Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 7/29/26: Americans Demand Bibi Arrest, West Bank Violence, Elon AI Extinction, Data Center Revolt & MORE!

Episode Date: July 29, 2026

Krystal and Emily discuss Americans demand Netanyahu arrest, West Bank violence escalates, Elon laughs off AI wiping out humanity, data center revolt fuels socialist rise.   Jasper Nathaniel: https://www.infinitejaz.com/Alex Holder: https://x.com/alexjholder?lang=en 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 I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Hey, Portlandia fans. Carrie Brownstein and Fred Armisen here. The Dream of the 90s is alive in podcast form. We're launching Podlandia, AEO, rewatch, our brand new podcast where we revisit every episode of Portlandia together, breaking down sketches, going deep on our iconic characters,

and pulling back the curtain on how it all got made. And we'll also be joined by the people who helped bring it all to life. Guest stars, collaborators, and friends, including director Jonathan Chrysler, the mayor, himself Kyle McLaughlin, legendary musician Amy Mann, and many more. Kyle is going for it here. You fully improvised, not just words, but a song. Well, I thought you were all going to write a song.

I remember you thinking that. Listen to Podlandia. A.O. Rewatch on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. What's up, fam? I'm sports journalist Ari Chambers. Hey, what's up, y'all? It's your girl, Sam J. And we're the host of Everyone Watches Women's Sports, a new podcast from Together and I Heart women's sports. We're breaking down the biggest headlines. Naomi Osaka, showing out. Shout-houts to you, Naomi. The viral moments. I've been obsessed with Kashan Rock's

boxing journey. She looks good. Her combos are swift. And the stories everyone's talking about across women's sports. Because everyone watches women's sports. Listen to everyone watches women's sports on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. I'm Jake Brennan. And on the Disgraceland podcast, I explore the wild lives of rock stars and unbelievable true crime stories from music history. These are the stories you haven't heard, the kind you'll end up telling someone else. Like the time Paul McCartney spent in a notorious prison

or the bizarre crime Lady Gaga is accused of where that time Blondie's Debbie Harry escaped Ted Bunny. Listen to Discraseland on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly, massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that

simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to breakingpoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at breakingpoints.com. We're joined now by Jasper Nathaniel of the Infinite Jazz Substack, recently back from the West Bank. Jasper, thank you for joining us. Thanks for having me back. Of course.

We want to start with some audio here of Donald Trump criticizing Benjamin Netanyahu, who is in Washington, D.C. for, I believe, his eighth visit over the course of the most recent Trump presidency. And here's Donald Trump criticizing actually Netanyahu before their meeting yesterday over their disagreements in the Iran war through the clip. You say that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. There are reports now that Netanyahu is going to talk to you about ongoing excavation at Pickax Mountain, construction vehicles entering and exiting tunnels, paving new access roads. Satellite imagery and intel indicates that Iran is actively constructing and fortifying Pickax Mountain. How will we respond? Well, I don't need Beebe to tell me that. Beebe is telling me that because he wants me to stay involved.

I mean, I don't necessarily. We have the finest because of the space force. We have the greatest cameras in the world focused on. We know exactly what's going on. But no, I heard Bibi announce that. I said, why did you just tell it to me? Why do you have to announce it to the world? I know exactly what's going on at Pickax.

It's not a big problem. We took out their nuclear sites, and we'll have to take out pickax if we don't make a deal. We don't make a deal. We'll take it out very easily. So that's obviously Trump on Fox and Friends. after their meeting later in the day. Netanyahu, we can put the next element up on the screen, said, I have just finished an excellent meeting with President Trump. When I say excellent, it's not just lip service, a conversation with full partnership, with mutual support, with an understanding of the common goal of ensuring that Iran will not have nuclear weapons as well as other goals.

One of the best conversations I've ever had with the President of the United States, our friend, Donald Trump, his entire senior team was there, as was our senior team. And here too was an opportunity to exchange ideas and also to coordinate things that are important for the security in the future. of the United States. That is, according to a translation from Hebrew. Meanwhile, Barack Ravid reported, unsurprisingly, that a diminished Netanyahu arrived for his moment with Trump, for his meeting with Trump. So, Jasper, just with all of this happening yesterday, can you help us, from your perspective, understand perhaps in Israeli media why this meeting between Netanyahu and in Israeli politics,

why this meeting between Netanyahu, Netanyahu was pushing it. He's trying to show that he's still really close with Trump while Trump is criticizing him. What does all of this mean sort of domestically, from your perspective, at least, for Netanyahu? Well, the main thing to keep in mind is that there's an election coming up in Israel in a couple months. And Netanyahu is facing probably the biggest challenge that he's faced in years. and he's desperately trying to get an endorsement from Trump right now, actually. You know, obviously, Nanyahu and Trump have been in lockstep for a long time, and now there's some daylight between them,

and Trump keeps sort of dodging the question about whether or not he's going to endorse Nanyahu. So I think there's just a very clear, you know, political element of this, outside of, you know, the various wars that are going on that Israel is trying to keep the U.S. involved with, but, you know, that's obviously the second part is I think that it has perhaps finally dawned on Trump, or at least on the people around Trump, that, you know, his interest, his political interest in getting out of the war with Iran is diametrically opposed to Nanyahu's interest to having a forever war, because, you know, he is a wartime prime minister and he really has sort of, he rides the wave of war to winning every election. And so,

you know, they have competing interests right now, which is causing some obvious tension. Yeah. Well, and we should note that then Trump went on Fox and Friends this morning and was like, oh, I had a great meeting with BB, et cetera, et cetera. So, and well, let's put a C3 up on the screens. The latest Barack Ravid report about how a diminished BB arrives for his moment with Trump. and laying out some of these alleged tensions between them. I don't know what to make of these reports at this point, Jasper, because we had this endlessly with Biden. No, Biden's very mad at Beebe and their, you know, their relationship is strained and he yelled

at him. We've had the same cycle of reports over and over again from Barack Ravid at Axios about Trump as well. Do you think there is actual daylight between them at this point? Because on the one hand, like we can all look at the situation with Iran and go, the best thing that could happen is for the U.S. to cut their losses and just get out of this thing. Whatever is required. Fine, given the straight of Hormuz, apparently that's never coming back like it is what it is. But Trump seems to be making different calculations on an almost near

daily basis. So what do you make of these friction with Netanyahu reports at this point? This is actually one that I'm taking a little more seriously than I have in the past. I mean, you know, with the Biden administration, these Barack Ravid reports of, you know, Biden, you know, fuming about Nanyahu behind closed doors. Like that was basically the White House's PR strategy to be able to endlessly support Israel's genocide against the people of Gaza while, you know, maintaining a facade of some humanity. Now, you know, there is actually daylight, like I said, because, you know,

Nanyahu and Trump are both, you know, I mean, obviously they're both politicians, but they're they're both completely self-interested, specifically self-interested in, like, staying in power because Nanyahu, like Trump, has all sorts of corruption suits against him. And the minute he's out of power, he's much more vulnerable to being prosecuted. And I think that the Iran war, where it stands right now, they do actually have competing interests. I mean, it's sort of straightforward. Trump wants out because he sees it as a political loser. Nanyahu wants in because, you know, he needs to, like I said, he needs to be a war. But also, it's been his, his lifelong project to take out the government in Iran. So I think that there is daylight

between them, basically. And I think we'll see how it plays out. I mean, listen, it doesn't mean anything is, you know, there's going to be a meaningful break. I would not say that Trump is actually going to, you know, pull out necessarily. I don't know. But that seems to be what's happening right now. New poll, actually, hear from the economist in U.Gov. We can put this element up on the screen. Americans in every age group are more likely to support arresting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu than oppose it if he enters the U.S. Well, he did enter the U.S. The poll was conducted from July 25th to 27th. Forty-nine percent of the public supported arrest, well, 27 percent opposed it. And if you break it down by age, it is in 18 to 29-year-olds,

a 58 to 17 percent gap, 30 to 44, 49 to 20 percent. And then it starts to narrow a bit, but it's still double digits, 45 to 64, that age demographic. 48% support arrest, 31% oppose it. And then if you're 65 years and older, it's a little bit more split, 43% to 40%. MAGA and conservatives totally oppose it, 58 to 22%, and 61% to 21%. That's MAGA voters, the latter. And 58%, that is conservatives, the former. So basically everybody, except for conservatives and mega voters at this point.

support arresting Benjamin Netanyahu and I guess people who are 65 and older, but even that is pretty split. So I guess what's difficult then to understand from behind the scenes with Trump and Netanyahu, it's not just Netanyahu, it's the donors who are close with Netanyahu too. I mean, think about Miriam Aed, although they have an interesting relationship, but people like that who want Trump to support Netanyahu at every step, Lakshut, at every step, they're completely out of touch with the public on this. Trump is, it seems, Jasper, been willing, you know, when we zoom out a year from any kind of tit for tat in the moment, he generally, directionally, goes with them.

So it might seem like in this moment that there's real daylight and clearly there is. But I guess what is the likelihood that from a big picture perspective when we're looking back on this in a couple of years, we see him making major steps against Netanyahu, even while you have the public being so opposed to Netanyahu that they believe he should be arrested? by huge numbers. Look, it's like everything with Trump. I mean, there's just a web of, you know, competing interests. I think most of them financial, and it's impossible to know, you know, which one is going to win out. Like, you know, this thing with the Saudi nuclear deal was a sort of like perfect example

where, you know, he negotiates this nuclear deal or the U.S. negotiates a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia. There's clearly, you know, financial incentive for Trump to be doing, you know, good business with them. And then out of nowhere, he just says, oh, by the way, it's contingent a normalization with Israel, which had not been part of the deal at all, took everybody by surprise. And then apparently quietly, he sort of walked it back. And like, I don't think he thought all that through. I think he's, you know, going one step at a time of like, what's going to help me politically, what's going to help my pocketbook? And so I just, I just don't know with Trump. I think that

we, in 10 years from now, are going to learn so much about all the different ways him and his family and his cronies are financially benefiting from this. Like, you just can't. overstate the degree to which the Trump family is just tied up with, you know, financial interests in the Middle East. But I think that is ultimately what wins out. That is also what has, you know, won out in the moments when Trump finally comes out and says something against West Bank annexation or settler violence, those very rare moments. It's always because an Arab leader told him he has to do it, you know, and it puts Abraham Accords at risk or it puts, you know, one of his deals at risk. So, like, that's always what it's about for him.

him, I think. Is Trump still popular in Israel? Because I know there was a moment after the MOU was signed where there was all this like, he's daubed just in the back, et cetera, et cetera. But is he still popular there? I haven't seen the very, very latest polling. I mean, I think he's still, last I checked, he is still popular. I think, you know, perhaps he is, his popularity has fallen a little bit with the MOU. But, you know, as far as I know, the people of Israel generally think that Trump has been, you know, their best friend that they've ever had, even if they have a skirmish every now and then. And that, again, is why Nanyahu is fighting so hard to get his endorsement in the election.

You've heard the chaos. Now you can see it. Hello. My gosh. Watch all your favorite podcasts from start to finish, right inside the free I-Hurt radio app. Get the blood going up. Catch every laugh and eye roll on shows like the Tom Green Farmcast and park the bus.

Now with full video. We're building a ramp for Tony Hawk. the same hosts and the same chemistry with all the hilarious moments you've been missing right on your screen. Cheers. Open the free IHard radio app. Search video podcasts and tap watch. What's up, fam? I'm sports journalist Ari Chambers.

Hey, what's up y'all? It's your girl, Sam J. And we're the host of everyone watches women's sports, a new podcast from Together and I Heart Women's Sports. Because let's be real. Women's sports is giving us way too much to talk about these days. So Kelsey Finler, she became the first female solo roeer. to go from California to Hawaii. My first thought is, like, what's up with the snacks?

Like, what are we eating? The highlights, the rivalries, the breakout stars, the moments that take over your entire timeline. And the conversations that start during the game and somehow keep going all week. Every week, we're breaking down the biggest stories across women's sports. Naomi Osaka showing out, she beat Sabalinka.

Shoutouts to you, Naomi. You get the palm, Naomi. You get the palm for that. Because we're not just interested in what happened. We're interested in why everyone's talking about it. Because everyone watches women's sports. Listen to everyone watches women's sports on the iHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Hey, Portlandia fans. Carrie Brownstein and Fred Armisen here. You know us, or rather you know them,

Tony and Candace, Nina and Lance, Spike, and yes, the chicken. We've played a lot of iconic characters over the years, but today we're showing up as ourselves to tell you about Podlandia, AEO rewatch, our brand new podcast. Each week, we'll revisit an episode of Portlandia from the very breaking down the sketches, exploring the backstories of our most iconic characters, revisiting the Portland locations you know and love, and opening up about our creative process. How did any of this get made? Why do you think that was a good idea? We're ready to talk about it. And we'll also be joined by the people who helped bring it all to life. Guestars, collaborators, and friends, including director Jonathan Chrysall, the mayor himself, Kyle McLaughlin,

legendary musician Amy Mann, and many more. Kyle is going for it here. You fully improvised, not just words, but a song, a melody. I thought he was going to write. I thought you were all going to write a song. I remember you thinking that. Listen to Podlandia. Ayo rewatch on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

All right, let's turn to what's going on in the West Bank. And I'll have you explain this latest escalation. There have been mass pogroms led by the IDF and illegal settlers. This, of course, has been ongoing, and you have been in the West Bank. You spent a month there and are just recently back to be able to document these ongoing pogroms against Palestinians in the West Bank. But maybe explain to people this latest escalation that involved one of the settlers being killed.

And now some factions, at least the Israeli government are admitting this wasn't even at the hands of a Palestinian peers to have been because of friendly fire. So taking an even bigger step back from that, just to set the context on what's been happening the last couple months, probably since I was last on the show, is that the settlers in the West Bank, who are, you know, sort of led by Smotrich and Ben-Gabir in the government, and they have their own, you know, political leaders too. They feel the clock potentially ticking, as in if the government changes hands, it's not to say the settlement movement is suddenly going to, you know, be disbanded. It's certainly not. But there will, you know, likely be less direct financial, institutional

support for the settlers under, you know, an Eisencott government than there is under a Nenjahou government. And so they basically are seeing this time right now, these months before the election, as just time for a mad dash to grab as much land as they possibly can. And so the settlers have effectively completed their takeover of Area C of the West Bank, which is over 60 percent. That's the part that is ostensibly controlled by Israel, even though the land has been. still belongs to Palestinians and lots of Palestinians live there. So the settlers have wiped dozens and dozens of Palestinian communities off the land in area C.

And now they've basically set their sites on areas A and B, which a couple of years ago would have been just completely unheard of for settlers to go and build an outpost in this land that is supposed to be controlled by the Palestinian Authority. So that's the background heading into last Friday when a group of settlers who are coming from a settlement. this settlement, by the way, had just suffered terrible wildfires, actually, that had burned numerous structures to the ground. They blamed Palestinian terrorists, even though Israeli authorities say it was a discarded cigarette, and, you know, it is wildfire season over there. So they already are, you know, they have their justification for violence against Palestinians, as they always do, but they're always looking for another one.

And so a group of these settlers go out for what they call a hike. This is a really classic euphemism among the settler movement where a group of settlers, armed with machine guns, go into a Palestinian village. In this case, the village of Tel, which is in areas A and B, where the settlers, even according to Israeli law, are not allowed to be. They go into the village and they are, you know, what a settler leader, Elisha Yerid called initiating friction. They are trying, they are looking for provocations. And, you know, what happens is a group of Palestinians come out from the village of Tell. Tell has been attacked numerous times in the last couple of months. So, you know, perhaps they're not all that open to a group of Israeli hikers with machine guns coming into their village.

There's some sort of a confrontation. One of the Palestinians there is able to wrestle a gun away from a settler. And the video shows that the settler is in holding a pistol. He reaches for a handgun. And in that moment, the Palestinian shoots him dead. Then some time passes. There's a video where a settler suggested it was over an hour. But we see other video of the Palestinian who shot the settler walking around with the gun down, completely unarmed.

And then you hear a settler shouting at a soldier to kill him. And he does. So the soldier then, or it could have been a settler dressed as a soldier sort of unconsored. clear, summarily executes the man who shot the settler and three of his cousins, while all of them are laying down on the ground completely defenseless. At some point in this, an Israeli soldier was also killed. Again, they immediately blamed the Palestinians, but Israeli authorities are saying it looks like it was probably friendly fire.

So this happens. Six people are now dead, two Israelis and four Palestinians. immediately, without any hesitation, everybody in Israeli leadership from Nenayahu to, you know, the far right minister Ben-Gavir to Eisenkot, who is, you know, who is, you know, running as part of the opposition. He's supposed to be sort of the liberal alternative to Nanyahu, to Yaira Ghlan, who is, you know, potentially a new defense minister under Eisenkot. They all come out and called a severe terror attack by Palestinians against Israelis, and they all call

for a massive military response. And that's exactly what happens. You know, for the next couple of days, there's these huge military raids across the West Bank. Settlers are, you know, calling for revenge and committing these terrible pogroms. And, you know, what happens is within a couple of days, there are several new outposts set up all along the area where this occurred. Nanyahu comes out and announces as part of the response, they are going to expedite the legalization of these outposts. And when he says that, he basically gives the whole game away, which is that the settlers go out. They try to provoke a response from Palestinians that then justifies violence. That violence is then used to clear the land, which is then used to put down

a new settler foothold, which the Israeli government then turns into a legal settlement. And so that's the whole game right now. That's what's been happening for years, basically. And this is basically just a very sort of, you know, clear, discrete example of it. Can we put D4 up on the screen? This is a tear sheet from Infinite Jazz, so this is Jasper's substack. And obviously, none of this caught you off guard, Jasper, because you wrote, I've had countless settler encounters over the past several years, but never have I seen them come out swinging the way they are now, showing up in a village and wasting no time

before physically assaulting people. Of course, it's because they know that they are far more likely to be rewarded than punished, as you just described, they are, after all, doing the state's bidding. And I was hoping you could walk us through a bit of what you saw on the ground, which really was in the lead-up to some of what we've just talked about. Again, you've been to the West Bank many times, and you're right here, that this actually was an escalation from what you'd seen in the past. Yeah, I mean, you know, the two main sort of takeaways from my last trip to the West Bank

were from this trip that, you know, just finished, where, number one, I said, the settlers have taken over much more land. But number two, they're, they're just much more aggressive and much more violent. They're, you know, coming into communities and they're not wasting any time before they just start physically assaulting people, including myself, including the local Palestinians, including activists. And, you know, what I was just thinking the entire time that I was there when I was, you know, seeing all these attacks and when I was being attacked myself was they desperately want one of us to respond. They want one of us to hit them back. or to throw somebody on the ground or to reach for one of their guns,

because then they have the excuse to come and level the entire village. And sure enough, you know, that's exactly what happened. A couple months ago earlier this year, there was a similar incident in a village called Bait Imrhen, which is not so far from Tell, actually, where a young settler was out on what they call a land patrol, which is, again, where they drive into a Palestinian village, theoretically to patrol, but what they're actually doing is initiating friction.

That settler collided with the Palestinian vehicle, crashed and died. It was immediately labeled a terror attack, and it was used to justify pogroms, which then led to the creation of numerous outposts, which will eventually become settlement. So it's a very, very clear step-by-step process whereby, you know, the most violent settlers, many of whom are armed by the state of Israel, who are directly supported strategically, financially, you know, defensively by the state of Israel, they go out, they, you know, cause problems, they commit acts of violence. Sometimes leaders of the Israeli government, when the press gets too hot, will, you know,

condemn the violence. Nanyahu will call them, you know, juvenile delinquents. Occasionally they will make an arrest. But, you know, as soon as the press stops paying attention to that particular attack, The land that those violent settlers had seized through violence is then recognized by the Israeli government as, you know, part of a new settlement. So it's just, it's so clear. And the way the map has actually changed in the West Bank, just in the last six,

seven months even, it's really striking. It shows just how much, you know, this whole idea that the Israeli government is against the settler violence in any way is just completely backwards. I mean, it is, the settler violence is literally the ten. hip of the spear. It is the vanguard of the central Israeli state project of annexing the West Bank. Jasper, can you talk a little bit about how the reality of what is being done in the West Bank really undercuts some of the liberal Zionist here in the U.S. talking points about Israel, number one, in pushing for a two-state solution. And number two, in saying, oh, well, the problem

is just the extreme Netanyahu government. Once we get these liberal reformers in, then Israel, is going to go back to whatever my fantasy of what Israel once was. Yeah. Well, look, I mean, there's this guy Eisencott, who is sort of the, I think a lot of people are considering him, like the potential great liberal savior in Israel who's going to wrestle, you know, control away from the right-wing extremists like Netanyahu and Ben Gavir and Smotrich. I mean, putting aside his own sort of genocidal history, his own military doctrines of using like disproportionate force against civilian. He's the author of the Dehia doctrine, just so people

know, which literally destroy a entire village. Destroy civilian infrastructure in Lebanon or in Gaza to, you know, pressure the military. So, you know, even just putting all that aside, though, you know, there is the popular liberal Zionist position, both in Israel and in the United States and elsewhere, is against the settlement movement because it is ostensibly, you know, they want peace with the Palestinians, they want, you know, peaceful coexistence. And so you have to come out against these, you know, feral-looking violent settlers who are attacking defenseless Palestinians. That is why even Nanyahu occasionally, like when he was on CNN, a couple weeks ago with Dana Bash, you know, uses this line about a handful of juvenile delinquents, which is obviously BS. I mean, we're talking about a massive organization run by grown-ups.

supported by the government. But again, look at, if you take Eisencott, a couple months ago, this made no headlines in the U.S., of course, he went out of his way to take a political trip to an outpost in the West Bank that is known as one of the more violent outposts. It is known to everybody in the region as a place where settlers are leaving from to attack Palestinians. I believe they have even attacked Israeli activists from there, actually. Eisencott goes to this outpost and he has a meeting with the leaders there and he basically signals his support to them. And that is, it's very clear what he's doing. He's saying, listen, even if the government changes and you no longer have your Smotrich and you no longer have your Ben-Givir or your Netanyahu who are, you know, giving you, you know, all this sort of vocal support, don't worry, like, I still got your back.

I still support you. And, you know, that's also consistent with the fact that Eisencott does not support. a two-state solution, which is, you know, I think speaks to the just delusion that so many liberal Zionists in the United States are living with, which is that there is some other liberal version of Zionism of Israel that is actually against settler violence, that is actually, you know, a four- or two-state solution. Like that reality just simply does not exist in Israel, in, you know, the political reality that is Israel today. Well, Jasper, thank you so much for your reporting and your bravery because you put yourself

at great personal risk. I know there's been a lot of personal costs there. Everybody should go and subscribe to your substack because, you know, eyes have understandably been focused on the genocide in Gaza, but what is happening in the West Bank is horrifying and extremely consequential. So thank you so much for keeping your eye on that and helping to inform our audience. Yeah, thank you, Chryslin, Emily. Hey, I'm Ruby Carr, the host of the podcast, Oncore. Check out our brand new episode featuring music from the show that everyone is reheating as we speak. Heated rivalry.

Join me as I go behind the songs that brought Shane and Elya together. I'll tell you the stories of Fice, My Moon, My Man, wolf parades, I'll believe in anything, and tattoos all the things she said, and how they all became a part of this global phenomenon. Stream encore on IHeart Radio, Crave, or wherever you get your podcasts. What's up, fam? I'm sports journalist, Ari Chambers. Hey, what's up, y'all? It's your girl, Sam J.

And we're the host of everyone watches women's sports, a new podcast from Together and I Heart Women's Sports. Because let's be real. Women's sports is giving us way too much to talk about these days. So Kelsey Finler, she became the first female solo rower to go from California to Hawaii. My first thought is like, what's up with the snacks? Like, what are we eating? The highlights, the rivalries, the breakout stars,

the moments that take over your entire timeline. And the conversations that start during the game and somehow keep going all week, every week. We're breaking down the biggest stories across women's sports. Naomi Osaka showing out, she beat. Sabalinka. Shout out to you, Naomi. You get the palm, Naomi.

You get the palm for that. Because we're not just interested in what happened. We're interested in why everyone's talking about it. Because everyone watches women's sports. Listen to everyone watches women's sports on the IHeart Radio app. Apple Podcast or wherever you get your podcast. Hey, Portlandia fans. Carrie Brownstein and Fred Armisen here.

You know us or rather you know them. Tony and Candace, Nina and Land. We've played a lot of iconic characters over the years, but today we're showing up as ourselves to tell you about Podlandia, AEO rewatch, our brand new podcast. Each week we'll revisit an episode of Portlandia from the very beginning, breaking down the sketches, exploring the backstories of our most iconic characters, revisiting the Portland locations you know and love, and opening up about our creative process. How did any of this get made? Why do you think that was a good idea? We're ready to talk about it. And we'll also be joined by the people who helped bring it all to life. Guestrars, collaborators and friends, including director Jonathan Chryssel, the mayor himself, Kyle McLaughlin, legendary musician Amy Mann, and many more.

Kyle is going for it here. You fully improvised, not just words, but a song, a melody. I thought he was going to write. I thought you're all going to write a song. I remember you thinking that. Listen to Podlandia. Ayo, rewatch on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. So we have some very interesting ideas being pushed by the nation's oligarchs as they see a rising populist revolt against them and increasing ideas of wealth taxes and things that they find completely unacceptable.

Let's put this up on the screen. This is the Shopify CEO. The headline here from Fortune is why did a hundred fifty-four billion dollar CEO just endorse stripping most Americans of voting rights and taking us back to the 19th century? I'll read you a little bit of some of Mr. Tobias Lutke's ideas here. He's CEO of Shopify. His company commands a market cap of nearly $154 billion. He told his social media followers this week that a tax-tiered voting system, one that would strip voting rights from anyone who pays no income tax, which is many millions of Americans, would be a, quote, good system. The exchange began with a provocation from Mr. Luckie. Pension recipients should have their financial futures locked in and guaranteed, But in return would be reclassified as dependence and lose the right to vote the same way minors can't vote. So if you're someone who, you know, relies on Social Security, your right to vote would be taken away.

Next, a reply from someone named Eric Thor who claimed to be a retired banking executive as well as armchair economist and policy wonk. Love that type. Proposed a sliding scale. Zero votes for anyone who pays no income tax. one vote for those earning $1 to $100,000, two votes for $100 to $200, scaling up in that pattern to a hard cap of five votes for anyone earning $500,000 or more. The pitch was framed as fairness, reward, quote, representation for those who, quote, put the bill through taxation.

That was the good system that Lucky endorsed. So, Emily, as if it is not enough that these billionaires can flood the campaign system with cash, you know, such that Elon Musk can drop $250 million into the Trump campaign or Miriam Adelson or whoever, you know, George Soros or whoever your favorite boogeyman is, that these billionaires can drop all of this money in through their own direct contributions to dark money super PACs, through corporate contributions to dark money super PACs, and have an ounce size, an almost exclusive influence on a political. system, that is not enough. We also need to directly strip votes from the pores so that the rich

can guarantee their position in society permanently and not have to deal with the pesky working class rabble or poor rabble having ideas about how the country should be run. It's astoundingly anti-democratic and not in like a lower case are a Republican way, but that's what the tech oligarchs really are at their core is they believe that they should have a concentration of power because they do genuinely know better. This is not just in voting. This is also how they think the economy should be designed. They think that they can control a system that will be fair and just and will create

peace and utopia for everyone. If you would just give them the chance to completely dominate, which, by the way, they basically already are, and they're suggesting things like taking away the vote from people who don't play the income tax. Like, while you're doing wild fantasies, while you're in general, your wild fantasies, why not you go in a different direction, be like, we should just get rid of the income tax? Why don't you come up with something that at least makes a modicum of more sense? No, they won't do that because they actually just won't control.

It's not about justice and fairness ultimately at the end of the day. I mean, they may have convinced themselves in some cases that they can be the facilitators of greater justice, but what they really want is control because they just think they're better. They don't think other people should have a say in the system because that's what gums up the works of the system is people who don't know as much as they do, who haven't worked as hard and innovated and created and build. This is the language that they use around these ideas. Those people, they're the ones who require you the problems. Just let us, the builders, the superiors handle it and everyone else go about your lives. We'll give you universal basic income.

You'll be fine. Universal high income. I'm sorry. Maybe. Maybe. Universal high income. If we're feeling generous. Yeah. I mean, imagine thinking that the problem in society is that the rich don't have enough control. Like, imagine holding that worldview.

That is so incredibly insane. You know, there's a political science experiment going back years now that found that the views and concerns of ordinary people have zero impact on their legislators, whereas the views of the wealthy have a lot of impact on. legislators. They're able to dump money into campaigns. Corporations are able to hire lobbyists. I mean, we can see the impact in so many of these primaries. Look at what happened to Thomas Massey because of all of the multi millions of dollars that were dropped into a primary against him. And, you know, in order to lie about him and convince boomers in his district, he was having a thruple with AOC and Ilhan Omar. I mean, I'm not even kidding. That's literally what happened in this race. And you look at that landscape and say, Yeah, the problem is rich people need even more control, this tiny, tiny bit of a say that

normal people have through their vote. We need to take that away, too. And the reason that I highlighted is because listening is one dude with a weird idea. But to your point, Emily, these anti-democratic ideas are completely commonplace and endemic within Silicon Valley at this point because they do. They see themselves as better than. They think they should be the ones who are making all of the decisions. They have a completely, and it's kind of always been there underneath the surface in Silicon Valley.

It was previously masked with sort of like liberal identityan values. Now the mask is completely off. But when they thought about, you know, here we're going to use this technology, we're going to absent ourselves from the democratic process, we're going to use this technology to foment a sort of revolutionary, our own revolution in our favor that we get to have control over, that has been the ethos in Silicon Valley among the elites for a very long time. Now it has just become more overt because the things that you can say in the public space has been so broadened to include just putting out there that you don't think we should have democracy anymore. We should have network states that we should have

oligarchs who run these things basically as kings. This is all very commonplace ideas now with Silicon Valley and obviously it's extremely dangerous. I also think that there is probably a bit of a panic right now because of a few developments. Number one, we have covered a lot and we'll continue to cover and about to cover a little bit more, the massive public backlash, which is truly bipartisan or cross-partisan against data centers and the abuses of the tech oligarchs. This is a very unifying position. So I think they have to see some of this pushback and start to get a little bit nervous that the, you know, the rabble are starting to rise up. The rabble are starting to be discontented. You also have of them freaking out over this very modest wealth tax that has been proposed in California

and throwing a fit over that. And I think, again, it's a sign of, oh, my God, like, they might have some other ideas about how things go. They might actually do something to try to trim our sales. And then they also see the rise of democratic socialists who take very seriously the need to fight against the tech oligarchy and, you know, write the ship and make sure that ordinary people have a stake in our society. I think they see all of these things as truly like existential threats to their control, their absolute control over our country and over our politics. Yeah, and they're especially disillusioned right now that they see people on the right freaking out about data centers as well. Like it's pretty much across the board. Even

Republicans are upset about data centers. And that is a surprise to some of them. And that's why they've been trying to go and overdrive in some of these communities and start paying tons of money to convince the communities to let them do whatever they want to do with the data centers. And maybe some of that money is very much needed in the school systems with the local infrastructure. But it's becoming, I mean, producer Mack and I were talking before we started the show about how some of these apartment buildings, you have to have a smartphone in order to, like, get into your apartment. And that's a silly example, but it's an example of how anti-democratic art economy is right now. You basically have to have a smartphone then to live in this apartment building. And if you want to have a smartphone and live in this apartment building or many apartment buildings in major cities,

you have two choices. You can do Apple or you can do Android for the most part. That puts an enormous amount of power in the hands of two companies. And so it's an anti-democratic economy already. Obviously, it's an anti-democratic economy already. And the point you were making about how it used to be kind of masked, this mentality used to be masked in Silicon Valley by progressive identitarianism or liberal identitarianism is interesting because that's also what I was talking about when we were just, or I was riffing on like, why not come up with an idea that's abolished the income tax? I use that example specifically because the mentality of Silicon Valley in like Web 1.0 and for some of Web 2.0 was this like libertarian utopianism that tech was taking us to a better and freer place for the human condition.

All of these tech guys, some of them will still mask it with that language, but all these tech guys became eager oligarchs. And they realized that their technology was creating such concentrated power that, I think, as we acknowledge, inevitably, inevitably, that concentrated power is going to end up in the hands of a couple of people. And rather than coming up with solutions that diffuse the power democratically, they're saying, well, there's just nothing we can do about it. So let the smart people take the wheel. You will be fine. Well, to me, there's not much difference between libertarianism and a sort of corporate authoritarianism. Because libertarians always have a, I shouldn't say always, I'm sure there are some exceptions. There are a lot of idealists.

Frequently have a blind spot when it comes to corporate power, right? They're very attuned to potential abuses of government. I think serve a useful purpose there in terms of, you know, checking potential government abuses, but then have a complete blind spot when it comes to the mass amount of power that, let's say, in Elon Musk can accumulate, you know, throwing $250 million into an election and then being handed over the key. to the entire federal government and making literal life or death decisions for millions of people around the globe, that just like doesn't exist for them. So, and if anything, they think that's good because these are the winners. They're the ones who deserve their place in society.

So to me, it's no surprise that you go from a sort of generic libertarianism to an overt corporate authoritarianism, which is the ideology that many of these people embrace. So So, you know, for me, those things are entirely consistent. And speaking of Elon Musk, you know, there's no one who better represents the casual psychopathy of this class of people than our nation's first trillionaire. Although SpaceX has taken a big old hit since their IPO. And I think Elon is no longer for the moment a trillionaire. But don't worry, folks, he's doing just fine.

He still has more wealth than the human mind could ever begin to comprehend, let alone deploy. In any case, Elon had this very. interesting, contentious interview with someone from the economist. A lot of the focus was on, and understandably so, was on like his Islamophobia and this whole debate about grooming gangs and all of this sort of stuff. But I also paid very close attention to his discussion of AI. And he's someone who has long thought there is a pretty solid chance that AI is an existential risk to literally destroy all of humanity. She asks him about this and just take a little

listen to how casual he is about the prospect of, yeah, my, what I'm doing, it might destroy all of humanity, but what are you going to do? Do you think there's still a 10 to 20% chance that killer robots mean the end of humanity? That's a high P-Doom, as they say. Well, in long run, we're all dead, of course. So, I mean, so, according to the standard model of physics, the end of the universe is a long, boring, sort of thin gray soup of gradual cooling. I mean, it's sort of the heat death of the universe is called. So if the heat death of the universe is, in fact, the outcome for our reality, then it really is all about the journey.

Because the destination is terrible. Yeah, but 10 years is not very... Yeah, we're all going to die anyway, Emily. So whatever. If I'm the one that causes it, well, that'll be more exciting than the long, slow death of the universe, I suppose. He's giving Teal when Ross Douthit was like, was there a chance that you're the antichrist? It takes like that long pause. And then it's like, no, but you're right.

What did you say, the casual psychopathy? Yeah, completely. Silicon Valley. Crazy. I mean, and the other part of his AI discussion, he's basically like, well, look, originally I was. was concerned about this. That's why I was doing open AI. You know, I wanted to control it. Then I realized that all the things I was doing were just leading to more acceleration. So I just sort of threw my hands up and joined the party. And I want you to think about that. Like, this man is genuinely one of them,

unfortunately, one of the most powerful people on the entire planet. Right. When he decided that we should destroy the entire USAID budget and subject, you know, kids dying of malaria to actual death in Africa, he was able to figure out how to do that. You're not going to use any of that. In fact, you're not going to use any of that influence in power, and I see no evidence that he's used any of his influence in power at the Trump administration to try to have some sort of, you know, global cooperation agreement with regard to AI development, to put some sort of testing or guardrail system in place to try to, at the very least, slow down and manage the rollout of this incredibly powerful technology. I see zero evidence that any of his immense wealth in power with the Trump administration

specifically has been spent in that direction. Instead, it is just a lot of. like, well, the first thing I tried didn't work out. So I guess I'm just going to join the race and perhaps myself be the person who destroys all of humanity. These are the people who right now are in control. Like, you don't need to take away our votes. They already are running the show. But you want to make sure, you want to guarantee that the Elon Musk of the world can have infinite power forever and all of their completely insane and bananas ideas. And they're, you know, frankly, like death cult that they're participating in to try to destroy this planet and make sure that they and, you know, a few people that they see as worthy can, can flee and escape to Mars or whatever their crazy plan

of the day is. Yeah. And he's, again, one of those people who started with this, this like Web 1.0 idealism. And to your point, like Open AI going from nonprofit, like he fought that. But here we are, 2026. He, to the Starlink, influence over the conflicts in Israel and Ukraine is a great example of concentrated power. Like Elon Musk, in his hands, in his hands, he had the power to have dramatic influence over both those wars because the U.S. government had to turn to him, Ukrainian government, Israeli government had to turn to him on Starlink. And that's a big deal for a drone-based war, essentially like looking at Ukraine, where that war ended up going. He's massively, massively.

powerful. And right now, I mean, we're not talking about the future. We're talking about literally right now, Crystal, the amount of power that's in his hands is astounding and nobody is doing anything about it. So it's not surprising that you have Democrats and Republicans across polling upset about data centers. It's not just that they're mad about data centers on the merits. It's a proxy issue, too, for the concentration of power and the control of the economy and the control of the culture and the world. Well, that's a great segue to some new polling, some new evidence of just how disgusted Americans are with their lack of democratic control, specifically around data centers. You've heard the chaos. Now you can see it.

Hello. My gosh. Watch all your favorite podcasts from start to finish right inside the free IHare radio app. Gets the blood going up. Catch every laugh and eye roll on shows like the Tom Green Farmcast and park the bus. Now with full video. We're building a ramp for Tony Hawk. It's the same hosts and the same chemistry with all the hilarious ones.

moments you've been missing right on your screen. Cheers. Open the free IHard Radio app. Search video podcasts and tap watch. What's up, fam? I'm sports journalist Ari Chambers. Hey, what's up y'all? It's your girl, Sam J.

And we're the host of everyone watches women's sports, a new podcast from Together and IHart Women's Sports. Because let's be real. Women's sports is giving us way too much to talk about these days. So Kelsey Finler, she became the first female solo rower to go from California to Hawaii. My first thought is, like, what's up with the snacks? Like, what are we eating?

The highlights, the rivalries, the breakout stars, the moments that take over your entire timeline. And the conversations that start during the game and somehow keep going all week. Every week, we're breaking down the biggest stories across women's sports. Naomi Osaka, showing out, she beat Sabalinka. Shout out to you, Naomi. You get the palm, Naomi. You get the palm for that. Because we're not just interested in what happened.

We're interested in why everyone's talking about it. Because everyone watches us. Women's sports. Listen to everyone watches women's sports on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Hey, Portlandia fans. Carrie Brownstein and Fred Armisen here.

You know us, or rather, you know them. Tony and Candace, Nina and Lance, Spike, and yes, the chicken. We've played a lot of iconic characters over the years, but today we're showing up as ourselves to tell you about Podlandia, AEO rewatch, our brand new podcast. Each week, we'll revisit

an episode of Portlandia from the very beginning. breaking down the sketches, exploring the backstories of our most iconic characters, revisiting the Portland locations you know and love, and opening up about our creative process. How did any of this get made? Why do we think that was a good idea? We're ready to talk about it. And we'll also be joined by the people who helped bring it all to life.

Guest stars, collaborators, and friends, including director Jonathan Chrysler, the mayor himself, Kyle McLaughlin, legendary musician Amy Mann, and many more. Kyle is going for it here. You fully improvised, not just words, but a song, a melody. I thought he was going to write. I thought you were all going to write a song. I remember you thinking that.

Listen to Podlandia. Ayo, rewatch on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. So a wild new infographic shows exactly how Francesca Hong has taken the lead in the Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial primary. We had her on the show yesterday. She is a DSA-aligned candidate who, according to the polling, is kind of running away with this thing at this point. Put this image up at the screen. So this is a, they use the state of Wisconsin here to fill in as a sort of word cloud. What voters say they are voting based on.

And this is specifically Democratic voters in the Democratic primary. And Emily, the two things that jump out are health care and data centers. just below that is affordability, then economy, then Trump, then I would say rights. And after that, electability is a little bit smaller after that, and education. But the big one that really stands out here is data centers. And in a previous earlier debate, there was a debate last night, but this is from an earlier debate in this race. The candidates for the Democratic nomination were all asked if they would support a one-year moratorium on data. Center construction. And Francesca Hong was the only person who raised her hand and said that she would.

Let's take a look at that. Do you support a one year or longer moratorium on data center construction in Wisconsin? Right. Thank you. We talked to Francesca some about this yesterday. This has really been a centerpiece of her campaign, Emily. And I bet a number of those candidates would like to go back and have a redo on how they answered that question. I mean, that's, Kathy Hochel just did the one-year moratorium. And none of these other Wisconsin Democrats, Wisconsin has been actually a pretty hot spot of this debate. The Manhattan Minute guy was leading the charge against the building data centers in the southeastern part of the state.

Like, this is actually has rallied people in Wisconsin. So to be that either bought and paid for or ignorant of where people stand on this issue is truly ridiculous. Like that, there's just no excuse for that at this point politically. Now, I doubt that they have like really great arguments on the merit against the one-year moratoriums. You know, people can make those arguments. But I doubt that's what they're doing. It seems to me like they're just completely out of touch with their own voters because they're all cynical politicians or politicians are by nature cynical.

No offense to the politicians out there who watch breaking points. I'm sure there are many of you. But you're making cynical political calculations in a gubernatorial election. So that, to look at her being the only one saying she was support of one-year moratorium in an in a world where Kathy Hokel just did that because she's seen this up close in her own state. Amazing to see that. I have to give some credit to Kathy Hokel, not only on this, but on other issues. She has read the polls.

She sees where the wind is blowing. And she has proven herself to be a very adept politician in terms of moving to where the public is, recognizing the power of Zoron's movement, the energy there, repositioning herself to be, less adversarial. And she did that early. I don't know if you remember she appeared at a rally for him in advance of his, you know, his election battle against Cuomo in the general election. So she has proven to be relatively nimble and her finger much more on the polls than a lot of other Democratic politicians who are out there. Let's put F2 up on the screen. You can see what the fallout is here for the rest of Francesca Hong's competitors. This is pretty wild. This is a state navigate poll for the

Wisconsin Governor Democratic primary. And Francesca Hong now is at 44 percent, nearing a majority, David Crowley at 15, Mandela Barnes at 14 and the other competitors, you know, down below 5%. Now the undecided is just at 13 percent. So in prior polls, Emily, there were, and this is what Francesca actually told us yesterday in prior polls, the undecided number was really quite large. And I'm sure her competitors, both David Crowley and Mandela Barnes, were hoping that those undecideds were going to hear about Francesca Hong and how radical she was and they were going to flip to them and that would help them make up the gap. Well, people are now deciding their votes and they're overwhelmingly, according in this poll anyway, going for Francesca Hong.

And I think it does come back to something you and I briefly discussed yesterday, which is if you are a DSA-aligned candidate, if you have, you know, that worldview, more or less, you have a worldview. You're not afraid to take a stand and say, yeah, I support a one. your moratorium on data centers, that's easy for you all day long. If you're one of these centrist candidates who's trying to sort of pick your spots and placate donors and use the standard talking points and avoid really taking a stand on anything, that is just not cutting it in a Democratic primary this year. Voters know where they stand and they want to know that their political representation stands alongside of them. So the fact that she's been able to be very clear

on a host of issues that are truly, truly, truly centrally important to Democratic voters, I think has set her apart and she's running away with it. Keep in mind, she's a state rep, okay? Probably the vast majority of people in the state have never heard of her until very recently. Many of them still haven't heard of her up to this point. Mandela Barnes is the lieutenant governor. So he's someone who has statewide name recognition. And it doesn't matter. It reminds very much of grand platinum coming out of nowhere to just wipe the floor with Janet Mills, who was the sitting governor of the state because people saw what he had to say and his very clear vision and said that's that's the view that I share that view and I want my political representation to hold that view as well.

Yeah, and I don't know if we can put the numbers back up on the screen, but look at this math. This shows that there's no South Carolina Clyburn option here in Wisconsin, meaning the plot to you totally undermine Bernie Sanders. So Hong is at 44 percent and don't know is at 13 percent. So what you would need is everyone except for Crowley or Barnes. one of them, to drop out, and then you would need to win most of those undecided voters over if this poll is accurate. And it does track with some other polling that shows her with a pretty significant lead. So it's looking like the elections in about two weeks, it's looking like she's running away

with this. And there is no option to consolidate. Actually, Michigan is a good example. There's no McMorrow dropout option on the table here to try and boost Crowley or Barnes. again, at least if this poll is tracking with their internals, which when you have a race that looks like this, we have so many different candidates, it's a state-based primary, it's polling can be difficult, but this looks like it's hers to lose at this point, clearly hers to lose at this point. And your point about moral clarity and the politics of moral clarity right now when you have people

who are just fed up with the system, Donald Trump proved this in 2016. You wrote all these other candidates saying that we're going to like tinker around the edges of the system, and you didn't really know where they stood on Iraq and Afghanistan. Jeb Bush was running. So what would a Jeb Bush foreign policy look like versus a George Bush foreign policy? Trump comes out and he's like, nope, we're done. No new wars. No new dumb wars.

Like he said different variations of it. He says, we're building a wall. That was totally different than what Rubio was offering. It was totally different even than what Ted Cruz was offering. And it was like he's gone back on no new. wars, that's a huge problem for him and whoever inherits his movement. And part of why it feels like such a betrayal to people is that there was this for him sense of like moral clarity. As funny as that sounds to people, it's compared to the others. It's compared to the establishment.

It comes across as like a clear sense of direction because it is an indictment of the establishment and that is very attractive to voters right now. It's why populists are doing well across the board on the left and on the right. And if you're not picking up on that, like if you're not even Kathy Hokele-ing right now, you're pretty far behind. And one thing that is really different here from the Trump dynamic is Trump is very singular, to use the word that you used earlier. He is very singular. And he doesn't actually have a coherent worldview.

Right. He has a forceful view depending on the day. It can be in any number of directions. Whereas what we're seeing now is truly a sort of coherent movement ideology that is succeeding in, yeah. a lot of variety of places across the country. So you can no longer just say, well, Zoran's a kind of a one-off because he's so talented and he's so charismatic and it's New York City.

And then you go, okay, well, we have these other candidates in New York City or associate themselves with Soron and they're all winning. Okay. And by the way, it's not just New York City. Let's take a look at Colorado and Milat Kuros being able to unseat a relatively progressive except on Israel incumbent there in Diana DeGat. Okay, let's take a look at Maine. And even with Graham Platner being pushed to the side because of a credible sexual assault allegation, the guy who replaced him and won overwhelmingly Troy Jackson, he was backed by DSA in his gubernatorial candidacy and is a longtime Bernie Sanders aligned candidate.

Then you take a look at the Midwest. Not only do you have Francesca Hong in Wisconsin appearing to run away with it, you have another heated battle between Peggy Flanagan and Angie Craig. Angie Craig being the establishment pick in Minnesota. It's looking very much like Peggy Flanagan is going to be able to win that battle and then put F6 up on the screen. Abdul Al-Saiya, this is really a marquee race. This is coming down to the wire next week. This is F6, guys. New poll has him up by 10 points here on Haley Stevens and gaining ground, by the way.

And when you push the what they call leaners, so people who aren't sure and you say, okay, but if you had to pick right now, who would you pick? He's up by double digits. He's up by 11 points in that scenario, 48%. to 37%. He has a much higher favorability than Haley Stevens does in this poll. And this is in spite of the fact that APEC has really wanted to make an example of Abdul. You know, the mailboxes have been flooded with these mailers, making it seem like Haley Stevens was endorsed by Barack Obama, even though she wasn't smearing Abdul al-Syad as some sort of a secret sexist. The airwaves are absolutely blanketed. And yet in spite of that, he still has the edge here. I mean, that is absolutely.

extraordinary that in the face of that wave of money that would have undoubtedly been successful in the past, was successful in the past against Jabal Bowman, was successful against Cory Bush, this time around, Democratic-based primary voters in the state of Michigan, a key swing state with a very, you know, rural, urban, all sorts of demographics, racist religions, the whole gamut in Michigan, they are not buying it. And if you look at that poll, it also had undecided. at 14 percent. And so that's with a week, yeah, less than a week now to go before election day. And the Al-Sahed momentum is going, or the momentum, I should say, is going with Al-Said.

So that's really, really bad news for Haley Stevens. You're potentially looking at in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, the Upper Midwest, primary victories by the DSA-All-lined candidates, like, across the board. So as soon as those primaries are wrapped up in the next couple of weeks, The table's going to be set in all likelihood for some real battles with DSA-aligned candidates for the populist left going forward. I mean, that's – if you're here in Washington at the DNC, you're looking at those numbers and thinking to yourself, I was going to say something that I should not say. But that is why you're thinking yourself. You're like, oh, my gosh.

I was just reminded there's this great Twitter account that's 10 years ago today. It posts pictures from 10 years ago today. Oh, yeah. And it reminded me of my favorite picture from the 26th. D&C, which is Susan Sarandon, shaking her head, watching what's happening on the floor, just completely seething, which if you were a Democrat in 2016, many people were completely seething watching this coronation of Hillary Clinton. 2026, maybe people just had to be patient, Crystal, because this is a route.

It's shaping up to be a total route in 26. The establishment is thoroughly discredited. Their strongest weapon against the left was electability. Oh, and also this weird identity racial resentment politics that they're still trying to use. And I think it's just been, the electability piece has just been so thoroughly discredited. I think the, uh, the identity racial resentment piece has been fairly discredited as well. It doesn't seem to be landing in the same way it did when Hillary Clinton was using this against Bernie Sanders back in 2016. How are you going to say, oh, we can tell you who's electable.

Donald Trump's in the White House. You told us you know what you were doing. This man is back here again. You were not able to vanquish him. We've been doing it your way. We don't believe you anymore. And there's a new media ecosystem that, you know, is able to break through. And it's not just, you know, like lefty, lefty shows. But, you know, Midas Touch is very progressive. And a lot of people who used to be MSNBC watchers are now like Midas Touch Watchers. And they're very favorable towards candidates like Bernie Sanders, candidates like Abdul al-Syad. So it is a very new dynamic in the Democratic Party.

Question now is how much that translates into the general election. And I did want to put this F3 up on the screen. This is the White Whale for Democrats, trying to win Texas. You've got Tala Rico here in a new poll up by five points. What's interesting is that both he and Ken Paxton lost a little bit of ground from the last time. I love that. This is Texas public opinion research, did a survey in the field. So in any case, Tala RICO up five in this.

Not sure what the margin of error here is, but this would be probably just outside of the margin of error. could put F4 up on the screen. I'm not sure that I fully buy this because this just seems like too much of a shift. But according to this pollster, there has been a mass shift of Latino voters away from Paxton, who in May, just months ago, was leading among Latino voters in Texas by four points. Two Tala Rico is now winning by 46 points. Like I said, I'm a little bit skeptical that there have been that many minds change, but surely that represents some sort of a shift towards Tala RICO.

And then, you know, we were talking yesterday, I don't remember if this was on camera or off camera about whether or not Dems had a shot in Texas. And you were saying you thought Beto had a little bit more juice. It is interesting if you compare the polls, we can put F4B up on the screen. In terms of the polling, which we all know to take with a lot of grains of salts at this point, at this point in 2018, according to the average of four polls, Ted Cruz was up on Beto by six points. You know, it was the kind of poles that people were looking at and go, okay, well, maybe you got a shot, but Ted Cruz still has an edge. Now, in an average of five polls, you've got Tala Rico, actually, with a narrow margin over Ken Paxton. So like I said, grains of salt for polling all around. But that did kind of catch my attention here just because it was different from what I recalled.

You know, in my mind, the polls were a little bit different for Beto at this point in the race. But, you know, he was not in any sort of consistent way showing he was in a type of. or even in a lead, and he ended up coming extraordinarily close to Ted Cruz. So I don't know, Emma, what do you think? Well, believe it or not, I think that Ken Paxson in 2026 is a worse candidate than 10 Cruz in 2018. Extraordinary accomplishment for him, by the way, on that. Truly, truly, yes.

So I actually just think Ken Paxon is such a flawed and difficult candidate for Republicans to sell in this race that it wouldn't surprise me if Tala Rico gets a boost because of that in a way that like Beto versus Cruz, like Ted Cruz is Ted Cruz, but at least in 2018, it wasn't really until after the 2018 election that he started becoming much more aligned with the McConnell wing of the Republican Party much closer to Senate leadership. It was after that election that Ted Cruz started making that transition. And beforehand, he was still kind of, he had a little bit of his Tea Party juice left in him. So there was something that he could make a slightly more coherent kind of populist right case

in a way that he couldn't now. and Ken Paxton tries to make a populist right case, but he's Ken Paxton. Ted Cruz has won elections in Texas, so people can decide how they feel about Ted Cruz. Like, I'm sure most of our viewers don't like Ted Cruz, but for a while he was really popular with conservative voters. He was seen as somebody who was deeply anti-establishment. Like, this is why he was the second to Trump in 2016, as he was seen as somebody who was both this, like, kind of conservative movement figure and very deeply opposed to the GOP. establishment, which was the combination that people were looking for, or some people were looking for back in 2016.

So it is, I think Paxton is just going to run behind Cruz probably. I'm looking at the RCP average in this race. Paxson is only up 0.6 plus 0.6. 45.2 in the RCP average is where he is. Tala Rico is at 44.6. The latest New York Times Siena poll from the end of June had them in a dead heat, just an absolute tie at 47% of the electorate. So it'll be interesting to see how Talley Rico runs compared with the rest of the country

because obviously Dems had a huge advantage in the generic congressional ballot in 2018, bigger than Dems have at this point in the cycle right now. But is Tala Rico going to outrun Dems around the country in Texas? I don't think he's going to, honestly, I don't think he's going to win the race. It could happen, of course. I don't think he's going to. I think it's still Texas. But I do think Ohio, North Carolina, those potentially Maine, although I don't think it's going to be nearly as close as it probably would have been.

Those are going to be Nebraska, Dan Osborne and Nebraska. I think those are going to be more nail biters than Republicans realize right now. And obviously they have a race on their hands in Texas. They're going to have to spend a ton of money on it. Last thing I wanted to say, Crystal, just as we're talking about 2018, is if we could put that Wisconsin map up on the screen again. This is F1. look at how small, you pointed this out, look at how small Trump is compared to health care data centers, affordability. That in 2018, polling still found something similar.

But Democrats on the campaign trail, they were talking about health care and they were talking about Trump and Russia. The 2018 election was run by Democrats on health care, mostly. But a lot of it was this cultural signaling against Trump. And that is, I think, the big difference between probably Beto at his point when he ran and a lot of 2018 candidates. And right now what you're seeing from Democrats is that you don't hear the constant anti-Trump virtue signaling. There's more focus on, I think, the policy. And that makes it much harder for establishment Democrats who want to confuse voters about who they are and the way that they'll fight, et cetera, because it's very easy. I mean, this is Haley Stevens.

she's got her yards and signs that say stick it to them, right? And they want to be able to run campaigns that are just like generic. I'm going to fight Trump. Well, what does that mean? And voters aren't having it. They have very specific policy concerns and they want to hear those clearly expressed and reflected in their political leaders. I do think that is an extraordinary change. And the last comment I'll make about the tennis vote. The Texas vote is that you're right about Ted Cruz being a stronger candidate because he also has been, I think, still able to kind of straddle the divide in the Republican Party between, which is really evident in Texas, between the like Trump Maga types and the, in Texas, like the Bush wing of the party.

And John Cornyn, who Paxton was able to be, was much more emblematic of that Bush wing of the Republican Party that really kind of hates the Ken Paxton's of the world. I mean, this is the wing of the party that literally impeached him in the House in Texas. They hate him more than, like, John Cornyn hates Paxon more than he hates Mark Warner, right? Yes, absolutely the case. And Paxton is a genuinely odious criminal figure, like corrupt, personally odious. Like, there is so much there with him. And so you also have a possibility of there's a good number of voters for Cornyn who said, I'm not voting for Ken Paxton. That is another issue for Republicans here. And Democrats obviously very unified behind Tala Rico. There is a lot of excitement for him. from the people I know in Texas on the ground among the Democratic base. I think Latinos are the swing demographic in the state to watch. You know, are they going to stay more with Republicans or are they, you know, disgusted with the economic decline, with the war, with some of the,

you know, absolute cruelty with regard to the deportation efforts, does that swing them more towards a James Talerico? I don't know. It's going to be an interesting one. Yeah, that's where I think some of the culture where stuff is going to, the Hispanic voting block, I think that's going to be a big deal. Tilarico's faith is going to, he's going to play it up, and Republicans are going to attack it in different ways. So definitely they have a race on their hands, no question about it. They're going to have to spend a ton of money. The polling is, like, obvious on that point. So, man, what a cycle. We're excited to keep covering it here, Crystal. Absolutely. All right, well, that does it for us here today. Tomorrow, I will be in again with Saeger.

So look forward to that. And Emily and I are going to jump onto an AMA live now. If you want to participate in those, become a premium subscriber at breaking points.com. We will see you guys soon. Hey, Portlandia fans. Carrie Brownstein and Fred Armisen here. The Dream of the 90s is alive in podcast form.

We're launching Podlandia AO rewatch, our brand new podcast where we revisit every episode of Portlandia together, breaking down sketches, going deep on our iconic characters, and pulling back the curtain on how it all got made. And we'll also be joined by the people who helped bring it all to life. Guestrists, collaborators and friends, including director Jonathan Chryssel,

the mayor himself, Kyle McLaughlin, legendary musician Amy Mann, and many more. Kyle is going for it. You fully improvised, not just words, but a song. Well, I thought you were all going to write a song. I remember you thinking that. Listen to Podlandia, AEO rewatch on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. What's up, fam? Sports journalist Ari Chambers.

Hey, what's up, y'all? It's your girl, Sam Jay. And we're the host of Everyone Watches Women's Sports, a new podcast from Together in IHeart Women's Sports. We're breaking down the biggest headlines. Naomi Osaka, showing out. Shout out to you, Naomi. The viral moments.

I've been obsessed with Kashan Rock's boxing journey. She looks good. Her combos are swift. And the stories everyone's talking about across women's sports. Because everyone watches women's sports. Listen to everyone watches women's sports. On the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast.

I'm Nick Tutter. You probably know me from NYPD Blue, the longest yard, or Spike Lee's Black Klansman. And on my new podcast, Delivering Happiness with Nick Tatoro, I deliver pizza to a new guest. I've shared a slice with everyone from Seth Rollins. What are you doing, my belt? To Bill Burr. I don't think I've ever met somebody so exactly out of their mind as I am. And now, we even have more great guests coming up, including the great John Tuturo.

It's called Happiness, delivering happiness. And many, many more. Open your free high heart radio. app search delivering happiness with Nick Tuttle and listen now This is an I-Heart podcast Guaranteed Human