Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 11/4/24: Saagar Predicts Trump Win, Krystal Says Kamala Landslide, Epstein Tapes Reveal Trump Connections

Episode Date: November 4, 2024

Krystal and Saagar discuss Epstein tapes revealed, 2024 end of identity politics, Saagar predicts Trump win, Krystal predicts Kamala landslide.    To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com   Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Hey, guys. Ready or not, 2024 is here, and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election. We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that. Let's get to the show. All right, let's go and move on to this Epstein story, of which there has been notably no commentary in the Republican media, which was previously very interested in any Epstein type story. So Michael Wolff,

we'll call him a controversial journalist. I think this is part of the reason why, is because it's Michael Wolff. No, it's because it's about Trump and not about a Democrat. But who is it coming from? Anyway, Michael Wolff, who wrote Fire and Fury, released a bunch of audio recordings that he had with the late Jeffrey Epstein, specifically talking about his relationship with Donald Trump. Notably, in one, he talks about how close friends he was with Donald Trump for 10 years. And he also seems to have some inside information about the Trump White House after Trump wins in 2016,

which would also indicate, you know, he had not been excised from Trump's circle to the extent that Trump had previously claimed. Let's take a listen to that. So how do you know this? I think we have a snippet from one of the conversations that I recorded with Epstein, and I think this was in a restaurant in 2017. His people fight each other. Right.

And then have outsiders. He sort of poisons the well outside. He will tell ten people Bannon's a scumbag and Priest is not doing a good job and Kelly has a big mouth. What do you think? Jamie Dimon says that you're a problem and I shouldn't keep you.

And I spoke to Carl Icahn and Carl thinks I need't keep you. And I spoke to Carl Icahn, and Carl thinks I need a new spokesperson. So Kelly, even though I hired Kellyanne's husband, Kellyanne is just too much of a wild one. And then he tells Bannon, you know, I really want to keep you, but Kellyanne hates you. I have more than dozens.

I probably have a hundred hours of Epstein talking about the inner workings of the Trump White House and about his longstanding deep relationship with Donald Trump. We can put the tear sheet up on the screen here. This is from the Daily Beast that reported on the contents of this audio. They say they did an audio analysis and matched Epstein's voice to previous depositions that he had given. In addition to the comments we played, he also claimed lots of intimate knowledge of Trump's sexual preferences, including liking to cuck other married men, claimed that he had sex with Melania for the first time on the Lolita Express. Make of it whatever you will. I'll just say that,

you know, if this was about any Democrat, if it was about Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, whoever, you would endlessly hear about it from Republicans. And, you know, Jeffrey Epstein, the king of like global elite pedophilia, having a close relationship with Donald Trump, which again, some of this is already in the public and they just completely ignore it. You know, it says a lot about their consistency and their principle when it comes to this and literally anything else. I guess. Yeah. I mean, yeah, obviously. I don't know. It's just one of those like, oh, you're telling me that people who are obsessed with pedophilia on the internet are weird, partisan, and don't have consistent standards. Yeah, I mean, I don't know what else to say. Definitely true. In terms of the Fire and Fury author, Michael Wolff, the

weird thing about Michael Wolff is he had these tapes for like years. Yeah. Because I remember, I think I did a whole monologue about it back in 2020, if I recall. Also, Wolf, I mean, if he didn't have the audio, I straight up just wouldn't believe it. Basically, if it's not on tape, I don't believe it. Because Wolf made up so much stuff, particularly in his second book, the one that came out after Fire and Fury, which he was paid like millions of dollars for. So, you know, to a certain extent, unless you literally have it basically on tape, I don't believe it. In terms of whether Epstein's telling the truth, I mean, you know, in terms of like, he lied a lot about a lot of different people. This isn't running for cover for Trump. This is

basically for all the people who are around him. And most of the people who had connections with him are definitely sketchy. In terms of Trump's own comments, the one you can nail him dead to rights, was that comment he made in like 1992, where he's like, Jeffrey, he likes him young, where you're like, well, what knowledge exactly did we have here? In terms of the other parts. And we know he was on the plane a bunch of times. Yeah, he was on the plane. I mean, I'm not running cover here for Donald Trump or whatever.

If you want to call out the pedophilia people online, sure. But they have a whole worldview. It's not just the pedophilia people. This has been a big narrative on the right for years. And it's just very convenient that when you have Jeffrey Epstein on tape being like, This has been a big narrative on the right for years. And it's just very convenient that when you have Jeffrey Epstein on tape being like, yeah, he was my bestie. And, you know, plenty of documentary evidence that suggests that that was in fact the case. Nothing.

Total silence. Well, they can QAnon themselves into, I mean, I remember during Q times there was a, man, this is a throwback. But there was this whole theory about how he was actually in with them so he could get inside knowledge to imprison them all. So, you know, Chris Lee just hasn't been exposed enough to the conspiratorial mind. I guess not. How they can justify. It's also funny, too. Whenever Trump gets asked about Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell or whatever, gets very, remember when he got asked about Ghislaine Maxwell and he was like, I wish her well. He got asked again recently, I think during this campaign about, will you release, you know, the JFK files and the UFO files and the Epstein files and basically the JFK and

the UFO ones. He was like, yeah, no problem. He was like, Epstein, I don't know. I don't want, you know, personal people and their reputations. Like he was very hedging around the release of the Epstein files, which again would be, you know, used as an indictment if it was against any Democrat that's out there. But, you know, for Republicans who are just interested in the story, if it happens to go against their own political adversaries, not a word. They're busy running with the like, you know, the diddy list now with regards to Democrats. So they've shifted their attention, also ignoring plenty of photos out there too that Donald Trump pictured with. One of my great life regrets is I sat next to Alex Acosta on a plane and I did not accost him

about the Epstein study. It was late. We were coming from Miami. It was like a midnight flight. Remind people who Acosta is. He was the Secretary of Labor under Donald Trump. He was the prosecutor who gave Epstein the sweetheart deal that cut him loose in Florida and allowed him to go to the Palm Beach County Jail and continue to victimize people. But I still am angry at myself for not having the courage to cause a scene on the plane and stick a camera in his face and be like, why did you do it, Mr. Acosta? And I was the only person who obviously even knew who he was, the funny thing,

but there you go. Our identity politics over. It's a big question being asked by the New York Times. Thought we would talk about it. I know it's something our audience cares a lot about. Let's put it up there on the screen. From Jeremy Peters, in a shift from 2020, quote, identity politics loses its grip on the country. He says the last time Kamala Harris ran for president, people were losing jobs or friends because of something they said or posted online came off as insensitive. Not sure much has changed there. He goes, but a new unfamiliar new language around identity was catching on. Terms like Latinx and BIPOC. The homeless were now unhoused.

There were pregnant people, not women. Back then, the progressive movement tried to establish itself as a bulwark to the Trump White House on considerations of race, gender, and sexual orientation. But now, what he notes is that there has been a reversion to the mean amongst the Harris campaign, amongst a lot of people like Ruben Gallego, who has mounted his own personal crusade against Latinx. Which is funny because the data backs him up 100% on why there's been such a big shift with that. And then in general, what was clearly an electoral backlash in 2020 against BLM and anti-racism style rhetoric. Now, I guess the big question inside of this thing is we were just talking before, it's kind of confused in the way that it tries to shoehorn

its conclusions. But in general, if you put the stuff he's putting out at Hollywood and all that shit aside, he's not wrong about a basic fact. Racial depolarization has been the story of the 2020s, as in people are not voting more along with their other racial groups as they had before. They are much more likely to vote along educational lines, which break down amongst culture. Now, that's not always the case, specifically in the black community.

There's still very lot of black people who still vote for the Democratic Party, but it's a lot less than ever before. Latinos, big splits that have happened there. But the big splits, I think, if it's 2030 and someone would be like, what are the biggest changes that happened? I'd be like, education and gender gap.

Those are like the two things which have nothing to do with race. And, I mean, I think that's a nice story. It's a little confused, though, because to say identity politics is over, it's like there's actually a lot of gender politics that are happening, which is a form of identity politics, which is a problem. So, anyways, it was an interesting theory I thought we would discuss. Yeah, there's something there, but also, I mean, okay, a few things to say about it.

First of all, Matt Karp tweeted this morning that the New York Times put the obit for progressive identity politics on A1 while literally the article next door he describes as committing top-tier racecraft, which says the headline for that one is white women ask their own to back Harris. That is true. Identity politics is not totally dead. Racecraft, which says the headline for that one is white women ask their own to back Harris.

That is true. Identity politics is not totally dead. Identity politics for whites has actually come back on the left side. I think I credit the common white dudes for white, straight white. Look at Harry Sisson's entire Twitter feed. The dude is like straight white guys for Harris. I'm like, okay. I mean, you know, I don't, I don't love this language, but okay. One of the things that I always get irritated with in these types of analyses is I think it misplaces where the identity politics moment, like I'm talking about the like very hollow representation only identity politics came from. And it really did come from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Back in 2016, you had Bernie Sanders running this very class-first type of campaign that was about universal values, universal programs. And Hillary Clinton came out and framed him as a racist because he wasn't using this type of language and catering specifically to slicing and dicing every different demographic group. In 2020, he actually embraced some of that terminology to try to rebut this allegation from Hillary Clinton and her acolytes and the, you

know, mainstream of the Democratic Party that he was racist and sexist because he didn't talk about Latinx or, you know, BIPOC or use whatever, you know, stupid academic language is completely off-putting to literally every normal voter out there, that he talked in this class-first, universalist type of language. So first of all, I just want to point out that that's where this moment specifically came from. And second of all, I guess I would say that I do think there's something to the fact that the sort of peak of the cancel culture, PC, word policing, all that bullshit. I think the peak of that has subsided, but it has also in some ways just been relocated. Like now there's an attempt on the right and among Zionist Democrats to do just as extensive, if not more aggressive

cancellation, shaming, word policing around anyone who would oppose, you know, Israel's genocidal assault on Palestine. So it's sort of just shifted this location in terms of where the cancellation, where all of the like word policing is located. And there's been a huge uptick in terms of policing around Zionism in particular. Yeah, I mean, look, they like— Trotting out college students to talk about their microaggressions and how they feel unsafe, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It is very interesting to track the rise of people who rose up literally preaching against identity politics, the way they use them. And there definitely is a Zionist exception, I think, to all of that.

I mean, look, it tracks an air interesting theory. And actually, white women for Harris is the apotheosis of this. There's a whole theory called the Great Awokening, which is that there was a divergent shift on racial attitudes starting in 2014. We had a nice little debate about it, about Ta-Nehisi Coates, who I still blame for his essay is igniting a lot of that. That was igniting right around the same time as Michael Brown, Trayvon, Trayvon Martin actually was the original. That was like the first time that Michael Brown, Trayvon, Trayvon Martin actually was the original. That was like the first time that this became like a big thing. Ferguson poured gasoline on the fire. White women in particular shifted attitudes on race dramatically

divergent from the left, diverging on the left, even more so away from black voters. And that is exactly the time of the 2014, I think 2014, late 2014 is when Hillary announces, and that's where it crests in 2016 for her campaign. Then Trump wins the presidency and it goes wild. This is where you get the ACLU abandoning all their foreign principles. They raise a billion dollars. Then everything comes ahead at BLM. It gets tested electorally know, electorally. Some of it has died down. The whole DEI machine and all that has definitely been dealt a significant number of blows.

And a lot of Democrats have moved past it. But institutionally, I still think it is there. And the whole, like, white women for Harris or even this whole, like, who gets most offended over what, which Jeremy Peters tries to get at in his article. I wouldn't say we're anywhere near away from it yet. And the fights have also changed. Now it's a lot about race. Gender is the big one, like I said, right now. There's been a lot of bro identity politics.

Sure. Why not? Why shouldn't we have identity politics? To be honest with you, I actually think the Trump campaign has been more identity politics than Kamala Harris has because she is very sensitive. First of all, Democrats learned that like just talking in language about specific racial grievances, well, not to diminish those, you know, those racial issues like that was not the key to unlocking massive performance among black voters or massive performance among brown voters. So just from like a cynical political calculation, they realized like, okay, this really isn't it.

And number two, I think she's very sensitive to the failures of the Hillary Clinton campaign and the fact that she leaned so much into her personal trailblazing identity that Kamala has really tried to distance herself from that approach and has also really tried to, you know, consistently put out there at the message, sometimes undercut by some of her most prominent surrogates, that she is not taking any voter for granted that approach and has also really tried to, you know, consistently put out there the message, sometimes undercut by some of her most prominent surrogates, that she is not taking any voter for granted regardless of their demographics. So I actually think, like I said, that Trump has

leaned more into the identity politics. We were joking about how some staffer is going through like the list of every like different racial and ethnic group in America and putting out specific messages to them. Having the, you know, the Muslim American endorsers on stage with them and their like religious garb. He put out a statement for Indians. He was like, he's like Indian American Hindus. We will stop the violence against Hindus in Bangladesh. I was like, wow, man, this guy's going deep in terms of what the Hindu community, not even the Hindu community.

I'm talking about like Hindus in India, what they're all jazzed up. But yeah, the vibe to me of that is like what Democrats were doing in 2016. Yeah, I mean, maybe it'll work, right? Look, it's one of those where I don't like this type of stuff. I don't even think it matters that much, to be honest with you.

I think almost all of it is just comes down to education. Education, specifically attitudes around race, gender, and sex are all baked in as to whether you have a four-year college degree or not. I'm talking about on average. That means and manifests very differently in terms of racial politics for because the vast majority of working class voters are going to have a lot more people of color, quote unquote, in that and are going to have very different attitudes on this. And there's women in different

ecosystems. Washington stuff, their media, their jokes, where they go to eat, everything. Go on vacation. Your whole life is totally different. How much money you make. And so that determines almost all of how it plays out for the election. But yeah, if anything, I think that there has been a new identity politics. You're not wrong about Zionism. I think the gender politics of it, of all, especially if the podcast thing plays out, or even if it doesn't, if let's say that the Iowa Seltzer poll is correct and you have this crazy split of women and men, it's like, okay, we're not talking to each other, right? Like there's been a full on different ecosystem about how we all understand what's really going on here. And I would love to see Poland. Who do you listen to? What are you listening to all day? What's your

media diet? What type of news are you reading? What exactly has caused this massive divergence from you and your husband? How's that working out in terms like, what's he doing? You know, how is he not picking up on this for what's happening inside of his house? Or, you know, it's like, what is going on for what that split would look like? And then same with the podcast bro stuff. I mean, a lot of that, I've talked about this in terms of the whole like forgotten male theory. A lot of this also stems from the 2014 Great Awakening and the whole like gender pay gap freak out, which is totally reversed, by the way, since 2014. And that has also left a lot of men very angry online. And that itself would also play out for identity politics if they do come through for Trump and vote for him in a big way, which I hope would cause actually media to say the same thing of like, oh, my God, what's going on here? Are all our priors wrong?

Regardless of what happens, that is going to have to cause some reassessment. Yeah. All right. Well, with all of that being said, Sagar. Okay. Let's see your map. What do you got, my friend? All right, everybody. It is my time for the prediction of the electoral map. I want to start very at the top and just say this. I have much less confidence in this one than I did the last one, the last one where I correctly called every state in the electoral college. So with the caveats out there, let's put it up there on the screen. So this is going to be a little bit of a contrarian map, and I'm going to walk you through all of my thinking. So in terms of the swing states, and let's keep it up there so I can just read from it, I've got at the top line,

Donald Trump winning the election with 271 electoral votes. Literally, he just won over what he needs to win. 267 there for Kamala Harris. In terms of the swings, I've got Wisconsin and Michigan going blue for Kamala. I've got Pennsylvania going red. I've got North Carolina going blue. And then I've got Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada all going red, which gives them exactly 271 electoral votes. So let's get to some of my thinking and why. First, the Iowa Seltzer poll had a big impact on my thinking, but not necessarily in a Kamala landslide way. It made me check my assumptions in terms of the

blue wall. Can we put the next tear sheet up, please, on the screen? Here's a key line from Nate Silver and how you should think about the Iowa poll for the rest of the states. Quote, Iowa is far redder than the other blue wall states. In our 40,000 simulations and cases where Harris won Iowa, her average margin of victory or defeat in Wisconsin was 6.7, in Michigan was 5.9, and in Pennsylvania it was 3.8. If the Stelzer poll is right, she'd be heavily favored in all of them, in other words. But Pennsylvania is the least safe of the trio in part because about two-thirds of its population is what we consider the Northeast, not the Midwest like Iowa.

So the reason why I used the Seltzer Poll to push those two states of Michigan and Wisconsin blue was because the Seltzer Poll showed what I think will show somewhat movement towards Kamala Harris amongst that critical senior women demographic and amongst women who are worried about abortion. But because Pennsylvania is so distinct in its population, it's got more people of color and other places in the Northeastern population that have different concerns and are culturally pretty distinct from those other two states. I thought that was enough considering where things lie right now. Let's go to the next element, please. And this will explain a little bit more. The other thing is that in Nate Cohn in the New York

Times-Siena poll analysis, they talked specifically about non-response polling bias, as in Democratic response rates ticked up in their survey. White Democratic responses outpaced Republicans by some 15%. That was more than 2020. So what that means is that the response rate amongst Democrats, and this was a whole theory in 2020 as to why the polls were wrong for the Democrats in their direction, was because of polling response bias and there was overperformance amongst Dems. So if Nate Cohn is flagging that in a poll of Pennsylvania, which they have tied, again, tied, that they have a non-response bias there for Democrats, I think that underestimates Donald Trump's strength, and that means he could win that state.

Now, we'll continue in the map. Let's put the next one, please, up on the screen. That shows you exactly what I was talking about, where they have, if you factor in non-response bias, you have basically Harris and Trump tied in Pennsylvania and in Michigan. I'm giving Harris Michigan just because of that Iowa poll, but in Pennsylvania and in Michigan. I'm giving Harris, Michigan just because of that Iowa poll. But in Pennsylvania, I think with a distinct enough population, Trump can pull it out either thin or frankly, he could even win a little bit bigger than the rest. And if we continue down, let's go to the next element, please. What we'll find is Arizona has had a pretty significant

response in terms of early ballot returns for Republicans, significantly more than they had last time around. From everything I've seen, both in terms of the polling and in terms of the early vote, there has been enough of a Republican surge that I feel pretty confident calling Arizona for Donald Trump. Another reason is that there was recently a migration analysis that showed that a lot of the inflow that's coming into Arizona are Republican Californians who are fed up with governance from there. And the state has become a little bit more red from last time around. If I'm wrong here, the main reason will be because of the Arizona abortion ballot referendum. And that will be one that was just simply not caught at all. So let me get that

caveat for right there. Let's move to the next one, please. This also shows another some of my calls is that Trump is r racket with his rally is going every single day in North Carolina. Now, the reason why that I'm paying attention to this and where the candidates are spending their time is that spending all this time in North Carolina, a state that you won twice is not good. And it tells us that that's time that you should be spending theoretically in the blue wall, that they are seeing internally that they have a problem. I think that problem is called Mark Robinson, and he is a major reason

why I think Kamala is going to win. Let's go to the next one. Next slide, please, for the Real Clear Politics. If you take a look at this, even New York Times-Siena, all the quote-unquote garbage Republican polls, every single poll out of the state of North Carolina in their gubernatorial race has Mark Robinson down by a minimum of nine. The average, the spread, is Mark Robinson down by 14.3 points. Some of them have Mark Robinson losing by 20 points. So the reason that I think Kamala's going to win in North Carolina is I just simply don't believe in an electorate that has some between 19 to 10 point split ticket swing that is going to vote for the gubernatorial candidate as a Democrat and then split their ticket for Donald Trump. I think Trump had a good chance of winning North Carolina. And I think Mark Robinson

absolutely sunk it for him. The amount of time that he's spending there in the state, I think that's what it is. Let's go to the next part. And I could continue here. This is from John Ralston from his early voting blog. This one I'm a little bit less confident about, I'll be honest, but there has been significant overperformance for Republicans in Clark County, I'm sorry, in Nevada. Unless there's a major movement in Clark County in Nevada, which does not see huge Democratic performance on election day tomorrow specifically, John Ralston and other watchers of Nevada are pretty confident that there's a major GOP upset happening there. The only way that I'm wrong here

is again because of abortion and also because of the independent vote specifically, which is categorized as other, disproportionately skews younger. And if that all goes disproportionately Democrat, then the Republicans are gonna have a problem. But right now they're up by, I think it's like 40,000 votes or so in terms of the last

time that I looked at it. And people in Nevada, Republicans and others, pretty confident that they're going to win that state. It would make sense, too, in terms of the Latino realignment and others. So that's, do I have any other elements? Let's see here. One more. Let's put that last one up there on the show. I'm freestyling. This is Georgia. That's right. I forgot. So this is from my friend, uh, Ed Asante. He says, quote, I honestly don't see how you can get to Harris plus two in Georgia based on the early vote. It feels mathematically impossible.

Currently at 55% turnout of registered voters. It was 66% turnout in 2020 and it was 60% turnout in 2016. So because you have lower turnout and you've seen blowout turnout for the rural counties for Donald Trump, you have Republicans there that are pretty confident. Biden only won it by some 10,000 votes or so last time around, which was a major upset. Even with the demographic turn, you see major Republican enthusiasm. You don't have the same beef that they had last time with Brian Kemp. Kemp is out there stumping for Donald Trump. They seem relatively confident of victory. And the math looks like it could be correct. The only way, again, I'm wrong here is if you see major white female overperformance, just like you said in

Iowa, abortion-style upset, and if you see black turnout that skyrockets on Election Day. So I have lower confidence in this map, but in this scenario, Donald Trump wins. It'll be narrow, 271, 267, but that's what I've got, Crystal. Very interesting. And if you want to hear my reaction to Sager's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com. Well, that's probably a good- Crystal, what do you got? Good place to queue up mine. Let's go ahead and put my map up on the screen. Mine is a little simpler to explain because I do have the Kamala landslide scenario. And by landslide, I mean that she wins some level of victory in all seven of the swing states. I'm not giving her Iowa. I know Ann Seltzer says, but potentially that is in play because I'm just not that bold. But my meta narrative, you know, my theory of the world that would lead to this map is

effectively that the combination of January 6th and, in particular, the overturning of Roe v. Wade has represented a political earthquake in American politics, that pollsters have consistently failed to capture this newly shifted electorate and have openly rigged their results—I mean, they admit to this, to effectively closely match the outcome of 2020, just out of terror that they will once again underestimate Donald Trump. And in doing so, they have fundamentally missed a significant shift among women. On top of that, Kamala Harris is a fairly ideal candidate to champion this new pro-choice, anti-chaos majority. She has built her campaign around appealing to this heavily female coalition.

And Donald Trump, on the other side, has leaned into some of his most toxic traits here down the home stretch and is in some ways an ideal foil to motivate this coalition, especially since he is the individual who is responsible for putting the justices on the court to overturn Roe versus Wade. Okay, so now let me give you the data that backs up, you know, this theory of the world that would result in this map where every battleground state ultimately goes to Kamala Harris. I could put this first up on the screen. So this is all under the category of pollsters are missing the post-Roe electorate. So even before the Seltzer poll, you had, when Biden was still the top of the ticket, Democrats in almost every instance outperforming their polls during special elections. So not only that, you also had, if we can put the next one up on the screen,

polls consistently overestimating Trump, actually, after Roe versus Wade and after January 6th. So when he was running in the Republican primary, surveys overestimated Trump's actual vote share in eight of the 10 states where there was enough polling for 538 to produce an average. What's more, if we put the next one up on the screen, Nikki Haley, his most significant adversary, even after she dropped out of the race, she continued to rack up significant vote totals, and in particular, in some of those key suburban counties. So this is from a Politico article. They write, in late April, staffers at Joe Biden's headquarters fixated on votes for Nikki Haley rolling in during the Pennsylvania primary as she pulled 20 to 25 percent support in the largely upscale suburban collar counties around Philadelphia. Most remarkable, Haley had

dropped out more than six weeks earlier. And this was not the only time when this occurred. She continued to perform and rack up significant vote totals in states like Florida. I think she got 17% of the vote, even though she'd been out of the race for some significant amount of time. And again, those votes came largely from women in suburban counties. In addition, Trump has done basically nothing to reach out to those voters who were at least disaffected with him enough to give their vote to his primary opponent, even after she had exited the race. Now, Nikki Haley herself has endorsed Trump, but he hasn't used her on the campaign trail. He has done very little to attempt to

reach out to disaff know, disaffected suburban women who may have been part of his coalition and may have voted for him in the past, leaving them open to what has been, you know, an overwhelming effort. This has been a key focus from the Kamala Harris campaign to try to persuade some percentage of those voters and try to pull them into the Kamala Harris coalition. The next piece of evidence here that the pollsters are missing a new post-Roe electorate is the Ann Seltzer poll. I mean, this has to be the most key piece of data she finds in a shocking upset. Kamala Harris beating Trump among likely Iowa voters 47 to 44. If you dig into these numbers, put the next one up on the

screen, she finds independent women going to Kamala Harris by 28 points. She finds senior women going to Kamala Harris by 35 points. Now, on the one hand, you can say Seltzer may be missing a lot of what's going on. Clearly, this is a very different portrait than you're seeing from effectively any other pollster, although I'll tell you some other ones that somewhat line up with her in the same region. Unlike other pollsters, she does a lot less waiting, meaning she does a lot less going in and applying her own judgment about, I think the electorate's going to be this, I think the electorate is going to be that. Instead, she calls up registered voters and talks to them and asks them how likely they are to vote and, of course, who they're going to vote for. And so there's a lot less of her own judgment and her own terror over overestimating or underestimating this candidate or that candidate. It's more directly what the voters say. Now, that comes with huge risks because in the past, of course, there has been a non-response bias in terms of Trump supporters. And that could be

playing into the results that she is seeing here if they end up being wildly off. But my bet, based on the fact that Ann Selzer has a better track record than basically literally any other pollster in the state of Iowa or anywhere else, my bet is that she is directionally correct, that she is picking up on this post-Roe shift that other pollsters, out of terror and out of the fact that they are basically pegging their results to match the 2020 election because they don't want to be on over their skis and they don't want to get it too wrong, have completely missed. I mean, for me, logically, it makes sense that if you are just trying to peg the results to 2020, you are going

to be missing something because the world is so different from how it was in 2020. As I mentioned before, we had January 6th. We're out of COVID. We had Roe being overturned. We had some of the population, significant population shifts that Sagara talked about across the country. And so if you are just trying to clued your result to match the way things were back in 2020, it is undeniable to me that you are going to be missing some significant shifts. And to me, Ann Selzer gives a window into what some of those shifts may have been. This is backed up by some other data. We could put the next piece up on the screen here from Politico. You know, the issue she finds with seniors, sorry, we should have a Politico tear sheet, but the issue she finds with seniors also appears to be showing up in other early

voting data where Republicans are really worried that seniors are not turning up for them. And if we leave this one up on the screen, we also find that there are some other polls that look a little bit like what the Ann Seltzer poll looks like. So a Kansas pollster that has a good reputation just last week found Trump up only by five in the state of Kansas. Now, that would be an earthquake. Only five in the state of Kansas. We've seen multiple polls of that Nebraska second

congressional district, which is a swing district, meaning it should be close, that has found Kamala Harris with a double digit lead. That would represent a significant improvement over Biden's performance there. I believe Biden won that congressional district by somewhere around five points. We also saw a poll of Ohio that had Trump up by only three points. Again, that would be a significant shift away from Trump vis-a-vis 2020. So this person opines, and I think this is true, taken together, Iowa looks like less of an outlier and more like something real is happening here. So when you piece it together with all these polls and the Seltzer poll, which has so much credibility and such a track record behind it, I have to feel like the pollsters are missing something that is truly happening

with women here. In addition, we've seen a number of polls. I'll just highlight the New York Times one here. Guys, put this up on the screen. So the New York Times Siena poll, for example, found that Kamala Harris was winning these late-breaking voters by a margin of 58 to 42. That's not the only poll that has found similar results where those who are deciding late in the game are going for Kamala Harris. It's kind of the reverse of what we found in 2016 when after Comey and all of that happened, the late-breakers significantly broke for Donald Trump and end up handing him victory. We also found that early voters have been going for Kamala. And this is noteworthy as well. Let's go ahead and put this up on the screen in terms of the numbers with early voters. So,

recent national ABC News episodes, New York Times New York Times, Siena College, and CNN polls show Harris with an advantage of 19 to 29 points among voters who say they've already cast ballots. Those margins range from a 59 to 40 edge in the Times-Siena poll to a 62 to 33 edge in the ABC Ipsos one. This cuts against the grain of some of the early vote analysis that you've seen on the Republican side, where they look at the partisan breakdown and they say, OK, well, Republicans are holding up pretty well in the early vote. And in some places, even have a lead in the early vote. the Republican electorate where some of those Republicans who are turning up are actually voting for Kamala Harris, but more significantly, that they are winning a significant number of the independent votes who are not registered with any particular political party. This in particular is important in the state of Nevada, where Republicans have felt the best about their early vote,

and understandably so. You've got John Ralston out there crunching the numbers saying, hey, Republicans are doing something really different here. But if you look at this Time Siena polling, they find, okay, yeah, among those people in Nevada who have already voted, yes, the Republicans have a two-point edge by party registration. However, they still found, even among that two-points, you know, edge Republican party registration electorate, they still found Kamala Harris up by five points because she has a wide lead among unaffiliated voters who cast early ballots. So the New York Times-Siena backing up here some of the analysis of what could be going on underneath the surface of even in that Nevada early vote,

which, as I said before, is the area where Republicans have had the best numbers and have felt the best about their early vote game. Finally, and this may end up being one of the key things that we look back on as we, if my map comes to fruition, this may be one of the key early indicators that we look at in addition to the Seltzer poll. But this up on the screen, there's a massive gender gap in terms of the early vote. You've got 17.2 million people who voted early in the seven swing states. You have 1.6 million more women who have voted than men. The gender turnout gap is plus 13 for women in Pennsylvania, plus 12 in

Georgia, plus 11 in North Carolina, plus 10 in Michigan, plus 8 in Wisconsin, plus 5 in Arizona. And the best result for Republicans is in Nevada, where it is only plus 1. The whole Republican theory of the case is that the bros are going to turn out. They have really bet the farm on the group of voters that, frankly, are the least likely to turn out, which is young men. And these early vote numbers with this large of a gender gap indicate that it is not the men that are turning out for this election that are excited to vote in this election. It is women. And, you know, the one thing that has really been consistent throughout this election, no matter what poll you look at, is the massive gender gap with women disproportionately going to Kamala Harris and men disproportionately going to Donald Trump. So when you look at which gender is showing up at this point, I think that has to be a positive indicator for Kamala Harris.

And so, you know, obviously, if I'm right, Sagar, very clear what happened here. Pollsters missed the post-Royal electorate. If I'm wrong, I also think the reason is pretty simple, which is just Biden's really unpopular. The economy is, people aren't happy with the economy. Right track, wrong track is a disaster. Kamala Harris, you know, really obsessed over winning these Nikki Haley voters who potentially were, you know, a fantasy and, you know, didn't show up, didn't end up moving towards her whatsoever. They were locked in for Donald Trump. They're just partisans at this point. And that's that. And, you know, I think that is also a very possible scenario. And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com.

All right. So tomorrow we're going to have a morning show, guys. We're going to have a morning show. It's going to drop for everybody in the morning. And then we will also be live 6.30 p.m. Eastern time here on the channel. All four of us will be here at the desk. We've got Logan. We've got the software. And we will start making calls.

We'll have live calls and all that. We'll have maps, graphics, et cetera. Everything is totally ready to go. And we will be with you all week as long as we need to until this damn thing is over. So there you go. Buckle up. It's going to be into one way or another. Whatever happens. Absolutely. Going to be very interesting. Can't wait. Can't wait to cover it. I love it. I love learning little things. There's always

surprises. The Latino surprise is one of my favorite moments from 2020. Just because I love the fact that you cannot take anything for granted in this country. Iowa, blue state, red state, now possibly up for grabs. Florida, in my lifetime, went from swing state to red state. Ohio went from blue to red. I mean, there's been so many of these where people are, you know, you can't take people for granted. They shift all the time. The people move, different state. North Carolina's up for grabs today. You told me that 10 years ago. What the hell are you talking about? You know, it's like in this country, people change their mind all the time. And I think it's a great, great thing. So we can all witness that in real time together.

And we'll see you all tomorrow. This is an iHeart Podcast.