Latest / Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar / 10/27/26: Saudis Beg For Deal With Houthis, Israel Shocked By Bibi Iran Plot, GOP Floods Millions Into Deep Red Districts

Transcript

10/27/26: Saudis Beg For Deal With Houthis, Israel Shocked By Bibi Iran Plot, GOP Floods Millions Into Deep Red Districts · Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Had a busy day don't have time to listen to
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: the show catch up.
• 0:03
  Speaker 2: On breaking points with our free daily newsletter you get.
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: Our breakdown of every daily.
• 0:07
  Speaker 2: Story and lots of links in your inbox every day
• 0:10
  Speaker 2: so head.
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: Over breakingpoints.com you can sign up for the newsletter at
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: the top for free today good morning everybody happy tuesday
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: we have an amazing show for everybody today what do
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: we have crystal.
• 0:25
  Speaker 3: Indeed we do.
• 0:26
  Speaker 2: Lots unfolding here and around the world. First off, Trita
• 0:29
  Speaker 2: Parsi is going to join us to talk about a
• 0:31
  Speaker 2: flurry of activity in Iran and what this very fraught
• 0:35
  Speaker 2: moment where you're between the Israeli elections and the U.S.
• 0:38
  Speaker 2: elections might mean and what we might see transpire. We
• 0:42
  Speaker 2: also are going to talk to him about those Israeli
• 0:44
  Speaker 2: elections which are unfolding today amidst a chaotic situation in Israel.
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: Logan Phillips is going to join us to talk about
• 0:51
  Speaker 2: some numbers he's breaking down on the midterms. Which House
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: districts are in play? Where is the money going? We're
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: following the money this morning with Logan about which seats
• 1:00
  Speaker 2: are in play and how big the midterm landslide may
• 1:04
  Speaker 2: be for Democrats. We're also taking a look at the
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: World of AI. Anthropic just filed their S-1. That's the
• 1:10
  Speaker 2: paperwork they need to in order to go public. And
• 1:13
  Speaker 2: they have quite a list of interesting risks that they're
• 1:16
  Speaker 2: tracking as part of these business filings. And finally, we're
• 1:19
  Speaker 2: looking at what might happen after the midterms next week
• 1:23
  Speaker 2: as Trump makes increasing indications that he is not just
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: going to accept the results as they come in if
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: they are bad for him. So Ken Klippenstein has a
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: report on the, quote, doomsday scenarios that the feds are
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: planning for.
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: That's right. Thank you to everybody who's been supporting our
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: show and bearing with the sickness, which is rolling through
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: the ball in Jetty, Grimm and Jashinsky households over this week.
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: So seriously, thank you to everybody bearing with with this
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: if you hear any sniffles or anything like that as
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: we continue to broadcast but also i have good news
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: to report we are about eighty percent of the way
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: there whenever it comes to our fish concert contest as
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: a reminder of the thousand people that sign up before
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: election day it means that to one of those people
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: will be able to get to go to fish concert
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: mad square garden with ryan brim and one of our
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: existing premium subscribers will also be able to get to
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: go with a friend, along with the great Ryan Grimm
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: as well. And of course, you could also just sign
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: up to support the show, especially ahead of this crazy
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: election season. So thank you all very much for continuing
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: to do so. You've still got a few more days
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: to get in and hopefully to be able to reach
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: that mark 1,000. If you're watching this on YouTube, please
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: hit subscribe to our YouTube channel. If you're listening to
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: the podcast, please share an episode with a friend. It
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: really helps other people find the show. But with all
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: of that, let's get to our great friend, Dr. Trita Parsi,
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: who's standing by.
• 2:43
  Speaker 4: Dr.
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: Parsi, it's good to see you. Thanks for joining us.
• 2:46
  Speaker 4: Good to be with you guys again.
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: Let's go ahead and start. There's been a flurry of
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: diplomatic activity. Let's put A1 up here on the screen.
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: There's a lot really to say and to think about here.
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: But Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan made this rare joint
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: visit to Tehran yesterday amid reports that the U.S. and
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: Israel were drawing up plans to renew their attacks on Iran.
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: So there's a lot of conflicting information there. that came out,
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: we do know that the diplomats summited and that there
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: was at least some discussion of some sort of narrow
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: ceasefire deal. There's been some breaking news this morning of
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: the Ayatollah coming out and saying, we need to have
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: a discussion about terms of ending the war. Obviously, though,
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: that could mean a lot of different things. What's your
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: general reaction to the summit and what it means?
• 3:33
  Speaker 4: Look, the summit is a huge PR win for the Iranians.
• 3:36
  Speaker 4: And it's, you know, I mean, they go on to
• 3:39
  Speaker 4: great extent, making that point. But it is, the optics
• 3:43
  Speaker 4: of it is quite interesting to see these three countries
• 3:45
  Speaker 4: sending very, very senior officials to Tehran and essentially coming
• 3:51
  Speaker 4: there asking for Tehran's help. And the key thing that
• 3:54
  Speaker 4: was driving this summit is what is happening between Ansarullah,
• 3:58
  Speaker 4: the Houthis, and Saudi Arabia, in which the Saudis are
• 4:00
  Speaker 4: in an absolutely terrible situation. Of course, the Pakistanis and Turks,
• 4:05
  Speaker 4: when they signed the MECA agreement, had not envisioned that
• 4:08
  Speaker 4: it would lead to this type of a scenario so
• 4:10
  Speaker 4: quickly in which their credibility would be put online. But
• 4:15
  Speaker 4: bottom line, when you take a look at what came
• 4:17
  Speaker 4: out of the summit, it's just like one sentence statement
• 4:20
  Speaker 4: that says that they're going to continue to talk. And
• 4:22
  Speaker 4: I think it reflects that at the end of the day,
• 4:24
  Speaker 4: there wasn't a huge amount of progress made. And perhaps
• 4:27
  Speaker 4: that's unrealistic to expect because this is a complex issue
• 4:31
  Speaker 4: at the end of the day. But perhaps most importantly,
• 4:34
  Speaker 4: The Saudis essentially started a war that they cannot win
• 4:38
  Speaker 4: on the battlefield, and at the same time, they're not
• 4:40
  Speaker 4: willing to give the concessions that are necessary in order
• 4:44
  Speaker 4: to end it at the diplomatic table, which from the
• 4:47
  Speaker 4: Iranian perspective, essentially, they're saying that this makes the Saudis
• 4:50
  Speaker 4: very similar to Trump. He also started a war unnecessarily
• 4:54
  Speaker 4: that he cannot end at the battlefield, and he's not
• 4:57
  Speaker 4: willing to give the concessions at the negotiating table to
• 4:59
  Speaker 4: end it. And in the case of the Houthis, they
• 5:02
  Speaker 4: are demanding an end there. to the air blockade as
• 5:05
  Speaker 4: a condition to stop the shooting at Saudi Arabia. And
• 5:10
  Speaker 4: the reason why the Iranians, the reason why perhaps there
• 5:12
  Speaker 4: wasn't that much progress, at least to be reported on,
• 5:16
  Speaker 4: is because the Iranians are not going to put pressure
• 5:18
  Speaker 4: on the Houthis to drop that demand, because it is
• 5:21
  Speaker 4: a mirror image of Iran's own demand. As you recall,
• 5:24
  Speaker 4: the Iranians refused to end the war just because Trump
• 5:27
  Speaker 4: wanted a ceasefire. They needed a lifting of the blockade,
• 5:32
  Speaker 4: as a way of them agreeing to a ceasefire. And
• 5:34
  Speaker 4: now the Houthis are essentially making exactly the same ask.
• 5:38
  Speaker 4: An end to the blockade is the condition for them
• 5:40
  Speaker 4: to end their war. So the Iranians are not putting
• 5:43
  Speaker 4: that pressure on them, despite the fact that there are reports,
• 5:45
  Speaker 4: of course, that the Saudis offered a billion dollars to
• 5:49
  Speaker 4: the Houthis, which obviously would not be a small amount
• 5:52
  Speaker 4: in any way, shape or form. But again, it's very
• 5:54
  Speaker 4: similar to the situation between the U.S. and Iran. There's
• 5:57
  Speaker 4: a misunderstanding of what the actual strategic situation is. The
• 6:01
  Speaker 4: Houthis are in a very strong position, and as a result,
• 6:04
  Speaker 4: they're not going to be bought off with $ 1 billion.
• 6:06
  Speaker 4: They want strategic concessions from the Saudis, which is the
• 6:10
  Speaker 4: lifting of the air blockade. Similarly with the Iranians, they
• 6:13
  Speaker 4: do not feel that time is on America's side, as
• 6:17
  Speaker 4: Scott Besant is saying. They feel that they are in
• 6:19
  Speaker 4: a strong position, and as a result, they're asking for
• 6:21
  Speaker 4: strategic concessions in order to agree to end their war
• 6:24
  Speaker 4: with the United States.
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: Trump reiterated something that he seems to outline that he
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: seems to be saying we should either finish it or
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: make a deal.
• 6:32
  Speaker 3: And he's trying to make up his mind. Let's take
• 6:33
  Speaker 3: a listen to A2.
• 6:34
  Speaker 4: Do you notice this isn't a Jimmy Carter attack or
• 6:37
  Speaker 4: an Obama attack? This is a real attack.
• 6:39
  Speaker 5: We don't play games.
• 6:40
  Speaker 4: Yes, sir. And so what happens is I have a
• 6:43
  Speaker 4: decision to make.
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: Do I finish it off, which would be very easy
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: to do, or do I make a deal? That's a decision.
• 6:50
  Speaker 2: So more big threats there. You know, Trita, what do
• 6:52
  Speaker 2: you make of this period that we're in right now?
• 6:55
  Speaker 2: We're in a very strange moment where you've got the
• 6:57
  Speaker 2: Israeli elections today. We're going to talk to you about
• 6:59
  Speaker 2: that in a minute.
• 7:00
  Speaker 3: We've got the U.S.
• 7:01
  Speaker 2: Midterm elections next week. What do you think the Iranian
• 7:05
  Speaker 2: calculation is about when their leverage is maximized given these
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: major political events that are unfolding?
• 7:14
  Speaker 4: Very interesting. I mean, this is a very tense period,
• 7:17
  Speaker 4: of course, and the speculation had been that the Israelis
• 7:20
  Speaker 4: might start a war before their elections. And clearly, we've
• 7:23
  Speaker 4: seen now the reporting that Netanyahu was pushing for an
• 7:29
  Speaker 4: attack and got some pushback from the head of the
• 7:33
  Speaker 4: chief of staff of the IDF, which I think the
• 7:35
  Speaker 4: story is a little bit more complex than that, because
• 7:37
  Speaker 4: what has also not been reported, and I wrote on
• 7:40
  Speaker 4: my sub stack last night, is that the Iranians actually
• 7:44
  Speaker 4: say that there were Israeli airplanes that breached Iranian airspace
• 7:48
  Speaker 4: over the weekend. which one would have thought would have
• 7:52
  Speaker 4: led to an Iranian retaliation or perhaps the Iranians just
• 7:55
  Speaker 4: starting the war preemptively. But instead, the Iranians chose not
• 8:00
  Speaker 4: to respond at all. And my understanding is that this
• 8:03
  Speaker 4: is because they had come to the conclusion that the
• 8:06
  Speaker 4: Israelis were trying to goad them into a trap, that
• 8:09
  Speaker 4: Trump truly had not made up his mind yet, that
• 8:12
  Speaker 4: Netanyahu needed this war at this moment and the Iranians
• 8:15
  Speaker 4: were not going to walk into that trap and give
• 8:17
  Speaker 4: Netanyahu what he wanted. both a benefit to him in
• 8:20
  Speaker 4: his elections, and then, of course, making the decision for
• 8:25
  Speaker 4: Trump much easier by essentially making the decision for him.
• 8:28
  Speaker 4: If the Iranians had struck at Israel, the war would
• 8:31
  Speaker 4: have started, and then it didn't matter if Trump was
• 8:33
  Speaker 4: still weighing his options and potentially just 5%, 10% that
• 8:37
  Speaker 4: he wouldn't have started the war, which is still a
• 8:40
  Speaker 4: bit surprising given the fact that so far the Iranians
• 8:42
  Speaker 4: have tried to assert a an image in which the
• 8:45
  Speaker 4: red lines are completely uncompromising. This is not the strategic
• 8:49
  Speaker 4: patience of a couple of years ago in which they
• 8:51
  Speaker 4: took a lot of hits from the Israelis without responding.
• 8:55
  Speaker 4: But in this specific case, it seems to have been
• 8:57
  Speaker 4: one in which they weighed exactly the sensitivity of the moment,
• 9:01
  Speaker 4: as you pointed out, Crystal, and realized that this was
• 9:03
  Speaker 4: more likely to be a trap than a genuine effort.
• 9:06
  Speaker 4: And mindful of the fact that we have not seen
• 9:09
  Speaker 4: the Israelis do much more since then, it does appear
• 9:11
  Speaker 4: that it probably was a trap.
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: So that's what I'm trying to work my head around.
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: Let's put A5, if we can, up on the screen
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: because we have this Israeli provocation. I don't even know
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: if it's fair to say it's an Israeli provocation because
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: Pete Hegseth was apparently in the Joint Operations Command whenever
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: this was happening with Prime Minister Netanyahu kind of waiting
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: for this to happen in Israel. Meanwhile, you know, you
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: have all of these reporting. This is from CNN. There's
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: multiple others saying U.S. has plans for major Iran strikes
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: if Trump chooses ready to strike the country again. In
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: 96 hours after giving the order. So what exactly does
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: Iran see? Because multiple times, I mean, you've reported this
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: multiple times as well. You're like, look, they believe we
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: are in the same situation as February. They're stringing us along. Trump,
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: even last night at a rally, just said, you know, ceasefires.
• 10:00
  Speaker 4: Useless.
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: Obviously, we played his earlier comments that were made yesterday.
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: There's no point. We're just going to go ahead and attack.
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: Why do they not want to seize the strategic initiative?
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: Is it for the global outlook to be seen not
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: as the aggressor? It is a military initiative. situation. It's
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: hard for me to kind of understand their strategic thinking.
• 10:21
  Speaker 4: Well, there's a huge amount of risks involved if the
• 10:25
  Speaker 4: Iranians were to take preemptive strikes, recognizing that the U.S.
• 10:30
  Speaker 4: is about to attack them. I mean, the reporting at
• 10:33
  Speaker 4: this point is just so extensive that they clearly would
• 10:36
  Speaker 4: be able to make a case that this was a
• 10:39
  Speaker 4: case of anticipatory self-defense in international law. But I think
• 10:44
  Speaker 4: it's important to remember at the same time that the
• 10:46
  Speaker 4: third round of this war, as it is envisioned by
• 10:49
  Speaker 4: both sides, given what the Israelis are saying, that they
• 10:52
  Speaker 4: will go after all of Iran's infrastructure, given the fact
• 10:55
  Speaker 4: that Trump is talking about finishing them off, it suggests
• 11:00
  Speaker 4: that there would be massive destruction on all sides. And
• 11:04
  Speaker 4: at the end of the day, even though the Iranians
• 11:06
  Speaker 4: believe that they have a strategic edge in that type
• 11:08
  Speaker 4: of a scenario, It does not mean that it is
• 11:11
  Speaker 4: not an absolutely terrible scenario for Iran as well. So
• 11:15
  Speaker 4: it's a decision that you go down the path of
• 11:19
  Speaker 4: only when you are fully, fully convinced that there is
• 11:23
  Speaker 4: no other way, that there is no way avoiding it,
• 11:26
  Speaker 4: because it is not a positive scenario at the end
• 11:28
  Speaker 4: of the day for either side. And I think the
• 11:31
  Speaker 4: test of it was really this weekend in which the
• 11:34
  Speaker 4: Israelis had been already making a lot of exercises in
• 11:37
  Speaker 4: Syria and in Iraqi airspace. They had gotten closer and
• 11:40
  Speaker 4: closer to Iranian airspace and eventually did breach it. And
• 11:45
  Speaker 4: the Iranians chose not to respond, not because I don't
• 11:47
  Speaker 4: think they can, but because at the end of the day,
• 11:50
  Speaker 4: they were concluding that the Israelis were trying to force
• 11:54
  Speaker 4: them to respond to make it easier for Netanyahu, because
• 11:57
  Speaker 4: clearly he couldn't make the decision entirely on its own.
• 12:00
  Speaker 4: And I think it's important to note when it comes
• 12:01
  Speaker 4: to this story about the chief of staff of the IDF, Zamir,
• 12:06
  Speaker 4: pushing back. I don't think it is about whether he
• 12:08
  Speaker 4: agrees that there should be a war with Iran or not,
• 12:10
  Speaker 4: or if he has a completely different view as to
• 12:12
  Speaker 4: whether Iran is a threat to Israel or not. I
• 12:15
  Speaker 4: think they're on completely the same page. It's just a
• 12:17
  Speaker 4: question of the timing and whether he would have his
• 12:20
  Speaker 4: fingerprint on a decision two days or three days before
• 12:24
  Speaker 4: the Israeli elections, which would very likely tip the elections
• 12:26
  Speaker 4: in some direction. And that's the responsibility he doesn't want
• 12:29
  Speaker 4: to have. But if it is true that the Israelis
• 12:32
  Speaker 4: were breaching Iranian airspace, they wouldn't have done that without
• 12:34
  Speaker 4: IDF's approval, which means that he's okay with it as
• 12:38
  Speaker 4: long as he doesn't have his fingerprints on it.
• 12:41
  Speaker 3: Let's put A7 up on the screen.
• 12:43
  Speaker 2: We keep getting all these indications that something may be
• 12:46
  Speaker 2: imminent in the Middle East.
• 12:48
  Speaker 3: This is the latest one from the Wall Street Journal.
• 12:49
  Speaker 2: U.S. evacuates Mideast outposts after suspected Iranian plot to target Americans.
• 12:54
  Speaker 2: We previously had news that diplomats And even some troops
• 12:57
  Speaker 2: were being removed from the region. We've also had a
• 13:00
  Speaker 2: lot more military assets rushed to the region. Is this
• 13:06
  Speaker 2: week a particularly dangerous moment after the Israeli elections, but
• 13:10
  Speaker 2: before the U.S. elections, where there could be an Iranian
• 13:13
  Speaker 2: calculation of, all right, we think that a strike before
• 13:17
  Speaker 2: the Israeli elections would help Netanyahu.
• 13:20
  Speaker 3: We don't want to do that.
• 13:21
  Speaker 2: But a restarting of the war before the U.S. elections
• 13:24
  Speaker 2: would hurt Trump. We do want that outcome and a
• 13:28
  Speaker 2: sense that, okay, there's some restarting of the war is
• 13:30
  Speaker 2: probably inevitable anyways. Is this a particularly fraught moment that
• 13:34
  Speaker 2: we're in? It is.
• 13:35
  Speaker 4: It is a very fraught moment. But I would, and
• 13:37
  Speaker 4: I've written about this earlier on, that this is one
• 13:40
  Speaker 4: of the different options the Iranians were looking at. And
• 13:43
  Speaker 4: they were looking at doing it just a couple of
• 13:45
  Speaker 4: days before the midterms in order to give a shock
• 13:48
  Speaker 4: to the markets and give Trump as little time as
• 13:51
  Speaker 4: possible to be able to clean it up. But I
• 13:55
  Speaker 4: am not as convinced any longer that this is necessarily
• 13:58
  Speaker 4: the direction they will go. They might. But the Iranians
• 14:02
  Speaker 4: do not give the slightest impression that they are in
• 14:05
  Speaker 4: a desperate situation. On the contrary, they come across as
• 14:08
  Speaker 4: being very confident and very comfortable with the current situation.
• 14:12
  Speaker 4: I'm not saying that they're doing great in any way,
• 14:13
  Speaker 4: shape or form. Their economy clearly is suffering. But they
• 14:17
  Speaker 4: do not seem to be particularly pressed. And under those circumstances,
• 14:20
  Speaker 4: perhaps they will choose not to go down this path. Again,
• 14:24
  Speaker 4: I think it very much depends on whether they see
• 14:27
  Speaker 4: a very strong, almost inevitable likelihood of an attack by
• 14:32
  Speaker 4: the United States after the war. And I think one
• 14:34
  Speaker 4: of the things that makes such a decision very difficult,
• 14:36
  Speaker 4: in addition to the other factors that I mentioned, is
• 14:39
  Speaker 4: that we're dealing with Trump. Trump has numerous times, I
• 14:42
  Speaker 4: think the count is now at seven, made very, very clear,
• 14:47
  Speaker 4: very convincing threats only to back off at the last moment.
• 14:52
  Speaker 4: And if he were to back off at the last moment,
• 14:54
  Speaker 4: that clearly would be a preferential situation for the Iranians
• 14:58
  Speaker 4: rather than going down this path of an absolutely disastrous
• 15:01
  Speaker 4: war that would leave the entire region in a terrible shape,
• 15:05
  Speaker 4: including Iran itself.
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: Let's switch now to Israel, obviously, and their ongoing elections.
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: We'll start again with that piece that you wrote. Let's
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: put it up here on the screen. Obviously, we'll add
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: it in post-production. You say Israel breached Iranian airspace this weekend.
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: But Iran chose not to respond. How can you contextualize this, Dr. Parsi,
• 15:27
  Speaker 1: in the context of these Israeli elections? So obviously it
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: was a ploy by Netanyahu to tip the balance, but
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: it does beg the question, what will some future Israeli
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: government do? Will Donald Trump make a deal with Eisenkant's
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: government if he does form some sort of a coalition.
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: How do you see, like you were saying earlier, the
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: actual mind of the IDF behind what they decided to
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: go along with Netanyahu in this case?
• 15:54
  Speaker 4: Well, I think the first thing to keep in mind
• 15:55
  Speaker 4: is it's a very unlikely scenario that we will have
• 15:58
  Speaker 4: a quick resolution to the Israeli elections. We've seen in
• 16:04
  Speaker 4: the past that these formations of governments can take weeks,
• 16:08
  Speaker 4: if not months, they can fail. I think Israel ended
• 16:11
  Speaker 4: up having like three or so elections within a year
• 16:14
  Speaker 4: as a result of a failure to form government. So
• 16:17
  Speaker 4: during that period, Netanyahu will continue to be prime minister,
• 16:21
  Speaker 4: and he may continue to push and eventually may succeed
• 16:24
  Speaker 4: in getting an attack because he calculates that it will
• 16:27
  Speaker 4: be helping him in his formation and his ability to
• 16:31
  Speaker 4: form a government. Now, in this scenario, which again, I
• 16:34
  Speaker 4: don't know what the likelihood of it is. It's difficult
• 16:37
  Speaker 4: to predict what the Israeli outcome will be in this election.
• 16:41
  Speaker 4: But let's say that we have a scenario in which
• 16:44
  Speaker 4: Eisencott wins and he wins rather clearly. And as a result,
• 16:48
  Speaker 4: there's a quick formation of government and this period ends
• 16:50
  Speaker 4: up becoming very short. Even though I don't believe that
• 16:54
  Speaker 4: the new Israeli government will have a particularly different outlook
• 16:58
  Speaker 4: on matters. I don't think, you know, we talked about
• 17:00
  Speaker 4: last time how the Israeli security doctrine has shifted. I
• 17:04
  Speaker 4: don't think you're going to see significant changes on that.
• 17:07
  Speaker 4: You may see some changes in the West Bank, but
• 17:09
  Speaker 4: at the end of the day, the broader direction of
• 17:11
  Speaker 4: Israel towards the region, towards Iran, towards the Palestinians. I
• 17:15
  Speaker 4: don't think it's going to change that dramatically. But one
• 17:17
  Speaker 4: factor that could have an impact on all of this,
• 17:21
  Speaker 4: not as an insurmountable obstacle, but as a complicating factor
• 17:26
  Speaker 4: for Trump, is the relationship that he has with Netanyahu.
• 17:30
  Speaker 4: Even though it's very fraught, they don't trust each other. Nevertheless,
• 17:33
  Speaker 4: they have dealt with each other for more than 12 years.
• 17:37
  Speaker 4: I don't think he has any relationship with Isakot. And
• 17:39
  Speaker 4: as a result, if they're going to go to war together,
• 17:42
  Speaker 4: I think that's going to complicate matters. It may add
• 17:45
  Speaker 4: more time to the clock because there's going to be
• 17:47
  Speaker 4: a lot of issues to sort out. And Isakot may
• 17:50
  Speaker 4: also have a calculation. It has nothing to do with
• 17:52
  Speaker 4: whether he believes Iran is a threat or not, but
• 17:54
  Speaker 4: with the fact that if Trump fears very badly in
• 17:58
  Speaker 4: the midterm elections, and he's now dealing with a Democratic Congress,
• 18:03
  Speaker 4: Democratic House, and a Senate, and a likely Democratic president
• 18:07
  Speaker 4: in 2028, Eisenkamp may not want to go down the
• 18:10
  Speaker 4: path of having his name on a ward that will
• 18:14
  Speaker 4: be utterly unpopular amongst the American public, as it already is,
• 18:20
  Speaker 4: but also with the next administration of the United States.
• 18:23
  Speaker 4: So I think there's a slight possibility that that outcome
• 18:27
  Speaker 4: may actually cause the type of tight-knit coalition between Israel
• 18:31
  Speaker 4: and the United States to become a little bit more complicated.
• 18:34
  Speaker 4: And the driving force of this, which so far has
• 18:37
  Speaker 4: been Netanyahu, will be taken out of the equation.
• 18:40
  Speaker 2: Let's put B1 up on the screen. This is a
• 18:43
  Speaker 2: concept that's been floated. I don't know how realistic this is,
• 18:46
  Speaker 2: but Netanyahu, with Trump's backing, could lose the election and
• 18:49
  Speaker 2: still lead a divided Israel. The concept here is that
• 18:51
  Speaker 2: him and Eisenhower would form a unity government. This is
• 18:56
  Speaker 2: something that Eisenhower has ruled out. up to this point,
• 18:59
  Speaker 2: but I guess you never know how this could come
• 19:01
  Speaker 2: to fruition. I was also thinking, Trita, about how Netanyahu
• 19:05
  Speaker 2: got the endorsement of Trump, but apparently he wanted Trump
• 19:08
  Speaker 2: to do more than he ultimately did and to be
• 19:12
  Speaker 2: more vocal. He put out multiple true social posts, but
• 19:14
  Speaker 2: I guess Netanyahu was hoping for more from Trump. Trump
• 19:17
  Speaker 2: was constantly bragging about how popular he is personally in Israel,
• 19:21
  Speaker 2: saying he's got 99% support in the state of Israel,
• 19:24
  Speaker 2: which I don't know if that is the bragging point
• 19:26
  Speaker 2: that he thinks it is. But in any case, do
• 19:28
  Speaker 2: you think that something like this is a possibility? And
• 19:30
  Speaker 2: what does it display about Trump's sentiment towards Netanyahu?
• 19:36
  Speaker 4: First of all, Netanyahu is probably also one of the
• 19:38
  Speaker 4: very few people in this world right now that are
• 19:39
  Speaker 4: actually seeking Trump's endorsement. I don't think he has that
• 19:42
  Speaker 4: value anywhere else. Look, Israeli coalition building procedures and politics
• 19:51
  Speaker 4: is very, very complicated and it may very well end
• 19:54
  Speaker 4: up in a scenario in which an Isaac Netanyahu government
• 19:58
  Speaker 4: could end up leading the country. The question at that
• 20:01
  Speaker 4: point will be, will Isaac agree to it or is
• 20:05
  Speaker 4: it better for him to actually move towards new elections?
• 20:09
  Speaker 4: And the factors that go into that decision are too vast,
• 20:13
  Speaker 4: and I have not enough knowledge to be able to
• 20:15
  Speaker 4: make an assessment of that. But there's a part of
• 20:19
  Speaker 4: me that finds it's very unlikely that he would really
• 20:21
  Speaker 4: want to govern together with Netanyahu at this point, because
• 20:24
  Speaker 4: I think there's a desire to really see Netanyahu's political
• 20:28
  Speaker 4: career come to an end. And as a result, if
• 20:30
  Speaker 4: he's seen as the one who's actually prolonging it, it
• 20:32
  Speaker 4: would probably be quite negative for him in his own constituency.
• 20:37
  Speaker 4: So again, I think the bottom line is that when
• 20:39
  Speaker 4: it comes to the coalition building in Israel, it's going
• 20:41
  Speaker 4: to be very, very complicated. And a lot of it's
• 20:43
  Speaker 4: going to be depending upon how well or badly Netanyahu does.
• 20:46
  Speaker 4: Because if Eisenkot can form a coalition with a bunch
• 20:49
  Speaker 4: of other parties and exclude Netanyahu from it, that clearly
• 20:53
  Speaker 4: is going to be his first option.
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: So sticking with here with the Israeli elections, we recently
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: had this interesting interview with Eisenkot on Israeli TV. Let's
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: put B2 up here and I'll read a little bit
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: of what he said. He was asked specifically about the
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: supposed Iran nuclear threat. And he says that Netanyahu, quote,
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: is a delusional person. He knows they didn't have any
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: reason to lie. He's talking specifically about Netanyahu's most recent
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: claim that Iran is once again somehow days away from
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: a nuclear weapon. This does fit a little bit with
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: what you're saying. You know, Eisenhower is a different character.
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: His English is not very good. You know, Netanyahu, obviously,
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: he's like bored in the United States. Right. Or raised
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: in the United States. I mean, he's extremely articulate in
• 21:43
  Speaker 1: English and has a deep relationship with Trump. He seems
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: to be somebody different. I'm not saying that he's better
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: necessarily for U.S. interests, but it does highlight the problem
• 21:54
  Speaker 1: that you are saying for some future Israeli leadership. But nonetheless,
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: you don't see a fundamental change in Israeli security doctrine,
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: that some attack on Iran in some form will likely
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: take shape no matter who is prime minister. Is that right?
• 22:09
  Speaker 4: I believe that the trajectory of Israel will not change
• 22:12
  Speaker 4: in a meaningful way with just one election. It will
• 22:15
  Speaker 4: take much more than that. And at the end of
• 22:17
  Speaker 4: the day, I find it absolutely fascinating what Eisenkot said here,
• 22:22
  Speaker 4: in which he even pushed back on what Netanyahu was
• 22:26
  Speaker 4: saying about Iranians getting nuclear weapons. Because at the end
• 22:29
  Speaker 4: of the day, that has been one thing that the
• 22:31
  Speaker 4: entire Israeli political establishment has not challenged. They've all played
• 22:36
  Speaker 4: that Iran card at various points in their political life.
• 22:40
  Speaker 4: And if there's one thing that has been like a
• 22:42
  Speaker 4: consensus issue on, it's been Iran inside of the Israeli
• 22:47
  Speaker 4: electorate and political establishment. So to see that challenge against
• 22:51
  Speaker 4: Netanyahu by a leading Israeli politician could be indicate a
• 22:56
  Speaker 4: very important change that may come. But that doesn't mean
• 22:58
  Speaker 4: that the Israelis are going to believe that Iran is
• 23:02
  Speaker 4: not a threat or that Iran is not a challenge
• 23:04
  Speaker 4: to them. We're still far, far away from that. But
• 23:09
  Speaker 4: the use of this never-ending excuse of saying the Iranians
• 23:15
  Speaker 4: are two weeks away from a nuclear weapon as a
• 23:17
  Speaker 4: as an excuse, as a pretext to be able to
• 23:20
  Speaker 4: push for more war, may actually start to become discounted
• 23:24
  Speaker 4: in Israel, given what we just heard here, and particularly
• 23:26
  Speaker 4: if the result of the elections means that Netanyahu's massive
• 23:31
  Speaker 4: exaggerations about this just in the last couple of days
• 23:33
  Speaker 4: ended up not working with the Israeli electorate.
• 23:37
  Speaker 3: And what's your sense of what.
• 23:42
  Speaker 4: We can make an assumption that the desires, the orientation
• 23:47
  Speaker 4: of the Israeli leaders may not be particularly different, or
• 23:49
  Speaker 4: whatever difference they are, it's not meaningful. But what is
• 23:52
  Speaker 4: meaningful is exactly what you pointed out, Sagar, which is
• 23:57
  Speaker 4: Netanyahu's ability to influence the American political system, his knowledge
• 24:02
  Speaker 4: of it, manipulated if you so wish, is really heads
• 24:06
  Speaker 4: and shoulders above any other Israeli political figure, and certainly
• 24:10
  Speaker 4: above capacity of the eisenkot so that in at the
• 24:15
  Speaker 4: end of the day is going to be an important
• 24:16
  Speaker 4: factor regardless of the trajectory of the israelis.
• 24:20
  Speaker 2: And last question for you treated related to that you
• 24:22
  Speaker 2: know um the democratic base has really turned on israel
• 24:26
  Speaker 2: just completely across the board but what a lot of
• 24:28
  Speaker 2: liberal zionist elected officials hang on to is they're now
• 24:32
  Speaker 2: happy to criticize the netanyahu government but they want to
• 24:35
  Speaker 2: put all of the problems with Israel and violations of
• 24:38
  Speaker 2: human rights and committing genocide, they want to put it
• 24:40
  Speaker 2: just on the shoulders of Netanyahu. So if you did
• 24:43
  Speaker 2: have Netanyahu out of power, what do you think it
• 24:46
  Speaker 2: would mean here in terms of the ability to sort
• 24:50
  Speaker 2: of maintain that posture from liberal Zionists in the U.S.?
• 24:53
  Speaker 2: There will.
• 24:54
  Speaker 4: Be a massive push to say that everything was Netanyahu's
• 24:58
  Speaker 4: fault and that now we need to We set our
• 25:00
  Speaker 4: relationship with the good guys in Israel, and there will
• 25:03
  Speaker 4: be massive accusations against anyone or any entities that are
• 25:06
  Speaker 4: pushing for a broader change vis-a-vis Israel to say, well,
• 25:10
  Speaker 4: this is now evidence of some form of anti-Israeli sentiment,
• 25:14
  Speaker 4: perhaps even anti-Semitism, because you're going after the country, whereas
• 25:17
  Speaker 4: in reality, the one person who bears responsibility for this
• 25:21
  Speaker 4: is Netanyahu and is no longer in government. So I
• 25:23
  Speaker 4: think it's going to lead to a major fight in
• 25:28
  Speaker 4: Washington about this. But it's a fight that is absolutely necessary.
• 25:31
  Speaker 4: It's a fight that actually, in some ways, would bring
• 25:34
  Speaker 4: forward a real debate. Is this just a Netanyahu phenomenon
• 25:38
  Speaker 4: or is it an Israel phenomenon? It's a conversation that
• 25:40
  Speaker 4: has not yet been had. And it would be started
• 25:44
  Speaker 4: at the worst possible circumstances for the standpoint of the
• 25:48
  Speaker 4: liberal Zionists that would be pushing this. Because as you
• 25:50
  Speaker 4: pointed out, Israel's standing has just completely plummeted. And if
• 25:54
  Speaker 4: you take a look at the polls, it's not Netanyahu's standing.
• 25:57
  Speaker 4: It's Israel's standing that has plummeted.
• 25:59
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: I think a lot of people will wake up after
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: the very first security incident in the West Bank, and
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: we see not very much change whatsoever. Dr. Parsi, thank you,
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: as always, for your time. We appreciate it. And we'll
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: see what happens in Israel at the elections. I think
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: 4 p.m. Eastern time is when we'll know the answer.
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. Yeah.
• 26:20
  Speaker 4: Thank you so much. Appreciate it.
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: Joining us now is our great friend Logan Phillips of RaceToTheWhiteHouse.com,
• 26:28
  Speaker 1: which everybody should go It's good to see you, Logan,
• 26:31
  Speaker 1: for our weekly check-in.
• 26:32
  Speaker 5: Hey, great to be on as always, guys. All right.
• 26:35
  Speaker 1: Let's go ahead and put this up here on the screen.
• 26:38
  Speaker 1: We have asked Logan to compile all of this data,
• 26:41
  Speaker 1: which thank you seriously for doing this. We're currently looking
• 26:45
  Speaker 1: at House district polls. On the left-hand side, we see
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: the districts themselves. We see the polling lead. And then
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: we also see where they voted in the 2024 presidential election.
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: You also, Logan, have done us this service. showing us
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: the shift toward Democrats in those districts. Why don't you
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: tell a story about this election through these 14 different
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: polls over the last couple of days and what it
• 27:11
  Speaker 1: tells us about the national environment?
• 27:14
  Speaker 5: Yeah, that's a great question. Well, the problem we've had
• 27:17
  Speaker 5: this cycle is almost all the polling that has Coming
• 27:20
  Speaker 5: from nonpartisan sources has been focused on the Senate and
• 27:22
  Speaker 5: governor races. And so we've just had an enormous amount
• 27:25
  Speaker 5: of partisan polls that we don't know if we can
• 27:27
  Speaker 5: trust or not. But this is where we finally have
• 27:29
  Speaker 5: some indication about where the voters actually might be from
• 27:34
  Speaker 5: some high quality sources. And it is a lot worse
• 27:37
  Speaker 5: than I think folks were thinking going in. Democrats are
• 27:40
  Speaker 5: just doing so well in race after race here.
• 27:45
  Speaker 2: And Logan, how do we explain the difference between the
• 27:48
  Speaker 2: fact that in the North Carolina's 11th district, you have
• 27:52
  Speaker 2: a 23 point nearly shift towards Democrats, but then all
• 27:56
  Speaker 2: the way down in PA one, we're only looking at
• 27:58
  Speaker 2: a two point shift towards Democrats. In fact, the outside
• 28:03
  Speaker 2: of Pennsylvania eight, it looks like the shift in Pennsylvania
• 28:07
  Speaker 2: is less than in some of the other places. How
• 28:10
  Speaker 2: are you thinking about the wide range of possibilities that
• 28:14
  Speaker 2: are reflected in these high quality polls?
• 28:16
  Speaker 5: Yeah, I think what we're seeing in North Carolina combined
• 28:18
  Speaker 5: with the early vote is that this state might be
• 28:20
  Speaker 5: Democrats in Michigan from 2022. All signs are kind of
• 28:24
  Speaker 5: going North Carolina. The turnout has been overwhelmingly Democrat compared
• 28:27
  Speaker 5: to four years ago and two years ago. And, you know,
• 28:31
  Speaker 5: Roy Cooper is doing a great job. And also, like,
• 28:33
  Speaker 5: I think there's a reaction to the Republican state legislator here,
• 28:35
  Speaker 5: which has moved really far to the right compared to
• 28:38
  Speaker 5: North Carolina. They've kind of acted like they're in a
• 28:40
  Speaker 5: deep red state. I think that's been turning off some voters.
• 28:43
  Speaker 5: And so, you know, between that and the gerrymander, Democratic voters,
• 28:48
  Speaker 5: candidates seem to be doing really well across the board.
• 28:51
  Speaker 5: And in NC 11, this was a race where the
• 28:54
  Speaker 5: incumbent had to drop out Chuck Edwards due to ethical issues.
• 28:59
  Speaker 5: And voters seem to be frustrated and looking for a
• 29:02
  Speaker 5: new direction. So I actually buy the polls correct, because
• 29:05
  Speaker 5: I think we've seen something like a 10 to 20%
• 29:07
  Speaker 5: more Democratic electorate in that early vote.
• 29:11
  Speaker 1: Well, let's take a look at some of these other races.
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: Can you give me a character check in, for example,
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: on like Texas 35 or Arizona two, these are places
• 29:19
  Speaker 1: where In your polling average shift, you see they voted
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: between R10 and 15 in 2024. You have a D
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: plus 17 swing in both of those. Any connective tissue?
• 29:30
  Speaker 1: Is there like a rural urban matchup or something that
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: you see that when you were looking into these things
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: that you thought maybe you could extrapolate to the national level? Yeah, well,
• 29:30
  Speaker 1: my AC2 is a little bit different, right? That is
• 29:31
  Speaker 1: a race where you have the Navajo president running.
• 29:46
  Speaker 5: Officers is a very significant native american race uh population
• 29:50
  Speaker 5: in that race uh so it might end up being
• 29:52
  Speaker 5: a little bit different than other races now this isn't
• 29:54
  Speaker 5: a race that it was always kind of like the
• 29:55
  Speaker 5: ultimate reach race um but now that the polling's showing
• 29:58
  Speaker 5: it's competitive i think we have to take it seriously
• 30:00
  Speaker 5: and then texas 35 is part of like this larger
• 30:02
  Speaker 5: picture republicans are just seriously underperforming with latino voters in
• 30:06
  Speaker 5: texas and so we will see if that ends up
• 30:08
  Speaker 5: being as bad as the polls have suggested but across
• 30:11
  Speaker 5: the board they're doing you know double digits, sometimes 20%
• 30:14
  Speaker 5: plus drop-offs with those groups of voters. And that moves
• 30:17
  Speaker 5: all of these districts that people thought were going to
• 30:20
  Speaker 5: be very Republican, even in a wave year, into being hyper-competitive.
• 30:25
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 30:25
  Speaker 2: But even if you look at all of these polls,
• 30:28
  Speaker 2: even in the best case scenario, you still see a
• 30:31
  Speaker 2: pretty significant Democratic shift. Let's go and put the next
• 30:34
  Speaker 2: graphic that you've prepared up on the screen here. This
• 30:37
  Speaker 2: is house spending in redistricted states. So of course, you
• 30:40
  Speaker 2: had this big mid-decade redistricting push, Republicans thinking this was
• 30:46
  Speaker 2: going to net them a bunch of seats in states
• 30:48
  Speaker 2: that they control, Florida, Texas being chief among them. They
• 30:52
  Speaker 2: redrew the maps, hoping that this was going to give
• 30:54
  Speaker 2: them a big buffer and maybe they would be able
• 30:58
  Speaker 2: to keep the House. And so what you're focused on
• 31:00
  Speaker 2: here is the spending in these redistricted states. So what
• 31:05
  Speaker 2: are you getting from these numbers.
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: Here, Logan?
• 31:08
  Speaker 5: Yeah, I think that this might have been I don't
• 31:10
  Speaker 5: think they expected one of the biggest wave years in
• 31:13
  Speaker 5: the last 20 plus years. And maybe they this wasn't
• 31:17
  Speaker 5: the right year to make such an aggressive move, because
• 31:20
  Speaker 5: in addition to the fact that it puts more of
• 31:22
  Speaker 5: these types of seats in play, the other danger is
• 31:24
  Speaker 5: now the incumbents don't know their voters. So they don't
• 31:26
  Speaker 5: have like this entrenched support of people who say, I
• 31:29
  Speaker 5: might not like what's happening nationally, but I trust my
• 31:33
  Speaker 5: guy or I trust my gal and I know they're
• 31:34
  Speaker 5: going to have my back. Now they're like, who is
• 31:36
  Speaker 5: this person? It makes them more aware of the fact
• 31:38
  Speaker 5: that they did gerrymandering, which I don't think decides a race,
• 31:41
  Speaker 5: but it definitely is not something helpful because it comes
• 31:43
  Speaker 5: across as pretty corrupt for understandable reasons. And it's kind
• 31:47
  Speaker 5: of interesting that you're seeing this. It's not just in
• 31:49
  Speaker 5: Texas and it's not just in Florida. You're seeing this
• 31:52
  Speaker 5: all across the board in all these states that redistricted. Now,
• 31:55
  Speaker 5: the one that really surprised me on this list is
• 31:57
  Speaker 5: Louisiana first. Now, it's very rare at this point in
• 32:00
  Speaker 5: election that I start hearing about a district with outside
• 32:03
  Speaker 5: spending or a rating change that I've literally never heard
• 32:05
  Speaker 5: of or paid even a second of attention to. That's
• 32:07
  Speaker 5: because it's Steve Scalise's district. It's an R plus 38 district.
• 32:11
  Speaker 5: I'm not thinking Democrats are going to win this. I
• 32:13
  Speaker 5: have it a soft R, but maybe Steve Scalise is
• 32:16
  Speaker 5: just feeling nervous and he's like, just in case Republican allies,
• 32:19
  Speaker 5: why don't you send an extra 5 million my way?
• 32:22
  Speaker 4: Okay.
• 32:22
  Speaker 1: So this spending dollar figure, including with your lean figure,
• 32:27
  Speaker 1: how indicative it is in the past, for example, like
• 32:31
  Speaker 1: When they spend money, it's based on something real. Or
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: in the Scalise case, as you just said, it's based
• 32:37
  Speaker 1: on his feelings and he wants to run up. You know,
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: he doesn't want to be embarrassed if he wants to
• 32:41
  Speaker 1: be some sort of a potential speaker in the future.
• 32:45
  Speaker 1: He wants to make sure he shows that he's strong.
• 32:47
  Speaker 1: But in the rest of the cases, is this a
• 32:49
  Speaker 1: sign that they're really in trouble, Logan? Like these people
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: kind of know what they're doing, at least in your experience?
• 32:55
  Speaker 5: Yeah, I think it is. I think it's a sign
• 32:56
  Speaker 5: that I mean, they could be wrong. People are wrong
• 32:58
  Speaker 5: all the time about these things. But the Republicans... I
• 33:01
  Speaker 5: seem to think it's a worse way than the Democrats do.
• 33:03
  Speaker 5: They're they're panicked. They shouldn't be spending in some of
• 33:05
  Speaker 5: these races.
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: That's wild.
• 33:08
  Speaker 2: I mean, just looking at these numbers, put it back
• 33:10
  Speaker 2: up on the screen, guys. This is spending in districts
• 33:13
  Speaker 2: that are like, OK, R plus 38. Maybe we put
• 33:16
  Speaker 2: that outside because you got the Steve Scalise situation. But
• 33:20
  Speaker 2: outside of that, R plus 10, R plus 12. R
• 33:24
  Speaker 2: plus 21, R plus 17, R plus 15. These are
• 33:28
  Speaker 2: seats that in any, not even like a normal cycle,
• 33:32
  Speaker 2: even in a cycle where you do have a backlash,
• 33:35
  Speaker 2: you wouldn't have to think about an R plus 17 district.
• 33:38
  Speaker 2: And yet clearly in Florida nine, both parties think that
• 33:42
  Speaker 2: there's a race here. Democrats dropping 3 million and Republicans
• 33:46
  Speaker 2: also dropping 1.6 million. So it's, It does just underscore, look,
• 33:51
  Speaker 2: the polls could be wrong, but both sides, certainly their
• 33:55
  Speaker 2: polling is showing them that districts are in play that
• 33:58
  Speaker 2: no one would ever have imagined could be in jeopardy.
• 34:02
  Speaker 5: Yeah, and I think one way to look at it, right,
• 34:03
  Speaker 5: is when you have like a D plus 10 wave,
• 34:06
  Speaker 5: I'd say, which maybe this would be. All of a
• 34:09
  Speaker 5: sudden you have races that are anywhere from like D
• 34:11
  Speaker 5: plus 2. or R plus two, sorry, to like R plus,
• 34:15
  Speaker 5: you know, 16, 17, 18, that could be in play
• 34:17
  Speaker 5: because individual candidates will dramatically over underperform and their unique
• 34:20
  Speaker 5: coalition shifts within that dynamic, like with Latino voters. And
• 34:24
  Speaker 5: so if you have a candidate that is not, let's
• 34:27
  Speaker 5: say they're not doing the best job, they're not the
• 34:29
  Speaker 5: best campaigner. They've never run a competitive race in their
• 34:32
  Speaker 5: life since they won their first primary. They might not
• 34:34
  Speaker 5: know how to run. They might be turning off voters
• 34:36
  Speaker 5: more than extra. And they might this might be a
• 34:38
  Speaker 5: rescue operation for someone who really wasn't meant to build
• 34:41
  Speaker 5: a play on this high level level.
• 34:43
  Speaker 1: Another thing, Logan, maybe you could dig into is the
• 34:45
  Speaker 1: demographics of these gerrymandered districts. I, for example, flagged this
• 34:50
  Speaker 1: early on in Texas. I was like, hey, you know,
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: you're playing with fire here. You're trying to go fifty
• 34:55
  Speaker 1: to forty eight, just betting fifty to forty eight in
• 34:58
  Speaker 1: terms of the Trump twenty twenty four vote. And now
• 35:02
  Speaker 1: you've got look like with the Latino population.
• 35:05
  Speaker 4: Voters.
• 35:05
  Speaker 1: I love it because they're like, oh, there are voters now,
• 35:07
  Speaker 1: even though they voted R plus 50 for Hillary Clinton like, what,
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: 10 years ago. And so all of a sudden they
• 35:14
  Speaker 1: just said, oh, they're a total lock. I mean, from
• 35:17
  Speaker 1: what we're seeing right here, it might be one of
• 35:19
  Speaker 1: the biggest backfires strategically because something that we both were
• 35:24
  Speaker 1: talking about in our last segment was not only are
• 35:28
  Speaker 1: they now about to potentially lose a gerrymandered district, they
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: have opened up the, you know, basically the ground to
• 35:34
  Speaker 1: mid mid-season redistricting in state legislators. And we haven't even tracked,
• 35:41
  Speaker 1: we haven't even prepared what could be happening at the
• 35:43
  Speaker 1: state legislator level across many of these competitive states, which
• 35:47
  Speaker 1: could significantly flip it away from them in the future.
• 35:51
  Speaker 1: Is that right, Logan?
• 35:52
  Speaker 5: Yeah.
• 35:52
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 35:52
  Speaker 5: Let's play 3D chess for a second, right? Let's take
• 35:54
  Speaker 5: a few years ahead. Democrats probably going to have a
• 35:56
  Speaker 5: big year this year, probably going to win a lot
• 35:58
  Speaker 5: of races and maybe a little less because of some
• 36:00
  Speaker 5: of these moves, but not that much less. And they've
• 36:02
  Speaker 5: mostly been in congressional races versus state legislator races that
• 36:05
  Speaker 5: they'll be able to control this type of thing. Republicans
• 36:08
  Speaker 5: on paper, like this is most likely outcome for me,
• 36:10
  Speaker 5: at least. I think Democrats will be favored in 2028,
• 36:13
  Speaker 5: which means Republicans will be favored in 2040. And they
• 36:16
  Speaker 5: could potentially have control over all these state legislators just
• 36:19
  Speaker 5: in time to do another massive gerrymander like they did
• 36:21
  Speaker 5: to Democrats in the 2010s. But if they open up
• 36:24
  Speaker 5: the can of worms here, Democrats could potentially be able
• 36:26
  Speaker 5: to limit how much they are able to take if
• 36:29
  Speaker 5: they start gerrymandering aggressively in all of these places they
• 36:32
  Speaker 5: potentially win this year. And in 28, really diluting the
• 36:35
  Speaker 5: GOP's ability to take as big of an advantage. So
• 36:38
  Speaker 5: this dynamic, I mean, look, it's bad for democracy. It's
• 36:40
  Speaker 5: bad for everyone. But it might actually end up hurting
• 36:42
  Speaker 5: specifically the GOP more. because now there's kind of a
• 36:45
  Speaker 5: clean pathway for Dems to, you know, you never know,
• 36:48
  Speaker 5: maybe they'll be in the same position. We'll say how
• 36:49
  Speaker 5: dumb they were if they do aggressive moves in 28
• 36:52
  Speaker 5: leading up to 2030, right? But on paper, there's a
• 36:56
  Speaker 5: pathway to make this a lot less bad for Dems.
• 37:00
  Speaker 2: All right, let's put the next graphic up on the screen.
• 37:02
  Speaker 2: These are districts that Democrats are moving money into. They
• 37:07
  Speaker 2: see these as new targets as they expand the playing
• 37:11
  Speaker 2: field here, so to speak. We've got Arkansas' second congressional
• 37:15
  Speaker 2: district represented by French Hill, Colorado's third, Florida 27, New
• 37:19
  Speaker 2: York 21, Nevada 2, and Tennessee 9. That's Justin Pearson
• 37:25
  Speaker 2: is the challenger there. Tennessee being another state where they
• 37:28
  Speaker 2: redistricted and, you know, tried to make it so that
• 37:31
  Speaker 2: there wouldn't be a single Democratic representative.
• 37:33
  Speaker 3: My understanding is there's now two districts.
• 37:35
  Speaker 2: In play that Democrats could theoretically have a chance to win.
• 37:39
  Speaker 3: So let's keep this up on the screen. Logan, what
• 37:41
  Speaker 3: are you seeing?
• 37:42
  Speaker 2: In these districts that are now being contested by Democrats?
• 37:47
  Speaker 5: Yeah, this is an impressive list. I mean, a lot
• 37:50
  Speaker 5: of these races were not ones that most people had
• 37:52
  Speaker 5: on their radar at all. You have Elise Stefanik's district
• 37:56
  Speaker 5: in here, which, and you have, you know, Florida 27,
• 38:00
  Speaker 5: you have two Cuban journalists that have ironically both interviewed
• 38:04
  Speaker 5: Castro in the past who are running against each other.
• 38:06
  Speaker 5: This is a race no one thought would be in play.
• 38:07
  Speaker 5: I believe she won by.
• 38:08
  Speaker 4: 20 last time.
• 38:10
  Speaker 5: And she's been warning about how competitive her district is.
• 38:13
  Speaker 5: She famously broke with Donald Trump and immigration like soft broke,
• 38:16
  Speaker 5: but managed to make it a national story.
• 38:19
  Speaker 3: You also came after her for that, right?
• 38:22
  Speaker 5: Yeah, he did. He did. And honestly, I think he
• 38:24
  Speaker 5: helped her. Normally that doesn't help Republicans, but I think
• 38:26
  Speaker 5: she baited him and he took it and she did
• 38:28
  Speaker 5: just enough to probably create a lot more separation than
• 38:31
  Speaker 5: any of the words he actually said. I mean, she
• 38:33
  Speaker 5: just said she was concerned basically, and don't take Latinos
• 38:35
  Speaker 5: for a Granted, but didn't I think she I think
• 38:38
  Speaker 5: she blamed the staff. It wasn't really like one of
• 38:39
  Speaker 5: those real condemnations, you know.
• 38:42
  Speaker 1: And so, Logan, you know, these are a lot harder
• 38:45
  Speaker 1: racist forecasts, like you said. I mean, race by race
• 38:48
  Speaker 1: polling is notoriously unreliable. Maybe we can gauge a little
• 38:53
  Speaker 1: bit statewide and demographics. What are some of the ingredients
• 38:57
  Speaker 1: where you would see all of these targets end up
• 39:01
  Speaker 1: going blue? Like what's the common theme? Is it just
• 39:03
  Speaker 1: dissatisfaction with Trump? the economy, demographic thing. Take us through it.
• 39:09
  Speaker 5: Yeah, I think there's a few things, right? I think
• 39:11
  Speaker 5: dissatisfaction of Trump is by far the biggest factor here.
• 39:14
  Speaker 5: You have some real candidate quality gaps on this map
• 39:18
  Speaker 5: in some races. But above all else, it is because
• 39:21
  Speaker 5: voters are unhappy with the way the president's governing. They're
• 39:25
  Speaker 5: upset about prices. And you're seeing it happen in like
• 39:28
  Speaker 5: this is a super focus in some of the areas
• 39:29
  Speaker 5: that have been most affected. Rural areas have been really
• 39:33
  Speaker 5: hurt economically by the price of diesel, by all of
• 39:35
  Speaker 5: these tariffs. And you're seeing districts have a lot of
• 39:39
  Speaker 5: Latino voters who are disproportionately. I mean, look, they're A
• 39:42
  Speaker 5: lot of these are first, second, third generation immigrants. They're
• 39:45
  Speaker 5: going to feel the economic impacts more than most, which
• 39:47
  Speaker 5: is why they vote more on the economy than other
• 39:49
  Speaker 5: people do. Combined with ISIS actions, you know, there's a
• 39:53
  Speaker 5: lot of room for them to lose there, too. So
• 39:55
  Speaker 5: this is sort of like a super focused map or
• 39:57
  Speaker 5: super focused list of races that is like the place
• 40:01
  Speaker 5: where Democrats have that extra room to grow a touch
• 40:04
  Speaker 5: more due to some of the most dissatisfied constituents.
• 40:10
  Speaker 2: Let's put the last graphic we prepared here up on
• 40:12
  Speaker 2: the screen. This is races that have been left behind
• 40:15
  Speaker 2: by the Republicans. So at the same time that Democrats
• 40:17
  Speaker 2: are going on the offense in more districts, you have
• 40:20
  Speaker 2: Republicans who are saying, sorry, this one is just not
• 40:23
  Speaker 2: going to happen.
• 40:24
  Speaker 3: One of them there, New York three.
• 40:26
  Speaker 2: This is Tom Suozzi's district Democratic incumbent. This was originally
• 40:30
  Speaker 2: seen as a top target because this was a district
• 40:32
  Speaker 2: that's represented by a Democrat. But Donald Trump won by
• 40:35
  Speaker 2: over four points. Another one there really noteworthy. Henry Quay
• 40:38
  Speaker 2: are viewers of this show will be pretty familiar with him.
• 40:41
  Speaker 2: As the district, Trump won by over 10 points. Cuellar
• 40:45
  Speaker 2: was pardoned by Trump, actually. A very interesting sort of
• 40:49
  Speaker 2: corrupt horseshoe going on there. But they have decided, no,
• 40:53
  Speaker 2: this one is not going to happen this time. And
• 40:55
  Speaker 2: it's rated as likely D by your outlet.
• 40:59
  Speaker 3: So what are you seeing in some of these races?
• 41:01
  Speaker 2: Because I'll tell you, when I look at this, when
• 41:04
  Speaker 2: I look at the previous graphic about the Democratic- and
• 41:08
  Speaker 2: see that they're going on the offense. When I look
• 41:10
  Speaker 2: at the places that both parties are targeting with funds,
• 41:13
  Speaker 2: it's really all over the place. And I feel like
• 41:15
  Speaker 2: any one of these locations you could tell a specific
• 41:17
  Speaker 2: story about. You could look at Texas and you could say, okay,
• 41:20
  Speaker 2: you've got this huge Latino vote and there's this backlash
• 41:22
  Speaker 2: over the economy, but also over ice. Florida, you also
• 41:25
  Speaker 2: have an immigration backlash. The heartland, you have massive backlash
• 41:28
  Speaker 2: over the tariffs and over the fertilizer prices and the
• 41:31
  Speaker 2: Iran war. But you're hard pressed to find any part
• 41:36
  Speaker 2: of the country that you can't tell some story about
• 41:39
  Speaker 2: why in particular this place has been negatively affected and
• 41:43
  Speaker 2: is upset over what Trump has done the second time around.
• 41:48
  Speaker 5: Yeah. And I also think there's some districts here that
• 41:50
  Speaker 5: like Republicans were very excited to get like Kevin Lincoln
• 41:54
  Speaker 5: to run in California 13th, mayor of Stockton, California. You
• 41:59
  Speaker 5: see Zach Nunn, who's a veteran that they viewed as
• 42:01
  Speaker 5: one of their best candidates. The fact that they're leaving
• 42:03
  Speaker 5: some of these guys behind is extremely notable. Um, and honestly,
• 42:08
  Speaker 5: I think the GOP might've been a little too ambitious early.
• 42:10
  Speaker 5: I don't think there was any chance they were going
• 42:12
  Speaker 5: to beat Swazi from the beginning. I'll be honest. Like
• 42:13
  Speaker 5: this guy's a really strong performer. He's won in tougher conditions.
• 42:16
  Speaker 5: The only chance you have of being Swazi is in
• 42:18
  Speaker 5: a red wave. Uh, so I would say this is
• 42:20
  Speaker 5: a combination of them being a little too aggressive for
• 42:23
  Speaker 5: most of the race and maybe not having a full
• 42:26
  Speaker 5: awareness of, uh, where the American people were at. and
• 42:29
  Speaker 5: that it's a midterm. And the second part of this too,
• 42:32
  Speaker 5: there's so much more money in politics than there used
• 42:34
  Speaker 5: to be. So this list is probably a reflection of that.
• 42:37
  Speaker 5: I mean, some of these races, like NC11, we've seen like,
• 42:41
  Speaker 5: I think 20 million spent there. That's like more than
• 42:43
  Speaker 5: most Senate races normally get. For one congressional district of
• 42:46
  Speaker 5: 330,000 people, it's kind of insane.
• 42:49
  Speaker 1: That is so nuts because, you know, the Thomas Massey
• 42:52
  Speaker 1: primary was like 35 million. And he, at the time
• 42:55
  Speaker 1: was like, oh, this is the most expensive house primary
• 42:58
  Speaker 1: race literally ever now you're spending tens of millions of
• 43:02
  Speaker 1: dollars to the money point let's put c4 up here
• 43:05
  Speaker 1: on the screen honestly mind-boggling figure elon has now spent
• 43:09
  Speaker 1: more than 442 million dollars in the midterms pouring another
• 43:15
  Speaker 1: 77 million into his pack over the last month america
• 43:20
  Speaker 1: pack which was launched in 2024 has now spent you
• 43:22
  Speaker 1: know 336 million on top of that 76 million And additionally,
• 43:27
  Speaker 1: a $ 276 million campaign donation to other various Republican groups
• 43:33
  Speaker 1: just in the three-month stretch between July and September alone. Logan,
• 43:37
  Speaker 1: what do we know about where Elon's spending his money?
• 43:39
  Speaker 1: Is it money well spent? Like, what are they using
• 43:42
  Speaker 1: it for and why?
• 43:45
  Speaker 5: They are dumping so much money in Texas and in
• 43:48
  Speaker 5: Ohio to the point that I think it's beyond solvency. Like,
• 43:50
  Speaker 5: You know, like when water can't take any more salt.
• 43:52
  Speaker 5: I don't really know if this is going to make
• 43:53
  Speaker 5: a difference when you spend that much. I will say, obviously,
• 43:57
  Speaker 5: you don't want that money spent on you. And it's
• 43:59
  Speaker 5: definitely been a little negative. And Texas has gotten more
• 44:02
  Speaker 5: competitive of late. But Elon's now giving them an opportunity
• 44:07
  Speaker 5: because voters for very justified reasons don't like the richest
• 44:12
  Speaker 5: man in the world or any of the richest men
• 44:14
  Speaker 5: or women in the world. Telling them how their political
• 44:17
  Speaker 5: system should work and spending everything in their power to
• 44:20
  Speaker 5: do to make that a reality. And so Tallarico has
• 44:24
  Speaker 5: been running ads where he has like 20 different types
• 44:28
  Speaker 5: of ads that Elon Musk has specifically paid for. They're
• 44:32
  Speaker 5: all going in the background behind him and saying all
• 44:34
  Speaker 5: this is coming from Elon Musk. and saying like, what
• 44:37
  Speaker 5: do you think he's getting in return for this money?
• 44:40
  Speaker 5: We're now seeing Gina Hinojosa is now the governor candidate
• 44:44
  Speaker 5: for Dems in Texas. For the state legislator has gotten
• 44:50
  Speaker 5: access to emails between Greg Abbott and Elon Musk that'll
• 44:53
  Speaker 5: be released to her. That's a potential attack point. So
• 44:57
  Speaker 5: you'd much rather not have it, but since it's there,
• 44:59
  Speaker 5: they got to use it to their advantage. And there's
• 45:00
  Speaker 5: certainly some room to play. We saw that in Wisconsin,
• 45:03
  Speaker 5: the Supreme Court race where What did Democrats win by,
• 45:05
  Speaker 5: like 2015, something like that?
• 45:06
  Speaker 1: Yeah, like an insane margin. Yes.
• 45:08
  Speaker 3: It was a blowout, yeah.
• 45:10
  Speaker 5: And they made the race about Elon, so it might
• 45:12
  Speaker 5: be a little late to really do that. They have
• 45:14
  Speaker 5: so much more to run on. But he's going to
• 45:15
  Speaker 5: keep doing this cycle after cycle. And, you know, it
• 45:19
  Speaker 5: kind of feels like George Soros on steroids. There's some
• 45:21
  Speaker 5: room to run with this.
• 45:22
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 45:23
  Speaker 2: Yeah, well, so, I mean, Republicans are just walloping Democrats
• 45:26
  Speaker 2: on the big money fundraising. And, you know, race after race,
• 45:30
  Speaker 2: Democrats are getting outspent. But one area where Democrats... are
• 45:33
  Speaker 2: really outpacing Republicans, is on the grassroots fundraising.
• 45:38
  Speaker 3: And G.
• 45:38
  Speaker 2: Eliot Morris compiled these graphics. Let's put this up on
• 45:41
  Speaker 2: the screen. We can see in some of the key
• 45:42
  Speaker 2: Senate races the differences. This is C2, or what is it, C3,
• 45:48
  Speaker 2: that we have these maps.
• 45:49
  Speaker 1: Yeah, here we go.
• 45:51
  Speaker 2: You can see in Texas, so the deeper blue, obviously,
• 45:54
  Speaker 2: the more funds are coming from that county. And he's
• 45:58
  Speaker 2: looking specifically at, like, in-state funds. grassroots donations because he
• 46:03
  Speaker 2: finds that's a good correlation to who is likely to
• 46:06
  Speaker 2: prevail in that contest.
• 46:07
  Speaker 3: You can see Kansas there. My goodness.
• 46:10
  Speaker 2: Hamilton is just crushing Marshall on the fundraising front from
• 46:14
  Speaker 2: people who live in Kansas. Let's put the next graphic
• 46:17
  Speaker 2: up on the screen. We can see Michigan.
• 46:20
  Speaker 3: Same thing.
• 46:21
  Speaker 2: Abdul doing better than Rogers in terms of the grassroots fundraising.
• 46:26
  Speaker 1: And I sorry, Ohio.
• 46:28
  Speaker 2: Same thing with Sherrod Brown really outpacing his competitor in Ohio,
• 46:35
  Speaker 2: John Husted, of the famously great ass, according to Donald Trump.
• 46:39
  Speaker 2: So apparently that isn't bringing in the money for him
• 46:42
  Speaker 2: in the small dollar donations that he may like to see.
• 46:44
  Speaker 2: So do you also find this to be a significant factor?
• 46:47
  Speaker 2: How should we think about these maps we're seeing?
• 46:49
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 46:49
  Speaker 5: Yeah, that's way more predictive than super PACs. I mean,
• 46:52
  Speaker 5: we've never seen this. I am almost certain that we've
• 46:54
  Speaker 5: never seen a party both completely crush it in money
• 46:58
  Speaker 5: from actual donors that aren't from PACs, that aren't from
• 47:01
  Speaker 5: mega billionaires donating through super PACs or even mega millionaires too.
• 47:06
  Speaker 5: And while at the same time, the other party is
• 47:10
  Speaker 5: crushing it in terms of total numbers because they're getting
• 47:13
  Speaker 5: so much outside donations from those same super PACs, right?
• 47:16
  Speaker 5: So normally, the actual donors are much more predictive. And
• 47:21
  Speaker 5: a part of that, a little bit of it is
• 47:22
  Speaker 5: because you can do a lot more with the money there.
• 47:24
  Speaker 5: Candidates get cheaper rates. But the second part of that
• 47:27
  Speaker 5: is it's a real signal of how strong of a
• 47:29
  Speaker 5: campaign you're running. It doesn't, you know, a lot of
• 47:32
  Speaker 5: these people that are getting lots of money spent on
• 47:34
  Speaker 5: their behalf doesn't mean they were doing anything right. It
• 47:35
  Speaker 5: often means they were doing something wrong, like Ken Paxton
• 47:37
  Speaker 5: in Texas, and it signaled they're in trouble. So my
• 47:41
  Speaker 5: model is looking at the fundraising, ironically, as a positive
• 47:43
  Speaker 5: for Democrats because it's such a signal of candidate quality
• 47:47
  Speaker 5: and key race after key race. This will be the
• 47:49
  Speaker 5: ultimate test of it, though, when maybe the super PAC
• 47:52
  Speaker 5: stuff is more important. We're going to find out soon.
• 47:54
  Speaker 5: But if Democrats have a great race anyway, and they
• 47:55
  Speaker 5: overperform in these places, then I think it goes to
• 47:57
  Speaker 5: show us that obviously you'd rather have that money, but
• 47:59
  Speaker 5: it doesn't mean as much as we think.
• 48:01
  Speaker 1: Last question for you, Logan. What are you seeing in
• 48:03
  Speaker 1: the early vote? Seeing anything interesting? Any trends you want
• 48:05
  Speaker 1: to highlight here on the show?
• 48:07
  Speaker 5: Yeah, this time I was ready for it. So I've
• 48:09
  Speaker 5: been doing my early vote research and it has been
• 48:12
  Speaker 5: very strong for Democrats, but it's been relatively on par
• 48:15
  Speaker 5: with the other signals that we're seeing. They have many
• 48:17
  Speaker 5: states where the turnout seems really strong. North Carolina, Georgia,
• 48:21
  Speaker 5: strong black voter turnout. Iowa looks fantastic for them, which
• 48:25
  Speaker 5: fits in line with what we're seeing. Michigan looks like
• 48:27
  Speaker 5: it's the same or a little bit worse from 2022,
• 48:30
  Speaker 5: which they did great year then. But Michigan seems to
• 48:32
  Speaker 5: be the state where they're underperforming and those races are
• 48:34
  Speaker 5: closer than they'd expect. Though I still think it'll be
• 48:36
  Speaker 5: a big enough year that they'll be able to win
• 48:38
  Speaker 5: that most likely anyway. And then, you know, it's a
• 48:41
  Speaker 5: little harder to see what's happening in some states. Texas,
• 48:43
  Speaker 5: we know turnout is amazing. It's a lot harder to
• 48:45
  Speaker 5: figure out if that's good for Dems or not. I
• 48:46
  Speaker 5: think it's partly based off persuasion. But, you know, there's
• 48:50
  Speaker 5: more money being spent than anywhere there. So it makes
• 48:54
  Speaker 5: sense that voters are engaged. They know it's a really
• 48:55
  Speaker 5: important race. And I guess that's probably lightly bad for
• 48:58
  Speaker 5: Democrats because if everyone's voting, even though I think they're
• 49:00
  Speaker 5: going to do great on persuasion, the turnout dynamic being
• 49:03
  Speaker 5: in their favor would be a better signal. I also think,
• 49:06
  Speaker 5: you know, in general, if you just had total number,
• 49:08
  Speaker 5: turnout as a whole being lower is almost good for
• 49:11
  Speaker 5: Dems if you don't know what the coalition is, because
• 49:13
  Speaker 5: we know Democratic voters are going to vote based off
• 49:15
  Speaker 5: what we've seen in primaries based off what we've seen
• 49:17
  Speaker 5: in special elections. The real question is, are the Republican
• 49:20
  Speaker 5: faithful going to vote? Maybe they're not faithful, but the
• 49:22
  Speaker 5: ones who like Trump, who go out in presidential elections,
• 49:24
  Speaker 5: who sometimes vote in midterms, but might be like, I
• 49:26
  Speaker 5: don't really see anything they're doing for me. So why
• 49:29
  Speaker 5: am I going to come out here and vote?
• 49:31
  Speaker 1: Right. Makes sense. All right. Thank you very much, Logan.
• 49:33
  Speaker 1: We appreciate your time, man.
• 49:34
  Speaker 5: Great job. Good to see you.