seem low for older folks who remember the early 80s
• 42:17
  Speaker 3: when we had double-digit 10-year yields. But nonetheless, in the
• 42:19
  Speaker 3: current environment compared to recent history, that is very high.
• 42:23
  Speaker 3: And given that we have no signs of slowing down
• 42:25
  Speaker 3: or reducing our deficits, in fact, our deficits continue to
• 42:28
  Speaker 3: pile up at a super alarming rate, at a higher
• 42:31
  Speaker 3: and higher rate of interest, that potential for an effective deal,
• 42:36
  Speaker 3: whether it's stated or not, where, hey, we will spend more,
• 42:40
  Speaker 3: you will get what you want, Democrats, but you're going
• 42:42
  Speaker 3: to take it easy on me and my administration and
• 42:44
  Speaker 3: my family regarding impeachments and subpoenas and investigations. That is
• 42:50
  Speaker 3: a possibility and it would be the worst outcome of
• 42:53
  Speaker 3: all for the American people because I think it means
• 42:56
  Speaker 3: that the $ 40 trillion deficit does nothing but go skyward
• 43:00
  Speaker 3: and we hand a problem off to the next administration
• 43:03
  Speaker 3: and even to the next generation that is getting close
• 43:07
  Speaker 3: to impossible to.
• 43:08
  Speaker 2: Deal with in any reasonable way.
• 43:09
  Speaker 3: That is my significant worry about what can happen in
• 43:13
  Speaker 3: starting in 2027.
• 43:15
  Speaker 1: And you've also been very close to J.D. Vance in
• 43:17
  Speaker 1: the past. You were integral in his Senate campaign in Ohio.
• 43:21
  Speaker 1: You speak very, very, very.
• 43:22
  Speaker 2: Highly of him.
• 43:23
  Speaker 1: I know you have a lot of admiration for J.D.
• 43:25
  Speaker 3: Vance.
• 43:25
  Speaker 1: There's been a lot of speculation, obviously, as to what
• 43:28
  Speaker 1: he's going to do in 2028. There's been some indications,
• 43:32
  Speaker 1: and I don't know how seriously to take them, that
• 43:35
  Speaker 1: he has said that he may not run in 2028.
• 43:37
  Speaker 1: Where is your current gut on what happens with J.D.
• 43:42
  Speaker 1: Vance in 2028?
• 43:45
  Speaker 2: Yeah, look, I don't know if he's going to run
• 43:48
  Speaker 2: or not. I take him at his word.
• 43:50
  Speaker 3: I think with JD, he's just a very authentic and,
• 43:52
  Speaker 3: you know, in this respect, like Trump, a very transparent guy.
• 43:55
  Speaker 3: When he says that he's thinking of not running, I
• 43:57
  Speaker 3: think he absolutely does mean it. Now, if I had
• 43:59
  Speaker 3: to bet, I certainly would bet that he's going to run.
• 44:02
  Speaker 3: And a lot of us who are his allies are
• 44:04
  Speaker 3: already making plans that are consistent with him running for president.
• 44:08
  Speaker 3: And we're going to have to find out relatively soon,
• 44:11
  Speaker 3: I think, after the midterms, whether or.
• 44:13
  Speaker 2: Not he is, in fact, running.
• 44:14
  Speaker 3: It would be unusual for a young, popular, relatively popular
• 44:18
  Speaker 3: vice president to not run for office because you have
• 44:21
  Speaker 3: such a platform to do so.
• 44:23
  Speaker 2: But we'll see what he decides to do.
• 44:25
  Speaker 3: One thing that I have noticed that's very interesting in
• 44:27
  Speaker 3: my polling lately, and I consistently found this now month
• 44:30
  Speaker 3: after month, is that while Trump remains unpopular, J.D. is
• 44:33
  Speaker 3: starting to separate from him in polling. And that wasn't
• 44:36
  Speaker 3: happening a year ago. Pre-war, he was polling almost in
• 44:40
  Speaker 3: lockstep with Trump. He just had a higher unknown, but
• 44:43
  Speaker 3: he had almost the same ratio. So he wasn't quite
• 44:45
  Speaker 3: as well known as Trump, who is ubiquitous, but he
• 44:47
  Speaker 3: had roughly the same breakdown of approved, disapproved.
• 44:50
  Speaker 2: That has changed pretty dramatically.
• 44:52
  Speaker 3: In some of my recent polling, I've got Trump typically
• 44:55
  Speaker 3: in the area of minus 20 net, approve, disapprove.
• 44:58
  Speaker 2: And J.D.
• 44:59
  Speaker 3: Has come all the way into single digits now in
• 45:01
  Speaker 3: some of my polls, or around 10. But a 10% spread, roughly,
• 45:05
  Speaker 3: which is kind of fascinating. And I believe the reason
• 45:09
  Speaker 3: is twofold. I think, number one, a lot of people
• 45:10
  Speaker 3: realize that J.D. was probably very uncomfortable with the war,
• 45:15
  Speaker 3: and that he was the voice of reason saying, don't
• 45:17
  Speaker 3: get into this war within the White House, even though
• 45:20
  Speaker 3: he's obviously fallen in line with the president's objectives now
• 45:23
  Speaker 3: and realizes that the president's the elected commander in chief.
• 45:26
  Speaker 2: But secondly, I think J.D.
• 45:27
  Speaker 3: Is just out there a lot between his book tour,
• 45:30
  Speaker 3: between his campaign activities.
• 45:32
  Speaker 2: He's really omnipresent in.
• 45:34
  Speaker 3: The media and in my mind, doing a really, really
• 45:36
  Speaker 3: good job, even when he has a tough hand to play.
• 45:40
  Speaker 3: And so I think that people are starting to separate
• 45:42
  Speaker 3: those two, are starting to distinguish between the two. That
• 45:45
  Speaker 3: is probably very positive for J.D. If he in fact does,
• 45:48
  Speaker 3: as I expect he will, decide that he is running
• 45:50
  Speaker 3: for president, I think that's going to help him, frankly.
• 45:54
  Speaker 3: And but listen, he's got a tough lift because for
• 45:58
  Speaker 3: now you are the understudy of an unpopular president. You
• 46:01
  Speaker 3: cannot defy that president, but you have to try to
• 46:04
  Speaker 3: skillfully in a nuanced way, separate yourself and make sure
• 46:07
  Speaker 3: you're your own person and don't give the Kamala answer,
• 46:09
  Speaker 3: which is, oh, I wouldn't change a thing.
• 46:11
  Speaker 2: Right. From what the president has done. That was a
• 46:13
  Speaker 2: brutal answer.
• 46:15
  Speaker 3: I mean, I think it was it was political death
• 46:17
  Speaker 3: for Kamala when she when she said that we can't
• 46:19
  Speaker 3: repeat those kinds of mistakes in this scenario. So, you know,
• 46:24
  Speaker 3: but Steve, with respect, Steve, I actually think you just
• 46:27
  Speaker 3: made a very good argument for why J.D.
• 46:29
  Speaker 2: Vance should not.
• 46:29
  Speaker 1: Run in 2028 if he if he really wants to
• 46:33
  Speaker 1: become president. Now, look, if he if he only wants
• 46:35
  Speaker 1: to be the nominee and Trump is willing to support him, then,
• 46:38
  Speaker 1: you know, run in 2028 and you'll always be known
• 46:41
  Speaker 1: as someone who was the Republican nominee for president. But
• 46:46
  Speaker 1: you just outlined exactly why that's a minefield that cannot
• 46:49
  Speaker 1: be navigated. That is a needle that cannot be thread
• 46:54
  Speaker 1: when Trump is in office. If you run when Trump
• 46:59
  Speaker 1: is no longer in office, you get a lot of
• 47:03
  Speaker 1: the pro-Trump cachet that Trump fans will remember you as
• 47:07
  Speaker 1: a loyal vice president, but you will not have to
• 47:10
  Speaker 1: every single day risk the wrath of Trump coming down
• 47:15
  Speaker 1: on you if you say something negative about this administration
• 47:19
  Speaker 1: or a mistake or something that could have been done differently.
• 47:22
  Speaker 1: It's a totally different dynamic once Trump is out of
• 47:25
  Speaker 1: office and may not even be with us anymore. So
• 47:29
  Speaker 1: Vance cannot win in 2028 unless by some miracle AOC
• 47:35
  Speaker 1: is the Democratic nominee. That's the only scenario where J.D.
• 47:39
  Speaker 1: Vance wins in 2028. That's it. That's the only one.
• 47:43
  Speaker 1: AOC versus J.D. And there's no way we're getting lucky
• 47:46
  Speaker 1: enough to get that, Steve.
• 47:48
  Speaker 3: Well, I clearly don't agree with that last part, but
• 47:50
  Speaker 3: let me deal with that first part first, which is
• 47:53
  Speaker 3: the issue of sort of separation from Trump.
• 47:56
  Speaker 2: What you're saying makes a lot of sense.
• 47:58
  Speaker 3: And I will tell you, in other words, it would
• 48:00
  Speaker 3: make sense to effectively take a break, right?
• 48:02
  Speaker 2: To not be Trump's vice president when you're running for
• 48:04
  Speaker 2: president yourself. And I will be speaking with J.D. in
• 48:07
  Speaker 2: coming weeks. And that may well be my advice to him.
• 48:10
  Speaker 3: I mean, I want to see what happens on the
• 48:11
  Speaker 3: election first, because I think that has relevance clearly for
• 48:14
  Speaker 3: the decision making for Vance and.
• 48:16
  Speaker 2: What I would advise that J.D. do. By the way,
• 48:19
  Speaker 2: one possibility, if I'm right about.
• 48:21
  Speaker 3: The Democrats winning the governor's race, In Ohio, one possibility
• 48:26
  Speaker 3: for J.D. and this has been floated by some folks
• 48:28
  Speaker 3: out there, but I think it's intriguing to at least
• 48:30
  Speaker 3: take a look at is for J.D. to go back
• 48:32
  Speaker 3: to Ohio to be a private citizen for a while,
• 48:34
  Speaker 3: to be a father. He's got very young children, four
• 48:37
  Speaker 3: very young children, including a newborn, and then potentially run
• 48:40
  Speaker 3: for governor of Ohio in four years first and then
• 48:43
  Speaker 3: run for president after that. Now, that delays things quite
• 48:46
  Speaker 3: a bit on the calendar for him. But he's a
• 48:48
  Speaker 3: very young man. And that's something that would be possible
• 48:51
  Speaker 3: to do. And if Amy Acton is, in fact, the
• 48:53
  Speaker 3: governor of Ohio, can he beat her in Ohio governor's race?
• 48:56
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I think so.
• 48:57
  Speaker 3: And I view that as a lateral move, if not
• 49:00
  Speaker 3: perhaps even a bit of an upgrade to being vice president,
• 49:02
  Speaker 3: to be an executive of a major state like Ohio.
• 49:04
  Speaker 3: So anyway, that's a possibility. But to your point about
• 49:06
  Speaker 3: he can only be the OC, I do disagree on
• 49:08
  Speaker 3: this firmly. And here's why. Here's my projection for the
• 49:12
  Speaker 3: economy in 2027. If if we end this war relatively quickly,
• 49:17
  Speaker 3: which I think we will because Iran, I think, look,
• 49:20
  Speaker 3: the Tehran mullahs, the regime, they can't go.
• 49:23
  Speaker 2: On economically like this forever.
• 49:25
  Speaker 3: But they recognize that they have leverage into the midterms.
• 49:28
  Speaker 3: Once the midterms are done, they lose a lot of
• 49:30
  Speaker 3: their leverage within the United States, within the realm of
• 49:33
  Speaker 3: United States politics. They will be way more incentivized to
• 49:37
  Speaker 3: be more reasonable. And I know it's a fanatical regime,
• 49:39
  Speaker 3: but they will be more reasonable than they are being
• 49:41
  Speaker 3: now after the election. And I firmly believe that given
• 49:44
  Speaker 3: how unpopular the war is, given that I think even
• 49:47
  Speaker 3: Trump in his heart of hearts realizes it's a quagmire
• 49:49
  Speaker 3: at present, we are going to extricate ourselves from that situation,
• 49:52
  Speaker 3: however messy that extrication is. Once we get out of
• 49:56
  Speaker 3: the war, the pre-war trend in the economy was really,
• 50:00
  Speaker 3: really positive. some underlying trends remain positive and aren't super
• 50:04
  Speaker 3: inflation sensitive. And the economy can grow like crazy in
• 50:08
  Speaker 3: 2027 and set up actually for a big Republican win
• 50:11
  Speaker 3: for J.D.
• 50:11
  Speaker 2: Vance in 2028.
• 50:13
  Speaker 1: Steve, you're forgetting about AI. The AI job impact is
• 50:20
  Speaker 1: going to hit by 2028. If any of these forecasts
• 50:24
  Speaker 1: are even close to being accurate, whatever positive impact to
• 50:30
  Speaker 1: the economy, in perception that we may see with the
• 50:34
  Speaker 1: end of the war in Iran, and I agree with
• 50:35
  Speaker 1: you that that might happen, there's an exceedingly good chance
• 50:38
  Speaker 1: that by 2028, we have a job shit show. And
• 50:43
  Speaker 1: that will be seen as in perception, you know, it's
• 50:47
  Speaker 1: the Donald Trump administration, it's the Donald Trump economy, even
• 50:50
  Speaker 1: though he'll have very little of anything to have done
• 50:52
  Speaker 1: with it, that will be the perception of the economy.
• 50:56
  Speaker 1: And that will actually, in my view, further the case
• 50:59
  Speaker 1: that J.D. should should not run. And if you do
• 51:03
  Speaker 1: talk to JD, to me, if I'm JD, I want
• 51:07
  Speaker 1: him to at least contemplate what a lame duck Donald
• 51:13
  Speaker 1: Trump is going to be like on his campaign in 2028,
• 51:18
  Speaker 1: where Trump will be asked every single day, to evaluate
• 51:25
  Speaker 1: what J.D. Vance is doing, what he is saying, whether
• 51:29
  Speaker 1: he's being loyal or enough. And every single day, Donald
• 51:32
  Speaker 1: Trump will have no power, none. He will be a
• 51:37
  Speaker 1: bull who has been castrated, who will be looking for
• 51:41
  Speaker 1: something that he can influence. And the only thing he'll
• 51:45
  Speaker 1: be able to influence is J.D. Vance's campaigns. And he'll
• 51:50
  Speaker 1: probably do that in a negative direction. He will be
• 51:53
  Speaker 1: an albatross around J.D. Vance's neck. You cannot run. I'm
• 51:59
  Speaker 1: sorry I'm getting upset about this, but it's so obvious
• 52:02
  Speaker 1: to me. You cannot run as Donald Trump's vice president
• 52:07
  Speaker 1: while he is still president. He will sabotage you. There's
• 52:12
  Speaker 1: absolutely no question in my mind about this, Steve. Do
• 52:15
  Speaker 1: you not at least see where I'm coming from on this?
• 52:17
  Speaker 2: Oh, I understand your view, but I just don't agree.
• 52:19
  Speaker 2: And I think there is a- Why not?
• 52:22
  Speaker 1: What about Donald Trump? What about Donald Trump is going
• 52:24
  Speaker 1: to be like, you know what? I need to be
• 52:25
  Speaker 1: quiet for JD. Where exactly is that in his mindset?
• 52:31
  Speaker 3: Because once we wrap up this ridiculous war, and once
• 52:35
  Speaker 3: the economy starts really booming, and all of the ingredients
• 52:37
  Speaker 3: are there, what Trump will be doing is bragging about
• 52:40
  Speaker 3: that economy, right? And properly so. That will be- his
• 52:44
  Speaker 3: emphasis and his concentration. And that will be the force
• 52:48
  Speaker 3: that will lift a Republican, whichever nominee, but I hope
• 52:51
  Speaker 3: it's J.D. Vance and expect it will be J.D. Vance
• 52:53
  Speaker 3: if he chooses to run, to victory in 2028. But again,
• 52:56
  Speaker 3: this isn't some pipe dream. I mean, this isn't some,
• 52:59
  Speaker 3: you know, I'm not wishing. The trend was fantastic. We
• 53:03
  Speaker 3: were getting there economically. And I understand the AI risks, absolutely.
• 53:07
  Speaker 3: And by the way, it's not just the longer-term job
• 53:10
  Speaker 3: risks that there's a near-term.
• 53:11
  Speaker 2: Bubble risk, right? Right.
• 53:13
  Speaker 1: Yes.
• 53:14
  Speaker 2: I mean, as in like right now.
• 53:16
  Speaker 1: 100%. 100%.
• 53:18
  Speaker 2: Of course.
• 53:20
  Speaker 3: And by the way, those risks go up. Here's the thing, though.
• 53:22
  Speaker 3: Here's why it all ties to the war. Like all
• 53:24
  Speaker 3: roads lead back to Tehran, unfortunately, I believe, politically, economically, otherwise.
• 53:29
  Speaker 3: The AI, if there is an AI bubble, it's going
• 53:32
  Speaker 3: to be popped, not so much because of the technology,
• 53:35
  Speaker 3: but because they can't finance it. this level of hyperscaler
• 53:39
  Speaker 3: build out because they're borrowing the money, right? They don't have,
• 53:42
  Speaker 3: even as wealthy and successful as these companies are, they
• 53:44
  Speaker 3: don't have this money. They are borrowing it and it's
• 53:46
  Speaker 3: getting more and more expensive to go to market to
• 53:48
  Speaker 3: borrow that money in part because the market sees it
• 53:51
  Speaker 3: as a riskier bet. But in the larger part is
• 53:54
  Speaker 3: just the macro scene exacerbated by two needless wars, the
• 53:58
  Speaker 3: Ukraine war and the Iran war, both of which are
• 54:00
  Speaker 3: sending energy prices spiking, which is sending a general price
• 54:04
  Speaker 3: inflation spike throughout the global economy and then filtering into
• 54:08
  Speaker 3: interest rates, not just the U.S.
• 54:10
  Speaker 2: Government pays, but also that these companies pay.
• 54:11
  Speaker 3: And that is really dangerous in a very inflated environment
• 54:16
  Speaker 3: of the hyperscaler build out. So, you know, it's all related.
• 54:20
  Speaker 3: But again, solve the war. And I think both those
• 54:23
  Speaker 3: wars get solved really quickly after the election. I really
• 54:26
  Speaker 3: do get energy back to a reasonable place, get interest rates.
• 54:29
  Speaker 3: I don't think interest rates are going to go down
• 54:30
  Speaker 3: dramatically because we just have too much debt. but get
• 54:33
  Speaker 3: interest rates to stop rising and to stabilize. And then
• 54:37
  Speaker 3: if the hyperscaler, if the AI data center technology is
• 54:40
  Speaker 3: even half of what it's sold to be and the
• 54:43
  Speaker 3: productivity gains come, then I think the ingredients are there
• 54:47
  Speaker 3: for really an incredible 2027 of economic growth. And if
• 54:52
  Speaker 3: I'm right about that and that unfolds, and again, I
• 54:54
  Speaker 3: think I've got evidence-based reasons to project that, then the
• 54:58
  Speaker 3: political scenario changes dramatically.
• 55:01
  Speaker 1: By the way, one of the problems with your equation
• 55:03
  Speaker 1: is that J.D. would have to make the decision before
• 55:06
  Speaker 1: we knew that.
• 55:07
  Speaker 2: That's correct.
• 55:09
  Speaker 1: So that's a massive risk there. My last point on this,
• 55:13
  Speaker 1: and just think about this, Steve. Again, if I was
• 55:16
  Speaker 1: talking to J.D., I'd say, you know, J.D., you seem
• 55:18
  Speaker 1: like you're a sports fan. I want you to think
• 55:21
  Speaker 1: about Billy Martin working for George Steinbrenner, and I want
• 55:24
  Speaker 1: you to think about Jimmy Johnson working for Jerry Jones.
• 55:27
  Speaker 1: And how did that turn out? How did that turn
• 55:30
  Speaker 1: out for Billy Martin and Jimmy Johnson? Because that's what
• 55:34
  Speaker 1: you would be facing, running for president with Donald Trump.
• 55:37
  Speaker 2: Still as president.
• 55:38
  Speaker 1: And by the way, that's the best case scenario. And yes,
• 55:43
  Speaker 1: both of them won championships, but it didn't end up
• 55:45
  Speaker 1: well for them. So I think you understand my point
• 55:49
  Speaker 1: on that.
• 55:49
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 55:50
  Speaker 1: Last thing, speaking of sports and football, this has been
• 55:54
  Speaker 1: a very special fall for you. We mentioned this last
• 55:56
  Speaker 1: time that you were on the podcast. Your son is
• 56:00
  Speaker 1: going to our alma mater, Georgetown University, where he's on
• 56:03
  Speaker 1: the football team. Tell us about how that experience has
• 56:07
  Speaker 1: been as a dad and as a former college football
• 56:10
  Speaker 1: player yourself.
• 56:11
  Speaker 3: Yeah, it's been just absolutely fantastic. Thank you for asking.
• 56:14
  Speaker 3: And he transferred from the University of Miami. So going
• 56:17
  Speaker 3: from the Hurricanes to the Hoyas is, of course, a very,
• 56:19
  Speaker 3: very different football program. But for him, for him better.
• 56:23
  Speaker 3: I think he would have played eventually for the Hurricanes,
• 56:25
  Speaker 3: but it certainly wasn't a guarantee. And it probably was
• 56:27
  Speaker 3: going to happen for him in the fourth or fifth year.
• 56:30
  Speaker 3: you know, and a heck of a lot of work
• 56:31
  Speaker 3: in between with, you know, total uncertainty, but more importantly
• 56:34
  Speaker 3: than playing time, he was able to get right on
• 56:35
  Speaker 3: the field at Georgetown is the camaraderie, the brotherhood, the
• 56:39
  Speaker 3: team aspect, Georgetown, where there's no significant NIL, is still
• 56:44
  Speaker 3: an old school football squad.
• 56:46
  Speaker 2: There still is a.
• 56:48
  Speaker 3: Real brotherhood, real teamwork, real affinity and brotherhood there.
• 56:53
  Speaker 2: And that he just really enjoys that.
• 56:55
  Speaker 3: Whereas the University of Miami, even though they treated him great,
• 56:57
  Speaker 3: I'm really glad he got to see what's life like
• 57:00
  Speaker 3: at a top, top tier program. Right now, the number
• 57:02
  Speaker 3: one program, of course, in America went to the championship
• 57:04
  Speaker 3: game last year. You know, what kind of commitment, what
• 57:06
  Speaker 3: kind of work ethic, what's it like there?
• 57:08
  Speaker 2: But it's a business. Right.
• 57:09
  Speaker 3: And you and I have talked at length. And I
• 57:10
  Speaker 3: agree with every word you say about college football. I
• 57:14
  Speaker 3: never disagreed with you. You're spot spot on what we
• 57:17
  Speaker 3: have done in terms of making them effectively minor league
• 57:19
  Speaker 3: professional franchises.
• 57:20
  Speaker 2: But even worse. Right.
• 57:22
  Speaker 3: Because they have none of the positive aspects of the
• 57:23
  Speaker 3: pros as a player. My son saw that, you know,
• 57:27
  Speaker 3: front and center. And and particularly for somebody, he's a
• 57:30
  Speaker 3: very talented athlete. was all-state in Tennessee on a state
• 57:34
  Speaker 3: championship team, really talented, absolutely good enough to play at
• 57:36
  Speaker 3: the Division I level, but realizes he's not going to
• 57:39
  Speaker 3: the NFL, realizes this is not his professional future.
• 57:42
  Speaker 2: He's not that level of talent.
• 57:43
  Speaker 3: And so for him to get to a school like
• 57:45
  Speaker 3: Georgetown that still plays Division I football but at the
• 57:47
  Speaker 3: other end of Division I and to have the personal
• 57:51
  Speaker 3: experience of teammates who really just get along, love each other,
• 57:56
  Speaker 3: play hard, play for the love of the game, no scholarships,
• 57:59
  Speaker 3: essentially no NILs, it's been fantastic.
• 58:02
  Speaker 2: We go to all the games. He's our youngest.
• 58:03
  Speaker 3: So my wife and I are empty nesters and go
• 58:05
  Speaker 3: to all the games and to see him, you know,
• 58:07
  Speaker 3: play for my school. He's a much better athlete than
• 58:08
  Speaker 3: I was, believe me, but to see him play for
• 58:10
  Speaker 3: my school is really a hoot. And one benefit personally
• 58:14
  Speaker 3: for the, I hate the transfer portal as currently run,
• 58:17
  Speaker 3: of course, but one benefit for us will be because
• 58:19
  Speaker 3: he went to Miami early and he's very, very ahead
• 58:22
  Speaker 3: on his credits.
• 58:22
  Speaker 2: And this is his first football season.
• 58:24
  Speaker 3: He will have eligibility left. So he will get his
• 58:26
  Speaker 3: Georgetown degree for sure. Very happy there, school and, and program.
• 58:31
  Speaker 3: but potentially looking to play football somewhere else for grad school.
• 58:34
  Speaker 3: And if you can use football to get you in
• 58:36
  Speaker 3: to a grad school that you might not get into,
• 58:38
  Speaker 3: for example, one of the top NBA programs, which interests him,
• 58:40
  Speaker 3: wouldn't that be fantastic? And a number of Georgetown football
• 58:43
  Speaker 3: players are doing that. And so that is a cool
• 58:46
  Speaker 3: aspect of, you know, it's mostly very negative, of course,
• 58:48
  Speaker 3: what's going on. But there are some positives from the
• 58:50
  Speaker 3: player family side. And so, yeah, thank you for asking.
• 58:54
  Speaker 3: You know, it's just been an absolute blast. And by
• 58:57
  Speaker 3: the way, he's coached by my teammates. So Rob Scarlatta
• 58:59
  Speaker 3: is the head coach at Georgetown. He was class of 94,
• 59:02
  Speaker 3: as I was. So he was my it's really a
• 59:04
  Speaker 3: hoot to have him play for my buddy, my teammate,
• 59:06
  Speaker 3: who runs a fantastic program, has great culture, really wants
• 59:09
  Speaker 3: to form young men.
• 59:10
  Speaker 2: Not just run a football program.
• 59:12
  Speaker 3: And it's also an island of normalcy within what you know, John,
• 59:17
  Speaker 3: is an otherwise kind of crazy university campus environment.
• 59:22
  Speaker 1: Well, I'm really happy for you. I've been really excited
• 59:25
  Speaker 1: to see the pictures that you've been posting. And I'm
• 59:27
  Speaker 1: glad you have at least, you know, looks like a
• 59:29
  Speaker 1: couple more years to enjoy that. I know that's incredibly
• 59:32
  Speaker 1: special and very, very unique. So I wanted to end
• 59:35
  Speaker 1: the interview on that positive note. I hope you're right
• 59:39
  Speaker 1: about your Senate predictions. And obviously, we'll talk to you
• 59:42
  Speaker 1: again in the future and be keeping in touch both
• 59:46
  Speaker 1: on and off the air. Steve Cortez, as always, thanks
• 59:48
  Speaker 1: so much for your time and your insight.
• 59:50
  Speaker 2: Fantastic. Thank you, John.
• 59:52
  Speaker 1: Always great to talk to Steve Cortez. And I did
• 59:55
  Speaker 1: not expect to get nearly as passionate about the J.D.
• 59:59
  Speaker 1: Vance 2028 issue as I did. To be clear, Steve
• 1:00:03
  Speaker 1: and I are perfectly fine. He understood where I was
• 1:00:06
  Speaker 1: coming from and I understand where he's coming from and
• 1:00:09
  Speaker 1: his particular situation. But obviously, I do feel very, very
• 1:00:12
  Speaker 1: passionately about that. I do not see a scenario where
• 1:00:16
  Speaker 1: you can separate yourself from Donald Trump. while running as
• 1:00:21
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump's vice president while he is still president. It's
• 1:00:24
  Speaker 1: not possible. And it's not possible, barring some sort of
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 1: economic miracle, to win a presidential election when you are
• 1:00:34
  Speaker 1: looked at as the mini Donald Trump, especially when Trump
• 1:00:37
  Speaker 1: fans are so unbelievably cult-like that they may not even
• 1:00:44
  Speaker 1: embrace J.D.
• 1:00:45
  Speaker 2: Vance.
• 1:00:45
  Speaker 1: You don't even get the full Donald Trump support. And
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 1: yet everybody who hates Donald Trump will hate you just
• 1:00:52
  Speaker 1: as much as they hate Trump. And so I think it's,
• 1:00:55
  Speaker 1: to me, it's very obvious why there's a massive problem
• 1:00:59
  Speaker 1: to do that and why, you know, I actually have
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 1: said the only scenario in 2028, and obviously we're a
• 1:01:07
  Speaker 1: long way from it, a lot can change, but based
• 1:01:10
  Speaker 1: upon the current path, the only scenario where I would
• 1:01:13
  Speaker 1: be confident that a Republican would win in 2028 is
• 1:01:17
  Speaker 1: would be if it was Marco Rubio going up against AOC.
• 1:01:21
  Speaker 1: I think Marco Rubio beats AOC under almost any circumstances.
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 1: Any other combination, maybe Kamala Harris versus Rubio, but any
• 1:01:32
  Speaker 1: other combination, I think the Democrat is favored, maybe heavily
• 1:01:36
  Speaker 1: favored right now based upon where things seem to be
• 1:01:39
  Speaker 1: heading in 2028. Now, just to be clear, so there's
• 1:01:42
  Speaker 1: no ambiguity, My prediction for the midterm election is that
• 1:01:46
  Speaker 1: Republicans will end up with 48 Senate seats. It could
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 1: go to 47. I can also see 49. So that's
• 1:01:55
  Speaker 1: where I am. Depending on where the breaks go, who
• 1:01:59
  Speaker 1: wins the coin flips, 47 to 48. Anything less than 47,
• 1:02:04
  Speaker 1: I think, is probably very, very unlikely. And while I
• 1:02:09
  Speaker 1: think it's possible Steve is right that Republicans get 50,
• 1:02:13
  Speaker 1: there's basically no scenario in my mind where they get
• 1:02:16
  Speaker 1: more than 50. So the most likely, if you figure
• 1:02:20
  Speaker 1: out law of averages, if you split the difference, 48
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 1: is the most likely number for Republican senators. And when
• 1:02:27
  Speaker 1: it comes to Democrats in the House, I think we're
• 1:02:30
  Speaker 1: close to 240, which would be an overwhelming majority. It's
• 1:02:35
  Speaker 1: definitely going to be 230, but it could get to 240.
• 1:02:39
  Speaker 1: And if it's to 240, They can do whatever they
• 1:02:42
  Speaker 1: want with regard to impeachment. And there's going to be
• 1:02:45
  Speaker 1: a bloodthirst in their base for impeachment of Donald Trump. Now,
• 1:02:50
  Speaker 1: if Democrats control the Senate, you can't be a Democratic
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 1: Senate leader. And if the House impeaches Donald Trump, not
• 1:02:57
  Speaker 1: bring that up for a trial. You're just not going
• 1:02:59
  Speaker 1: to be able to do that. So that's why the
• 1:03:02
  Speaker 1: difference between 50 and say 48 is so incredibly important.
• 1:03:07
  Speaker 1: At 48 Republicans, they can't stop an impeachment trial. of
• 1:03:12
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump. They might not even want to stop some
• 1:03:14
  Speaker 1: of them, an impeachment trial for Donald Trump. But that's
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 1: where I am. It's going to be a very good day.
• 1:03:21
  Speaker 1: Maybe not an overwhelming tsunami of blue, but it's going
• 1:03:25
  Speaker 1: to be a very good day for Democrats. And it's
• 1:03:27
  Speaker 1: going to be mostly, if not totally, because of Donald
• 1:03:30
  Speaker 1: Trump and decisions that he has made. Now, speaking of elections,
• 1:03:34
  Speaker 1: I have to at least mention what's been going on
• 1:03:36
  Speaker 1: in Brazil, partially because just before 9-11, we did an
• 1:03:42
  Speaker 1: interview with my very good friend, movie director Cyrus Narasta,
• 1:03:46
  Speaker 1: who has just completed a movie essentially about the Brazilian
• 1:03:52
  Speaker 1: presidential election, although it's the history of the Bolsonaro family
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 1: and the election that just happened in Brazil was between
• 1:04:02
  Speaker 1: the son of the main character in Cyrus' movie, which
• 1:04:05
  Speaker 1: is called Dark Horse. The son is named Flavio Bolsonaro.
• 1:04:09
  Speaker 1: And he was running for president against a guy known
• 1:04:12
  Speaker 1: as Lula. And the way they do it in Brazil
• 1:04:17
  Speaker 1: is that they have essentially two different elections, kind of
• 1:04:20
  Speaker 1: a primary and then a runoff. And because nobody got
• 1:04:24
  Speaker 1: over 50% in the first election, even though Flavio Bolsonaro
• 1:04:30
  Speaker 1: got most of the votes, he had by far the
• 1:04:34
  Speaker 1: largest vote total. And the other candidates in the race
• 1:04:37
  Speaker 1: were generally more towards the right. Bolsonaro is the right-wing candidate.
• 1:04:42
  Speaker 1: Lula is the left-wing candidate. And so Flavio Bolsonaro won
• 1:04:49
  Speaker 1: the most votes in the first round of voting. Never
• 1:04:52
  Speaker 1: in the history of Brazil had anyone won the first
• 1:04:56
  Speaker 1: round of voting and then lost in the runoff or
• 1:04:59
  Speaker 1: the general election. And it was presumed that Bolsonaro was
• 1:05:04
  Speaker 1: going to win. Now, I was following this very closely
• 1:05:07
  Speaker 1: because my My good friend was frankly rooting for Bolsonaro
• 1:05:11
  Speaker 1: to win because he's got a movie that's about to
• 1:05:14
  Speaker 1: be coming out, hopefully coming out about essentially the Bolsonaro
• 1:05:18
  Speaker 1: family and the history of how we got here. And
• 1:05:21
  Speaker 1: it's a movie that I've helped consult on. It's a
• 1:05:23
  Speaker 1: very good movie, but it's basically being blocked in Brazil
• 1:05:28
  Speaker 1: because the, the leading the party that's been in charge
• 1:05:32
  Speaker 1: obviously is anti Bolsonaro and they have been making sure
• 1:05:37
  Speaker 1: that this movie doesn't see the light of day. And
• 1:05:39
  Speaker 1: in fact, Flavio Bolsonaro has been indicted on some charges
• 1:05:44
  Speaker 1: directly related to the movie. I'm not making this up.
• 1:05:47
  Speaker 1: This movie by my friend Cyrus became a massive issue
• 1:05:52
  Speaker 1: in the presidential campaign, at first working against Flavio Bolsonaro,
• 1:05:56
  Speaker 1: and then it kind of boomeranged because the left, as
• 1:06:00
  Speaker 1: they always do, overplayed their hands. And there was a backlash,
• 1:06:04
  Speaker 1: and it seemed to help Bolsonaro and his party in
• 1:06:07
  Speaker 1: the first round of elections. Well, despite all the history
• 1:06:12
  Speaker 1: and all the confidence on the Bolsonaro side, Bolsonaro seemingly
• 1:06:17
  Speaker 1: lost in the general election in the runoff. And he
• 1:06:21
  Speaker 1: didn't just lose by a little bit. He lost by
• 1:06:23
  Speaker 1: a pretty significant margin in numbers that are really quite stunning.
• 1:06:29
  Speaker 1: And part of why I find this to be relevant
• 1:06:32
  Speaker 1: is that a lot of people in MAGA world will
• 1:06:35
  Speaker 1: tell you to this day, that obviously the 2020 election
• 1:06:39
  Speaker 1: was rigged against Trump because look what the results were
• 1:06:45
  Speaker 1: in 2024. How is it that Trump could do so
• 1:06:47
  Speaker 1: much better in 2024 and Harris would do so much
• 1:06:50
  Speaker 1: worse than Biden did in 2024 and get so many
• 1:06:53
  Speaker 1: fewer votes? And I've always said that's ridiculous. There's very
• 1:06:59
  Speaker 1: good reasons why 2020 was an anomaly. We were in
• 1:07:02
  Speaker 1: the middle of a pandemic, universal mail-in balloting, Unprecedented energy
• 1:07:08
  Speaker 1: on all sides. Everyone was panicked and freaked out and
• 1:07:13
  Speaker 1: people were blaming Trump for the pandemic. There's all sorts
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 1: of explanations. And then, of course, four years later with
• 1:07:19
  Speaker 1: a completely different candidate. I don't know that you can
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 1: really compare things. But here we have a situation. To me,
• 1:07:26
  Speaker 1: the Brazil circumstance proves how ridiculous that MAGA argument is.
• 1:07:30
  Speaker 1: Because here we have a situation that's three weeks, not
• 1:07:33
  Speaker 1: four years difference, where you have the exact same two candidates,
• 1:07:38
  Speaker 1: the exact same population. Nothing dramatically has changed. There's been
• 1:07:44
  Speaker 1: no events that have impacted reality in the three weeks
• 1:07:48
  Speaker 1: between the first election and the runoff. And yet the
• 1:07:51
  Speaker 1: results were dramatically different. Many, many millions more people voted
• 1:07:57
  Speaker 1: for Lula, the left-wing candidate, in the second round of
• 1:08:01
  Speaker 1: voting than they did in the first round. And this
• 1:08:04
  Speaker 1: despite the fact that many of the non-winning candidates, the
• 1:08:09
  Speaker 1: candidates that did not make it to the runoff, were
• 1:08:12
  Speaker 1: actually politically aligned with Bolsonaro. I mean, these numbers are astonishing.
• 1:08:18
  Speaker 1: If you're going simply by numbers that don't make sense,
• 1:08:22
  Speaker 1: being evidence of some sort of a rigging conspiracy, this
• 1:08:26
  Speaker 1: situation dwarfs what allegedly happened. in 2020 and 2024 in America.
• 1:08:32
  Speaker 1: In fact, I actually think it proves that there was
• 1:08:35
  Speaker 1: no vote rigging in 2020 or 2024. Of course, the
• 1:08:39
  Speaker 1: number one thing with that is, so wait a minute,
• 1:08:41
  Speaker 1: in 2020, the incumbent president had the election rigged against them,
• 1:08:45
  Speaker 1: and then in 2024, they didn't have the election rigged
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 1: against them as the challenger? How does that make any
• 1:08:52
  Speaker 1: damn sense? Because here we have a situation where the
• 1:08:54
  Speaker 1: ruling party was clearly in charge of what was happening,
• 1:08:58
  Speaker 1: so much so that they experienced voting in an unprecedented fashion.
• 1:09:03
  Speaker 1: And then almost immediately after the election was declared over,
• 1:09:09
  Speaker 1: they order Flavio Bolsonaro to give up his passport. which
• 1:09:15
  Speaker 1: he apparently did not do because he's now in the
• 1:09:19
  Speaker 1: United States. He has fled to the United States seemingly
• 1:09:23
  Speaker 1: with American, not just support, but maybe even facilitated by
• 1:09:28
  Speaker 1: America and specifically Marco Rubio in the Department of State.
• 1:09:33
  Speaker 1: I mean, this is really an extraordinary situation. A guy
• 1:09:36
  Speaker 1: who a couple of days ago, Flavio Bolsonaro was presumed
• 1:09:40
  Speaker 1: to be the next president of Brazil, has now been
• 1:09:43
  Speaker 1: forced to flee the country and come to the United States,
• 1:09:46
  Speaker 1: where his brother is also living. And who the heck
• 1:09:52
  Speaker 1: knows what's going to happen here now? But of course,
• 1:09:56
  Speaker 1: my friend Cyrus has been kind of despondent because now
• 1:09:59
  Speaker 1: he thinks there's no chance his movie is ever going
• 1:10:01
  Speaker 1: to see the light of day in Brazil. which may
• 1:10:04
  Speaker 1: or may not be the case. I have no way
• 1:10:06
  Speaker 1: of knowing, but what I've been telling Cyrus is, look,
• 1:10:10
  Speaker 1: I have no idea about the details with regard to
• 1:10:14
  Speaker 1: your distribution of your film and whether or not you
• 1:10:17
  Speaker 1: can get it seen in Brazil, but at least here
• 1:10:20
  Speaker 1: in the United States, you now have a much more
• 1:10:23
  Speaker 1: viable product. I mean, you've got a star in Jim
• 1:10:26
  Speaker 1: Caviezel playing Bolsonaro that people know, and now this is
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 1: a story that people in America know, far more knowledgeable of,
• 1:10:34
  Speaker 1: and now you have the former presidential candidate living in
• 1:10:39
  Speaker 1: the United States under the protection of the U.S. government.
• 1:10:44
  Speaker 1: That's an interesting story. That will get people in America
• 1:10:47
  Speaker 1: at least somewhat engaged In the subject matter of your movie. Now,
• 1:10:52
  Speaker 1: who the hell knows how that all turns out. It's
• 1:10:55
  Speaker 1: weird that I would be the optimistic one, since as
• 1:10:57
  Speaker 1: we just proved with Steve Cortez, I tend to be
• 1:11:00
  Speaker 1: more pessimistic when it comes to my outlook on things.
• 1:11:04
  Speaker 1: But I really do believe, having seen the movie several
• 1:11:07
  Speaker 1: times and having participated in the making of it, that
• 1:11:10
  Speaker 1: at least in America, people would find this to be
• 1:11:13
  Speaker 1: a much more interesting movie given the events of the
• 1:11:17
  Speaker 1: last few days. And let's face it. I said this
• 1:11:19
  Speaker 1: to Cyrus too. I said, victimhood is a very powerful force.
• 1:11:25
  Speaker 1: And in a weird way, being the victim of what
• 1:11:27
  Speaker 1: is now perceived on the right as a potentially rigged
• 1:11:31
  Speaker 1: election where you're forced to flee the country because you're
• 1:11:36
  Speaker 1: going to be arrested is by the ruling party. And
• 1:11:40
  Speaker 1: by the way, the guy who the movie's about, the
• 1:11:43
  Speaker 1: original Bolsonaro, he's under house arrest in Brazil. That might
• 1:11:48
  Speaker 1: actually be a better story than if he had won
• 1:11:50
  Speaker 1: and he was in power. Yeah, if he was in power,
• 1:11:53
  Speaker 1: then obviously, you know, there's no problem showing your movie
• 1:11:55
  Speaker 1: in Brazil. And economically, that would have benefits. But at
• 1:11:59
  Speaker 1: least here in the United States, I don't think anyone
• 1:12:02
  Speaker 1: would really care. Now, I think there's at least a
• 1:12:04
  Speaker 1: chance that people are going to care about that. So
• 1:12:07
  Speaker 1: I'm tentatively optimistic that this is not the worst scenario,
• 1:12:11
  Speaker 1: certainly not the best scenario, but it is not the
• 1:12:14
  Speaker 1: worst scenario for the film Dark Horse by my friend
• 1:12:17
  Speaker 1: Cyrus Narasta. As far as the rigging allegations or the
• 1:12:21
  Speaker 1: conspiracy theories specifically, as you know, I'm an ardent anti-conspiracy person.
• 1:12:29
  Speaker 1: I don't believe in rigged elections unless there's proof. Um,
• 1:12:33
  Speaker 1: I was very open to this theory, though, because of
• 1:12:36
  Speaker 1: the circumstances that I just outlined and because Brazil is
• 1:12:39
  Speaker 1: a very different place than the United States. But then
• 1:12:42
  Speaker 1: Elon Musk jumped on the conspiracy theories. And that made
• 1:12:46
  Speaker 1: me go, OK, wait a minute. This must be false.
• 1:12:48
  Speaker 1: Because if Elon Musk is jumping on a conspiracy, that
• 1:12:52
  Speaker 1: means there's probably an 80% to 90% chance it's not real.
• 1:12:56
  Speaker 1: That's essentially his batting average when it comes to buying
• 1:12:59
  Speaker 1: into conspiracy theories, especially ones that fit his prior biases.
• 1:13:07
  Speaker 1: I'm being somewhat facetious in that, but there is something
• 1:13:09
  Speaker 1: to be said about that. Elon Musk does not invoke
• 1:13:14
  Speaker 1: confidence when it comes to conspiracy theories. Now, when it
• 1:13:18
  Speaker 1: comes to successful businesses, that's a completely different story, but
• 1:13:21
  Speaker 1: he definitely has a blind spot when it comes to
• 1:13:24
  Speaker 1: which conspiracy theories he buys into. He does not have
• 1:13:27
  Speaker 1: a good track record on this. However, I would also
• 1:13:30
  Speaker 1: not go as far as NBC did, because NBC News
• 1:13:34
  Speaker 1: did a story on the conspiracy theories involving the Brazilian election,
• 1:13:39
  Speaker 1: which they called, quote unquote, baseless. Baseless. Baseless. I'm sorry.
• 1:13:48
  Speaker 1: I would in no way, shape, or form say they've
• 1:13:51
  Speaker 1: been proven. They may very well not be true, but
• 1:13:54
  Speaker 1: to say baseless? I mean, you have the situation with
• 1:13:58
  Speaker 1: the ruling party, What controls the Supreme Court, by the way,
• 1:14:03
  Speaker 1: a member of the Supreme Court is the lawyer of
• 1:14:06
  Speaker 1: the guy running for president, the ruling party. They decide
• 1:14:10
  Speaker 1: to keep the polls open in an unprecedented fashion for
• 1:14:14
  Speaker 1: two extra hours. There's all sorts of weird anomalies in
• 1:14:17
  Speaker 1: the numbers. You have a situation where one party dominates
• 1:14:23
  Speaker 1: in the legislative body, in the first round of elections,
• 1:14:27
  Speaker 1: and then somehow their candidate loses by a fairly significant
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 1: margin three weeks later with huge numbers of votes coming
• 1:14:37
  Speaker 1: out of nowhere. Again, that doesn't prove it. But to
• 1:14:41
  Speaker 1: call that baseless before we have any sort of investigation
• 1:14:45
  Speaker 1: or know any real hard evidence is absurd. And if
• 1:14:50
  Speaker 1: it had been the the left-wingers that were claiming a
• 1:14:53
  Speaker 1: conspiracy with this fat pattern, I doubt very seriously that
• 1:14:57
  Speaker 1: NBC would have called it baseless. They would have said
• 1:15:00
  Speaker 1: maybe unproven, but they would not have said baseless. So
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 1: that's the situation in Brazil. By the way, there's another
• 1:15:07
  Speaker 1: aspect of the Brazilian election that I think is bothersome,
• 1:15:12
  Speaker 1: which actually goes against the conspiracy rigging theory. Because if
• 1:15:17
  Speaker 1: you're looking for rational reasons to for why it is
• 1:15:21
  Speaker 1: that this happened. Part of what Lula did in the
• 1:15:25
  Speaker 1: three weeks between the first round and the second round
• 1:15:28
  Speaker 1: was basically promise all sorts of government handouts. And there's
• 1:15:36
  Speaker 1: an argument that that worked, that he basically bought off
• 1:15:39
  Speaker 1: the voting populace, which is very ominous when it comes
• 1:15:43
  Speaker 1: to the nature of humanity and why socialism gets to
• 1:15:48
  Speaker 1: be so popular and why we might be doomed in America,
• 1:15:51
  Speaker 1: because that's essentially, in a much slower, maybe more subtle fashion,
• 1:15:56
  Speaker 1: what we've been doing for many decades in this country,
• 1:15:58
  Speaker 1: which is just basically promising all sorts of things we
• 1:16:01
  Speaker 1: can't actually afford and buying off the votes of poor people.
• 1:16:05
  Speaker 1: And that's essentially what Lula may have done, assuming that
• 1:16:08
  Speaker 1: this was all on the up and up in Brazil.
• 1:16:12
  Speaker 1: I want to update you on several stories we've talked
• 1:16:14
  Speaker 1: about recently. You may recall the super viral story involving
• 1:16:18
  Speaker 1: the lesbian bar in Massachusetts that caused a civil war
• 1:16:23
  Speaker 1: when they tried to adjust their very stringent mask mandate,
• 1:16:27
  Speaker 1: which had absolutely nothing to do with COVID and everything
• 1:16:30
  Speaker 1: to do with the politics of lesbians. This story was
• 1:16:34
  Speaker 1: almost a parody and right-wingers loved it, which is why
• 1:16:37
  Speaker 1: it went super viral, even though it came from a
• 1:16:39
  Speaker 1: Boston Globe story and even resulted in the very liberal
• 1:16:43
  Speaker 1: Boston Globe being accused of somehow being MAGA by the
• 1:16:47
  Speaker 1: Communist Party of portions of Massachusetts. I'm not making any
• 1:16:51
  Speaker 1: of this up, but there's been a development in that story.
• 1:16:55
  Speaker 1: Colin Rugg, who has a very popular ex feed, he
• 1:16:58
  Speaker 1: reported lesbian Massachusetts bar that required customers to wear masks
• 1:17:03
  Speaker 1: forced to close down after lesbians rioted against the bar's
• 1:17:08
  Speaker 1: decision to lift its mask requirement for just one day
• 1:17:12
  Speaker 1: a week. Last Ditch, that was the name of the bar,
• 1:17:16
  Speaker 1: says it is closing down after making mask wearing optional
• 1:17:21
  Speaker 1: nearly seven years after COVID. The owners tried changing the
• 1:17:25
  Speaker 1: bar's mask policy for one night a week to boost business,
• 1:17:30
  Speaker 1: but faced fierce backlash from customers. Far leftists accused the
• 1:17:35
  Speaker 1: bar owners of ableism and kicking immune compromised people out
• 1:17:43
  Speaker 1: To the curb. So that all didn't work out very well.
• 1:17:47
  Speaker 1: To me, the most important part of that story, which
• 1:17:51
  Speaker 1: I think got lost in all the hilarity over the
• 1:17:54
  Speaker 1: specifics of the lesbian bar and the mask mandate, was
• 1:17:58
  Speaker 1: that this was the ultimate proof that the COVID mask
• 1:18:00
  Speaker 1: really always was nothing more than a political virtue signal
• 1:18:05
  Speaker 1: against Donald Trump. By the way, it also proves that
• 1:18:08
  Speaker 1: lesbianism is largely a political phenomenon.
• 1:18:12
  Speaker 2: Not entirely.
• 1:18:13
  Speaker 1: But it's largely. The correlation is just too incredibly strong.
• 1:18:18
  Speaker 1: It does not exist, by the way, with male homosexuality
• 1:18:22
  Speaker 1: to nearly the degree that it does with female lesbianism.
• 1:18:26
  Speaker 1: And specifically when it comes to something like a mask mandate,
• 1:18:30
  Speaker 1: which that is the part of the story that is
• 1:18:33
  Speaker 1: absolutely the most important. It proves beyond any shadow of
• 1:18:37
  Speaker 1: a doubt that mask mandates and mask wearing during COVID-19
• 1:18:42
  Speaker 1: was a political virtue signal against Donald Trump. It had
• 1:18:45
  Speaker 1: absolutely positively nothing to do with science. Another update, actually,
• 1:18:51
  Speaker 1: this is an update with no update, but it's a
• 1:18:54
  Speaker 1: story that I've been following that has been basically dropped
• 1:18:57
  Speaker 1: by the legacy news media, is the story out of
• 1:19:00
  Speaker 1: Arizona involving the Democratic congressional candidate there, Bernadette Green Palencia,
• 1:19:07
  Speaker 1: who several weeks ago claimed rather dramatically and out of
• 1:19:10
  Speaker 1: the blue that back on August 14th, late at night
• 1:19:14
  Speaker 1: outside while fixing campaign signs, she was brutally raped by
• 1:19:19
  Speaker 1: not one but two unknown men. A horrendous, horrific crime
• 1:19:27
  Speaker 1: that no one seems at all interested in trying to
• 1:19:29
  Speaker 1: solve or to find the perpetrators of. I mean, my God,
• 1:19:34
  Speaker 1: there are two incredibly dangerous men on the loose in Arizona,
• 1:19:39
  Speaker 1: and no one cares. Think about how dangerous you have
• 1:19:42
  Speaker 1: to be to see a woman, a congressional candidate, on
• 1:19:49
  Speaker 1: the side of the road in the middle of the night, outside,
• 1:19:54
  Speaker 1: and not one of you, but two of you, brutally
• 1:19:57
  Speaker 1: rape her outside. These are incredibly dangerous people. And yet
• 1:20:04
  Speaker 1: there's been no sign of them. And there's been no
• 1:20:08
  Speaker 1: recent statement by the authorities. There's been no recent statement
• 1:20:12
  Speaker 1: by the candidate. She doesn't seem all that concerned with
• 1:20:16
  Speaker 1: finding these people. There's all sorts of problems with the story.
• 1:20:21
  Speaker 1: We're pretending, I guess the media is, that we're not
• 1:20:24
  Speaker 1: living in a world with flock cameras and security cameras.
• 1:20:27
  Speaker 1: And where's her cell phone? There should be massive amounts
• 1:20:33
  Speaker 1: of evidence somewhere that something happened and yet nada, nothing.
• 1:20:40
  Speaker 1: And the media has just moved on, completely obsessed with
• 1:20:45
  Speaker 1: the Cornell 8 case, as I refer to it. Total
• 1:20:49
  Speaker 1: obsession with that story. Where, you know, worst case, at
• 1:20:53
  Speaker 1: least the woman clearly engaged in sexual activity consensually at
• 1:20:58
  Speaker 1: some point. Almost everybody agrees with that, except maybe AOC
• 1:21:04
  Speaker 1: and some of the absolute, complete and total lunatics. But
• 1:21:09
  Speaker 1: any objective look at the facts is at least there
• 1:21:11
  Speaker 1: was some consent there. I believe there was full consent there.
• 1:21:15
  Speaker 1: But here we have a situation that's real, horrendous, horrific,
• 1:21:19
  Speaker 1: brutal rape of a congressional candidate. And suddenly the media
• 1:21:25
  Speaker 1: doesn't care. I would submit that the reason the reason
• 1:21:28
  Speaker 1: he doesn't care is because most of them realize that
• 1:21:31
  Speaker 1: this is one of those crimes better left unsolved, especially
• 1:21:35
  Speaker 1: not until after the election, because this one doesn't feel right.
• 1:21:40
  Speaker 1: There's a, there's a big problem here and I'm becoming
• 1:21:43
  Speaker 1: exceedingly convinced, not a hundred percent yet, but I'm getting
• 1:21:46
  Speaker 1: darn near close to a hundred percent that this never happened.
• 1:21:50
  Speaker 1: Now I have different theories as to what motivated this
• 1:21:53
  Speaker 1: woman to tell a story that's not true, but, I'm
• 1:21:57
  Speaker 1: getting close to 100% that this story was not true.
• 1:22:00
  Speaker 1: And I'm getting close to 100% that we're never going
• 1:22:02
  Speaker 1: to hear about it again in the mainstream news media.
• 1:22:04
  Speaker 1: We're just going to pretend it never happened, even though,
• 1:22:08
  Speaker 1: you know, if true, it's horrendous. And if not true,
• 1:22:12
  Speaker 1: it was a clear attempt to try to influence an
• 1:22:15
  Speaker 1: election by the news media, facilitating a false narrative that
• 1:22:20
  Speaker 1: we're living in a rape culture. That's so strong that
• 1:22:23
  Speaker 1: somehow it's, someone could be raped horrendously by two men
• 1:22:29
  Speaker 1: in public and no one would do anything about it,
• 1:22:32
  Speaker 1: which is just not a realistic view of where we
• 1:22:35
  Speaker 1: are in the world. Now, speaking of the Cornell 8 case, unbelievably,
• 1:22:40
  Speaker 1: and yet not surprisingly, in the legal proceeding there, the
• 1:22:45
  Speaker 1: judge has backed anonymity for Jane Doe. Michael Tracy, who
• 1:22:53
  Speaker 1: at one point revealed the identity of Jane Doe and
• 1:22:57
  Speaker 1: then wimped out and deleted his tweet, which I think
• 1:22:59
  Speaker 1: was very, very counterproductive to this effort, which I think
• 1:23:04
  Speaker 1: is legitimate because there's absolutely no legal or moral explanation
• 1:23:11
  Speaker 1: or rationale for why an adult who is suing over
• 1:23:17
  Speaker 1: sexual abuse should be allowed to remain anonymous. It makes
• 1:23:22
  Speaker 1: absolutely no sense. for I think obvious reasons. I mean,
• 1:23:26
  Speaker 1: there's no compelling reason for it, legally or morally, ethically.
• 1:23:32
  Speaker 1: It doesn't exist. And it absolutely plays a massive role.
• 1:23:36
  Speaker 1: It makes her accusation far, far more difficult to debunk
• 1:23:41
  Speaker 1: because your identity is your credibility. You can tell an
• 1:23:46
  Speaker 1: enormous amount about someone's credibility based upon their identity. And
• 1:23:50
  Speaker 1: I think if we If the public did know who
• 1:23:53
  Speaker 1: Jane Doe is, then all of a sudden views of
• 1:23:56
  Speaker 1: this story might change rather dramatically. But Tracy, who obviously
• 1:24:01
  Speaker 1: has been following this very closely because he's at the
• 1:24:04
  Speaker 1: center of the whole thing, he posted that the judge
• 1:24:07
  Speaker 1: ruled that Jane Doe may remain anonymized. I didn't know
• 1:24:12
  Speaker 1: that was a word. anonymized, given, quote, the notoriety of
• 1:24:16
  Speaker 1: the allocations and widespread reports of certain malicious actors' behavior
• 1:24:22
  Speaker 1: in attempting to threaten and retaliate. The judge then issues
• 1:24:26
  Speaker 1: vague threats against those who have sought to identify Jane Doe. Basically,
• 1:24:32
  Speaker 1: what we have here is a situation where the law
• 1:24:35
  Speaker 1: and logic mean absolutely nothing, because the case has gotten
• 1:24:40
  Speaker 1: too much publicity and this female judge doesn't have the
• 1:24:44
  Speaker 1: guts to go against the grain of the mob. This
• 1:24:50
  Speaker 1: is mob rule here. And the media is absolutely part
• 1:24:54
  Speaker 1: of this mob. And which of course is absurd because
• 1:24:58
  Speaker 1: you would think that the media would be in favor
• 1:25:00
  Speaker 1: of transparency. In this case, they're openly in favor of censorship.
• 1:25:05
  Speaker 1: We went through this in the last week's episode of
• 1:25:06
  Speaker 1: the podcast. major legacy outlets attacking those who would dare
• 1:25:13
  Speaker 1: to state a fact, a fact that is relevant, a
• 1:25:16
  Speaker 1: fact that is legal, a fact that is ethical and moral,
• 1:25:20
  Speaker 1: but just happens to be inconvenient to their narrative. And
• 1:25:24
  Speaker 1: I've said many, many times that it is one of
• 1:25:28
  Speaker 1: the more bizarre ways in which we handle sex abuse allegations,
• 1:25:33
  Speaker 1: where even as an adult, The media, and now in
• 1:25:36
  Speaker 1: this case, the court system. It's one thing for the
• 1:25:39
  Speaker 1: media to do it, which is wrong. But in this case,
• 1:25:42
  Speaker 1: the court system is going to openly censor the identity
• 1:25:48
  Speaker 1: of an accuser in a lawsuit seeking money. This is
• 1:25:53
  Speaker 1: so dangerous. I shouldn't even be laughing about it. If
• 1:25:57
  Speaker 1: this becomes the rule, I mean, if you get into
• 1:26:00
  Speaker 1: a situation where, well, this case is high profile and up,
• 1:26:03
  Speaker 1: so therefore we can keep the identity of the person anonymous,
• 1:26:08
  Speaker 1: even in legal proceedings. I mean, even in the Sandusky case,
• 1:26:12
  Speaker 1: in the legal documents, you had the names of the
• 1:26:14
  Speaker 1: actual accusers. But that was a criminal case. This is
• 1:26:19
  Speaker 1: just a civil case right now. Of course, eventually it
• 1:26:22
  Speaker 1: will be turned into a criminal case for the exact
• 1:26:24
  Speaker 1: same reasons. Because Letitia James is going to feel forced
• 1:26:30
  Speaker 1: by the mob into charging them with something. It's going
• 1:26:33
  Speaker 1: to happen. And this is not the way you do
• 1:26:35
  Speaker 1: a judicial system, at least not in America, at least
• 1:26:39
  Speaker 1: not the way it's supposed to be done. You don't
• 1:26:41
  Speaker 1: do this by mob rule. We're supposed to be a
• 1:26:43
  Speaker 1: nation of laws, not of men. But this is where
• 1:26:47
  Speaker 1: we're heading. And unfortunately, this is just a really bad
• 1:26:50
  Speaker 1: example of where things are heading when it comes to
• 1:26:54
  Speaker 1: emotion overtaking the law. And whether or not a case
• 1:26:59
  Speaker 1: has become high profile enough and whether or not a
• 1:27:03
  Speaker 1: few lunatics on the internet have, you know, made some
• 1:27:07
  Speaker 1: sort of threat against somebody because they think they're lying
• 1:27:11
  Speaker 1: or destroying the lives of innocent people. I mean, this
• 1:27:13
  Speaker 1: whole thing is just complete insanity and it's all heading
• 1:27:17
  Speaker 1: in a very, very dangerous direction. Now, last week I
• 1:27:21
  Speaker 1: connected and others have done the same to the Cornell
• 1:27:26
  Speaker 1: eight case, Alex Cooper, who is a very, very prominent
• 1:27:32
  Speaker 1: voice among young women. She's the host of the Call
• 1:27:34
  Speaker 1: Her Daddy podcast. She's essentially, I guess, the new Oprah,
• 1:27:40
  Speaker 1: only far more sexualized. And she's been enduring, understandably so,
• 1:27:47
  Speaker 1: an awful lot of criticism over the last couple of weeks,
• 1:27:50
  Speaker 1: partially for her hypocrisy over the whole Cornell 8 thing.
• 1:27:53
  Speaker 1: There's evidence that Jane Doe was a fan of of
• 1:27:58
  Speaker 1: alex cooper and the caller daddy podcast which may have
• 1:28:01
  Speaker 1: been relevant that's why partially why her identity is i
• 1:28:04
  Speaker 1: think important to know because if you are a fan
• 1:28:06
  Speaker 1: of of alex cooper and the caller daddy podcast i
• 1:28:09
  Speaker 1: think that does make it far easier to believe that
• 1:28:13
  Speaker 1: you may have facilitated this event given the content of
• 1:28:16
  Speaker 1: the caller daddy podcast But for a different reason, Alex
• 1:28:21
  Speaker 1: Cooper has been the topic of a lot of discussion
• 1:28:25
  Speaker 1: in the last week because of a clip from her
• 1:28:28
  Speaker 1: podcast with actress Sophie Bush that went absolutely super viral.
• 1:28:34
  Speaker 1: And I understood exactly why it did. And I'm glad
• 1:28:36
  Speaker 1: that it did. And even though this happened almost a
• 1:28:39
  Speaker 1: week ago, I think it's... at least worthy of me
• 1:28:41
  Speaker 1: mentioning on the Death of Journalism podcast because of Alex
• 1:28:46
  Speaker 1: Cooper's perceived, if not real, influence over the culture. And
• 1:28:53
  Speaker 1: also what this particular clip says about modern feminism and
• 1:28:59
  Speaker 1: and modern marriage because this was really extraordinary. It's a
• 1:29:03
  Speaker 1: short clip. This is Alex Cooper and actress Sophie Bush
• 1:29:09
  Speaker 1: talking about the issue of what happens to a woman
• 1:29:12
  Speaker 1: when she's in a marriage that she doesn't like. Should
• 1:29:16
  Speaker 1: she be willing to leave it and that she shouldn't
• 1:29:19
  Speaker 1: fear leaving it because you might not be able to
• 1:29:22
  Speaker 1: do better once you dump your husband because in their view,
• 1:29:26
  Speaker 1: you can always do better And to think that you
• 1:29:28
  Speaker 1: can't is somehow, is somehow just the oppression of the patriarchy.
• 1:29:35
  Speaker 1: I'm not making this up, but this is the clip
• 1:29:37
  Speaker 1: that went super viral from Alex Cooper and the Call
• 1:29:40
  Speaker 1: Her Daddy podcast.
• 1:29:42
  Speaker 3: We can get really, really in our heads about, oh
• 1:29:45
  Speaker 3: my God, I feel like I'm, maybe I shouldn't leave
• 1:29:48
  Speaker 3: this marriage because can I even get better?
• 1:29:52
  Speaker 2: And the answer is always yes.
• 1:29:54
  Speaker 1: The answer is always yes.
• 1:29:55
  Speaker 3: And this idea that it's too late or you're too
• 1:29:58
  Speaker 3: old or who are you.
• 1:30:00
  Speaker 1: To want more?
• 1:30:01
  Speaker 2: That's patriarchy.
• 1:30:02
  Speaker 1: That is crazy.
• 1:30:04
  Speaker 2: We don't need it.
• 1:30:05
  Speaker 1: Now that clip deserved to go viral because it really
• 1:30:08
  Speaker 1: is truly extraordinary. I mean, think about what this incredibly
• 1:30:13
  Speaker 1: influential voice, Alex Cooper, is telling young women or maybe
• 1:30:18
  Speaker 1: not so young women anymore. That first of all, marriage
• 1:30:22
  Speaker 1: doesn't matter. Your commitment, of death to his part doesn't matter.
• 1:30:27
  Speaker 1: And that if you think you can do better, you
• 1:30:30
  Speaker 1: should leave your husband and you should think you can
• 1:30:33
  Speaker 1: do better because you can always do better. Now, forgetting
• 1:30:37
  Speaker 1: the ethical and the morality aspects of this, just from
• 1:30:42
  Speaker 1: a practicality standpoint, this is incredibly bad advice. Incredibly bad advice.
• 1:30:49
  Speaker 1: And I intend, I'm I have to go through my
• 1:30:52
  Speaker 1: wife to do this. I already have done so, but
• 1:30:55
  Speaker 1: it doesn't really work coming from a dad. But I
• 1:30:58
  Speaker 1: intend to make it very, very, very, very clear to
• 1:31:01
  Speaker 1: both of my daughters that you need to understand the
• 1:31:05
  Speaker 1: nature of the dating and mating marketplace. And I know
• 1:31:11
  Speaker 1: you want to romanticize it, but it absolutely is, in
• 1:31:15
  Speaker 1: the end, a marketplace. And there is absolutely, positively, zero,
• 1:31:22
  Speaker 1: zero debate that in 99 point something percent of the cases,
• 1:31:29
  Speaker 1: a woman's marketplace value peaks at 25 or 26 and
• 1:31:36
  Speaker 1: goes down at whatever rate forever and ever after that.
• 1:31:42
  Speaker 1: Unless you're in an extraordinary circumstance, you're a celebrity or
• 1:31:45
  Speaker 1: you're rich or you were out of shape and you
• 1:31:48
  Speaker 1: get into phenomenal shape. Other than those kind of situations,
• 1:31:52
  Speaker 1: the normal case, 26 is pretty much where you hit
• 1:31:57
  Speaker 1: your peak. After that, there's a downhill slide. Now, it
• 1:32:01
  Speaker 1: depends on the circumstances how fast that slide happens. For
• 1:32:04
  Speaker 1: some women, it may not happen significantly for a very
• 1:32:07
  Speaker 1: long time, but it's never going to get higher than that.
• 1:32:11
  Speaker 1: And that doesn't mean you get married at 26 to
• 1:32:13
  Speaker 1: the wrong guy, but you need to understand that going forward. And,
• 1:32:20
  Speaker 1: you know, anecdotally, based upon social media posts and TikTok videos,
• 1:32:25
  Speaker 1: that kind of things, it certainly seems as if there
• 1:32:27
  Speaker 1: are an awful lot of women in their late 30s
• 1:32:30
  Speaker 1: or early 40s who get tired of their husbands. There's
• 1:32:34
  Speaker 1: nothing wrong with their husband, really, but he doesn't meet
• 1:32:36
  Speaker 1: their expectations because their expectations have gotten completely out of control.
• 1:32:40
  Speaker 1: They divorce them and then they realize, wait a minute,
• 1:32:43
  Speaker 1: hold on a second. Why can't I find a decent guy? Well, because...
• 1:32:49
  Speaker 1: You presumably married this guy in a situation where your
• 1:32:54
  Speaker 1: value in the marketplace was a lot higher than it
• 1:32:57
  Speaker 1: currently is. It doesn't mean you have no value, but
• 1:33:01
  Speaker 1: it's a completely different set of circumstances. I have jokingly
• 1:33:05
  Speaker 1: talked about this with regard to me and my wife.
• 1:33:10
  Speaker 1: My wife, I'm sure, is disappointed with how her marriage
• 1:33:13
  Speaker 1: has gone. I'm a good husband and a good dad,
• 1:33:16
  Speaker 1: but it hasn't been spectacular. I'm sure she thinks she
• 1:33:20
  Speaker 1: probably could have done better. She thinks about all the
• 1:33:23
  Speaker 1: guys that she used to date that would be theoretically
• 1:33:26
  Speaker 1: better than I am. And I have to break it
• 1:33:29
  Speaker 1: to her. I say, Allison, these are guys that you
• 1:33:33
  Speaker 1: dated in your 20s or your early 30s. We got
• 1:33:37
  Speaker 1: married when you were in your late 30s. We got
• 1:33:41
  Speaker 1: engaged in your mid 30s. and you know, I'm, I'm
• 1:33:46
  Speaker 1: very open and honest about this. There were plenty of
• 1:33:49
  Speaker 1: opportunities I had for us to break up because frankly,
• 1:33:52
  Speaker 1: my wife at times, and she'd be the first to
• 1:33:54
  Speaker 1: acknowledge this was nuts, partially because I think she was
• 1:33:57
  Speaker 1: starting to get desperate. I mean, a woman in her
• 1:34:00
  Speaker 1: mid thirties who wants to get married, wants to have
• 1:34:02
  Speaker 1: kids and all of a sudden are starting to see
• 1:34:05
  Speaker 1: the handwriting on the wall. They get a little cuckoo
• 1:34:08
  Speaker 1: for Cocoa Puffs. And so had I been, decided to
• 1:34:12
  Speaker 1: break up with my wife at some level or some
• 1:34:15
  Speaker 1: stage of the engagement, or maybe even, you know, just
• 1:34:18
  Speaker 1: before we got married, she would have been in an
• 1:34:21
  Speaker 1: incredibly difficult position. She would have been in her late
• 1:34:24
  Speaker 1: thirties and back to square one. And I'm sorry, that's
• 1:34:31
  Speaker 1: the reality of the dating marketplace. And I, you know,
• 1:34:35
  Speaker 1: my wife will never buy into this, but I've always,
• 1:34:37
  Speaker 1: I tried to tell her, you should not be comparing
• 1:34:40
  Speaker 1: me to whoever you, thought was awesome when you were
• 1:34:43
  Speaker 1: dating them in your 20s or early 30s, you should
• 1:34:46
  Speaker 1: be comparing me to who you would have ended up
• 1:34:48
  Speaker 1: with if we had broken up. And I can assure
• 1:34:51
  Speaker 1: you it would have been far worse than me on
• 1:34:55
  Speaker 1: a number of levels. That doesn't seem to work for
• 1:34:58
  Speaker 1: some reason. But that reality is so incredibly important. And
• 1:35:04
  Speaker 1: for Alex Cooper to be preaching the exact opposite is
• 1:35:10
  Speaker 1: creating a generation of even more delusional women than we
• 1:35:14
  Speaker 1: already had. By the way, she also revealed on her podcast,
• 1:35:18
  Speaker 1: Alex Cooper did, that she hid an STD from her boyfriend. Now,
• 1:35:24
  Speaker 1: can you imagine, just from the hypocrisy standpoint, can you
• 1:35:28
  Speaker 1: imagine if a male podcast host said the same thing
• 1:35:31
  Speaker 1: about us, you know, keeping from a celebrity that they
• 1:35:34
  Speaker 1: were dating, that they had a sexually transmitted disease? I mean,
• 1:35:38
  Speaker 1: there would be all hell to pay. They'd probably get canceled.
• 1:35:42
  Speaker 1: But this is the world we now live in, where everything,
• 1:35:44
  Speaker 1: you know, there's hypocrisy everywhere, double standards everywhere. And somehow
• 1:35:48
  Speaker 1: Alex Cooper is able to get away with this stuff.
• 1:35:52
  Speaker 1: Although I will say, thankfully, she received an awful lot
• 1:35:54
  Speaker 1: of criticism for this. This is one of those rare
• 1:35:57
  Speaker 1: moments where social media worked as, I think, a force
• 1:36:00
  Speaker 1: for good because she got destroyed because people seem to
• 1:36:04
  Speaker 1: understand this issue. But it doesn't diminish the significance of
• 1:36:11
  Speaker 1: of an Alex Cooper and their influence on the minds
• 1:36:14
  Speaker 1: of young women, polluting their minds. And it's just amazing
• 1:36:18
  Speaker 1: as a guy who has never been in favor of marriage,
• 1:36:21
  Speaker 1: but got married for all sorts of different reasons and
• 1:36:25
  Speaker 1: has now been married for 16 years and has two
• 1:36:28
  Speaker 1: young kids, never dreamed that that would be possible. It
• 1:36:30
  Speaker 1: is absolutely amazing. I almost have to respect this, how
• 1:36:35
  Speaker 1: women have taken an institution, marriage, which not that long ago,
• 1:36:40
  Speaker 1: maybe just a couple generations ago, was clearly very much
• 1:36:44
  Speaker 1: in favor of the male. This was effectively a way
• 1:36:49
  Speaker 1: for men way, way, way back, many, many, many generations ago,
• 1:36:53
  Speaker 1: basically a way for men to designate their property, to
• 1:36:56
  Speaker 1: define their property. It was incredibly biased towards the man.
• 1:37:02
  Speaker 1: And now have shifted that institution of marriage to being
• 1:37:06
  Speaker 1: incredibly biased towards the woman. So much so that, ah,
• 1:37:10
  Speaker 1: that whole death to his part thing, screw that. If
• 1:37:13
  Speaker 1: you think you can do better, go ahead and leave
• 1:37:15
  Speaker 1: his ass. When they don't even seem to understand, and
• 1:37:19
  Speaker 1: this is part of the whole modern feminism thing, they
• 1:37:22
  Speaker 1: have deluded women into thinking they don't need to worry
• 1:37:25
  Speaker 1: about this. But the reality is part of the death
• 1:37:28
  Speaker 1: to his part was in the woman's favor. Because when
• 1:37:32
  Speaker 1: a woman was in her 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s,
• 1:37:34
  Speaker 1: and her sex appeal is no longer relevant, she would
• 1:37:39
  Speaker 1: still have someone to take care of her. That was
• 1:37:43
  Speaker 1: part of the deal as well. That was understood that
• 1:37:48
  Speaker 1: that was how this was all going to work out.
• 1:37:50
  Speaker 1: But women apparently don't want to go for that part
• 1:37:52
  Speaker 1: of the deal either, which I think they're going to
• 1:37:54
  Speaker 1: rue in the end, especially if they end up with
• 1:37:57
  Speaker 1: no kids. I mean, a woman with no kids in
• 1:38:00
  Speaker 1: her 60s or 70s and no husband, how's that going
• 1:38:06
  Speaker 1: to work out? It's not. It doesn't work out. But
• 1:38:12
  Speaker 1: these are the lies we've told young women. It started
• 1:38:14
  Speaker 1: with Oprah, and now basically the torch has been passed
• 1:38:19
  Speaker 1: to Alex Cooper, the torch of lunacy. So I've been
• 1:38:23
  Speaker 1: glad that Alex Cooper has been getting a lot of
• 1:38:25
  Speaker 1: criticism for that. And I just wanted to mention on
• 1:38:30
  Speaker 1: the podcast, because I do think it's one of those
• 1:38:32
  Speaker 1: areas where there's this massive blind spot, especially when it
• 1:38:36
  Speaker 1: comes to modern feminism. Thanks for listening to today's free
• 1:38:40
  Speaker 1: drop of the abbreviated show. If you're interested in listening
• 1:38:43
  Speaker 1: to the entire show, you must become a patron. Please
• 1:38:47
  Speaker 1: go to patreon.com That's P-A-T-R-E-O-N dot com, patreon.com slash the
• 1:38:57
  Speaker 1: death of journalism with John Ziegler. My name is J-O-H-N-Z-I-E-G-L-E-R.
• 1:39:04
  Speaker 1: That's patreon.com slash the death of journalism with John Ziegler.
• 1:39:12
  Speaker 1: Good luck to you on that. But that's how you
• 1:39:14
  Speaker 1: can subscribe.