Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 9/28/23 DEBATE SPECIAL: Winners And Losers Of Second GOP Debate, Trump Holds Rally At Non Union Plant, New Menendez Accusations, Fetterman Loses Senate Dress Code, Cenk Uygur Floats Potential 2024 Run

Episode Date: September 28, 2023

Krystal and Saagar discuss the winners and losers of the second GOP primary debate, show the low and highlights of the candidates on unions, abortion, attacks against Trump, the Trump rally at a non union auto plant, as well as new accusations against Bob Menendez, Fetterman loses the war over the Senate dress code, and Cenk Uygur joins the show to discuss the 2024 election and the risk of keeping Biden as the Democratic nominee. DEBATE SPECIAL DISCOUNT: 10% OFF Yearly Memberships available at www.breakingpoints.com Get access to full episodes, uncut, and 1 hour early right in your inbox or Spotify.Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

High key. Looking for your next obsession? Listen to High Key, a new weekly podcast hosted by Ben O'Keefe, Ryan Mitchell,

and Evie Audley. We got a lot of things to get into. We're going to gush about the random stuff we can't stop thinking about. I am high key going to lose my mind over all things Cowboy Carter. I know. Girl, the way she about to yank my bank account. Correct.

And one thing I really love about this is that she's celebrating her daughter. Oh, I know. Listen to High Key on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I also want to address the Tonys. On a recent episode of Checking In with Michelle Williams, I open up about feeling snubbed by the Tony Awards. Do I? I was never mad. I was disappointed because I had high hopes. To hear this and more on disappointment and

protecting your peace, listen to Checking In with Michelle Williams from the Black Effect Podcast Network on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. 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. Good morning, everybody. Happy Thursday.

We have an amazing debate special for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? That's right. We've got all of the biggest moments, all of the worst moments, all of the cringiest moments. Well, the worst moments would be the whole thing. It wasn't really a moment. It was just the fact that it happened at all. We've got Ryan and Emily coming in the studio to talk about it.

We also are going to talk about a couple other stories, including updates on what's going on with Bob Menendez and questions over whether they may have been attempting to recruit him as the Egyptian government, as an intelligence asset. We've also got a big update for Sagar on the dress code situation. Our long national nightmare is over. Thank God. The most important issue in this town. Thank you, town. So break all of that down for you. We've also got Cenk Uygur is going to be here in studio talking about his book and also talking about, you know, the future for Joe Biden and the Democratic Party. So excited to have him join us as well. Yeah, that's going to be a lot of fun.

We just want to go ahead and say thank you to everybody who's been taking advantage. We've got our debate special discount going on right now. We can put that up there on the screen. It's a 10 percent off our yearly membership. And it's just, we found that, you know, at this time, like these memberships, what you guys are doing, you guys are really helping us not only, you know, fund our ability to do these specials. We've got Ryan and Emily are going to be joining us soon in the studio. All of the late night work, our crew was up very, very late last night. We're all running on a couple of hours of sleep. We had somebody at the UAW strike just yesterday, you know, on the ground.

Jordan Sheridan will be going back with us in partnership. So all this stuff is things that you guys are helping us fund and build here. And we're really, really proud of it. And we're just so proud to be able to have people like you be the sole reason that we're able to do any of it. So BreakingPoints.com, once again, you can take advantage of that yearly discount, 10% off. It's the least we can do given the state of affairs in this country. That's right. At least we can do our part to help ease the burden.

That's correct. Okay, let's get to the actual debate. So we thought that for many of you, if you didn't actually spend any of the time going through this and all that, we wanted to give you a substantive enough recap to be able to take away most of the awful parts, which is most of what the two hours was. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen just to give everybody an idea. This was the overall speaking time. So what we have here is Ron DeSantis clocked in at 12 minutes and 27 seconds. This is a big change from last time around. Vivek Ramaswamy at 11 minutes and 53. Here's the big change, Crystal. 10 minutes and 42. Tim Scott tried to have a big night. Tried, I think, being the operative word. Chris Christie, 10 minutes and 32 seconds. Mike

Pence at 935. Nikki Haley at 905. And Doug Burgum at 735, despite certainly not for his best efforts because that man was interrupting left and right. And that's also why it's a little even difficult, almost honestly, to talk about the speaking time because how can you count it when they're all talking over each other? And I think that'll be a common theme of what we talk about today. On substance alone, of course, for our show, but really for the whole nation, people wanted to say, what do these people have to say about the UAW strike? And there were some revealing answers and moments from that, and we'll break it down on the other side. Let's take a listen. We should look back at the first bill in Congress under Joe Biden. The first bill had $86 billion for the union pensions because they continue to over

promise yet under deliver. One of the challenges that we have in the current negotiations is that they want four day French work weeks, but more money. They want more benefits working fewer hours. That is simply not going to stand. I'll say this. Joe Biden should not be on the picket line. He should be on the southern border working to close our southern border because it is unsafe, wide open, and insecure. Patience for the union bosses, I think that's where he and I actually have a common view. I do have a lot of sympathy for the workers, however. People are going through real hardship in this country.

I've been through hardship growing up. My father stared down layoffs at GE under Jack Welch's tenure at the GE plant in Evendale, Ohio. My mom had to work overtime in nursing homes in Southwest Ohio to make ends meet and pay off our home loan. So I understand that hardship is not a choice, but victimhood is a choice. And we choose to be victorious in the United States of America. That was the rhetorical difference between the two, Crystal. Tim Scott kind of bringing up basically the, you know, he already said, he's like, well, if you're on strike, you should be fired. Nikki Haley backed that up.

Doug Burgum took a little bit of the Trump line mostly in terms of the electric vehicles. Vivek, I think maybe the only candidate on the stage to say I sympathize with the workers' demands, of course not coming out and endorsing the cause whatsoever. It's interesting where we can talk about it now. American Compass, our great friend Oren Kass of the show, put out some new polling about how Republicans feel about unions. And actually, I thought that Vivek's answer probably split the difference at the best. So Republican voters that they found in their poll, 41 percent had an approval rating outright for unions. And I think it was 56 percent. That's actually a huge sea change, considering that 100 percent of elected Republicans are against unions. But considering like where that split is and even just in terms of general independent voters,

Vivek tried to split the difference between the traditional Republican line and the emotional sympathy, I guess, to what they are asking for. Yeah, but in terms of policy, it's not like any of them are actually different from each other with regards to unions, as far as we know. And so, yeah, I mean, this is the this is the extent of the, quote unquote, populist shift in the Republican Party being willing to, you know, sort of say, like, I have a little bit of empathy for the workers, even as you're continuing to spout the same like corporate talking points about, quote unquote, union bosses. But I guess that is a step in the right direction, as opposed to Tim Scott, who would not only want to fire the workers, but want to allow them to suffer in their old age with no pension after Wall Street absolutely destroyed these pension funds during the 2008 crisis. And that pension thing, I know it irritates you too. Yes, very much so. It irritates me so much because actually the issue

is that they didn't bail out these pension funds sooner after a bunch of Wall Street ghouls basically tanked the central state's pensions. I mean, what he's calling for is like, you know, retirees to suffer and die penniless after they've been promised a decent pension. So anyway, that's just like a particular point of contention for me. But, you know, you don't have anybody on that stage who's willing to actually overtly say, I back the workers and I back their claims. It's all just

rhetorical shifts. OK, but no real substantive difference from the trajectory of Republican policy over many decades, which is something that we'll see, too, in terms of Trump's comments and Trump's speech that we'll talk to Ryan and Emily about later. We're going to talk about that in a little bit. You're right. I mean, on the Tim Scott thing, it's just one of the most dishonest things I've honestly ever heard, because he's basically blaming the unions for not having their pensions be 100 percent. One of the reasons why the pensions are underfunded with the mandate is because, as you said, in 2008, they were absolutely destroyed and had to take a haircut after their hedge fund managers and others and their benefit managers and some of the other financiers that were involved in the process gambled with their funds.

And a lot of that even traces back to the fact that many pensions had these rules in place. You know, we can go all big short for a while and they're like, OK, you can't invest in anything. It's a triple A rated or whatever. And when the rating system though was rigged, these poor pensioners had their money completely wiped out. And then that happened again, actually in 2020. And look, I think public sector union and discussion of all that can be a separate thing, but we are talking here about hardworking retirees who, it's not that the union promised them, by the way, the company also promised them what this was. And the American finance system absolutely wrecked it.

That's not the union's fault. If anything, he's making an argument for much more stringent regulation whenever it comes to management of institutional funds of which so many hardworking people rely. Yeah. OK, let me. Yeah. One more thing. This really gets under my skin. So the backstory here is that the central state's pension fund, this is for Teamsters. So we're talking mostly about truckers, truck drivers, the UPS workers, et cetera. And because there had been

so much like corruption and mob ties, whatever, with the Teamsters, they had been under government decree. So the government was actually closely scrutinizing watching these pension funds and put these Wall Street ghouls in charge of it that then gambled with the funds. And, of course, they have all these incentives. Rather than putting the money in things that are going to be relatively safe, to make these big bets because they get bigger fees when they do this. And this is a consistent problem that we see with pensions, and it all goes back to Wall Street greed.

This pension performed so poorly under the supposedly bright minds of Wall Street that it actually did better when Jimmy Hoffa was running it and using it as his personal piggy bank. That's how poor their performance was. When you had a crook at the top who was stealing from the pension fund, the workers actually did better with that than when Wall Street was running it. Just so you know the backstory. So, well, it raises a more meta question. Who is the real crook? Something that we were alluding to is that one of the reasons for those who watch will know what we're talking about. It was very difficult to watch.

The moderators had no control. The questions were awful. But most importantly, the candidates themselves, it just turned into a total clown show up there. There was so much crosstalk. Very often, I'm talking 10 whole minute blocks. You had no idea who was talking, what was even debated on the stage. We have a little bit of a mashup that we

can show you just to give you a little bit of a taste for those who want to just tune in and be like, okay, so what the hell happened? This is what it was like all night, guys. Let's take a listen. Honestly, every time I hear you, I feel a little bit dumber for what you say, because I can't believe they hear that you've got a TikTok situation. They were there before I even showed up at the residence. You are scrapping. You are scrapping. I'm not scrapping. You know I bought a taxi.

Here's the fact, though. I cut taxis. I loaded up our car. You wanted a gas tax increase, and then you wanted a gas tax increase. We do not intend to go ahead like this. Yeah, guys, it was that times probably like 1,000, and it just wouldn't stop. It was this. Yeah, guys, it was that times probably like a thousand.

And it just wouldn't stop. It was painful. Honestly, I blame the moderators here probably more than anyone. At one point, Dana Perino was like, we're going to have to cut your mic. I'm like, you should have cut his mic 45 minutes ago. Like, what are we doing here? Well, and they would just let this go on. They didn't even really try to intervene in many instances.

And so, of course, that sets the tone for how everyone's going to approach it. You know, watching it, part of what was so painful about it was, number one, you're right, the moderators were horrendous. The question, even putting aside, like, all the fights and crosstalk that you couldn't make sense of what anybody was saying, and it was just a pathetic waste of time, the question selection was really bad. Awful. Because that, actually, that union part that we played you, that was the most substantive part of the debate. And that was in the beginning. The very first question.

And you know what? I listened to that question and I was like, oh, maybe this is going to be interesting. No, it was not going to be interesting. Because they chose to talk about a lot of issues that all of them agreed with. You know, like they all are going to have the same issue on the border. They're all going to have the same issue on crime. They're going to all have the same issue on quote unquote transgender issue. All this stuff, like they all are the same on these things. The point of these debates is to try to tease out some of the differences that might be interesting that

help people make a choice. So the question selection was terrible. The command of the stage was horrendous. And by the way, this isn't like the one thing I can say for them. They like united the country in disgust. I agree for the way that this debate went down, because everyone I saw in my timeline left, right, center didn't matter. It was all like this was a horrendous waste of time. And you could see how each of the candidates, you know, they're all getting desperate at this point. And that's part of why you had all this like ugliness and like crosstalk. And that's part of why you had all this, like, ugliness and, like, crosstalk and just it smelled of desperation for all of them. You could feel all of them coming in

with their, like, consultant instructions of how they were supposed to be. You know, clearly Tim Scott got the message of, like, you were too passive last time. You need to be more aggressive. So he was trying to pick fights with people left and right and get in on the action. You could see Vivek, it was kind of the opposite. Clearly, his consultants had been like, you got to dial it back and be it. People didn't

like you were too aggressive. You got to be more conciliatory. There was visceral, absolute hatred across the stage, but especially from Nikki Haley. The thing is about Vivek is he was like, let's all just be conciliatory up on the stage. He's like, look, you know, we're all Republicans. These are all good people. And it's like, dude, last time he literally said they were all bought and paid for. Right. But it's very clear.

I know exactly what happened because it's funny. He telegraphed it a little bit too on the nose. He said, I know a lot of you out there are thinking, who is this guy? He's a little bit of a know-it-all. He's a little too ambitious. I was like, oh, my God. What happened is little bit of a know-it-all. He's a little too ambitious. I was like, oh my God. What happened is clearly they did a focus group. Those were the top things. And so he's like, let me allay their concerns by addressing them head on. Now there's a casual way to do it. And

it was not the way that he did it. I'm talking about straight to cam, looking at them, just being like, I know that you think that I'm X, Y, and Z, but I'm not X, Y, and Z. And I was like, ugh. It was incredibly cringeworthy, just the way that it was delivered. I think you're right. I mean, so many of them had these poll tests after poll test after poll test of answers, even the canned attacks. You know, we gave you guys a favor there about freaking curtains. They were arguing about whether Nikki Haley had purchased too many expensive curtains or whatever for the U.N. ambassador's residence.

I'm just like, oh my God, like that is the lamest possible thing I've ever heard in my life. And the entire, and this was in the last seven minutes of the debate, guys. And that's why it was a very fitting, honestly, end to the thing. We did wanna pull one matter of substance,

which was, and honestly, this is probably outside of the questions about Trump, which by the way, we're missing. Why were there no real questions about Trump? Are you going to support him? What do you think about the criminal charges? All this other stuff. One of the areas where they obviously wildly disagree.

On abortion in particular, there were pointed questions about how are you going to handle this, considering how much of a poison pill it has become for a lot of voters. Let's take a listen. Because I believe in life, but I also believe in states' rights. And I think we fought hard against Roe versus Wade for decades to say that states should make these decisions. And I reject this idea that pro-lifers are to blame for midterm defeats. I think there's other reasons for that. The former president, you know, he's missing in action tonight. He's had a lot to say about that. He should be here explaining his comments to try to say that pro-life protections are somehow a terrible thing. I want him to look into the eyes and tell people who've been fighting this fight for a long time. So I actually thought that was an interesting, spicy moment.

We're going to talk with Ryan and Emily about some of the more overt attacks on Trump, which I, of course, found very interesting, just about for him not showing up. But I thought that Chris Christie's answer, and he had the best point. He's like, look, I'm the only guy here who is actually a governor of a blue state. And he's like, so obviously, talking about states' rights, it's like that's probably more of a winning element. You could see Mike Pence didn't even have the gumption

to jump in there and defend his biggest issue. But you also saw, and there's a big fight going on right now behind the scenes. I don't know if people saw, Trump gave an interview recently where he basically implied that a lot of pro-life movement was grifters. He's like, they're always raising money. I guess it's a business or something like that. Every time with him, I'm just like, hey, you know, I mean, he's definitely right. But it's one of those where it's just funny always to hear somebody say that. It's just, look, to me, that's one of his political strengths. He can piss off supposedly one of the most vital parts of the coalition. I saw a poll yesterday, Crystal, which says that GOP voters believe that Trump is the person of most faith in the entire race. I mean, that's why, you know, he could get away with it if he wants to.

I mean, I don't know who these people are in full of themselves. And by the way, if you're like a Christian and you're like, well, I think he's the leader who accomplished what I want most fine. But to be like, no, no, no. You know what? That's a God fearing man right there. That's a whole other level of delusion. Yeah. I mean, and that listen, when I look at Donald Trump and I look at these other candidates, I feel like, OK, he is the person who got these justices in place and accomplished the long term goal. Exactly. I do think I mean, he is the one that opened up this new, in my opinion, absolutely horrific, unconscionable landscape, which has been devastating for Republicans at the polls when people have actually gone and voted. But if you're someone who that issue was core, you know, I do think he gets a lot of credit for that. And so it does give him a lot of bandwidth to say things that other politicians couldn't get away with. And it's Donald Trump. He gets away with saying

things all the time that other politicians couldn't get away with. So, you know, they're still trying to navigate this issue. I thought I actually thought Chris Christie did a little bit better last night than he did in the first debate. But it's just very hard. Listen, the winner of this debate was Donald Trump. No question. Or like Asa Hutchinson for not making the stage and not having to participate in this madness. But the thing that always stands out to me, too, is while there were some jabs at Trump about him not being there or whatever, they trained way more of their fire on them, on each other, on Vivek and Nikki in particular. And Nikki, you know, she's the one candidate who got a little bit of a bump from the first debate. So clearly, Tim Scott in particular had it out like, I got to I got to take her down. I got to be the donor favorite. You know, I i gotta rise in the polls and you know make have

my moment or whatever which he's just not an attacker it's not natural to him and he didn't land any of it effectively really um you know a lot of jabs at vivek who also has you know sort of hung in there as like a solid third he's risen to be about third place in the most polls behind ron desantis and so there was a lot of fire trained at him still not a lot of fire trained at Ron DeSantis for whatever reason. But you're just looking at this. This is part of why this whole thing feels so pointless. It's like the guy who is overwhelmingly winning, you're barely talking about him and you're barely, barely punching at him whatsoever. And these attacks on like, I wish, I wish it was a potent attack to be like, you're not here and you should justify yourself to the voters. I've just never seen it actually really be politically salient, really land a strong political blow.

Because I've seen this attempt many times because oftentimes incumbents, unfortunately, feel like they don't have to debate and it would lower themselves to have to talk to the voters or have to meet their challenger. And, you know, challengers always try to make an issue of it. I've just never really seen it work out. We had a poll from our friends over at JL Partners that they did for the Daily Mail. And unsurprisingly, people basically felt the same way that we did. They said, quote, who is the real winner of the second presidential debate? Number one, Donald Trump, 27 percent. Number two, Vivek Ramaswamy at 26 percent. It's funny. I'm not sure I agree with that or not. In a traditional way, I do, just because I'm always like, okay, if the new guy is getting fire and he's getting the second amount of speaking time, that's the metric that I used

last time around. Guess what? Didn't matter at all. Literally, I haven't seen a single rise in a poll, a substantive poll on any average that we saw afterwards. Yeah. Okay. Then Ron DeSantis at 17%.

And then a smattering of Nikki Haley's, Mike Pence's, Tim Scott's, Chris Christie's. I mean, outside of the loser, again, being all of us who wasted our time on this entire thing, I don't think Nikki Haley came off particularly well last night. I'm curious what you think. I thought that she came across, it was a canned moment where she tried to go against the vague. She was trying to recreate her moment of, you don't have any foreign policy experience. And it shows with the, like, you know, every time you speak, I feel dumber or something like that. I did not find anything that she—she didn't have a moment.

And to be honest, none of them really had moments. No, there was—very hard to point to any breakout moment from anyone, really. It was just a mess. The whole thing was just a mess. No one stood out. And so I agree with you on Nikki Haley. I thought she had, putting the substance aside, because they did a whole thing about her foreign policy, I think is atrocious, et cetera, et cetera. But I thought she had a strong first debate, and I thought she really exceeded expectations. I thought she was she was strong. She was clear. She was unafraid of mixing it up. I thought she was the one person who really kind of put Vivek in his place, you know, and had won the exchange, even again, putting the substance of the issue aside. And she needed a follow up performance. She needed to show it wasn't a flash in the pan.

She needed to consolidate that increase in the polls, that bump in fundraising interest that she had after the first debate. And she failed to do that. So in that way, I do sort of feel like maybe she's the biggest loser just because she had something to lose here in terms of being the new donor favorite, the new media darling, etc. And she definitely did not deliver a similar level of performance as she did in the first debate. You know what it reminds me a little bit of? Kamala Harris. Yes, absolutely.

She had that first debate back in 2020. That little girl was me. She had the whole moment. She delivered it well. It had an impact. She genuinely went up in the polls. We forget now, but she went up in the polls. That was her highest level during the whole campaign.

And so it was like, oh, maybe she can, you know, build on this. And then there was never another moment because, you know, those the scripted attack lines, those scripted, you know, sort of like fakely generated moments. They're hard to pull off more than once. Yes. So I feel like Nikki was able to pull it off in the first one and the second one not able to land it and just ended up looking less adult, less presidential. Part of that is she was taking more incoming from other people or whatever. But I do think that this if you had to pick a loser, I would probably pick Nikki Haley outside of like literally everyone. I think I agree. I think I could see her slipping back in the polls and, you know, being a little more muddled who is going to be the donor favorite going forward. And the reality is too,

I think a lot of these donors who were hoping to have a Trump alternative are kind of giving up at this point. Oh yeah, I mean, and they should give up. I mean, look, in the current, you know, real clear politics average, where do Trump stand? He stands at 56%. In the current real clear politics average, where do Trump stand?

He stands at 56%. Ron DeSantis doesn't even come close. He's at 14.4%. Haley then is number three at 5.8. And Ramaswamy is at 5.1, even in Iowa. And for anybody who wants, we did a breakdown on this as well during our debate preview. Trump in Iowa is at 49. DeSantis is at 16. Trump in New is at 49. DeSantis is at 16. Trump in New Hampshire is at 44.

Haley is at 13. I mean, we're looking at a clean sweep really across everywhere. Another thing that people are forgetting in the Republican primary, the California count looks like Trump is going to sweep every single delegate out of California, which would effectively clinch the nomination like three weeks into the actual primary. The calendar right now and the way the primary processes works in terms of the allocation of delegates and all that, this man, it will not be in any way like a long contest. It's not going to be Obama 2008. It's not going to be Clinton in 92 or W even in 2000. It's just like it almost seems over before it began, which is – it's difficult in order to treat it with this level of seriousness.

This all just made me really think of like watching a JV squad, like a JV squad practice. That's what it felt like. That's what it felt like. Yeah, that is absolutely what it felt like. That's what it felt like. Yeah, that is absolutely what it felt like. And it's depressing, you know, as people who care about politics and think this stuff matters and, you know, want to like sort through the policy differences and have people we actually potentially like respect and admire to be possibly president of the United States. It's depressing that on neither side do you have a real contest. You know, I do think it's like a bigger meta point about the decline of our

democracy that makes you feel like, like, do we even have any real choices here? Because neither of the front runners, Joe Biden or Donald Trump, are willing to actually subject themselves to a democratic process and there's nothing to force them to. And so it's very, every other presidential election in my whole life, you've had these debates mean something and matter. And even though they can be silly and political theater, and they're all putting on makeup with their can talking points, whatever, at least there was something there to talk about.

There was some sense that these issues were consequential, that you had people that were weighing them, that what they said on the stage might matter at all. And now you just don't have any of that whatsoever. And so it really is depressing. I think it's a sign of the decay and decline of our society, frankly. Sad, as one politician who was not there once had to say. We've got Ryan and Emily standing by. We're going to have a nice power panel. We're going to have them in for the rest of the show. We're just going to have a lot of fun. So we'll post this one a little bit early, both for our premium subscribers and for everybody else.

Everybody else, stay tuned. We're going to have a lot of great content for the rest of the day. We'll see you in a bit. So we brought in some backup here. Ryan and Emily are joining our big power panel. That's right. To evaluate all of the wonderful moments from this debate that was just uniformly loved last night. Welcome, guys.

Great to see you both. Good to see you. So we wanted to start with what was perhaps the defining moment and the most significant moment of the debate, which is when, for some unknown reason, Tim Scott decided to pick a fight with Nikki Haley over curtains. Sexist. Yes. Good point. Good point, Emily. That's curtains. Sexist. Which got extremely hated. Let's take a listen to how this all went down

and get reaction on the other side. As the UN ambassador, you literally put $50,000 on curtains in a $15 million subsidized location. Next. You got bad information. First of all, I fought the gas tax in South Carolina multiple times against the establishment.

Just go to YouTube. Against the establishment. Just go to YouTube and see for yourself. And you want to know what that 10-step was? When they wouldn't pass the gas tax, the establishment and the companies wanted me to do it so much that I said the only way I will pass it

is if you will give us three... All you have to do is go watch Nikki Haley on YouTube. much that I said the only way I will pass it is if you will give me three times the deduction in income tax, then I will look at your gas tax, which is why it didn't happen. Secondly, on the 50 million, secondly on the curtains, do your homework, Tim, because Obama bought those curtains. Did you send them back? It's in the press. Did you send them back? It's the State Department. Did you send them back? You're the one that works in Congress. Oh, my gosh. You get it. You hung them on your curtains.

They were there before I even showed up at the residence. You are scrapping. You are scrapping. I'm not scrapping. Here's the fact. Here's the fact, though. I cut tax-exempt. You wanted a gas tax increase, and then you wanted a... They were Obama curtains, Emily. Women be shopping. Women be shopping. Obama be shopping. Obama be shopping. Well, let's not act like Obama didn't hang the curtains in here.

Yes, that's right. I mean, I thought, guys, that it just... The reason we picked it is that was seven minutes left. That was in lieu, by the way, of closing statements from the candidates, which is what's actually so insane. That was better than closing statements. Yeah, true. That's what they chose to go with. I mean, Emily, why do you, so Tim Scott, obviously, feeling a bit insecure, also from South Carolina.

Everybody said, oh, you played too much of a nice guy last time. You've got to land some blows but like what makes people think that this is actually substantively or even like tonally going to land with any voters who are even watching at 10 50 p.m last night so much to yes first of all i think that tim scott sees his main attack on nikki haley as being that she's some sort of corporate welfare queen which is true by the way she's like a queen of crony capitalism. But that's clearly Tim Scott saying, if there's a way for me to distinguish myself from this other very popular person from South Carolina

in South Carolina, it's to call her some sort of corporate welfare queen to say she loves federal money. I don't know if it's going to make any difference. I think we all know it's not going to make any difference. They're both jockeying to see if somehow a lane opens up where they can squeeze into second place at some point. DeSantis fails.

They're able to – someone wins Iowa and New Hampshire, and somehow – listen, Donald Trump is up by like – it doesn't matter. But if you're going for second place, that's how Tim Scott sees. In the off chance that he and Nikki Haley end up jockeying for second place, that's his line of attack against Nikki Haley, and that was a preview of it. I liked the goatee. Ryan, if anyone would know, do you know the backstory? Not that it matters, but do you know the backstory of this whole curtain situation? Because I don't even like digging into the recesses of my memory. I don't remember this particular little mini scandal.

My vague recollection is that the Obama administration had done some renovations for the UN facilities. Yes, the UN ambassador's residence. And so I think the key question is, you're appointed ambassador to the UN, you show up, Obama has bought these nice curtains. You hate Obama, you think he's born in Kenya, and he should have been impeached, but the curtains are lovely. What do you do? The deep moral dilemma. By the way, the apartment is very nice. I actually saw some pictures of it.

Samantha Power did a great job, although apparently she spent a lot of money. Women be shopping. She was there, as you said, women be shopping. I can't stomach any more of this ridiculous convo, so let's actually get to the so-called substance of this, which was Trump's actual attack or the tack, at least on Trump for not showing up. We saw a pointed moment from a couple

of the candidates, one in particular, trying to make something happen, which really wasn't happening at all. Let's take a listen. They need to change what's going on. And where's Joe Biden? He's completely missing in action from leadership. And you know who else is missing in action? Donald Trump is missing in action. He should be on this stage tonight. He owes it to you to defend his record where they added $7.8 trillion to the debt. That set the stage for the inflation that we have now. In Washington, D.C. also. And Donald Trump should be here to answer for that, but he's not. And I want to look at that camera right now and tell you, Donald, I know you're watching. You can't help yourself.

I know you're watching. Okay? And you're not here tonight, not because of polls and not because of your indictments. You're not here tonight because you're afraid of being on this stage and defending your record. You're ducking these things. And let me tell you what's going to happen. You keep doing that, no one up here is going to call you Donald Trump anymore. We're ducking these things. And let me tell you what's going to happen. You keep doing that, no one up here is going to call you Donald Trump anymore.

We're going to call you Donald Duck. All right. I want to ask... The little grin that he gave himself. You know, Crystal, I feel like he could have just cut it right before the whole Donald Duck. It was so good. It was a good wind-up. And the crowd was with him, and they were sort of engaged, and then he

throws out this Donald Duck line, and it's just like everyone's like oh collective boomer belly flop absolutely absolutely but i mean listen there were a few like jabs mostly around the fact that trump wasn't there but they spent way more time attacking each other ryan and it's not like any one of them is anywhere close to donald trump at this point so it feels, it all feels very weak to me in terms of how far they're willing to go. And you contrast that with, you know, the things Trump is willing to say about DeSantis or any of them. You know, he's out now, his new line, which you can't help but laugh at because that's

just how it is with Donald Trump. He's out there like, Ron DeSantis has fallen off as fast as a wounded bird from the sky. Like, that's the stuff he's really just saying all the time. Yeah, yeah, it's poetry. And DeSantis feels like he's really, like, going hard when he's like, where is he? He should be here, you know? Wait, did he say wounded? Okay, because he called Joe Biden yesterday a wretched old vulture.

Ah. So the bird is a avian king. Yeah, well, he's always been interested in the birds with the windmills. We brought the whale concern into the windmill situation as well. Are birds worse than dogs to him? That's true. He doesn't like dogs. Everything's like a dog.

Substance? It should have been Donald Dodge, maybe? That could have worked. Don't do the nicknames. It's Trump not showing up. Don't do the nicknames. It's Trump's thing. I know. Just don't do the nicknames. They're all so bad that they made Trump look great again.

It's just remarkable. And it reminded me almost of 2016, all of these clowns just trying to, like, throw spitballs at him. Right. And just none of it works. They're, like, trying to talk substance and looking like normal candidates, even though what they're saying is completely empty and nobody believes it. And then in the face of his presentation to these auto executives or whoever showed up at this non-union plant, it just pales in comparison. Even Trump, when he's doing his, like I said to you guys, his ridiculous story about Air Force One or whatever. Don't tease it just yet.

It's like that nonsense is even more fun than anything that these guys had to offer. Yeah, I completely agree. I mean, Emily, do you think, though, that there is—was there a way to make that in a better way? I mean, I thought DeSantis handled it fine, but, I mean, it's just difficult to gauge it. It's like, dude, you're pulling a 14 percent. The guy's beating you by 40 points. Like, realistically, was there anything he could have done outside of that to, you know, quote unquote, land on somebody on Trump, get some Trump people over, you know, to his corner here? I'm not sure if there is because I almost feel like he's playing a rigged game at this point.

Yeah, I think it's a good question. And actually, the answer is I think he could continue to more successfully use, this will be controversial, the tack that Vivek took in the very first debate, where he's talking about Donald Trump. And of course, you get into these questions of like, well, if Trump was such a great president, when are you running? Well, Ron DeSantis can answer that question because he was governor of Florida and had high popularity. So that's the DeSantis approach where he's actually trying to appeal to like never Trump people instead of just Trump curious and hardcore Trump people which is you absolutely need you need to win you grassroots

of the Republican primary he always should have been way less in the never Trump camp and way more and and you will automatically be put in the never Trump camp if you criticize Donald Trump constantly and I know that's hard in a Republican primary, but from a political strategy, his consultants had months to figure this out. It's pretty obvious. You're going to immediately lose the trust of those voters because they see him being,

indictments being stacked up against Donald Trump. Whatever we think of it, the voters see that as an attack on him. It's about like solidarity with Trump. You know, I actually have been a little bit persuaded that some of the early attacks that DeSantis was trying to do on Trump with regard to COVID and Fauci were probably the best lane for him. The issue is, I mean, the timing just, everybody's moved on. It's 2023. But I think if you had a different universe where that was still like the beating heart of what was going on in the Republican Party and then you're really beating up on Fauci versus beating up on Trump.

And we did see this with our focus group. You know, the one area where every there were a couple who were, you know, disgusted with Trump. They didn't want Trump anymore. And they were very clear about it was New Hampshire. Right. So you you have that strain there. But even the people who were Trump supporters, the one thing that a number of them brought up that they had issues with his administration was around the handling of covid. So I do think that was probably like the most promising attack. And like I said, rather than it feeling like you were just dumping on Trump, you could have used Fauci as like, you know, the guy that you're beating up on. And then why did, and insisting like, why didn't you fire him?

Why'd you keep him there, et cetera, et cetera. That's probably the most promising line of attack for him still, but it's just a little late because like I said, people have moved on. COVID feels like a long time ago at this point. One thing to back you up is it's clearly where the Trump people feel very uncomfortable. They feel vulnerable there, yeah.

Yesterday, or maybe a couple of days ago at this point, Carrie Lake, would she go on Patrick Bet-David's show? And she accused DeSantis, she was like, he was masking kids, he was doing the lockdown. And it was like, it kind of came out of nowhere. And a lot of the DeSantis people actually got very upset. She ended up moving on, being like, let's all just agree to, you know, it's okay.

COVID was a long time ago. I'm like, well, why did you bring it up? That lady is wild just agree to, you know, it's okay. COVID was a long time ago. I'm like, well, why did you bring it up? That said, you know, she's the attack dog. She's, she basically, she doesn't live in Arizona. She lives in Mar-a-Lago from what I've heard. The lady's there literally every night. So clearly she's talking with Trump. She's talking with the Trump advisors. And so Emily, I mean, clearly they feel some vulnerability there on the Fauci and COVID handling, even though, I mean, frankly, on the substance, I've always thought, you know, with Trump, I'm like, yeah, like we live in a federalist system such that DeSantis could do whatever he wanted to do, which is also why

California could do what they wanted to do. What is the president supposed to do? But that's a whole other conversation. Well, when Megyn Kelly started her interview with Trump, she said, the number one thing I wanted to hear from my audience, people who like you, is why you shut the country down for so long. And he freaked out. He did not want to answer that question. He didn't have a good answer to that question to the point where actually I was on Megan's show yesterday and she was pulling out the receipts, like tweets that Trump posted in the time period when he was like, oh, you know, it was all good. Like I was delegating it to the governors.

So I think it is. You're absolutely right. Both of you are absolutely right. That has always been. But it's tough because it's now 2023 and the hits don't land like they did in 2021 and 2022 because now the country sort of moved on high inflation, war in Ukraine. It's a different political climate. So that's always been a problem for DeSantis. Yeah, I think you're right. I mean, just to stay on the debate, you know, continue. I just I we were talking about it a little bit before. I was curious what you guys thought in terms of the questions. I mean, they kept teeing them up for areas where there was no actual debate. They're like, what do you think about crime? They're like, I think crime is bad.

I love police officers and I hate crime. Wow, that was really revealing. What difference would they all have? Like where, they have no area of disagreement on transgenderism, on crime, really on anything. Abortion, honestly, there probably is some disagreement. So I'm glad they spent some time there. The economy, UAW, I mean, a little bit, you know, ish. But frankly, I would have liked to dug a little bit deeper in there and tax policy and like, because there probably is some difference around top tax rates, et cetera. But we didn't get any of that, guys.

Even, you know, the government shutdown is like. Yes, thank you. Kind of a big deal right now. Two questions maybe. And two questions that nobody even really addressed. Nobody's asked about McCarthy. And the moderators didn't press them. government shutdown is like yes thank you kind of a big deal right now questions maybe and two questions that nobody even really addressed nobody's moderators didn't press them yeah and that's another area where there could be real divides between the mccarthy approach and the matt gates approach and what donald trump has said and whatever and they did nothing to try to tease

any of that out and did you notice that the premise of a lot of the questions was left-wing? Oh, yeah. I sort of enjoyed that first. It was kind of funny. Well, of course you did. I also knew it was pointless. Yeah, exactly. If you tell someone, hey, executive pay is 377 times as much as workers, what are you going to do about that? They're not doing anything about that. So it's sort of a pointless question,

but it's fun to hear it said out loud. So I thought that framing was fine. I wouldn't even necessarily code that as left-wing, just because I think that one, that's like an empirical fact. So like the other ones though, where I don't know, on amnesty or- Slavery. Yeah, slavery. I'm just like, okay, this is a Chris Hayes interview? What are we doing here? I have no problem with them getting tough questions, but it's a Republican debate. Yeah, exactly. That's right. You should have people that are able to bring out the contrast in Republican debates.

They're not responding to a left-wing premise. They just, like, blow past it. But, you know, if you think about it, yeah, they definitely did just blow past it. I actually don't mind the framing from an adversarial position. If you think about it, though, no one would think anything of Democratic debate questions being framed from, like, a corporate right-wing perspective. That's true. We're so used to seeing that.

We're just used to that being the case of like, you're going to spend too much money on Medicare or whatever. Like they're always framed that way on the Democratic side. So, you know, maybe this is just a little bit of. That's actually a good point. If you're going to phrase it to your, if you're going to phrase it in an adversarial way, then I mean, that's, you know,

and especially if it's going to be like that on the other side of the debate, then I actually think, you know, maybe I revise my position. It's more about, let's get some goddamn disagreement between these candidates. That is the key.

It's like they didn't know where to bring out contrast in Republican candidates. And that's, I mean, that's when you're using left-wing framing on the questions. There's no problem with that whatsoever, but it wasn't towards any helpful end.

The conversations were constructive. The weird thing is, too, that this was a Fox Business and Univision debate, but they did very little on the economy. And which is, you know, one thing if you're going

to go into topics where, again, there's going to be some debate and disagreement, but there will actually be more debate and disagreement around some of these economic issues. I mean, you also have, you know,

big things happening in the antitrust world that they could have gotten into. Google lawsuit. Yeah, you also have, you know, big things happening in the antitrust world that they could have gotten into. Google lawsuit. Yeah, absolutely. But, you know, the government shutdown being a huge example of this, that's just totally invisible.

And so by skipping over their own, what's supposed to be the core of what Fox Business, I guess, is all about, talking about the economy, business, et cetera, they really left a lot on the table in terms of some of the more interesting divides that could have been in this debate. Is that because they don't like to disagree about the economy?

That's an interesting point. Fox Business has basically an ideology that goes unspoken and is just assumed. When it was in the Ronald Reagan library or whatever. All the Ronald Reagan nostalgia. That's their ideology. And if you start asking them about it, you're going to get a bunch of them who are going to give populist answers, even if they don't believe it. And then that's an awkward moment for Fox Business.

That's true. You could ask a question. Actually, this would have been perfect. This is such a good point. This is a huge point because Reagan, Japan, tariffs, you're at the Reagan library. The single point of disagreement that almost every single one of those candidates have with the guy who is up by 40 points and just gave a speech literally on economic nationalism. It's a phrase that he used when he was talking at the non-union plant, economic nationalism. He just gives this big speech and you don't draw out the contrast between all of the candidates and that big, like the single divide, the biggest divide between them and him on policy is that he is out there talking about economic nationalism. Whether or not you believe he'll deliver on it is a different debate.

But that speech was the new right in address. And so to not push them on that, now that you guys brought that up, I think that is actually a huge mistake. It's an important point, and it's also one where Pence was trying. He's like, we cannot fall to the siren song of populism and all this other stuff that he's bringing. Wondering why he's on the wing of the stage. It's very interesting. You can't have a meal alone with populism and like all this other stuff that he's bringing. Wondering why he's on the wing of the stage.

It's very interesting. You can't have a meal alone with populism. I forgot that he made that joke about how he's been sleeping with a teacher for 30 years. About Joe Biden sleeping with a teacher.

38 years. Christy brought it up first. It was so creepy when Christy was talking about it. It was so wrong. Everyone stop. I hated that. I didn't like when he mentioned

the Biden thing. He should have gotten five minutes off the stage. That's time out. But you can see Pence debating whether or not to say it. Like the wheels were turning

in his head. He like sort of slowed down. And yeah, if you missed this moment, he said, Chris Christie said that he had been, Biden had been sleeping with a teacher for years,

referring to Dr. Jill Biden. Trying to make a teacher union point. Exactly. It was super bad. And then Mike Pence is kind of looking at the camera. He's like, well, I've been sleeping with a teacher for 38 years. And then there was a pause. And everyone was like, is that real?

Did that actually just happen? Both of you all for fun. All the police. This is terrible. Why don't we call? Let's move on. Let's move on. Let's move on. Okay, so as we know,

we had Trump in another location at this non-union plant with people who, some of whom may be workers or a bunch of people who were interviewed who said, you know,

I'm not union, I'm not an auto worker or whatever, and making some very interesting comments about the ongoing United Auto Workers strike, you know, I'm not union, I'm not an auto worker or whatever, and making some very interesting comments about the ongoing United Auto Workers strike, basically telling the workers that they don't understand what they're doing and they're picking the wrong targets. Take a listen to what he had to say. In other words, your current negotiations don't mean as much as you think.

I mean, I watch you out there with the pickets, but I don't think you're picketing for the right thing. But if they endorse me, your leadership, you can tell them I said it, although I have a feeling they may be watching tonight. Ryan, what'd you make of this moment? And he goes on and on and on and on. Yes, of course he does. About how the UAW leadership ought to endorse him. And if he does, the auto industry is just going to explode. And if he doesn't, then it's all going to be driven into EVs and they'll all be out of work. I think he doesn't understand. I get it. He's talking to the whole country. Yeah. But if he was actually serious about talking to the autoworkers, he could have addressed the actual concerns that the autoworkers are having, which and they're saying what we're striking over is we want protections for the future EV jobs.

I think a lot of autoworkers and a lot of people around the country know that, yes, there are incentives in federal law put in by the IRA to move people, you know, to move the industry quicker away from the internal combustion engine. But I don't think anybody thinks that absent that, that 50 years from now, it's going to be just a thriving industry. Like you're just kind of shouting into a void at that point. I think everybody knows like this is over, like we're moving toward electric vehicles. So the question is how do we transition? So I think the answer to that is correct. I don't know if it will be a hundred percent and we've talked a lot about it on the show, but I'm curious, actually, this is a tactical point I've been trying to save and I want to get your guys' take and I'll include mine as well. UAW president Sean Fain was asked whether he was

going to meet with Trump, and here's what he had to say. Quote, I see no point in meeting with him because I don't think the man has any bit of care about what our workers stand for, what the working class stands for, and he serves the billionaire class. So I am curious if you guys think it was tactically, it's a good move. We don't know what percentage of UAW workers exactly voted for Trump. I would venture to guess, what, 30, 40 percent? Something like that. 40 probably is too generous. So it's somewhere around that. You think maybe it's higher? Probably higher. It might be higher.

Is it a tactical move then to outright is a good move to outright trash a candidate who maybe at least a decent portion of your membership is going to vote for or did vote for in the past? I'm not saying he may not be substantively correct, but is explicitly aligning yourself with the Democratic Party

the correct thing to do when you're going to embrace Biden and then explicitly move Trump aside, which it only gives him even more of an incentive to trash union leadership? I'm curious what you guys have to say. Well, I mean, I think it forgets the fact that they pointedly did not endorse Biden when a lot of the other unions. So he's been very critical of Joe Biden. But, you know, I don't think we give these workers enough credit for understanding the lay of the land. Auto working manufacturing jobs went down under Trump. He made a lot of promises to these, I mean, went to Lordstown and went to all of these different, you know, places that have historic union auto plants and told them, don't sell your homes. The jobs are coming back. And

it did not happen. Now, I think that that is a big part of the reason why he won Michigan in 2016 and lost Michigan in 2020. And also, we don't talk enough about the fact that actually Joe Biden doubled the margin, that Hillary Clinton still won union workers. Joe Biden doubled that margin in 2020. And I think it's exactly because more than anyone, they're tuned into the distance between the rhetoric and the reality. And listen, I think there was a lot of bait and switch going on with Trump and the way this event was portrayed and what it actually was, which in reality, it was an anti-union event. Could you give the details on that, Crystal? I don't think we were able to talk about that. Yeah, so he was invited by management to this non-union shop. And some of the people who helped organize the event, we know were affiliated with

the national right to work movement, which is like the union busting movement. Some of the workers that were interviewing the crowd that were even holding up the like union workers for Trump signs were not union. So, I mean, it was just obviously very different than what was portrayed. And Ryan, you pointed out most of it was just like a normal campaign speech. It was a rally, basically. Yeah. So, you know, many of these details may not seep through to the national public, but I can tell you this was huge news in Michigan.

The local papers were covering it extensively. The local papers were covering extensively the comments from Sean Fain and also from other UAW leadership about the distance between Trump's rhetoric and what he actually does. And like I said, I think more than anybody, they have seen the broken promises from him when it comes to labor. So do I think it's a mistake for Sean Fain to invite the president to picket line? You also have to think these workers are risking a lot to go out on strike and try to achieve better wages, better working conditions, et cetera. You think they're going to turn down either Republican or Democrat, the president of the United States coming to stand with you,

even if he's not your guy, even if you didn't vote for him, even if you're not going to vote for him. That is powerful leverage on your side. So, no, I think I actually really appreciate the clarity of his language and the way that he's approached this and the fact that he has been critical of Biden where they've, you know, fallen short as well. I wouldn't say it was a mistake to invite Biden. Of course, you take it where you can get. I honestly, though, I think what Sean Fain may not understand, though, is that he's actually making

it easier for MAGA to code anti-union, in my opinion, because what it would mean, and there are, look, I'm not going to say Trump or many of the people who work for him are pro-union, but we were just talking about this earlier, Block. Emily, you and I were reviewing that polling from American companies. 40% of GOP voters support union. So, I mean, it's not all of them, but it's some. And if the quote-unquote union boss is explicitly going to come out and trash Trump to a lot of people because it's effectively a cult of personality party, they're going to be like, okay, well, screw this guy. And then by extension, like possibly screw you. And I thought it was a mistake because I think it tactically makes it

more difficult for a senator like Josh Hawley, who just went to the picket line or other senators who I know are considering visiting the picket line. It will make them appear almost as if they are like crossing into Democratic territory. And again, I don't agree with that. I don't think that's the right thing. But I thought that his statement explicitly coming out to trash Trump like that, I thought it was a tactical mistake. If he wants to achieve any sort of bipartisanship. If he doesn't, that's fine. I mean, maybe he thinks it's a lost cause.

It probably is. But I'm saying, like, if you want to even attempt to get it, it makes it more difficult, in my opinion. I'm curious what you think. And, of course, we need to get a response. Yeah. You know, I was thinking actually back to Tea Party times. And I'm thinking, you know, if someone had done what Donald Trump did last night, which was, again, like rhetoric versus results, totally different. There's a gap there that I think, again, you could have actually had the Republican debate focus on that, in fact.

And the Michigan question is huge. I think that's such a smart point. He, though, has identified the single biggest wedge between workers and union support, which is the union leaders. And UAW is particularly vulnerable to that, not because of Sean Fain, but because of people who came before him. In the past, yeah. Yeah, absolutely. And if in the Tea Party years, you had somebody doing what Donald Trump did last night, which was this really, he made this crystal clear wedge, trying to drive between the workers and the leadership, which is just tactically smart.

I'm not talking about it substantively, but tactically, that is the only shot Republicans have at really, if they're not going to go full pro-union, that's the only way that they can possibly start to appeal to some of these workers. He did it. He did it very boldly. And Republicans have never been able to do that. They've never even thought to do that. At the same time, I do think it's very, very true that Trump is the rhetoric versus results in places like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin are going to be a real problem for him. Because people think of like union membership in Michigan. It's probably like one in every five households. It's a decent number. It's like 66,000, I believe.

That's a really big deal. It might not sound like it, but it's a really big deal because there's a decent number. It's like 66,000, I believe. That's a really big deal. It might not sound like it, but it's a really big deal because there's a ripple effect into families. There's a ripple effect into communities. And so actually,

this is huge news. And Sean Fain coming out and just going hardcore against Trump, on the one hand, it does make it easier for Trump. On the other hand, it makes it harder for Trump.

It's just like two, there's two sides to it, I think. I can see it. I mean, Ryan, I wonder if you have thoughts on, Biden ran his first, actually ran it during the debate, direct ad against Trump.

And it was about unions and wages. Oh, interesting. And when I see that, I'm like, oh my God, Democrats maybe finally figured out how to run against this guy. And to me, the rhetoric from Sean Fain

is also very effective because it's like, this guy is the problem. He's the billionaire class. And I, to me, the rhetoric from Sean Fain is also very effective because it's like, this guy is the problem. He's the billionaire class. You know, the first time we, that Democrats tried to run against Trump in 2016, it was like, he's not a real billionaire. We have the real billionaires on our side. He's actually not. He says bad things. Right. And so when I saw that ad that was like, no, the, you know, the, I think it was like Donald Trump talks and Joe Biden delivers, I actually thought it was effective and I thought it could potentially land in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, where they know very viscerally like those plants and those jobs that were supposed to be here under Trump,

guess what? They did not come back. And Trump lost again. Yeah. And what I think it shows is that if Democrats actually do something, even the minimal amount for workers, then it really puts Republicans on the spot. Like it puts Trump on the spot. When Trump is running against Hillary Clinton, then he can just say, I'm for workers. She's terrible. And the workers are like, yeah, she probably would have let the Detroit go bankrupt. Like the reason Obama wins Michigan in 2012 is because they saved Detroit. Nobody believed that Hillary would have done the same thing. So Trump then can get away with just like some like surface level pro worker stuff. Once you've got Biden actually doing things

like going to a picket line, then you actually have to peel back what Trump is saying a little bit. It's like, okay, Sean Fain says they want a 40% raise, and they want all of these EV plants to be unionized, and they want access to these plants. What's Trump saying? Trump is saying, you're picketing the wrong place. You should endorse me, me, me, me, me, me. And all of a sudden, that starts to fall apart. You're like, okay, he says he's for the workers, but he's not. Is he for our 40% raise? He didn't say he was. Is he for us being able to unionize EV plants, or does he just not want EV plants to exist? Well, I think the latter is definitely the case. So then the workers are like, okay, well, once you are on board with our agenda, then you come to the picket line and march with us. If you're not on board with our agenda, we're going to march with the guy who is.

And to Crystal's point, I think that's the big thing. Like Republicans still are not willing to go full, like yes, unionize the EV plants. And so Trump knows his only, his best option is to say no EV plants because if you're not willing to take that step, that's the only way that you can go. I think you guys are right. At the same time, he did, he didn't just regale the audience around EVs. He also, Ryan, you pulled this for us. We have to give people. He basically just turned it into a rally and gave some of his more classic riffs. This one was Ryan's favorite.

Let's take a listen. You signed this. First day I was in office, I said, what is it? It's a new Air Force One. It's 5.7 billion. I said, that sounds like a lot of money for a plane. It's actually two planes, by the way, but they call it Air Force One. They're identical.

I mean, even the wood grain, you can't tell the difference. I could tell because it was a little nick in one desk that wasn't on the other. So I could say, that's one, and the other one's two. So the head of Boeing came in, and he said, sir, we have to get 5.7. I said, nope, I'm not doing it. I was supposed to sign it.

I said, I'm not doing it, not for 5 to sign it. I said, I'm not doing it. Not for 5.7. It has to have a 3 on it. I didn't know what that meant, except I knew it was a hell of a cut. Right? Right? Right, Al? Sir, we'll do it for 3,999 nine nine and 99 cents, right?

And I said you have yourself a deal so I saved 1.7 Billion dollars on that plane. I was very does anybody give me credit for that? No I'm losing it. If you're a Republican, how are you going to compete with that, right? You can't. You can't compete with that. It's too good. Sorry, Doug. I do agree that Air Force One is too expensive. It's ridiculously expensive.

It's ludicrous. Air Force One... He also has a common misconception. Air Force One is only the plane in which the president is on, of which we all know from the movie Air Force One. What else? Actually, my last take on this,

aesthetics of which we will get into a little bit, is I did think his new color scheme was better. The red, white, and blue, as opposed to the JFK blue. And Biden vetoed it. And Biden vetoed it. He should have gone into that. We wanted the extended riff. A substantive point about that.

Not that all of your comments are highly substantive about the color scheme. Humor is such a weapon. Humor is such a weapon. Humor is such a weapon. And that's one of the things that every one of those dreadful people on stage last night are completely lying. There was not. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Donald Duck? I can't think of a single moment of levity. Like it was all just like pain.

Right, exactly. There may have been some unintentional humor. All the sex? Like when Ron DeSantis said he visited ronald reagan's gravesite like you know just trying to play into this as much as possible anyway no humor whatsoever it was another i mean obama was also funny he had comedic timing and could land a joke george jimmy bush yeah and it um it really maybe it shouldn't be this way it should be about the substance or whatever but it really is so powerful and so difficult to overcome when you're up against someone who is actually

just genuinely funny, whether you like him or hate him or anything. I totally agree. I also think Obama was unfairly slandered for, you're likable enough, Hillary. I thought it was a great line. I don't think he took way too much for it. There was a moment where the moderators last night asked them if they could be the next Ronald Reagan, essentially, meaning that they could have like a generational pull. Like, could you have a legacy like Ronald Reagan's was essentially the question. And it's a perfect question when all of them are down by

what, 40 points and the leader's not on stage. Because you look at it and you say, absolutely not. And partially for that reason, first of all, Reagan was very charismatic, was hilarious. And nobody on that stage has that. And Donald Trump is out, you know, up in Detroit riffing. It's such a clear contrast. There's not one person who stands out like that. And I think some of them are talented politicians. I think Tim Scott's a talented politician. I think Ron DeSantis, when he was in his moment, 2020, 2021, was a talented politician on the state level.

He hasn't been able to translate it nationally. And that contrast is glaring. I'm fascinated by how Ron DeSantis struggles with his face. Oh, my gosh. I mean, I'm just like, you don't. Yeah, it is. And I think that's exacerbating it. The whole time, I'm like, you don't know how to just exist without doing something.

You're like moving around. Anyway, I actually knew you at this point. You know, it's like now that he's no longer a threat to anyone or anything, I just feel uncomfortable looking at these weird faces that he cannot help himself from making. It's the smile. It's when he tries to laugh. Yeah. Yeah.

Or when he thinks he lands a point. And then there's this like. Stop. Stop. Yeah, or when he thinks he lands a point and then there's this like, oh, stop, stop. Let's move on to another big story outside of the debate that has been ongoing here in D.C., which I'm actually there's a couple of elements of this that have become very interesting. You guys over the Intercept have done some great reporting about some of the subtext of this indictment. Put this up on the screen, which is really fascinating. So Ken tweeted out here,

Egyptian intelligence may have been trying to recruit Senator Bob Menendez as a spy, according to four former CIA officers. Let me go ahead and read you a little bit of this report. They said national security experts say the indictment's reference to Egyptian intelligence officials

and Menendez's disclosure of highly sensitive and non-pments reference to Egyptian intelligence officials. And Menendez's disclosure of highly sensitive and non-public info to Egyptian officials suggest that more than a garden variety corruption scheme, there may be an intelligence element to the charges. Egypt's elicitation of information resembles a textbook recruitment pass, an intelligence operation intended to recruit an asset for former CIA officers, told The Intercept. What more can you tell us about this, Brian? It goes back to the question of whether or not an asset is recruitable. You have to, as an intelligence agency, you have to try to figure out whether or not this person is someone you can get.

Actually, and back in 2015, 2016, when people were accusing Trump of being a Russian asset, I asked some CIA folks. They were like, he's what we would call an unrecruitable asset. Yes. Because you can't trust him with any information that you get. You don't know. Now, you might be able to manipulate him for your own advantage. Yeah. But you absolutely, he cannot be a recruited asset. And so the way that you start with some of these assets is you ask for small things that aren't necessarily damaging, but that they know they're not supposed to give you.

And the key one here that they asked was the size and details about the Egyptian, the U.S. embassy in Cairo, because that is known to be a center of kind of intelligence activity. All embassies are at some level, but certainly the one in Cairo is. And so for Menendez to give non-public information about that is, A, useful to the intelligence operations of not just the Egyptians, but the Emiratis who basically run the Egyptians' D.C. operation. But it's a sign that, OK, he's willing to cross lines. Which is what he did. I mean, what is it? He got the non-public information as the Senate Foreign Relations Chairman. He checked, what did he text it to his wife? And then his wife

related to the man who bought her a very nice Mercedes, who she then thanked by a text message. Allegedly. Allegedly. It's all a little bit stunning. Crystal, you flagged this. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. Currently, there are, what is it, 28 senators, Democratic senators? Something like that, yeah.

That have come out, so more than half the caucus, actually, who have called for Senator Menendez to resign. However, not one Republican has come out to say that Menendez should resign. The only one I saw was John Cornyn, who said, quote, I think all Menendez should resign. The only one I saw was John Cornyn who said, quote, I think all my Democratic colleagues should resign.

That's kind of a good line, actually. Let's give it to him. It is a good line. And I was curious, Emily, for your take as to why. I think it's because if you say that Menendez should resign, it then impugns Trump because it would imply that indictment is in any way like some sort of fact pattern that correlates to guilt and that they don't want to box himself into a corner and they would rather just let the Dems play into it on their own.

What do you think? Yeah, I think first of all, that's right. But second of all, it's a wonderful political tool to have the Senate foreign relationship. I know he stepped down from that, but to have him still sitting as a member of the Senate is a wonderful political tool. So why call for him to resign when you can continue to say Democrats have a likely Egyptian asset, someone as corrupt as Menendez in the Senate. But the other problem with that, though, is all the Democratic senators have essentially neutralized that line of attack by calling for him to resign. Has Biden called

on him? No, he's not. That's a big problem for the Democrats. Yeah. And Schumer hasn't either. I mean, it's wild. So I've got Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio, but Tom Cotton went into detail, actually sort of like overtly came out to defend Menendez. And I think his reasoning is illustrative. He says the charges against Senator Menendez are serious and troubling. At the same time, the Department of Justice has a troubling record of failure and corruption in cases against public figures from Ted Stevens to Bob McDonald to Donald Trump to Bob Menendez the last time around. Sarah Menendez has a right to test the government's evidence in court. Just like any other citizen, he should be judged by jurors and New Jersey's voters, not by Democratic politicians who now view him as inconvenient to their hold on power,

which is like that part is kind of ridiculous ridiculous given the fact that they intentionally made him chair of this very powerful committee. But Ryan, what do you, what is going on here with, because I didn't actually see this coming. I thought, because I, you know, Republicans, yeah, I get they look like hypocrites if they call him out, but not Trump or whatever, but they're willing to be hypocrites in any manner of other ways. So why was this the bridge too far where they felt the need to back up this man who is charged with the most cartoonish levels of government corruption that you can possibly imagine? I think it goes partly back to what Emily is saying. There's that famous Napoleon line where he says, you know, never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake. So just let Democrats keep foundering on this.

But also I think they want to break all the norms around this stuff. And this helps break the norm. Yeah. Because the norm would be that if a president is convicted or even indicted under these types of circumstances, that he would go away out of public life. Like that's the old norm. Obviously Trump is not doing that. And so to make it seem a little bit normal for him not to do that, you have to smash all these other ones. And so if you just kind of push through this and you have corruption everywhere, then it's like, well, everybody's corrupt. So who cares? Well, I was just going to quickly add there's this sort of bubbling

idea on the right or theory on the right that and I think it's echoed in Tom Cotton's statement that Menendez became inconvenient because of his positions on Iran and Cuba based on what the Biden administration wants to do or people what the Biden administration wants to do or people in the Biden administration want to do. I know it sounds, but that is the deep state, basically, came out to get Menendez. Menendez must have done something right if the deep state is going after him.

The thing is that that wouldn't hold water because then they would have gotten rid of him way before that and they wouldn't have put him back. Wouldn't have made him a chair in the Foreign Relations Committee. It doesn't make any sense. I think it's just Trump. I honestly think Trump is the, I think in five, ten years ago, they would have called for him to resign.

I think now with Trump under indictment, any just saying that an elected official should resign because of said indictment, they're like, well, why would we then have to go walk down the hallway and be like, why should Senator Rezina resign if Donald Trump shouldn't run for president? And they'd rather not get into it. And so the two who are willing to come out and speak for Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, those are more ambitious politicians. They probably want to get on Trump's good side whenever they see something like that. The rest of them are just happy to stay quiet. Or they want Menendez there because of his positions on Cuba and Iran.

Another good point. But also, do these guys not have signal and disappearing messages? Like you're the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They have not cracked Sigma yet. Like, Signal's secure still. Well, we don't know. I don't know if that's true. Don't give these people any advice, right?

No, it didn't work for the D.C. government. I think they did crack Sigma. I think the NSA's got it back. They can crack it if Pegasus gets onto your phone. That's right. But as long as you're not on the phone.

Everybody's probably on his phone. But, you know, I do find it really disturbing. Even him, Cotton, like, overtly backing up the Supreme Court's. I mean, the Supreme Court has basically made it so that corruption, the definition of corruption is literally like getting a sack of cash and saying on camera, like, I am taking this cash to do your bidding in this specific way. And this does go back to the Bob McDonald case in particular. And so, you know, the Republican Party at times has talked a big game about corruption very recently.

And so for them now to totally back away from that and just completely get on the side of like, yeah, what even is corruption and who really cares? And of course, yeah, I mean, I just, I do find it, like it sucks. It just sucks that they would take this position basically in favor of government corruption. And Cenk Uygur, who we're having on the show today in person, which we're excited about. He actually made a really clever point, which is like, you know what Menendez should do?

He should flip parties, make the deep state point, and he'll be good to go because no evidence, no the gold bars in the closet, whatever. No, it's the deep state. They're out to get you because of your sanctions on Cuba or whatever. That would work for him. Brilliant. It was a perfect text message. Yeah. It was a perfect message. Exactly. I'm just Cuban. You know, it's okay.

Oh, and he's already been trying that. He's already been trying it. So he might as well go for it. And you know, Cubans are Republicans now, so you can get better. So it all works for him. There you go. Some free advice, Menendez. To the last block, the most important block to me personally. It's not true. Okay, it's a joke.

Let's go ahead and put this up there. It's not a joke. The Senate has adopted by unanimous consent Senate Resolution 376, the Shorts Act, which stands for Show Our Respect to the Senate, introduced by Senator Joe Manchin. We now officially have a dress code in place on the Senate floor. It will require a coat, a tie, long pants of some sort of slack, of which now personally I don't even think you should wear khakis on the Senate floor. But, you know, I guess this is willing to compromise.

Half a loaf of sugar. It's willing to have a compromise here. This comes after Senator John Fetterman and Senator Sinema frequently violated said dress code. There was never actually an official dress code that was on the floor, for those who are wondering. The way that this all happened is that Senator Schumer instructed the Sergeant of Arms not to enforce the informal dress code, which was kind of written in the rules previously, allowing Fetterman to preside and be on the Senate floor in his signature shirt slash hoodies and shorts and sneakers. And his colleagues rebelled. Now, Fetterman himself has backed down completely after talking a lot. Big game, I would just say, on Twitter, along with the staff. Let's put this

up there on the screen. He's got a strong social media game. You cannot deny that. I will deny it. Because they talked a massive game, and then he doesn't even object to the resolution where all of his colleagues are like, no, you look like a disgusting ogre. No, because he actually has his eyes on the prize of things that matter, unlike this stupid story. We will get to this, Crystal. Senator Fetterman has said during Democratic lunch he will wear a suit now when speaking

or presiding over the chamber, and if not in the suit, he will vote from the cloakroom. So he is completely caved after talking such a big game about how, oh, he was standing up and all of this. You know what I think? Okay, go ahead. I think that this is a war on men. Because why is it that Senator

Fetterman is getting so much scrutiny when Kyrsten Sinema is a serial violator? Why don't people say anything about that? I think this is a war on men and I will not stand for it. I agree with you

and that's the point that I made in my monologue because it's actually a bi-gender, I guess if you could say, problem that we've had in the Senate. I do think, and I wanted to,

of course, everybody knows what I think about this and I thought it was funny. However, in terms of the biggest sticking point that I had, and I'm sure, and Crystal, you already agree with me on this, so Ryan, I'm sure you as well, especially because you've been a reporter on Capitol Hill. Don't you think it is complete BS that the staff and the pages still had to wear coat and ties, but it only applied for Fetterman and for Sinema? Basically, the help still had to dress up. You've had to wear a coat and tie on the it only applied for Fetterman and for Sinema. Basically, the help still had to

dress up. You've had to wear a coat and tie on the Senate. I've had to do it too. Whenever we go into those, you know, the chamber or whatever, or in some of those places where it's only press and senators or congresspeople who are allowed, it's like we all had to abide by the dress code, but they set the rules so that only he and Sinema didn't have to abide. You have to at least admit that was wrong. It would be pretty cool if pages and interns were able to wear shorts. But he didn't push for that. Fully in favor of that. Mr. Populous didn't push for the pages to be able to dress badly.

Only for himself. Let's be clear about that. That's a fair point. To me, anything that undermines respect for the Senate is a good thing. Ah, okay. I've heard this take. I don't agree with it, but you can continue. It is a good take. Ah, okay. I've heard this take. I don't agree with it, but you can continue. I mean, the Senate was a mistake. It is a good take.

I disagree, too. Look, I just think Fetterman, when he came out as the first Democratic senator to actually call in Menendez to resign, and has been very direct and forceful about it,

and also his staff were completely mocking him, saying we're going to return his donation in, like, cash-stuffed envelopes. I liked it, too. He wins the week. I don't care what happened with the...

I've never cared about what happens with the dress code. I still don't care what happened with the dress code. I've never cared about what happens with the dress code. I still don't care what happened with the dress code. He was on the picket line. He was the first out to call for Menendez to resign, which has helped to open up the floodgates of people actually saying the thing that is totally obvious, that of course this man should not be

in a position of power. So I am 100% team Fetterman on this week in all respects. I think on policy, it was a good week for him. I agree with you. I also, I'll even give him credit for this. He gave a fantastic speech at a hearing about banning the Chinese Communist Party from being able to buy farmland in the state of Pennsylvania. That's a longstanding problem that we've had.

So I will also give him this. I just think he should be wearing a suit when he's on the Senate floor. I don't think it's a controversial position. You've won. Take the W. I'm here. This is my celebration. This is my Super Bowl.

What about this new zip-up hoodies that people are wearing? Oh, absolutely not. No, no, no. I think that was obvious. I don't even know about that. I do think soccer has its finger on the pulse of something, which is that this does. It is, I think, very obviously a proxy for how people feel about the country right now and people's standards. And so I don't think it's entirely unimportant.

I think the public actually, there's a segment of the public that's like, you got to be effing kidding me. My paycheck is going down. I agree with that. But I also think some people are like, come on. They go to church and everybody's in jeans. And it does honestly bother them. And so I don't think it's entirely out of the realm of what matters.

I think it's very, I think it has really exposed the priorities of media and of the political class. We can have both. Listen, yeah, but we don't. But the show is a good example. Okay, our show, okay, fine. We talked about Menendez,

now we're talking about the dress code. Which we need to like, ridiculous silliness that it deserves, okay? But how much time is spent on this whole dress code situation, especially over on Fox News? Oh, that's like, you know, the millions of kids that fell into poverty. Bob Menendez being incredibly corrupt, like a million issues that are going on that are actually substantive.

And you got Joe Manchin, who I would take John Fetterman in a thong over Joe Manchin in anything every frickin day of the week. And he is now like the hero of the story. It shows me that the screwed up priorities in the Senate that they would spend so much time talking about this and debating this, et cetera. It shows me the screwed up priorities of the news media. And that's what I have to say about that. Ryan, last word. I think tactically, he looked more absurd than usual with that unicolor like. Yeah, I actually said that.

I used a Marxist term. I used a Marxist term for you guys actually Was he hiding the country? I think he dressed so Repulsively to the average eye and made it so obvious where cinema when she breaks dress code That's London. She just dresses like an idiot, you know or like a Met Gala wannabe Whereas Fetterman service genuinely looks horrible. I find cinema's attire to be so much more offensive. So she grates me.

I find it so much more offensive than Fetterman's. She doesn't repulse me. I'll put it that way. He repulses me, she grates me. And she grates me, actually, the grating might be worse, as you said, because it underlies a lot of attention-seeking narcissism and the, what was the shirt that she wore when she was presiding over the cinema? Oh, it was bad.

It was like boss woman or something like that. Oh, yeah. and the, what was the shirt that she wore when she was presiding over the Senate? It was like boss woman or something like that. It was like something you would buy for a teenager from Limited 2 and bejeweled across her chest. So it was bad. Why do you even know about Limited 2? I don't know.

I think she used it. General cultural knowledge. Anyway, I would just say we won. We beat them. Ugliness will not prevail. Ugliness will not prevail in the long run. I've always believed that. I think Sutterman actually won. This is a big, I don't think we won. We beat them. Ugliness will not prevail. Ugliness will not prevail in the long run. I've always believed that. I think Federman actually won.

This is a big, I don't think he won at all. Tactical retreat. Ryan, Emily, I want to thank you guys so much for joining us. This was a lot of fun for the breakdown. I'm also glad we didn't spend the whole time on the debate because, God, it was like, you know. There just wasn't enough there to pretend like it mattered. Okay, last question on the debate. To wrap it up, do you think anything changes in the polls? Oh, last question on the debate. To wrap it up,

do you think anything changes in the polls? Oh, great question. Absolutely not. Anything changes in the polls? Not significantly. Not significantly. I don't even think it changes on the margins. I agree.

I don't think anything moves anywhere outside of the margin. I think Nikki Haley may fall a couple points. Okay. Oh, interesting. That's my... Because she did get a first debate bump. She was the one person who got a first debate bump. In New Hampshire, particularly.

Yeah, Curtain Gate is going to be it for her. Curtain Gate. did get a first debate bump. She was the one person who got a first debate bump. In New Hampshire, particularly. Curtain gate is going to be it for her. Curtain gate. Devastating. Cancer by that. Devastating. That's the Obama curtains. Inside baseball, to wrap it all up and bring it all full circle,

I want to say that they got into a shouting match before we started taping about Fetterman. So what you saw on air was also what happened off air. That's actually, actually, you want to see me get mad. All right, guys, we have Cenk Uygur standing by. Let's get to it. An auspicious day here at Breaking Points. We have a very special guest joining us in studio, Cenk Uygur. He is the creator of The Young Turks and also author of the brand new book that we have here,

How Progressives Are Going to Take Over the Country and America is Going to Love It. Oh, I skipped the main title, which is Justice is Coming. Indeed. Yes. Justice is here right now. Yes, you have arrived. Justice has arrived. It's great to see you, Jane.

Thank you so much for joining us. I know you went through some lengths with the red eye and all that to be able to get here. We're really grateful. No problem. Thank you. So before we get into the book, any big hot takes from the debate last night is Doug Berger. I'm going to surge into 0.6% of the vote. What do you think? Well, I actually kind of liked Doug Berger. I thought he made some practical points and actually done some things in his life. And he was the only one that was actually trying to be substantive. Okay. Having said that, no, he will not surge to 0.6. So look, I've got a similar take as a lot of folks do. It was a mess,

and it looked like the kids' table. They're constantly talking over each other. Yeah. They're running for a second. Although I thought DeSantis was a little strong last night, stronger than he normally is, with a weird smile and all. Yeah, I think he's a little better than the first debate. And you got the most speaking time. Yeah. True. Yeah, but think he's a little better than the first debate, in my opinion. Yeah, and you got the most speaking time. Yeah. True. Yeah, but all that notwithstanding, both Democrats and Republicans don't really know how to hit Donald Trump. Chris Christie's the closest, at least he's aggressive and not shy about it, not scared. He's the only person in

neither party not scared of Trump. Having said that, I have a thousand better ways to hit Donald Trump, and they just won't do it. You should put a nickname on him, Spoiled Donnie. He got $400 million from his dad. He blew it all because he's a spoiled little child. And then when the country took his toy away, which was the American government, he wanted to break the toy, right? That's who he is, spoiled little baby. You have to undercut his strength. And the Democrats keep calling him racist, sexist,

bigot, et cetera. Dude, everybody already knows that. And for a lot of those voters, unfortunately, that's not the bug. That's the feature. But even so, it's not all folks who are, there's a lot of anti-establishment people there, especially among independents. You need to deliver on issues and you need to attack him where it hurts. He's a terrible businessman. He's weak, insecure, a baby. Undercut his strength instead of constantly feeding into he's too strong. Oh, that's a terrible way of attacking him. Well, it's tough because a lot of Republicans love Trump and they don't even, I mean, anything that codes that way, they're going to say is liberal. But I'm curious, actually, about why you decided to write this book in the middle of the Biden era and what you see as the justice coming, how the progressives are going to take over in the middle of an administration, which has probably been

middling from your guys' perspective. So why do you think that this is the tide going in that direction? Yeah. So I'm really worried about 2024, which we'll probably get into in a second. Yeah, for sure. But after 2024, it's all us. So I explained in Chapter 6, this is not false hope. It's backed up by overwhelming data. So the young are incredibly progressive. The top Republican pollster, Frank Luntz, has his toupee on fire. He's like, they're coming.

And I show in the book, even the states that Bernie Sanders lost in 2020, he wins with crushing margins for under 45. Under 45, is it really still young? And this election is going to be under 49. And by 2028, it's going to be under 54. And then we've got a majority. And so we could win a Democratic primary and we could win a general election. So it's actually, all we have to do is make sure that we don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. There's no question we're going to win in the long run. It isn't about race. It isn't about sex. It isn't about gender identity. It's about age. We have the young on our side and it is a tsunami. But we just can't lose democracy in 2024. And that's why I'm really worried about Biden. How is this different from the arguments that were made about the quote-unquote coalition of the ascendant

and the idea that demographics are destiny and therefore the Republicans are going to be vanquished and then we end up getting Donald Trump? And it turns out Latinos have been shifting. Democrats still win Latinos, but there has been a notable shift there. There's been some shift, even more marginal, among black voters and black men in particular. So isn't it a little bit too triumphant to assume that these demographic groups that support progressive values and tend to support Democrats right now are just going to continue to vote in the same way that they have historically? Yeah, so those are great questions. So there's a couple of very important differences.

So first of all, Democrats took those minority demographics for granted. They're like, oh, black people and Latinos are always going to vote for us. Right. We don't actually have to deliver for them. So, for example, this time around, bare minimum was voting rights. And then they didn't do voting rights. Right. They didn't even really try to do voting rights.

They almost never deliver on those things. Joe Biden has delivered on about 20-25% of his agenda, but not nearly good enough. You have to, and you see the discontent in African American media, like Charlemagne and others, etc. Latinos now, Trump's up to 42%. So just saying, hey, you're black or you're brown, vote for me, is not good enough, right? But for young people, they're not going to all of a sudden turn around and hate gay people, hate black people. Their identity is usually set, as I explain in the book, meta studies show between the ages of 14 and

24. And once it is set, it does not change. So they're not going to randomly turn into hateful folks or corporate politics. It's not going to work. In the old days, and here's another giant part of the puzzle. It's us, OK?. In the old days, and here's another giant part of the puzzle, it's us, okay? Breaking Boys, TYT, et cetera. Because mainstream media is on the precipice of capsizing. Yes. Because their costs are now higher than their revenue for a lot of television, okay? So when they capsize, and they're already bleeding viewers, and their viewers are on average about 70 years old, right? So now, guys, I've underestimated that before.

I underestimated it in 2020, and I'm honest about that. It turns out those older voters were still ascendant and controlled the Democratic primaries, and they're brainwashed by Joe Scarborough and mainstream media. And so that was a very powerful force and has been for a long time in this country. You can't underestimate it. But by 2028, it is a completely different ballgame, both in media, which is everything, and in the age demographic. But all throughout, though, one other giant difference.

When corporate Democrats go, OK, you have to vote for us because you're black or brown, but then they don't deliver. But progressives say, no, we are going to deliver for you. We're going to deliver on paid family leave, higher minimum wage, relieving student debt, public option, Medicare for all, you name it. We actually mean it. So who's our standard bearer? Has been for a long time is Bernie Sanders. And everybody knows whether you like him or not, whether you agree with him or not, he's probably the most honest man in American politics in our lifetime. I think even the right wing knows that and definitely independents know that. I'm not saying Bernie's gonna run again, but our standard bearer is honest and the other

guys have Trump and corporatists. They're not gonna win the young doing that. Let's get into that and that's why it's interesting. You've been talking a little bit about Joe Biden. Let's put this tweet up there on the screen. Now, for example, you say Biden is losing by 10 points in this poll. Even if it's half wrong, it's still an epic disaster. The Democrat has to win the popular vote by five to win the Electoral College. Right now, Biden is 15 points behind where he needs to be. Wake up. Now, you mentioned Bernie Sanders. I believe Bernie is, what is he, 82, 83? Probably, in my opinion, he shouldn't run at that point. So you talked about standard bearers, but there doesn't, from an outsider's perspective,

I don't see a standard bearer in the progressive movement. I've seen a lot of fracturing. There's a lot of fighting going on. There's some like, there's a lot of different theories of change and all that. So how, if you want to mount a challenge to Biden, what does it look like? Give us some actual names of what that would be

and then the fights that would ensue within that. Yeah. So first of all, I agree with you. Bernie's got age issues as Biden and Trump does. And not only that, I love Bernie, but he just doesn't like to fight. He doesn't like to fight other Democrats. He doesn't have a killer influence. Yeah. And you can't win if you don't fight, right? You got to make your own case. That's the same problem Biden has. He just never makes his own case. So look, guys, what's gonna happen is there's one strong populist progressive is going to rise, and they're going to capture the country with lightning speed. Interesting. So right now, do we have that? Not really. And so why do I say that? Well, look, you know, if you want to be the strong leader, you gotta step up. That's what

strong leaders do. They don't go, well, Biden didn't give me permission. If you're worried about Biden giving you permission, you ain't it. Yes. Okay, I'm sorry. Now, having said that, for 2024, the progressive boat is almost gone, right? So there's only one, it's so bad, I seriously consider running, cuz nobody will do it. For God's sake, it's a golden opportunity. The guy's in his, in the 30s in the polling. We're whistling past the graveyard, he's going to lose. He was at 52 when he won in 2020, and he won by a razor-thin margin of 44,000 votes in the electoral college. Now 15 points lower.

We're just kidding ourselves. It's a disaster. The handwriting's on the wall. He's going to lose. So at this point, soccer, give me anybody. Give me anybody. Give me Andy Beshear in Kentucky. Give me Governor Shapiro in Pennsylvania.

I'll even take Whitmer, OK? OK, I don't care. We just, anybody but Biden, because it's not personal. I don't mind Biden. I would prefer someone more progressive, et cetera. But at this point, it's not about that. We've got to win. Is democracy on the line or isn't it?

Cuz I think Democrats are full of crap. They say stuff like that, that guy's a fascist, he's gonna kill democracy. So we're running a guy who's a wounded antelope, who 72% of Americans think is not even going to make it through a second term. There's no one on planet Earth that could look at those polling numbers and say, yeah, he's going to win. If they do say that, they're definitely lying. So it's hard to disagree with much of that. There's no. However, I will say that I do have some nervousness. In my ideal scenario,

Biden would withdraw. We'd have a real democratic process. I'm not of this view that democracy is bad for electoral chances, et cetera. I actually think it's really good. It allows people to make the case. It allows democratic voters to choose the candidate that they would be think would be best suited, et cetera, et cetera. But I do worry that there are some candidates that I feel like would be worse than Biden, not only electorally, like I think Kamala Harris would be worse electorally. I think Pete Buttigieg would potentially be worse electorally. But I also think that they would be a lot worse on policy because even though I have a million criticisms of Biden that we talk about here all the time

on labor issues with regard to the national labor relations board, on the fact that he went to the fricking picket line, first president in history, he is better than the Obama Democrats in some key ways. I mean, they've tried to do industrial policy. That's been a significant step forward. They haven't done enough on the consumer side. They haven't done enough on the worker side, et cetera. You know, they let all the social safety net stuff from COVID expire. And that's why so many Americans are feeling really stressed and struggling financially. But I can see a lot other options that would actually be worse, both on policy and on being able to win and defeat Trump. Do you agree with that?

No. You think Kamala would be better? No. So let me be clear. OK. So number one, this is not about Biden's record. If we started this primary a year ago when the Republicans started or six months ago, it would be about Biden's record. And Biden's record is mixed. So normal Democrats like Barack Obama do 5% of the things that they

promise and then the media declares them champions of the world, right? Biden has done about 20% of his agenda, which for politicians is a bit stunning. It still sucks, but it's like way better than some other politicians. You're right, his record on labor is pretty good. A bunch of spotty areas, but overall pretty good. Now, but I'm not arguing that, guys. It doesn't matter how great we think Biden is if he loses. So look, an incumbent under 50 points, the old rule, everybody in Washington knows this, cannot win or does not win. An incumbent under 40 points, it's unprecedented. It's Jimmy Carter. I've never seen it in my lifetime. It's Jimmy Carter. I've never

seen it in my lifetime. It's not going to happen. On the day that he won with only 44,000 votes in the Electoral College in three swing states, he had a four and a half point lead, not in a poll, in the actual vote, the popular vote. Right. So the Democrat needs a five point lead for us to feel a tiny bit comfortable about saving democracy. And Biden is currently losing to Trump. So I'm not having a conversation about substance at this point. I wish I was. I'm having a conversation about who can win.

Now, this crazy thought that people in Washington have, they have all this mythology. And in the book, I break down all the mythology. In this case, though, the line is, well, if it's not Biden, then we'll go to the line of succession. And Kamala Harris is like, when the hell did we become a mon then we go to the line of succession in Kamala Harris's days. When the hell did we become a monarchy? There's no line of succession. That's not a thing. It's a thing.

If some, God forbid, something were to happen to President Biden, then you have a line of succession when they're in office. But not in a primary. We're not the British royalty. Kamala Harris isn't anointed. Neither is Biden or shouldn't be. And now people in media are freaking out a little bit. They're beginning to see I'm right. James Carville's freaking out. David Ignatius at Washington Post is freaking out. But they're frozen in amber because they're like, well,

we have to bow down to Biden. I mean, what would the king say otherwise? And we're Democrats. We obey authority, right? No, we're Democrats. We don't obey authority, right? And then they say, well, if we get rid of Biden, well, we have to go to the crown princess. On what planet? quickly the dominoes fell. So, you know, I am worried about a scenario where if for whatever reason Biden is not in the picture anymore and you have a wide open primary and there's this media coalescing around, we have to back up Kamala Harris. She's the first black woman vice president. She's the next in line. No one, no one wants Kamala Harris. Every person I talk to. How do you know they won't get racially blackmailed? I don't care. No way. Nobody's got time for that. Okay. That's like when you're-

Well, they've got time for it. I don't care what the elites in Washington think. Yeah, you may not, and I may not. We agree, yeah, yeah. But we saw the way Democratic primary voters fell in line. No, so look, I hear you. Mainstream media is still powerful. Like I said, we're definitely gonna win in 28,

and in 24, we're probably right on the edge, right? But we're not asking for a progressive to be Kamala Harris. Cuz if it was a progressive, yes, like for example, let's say Iran or Nina Turner ran or anyone like that. Or Marianne running right now. Or Marianne Williamson running right now, right? What does the press do? Our number one problem isn't Biden. You put me one on one against Biden, you give me a fair hearing, I would destroy him. It wouldn't even be close. It'd be a landslide,

right? But you don't get a fair hearing. The press, which is totally corporate media, shreds every progressive. So Chris, at this point, I'm not wishing upon a star. Hey, press, you love corporatists? Andy Beshear, governor of Kentucky. It's a red state. He won in Kentucky. He's the most popular governor in America. Most popular governor in America. Josh Shapiro won in Pennsylvania, crushing victory against a Trump acolyte. So you guys are comfortable with Shapiro and Beshear? You won't rip them.

Gotcha. Let me push a little bit on the election point. What do you make of all of the special elections we've had recently that have had Democrats outperforming on an average of 11 points? So we've gotten used to these polls that underestimate the Republican support. It seems like, you know, in recent years that may have flipped post Dobbs. So that's what the Biden people would point to is like, listen, the polls can say whatever they say. The polls are wrong all the time. But when voters are actually

showing up to the polls, they are, we are outperforming polls. We are outperforming the margin by double digits. What do you make of that? Okay. So first of all, did it happen? Yes. But was Trump on the ballot? No, he was not on the ballot. Trump drives out crazy Republican votes. And you know that we all know that. Second of all, saying, well, hopefully the polls are wrong, but hey, it turns out, if it turns out science is true, we're going to lose democracy. Cross your fingers, right? And hey, we might get an 11-point surge. No, we're not going to get an 11-point surge in a presidential race.

But hoping for that, okay, I got a great idea. Why don't we put in Andy Beshear, and he'll have a five or six or eight-point lead, and then we'll get the 11-point surge, and we'll guarantee democracy. And then we could fight Andy Beshear in the 2028 primary. Somebody could run a year early. We could have fun within the Democratic Party, but this isn't the time for it. Look, I think everyone- I don't know about that. Everything in, everybody in Washington has to decide, and especially in the Democratic Party. Do you actually think democracy's on the line? Because I do. I mean, Trump is talking about killing U.S. generals. The guy's a monster,

a total maniac. He's talking about imprisoning his political opponents. He tried a coup last time. Fake electors, everything. This guy's definitely a dictator wannabe. Apparently, I'm the only person who thinks that because other Democrats are like, well, that's true. But on the other hand, we don't want to be impolite to Joe Biden. Joe Biden has a legacy to protect. He needs to be a two-term president to fluff his ego. Let's note for the record that Joe Biden is incredibly selfish. If I was in the 30s and I thought democracy was on the line, I would definitely step aside.

Yeah, the actions don't match up with the rhetoric. My last question for you. Your governor, Governor Newsom, he was all over Fox News last night. The man is making a play. What do you think of him as a candidate? Because clearly he wants it. He wants it right now.

He's the only one you're talking about stepping up. He's probably gone the most as anyone. What do you think? Do you think he should run against Biden? What do you think he should do? Well, he's not going to because he's a corporate Democrat. So if he ran against Biden, I'm not a fan of Gavin Newsom, but I would hold my nose. And at least he's young, he's dynamic. He's out there fighting the fight. I'm trying to win here,

guys. We got to win. So now having said that, Gavin is not going to run against him because he's a corporatist. So the corporate Democrats obey authority. So when Biden says, my ego is more important than democracy, Gavin Newsom says, yes, sir, of course, sir. Absolutely, sir. I'll do whatever you want, sir. Just as long as I'm not impolite, sir. Washington media, please don't yell at me. Please don't yell at me. Make me president in 2028. I mean, if we have elections, but who cares about democracy? Democrats, stop being so selfish and ridiculous. Do you think we have to win or don't you?

If you think we have to win, Biden is not going to get a five-point lead. He doesn't even campaign. Where the hell is he? Where's Joe Biden? I'm asking, where the hell is he? He's right here. He's not far away. Yeah, in the White House.

Nodding off. Take that nap. My question for you, Jank, is, like, how hopeful are you that we could end up with someone other than Joe Biden as nominee? Like, do you think because you say, yeah, I mean, because you say, listen, Gavin Newsom's not going to run against him. That goes for every one of the corporate Democrats. I mean, Gavin Newsom is the one making the most, like, doing the most right now. And it's very clear he's not going to jump in this race against Joe. So do you think there's a chance? EVERY ONE OF THE CORPORATE DEMOCRATS. I MEAN, GAVIN NEWSOM IS THE ONE MAKING THE MOST, LIKE DOING THE MOST RIGHT NOW. AND IT'S VERY CLEAR HE'S NOT GOING TO JUMP IN THIS RACE AGAINST JOE. SO DO YOU THINK THERE'S A CHANCE? CRYSTAL, WE ARE DEFINITELY IN AN UNSOLVABLE RIDDLE.

BECAUSE THE CORPORATE DEMOCRATS SAY, I WILL NOT DISOBEY. I WILL ALWAYS BOW MY HEAD, RIGHT? AND THE PROGRESSIVES SAY, WELL, I CAN'T RUN. THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA WILL DESTROY ME. THEY'LL DESTROY MY LIFE. THEY'LL DESTROY MY CAREER, ET CETERA, RIGHT? SO HOW DO WE GET PAST THAT? can't run the mainstream media will destroy me. They'll destroy my life. They'll destroy my career, et cetera, right? So how do we get past that? That's why I'm desperate enough to think maybe I should do it. And I'll tell you why. Because let's say that somebody like me gets in the race.

Democratic voters are dying for an alternative. They keep saying in every poll, for God's sake, give us someone else. Give us someone else. If someone like me were to get to 20 points, do you have any idea how quick Newsom and Whitmer would enter the race? So are you seriously, you're seriously considering it? Yeah, I'm considering it. And I'll tell you why. Tell me your timeline. RFK Jr. is at 20%. You know, Marianne's at like 10%, something like that. But RFK Jr., first of all, he's not a 20 anymore. He peaked at 20 for a brief moment until Democrats found out he's not a Democrat.

Then he dove down. And Marianne got butchered by mainstream media. They made up things about crystals, et cetera. So I love Marianne. If she could somehow break through media, great, wonderful, et cetera. But it's taken a while, and she hasn't broken through yet. So we need someone to be super aggressive. And if they—let me ask you this way.

If you get, again, someone, anyone, it doesn't have to be progressive, gets to 20 or 25, an outsider, right? This whole town panics and Newsom and Whitmer go in immediately. I do think there's a possibility of that. I don't know because it already happened with RFK and they just ignored him and they went after him. Yeah, that was, no, that was before when they were convinced that Biden was going to win, and RFK, everybody knew it was a flash in the pan because he's not really a Democrat. Maybe. So, Cenk, tell me more about your thinking. Yeah.

Timeline, what are you weighing, how serious are you? Yeah. Give us the details. So I already thought about it before, and I rejected it because I know what they're going to do. You know, you're an outsider, radical. They're going to dredge up things from 1987. And when you were in junior high school. They already did that to you. I think they did that to you.

Yeah, of course. And look, if we're being honest, the number one problem is mainstream media. Mainstream media is the shock troops of corporate politicians, both corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans. Their job is to eviscerate any outsider. So that's why do you think progressives aren't running? I've talked to at least half a dozen progressives and tried to convince them to go in the race. And they're like, I don't want my life ruined. Who's going to ruin their life? Joe Biden? He's in a bunker somewhere. No, it's going to be ABC AND NBC AND CBS AND CNN, MSNBC, NEW YORK TIMES, WASHINGTON POST.

THEY'RE GOING TO GO TO ANY OUTSIDER AND SHRED THEM TO PIECES. AND I'M NOW SO DESPERATE FOR MAKING SURE THAT WE WIN THAT I THINK I'M ALREADY DESTROYED. THEY'VE ALREADY ATTACKED ME 10,000 TIMES. SO COME AT ME, BRO. SO CRYSTAL, IT'S CRAZY FOR ME TO CONSIDER IT. BUT THAT'S THE TIMES WE'RE IN. bro. So Crystal, it's crazy for me to consider it, right? But that's the times we're in. If like literally no one else will do it. It's insane. So I don't want to go quietly

into that good night. And right now we are 100% on a track to go quietly into that good night. So what's the timeline, as Crystal said? What are you going to decide? No, look, if I'm going to do it, if anybody's going to do it, they've got to go now. Well, announce it then. Have you thought about staff? Have you thought about a plan? Have you reached out? I mean, we know donor networks, all those sorts of things.

Have you started taking real steps? So if you're going to run a campaign this late, you can't go traditional, right? You can't be like, oh, I'm going to collect endorsements from politicians. Oh, and I'm going to build up my base tiny bit. No, you got to go and hope for a grassroots tsunami. The good news is when I ran for Congress, I mean, it was a tiny little raise. We raised like 1.3 million in three months. I mean, if anybody can raise money, it's me from the grassroots, right? And I'm a successful businessman, if I might say so myself. I have some credibility in running things, managing things, et cetera.

So have I reached out to staff? I have, OK? Now, the problem is everybody thinks, well, how the hell are we going to beat these guys, right? So if I go in, it's going to be threadbare staff, threadbare website. And we're going to see, is there momentum? Because if there isn't momentum and people go, no, no, no, no, no, Biden, Biden, even if he's in the 20s, I don't care. I don't want I don't mind losing. I don't mind losing. You're being impolite, which is totally possible. Right. So if that's. Yeah, I think there's a decent contingent, though. Yeah, I think that.

Yeah. And if that's the case, then at least I left it all on the battlefield or whoever does it, for God's sake, don't make me do it. Like have someone else run. Right. But sake, don't make me do it. Like have someone else run, right? But I can't get anyone to do it. And so I want to leave it all on the battlefield. And I don't want to say, well, like everyone else, I wanted to be polite. So we lost democracy because we thought it would hurt Mussolini's opponent's feelings, right? Does anybody remember Mussolini's opponent? I don't actually. Of course, no one does. No one does. Because Mussolini ran him over and he probably sat on a couch just like Joe Biden is right now. You guys, we're on it. And I know how mad Democrats get and I know how

mad media gets when you point out an iceberg. But we did it before. We pointed out the Hillary Clinton iceberg. And then they said, you made the iceberg appear. No, you knuckleheads. It's right there. The country, the voters despise the establishment. And they're like, so let's pick the most establishment candidates we can, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Guys, he barely won last time. There's no way he's going to win now, let alone if Cornel West is in the race and Larry Hogan's in the race and these guys are in the race. Then there's no chance at all. So no, I'm not going quietly into that good night. So somebody better announce before I do. All right. Well, I never thought to ask you in your appearance if you were considering

running for president. I appreciate you. I'm glad you made the news. Yeah, absolutely. And guys, definitely check out the book. I think you will not be disappointed. It's very interesting, very thought provoking, as are you always, Cenk. It's great to see you. And I said this to you privately, but I want to say it to the audience, too. You were there from the beginning, helping us build at Rising. And we are always grateful to you for, you know, helping to build up your true believer in terms of independent media. And that really shows. So thank you. I've never forgotten, sir. So thank you. I really appreciate you saying that. Absolutely. It's our pleasure. We'll see you guys later. Over the years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone,

I've learned no town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've heard from hundreds of people across the country with an unsolved murder in their community. I was calling about the murder of my husband. The murderer is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145.

Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. High key. Looking for your next obsession? Listen to High Key, a new weekly podcast hosted by Ben O'Keefe, Ryan Mitchell, and Evie Audley. We got a lot of things to get into. We're going to gush about the random stuff we can't stop thinking about. I am high key going to lose my mind over all things Cowboy Carter. I know.

Girl, the way she about to yank my bank account. Correct. And one thing I really love about this is that she's celebrating her daughter. Oh, I know. Listen to High Key on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I also want to address the Tonys. On a recent episode of Checking In with Michelle Williams, I open up about feeling snubbed by the Tony Awards. Do I?

I was never mad. I was disappointed because I had high hopes. To hear this and more on disappointment and protecting your peace, listen to Checking In with Michelle Williams from the Black Effect Podcast Network on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.