The Bulwark Podcast - Alex Vindman and Lakshya Jain: No More Petty Tyrants

Episode Date: October 30, 2024

The character of the nation is on the line: We have to stop an autocratic minority from imposing its will on the majority of Americans. And no question, Putin has been very easily manipulating Trump and Musk. Plus, Biden talking about garbage, spam polls, pollster herding, and the weakest swing states for Kamala.  Alex Vindman and Lakshya Jain join Tim Miller. show notes: Congressional candidate Eugene Vindman's web site The fake family of Eugene's opponent in the open VA-7 seat

This is an ad by BetterHelp Online Therapy. October is the season for wearing masks and costumes, but some of us feel like we wear a mask and hide more often than we want to. At work, in social settings, around our family. Therapy can help you learn to accept all parts of yourself, so you can stop hiding and take off the mask. Because masks should be for Halloween fun, not for your emotions. Whether you're navigating workplace stresses, complex relationships, or family dynamics,

therapy is a great tool for facing your fears and finding a way to overcome them. If you're thinking of starting therapy but you're afraid of what you might uncover, give BetterHelp a try. It's entirely online, designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist, and switch therapists at any time for no additional charge. Take off the mask with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com today to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp, H-E-L-P, dot com.

["BetterHelp.com"] And those who came before us, the patriots at Normandy and Selma, Seneca Falls and Stonewall, on farmlands and factory floors, they did not struggle, sacrifice, and lay down their lives only to see us cede our fundamental freedoms. They didn't do that only to see us submit to the will of another petty tyrant. Holy shit. Hello and welcome to the Bullwork Podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. That was, of course, Vice President Kamala Harris's closing argument on the ellipse last

night. We will have much more on that in a huge podcast day for you guys. I'm just loading you for bear. It is Wednesday. So remember, over on the next level feed, me and JVL and Sarah go deep on the Bannon press conference I was at, on what our feelings are, what our expectations are for November on the Harris speech. So definitely check out the next level today.

On this podcast, we got two other segments. We got a bonus segment on the backend with one of my favorite super nerds on the internet, Laxia Jane of Split Ticket, where we just kind of go deep into the polls and into the models and what we know as we stand out here a week from the election. And I also at the very end have a monologue about all of the discussion around diddy or didn't he say it with Joe Biden's comments on garbage and how Fox is overreacting to that. So stick around for that at the very end. But first he's a retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel, was the director of European affairs

for Trump's National Security Council and the author of Hear Right Matters. It's my friend, American hero, Alex Vindman. What's going on, man? Good to see you. Hey, thanks for having me on, Tim. You didn't mention Curb Your Enthusiasm or any of the other highlights. Yeah, what? Good to see you. Hey, thanks for having me on, Tim. You didn't mention Curb Your Enthusiasm or any other highlight. Yeah, what? I mean, you have so much. You have another

book coming out. You got a substack, whatever. Whatever you want to promote. You're a celebrity. You're a Renaissance man. You know, I was thinking about this, about what I wanted to talk to you about. And we kind of had built a little bit of a kind of relationship during COVID, right? When after the impeachment and all that was happening, we would talk on Zoom or the phone from time to time. But I was looking back, the first time we actually met in person was after all of that, after Biden had defeated Trump. We were in DC at a

dinner and we took a selfie, which I posted with Saved America past tense. And I was thinking back to that moment, and it did seem like once we were finally through January 6, it felt unthinkable that we'd have to take this fucking petty tyrant on again. But here we are. So I'm wondering how you're thinking about that six days out from the election.

I think in that 2020 context, we called it the most important election of our lifetime. And it was at that moment. We needed a Biden-Harris administration to shepherd us through this catastrophe of COVID, of economic crash of sorts, and then frankly, get past the moment of authoritarianism as it was still evolving out of January 6th out of all these different chaos. But it seems more acute now because the rhetoric has sharpened so much in these last four years. There's now a clear plan of how they want to run a second Trump administration, whether that's Project 2025 deconstructing the guardrails for democracy, the safety net for the American public, everything from social security, education, the Affordable Care Act covering pre-existing conditions for people the United States, the autocrats around the world

have a much, much keener interest in a second Trump administration that pursues a Project 2025 that is isolationist that withdraws around the world and they're actively supporting the Trump administration, the Trump campaign rather, with disinformation, it definitely feels a lot more dangerous. And then, you know, you and I, we're on a target list. Somewhere we're on a target list. So you and I definitely feel this pretty acutely ourselves. I think you're higher up the list than me. So I'm gonna be monitoring for what happens to you.

You know, if there's, if you disappear or whatever, that's backpacking time for me. So good luck for you. You wrote for Newsweek earlier this week and had this ominous headline, a last glimmer of hope in the shadow of despotism. And in the article, you make the case for Kamala Harris from a foreign policy case, but also from the threat facing us from Trump. So let's take those one at a time.

I mean, you got into this a little bit in that first answer, but talk about what the case you made was there for why this is the last glimmer of hope. My background is national security. And oftentimes people think that's something that happens overseas. So I start with the reality, the real threat of chaos in a second Trump administration, where we withdraw from Europe and we are no longer the backbone of NATO. That alliance looks weak and vulnerable for our enemies, Russia in particular, to exploit. That's a recipe for disaster. That's a recipe for a larger war. In Europe, a spillover, an increment towards

a World War III type scenario. That's clear. And I talk about that context, the Middle East, the Iranians being emboldened, the Chinese taking the same signals, working a deal with Trump and gaining control of something that they've long sought, which is Taiwan. This is a democratic island off the coast of China. But then I turn it back to, frankly, the more important issue, which is the US. It's always the US for me. It's the US because we play such a vital role around the world, and our strength starts at home, whether it's economic strength or unity. All that is under attack. It has been for the past four years. In a second Trump administration, we would have economic chaos with these tariffs, the burden of which would

fall on the middle class and the working class. And more importantly, it's about the character of the United States. I make this comparison to the way we bring up our children to be contributing members, society, building a better world. That's the kind of character we've had throughout our history with our fits and starts. It's not been a straight line. It's definitely zigzag, but the arc has been moving towards a better world,

a more just world for everybody, rights for the American public, and prosperity that's filtered down. That is not going to be the case in a second Trump administration. It is going to benefit disproportionately the extremely wealthy and the character of the nation will shift to something far more dark where you have a minority by all accounts, but an engaged minority, an active minority, and the part of an autocrat like Trump or want to be autocrat, that will impose its will on the majority, part of which is engaged, but maybe not enough of it. The remainder of it is a victim of apathy and complacency, thinking that things are

going to be okay, thinking that their voice doesn't matter. And that minority is going to impose its will and roll back the rights and freedoms that have expanded over the course of the 20th century, women's rights, civil rights for minority populations, the black population, the LGBT community, all of this would be on the chopping block. I want to get a little bit more into the Trump threats, but I am curious on the more positive side of that article, the hope side, which was the Harris administration. I assume that you've talked to some people in the foreign policy orbit around her, maybe not, but I wonder what you think about her,

what her foreign policy would look like and any perspective you've gained, you know, through any private kind of conversations with what type of team she'd have around her. I really appreciate, Tim, the pivot towards the positive and the hope. It can't be all fear, the pivot towards the positive and the hope. It can't be all fear like Donald Trump leverages to turn out his base fears and grievances. It has to also be the hope, which is what Harris has tried to tap into, the idea of joy.

So yes, any closing argument has to have a positive vision of the future and something that only one of the candidates has, one of the folks believes that our best days are behind us and we have to recapture those while Harris believes our best days are in front of us. But I have talked to her team relatively extensively, actually. I've been involved in these White House huddles for most of the time I've been out of service based on my expertise on national

security and geopolitics. So I've got a relatively good beat on them. I'd say the base case is a America that looks to a kind of a status quo, a Biden status quo, which isn't great. I think the fact is we've done some things really, really well. We've definitely rebuilt bridges with our allies, made sure that we had a kind of a basically a consistent approach amongst the democracies to push back on authoritarianism, but it's not been muscular enough. It's not been resolved enough to deter the aggression from places like Russia, Iran. That's why we see these conflicts unfold and

expand. I think that the Harris administration has a unique opportunity to take a look back at the shortcomings of the Biden administration. It's failure to deter our adversaries. It's really kind of at times quite weak response, only focused on escalation and what our adversaries might do instead of what we need to do in order to protect ourselves. And the Harris administration has could tap into those types of experts and make sure that we make a more secure, safe world along with our allies. So I think that's a real possibility. I think one thing we know, right, to your point on consistency and status quo, we know

that she has a deep and abiding belief that we need to stand with our allies and that America has a role in the world. She's not an isolationist. We know that she wants to work bilaterally with our friends. If you don't know that, you should just listen to her talk about her time at the Munich Security Conference and various interviews, conferences rather. I think the question though is like, it's hard to get a read on where differentiation might be, right? Like we know where there'll be some consistency. It's hard to get a read on whether she would be more aggressive, less aggressive than what

we've seen from the Biden administration. So I don't know. Do you have any sense for that? I do have some sense for it. There are some warning signs that she would be too consistent in certain regards on the foreign policy front. I am actually quite comfortable with where she will land on the US domestic side. And she has a really, really robust policy agenda to make prosperity more accessible for the American public as a whole, really, you know, this, this yawning inequality between the rich and the poor help provide some opportunities.

That's not like reapportioning none of this crazy stuff about communism. Sure. It's affirmative policies to help people catch up. Cause you're anti-communism, just to be clear. Yeah. You're anti anti-communist. I'm pretty anti-communism based on the fact that

my family fled as refugees from the Soviet Union when we came to the US. So definitely anti-communist. See, it's some credibility there. We have to figure out what to do about this yawning inequality and how to allow people to catch up. But on the foreign policy side, yes, she's a big believer in diplomacy, engaging our allies. But even within that

alliance, somebody has to lead. And the US has a leadership role. And I think the fact is that part of this will be who she's surrounded herself with. If she surrounds herself with folks that believe the US and democracies around the world are in danger and that we need a more muscular resolved response to defend ourselves, we'll end up in a better place. If she surrounds herself with folks that think that America has a diminished role in the future, then we will have more of the status quo. So I think that she has a very good chance of landing on the former scenario where the U.S. continues to play, you know, picks and chooses battles, not fighting everywhere,

not provoking wars, but is thoughtful about how we exercise our strength. I think she could land in a very, very good spot. Hopefully after a victory next week, more to come on that. You can come back in January once we have a sense for what her teams would look like. I want to talk about one back on the Trump side of this, one thing that she has really right that you referenced earlier, but I want to go a little deeper on it. Let's listen to Kamala Harris last night in the ellipse talking about how she sees our adversary's involvement in this election. Look, world leaders think that Donald Trump is an easy mark, easy to manipulate with flattery

or favor. And you can believe that autocrats like Putin and Kim Jong-un are rooting for him in this election. I will always uphold our security, advance our national interest, and ensure that the United States of America remains as we must forever be a champion of liberty around the world. Pete Slauson Hell yeah.

The rooting line is what I wanted to dig in on. She said this also at the convention. It might be my favorite convention line, which she phrased a little differently at the convention. She said they want him to win. And she repeated it with an emphasis. They want him to win. And that's right. They're rooting for him. They want him to win. But as you referenced earlier, they're actively trying to help him win. So I just want to get your perspective on that. It's something that I think a number of us have been saying for a while, which is he will be a friend to our enemies, the folks that want to destroy us,

destroy our life, and you'll be a threat to our allies. That's the way I talk about it. So I think it is extremely dangerous when you have one candidate that is, has the favor of all of the evil regimes. I mean, you know, I'm not using it in the, in the religious context. I'm using evil is in like, these are the folks that will take away the rights of individuals to grow their own power.

This is who are backing Trump. And on the side of Harris, you have the democracies. That is a stark contrast. And I'm really glad that she's talking about this. I don't think enough people fully understand that. There is something that seems to penetrate, which is the fact that people understand that we are playing a team sport

and our allies are actually critical to our interests. And when people actually do polling on this issue, that is one of the things that seems to break through that Trump is not a team player, that he's not building a strong team to push back on those that want to destroy us. But I don't know if enough people are seeing that and fully understand that reality.

Might be worse than that. Donald Trump might be on the other team. I think so. I wanna get your take on the story that I'm obsessed with. I don't really understand why it's not, I mean, it's getting news coverage, but it's not getting at the scale of attention I think it merits, which is Elon Musk reportedly having had multiple phone calls with Putin, having had strategy calls with Putin that favors from Putin about how he deals with Starlink as

it relates to Taiwan. And I want to tie that to another recent report where, you know, we have North Korea now on the battlefield in Ukraine on the side of Russia, of course. This other alliance, right, is becoming more emboldened and it seems as if Trump's top funder of a super pack is at minimum sympathetic to them. Well, I'm glad you clarified which phone calls you were talking about between Putin because we of course had the recent reporting of Trump having multiple phone calls with Putin. Both the president of the United States and the richest person in the world and a

wannabe oligarch as the largest megaphone with regards to Twitter are having regular contact with America's most acute adversary. That should be a disqualifying revelation. It's deeply troubling that these guys are back channeling Putin, who is a professional. He's a KGB case officer, which means he runs agents. He runs winning agents that are paid. He runs unwitting agents that are useful idiots or fellow travelers, folks that kind of have the same worldview that power should reside in the hands of the wealthy and the elites like Elon Musk believes, like Trump wishes he could exercise that kind of power, unchecked power. So yes, these are easy relationships for Putin because he could easily manipulate both Trump

and Musk based on their ego, their narcissism, their character vulnerabilities. And these are conversations in which Putin is absolutely mindfully messaging both Trump and Musk about things that he knows will elicit specific responses. Like for instance, Elon Musk and Donald Trump both are afraid of World War III. I think everybody should be afraid of World War III, a Russian nuclear war, but they are not knowledgeable of the fact that Russia is using nuclear extortion to get the US to back down.

They're not mindful of the fact that in the failure to kind of show resolve, we are inspiring other regimes like Iran to pursue nuclear weapons as an ultimate security guarantee. These are not particularly sophisticated actors that could be easily manipulated. So for Musk, he'll use that line and say, hey, things are getting dangerous. I hope I don't have to use nuclear weapons. And Musk says, well, what could I do? Because he doesn't understand. And it was like, well, if you

shut off Starlink, that would be really helpful. And that could help us avoid World War III. Easily manipulated. Same thing with regards to Donald Trump. And Donald Trump is weak. Donald Trump is pretty cowardly. I've seen this firsthand in the way he responded

to a Russian aggression. This is even before things blew up. And under my watch, when the Russians were aggressive with Ukraine, they were Trump back down. So these are folks that are being used as Russian agents right now. And it is very dangerous. What is the level of, I know it's very dangerous. And obviously there's concerns, in some ways, it's kind of a silly question. But like, when you talk to people and Ukraine friends, what's their threat level? I mean, like they've got to be panicked about the election next week.

Like what are you hearing from, from people on the ground? They are panicked and they've been panicked into making some, you know, mistakes, like Zelensky for some reason decided that it was a good idea for him to meet with Trump when Trump is not in government. for him to meet with Trump when Trump is not in government. So it's a way of kind of like tiptoeing into US domestic politics and election. They are concerned. They think that there's a way to work out a deal with Trump.

There isn't. It's a complete misconception for Zelensky and his team to think that there is a deal to be worked out when Donald Trump has consistently and unvaryingly been supportive of Putin and Russia and aggressively undermining Ukraine. So that's one consequence. I have lots of engagements with the Europeans.

They are also definitely afraid of a Trump scenario. Why? Because they recognize that this would be an opportunity for Russia to potentially exploit the seams, these gaps between Europe and the US and that US withdrawal would embolden Russia. So they're also trying to hedge. There are a lot of folks trying to hedge and unfortunately, those are our allies and partners. Who's not hedging, who is waiting in, you know, all guns blazing are the adversaries, are the North Koreans, the Iranians, the Russians, the Chinese, very, very aggressively supporting

Trump. And they're doing that in, you know, whether it's TikTok and social media, Telegram, using their influencers, the Russian paid influencers that we know their scores those based on Department of Justice indictments that these are folks that are paid agents of Russia. This is a very, very challenging election because we have a party that's been radicalized. We have enemies of America waiting in on behalf of that party. And we have a population that still is not as engaged as it should be, doesn't recognize

the dangers, or doesn't think that their votes matter. Here's somebody that does recognize the dangers. And I wouldn't say he's been hedging. I also, I don't know. Well, let's just listen to Mark Milley. Earlier this week, I had missed this. He was at the American Bankers Association or something, a conference of rich bankers where he was giving a paid interview.

I want to listen to what he had to say. Look, you have a great military and anyone who says otherwise, either never served or wanted to serve, dodged their service or don't know what they're talking about. So I can assure you. Another sub tweet of Donald Trump there from Mark Milley, he's getting good at those. I mean, he understands the threat. He understands the threat of Trump trying to turn the military on our own citizens. He understands how gross it is that Donald Trump down talks our military is woke or whatever. I'm interested in what you think about Milley's warnings. At this point we've had numerous warnings as you know even

more important than somebody that doesn't understand the military, the values, is the fact that he is on the record as saying Trump is fascist to the core. This is consistent with General John Kelly, who is the chief of staff for Trump in the White House. There are the folks that are closest work with most intimately with Donald Trump believe as a fascist. But I mean, is there a surprise there? We know he shows his fascist colors regularly. Madison Square Garden, him and his supporters were talking about everything from the blood of America being poisoned by immigrants to Puerto Rico being garbage island. I mean, the guy himself has said that the US is a trash can. I take these things personally. I love this country. I love the military. I served in the

military for 20 years. You should take these things personally. Alex, you're the trash. Everybody is. You're the trash. The world's sending us the trash and you're it. And this is what he says about our country, but yet these fools will hone in on a comment that, you know, Biden says that doesn't even come anywhere near it. And, you know, I say that somehow the Democrats are the ones that are damning half the country. It's not.

It's the Republican Party. I hope that was coherent enough. I guess I'm frankly getting caught up in my anger a little bit. It is disgusting that one of the two major candidates, the potential president of the United States thinks that America is a trash can, has no regard to the military. That is unacceptable. Y'all, she talked about it last night. Kamala Harris knows that this country was built on American work ethic and we have an

obligation to the people that built this country. That's why we're working hard here at the Bullwork. That's why you're out there working hard. That's why we want to support companies that support the American worker and American Giant is one of those today's sponsor. They make high quality clothing and active wear right here in the USA, like sweatshirts, jeans, dresses, jackets, and so much more. I can tell you, I've been excited that American Giant became a sponsor because my husband bought one of their sweatshirts a while back. And it is, it's so cozy, but it looks cool. It's sturdy.

You can tell it's well-made when you hold it. And so I was pumped to get a little influx of, of clothes from American giant that I can wear. I was in a, I was in one of the American giant long sleeve tees at the Bulwark stop. I think it was in Pittsburgh. At one of our live events, was getting compliments, was looking good. So I got to tell you,

highly recommend you look into what they have to offer. From joggers and sweatpants to half zips and pullovers, their Terry collection is the ultimate in durable comfort. They have slim fit pants, you know, that's what I'm into and relaxed, but not oversized. They got sweatshirts that accommodate different body types, premium, ultra soft, lightweight fabric for year round comfort. American giant also makes staples that are anything but basic, like

the premium slub crew tee, the no BS high rise pant and the slim rough neck pant and that long sleeve tee I was telling you about. So when you buy American giant, you create local jobs in towns that help stitch communities together. Get 20% off your first order at american-giant.com when you use code bulwark at checkout. That's 20% off your first order at american-giant.com code bulwark. All right. I've got two points of personal privilege I want to ask you about before we let you go. There's a story recently in the Post, which I'm sure you saw, about the CIA analysts who

triggered the first Trump impeachment and had this whistleblower's lonely stand upended their career and put their life at risk. In the context of that story, obviously some some of the stuff that comes out of sight, out of mind. And so you experienced all that firsthand. I just wanted to give you a chance to kind of reflect on that person coming forward and the impact that it had, that it's had on you. I mean, it hasn't had any impact on me, frankly. I lived through this. I guess that's what I meant. I meant not them coming forward, what impact it had on you,

but how you had the same experience, I guess is what I meant. I meant not them coming forward, what impact it had on you, but how you had the same experience, I guess is what I meant. I think all the good actors played an important role in exposing Donald Trump's corruption. My multiple efforts to expose this scheme to extort an investigation from Ukraine, whether that's in classified channels and trying to get the US government as a whole to come together and trying to get the US government as a whole to come together

and try to counsel the president back then that it's dangerous. He's playing with fire by launching the scheme and then ultimately reporting this on multiple occasions, the scheme, most famous one being the July 25th phone call. That changed, I guess, to a certain extent, that the course of history triggered the first impeachment exposed Donald Trump's wrongdoing, neutralized the efforts of Trump to cast a shadow over a early bid for Biden to establish himself as the 2020 candidate. And to me, you know, that obviously created a massive amount of upheaval that I'm dealing with in

public, but I'm okay with it. I don't know if I've embraced it, but it's something that I've internalized and I still kind of try to do good wherever I can, use my voice in a constructive way to defend the country. I'm so appreciative that you did that and that you're doing it and you deserve credit for it, which is why it bears mentioning even these years later, even, even after a second impeachment, even after an insurrection, even after another campaign, I mean, we should have, people just listened to you would be, would have been

resolved with this five years ago by now six. All right. Lastly, you got a twin. He's running for Congress. It's a tough seat. It's a close seat. It's a swing seat. Talk about the race, talk about how people can get involved if they live in Northern Virginia or otherwise

and talk about how your brother's doing. Yeah. Thanks for asking about that, Tim. It is a close seat. It is a purple district that Eugene's predecessor, Abigail Spamberger, who's stepped aside so she could- Very close friend of the pod. We love Abigail Spanberger, the Bullwork Democrats caucus, Abigail, Mikey Sherrill, Eugene Vindman. And if you hopefully Eugene Vindman will join the the Buller caucus soon enough. So, you know, what's interesting about this is that

she won in 2022. But you know, in that same moment where 2021, that same district was won by Glenn Yonkin, the governor, Republican governor. So it is something that swings back and forward. It's gonna be close. What shouldn't be close and same with Harris and Trump is the contrast between the two candidates.

Eugene served for 25 years in the military. He served in the White House. His career was knocked off course because he played a role in reporting the corruption resulting the impeachment along with me and he will be there because he served for 25 years defending Americans rights and freedoms to defend women's rights and create opportunities for his community. What is his opponent? His opponent is a fake family, short serving. Tell people about the fake family.

It's too funny to not just, we can do a brief aside on this because it's so funny. I think everybody in America has seen the fake family skits that were out of that. Just in case though, even if there are only two listeners who have not seen the fake family, we should tell them just for their own. So they get some enjoyment at this time of tension. I will regale you with a tale. So this is a, you know, extremist Republican candidate who's run for that seat a couple times. He managed to be outdone by an equally extreme candidate the last time he ran for office. So he didn't receive a secure that Republican nominations

this time he did. But he also is trying to clean up his image, just like the example he's taken from Glenn Youngkin. In order up his image, just like the example he's taking from Glenn Youngkin. In order to do this, the guy's not married, has a dog, single guy in his 40s, but he doesn't look like the district. Childless dog man. Childless dog man. He doesn't look like the district. So what he did is he posed with somebody else's family, a woman and three daughters to demonstrate that he's going to be there to protect women's rights because reproductive rights, protection of IVF, abortion is on the ballot this time. It is something that folks in Virginia Seventh District will be voting. So he faked a

family and then was mocked endlessly for it. But more than faking the family, that's a character flaw, that he's willing to lie on something that basic. He's going to deceive the district. He effectively deceived Swaziland district as he's just not trustworthy. Then he proceeds to question my twin brother's integrity and his 25 years of service, which is absolutely disgusting. My twin brother served in combat.

He served, achieved the rank of Colonel, which is a very significant accomplishment. And this guy questions my brother's integrity. By the way, it should be clear that Derek Anderson's military career, active duty military career ended under a cloud. He was responsible for the worst friendly fire incident of the Afghan war. Five American special Forces soldiers were killed. And he was found responsible by the investigating authority, a two star general. And this guy, this

guy attempts to question my my twin brother's integrity, who is the chief ethics official for the White House, or responsible for reporting the bottom line, let's let's pivot to something positive. Okay, because we always have to finish out on a positive note. I've been with Eugene in district I was with him a couple weekends ago. I'll be back this Friday Closing out the last six days will be in two places at once They somehow say that you can't be by having a twin brother makes it a little easier So we'll cover a lot of ground

we're gonna talk to a lot of folks. The vibe from the district is people are tired of folks with low. Don't pose with his family, though. Don't do a fake family thing where you insert the twin in. All right. You can't do a sister sister situation. Okay. Well, there won't be any, there won't be any anything like that. But I, I'm in many pictures with my nieces and I think that's more legitimate than just snatching up a family. So Eugene, Eugene's going to deliver for that district. He understands he's raised his family there, his kids went to public school there, you know, that was the first place he chose to live and he's going to

represent the interests of that district, whether that's figuring out how to deal with that, that traffic on the I-95 corridor, building out infrastructure, jobs and opportunities in the area. So I think Eugene is gonna win because the electorate sees that, but we're not leaving anything to chance. The most important thing people could do now is volunteer, phone bank, reach out to folks in that community

and all the communities, get people to turn out. That's what I do. You're not seeing this, but I'm wearing my Harris-Waltz shirt, my Vote Vets hat. Every time I see somebody, I ask them, hey, have you voted yet? It doesn't make a difference if it's like what the relationship is. I'm out there taking swings on behalf of democracy. The stakes are too high. How do people sign up as his website? Thanks again for asking. It's vimminforcongress.com.

Take a look at vimminforcongress.com and join the 250,000 donors and the thousands of volunteers working on behalf of Eugene's campaign. And let's keep the house. Let's win back the house. Let's take back the people's house and make sure we win the Senate and the presidency. Good luck to your house. Let's win back the house. Let's take back, you know, the people's house and make sure we win the Senate and the presidency.

Good luck to your brother. Hopefully, the people of America will live up to your call, that here right matters. Appreciate you as always, Alex Vindman, for coming on the Bullock podcast. Terrific. Let's catch up afterwards and celebrate our victories. I look forward to it. Up next, we're going deep on what the polls are showing us. We're doing an electoral college map. You're gonna wanna stick around for this, my friend, Luxia Jane. Oh, we did it.

Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh!

Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! This is an ad by BetterHelp Online Therapy. October is the season for wearing masks and costumes, but some of us feel like we wear

a mask and hide more often than we want to. At work, in social settings, around our family. Therapy can help you learn to accept all parts of yourself, so you can stop hiding and take off the mask. Because masks should be for Halloween fun, not for your emotions. Whether you're navigating workplace stresses, complex relationships, or family dynamics, therapy is a great tool for facing your fears and finding a way to overcome them. If you're thinking of starting therapy but you're afraid of what you might uncover,

give BetterHelp a try. It's entirely online, designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist, and switch therapists at any time for no additional charge. Take off the mask with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com today to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp,ELP.com. All right. We are back by special request of two VIP listeners of this podcast,

my two younger brothers. One wanted a deep dive into what we know about the polls and what we know right now looking at the electoral map. The other brother is a big fan of Split Ticket. It's a political and election enthusiast website and the founder is here, Lakshya Jain. They do modeling, presenting electoral data, and he is one of the, I think, most foremost election Twitter nerds. So welcome to the Bollock Podcast. Thanks for having me. How was that intro?

Do you have anything you'd like to add to Split TechEd for people who aren't familiar? No, that was great. Well, it's good to have you. I want to go state by state and I just want to break things down for everybody about where things stand, what they should be nervous about, what they should be looking for on election day. But before we go to each individual state, I think it'd be interesting to have a broader conversation about these models that everybody is familiar with right now.

There's the Nate Silver model. There's FiveThirtyEight, which is a new person that replaced Nate Silver. Real Clear Politics has a model that's more Republican-friendly. You guys have a model. You did an article, I guess, at the end of last week kind of talking about the different models, why they look differently, what they're showing. So why don't you just give us kind of a top level overview of what the polling models are saying right now. Yeah.

So it's important to note that every single one of those models is actually fundamentally saying the same thing, that this race is a toss-up, that there is no clear leader, and that you could really make a case for either candidate being ahead. Because functionally, a model that says 47% for Harris, it's actually not really any different from a model that says 53, 47 for Harris. Sounds a lot better though. It makes me feel nicer to see 53 than 47. It does.

So it's important for our feelings. I mean, this is the thing, no matter what things look like to the statistical nerd, the truth is that these models are only as good as the information that they can convey to readers. This is why forecasters really have to be careful in emphasizing who's ahead, who's not ahead, what a picture says. If a race says 53, 47, and Harris in probability, functionally that's 50, 50, and you can actually make credible arguments

that you would rather be the candidate at 47% if you think that there's something the model isn't capturing. Now, what differentiates each of these models is that they're built on internal polling aggregations and polling estimates. And depending on how you aggregate polls You can get something like Harris plus 0.5 in Pennsylvania or Trump plus 0.5. It all depends on what you wait and

the time horizon over which you wait it and a whole bunch of other minor factors based on poll quality and whatnot and so The truth is that the difference between our model and 538's model, 538 as Harris at 48%, we have her at 52%, is actually entirely based on our polling aggregation differences. That's really the biggest differentiator between them. And what's the difference there, including polls you don't include? They're including Trafalgar and they're including Activo, but more than that, they also- Trafalgar, but for people that don't know, Trafalgar is a right wing, it's kind of a

mega polling firm that ended up being pretty bright in 2020, but was horrible in 2022 and clearly has a bias. Yeah, but with that said, FiveThirtyEight does adjust polls for bias as well. So ideally, you would think them including Trafalgar doesn't change things as much. Really the biggest change that I see from 538 to ours is that our model doesn't do internal polling adjustments based on national polls, whereas 538's polling model does. So I'll give you an example.

If a survey is taken in Pennsylvania in mid-October, and that's the last survey in Pennsylvania, and it says Harris plus one. Then over the next two weeks, Trump closes a gap by two points in national polling to go from Harris plus three to Harris plus one. 538 will take that Harris plus one poll and adjust it downwards and say that, well, Harris lost some support nationally since that poll taken in Pennsylvania. Therefore we can assume that she probably would do worse in Pennsylvania today than she would have on October 15th when that survey was taken. Ergo, we're going to down weight and adjust and really like reduce her support in Pennsylvania

polling averages based on that. Now there are credible reasons to do it that way. I just don't agree with that because in my opinion, the people in swing states have been living in a completely different information environment. Right. And so the way the average voter nationally interfaces with the election and the news is not the same way that the average voter in Pennsylvania interfaces with the news. So the things that move things nationally may already have been priced in in Pennsylvania and would not make as big of a difference. And that's why we don't make that adjustment.

In that process, what happens is that 538 gets a slightly more Republican polling average than we would right now because Trump has gained a national polling. And so that's why 538 has Harris at 48, we have Harris at 52. One more thing on big picture before we go state by state. So two other theories about what's happening out there.

There's talk that there is Republican spamming of polls like Republican firms are putting out junk polls that look more favorable to Republicans. And that explains why the Real Clear Politics example, they have Trump at the highest percentage to win because they include all those polls. So it's one thing that people discuss and the impact on that. The other one, it's a pet theory of mine and others, I'm not alone in this pet theory, but that it seems like there's poll hurting out there.

Like pollsters are adjusting their weights to make sure they don't have an outlier poll so they don't get ranked badly by 538 or silver bulletin or whatever, or just because they don't want to be embarrassed for whatever the rationale is that they're kind of hurting around what the averages are. And so that makes it a little harder to see if there's like, if there is a poll miss, which could benefit the vice president, could benefit Trump. It's harder to see that now since so many pollsters are hurting. What are your thoughts on both of those topics?

So let's take that point by point. There are two things that should be addressed here. The first is our right-wing pollsters flooding the zone and Comprising more of the set of polls that they did in 2020 The answer is unquestionably that there are more Republican aligned polls now than there are in 2020. This is just a matter of simple math. You can count them up and you can look to see that now Republican aligned polls are something like 30-35% of all of the polls in the database. In 2020, that was not the case. But it is also true that they do not actually impact the aggregate nearly as much as you would think.

And here's why. We actually exert really strong controls on quality for a pollster and on partisan lean. And so if a Republican internal comes out or if a Republican associated poll comes out from say like the Center for American Greatness or the Donald Trump campaign or whatever, we actually apply effects knowing how internal polls are typically biased and we adjust based on that. So if the Center for American Greatness says Georgia is Trump plus five, we don't take that at face value. We're like, okay, well you are a Republican aligned Republican firm.

We are actually going to exert some controls and say, typically you are off by about three points as you're an internal or four points. So we're actually adjusting your margin from Trump plus five to plus one. And we do that for Democratic polls too. So if like the Harris campaign says Harris is up by six in Pennsylvania, we're going to be like, yeah, that's not happening. Typically democratic polls are off in the other direction. So you adjust it back. The second thing is these internal polls are just not good quality pollsters in general. And so we not only down weight for affiliation, but we also down weight for quality. So polls like Patriot polling do not get much weight in the averages as a result.

So the end result is that if you look at our polling aggregates, in every case, if you remove the right-wing polls from the average, it would actually be just as bad or worse for Democrats than if you included everything. It doesn't make an effect. The effect is so marginal. The hurting is a different part, and that is something that gives me more concern. See, the hurting, it's not as simple as to say that because you get a bunch of 49, 48, 49, 49, 50, 48 results that that's hurting because when you wait on the same parameters

and when everyone is waiting on such a tightly controlled data set with such strict parameters, you are going to get results that are closer together than what a standard normal or random distribution would look like. That's just a matter of math because it reduces the variance. When all of you are waiting on the same exact factors, you're going to get results that are just much more similar than a random sample weighted on factors that can float around

a little bit more than who did you vote for in 2020 type of things. So I don't actually know that I would call it all hurting. You would expect less variance now that pollsters have started to wait on things that are so tightly correlated to partisanship like 2020 vote recall. With that said, there is still a shade too many 47-47 polls of Michigan and Pennsylvania for me to think that that's all just a matter of weighting and its artifacts. So yes, there is some hurting. No, it's not as much as people think. Yes, it reduces the aggregate accuracy overall. And that is exactly why I would not be surprised by a two or three point Kamala Harris over performance or two or three point Donald Trump over performance on election day, because when polls heard, it improves the accuracy of the overall pollster, but it actually reduces the accuracy of the aggregate as a whole.

All right. Let's go through the states in the split ticket model. We're focusing obviously on the seven states, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania. Let's go worst to best. What looks like the worst state right now to you for the Vice President? I think either Georgia or Arizona, probably among the worst states. Let's talk about both of them. Right now, yeah.

Well, it's funny, right? Because you would expect North Carolina, based on priors, to be the worst. And I still feel like, if you forced me to pick where our model was wrong, I would say North Carolina is probably worse than both of them because I have such a hard time seeing Democrats finally get the monkey off their back and win that state.

Presidentially, it's been one of those. It could just be amazing what happens when you nominate a black Nazi. Who knows? Well, that's the thing. If you look at the actual reasons behind why North Carolina might be left to the nation, you can make a coherent explanation. Hurricane Helene and Mark Robinson creating some serious negative headlines and elevating the wrong issues into the news for Donald Trump, like abortion, election denial, fascism.

And so it would be strange for Georgia and Arizona to be her actual worst states, but elections are weird and strange things happen. And so if you take that at face value, Arizona, they're slippage with Latinos. And in general, Harris seems to not be holding as much ground with the whites as she should in order to win the state. And you can generally survive one of those things by gaining with the other group, but you can't survive losing both. Right. So if you're struggling with older whites and you're struggling with Latinos, that's a real killer in Arizona. And so it's possible that polling is wrong. I mean, polling has underestimated Dems in Arizona lately, but I don't think that's really smart to

do. You can't just assume the polls are going to be wrong in the direction you want it to. And so that's why I think after all the evidence we have, Arizona does look like the toughest state. Georgia, it's very clear. The issue is black turnout for Kamala Harris. I'm not talking about the early voting. I'm talking about the fact that in 2020, the black turnout as a share of the electorate actually dropped from 2018 and 2016. From 2020 to 2022, there was a very big drop once again in black turnout. Yes, that was a midterm, but those voters still did not turn out and that's voter energy you're going to have to recreate and get back on the road.

Georgia is the most black swing state of them all. It's blacker than North Carolina. And as a result, given how Republican whites in Georgia are, even a two to 3% dip in relative black turnout would cost Harris that state. And that's why our model is so bearish because it looks at the polls that have Harris down and in each of those polls, she is losing because she's losing just a little bit of

ground with white voters and black voters, but really the composition of the electorate is worse for her than it would have been in 2020. And that's why unless Democrats fix their black voter turnout, which they very well could, they would be on track to lose that state today. Is that about people moving into the state? Is it about the composition, the makeup of the state, or is it just flat about just about engagement and turnout among that black demographics? Do we know? No, it's about turnout.

It's really about turnout. It's not about people moving into the state. That state is getting more and more non-white every year. It's not about like, you know, migration or anything like that. The thing is just that no matter what you look at, it's not about the number of people that live in the state. It's not just about the voting age population because otherwise Texas would be a lot bluer than it is. It's about who turns out to vote and really Democrats struggle with just getting those black voters out to the polls. That's the problem for them.

I mean, George is just the prime example of like the two groups that matter in these last few weeks to me is college educated, traditional Republican, upper middle class to upper class whites and there are a lot of those in Buckhead and getting them to actually vote for Kamala rather than leaving the top blank. And then almost like whatever the inverse side of the demographics, like non-college lower income voters of color, particularly blacks and getting them to vote off the couch versus voting for Kamala, right? Like not, it's not so much like a Trump versus Kamala swing voter.

Like those are the two demos that they need to maximize in the last week. And they're both like a very, like particularly acute in Georgia. You know, and that's an interesting point you bring up because I've actually always said that I think Harris's biggest danger in this election is losing to the couch. Yeah. I think Harris's biggest danger in this election is losing to the couch. Yeah. Because I think Democrats have the electorate to win. It's close enough in persuasion that they really just need to get their voters out because

if they can get 29, 30% black turnout in Georgia, they win the election. Because if Trump loses Georgia, he's really got to sweep everything in order to win. The least important state kind of on the map then is Nevada, just because of how few electoral votes it has, but talk about what the model is showing in Nevada. Well, Nevada is really just razor tight. It's a 50-50 flip, quite literally. It's something where people have celebrated for Republicans a lot because of the early vote.

We're actually very skeptical of that. Typically, when you see one party show up a lot in early voting, the other party shows up on election day. Voters show up no matter what. It's just a question of when. And so right now, the model takes the polling in Nevada more literally. The polling in Nevada is all uniformly just 48, 47, 47, 48, 46, 47. And so there's no clear leader in that state.

And I don't think we're going to get any news on that state that will inform our priors until the morning of election day when Ralston makes his predictions. And that's when we'll probably see how things look. The bottle can't read John Ralston. So there's a very good chance you're going to pick against him and that'll turn out great for us, I'm sure.

For the end of the pod, John Ralston, people should check out his, he does daily updates in the early vote. I'm with you. You can't know anything. And I've talked to really smart Republicans who are like, look, we've moved a lot. Like you'll see, if you're an obsessive and you're on Twitter, you'll see people tweeting like, oh, 50% of X county in Nevada has already turned out. It's a rep...

It's like, Republicans are voting earlier this time. They don't trust the mail because of Donald Trump. They didn't vote early last time because of Donald Trump. And so their voting patterns are different. Old people vote earlier, despite the fact that that comma has some gains there. Old people still are more Republican. And it's just like, we just don't, we just don't know anything yet. So to me, it's like kind of ridiculous to obsess over that when there's still a whole six more

days of early voting left. All right, now we move to North Carolina, which you talked about a little bit already, we only hear a little bit more on what the model is showing. And to me, North Carolina is particularly important when we get to the scenario planning at the very end. So talk about how the models shows North Carolina. Yeah, I mean, with North Carolina, it somehow shows that as the closest of the three critical Sun Belt states, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina. Harris has gotten pretty good polling in North Carolina lately. It's broadly showing a slight swing left from 2020, which would be a surprise.

But then you remember that in the midterms, North Carolina was actually to the left of Georgia. So it would not be a surprise, empirically speaking, to see that happen again. If Democrats struggle with black turnout in Georgia, at the end of the day, North Carolina is less black of a state. It's a little bit more white. It's the type of state where there's enough other factors that are blowing the wind in the back of the Democrats to where you could conceivably see that maybe bucking national trends by a little. It doesn't have to do a lot. It just has to do a little bit

in order for Democrats to somehow come up ahead. And so right now we think Donald Trump wins it by about a point, but it's very possible that that actually ends up wrong on election day because a model that shows a candidate winning the state by a point is functionally saying it's a very close race and there's maybe only a slight edge for one guy. My friend Peter Hamby talks about North Carolina versus Georgia. I want you to explain it. It's like North Carolina has ACC whites and Georgia has SEC whites. And so

maybe the whites in North Carolina vote at a higher rate for Kamala Harris than the whites that you get in Georgia. Just a slightly different flavor. Let's move up to the upper Midwest. Which state looks the creakiest for Kamala Harris in the blue wall? And listeners of this podcast know, but we'll just say if she wins these three states plus Nebraska too, which there was a poll with her up 12 And that just the other day then she's the next president

So obviously the most important states for her what which one looks the creakiest to you to me I think the creakiest is Wisconsin. I think that is the hardest one because It's just a little bit less urban than Pennsylvania. It's a little bit more white in general, but a little bit more non-college white. So, you know, that already makes the electorate just a little bit less friendly for Democrats. I think as a result, Democrats are probably gonna have the hardest time keeping Wisconsin. Now we think they keep it by about 20-20 margins, but it's very close. Both that and Pennsylvania are basically dead, even in our model. I do think Pennsylvania is one of those states

in which Trump has a more uphill challenge than the numbers might suggest. It's one of those very socially liberal states. Democrats have pretty good turnout in both Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, but the ceiling for them is higher in Pennsylvania than it is in Wisconsin. And if democratic turnout operations look good in Pennsylvania and they manage to finally turn out Philly, which is always the big wild card for them,

you could see Harris doing better there than she would in Wisconsin. It's more urban, it's less religious, it's less white. So a few things with the wind blowing at her back for her there. Neither of them are nearly as good as Michigan is for her. That's the one that I would be very surprised if she loses. We have that as liens democratic. Talk about what the model is showing for Michigan. Yeah, Michigan is liens democratic. That's the one state where we don't think Donald Trump actually is going to pull it out there. And you know, with the Wisconsin

and Pennsylvania, we have Harris narrowly winning. We could see a Trump victory very easily. Michigan Trump's odds of winning are like Harris's odds of winning like Arizona. It's, it doesn't look great for him. And the reason for that is because Michigan is just the most friendly electorate, it's the bluest state for Democrats in general. It was Biden plus three. And in an environment where the swing states are broadly behaving like they did in 2020 or 2022,

that's the type of thing where you're like, okay, well, that's a Biden plus three state. And if there's minimal swing, Trump is going to have to make some serious gains across the board in order to flip that state. People keep saying the Israel-Palestine war. Yes, that cost Kamala Harrison Dearborn. Yes, that place is going to swing right, but that's less than 1% of the state overall that still gives her room to play with.

And so we think she ends up winning the state by about a point and a half, two points or so, and I think broadly, Michigan is probably the best play for her. So just going through the map. So your map, your model narrowly, obviously this is not predictive. We're statistically literate here, but if you were to apply the model to the states that end up with Kamala Harris, 270, Donald Trump 268, and all of us breathing into a paper bag, the alternate options there are basically in short, a loss in Wisconsin could be replaced by a win in North Carolina.

That's not crazy with your model and your model is showing both of those states pretty similarly, right? With Wisconsin slightly more favorable to Harris. Exactly. So that would be one option. If Pennsylvania is the one that drops off, that would have to be replaced by either North Carolina and Nevada. Well, I guess really any of the states except for Arizona. So either North Carolina or Georgia.

You would just need two states. If you lose Pennsylvania, you would need North Carolina and one other state. So yeah, or Georgia and Nevada. You just need a combination of the two other states in order to win. The West doesn't help you. Arizona and Nevada doesn't help you. So you need to win one of the two Southeast States or both of them. Yeah, basically you need to win one of Georgia or North Carolina.

The other shorthand is you win Pennsylvania and Georgia. So from the Trump side of things, they just need to win Pennsylvania and Georgia and it's a win. Yeah, basically. Right. So, so that's why that's the most important. And I think on election night, one thing for everybody to really look, look to, I'm interested

in how your model or how you'll be looking at this, but it seems to be George is going to count the quickest. Pennsylvania has a very strange counting system that's going to hopefully be faster than last time, but take a little while. North Carolina, I think is going to take longer than last time, partially because of the hurricane, partially because of some changes that they made in the legislature, which are bad. Michigan, I guess, done Eastern times, we could get some Michigan numbers early, but I think that Georgia, as maligned as Georgia has been about the changes that they made

to their voting system, one thing they did right was they're going to count this thing a lot faster. So even if Georgia is not a must-win for Harris, I'm just'm wondering is there anything that you're looking for early on Tuesday and results coming in from Georgia? Yeah, I think the good thing about Georgia is Raffensperger has made a lot of changes that will allow them to count a lot quicker. About 75% of the votes will be completely counted by 8 p.m., which is like almost Florida level fast. So I would probably look at a few things. Firstly, how

she doing in that Atlanta suburban core that will tell us a little bit about how the rest of the night is going to go even in the other states. If she's making massive gains in Cobb and Gwinnett, she's probably also doing that in Bucks County in Philadelphia, right? So in the Philly collar, that type of thing, you know, you could get some type of signal based on how Georgia looks. You could get a signal on how Waukesha, Washington, Ozaukee, and Wisconsin would look if you look at some of the X-Urbs that are super, super white in Georgia, like if you look at Cherokee, if you look at Forsyth. So that's the type of thing that I'll be looking for. How is she doing in those suburban counties

in Georgia specifically? That can give you a signal for the Rust Belt. Now, of course, there's the question of how she would do in, you know, just Georgia itself. And for that, you really need to look at Atlanta proper. And then I would look at two specific bellwether counties to see if she's getting the rural black turnout she needs. Baldwin County and Washington County. Baldwin is a county that basically every Democrat who's won statewide since 2020. So Biden, Ossoff, Warnock, and Warnock. Again, every single one of those has flipped Baldwin or won Baldwin.

And the reason for that is because it's so racially polarized that if Democrats are winning it, they're getting the black turnout they need. Laxha, thank you so much. Maybe we'll have you on election night. We're having Zoom. Are you guys doing a live stream? What's Split Ticket doing on election night? So I am joining BBC. Oh, good for you. Harrison is going to be doing our live stream on election night with Max and Leon. So they're going to be doing the Split Ticket stream. All right. We'll keep an eye on that. We'll maybe do it. We'll do a crossover. We'll talk to you that offline. I appreciate you coming on and giving us the dorky deep dive that my brothers were looking for. Everybody else, stick around. I've got a little

rant about the garbage gate that is wall to wall news over on Fox right now. Thanks so much. Thanks Tim. All right, y'all final topic. There'll be much discussion over on Fox in the last week of the campaign over this audio from yesterday where Joe Biden maybe possibly refers to Trump supporters as garbage. So I wanted to give you a couple of quick thoughts on it to close the pod today. If you missed what we're talking about, here is the audio of the president talking on a Voto Latino Zoom. Or Puerto Rico where I'm in my home state of Delaware.

They're good, decent, honorable people. The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters. His demonization is seen as unconscionable, and it's un-American. So, to me, this is basically incomprehensible, what he's trying to say. Did he say it, didn't he? Did he intend to? Who knows? I think he almost certainly didn't mean to call Trump supporters garbage.

Certainly he was talking about this guy, the comic who is garbage. That's no debate there. But the reality is there's just no deciphering that paragraph. It's going to be a Rorschach test for people to hear what they want to hear. So I have two thoughts. One is about the right-wing media and us, all of us actually. And then the second is about Biden and Harris. For the right-wing media, there is an epidemic out there and for what I call social media

flopping. Flopping in like soccer or basketball where you pretend you got hit to get a foul call. People are pretending to be upset to get a foul called on their political opponents. Like a good rule of thumb in general is if a person is happy that somebody messed up rather than offended, that they pretend to be offended, they're flopping. All right? If you're happy that Joe Biden messed up, you're not actually offended, you're happy. This sort of thing happens actually across the ideological spectrum. So if you do it, if I do it, we all need to stop. But it is so acute on the right. I mean, the right is just like, Megyn Kelly's podcast is almost all flopping all the time.

First, Biden is concerned. Nobody was actually offended by what he's trying to say. All right. It was at worst a slip of the tongue. He immediately cleaned it up. And then later he sent out a tweet. So the mainstream media, if you're listening, don't be credulous and pretend to take the complaint seriously from people who are obviously overjoyed. So you got to make hay out of this. You can't let people pretend to be mad when they're clearly overjoyed. But we also need to just talk about the Biden of this real quick.

There've also been a few articles recently about how he wants to be out doing more and his team feels affronted by slights from Kamala's team and this or that. And I'm just begging people, can we all be adults for the last week of this campaign to save the country and his legacy, by the way? Joe Biden needs to give Kamala room to run her campaign. He shouldn't be worrying about his feelings. Nobody around him should be worrying about his feelings

in this moment. And he shouldn't be making anyone feel like his feelings should be a consideration in their mind. Ever since he left the race, the president has been treated by Democrats like a depressed child or somebody in a vulnerable situation who needs to be treated with kid gloves. He's the president of the United States. We all got to buck up and recognize that in this moment, his highest and best use is working in private and being president, not being in the campaign. I'm sure that sucks for him, but the stakes are very high and people got to set their ego and their sensitivities aside.

I promise you, if I had done something to embarrass Kamala and as a result, I had to quit podcasting and stop tweeting for a week. Do you think I'd take one night to think about it? Do you think I'd pout? Do you think I'd say, well, you know, I really, I really like to be out? No, I wouldn't pass so aggressively make comments about it. I'd be on a beach yoga retweet for a week, hoping that you guys finish the job. All right? So Harris' campaign, I'm glad to see as I've been on this podcast, she put out this statement. I strongly disagree with any criticism of people based on who they vote for. You heard my speech last night.

I believe the work that I do is about representing all the people, whether they support me or not. I will be a president for all Americans. That's a great message. She gave a great message last night. Everybody, do what you need to do in the last seven days. Stop walking on eggshells. Kamala Harris is the nominee. Kamala Harris is going to be the next president. It is winning time. Let's act like it. We'll see you all back here tomorrow with podcast favorite, Congressman Adam Kinzinger. Peace out. is the image of hate that you shed upon the others and sisters and your brothers now in my opinion you need someone to teach the whole world is acting like a giant harbor

beach I asked my man Victor what he used to do for fun he said he learned to shoot a gun before the age of 21 crime and abortion are all kinds of my distortion this is very important but just a little caution and what you can do that's a clue and it's true yo throw on a brand new sweater and make your life better and do the right thing do the right thing you got to do the right thing do the right thing You got to do the right thing Do the right thing

You got to do the right thing Do the right thing Do the right thing You got to do the right thing Do the right thing Brothers are stealing and dealing and big wheeling And to a younger mind that stuff is appealing So what do they do? They gather up a crew, go out and steal a rob instead of getting a job

Now your mother tried to bring you up better than that The same way she loved you, you loved the right back But now you think you're grown and you argue a lot Over money and God from dealing stuff from the block Now you're not the only one in the world that has problems Keep your head straight and you can surely solve them Be a fly guy and reach sky high And like the Jeffersons you get a piece of the pie

I hope you take heed to the message I brought In other words, the lesson I taught The rhetoric, the lyric, but I won't sing And the FBI crew wants you and you don't need to do the right thing You got to do the right thing You got to do the right thing You got to do the right thing You got to do the right thing

You got to do the right thing You got to do the right thing You got to do the right thing The Bullork Podcast is produced by Katy Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.