Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode One Hundred Ninety Eight: Blue Wall Cracking

Transcript

Episode One Hundred Ninety Eight: Blue Wall Cracking · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome to episode number one hundred and ninety eight of
0:03
Speaker 1: the Death of Journalism podcast. My name is John Zigler.
0:06
Speaker 1: I'm your host in today's show. The presidential race has
0:09
Speaker 1: officially shifted in my electoral college projection has been altered accordingly,
0:15
Speaker 1: and our Democrats panicking and responding with overt racism could
0:20
Speaker 1: Elon Musk pull Trump to victory. Hurricane Milton turns out
0:25
Speaker 1: to be mostly a bust for the news media, and
0:28
Speaker 1: outrage over Bob Costas during the baseball playoffs exposes a
0:33
Speaker 1: huge generational divide. In the last episode of the podcast,
0:39
Speaker 1: I was skeptical about the emerging narrative on the right
0:44
Speaker 1: that the Harris campaign was panicking and that this was
0:48
Speaker 1: driving a lot of their decision making, specifically with the
0:53
Speaker 1: radical change in strategy regarding how many and what type
0:57
Speaker 1: of interviews Kamala Harris was going to do. I was
1:00
Speaker 1: certainly open to that theory, but I did not accept
1:04
Speaker 1: it at that time because one, I didn't have enough data,
1:09
Speaker 1: both statistically as well as data when it came to actual,
1:15
Speaker 1: real life realities, things that actually have occurred in the
1:20
Speaker 1: campaign to justify concluding that, Okay, this is a panic situation.
1:27
Speaker 1: It could just be a strategy. Now, I did suggest
1:32
Speaker 1: that there is evidence for the panic strategy, because, for instance,
1:36
Speaker 1: you had the Democratic senatorial candidates in both Michigan and Wisconsin,
1:42
Speaker 1: in different ways, sounding the alarm that hey, guys, hello,
1:47
Speaker 1: Kamala is not doing very well here, not nearly as
1:50
Speaker 1: well as we had hoped or were expecting. And obviously
1:54
Speaker 1: those are two very key states in the blue Wall
1:58
Speaker 1: strategy that clearly has of winning Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania,
2:05
Speaker 1: and therefore the election is pretty much hers. So I
2:09
Speaker 1: was skeptical of all that it appears as of right now.
2:13
Speaker 1: I was wrong because since the last episode, we have
2:18
Speaker 1: gotten several data points, some statistical, and maybe even more
2:22
Speaker 1: than statistical, we have gotten real world events that are
2:27
Speaker 1: consistent with this theory. So I now am accepting, maybe
2:33
Speaker 1: a little late, but I am accepting because I'm stubborn
2:36
Speaker 1: like that. I like to see actual evidence and data
2:38
Speaker 1: before I come to a conclusion. I am now accepting
2:42
Speaker 1: the idea that at least at some level, the Harris
2:47
Speaker 1: campaign is in panic mode. Now, does that mean they're
2:50
Speaker 1: going to lose? No, I'm going to get to that
2:52
Speaker 1: later on, but it is now overwhelmingly clear that there
2:57
Speaker 1: is a lot of consternation and and yes, maybe even
3:01
Speaker 1: panic on behalf of the Harris campaign because they are
3:04
Speaker 1: not where they thought they would be. You may recall
3:07
Speaker 1: that a couple of weeks ago I said we were
3:09
Speaker 1: at a tipping point. Either this was going to continue
3:12
Speaker 1: in the direction that it was going and Harris was
3:14
Speaker 1: going to win rather easily, or it would fade b
3:19
Speaker 1: Harris's numbers would fade and we would go back to
3:22
Speaker 1: basically a deadlock election. I told you it was more
3:25
Speaker 1: likely that we would have the ladder rather than the former,
3:28
Speaker 1: and it's clear as of right now we have had
3:31
Speaker 1: the ladder rather than the former. Now I think both
3:35
Speaker 1: sides are missing the vote slightly, and where we are again,
3:39
Speaker 1: I'll get to that, but let me get to the
3:41
Speaker 1: data points regarding this theory, this narrative of democratic panic,
3:46
Speaker 1: and there are several and this even goes way beyond
3:50
Speaker 1: the pulling data, which is definitely drifting away from Harris
3:54
Speaker 1: and towards Trump, especially in the swing States. The biggest
3:58
Speaker 1: data point in the real world to me is that
4:02
Speaker 1: you have Barack Obama injecting himself in the campaign, not
4:07
Speaker 1: just in a way that suggests they need to bring
4:10
Speaker 1: in the closer of the bullpen guy. That was always
4:13
Speaker 1: kind of natural, but in the way that he did it,
4:17
Speaker 1: and it's got a lot of attention, especially on social media,
4:21
Speaker 1: where Barack Obama essentially scolded black men, and that's not
4:26
Speaker 1: an exaggeration, that's what he did. He scolded black men
4:31
Speaker 1: for having the audacity to either not vote for Kamala
4:36
Speaker 1: or to even worse than that, vote for Donald Trump,
4:40
Speaker 1: and that this was somehow against their very race. Now,
4:46
Speaker 1: first of all, this is in my view, openly racist
4:49
Speaker 1: on the part of Obama, but I also don't think
4:52
Speaker 1: that it's effective. Now it's impossible to know at this
4:56
Speaker 1: point how effective or ineffective that gambit was, but it
5:00
Speaker 1: certainly created a lot of backlash on social media, and
5:04
Speaker 1: I tend to believe that this backlash is real. Now
5:07
Speaker 1: it's amplified because every single black male who makes a
5:13
Speaker 1: social media post that's anti Harrison pro Trump basically goes
5:19
Speaker 1: viral within the right wing echo chamber, and so it's
5:24
Speaker 1: very difficult to discern, okay, what's real and what's astroturfing,
5:28
Speaker 1: because there's an inherent market, especially in social media, for
5:33
Speaker 1: any black male who is pro Trump, they get amplified,
5:37
Speaker 1: and by the way, that might be partially why they're
5:40
Speaker 1: doing it, because they know they're going to get attention.
5:43
Speaker 1: It creates this vicious cycle which makes it more difficult
5:47
Speaker 1: to know. Okay, what's the reality on the ground. But
5:52
Speaker 1: I do think that there's some reality to this backlash,
5:56
Speaker 1: mainly because just think about this logically, so there's a
6:00
Speaker 1: group of black men who are skeptical of Harris and
6:04
Speaker 1: are drawn to Trump. Now, I personally think that the
6:08
Speaker 1: data indicates that these numbers are a bit exaggerated. I'm
6:13
Speaker 1: not saying the numbers are exaggerated. I'm saying that that
6:15
Speaker 1: the numbers don't necessarily warrant this level of attention, this
6:20
Speaker 1: level of a parent panic. But the fact that Democrats
6:23
Speaker 1: and Obama are acting this way one hundred percent facilitates
6:29
Speaker 1: the narrative like why would they be doing this? If
6:31
Speaker 1: this wasn't real, if this wasn't a very big problem,
6:35
Speaker 1: especially in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania and Georgia and
6:41
Speaker 1: North Carolina, they wouldn't be doing this. I totally get that.
6:45
Speaker 1: But if you think about how effective this would be
6:49
Speaker 1: if you are a black man who is contemplating voting
6:54
Speaker 1: for Trump. You are clearly an independent minded person. You
7:00
Speaker 1: are clearly not a go along with the crowd kind
7:04
Speaker 1: of guy. You are clearly at least somewhat of a
7:07
Speaker 1: contrarian in your thinking. Is that type of person going
7:13
Speaker 1: to be persuaded by Barack Obama scolding them that they
7:18
Speaker 1: have to vote for Kamala because of their race. I
7:22
Speaker 1: don't think so. I think that type of person is
7:25
Speaker 1: going to have a negative magnetic reaction to that. They're
7:30
Speaker 1: going to be repelled by that argument. So I don't
7:33
Speaker 1: think it works. Now. I don't know that it exacerbates
7:36
Speaker 1: the problem, but I don't think it's going to help
7:38
Speaker 1: at all. But generally, I think it was perceived as
7:44
Speaker 1: a negative for the Harris campaign, and I can totally
7:47
Speaker 1: understand why it would be. And by the way, there's
7:50
Speaker 1: another element that the media will never touch on this
7:54
Speaker 1: whole issue of why there are some black men that
7:57
Speaker 1: are hesitant to vote for Kamala and or even considering
8:01
Speaker 1: voting for Trump, and that is that Kamala is basically
8:06
Speaker 1: the personification of how much women of color, women of
8:14
Speaker 1: color benefit from DEI or affirmative action. Her entire life
8:21
Speaker 1: is a testiment to this. The media won't tell you that,
8:24
Speaker 1: but when you look at her biography, at every single step,
8:29
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris has benefited from being a woman of color.
8:35
Speaker 1: Well for a lot of black men, they feel understandably
8:39
Speaker 1: so resentful of the fact that it is mostly black
8:44
Speaker 1: women who have benefited from affirmative action and dei that
8:51
Speaker 1: black women, for whatever reasons and are many are ahead
8:56
Speaker 1: of black men on the pecking order when it comes
9:00
Speaker 1: to quote unquote progress being made via this new world
9:05
Speaker 1: we live in where we see everything through the prism
9:08
Speaker 1: of color, everything through the prism of gender. We're going
9:11
Speaker 1: backwards in both areas, I think in a very dysfunctional way.
9:17
Speaker 1: That's very Unamerican, very anti the philosophy of Martin Luther King,
9:23
Speaker 1: very destructive, a damning indictment of the Barack Obama presidency,
9:28
Speaker 1: by the way, which was supposed to put an end
9:30
Speaker 1: to this, and in fact has actually further facilitated this endless,
9:34
Speaker 1: destructive divide. But I think you could make a strong
9:38
Speaker 1: argument that Harris is a terrible spokesperson for this particular
9:45
Speaker 1: issue because she represents I think a lot of angst
9:51
Speaker 1: among black men towards black women that no one in
9:55
Speaker 1: the media is going to ever talk about. So I
9:59
Speaker 1: don't think that what Barack Obama did is going to
10:01
Speaker 1: help it all. And I think perception wise, and perception
10:04
Speaker 1: becomes reality, I think it actually hurts. But it also
10:09
Speaker 1: is an indication that there's a real problem and there
10:12
Speaker 1: is actual signs of panic. And by the way, Harris
10:15
Speaker 1: played right into it this morning by releasing essentially her
10:20
Speaker 1: agenda to buy off black men. And I'm not making
10:25
Speaker 1: this up. I mean it is overtly racist and by
10:31
Speaker 1: the way, an indictment of the Obama presidency, because we
10:33
Speaker 1: wouldn't need to do this if the Obama presidency had
10:36
Speaker 1: been remotely successful, either when it came to ending the
10:41
Speaker 1: divide between the races or specifically when it came to
10:45
Speaker 1: helping the plight of black men. But listen to how
10:48
Speaker 1: the Washington Post and the associated press portraying this Harris
10:55
Speaker 1: agenda item that she released just coincidentally today, Washington Post headline,
11:02
Speaker 1: Harris releases agenda for black men as she ramps up
11:07
Speaker 1: effort to court them. Obama and other Democrats have signal
11:11
Speaker 1: concern that black men are showing hesitancy to rally behind Harris.
11:17
Speaker 1: That's the Washington Post. Here's the associated Press. Harris is
11:21
Speaker 1: laying out a new plan to empower black men. Oh
11:25
Speaker 1: that's right, empower. I thought it was buy off, but no,
11:29
Speaker 1: apparently it was empower black men as she tries to
11:33
Speaker 1: energize them, in other words, buy them off to vote
11:37
Speaker 1: for her. These two headlines are so extraordinary, and the
11:41
Speaker 1: most amazing part is I guarantee that no one who
11:45
Speaker 1: took part in writing and publishing them thought there was
11:49
Speaker 1: anything remotely concerning about this. I would like you to
11:53
Speaker 1: do a thought experiment. I would like you to replace
11:57
Speaker 1: the word Harris with Trump, and the word black with white.
12:02
Speaker 1: Can you imagine if the watching the Post, or any
12:05
Speaker 1: headline ever read Trump released his agenda for white men
12:09
Speaker 1: as he ramps up effort to court them. Trump is
12:14
Speaker 1: laying out a new plan to empower white men as
12:17
Speaker 1: he tries to energize them to vote for him. There
12:21
Speaker 1: would be almost literally riots in the streets. There would
12:25
Speaker 1: be a complete meltdown if Donald Trump ever overtly tried
12:31
Speaker 1: to buy off white men energize white men. And by
12:34
Speaker 1: the way, I mean I've talked about this previously. No
12:38
Speaker 1: one else will talk about it because it's such a
12:39
Speaker 1: hot button issue. But it's one of the great disadvantages
12:44
Speaker 1: that Republicans have in presidential elections is that they're not
12:49
Speaker 1: allowed to energize their base of support, and specifically, for Trump,
12:54
Speaker 1: that's obviously white men. He's not allowed to directly energize
12:58
Speaker 1: them in any way because to do so would be
13:01
Speaker 1: deemed ah racist. Oh my god, get out the white
13:07
Speaker 1: robes and the ticky torches. It's the KKK. Well wait
13:11
Speaker 1: a minute, hold on, okay. In the nineteen sixties, I
13:15
Speaker 1: could buy, I could totally buy the Democratic plan to
13:19
Speaker 1: try to help black men, and I could totally buy
13:23
Speaker 1: that it would be racist for a Republican candidate to
13:26
Speaker 1: directly appeal to white men. But we're not living in
13:29
Speaker 1: that world anymore. The media still thinks it's the early
13:31
Speaker 1: nineteen sixties. It's twenty twenty four. If anything, under the
13:36
Speaker 1: law and government policy, you could make a strong argument
13:40
Speaker 1: that white men are more discriminated against than black men
13:46
Speaker 1: are now. Because Harris believes in equity of outcome. Obviously
13:51
Speaker 1: there's not equity on that front for a whole hundreds
13:55
Speaker 1: of different reasons, one of them not likely to be racist,
14:00
Speaker 1: and at least not in the top dozen or so
14:03
Speaker 1: reasons for why that equity of outcomes still exists. I'm
14:07
Speaker 1: an equality of opportunity guy. I wish Trump would make
14:11
Speaker 1: this difference very, very clear. But the reality is that
14:15
Speaker 1: you can make a much stronger argument that under the
14:18
Speaker 1: law and by government policy, white men are more discriminated
14:23
Speaker 1: against today than black men are. And yet Trump would
14:28
Speaker 1: never be allowed to directly make this public argument, and
14:32
Speaker 1: to propose a whole series of things to buy off
14:37
Speaker 1: white men would be preposterous. But that's what harras. That's
14:41
Speaker 1: what Harris is doing, and the media is essentially applauding it,
14:44
Speaker 1: not a word of hey, isn't this racist. This is
14:48
Speaker 1: clearly overt racism. It could not be more obvious, and
14:54
Speaker 1: yet the news media sees nothing wrong with it one
14:57
Speaker 1: because it's not the prison through which they see the world.
15:00
Speaker 1: They still see black people as as greatly discriminated against
15:05
Speaker 1: in every possible way, and they clearly understand that this
15:09
Speaker 1: is critical to Harris's election campaign. So they're not going
15:13
Speaker 1: to do anything to pour cold water on this. They
15:15
Speaker 1: know they know that black men are a problem to
15:20
Speaker 1: the ultimate goal here, which is electing Harris and preventing
15:24
Speaker 1: Trump from getting back into the White House. So the
15:29
Speaker 1: entire Obama scolding of black men and now Harris playing
15:33
Speaker 1: right into this narrative by trying to buy black men
15:37
Speaker 1: off in an overtly racist fashion, is clearly a sign Okay,
15:43
Speaker 1: they know there's trouble. Is that necessarily evidence of panic?
15:48
Speaker 1: Not on its own, that would be evidence of okay,
15:51
Speaker 1: we have a problem. But there are several other data
15:55
Speaker 1: points that I think are more consistent with the idea
15:58
Speaker 1: that this is actually a panic. How is this a
16:00
Speaker 1: full blown panic? I don't think so, but this is
16:04
Speaker 1: I think clearly when you look at the totality of
16:07
Speaker 1: all the evidence right now, there is some level of
16:10
Speaker 1: panic going on. And the second major general data point
16:14
Speaker 1: that I would put under the panic umbrella is what's
16:19
Speaker 1: going on with President Joe Biden, assuming he actually is
16:23
Speaker 1: still the president. I was skeptical of this narrative as well,
16:27
Speaker 1: because this I'm you know, I have such little trust
16:31
Speaker 1: in the right wing media and Trump fans on social media,
16:35
Speaker 1: and they jump all over narratives with you know, one
16:40
Speaker 1: stray data point and they automatically think, aha, because I
16:43
Speaker 1: want to believe this it's true. I guess I have
16:46
Speaker 1: to acknowledge I have an inherent bias against these types
16:50
Speaker 1: of narratives, and so I'm slower to accept them as real.
16:55
Speaker 1: But there was a narrative developing for I guess the
16:58
Speaker 1: last week or so, especially when it came to the
17:02
Speaker 1: response to the hurricanes, that somehow Joe Biden was very
17:07
Speaker 1: subtly dissing Kamala Harris. And one of the reasons I
17:13
Speaker 1: was skeptical of this narrative was, okay, wait a minute,
17:15
Speaker 1: So the right wing narrative about Biden is that his
17:18
Speaker 1: brain is mush he's got dementia, he doesn't even know
17:23
Speaker 1: where he is. But he's also engaged in a rather
17:27
Speaker 1: subtle and frankly a little bit ingenious conspiracy to undermine
17:34
Speaker 1: Harris as revenge for her taking his presidential nomination. And
17:39
Speaker 1: you know, that's always a problem for me. I mean,
17:42
Speaker 1: to me, I want consistency in my conspiracy theories, or
17:47
Speaker 1: at least in my narratives, and that seemed a bit
17:50
Speaker 1: inconsistent to me. But there's now several other examples of
17:57
Speaker 1: where wait a minute, maybe there's some thing to this
18:01
Speaker 1: where we have Biden teed up. When it came to
18:06
Speaker 1: hurricane response on a question regarding Harris calling Ron DeSantis
18:12
Speaker 1: and De Santa's not taking the call and to Santus
18:16
Speaker 1: blasting Harris. We talked about this in the last episode
18:20
Speaker 1: of the podcast. I played for you the clips and
18:23
Speaker 1: a reporter teed Biden up on this, teed him up
18:29
Speaker 1: expecting clearly Biden to attack DeSantis and to support Harris,
18:37
Speaker 1: and he not only didn't do that, he went in
18:40
Speaker 1: the exact opposite direction. And it was an interesting clip.
18:46
Speaker 1: I'm not going to play it personally because it's old,
18:48
Speaker 1: partially because I think the video is more important than
18:51
Speaker 1: the actual audio when you see Biden's facial reactions during
18:56
Speaker 1: his response, with the substance of this response is to
19:00
Speaker 1: not take de bait, not defend Harris, and to praise
19:04
Speaker 1: DeSantis in glowing terms. Now, I think that was the
19:10
Speaker 1: truth of the matter, and you know, but it's not
19:13
Speaker 1: really like Biden to tell the truth, especially when it
19:16
Speaker 1: comes to something that has such an obvious political component
19:21
Speaker 1: to it. So a lot of people looked at that
19:23
Speaker 1: and said, ah, wait a minute, what's going on here?
19:26
Speaker 1: And then there were issues like Biden's scheduling a hurricane
19:30
Speaker 1: press conference for the exact same time when Harris was
19:33
Speaker 1: on the view, which frankly, you know, I could have
19:36
Speaker 1: just been circumstantial or coincidental or incompetents, who the hell knows,
19:42
Speaker 1: But there continues to be more and more data points.
19:46
Speaker 1: There was a cabinet moment that I thought was maybe
19:51
Speaker 1: the most obvious evidence of problems here between Biden and Harris,
19:56
Speaker 1: where Harris is in. I don't know if you call
19:59
Speaker 1: this a cab meeting, but there was was essentially a
20:01
Speaker 1: cabinet meeting and Biden was talking and it was clear
20:05
Speaker 1: he was starting to drift off, and there was concern
20:10
Speaker 1: among those around Biden that he would forget, which is
20:13
Speaker 1: amazing that he would forget to call on Harris because
20:17
Speaker 1: obviously Harris is the star now they need her to
20:20
Speaker 1: look as presidential as possible. This is all on television,
20:26
Speaker 1: at least on some networks and clearly being videotaped, and
20:30
Speaker 1: Biden basically snapped he didn't get. It wasn't like a
20:34
Speaker 1: ten on a snap scale, but it was testy where
20:37
Speaker 1: he basically said I know, I know, I'll get to her,
20:41
Speaker 1: and then he joked about how she you know, she's
20:44
Speaker 1: basically the president and she's his boss, and it was
20:48
Speaker 1: awkward to me, was a real sign that Okay, there
20:55
Speaker 1: is actual real division or least ten between Biden and Harris. Well,
21:04
Speaker 1: we now have a left wing media outlet, Axios, that
21:08
Speaker 1: put out an article over the weekend with ten sources,
21:14
Speaker 1: obviously all anonymous, but ten sources indicating that what we're
21:20
Speaker 1: seeing in public is actually reflective of reality in private,
21:26
Speaker 1: that there is indeed real tension between the Biden people
21:32
Speaker 1: and the Harris people, and maybe even the candidates themselves,
21:36
Speaker 1: and specifically when it comes to Biden's view of Harris.
21:41
Speaker 1: And I believe this now, and you know it doesn't
21:45
Speaker 1: take much interpretation to understand why this would be the case.
21:51
Speaker 1: We all know that Biden did not want to give
21:54
Speaker 1: up the nomination. He was forced to do so effectively
21:58
Speaker 1: at gunpoint. Nancy Pelosi ordered the code RED on him,
22:03
Speaker 1: and he didn't want to do it. I didn't think
22:06
Speaker 1: he would do it. But then the Trump and assassination
22:09
Speaker 1: attempt occurred and he got COVID and the polls were sinking,
22:16
Speaker 1: and in his mind, in his mind, I think talk
22:19
Speaker 1: about the word panic. I think he probably feels like, damn,
22:23
Speaker 1: I panicked. I made a short sighted decision because it
22:28
Speaker 1: seemed really bad. At the time, I was under a
22:30
Speaker 1: lot of pressure from Nancy Pelosi and who knows what
22:33
Speaker 1: threats were made against me, and I thought this was
22:36
Speaker 1: the right decision at the time, and it looked like
22:40
Speaker 1: the right decision. I'm looking at this from Biden's perspective,
22:43
Speaker 1: because I don't think Biden is completely gone. I think
22:46
Speaker 1: he has you know, he goes in and out of lucidity,
22:50
Speaker 1: and I think at times when he's still with it,
22:53
Speaker 1: he thinks, well, gee, okay, that was a good decision
22:57
Speaker 1: for a while because it looked like Harris had improved
23:00
Speaker 1: in the polls dramatically and she was gonna win. But
23:04
Speaker 1: now Biden is seeing that she may not win. And
23:10
Speaker 1: this again, this is all I think connected to this. This, Okay,
23:16
Speaker 1: is there reason for panic on the Democratic side? If
23:20
Speaker 1: this story of tension between Biden and Harris is true.
23:26
Speaker 1: To me, this is maybe the smoking gun that there
23:30
Speaker 1: is reason for them to panic because the only way,
23:35
Speaker 1: or not the only way, but the most obvious way
23:38
Speaker 1: that Biden would go from Okay, I'll go along with this.
23:41
Speaker 1: I'm not real happy about it, but okay, fine, And
23:46
Speaker 1: you go from that attitude towards the coup to you
23:50
Speaker 1: know what, this was bullshit and I'm not real happy
23:54
Speaker 1: with the way this thing went down. What would change
23:57
Speaker 1: there is if his person perception was altered from Okay,
24:03
Speaker 1: I was going to lose, Harris will win now to
24:08
Speaker 1: you heard him on the View we played this clip
24:11
Speaker 1: a couple episodes ago. He is at least claiming that
24:15
Speaker 1: he thinks he would still have beaten Donald Trump. Now
24:19
Speaker 1: I don't believe that's true. I think he's fooling himself.
24:21
Speaker 1: I think the ladies of the View were propping him
24:24
Speaker 1: up as part of his severance package. But in his mind,
24:27
Speaker 1: that's what's important here. In his mind, he still thinks
24:31
Speaker 1: he could have beaten Trump. And now he's starting to
24:34
Speaker 1: get data and see signs because he's not totally out
24:39
Speaker 1: of it, he's starting to see signs that Harris may lose. Well,
24:43
Speaker 1: that's what would cause tension. That's what would cause Biden
24:49
Speaker 1: to go from you know, begrudgingly going along with this
24:52
Speaker 1: to fuck this. I gave up my second turn and
24:58
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go down in history as a joke, all
25:03
Speaker 1: because I was told that you had a better chance
25:06
Speaker 1: to beat Trump than I did. And now you're fucking
25:10
Speaker 1: this up, and it looks like Trump may win anyway.
25:15
Speaker 1: That would piss anybody but off, especially when you're the
25:20
Speaker 1: person that put her on the map. I mean, you
25:25
Speaker 1: have to remember this part Biden acknowledged, and I don't
25:30
Speaker 1: think the Trump campaign has focused on this nearly enough.
25:33
Speaker 1: Biden acknowledged in an official White House statement that Harris
25:39
Speaker 1: was effectively a DEI vice presidential nominee before he made
25:44
Speaker 1: the pig. He essentially said he was going to pick
25:48
Speaker 1: a woman, and probably a woman of color. Well, that's
25:50
Speaker 1: how she got the job, and it was. And this
25:54
Speaker 1: was after Harris had effectively called Biden a racist at
25:58
Speaker 1: one of the debates in the twenty twenty primary election cycle.
26:04
Speaker 1: So he takes her from the oblivion of a failed
26:08
Speaker 1: presidential campaign, makes her the vice president of the United States.
26:15
Speaker 1: And while publicly she's been slobbering all over Biden talking
26:19
Speaker 1: about how unselfish she was and how patriotic he was
26:23
Speaker 1: for doing the right thing to drop out, although she
26:25
Speaker 1: never says, Okay, well, what was the reason he needed
26:27
Speaker 1: to drop out? Why was it patriotic for him to
26:31
Speaker 1: drop out? Why was it selfless for him to drop out?
26:34
Speaker 1: Why is that Kamala Harris and what made you different. Well, anyway,
26:40
Speaker 1: the point of all this is, to me, it makes
26:43
Speaker 1: a hell of a lot more sense that Biden is
26:47
Speaker 1: starting to be angry about all this, and that there's
26:50
Speaker 1: tension between Biden and Harris and the Biden team and
26:54
Speaker 1: the Harris team. If they now think they may lose this,
26:59
Speaker 1: or they might even be favored to lose this, that
27:03
Speaker 1: makes sense, and that to me is a huge piece
27:09
Speaker 1: of evidence indicating that there really is panic. That's the
27:13
Speaker 1: type of thing that would occur if the panic was real,
27:18
Speaker 1: if they really thought, you know what, we may lose this.
27:23
Speaker 1: Because at that point, now you have to pay the piper.
27:28
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm hesitanting to go down this path because
27:31
Speaker 1: this would be so awesome. This would be so rich
27:34
Speaker 1: for Democrats to pay a price for the Biden coup
27:38
Speaker 1: and the switcheroo that they up until this point have
27:40
Speaker 1: gotten away with. So you know, we can't usually have
27:44
Speaker 1: nice things like this. This would be too good to
27:46
Speaker 1: be true category, But we are close. We are close
27:50
Speaker 1: to a situation if things continue down their current path,
27:53
Speaker 1: where Democrats finally have to pay a price for the
27:57
Speaker 1: Biden coup and the Arras switcheroo, because now they got
28:03
Speaker 1: an angry president on their hands, a president who, if
28:08
Speaker 1: he becomes convinced that Harris ain't gonna win, can't be
28:13
Speaker 1: controlled one hundred percent. And you know I'm there. There
28:18
Speaker 1: will probably be some public efforts to show solidarity. I'm
28:24
Speaker 1: gonna guess that they're gonna twist Biden's arm to make
28:27
Speaker 1: it clear, at least publicly, that he's totally on board
28:30
Speaker 1: with Harris and everything's perfectly fine. But this is gonna
28:33
Speaker 1: be hard to hide. This is gonna be hard to
28:35
Speaker 1: ede unless they put Joe in his basement between now
28:39
Speaker 1: in the election, which they might, because you're gonna have
28:42
Speaker 1: an angry old man here and it's only gonna get
28:45
Speaker 1: worse if Harris's chances of winning continue to diminish. And Frank,
28:52
Speaker 1: if you're Joe Biden, how could you blame him? I mean,
28:55
Speaker 1: he was the one that made this this tremendous sacrifice.
29:00
Speaker 1: What did they make it for? For nothing? If Harris
29:04
Speaker 1: doesn't win? And to me, it's a clear indication that
29:09
Speaker 1: Biden at least thinks there's a good chance she will
29:11
Speaker 1: lose if there's this much overt tension between him and
29:16
Speaker 1: Harris and the Biden team and the Harris team. Then
29:20
Speaker 1: there's another piece of evidence that I think is an
29:24
Speaker 1: indication of panic and frankly desperation, and that is that Democrats,
29:30
Speaker 1: in their acknowledgment that they have a problem with male
29:34
Speaker 1: voters in general, not just black voters who are male,
29:38
Speaker 1: but male voters in general, have decided to activate Tim
29:45
Speaker 1: Waltz to try to fix this problem. Well, first of all,
29:50
Speaker 1: in acknowledging that you have this problem, that's a sign
29:53
Speaker 1: that you know things are not going as well as
29:55
Speaker 1: they should be or as well as you expected, and
29:58
Speaker 1: that you have a problem, which I they do have
30:00
Speaker 1: a problem, although ironically, I've been hearing some stuff and
30:04
Speaker 1: the Trump people that think that they're not getting the
30:07
Speaker 1: numbers among white men, for instance, that they think they need,
30:11
Speaker 1: which again goes back to this whole racial double standard
30:15
Speaker 1: where Trump is not allowed to target white men, but
30:19
Speaker 1: Harris is allowed to target black men. And it's all
30:24
Speaker 1: incredibly racist and an indication of just how unfair our
30:28
Speaker 1: elections are with regard to the media bias in favor
30:32
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party. But okay, so Democrats think they
30:35
Speaker 1: can do better with men in general, so they decide
30:39
Speaker 1: to give that job to tampon Tim Waltz. I mean,
30:44
Speaker 1: this is just hilarious. When I saw the headline in Politico,
30:49
Speaker 1: walts to woo male voters, that was the actual headline
30:53
Speaker 1: in Politico, I thought, Holy crap, Trump may actually win
30:56
Speaker 1: this election. This is who they're gonna use to wo
31:01
Speaker 1: male voters, tampon Tim Waltz. And this is a little
31:07
Speaker 1: bit similar to the issue regarding Kamala Harris and black
31:11
Speaker 1: men and how bad a spokesperson she is because of
31:16
Speaker 1: what she represents Viza Vie, how black men see women
31:21
Speaker 1: of color. No, by the way, it should be pointed
31:23
Speaker 1: out that I'm sure some black men don't even see
31:26
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris as quote unquote African American, because she's not.
31:29
Speaker 1: She's a woman of color, but she's not quote unquote
31:32
Speaker 1: African American. But when it comes to Waltz, the way
31:36
Speaker 1: I see Waltz, and I think a lot of men
31:39
Speaker 1: see Waltz is that he is the personification of the
31:44
Speaker 1: castrated eunuch like male that Democrats now want white man
31:51
Speaker 1: to be. It's not just his persona, which is beta
31:56
Speaker 1: and not alpha. And he you know, he refers to
31:59
Speaker 1: himself as a no bucklehead, and he just doesn't have
32:02
Speaker 1: a manly way about him. And he also happens to
32:06
Speaker 1: be very liberal in his policies, Thus the tampon Tim nickname,
32:11
Speaker 1: where he mandated in Minnesota that there would be tampons
32:15
Speaker 1: in the boys' bathrooms in all schools. So it's not
32:19
Speaker 1: just that, it's what is Tim Waltz's current job. His
32:25
Speaker 1: current job is to be completely and totally, in every
32:30
Speaker 1: possible way subservient to a woman, a woman of color.
32:36
Speaker 1: Even that is literally like the worst nightmare for men
32:43
Speaker 1: in general and white men in particular. So this is
32:47
Speaker 1: the guy who's going to come to the rescue and
32:51
Speaker 1: try to woo male voters on behalf of Kamala Harris.
32:57
Speaker 1: Good luck with that. Good luck with I mean, using
33:01
Speaker 1: tampon Tim to woo male voters is like using Bronnie
33:05
Speaker 1: James for an anti nepotism campaign. It's ridiculous and I
33:12
Speaker 1: don't think it's going to be effective. And the first
33:14
Speaker 1: attempt to make an effective it turned out to be
33:17
Speaker 1: a viral moment on social media. I don't know how
33:21
Speaker 1: many people are in the real world they're going to
33:22
Speaker 1: see it, but you know, he did this TV show
33:26
Speaker 1: where he's Fenzit hunting to show that he you know,
33:30
Speaker 1: he's a real man and he knows how to use
33:32
Speaker 1: a shotgun. Well, when he was trying to use the
33:36
Speaker 1: shotgun during this pheasant hunting photo opportunity, he looked like
33:41
Speaker 1: a teenage boy who was simultaneously trying to take the
33:45
Speaker 1: bra off of his girlfriend and put a condom on it.
33:48
Speaker 1: It was completely beyond awkward, looked like he'd never done
33:53
Speaker 1: it before. And you know, I'm not a gun guy.
33:55
Speaker 1: But I fully acknowledged that the video is terrible. Sure
34:00
Speaker 1: that you know that the video is not going to
34:02
Speaker 1: be seen by you as many people as if something
34:06
Speaker 1: similar had occurred with jd Vance, because the media is
34:10
Speaker 1: not gonna have any interest in showing the public this video.
34:14
Speaker 1: But it's an indication that this effort is just not
34:17
Speaker 1: going to work. Tim Waltz is not that guy. Tim
34:19
Speaker 1: Waltz is a beta guy, not an alpha guy. Men
34:23
Speaker 1: do not want to be like real men do not
34:25
Speaker 1: want to be like Tim Waltz, especially when, as I said,
34:27
Speaker 1: his current job is to be completely and totally subservient
34:32
Speaker 1: to a woman, a woman who got her job basically
34:35
Speaker 1: through DEI I mean, this is this is literally the
34:38
Speaker 1: white male's worst nightmare in this day and age, and
34:43
Speaker 1: in the bigger picture, this idea that Democrats have a
34:47
Speaker 1: problem with men, White men, black men, men in general.
34:51
Speaker 1: How is this? I love that the media is mystified
34:54
Speaker 1: by this. We've seen a lot of this. I was
34:56
Speaker 1: gonna play some clips, but there's no need to play
34:59
Speaker 1: a clip because it's just so ridiculous and so obvious.
35:02
Speaker 1: I mean, the media is totally baffled as to why
35:05
Speaker 1: Democrats have a problem with men. The only explanation they
35:09
Speaker 1: can come up with is you wait, you know, you
35:12
Speaker 1: know it, wait for it, that's right, misogyny. The only
35:16
Speaker 1: explanation through the liberal prism is it's got to be
35:18
Speaker 1: misogyny because kamal ayrs as a woman and therefore men
35:22
Speaker 1: aren't voting for her because they're misogynists. Well no, no, granted,
35:29
Speaker 1: there could be some of that, I think on the fringes,
35:31
Speaker 1: but I don't think that's what's driving this at all.
35:34
Speaker 1: How about you be a little bit self aware news
35:37
Speaker 1: media and you realize that you on behalf of the
35:39
Speaker 1: Democratic Party have been demonizing men for years and years,
35:45
Speaker 1: especially white men. So white men have been falling further
35:49
Speaker 1: and further behind. Other races have benefited because white men,
35:56
Speaker 1: in my view, have been effectively discriminated against in many anyways.
36:01
Speaker 1: And you're confused. You're confused now because men don't really
36:07
Speaker 1: feel enthusiastic about voting for a Democrat, a very liberal Democrat,
36:13
Speaker 1: a woman who's a DEI hire and who talks very
36:17
Speaker 1: much as if she wants to institute DEI throughout the
36:21
Speaker 1: entire country. This is mystifying to you as to why
36:25
Speaker 1: Democrats would have a problem with men. But no, no,
36:28
Speaker 1: they have to press the racism and misogyny button because
36:31
Speaker 1: that's all they know. That's the way they see the world. Now.
36:35
Speaker 1: As far as Tim Waltz's attempt to try to appeal
36:39
Speaker 1: to men, part of that was that he did an
36:42
Speaker 1: interview with Michael Strahan on ABC. I guess the connection
36:46
Speaker 1: here is Tim Wats is a former high school defensive
36:49
Speaker 1: football coach. Allegedly, Michael Strahan is a Hall of Fame
36:54
Speaker 1: former football player who played defense, so you know, and
36:58
Speaker 1: he happens to be a black man. So I get
37:01
Speaker 1: why the Harris campaign might have thought, Okay, this would
37:04
Speaker 1: be great. You know, we'll get Tim Waltz and Michael
37:07
Speaker 1: Strahan together and they can talk some football and Waltz
37:11
Speaker 1: can start on this effort to really appeal to men. Now,
37:15
Speaker 1: how we got to a world where Michael Strahan is
37:19
Speaker 1: doing serious interviews with vice presidential candidates is completely mystifying
37:24
Speaker 1: to me. But this is where we are in this
37:27
Speaker 1: modern media age. But there's one clip in particular I
37:31
Speaker 1: want to play from the interview that Strahan did with
37:34
Speaker 1: Tim Waltz, and it doesn't deal at all with the
37:38
Speaker 1: issue of gender. It deals with the topic of the
37:41
Speaker 1: electoral college. And let's be clear, Tim Waltz has already
37:46
Speaker 1: been on record erroneously and dangerously saying that he does
37:51
Speaker 1: not believe that misinformation or hate speech are protected by
37:57
Speaker 1: the First Amendment. So this guy does not understand the Constitution.
38:01
Speaker 1: He does not understand the basics of the Constitution. Because
38:04
Speaker 1: that's not something that's just a bad opinion, that is
38:08
Speaker 1: factually one thousand percent wrong, dangerously wrong. Well, Waltz is
38:15
Speaker 1: about as clueless when it comes to the electoral college.
38:19
Speaker 1: He has come out and said that he thinks the
38:21
Speaker 1: electoral college should be banished, which would take a constitutional amendment.
38:28
Speaker 1: And this exchange between Waltz and Strahan is interesting and important,
38:33
Speaker 1: not just because of the issue of getting rid of
38:37
Speaker 1: the electoral College, but also the confusion that Waltz created
38:42
Speaker 1: over whether or not abolishing the electoral college is the
38:46
Speaker 1: official stance of the Harris campaign or not. You listen
38:51
Speaker 1: to this and decide for yourself what the hell Waltz
38:54
Speaker 1: is saying. I listened to it three or four times.
38:57
Speaker 1: I do not know what Waltz is trying to communicate here.
39:01
Speaker 1: I don't know whether or not Walts and Harris have
39:05
Speaker 1: different opinions on abolishing the Electric College, or whether or
39:09
Speaker 1: not Waltz's stance that the Electric College should be banished
39:13
Speaker 1: is in fact the official Harris campaign stands. I do
39:17
Speaker 1: not know that. I don't think it's possible to know
39:20
Speaker 1: it based upon this clip. But here's what that sounded
39:22
Speaker 1: like on ABC. I want to go back to something
39:25
Speaker 1: you said on Tuesday.
39:25
Speaker 2: She said, I think all of us know that electoral
39:27
Speaker 2: college needs to go, but the campaign came out later
39:31
Speaker 2: that night and they said that's not their stands. Well,
39:33
Speaker 2: it's not the campaign's position, And the point I'm trying
39:36
Speaker 2: to make is that there's folks that feel every vote
39:38
Speaker 2: must count in every state, and I think some of
39:41
Speaker 2: folks feel that's not the case.
39:43
Speaker 1: Our campaign does that.
39:44
Speaker 2: And the point I'm saying is, I'm in five states
39:46
Speaker 2: in two days. We're out there making the case that
39:49
Speaker 2: the campaign's position is clear, that that's not their position.
39:52
Speaker 2: Their position, in my position, is is to make sure
39:54
Speaker 2: that everybody understands their vote no matter what state they're in, matters.
39:58
Speaker 1: So that's something that you and our president hair disagree on.
40:01
Speaker 2: I have spoken about it in the past that she's
40:03
Speaker 2: been very clear on this and the campaign, in my
40:05
Speaker 2: position is the campaign's position.
40:07
Speaker 1: Now, putting aside the confusion element of that clip, which
40:11
Speaker 1: I think is important because I mean, that's pretty basic stuff.
40:17
Speaker 1: How do you not know whether or not your position
40:21
Speaker 1: on something you have publicly stated should be abolished a
40:24
Speaker 1: huge part of our constitution should be abolished, and you
40:28
Speaker 1: don't know whether or not your presidential candidate agrees with
40:32
Speaker 1: you on this, and then you try to muddy the
40:34
Speaker 1: water by confusing the hell out of people and you
40:37
Speaker 1: don't even you know, it's hard to tell what you're
40:40
Speaker 1: even saying. So is it the Harris campaign position or not?
40:45
Speaker 1: So I think that's important, but not as important as
40:49
Speaker 1: the topic of the electoral college itself. And look, I
40:53
Speaker 1: am someone who for many years has been on record
40:56
Speaker 1: saying the electoral college should be changed. Now, it can't
40:59
Speaker 1: be changed changed because of the politics involved. But if
41:03
Speaker 1: I could waive a magic wand, I would have every
41:07
Speaker 1: state do their electoral college votes exactly like Nebraska and
41:12
Speaker 1: Maine do them. Now, we've talked a lot about Nebraska
41:15
Speaker 1: and Maine in this cycle because it is theoretically possible,
41:19
Speaker 1: although I don't think it's at all likely anymore because
41:22
Speaker 1: of where the race is currently headed. But it's certainly
41:24
Speaker 1: theoretically possible that we could end up in a two
41:27
Speaker 1: sixty nine and two sixty nine tie because of the
41:30
Speaker 1: fact that Nebraska and Maine allocate their electoral college votes
41:36
Speaker 1: by giving two votes to the winner of the state
41:39
Speaker 1: and one vote each for each congressional district. I think
41:43
Speaker 1: every state should do it this way. And by the way,
41:47
Speaker 1: having researched this, you know quite extensively, the results would
41:52
Speaker 1: effectively be the same. There would be almost no difference.
41:56
Speaker 1: I think I referenced this a few episodes back. But
42:00
Speaker 1: in the two thousand election, which was the closest to
42:03
Speaker 1: modern times, where we were battling over five or six
42:07
Speaker 1: hundred votes in Florida for a month or so before
42:09
Speaker 1: George W. Bush was finally declared the victor. Rightfully. So,
42:14
Speaker 1: if you had done that election the way that Nebraska
42:17
Speaker 1: and Maine do them, you would have turned out with
42:20
Speaker 1: the exact same electoral college result to the number to
42:25
Speaker 1: the number, And to me, this would have a lot
42:28
Speaker 1: of benefits. You wouldn't have total obsession on just six
42:32
Speaker 1: or seven states right now, which is what we have
42:34
Speaker 1: in this election and probably will into the future. Every
42:38
Speaker 1: congressional district would have equal weight, equal importance, and each
42:45
Speaker 1: state would have the same number of electoral College votes
42:49
Speaker 1: for the winner take all. Well, the reason why we
42:53
Speaker 1: can't do this is because of California and New York.
42:56
Speaker 1: It's a little bit by the way, it's a little
42:58
Speaker 1: bit like the inverse of everything that's happened in college athletics,
43:02
Speaker 1: which was facilitated by California, and once California and Gavin
43:06
Speaker 1: Newsom went down a path in order to compete, everybody
43:09
Speaker 1: had to do the same thing. I mean, Gavin Newsom
43:12
Speaker 1: does not get nearly enough blame for the destruction of
43:14
Speaker 1: college sports. It all started with him in California, and
43:18
Speaker 1: then for competitive reasons, everyone else had the follow Well,
43:21
Speaker 1: it's the inverse here. California won't go along with this
43:26
Speaker 1: because if they did so, it would mean that Democrats
43:30
Speaker 1: would lose a lot of electoral college votes. Same in
43:33
Speaker 1: New York. And so you know when Democrats start an
43:38
Speaker 1: election with California, New York, and Illinois in their back pocket,
43:43
Speaker 1: that's a huge advantage. Well, that would end under my
43:47
Speaker 1: theory of the electoral college. So I fully realized politically
43:51
Speaker 1: that cannot happen, even though that would be the right
43:53
Speaker 1: way to go. However, we cannot abolish the electoral college
44:00
Speaker 1: because to do so would be catastrophic in so many ways.
44:05
Speaker 1: And just forget about the political part of this. I
44:08
Speaker 1: get that everything is politicized and that right now, the
44:12
Speaker 1: electoral college tends to benefit the Republican presidential candidate. And
44:16
Speaker 1: that's that's the real reason why Democrats want to get
44:19
Speaker 1: rid of it. It's not because of some belief in
44:23
Speaker 1: the national popular vote. It's because they think that this
44:26
Speaker 1: is bullshit, that Trump could win an election while losing
44:30
Speaker 1: the popular vote for the third straight cycle. I get
44:33
Speaker 1: that frustration, but there's good reasons for this. The electoral
44:38
Speaker 1: college is literally the foundation of federalism in this country.
44:43
Speaker 1: Our country is called the United States of America. We
44:50
Speaker 1: do not have This is important, folks. We do not
44:53
Speaker 1: have a national presidential election. That is a figment of
45:01
Speaker 1: the media and Democrats imagination. That does not exist. We
45:06
Speaker 1: have fifty state elections and then the states all get
45:11
Speaker 1: together to tabulate their electoral college votes to determine who
45:18
Speaker 1: the president is. If you got rid of the electoral college,
45:23
Speaker 1: the entire system of federalism would fall apart. The meaning
45:29
Speaker 1: of the states would not exist, but there would be
45:33
Speaker 1: even I don't know they're bigger or not, but more
45:36
Speaker 1: obvious technical problems with this. The first, and this is
45:41
Speaker 1: I guess beyond Tim Waltz's limited intellect to understand. If
45:46
Speaker 1: you go by a national popular vote, the first problem
45:50
Speaker 1: you have is in a really close election, you have
45:56
Speaker 1: to recount every fucking vote in the entire country, which
46:01
Speaker 1: is a logistical nightmare. I mean, if you had a
46:04
Speaker 1: really tight election, you know, within a milli you know,
46:08
Speaker 1: half a million votes or something like that, maybe even
46:11
Speaker 1: more than that, you would have to recount every single
46:16
Speaker 1: vote in the entire country, which, by the way, the
46:20
Speaker 1: other I think is part of this equation. You would
46:24
Speaker 1: create an incentive for certain states to stuff the ballot box.
46:32
Speaker 1: You know, in a place where like California, where Democrats
46:35
Speaker 1: control everything, they would run up the score in extraordinary ways.
46:41
Speaker 1: Right now, they know that Democrats are going to get
46:44
Speaker 1: the all fifty five Electoral College votes in California and
46:48
Speaker 1: that's all they can do. But if we went to
46:51
Speaker 1: a popular vote, there would be a huge incentive to
46:55
Speaker 1: run up the score, not through actual votes, but through
46:59
Speaker 1: potential because in a one party state there would be
47:03
Speaker 1: no way to stop it. Plus, you have a massive
47:07
Speaker 1: Fourteenth Amendment problem because equal protection under the Constitution would
47:13
Speaker 1: dictate that all votes would be treated equally. Well, every
47:18
Speaker 1: state has a different rule with regard to who can register,
47:22
Speaker 1: who's eligiive vote, what the voting methods are, what the
47:26
Speaker 1: definition of a vote is. We saw that in the
47:29
Speaker 1: two thousand election when it came to the hanging chads. Well, currently,
47:35
Speaker 1: within a state, everybody's vote has to be treated equally
47:39
Speaker 1: under the fourteenth Amendment. But that can't happen in a
47:45
Speaker 1: national popular vote because otherwise, unless you decide you're going
47:49
Speaker 1: to do away with fate elections, entirely, and you're gonna
47:52
Speaker 1: do a federal popular vote election, which would create a
47:56
Speaker 1: whole series of other problems. So this is this is
48:02
Speaker 1: so wrong on so many levels. I don't think it's
48:07
Speaker 1: a big problem, because you know, a constitutional amendment is
48:10
Speaker 1: almost impossible in this day and age. I think the
48:14
Speaker 1: major issue here is what a moron Tim Waltz is.
48:19
Speaker 1: You literally have to have no understanding of our system
48:23
Speaker 1: of government, history, our constitution, and basic common sense in
48:30
Speaker 1: order to be in favor of abolishing the electoral college.
48:34
Speaker 1: Of course, you know Michael Strahan is not capable of
48:38
Speaker 1: having that conversation. I don't necessarily blame him, but to me,
48:43
Speaker 1: my big takeaway is Tim Waltz is an idiot. Tim
48:47
Speaker 1: Waltz is not remotely qualified to be a heartbeat away
48:51
Speaker 1: from the presidency. And this was the biggest political decision
48:55
Speaker 1: of Kamala Harris's life was to pick Tim Waltz over
48:59
Speaker 1: like Josh Shapiro, and I think that that's very, very
49:03
Speaker 1: telling about her decision making and who she is. I
49:07
Speaker 1: think Tim Waltz is m The idea that Tim Waltz
49:11
Speaker 1: has not gotten to Sarah Palin treatment is incredibly frustrating
49:15
Speaker 1: as somebody who was at the first a defender on
49:19
Speaker 1: a national level of Sarah Palin in the aftermath of
49:22
Speaker 1: the two thousand and eight election. She was not prepared.
49:25
Speaker 1: Tim Waltz is not prepared. But she was in much
49:30
Speaker 1: much better shape from both an intellectual perspective and an
49:34
Speaker 1: experience standpoint than Tim Waltz was. And yet the perception
49:39
Speaker 1: that was created in two thousand and eight is nowhere
49:42
Speaker 1: close to what has occurred when it comes to Tim Waltz.
49:45
Speaker 1: I mean, if Sarah Palin was giving answers like that
49:48
Speaker 1: on the electoral College, she would have been destroyed. But
49:51
Speaker 1: you know, there's a massive double standard here, and I honestly,
49:55
Speaker 1: truly do believe that Tim Waltz is a lot dumber
49:57
Speaker 1: than Sarah Palin was in two thousand eight. I firmly
50:01
Speaker 1: believe that now as far as the state of the
50:04
Speaker 1: electoral College and this presidential race, I have made some
50:09
Speaker 1: accommodations for how this race has shifted. This is the
50:14
Speaker 1: way I would explain where we currently are, and I
50:19
Speaker 1: think it's, you know, the simplest way to describe this is,
50:22
Speaker 1: currently in this presidential race, we have seven coin flips,
50:27
Speaker 1: the seven swing states, We've talked about them forever. Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania,
50:32
Speaker 1: North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada. Those seven states are now
50:37
Speaker 1: all effectively coin flips. They're all within the margin of error.
50:42
Speaker 1: In fact, they're dramatically within the margin of error, all
50:47
Speaker 1: of them. So there's seven coin flips. Whoever wins four
50:52
Speaker 1: out of seven of those coin flips, and a lot
50:55
Speaker 1: of it could just be luck, and you know who
50:57
Speaker 1: decides to turn out maybe even on that day. Whoever
51:02
Speaker 1: wins four out of seven of those coin flips is
51:05
Speaker 1: almost assuredly going to win. Now, there are some scenarios
51:09
Speaker 1: where Trump could win four out of seven and still lose.
51:12
Speaker 1: There's some scenarios where Harris could win four out of
51:15
Speaker 1: seven and still lose. But by and large, especially if
51:20
Speaker 1: one of the four is the one of the Blue
51:25
Speaker 1: Wall states, Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania. If you win four
51:29
Speaker 1: out of seven and one of those is Pennsylvania, Michigan
51:32
Speaker 1: or Wisconsin, if you're either Harris or Trump, there is
51:35
Speaker 1: a extremely high likelihood you're gonna win. So, trying to
51:40
Speaker 1: simplify it as much as possible, we've got an election
51:44
Speaker 1: that's down to seven coin flips, and whoever wins four
51:47
Speaker 1: out of seven is very likely to win. You win
51:50
Speaker 1: five out of seven, you're the winner. That's about as
51:54
Speaker 1: close as it gets from an electoral college perspective. And
51:58
Speaker 1: because of the ship polls, and because it's obvious from
52:03
Speaker 1: the actions and the words of Obama and Biden and
52:08
Speaker 1: making Tim Waltz into suddenly the man who's going to
52:12
Speaker 1: save the day, I am now of the belief that
52:16
Speaker 1: the race has indeed shifted. So all of that, combined
52:20
Speaker 1: with the drifting polling data in the swing states, especially
52:24
Speaker 1: although there is some indication that the numbers have moved
52:27
Speaker 1: nationally away from Harris, it was an NBC poll over
52:31
Speaker 1: the weekend that has the race tied nationally in the
52:34
Speaker 1: popular vote, after NBC had had Harris up by I
52:38
Speaker 1: think four points previously. So there seems to be clearly
52:43
Speaker 1: public data shifting towards Trump away from Harris. The Democratic
52:49
Speaker 1: reaction seems to be consistent with panic and certainly consistent
52:53
Speaker 1: with the idea that maybe their internal polls are showing
52:56
Speaker 1: things to be as bad or worse than the public
53:00
Speaker 1: polls show for Harris. And so because of all of that,
53:04
Speaker 1: I am proposing a radical new way of explaining my
53:10
Speaker 1: electoral college projection. Each episode, I have told you what
53:14
Speaker 1: I think would be the electoral college result if the
53:18
Speaker 1: election were today. This was once again not a prediction
53:22
Speaker 1: for what will happen, for what would happen if the
53:26
Speaker 1: election were held today. Well, I'm changing the way I'm
53:31
Speaker 1: doing this somewhat dramatically because my current electoral college projection
53:38
Speaker 1: is two hundred and thirty two for Harris two hundred
53:44
Speaker 1: and sixty two for Trump. Well, if you're paying close attention,
53:48
Speaker 1: you're probably like, Zig, what the hell are you talking about?
53:52
Speaker 1: You're missing a whole lot of electoral college votes and
53:54
Speaker 1: no one's getting to the magic number of two hundred
53:57
Speaker 1: and seventy. Well, that's exactly right, because I am now
54:03
Speaker 1: taking the blue Wall, at least for now, off the table.
54:09
Speaker 1: I do not know who's going to win any of
54:12
Speaker 1: those states now. I was considering flipping Pennsylvania to Trump
54:19
Speaker 1: until The New York Times came out with a poll
54:22
Speaker 1: showing that Harris is up four in Pennsylvania. Simultaneously, the
54:27
Speaker 1: New York Times, which has been actually pretty pro Trump
54:30
Speaker 1: this year, including during the primary season, they have suddenly
54:34
Speaker 1: Trump winning Arizona by six. So it's not like that,
54:40
Speaker 1: you know, the New York Times is suddenly out to
54:43
Speaker 1: get Trump. If they're showing simultaneously Trump with the biggest
54:47
Speaker 1: lead he's had in forever in Arizona, but now losing
54:51
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania by four, it's hard to say that Trump is
54:55
Speaker 1: going to win Pennsylvania, even though there's been a series
54:58
Speaker 1: of polls in October showing Trump winning by a point
55:02
Speaker 1: or two in Pennsylvania. And as you know, I've been very,
55:05
Speaker 1: very skeptical that Trump was going to win my former
55:07
Speaker 1: home state of Pennsylvania, which was key to his twenty
55:11
Speaker 1: sixteen victory over Hillary Clinton. So I can't say that
55:16
Speaker 1: Trump is going to win Pennsylvania. I can't say that
55:19
Speaker 1: Harris is going to win. So because the blue wall
55:22
Speaker 1: is so important here and because I see so many
55:25
Speaker 1: signs that the blue wall is cracking. That Harris's blue
55:29
Speaker 1: wall is cracking currently doesn't mean it's going to explode
55:34
Speaker 1: or implode, or that there's going to be a massive
55:36
Speaker 1: hole in the dyke, but there are signs of cracks
55:40
Speaker 1: in the blue wall, and that these signs are not
55:43
Speaker 1: just data driven, but also all the panic data points
55:47
Speaker 1: that we have discussed, as well as those statements of
55:50
Speaker 1: the Democratic senatorial candidates in Michigan and in Wisconsin. Because
55:55
Speaker 1: of that, I am at least for now taking the
55:58
Speaker 1: blue wall off the t Now, what this means as
56:02
Speaker 1: far as who would be likely to win if the
56:05
Speaker 1: election were today is this. I have previously stated that
56:11
Speaker 1: there was maybe an eighty percent chance that Harris would
56:14
Speaker 1: win each of the blue Wall states Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
56:19
Speaker 1: Because I see the blue wall cracking, I now see
56:23
Speaker 1: that as more of a sixty percent situation, where if
56:28
Speaker 1: the election were today, Harris would still be favored slightly,
56:32
Speaker 1: very slightly to win each of those key states Wisconsin, Michigan,
56:36
Speaker 1: and Pennsylvania. I'd say it'd be about sixty percent. Well,
56:40
Speaker 1: if you do the math on this, if you have
56:43
Speaker 1: a sixty percent chance of winning each of those three
56:47
Speaker 1: states and your Harris, that means statistically you only have
56:51
Speaker 1: a twenty one percent chance of winning all three, which
56:55
Speaker 1: is what Harris would have to do to win the election. Now,
56:58
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that means that Trump has a seventy
57:01
Speaker 1: nine percent chance of winning the election if it were today,
57:05
Speaker 1: because obviously Trump could still lose North Carolina or Georgia
57:10
Speaker 1: or Arizona, though he's looking good in all three of
57:13
Speaker 1: those states right now, I think much better than a
57:15
Speaker 1: sixty percent chance that Harris has in the blue Wall states.
57:20
Speaker 1: So effectively, what I'm saying maybe I'm not doing it
57:24
Speaker 1: in a particularly effective or clearcut way. What I'm saying is,
57:28
Speaker 1: then under my current electoral College projection, for whatever it
57:31
Speaker 1: might be worth, Trump is the favorite to win. Not
57:35
Speaker 1: by a lot, but he is the favorite to win now.
57:39
Speaker 1: I just don't know which of those three blue Wall
57:43
Speaker 1: states are gonna completely disintegrate when it comes down to it.
57:49
Speaker 1: It's possible none of them will. Maybe the cracking blue
57:52
Speaker 1: Wall will hold. I'm talking about what would happen today.
57:56
Speaker 1: But today I think there is a much better than
57:59
Speaker 1: fifty percent chance that Trump wins at least one of
58:03
Speaker 1: the blue Wall states. And if he wins one of
58:05
Speaker 1: the blue Wall states, under the current situation in North Carolina, Georgia,
58:10
Speaker 1: and Arizona, Trump wins the election. Thanks for listening to
58:15
Speaker 1: today's free drop of the abbreviated show. If you're interested
58:18
Speaker 1: in listening to the entire show, you must become a patron.
58:22
Speaker 1: Please go to Patreon. That's p A t R e
58:27
Speaker 1: o N dot com. Patreon dot com slash the Death
58:33
Speaker 1: of Journalism with John Ziggler. My name is j hn
58:38
Speaker 1: z I E G L e R. That's Patreon dot
58:42
Speaker 1: com slash the Death of Journalism with John Zigler. Good
58:48
Speaker 1: luck to you on that. But that's how you can subscribe.