The Glenn Beck Program - Best of the Program | Guest: Tulsi Gabbard | 8/27/24

Episode Date: August 27, 2024

Glenn gives the latest update on YouTube censoring his video featuring journalist Tommy Robinson. The tech platform rejected his appeal and blocked the video from being shared on his website. Glenn also discusses the latest revelation of Facebook's free speech suppression, after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted to censoring posts regarding Hunter Biden's laptop and working with the Biden-Harris administration to censor COVID-19 posts. Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) joins to discuss why she endorsed Trump for president and the freedoms at risk if Kamala is elected. Stu breaks down the latest polling numbers and what they mean for the election. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey, today is a really, really great podcast. We start with freedom of speech, what's happening over in Europe, and what it means here in America. Then we have Corey Lewandowski and Tulsi Gabbard, who just endorsed Donald Trump yesterday. It's a pack show today. You don't want to miss any of it. It begins now. First, I have to tell you, things are on the edge. And if we become an unstable nation, it is most likely.

that we will lose our reserve currency status, which means our dollar will become Venezuela overnight. And the reason why I know that's true is because they've always told me we'll never lose our World Reserve currency. We're the least stinky poop in the pile. Oh, well, that's great. Well, we're going to lose it, gang. We already have actors all over the world moving in that direction.

Listen, please call Lear Capital today. They can help you build a protective hedge against economic insanity. I want you to call them today. Get their book on how you can build that hedge and why it's a good idea. It's a free wealth protection guide. Lear Capital will also credit your account $250 towards your purchases because you're a listener of mine. So call 800-957 gold. Please, gold or silver, do it today.

800-957 gold. 800-9-57 gold. You're listening to the best of the blue. Okay, so you know we had, you just wanted to just touch on freedom of speech here. You know we had Tommy Robinson on with us. And Stu, can you give a recap of who Tommy is and what the controversy was? You remember?

Barely. I was away when you actually had them on. Oh, okay. But I do remember. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. So Tommy Robinson is this guy who is very outspoken on all of the rape of children, the pedophilia. Hopefully against? Yeah, yeah. He's outspoken against. Yeah. And he's in England and he's saying that there's two levels of justice.

There's one for all the white people and then one, or I shouldn't say that. One for all of the English people that were born in England and then one for the newcomers, you know, the refugees. And by the way, me just saying that, that way, could get me arrested if I were in London or England. So here's the thing. He came out and they've been blaming him for all of the violence. And he said, no, you can't blame me for the violence. It's your policies. And he said, I have done a, just recently, I did a big rally, and I said, peace is the only way to do this.

It can't be violence. When I asked him if he was for violence, he not only reiterated that, but he said, just like you're January 6th, violence will be the end of our movement. So we can't have any violence. Violence hurts our movement. So why would I be for it? Well, after that interview, we posted it and it was up on YouTube. And they immediately said that we couldn't post it because it was inciting violence. No, it wasn't. It was doing the exact opposite of that. However, I don't think this was YouTube's call. I think YouTube got pressure from the European Union and all.

pressure from England to make sure that that didn't get out. So we've been suppressed and we appealed. And we said to YouTube that it didn't have issue. Show us where the violence was. Show us. They didn't call us back. They just put on the video, appeal rejected. We looked at your content again and confirmed that it should stay limited.

This may be disappointing. Oh, no, it's not disappointing. It was expected. But it's important that we keep the YouTube community protected. YouTube, thank you for protecting me. That is so important. Meanwhile, you're convincing my kids that they can be, you know, another gender, which is scientifically impossible. But thank you for the protection on this one. So we tried to embed the video in a story that we were sending out. And once we just did embed. And what happened? This video cannot be played here.

Its content has been identified by the YouTube community as inappropriate or offensive to some audiences. So we are now being suppressed. We know that Facebook has suppressed us. a great deal in the last couple of years. They are, they are now looking into it, and I'm waiting to see what they find. I'm sure they're, I'm sure they're honestly looking, especially after what happened yesterday with Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg wrote a pretty astounding letter to Jim Jordan and the chairman of the judiciary looking into the weaponization of government. He said, this is Zuckerberg's letter.

There's a lot of talk right now around how the U.S. interacts with companies like META, and I want to be clear about our position. Our platforms are for everyone. We're about promoting free speech and helping people connect in a safe and secure way. As part of this, we regularly hear from governments all around the world and others with various concerns around public discourse and public safety. In 2021, senior officials from the Biden administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months. to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn't agree.

Ultimately, it was our decision whether or not to take the content down, and we own our decisions, including COVID-19-related charges we made to the enforcement in the wake of this pressure. I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it. I also think we made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight, and new information we wouldn't make today. Do you think? Like I said to our teams at the time, I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content

standards due to pressure from any administration in either direction. And we're ready to push back if something like this happens again. Okay, good. Okay. All right. Good. In a separate situation, the FBI warned us about potential Russian disinformation operation about the Biden family and Burisma in the lead up to.

the 2020 election. That fall, when we saw New York Post story reporting on corruption allegations involving the then Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's family, we sent the story to fact checkers for review and temporarily, temporarily demoted it while waiting for a reply. It's since been made clear the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn't have demoted the story. We've changed our policies and processes to make sure this doesn't happen again. For instance, we no longer temporarily demote things in the U.S. while waiting for, oh, kneel down and bow down to the fact checkers. Apart from content moderation, I want to address the contributions I made to the last presidential cycle to support electoral infrastructure. The idea here was to

make sure local election jurisdictions across the country had the resources they needed to help people vote safely during the global pandemic. I made these contributions through the Chan Zuckerberg initiative. They were designed to be nonpartisan, spread across urban, rural, and suburban communities. Still, despite the analysis I've seen showing otherwise, I know that some people believe this work benefited one party over the other. My goal was to be neutral and not play a role in one way or another or even appear to play a role. So I don't plan on making a similar contribution this cycle. Respectfully, Mark Zuckerberg.

Well, Mark, that's big of you. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I would like to ask if I can get, you know, unbanded now. You know, can you not shadow ban me now? You know, I guess I could sue Facebook because now they're admitting that they are doing this thing. I think there's probably a lot of lawsuits.

Or Stu, does Section 230 cover lawsuits like that when you're actually injured by Facebook? No, Section 230 would not protect them in that way. It would protect them against what the telegram guy is facing in Russia or in France, excuse. excuse me, the Russian telegraph. Yeah, yeah. So in France, they just arrested the guy who is, he does something like Signal, where it is an encrypted communication device. And you can just download the app and you can write people in, like, just like Signal,

in Telegram and nobody can read it. Well, because they don't have Section 230, we are now. having to live by European standards. This is why YouTube is censoring me now. They're censoring me because we could throw Glenn Beck under the bus

or we could lose all of Europe. Which do we choose? Well, our principal, shut up, shut up. We know we don't want to lose Europe. French prosecutors released information on Monday about the potential criminal charges that the telegram founder and CEO is now being investigated in connection that he was arrested last week when a private jet was landed in the country from

Azerbaijan. So these are the 12 charges that they are investigating that appear to stem from Duraov's alleged refusal to moderate illicit content on the platform. So the idea here was with Section 230, you are either a public. or you're just a free space platform. You either edit and hold standards or you don't. And if you don't, you can't be held responsible for anything. But again, Europe doesn't have that. They have publisher status.

So if you're doing an app and something's happening, well, you better know about it. well, if you have an encrypted service, how are you going to know about it unless you're listening in to all of the things that they're doing, which would then negate the reason you would have encryption? So they listed 12 charges. They're, yeah, I think they're all complicity, okay? Webmastering an online platform in order to enable illegal transaction in an organized

group, complicity. Now, I would like to know, has any of these guys from the WEF, are they ever going to be charged with complicity on destroying the Western way of life, destroying the Western Hemisphere? Because I know they're complicit in it. I know they're talking to each other all the time. I wonder if they're using anything like Signal. Then refusal to communicate at the request of competent authorities. I think. think you could argue that. Competent authorities, are there any information or documents necessary for carrying out and operating interceptions allowed by law? Complicity. Possessing pornographic images of minors. Wow. He doesn't have pornography of minors. He's complicit with the people who do

because those people were using his app. Can you imagine? Complicity, distributing, offering, or making available pornographic images of minors in an organized group. So they're going to make this guy into a guy who is selling children for pornography or prostitution by making him an accomplice. Complicity, offering or selling, making available without legitimate reason, equipment tools, programs are data designed or adapted to get access to and damage the

operation of automated data processing systems. Complicity, organized fraud. Criminal association with a view to committing a crime or offense punishable by five years or more in imprisonment. Laundering of the proceeds derived from the organized groups of fences and crimes. I guess that's because they were paying for the app? providing cryptology services aiming to ensure confidentiality without certified declaration

providing cryptology tool not solely ensuring authentication or integrity monitoring without prior declaration. You know, I love the cryptology where the government can monitor it. I mean, don't you? Or just anybody, maybe a third party, you know? I love that kind of, I want a private conversation

with my friends, my family, my coworkers, whatever, I want it to be private that nobody can hack into and take and put it online. Well, yeah, you can have that, but there's got to be a third party that's looking at it. No, I don't think so. Importing a cryptology tool, ensuring authentication or integrity monitoring without prior declaration. That's what they are charging him with. And we need to make a decision.

decision as a society. Are we for freedom of speech or are we not? You know, there's always been conspirators that are walking around and having secret meetings, you know, they're always having these secret meetings, shh, quiet, quiet, quiet. Now, can we have those electronically? Apparently not. There are no secrets from the state. So, So are we going to allow people who make this kind of stuff possible? Are we going to allow them to go to jail? Or are we going to allow them to make it available for all the good guys, knowing that some of the bad guys are going to be swept up in it?

And then just go after the bad guys. That's the decision. Do you have freedom of speech? This is what this election is truly all about. All right. Sometimes the answer to your problem that you're dealing with is staring you right in the face. Either don't notice it or you've been ignoring it all along. If you're one of those people who lived with frequent or even constant pain,

you might have gotten to that point where you just kind of accept how life is. It's never going to get any better. I know I was there, but I'm here to tell you that it doesn't have to be that way. The answer may be right in front of you right now. It was for me. It was called Relief Factor. I listen to the commercials every day, and I was like, yeah, I'm not going to try that. It doesn't, I'm sure it doesn't work for me.

Why? That was my argument, my wife made. Why wouldn't you just try it? I don't know, because it's not going to work. Well, how do you know if you don't try it? 70% of the people who try it go on to order more every month. Relief factor. It's 100% drug-free daily supplement that helps your body fight that pain.

And developed by doctors, it uses a unique formula of natural ingredients to address the inflammation. in your body, which is where the pain starts. Go to relieffactor.com right now. Relieffactor.com, 800 for relief. Now back to the podcast. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. We welcome to the program now. Tulsi Gabbard, the author of For Love of Country,

which really took on a whole new meeting, Tulsi, yesterday, when you endorsed Donald Trump. Welcome. Yes. Good morning, Glenn. It's great to be with you. Yeah. Did you realize how much you look like Wonder Woman? I'm just throwing that out there. Hey, I'll take that compliment any day in the week.

So tell me why it is so important for you to now take the step that will make you even less popular with people on the left and put a target on your back, honestly. because they think he is absolute Hitler. Why are you joining the campaign? I mean, the title of my book says it all. It is truly for love of country. And because I know firsthand what's at stake in this election. You know, so often we have elections that are kind of reduced to partisan differences of, well, you know, Democrats think this and Republicans think that.

but this election is very different. It's much bigger than one party versus another. What's at stake here is freedom. And the fact that we have a candidate and Donald Trump who believes in freedom and the Constitution and who, and I've had personal conversations with him who understands the cost of war and the seriousness of the fact that because of Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, we are closer to the brink of nuclear war. now than ever before. That's a serious issue that he looks forward to as president, commander, and chief, to taking on and walking us back from the brink of war. And you contrast that with Kamala Harris, who in so many ways over the last three and a half

years has shown that she will not hesitate to undermine our freedoms. We just saw Mark Zuckerberg come out publicly and say, yeah, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris essentially bullied Facebook into censoring American. free speech. We've seen the political retaliation against Donald Trump. We've seen the political retaliation against the free speech of everyday Americans. And I'm the most recent target for the Kamala Harris administration for criticizing Kamala Harris. They put me on a secret domestic terror watch list, which I'm told is still operational and still going on. And on the issue of war and peace, which doesn't get talked about often enough in these presidential elections,

but really is core to our ability to live in a free and peaceful and prosperous society. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden have gotten us embroiled in multiple wars in different parts of the world. And it is directly because of their foreign policy that we sit here, one spark away from nuclear war. So are you, were you shocked? Because I was shocked. It was almost like part of her acceptance speech at the convention. was written by John Bolton. She was, I mean, she sounded like an absolute hawk,

like Lindsey Graham when it comes to war. Did you feel that way? I did. I did very much so, but it didn't surprise me because it was just another proof point showing that, you know, people, Joe Biden hasn't been calling the shots and making decisions over the last three and a half years. if Kamala Harris is elected president, neither will she.

She is the latest figurehead for the military industrial complex, the deep state, national security state, all of those who derive the mainstream propaganda media, those who derive power or profit from us being in a constant state of war, wrote those talking points and that script that was fed into that teleprompter, and Kamala Harris declared it loud and proud. So we know exactly who she'll be working for, not for the American people, not for our national security, nor quite frankly, does she care one iota about those of us who wear the uniform and those who serve? And this was very compelling, especially yesterday, that I made this announcement on the third anniversary of the Abbey Gate bombing in Harris and Biden's

disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. So who is running the country? And, you know, I saw, who was it? Some Hollywood celebrity today came out and said, it doesn't matter if. she doesn't give an interview and doesn't matter if she doesn't articulate her platform. She just has to win. And I thought, you know, that is voting for an oligarchy. That's, that's, because we don't know who's running the country right now. It's obviously somebody or a group of people, they have an agenda. None of us have voted for those people. We don't even know who it is. We're an oligarchy. That's exactly right.

Right. And this is important for voters to recognize. And, you know, the more of these Hollywood celebrities and other people say those kinds of things, it just reinforces that fact. And also the fact that they think that we as voters are so stupid as to fall for it, to fall for the lie, the facade that they are creating. Yes, it is Tony Blinken, who has turned the State Department, which is supposed to be the department that's responsible for diplomacy and preventing war into what is essentially a war department. And we see Jake Sullivan, president, who's a national security advisor in the White House. And we see people like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are still calling the shots. and many others whose faces and names will not be on the front page or on your television anytime soon, both in the government as well as outside of the government in the military industrial complex, who are, they are a part of this. They are of this cabal of neocon elitist warmongers who will put their power and their profits ahead of people every day of the week.

Let me play a couple of things for you because Donald Trump, I think, would be wise to have you in his Department of Defense. And there's a lot of work to do. Here's Susan Rice in 2016 on the imperatives of national security. For starters, a diverse national security workforce enables us to unlock all of our nation's talent. There are some 320 million people in the United States. Nearly 40% are minorities, and an increasing number of them are earning college and graduate degrees. As America becomes more diverse, so too do our best people. The next Colin Powell, or Madeline Albright, or Bill Richardson.

Stop. She goes on, I don't want to waste your time. She goes on, and she says in that, inclusion is a national security imperative. Now I want you to listen to the lieutenant colonel who is a man posing as a woman who is with space force. Listen to this. So inclusion is a national security imperative. We fight today and we are going to fight in the future using brain power. And if that brain who's going to revolutionize the way we fight in space, we fight in cyber, just happens to be in a transverse. body, you should want them all serving alongside me. And for your organizations, it's the same

way. Those perspectives that we get from a diverse set of individuals, it's been talked about on stage a lot regarding the science behind high performing teams. We need those perspectives. But it's inclusion that actually drives that. Because you can bring people in and if they don't feel safe to speak up, if they don't feel safe to bring their full selves to work, you're not going to get the value of the diversity. So Tulsi, the kind of inclusion that I look for, and I think most Americans are for, is diversity of thought. Somebody at the table who has the guts to say, general, Mr. President, please do not do that, and here is why. We are focused on all the wrong kind of inclusion

that means nothing to people. We'll... Where does this fit on a priority list for you? Well, the fact that they care more about the color of your skin or how you identify or your sexuality than they do about your capability and what you bring to the table in service to our country is really indicative of their entire philosophy of their identity politics. And it's put our country in a dangerous place. I've served now the Army for over 21 years, and I can tell you, having people surrounding myself with people in different positions, I started as a private, I'm now a lieutenant colonel, I tell

my soldiers now, I'm a battalion commander, I tell them if you disagree with my plan or my position, I want you to tell me that you disagree and tell me why, because you may have a better idea. That's exactly what we should be looking for, that diversity of thought, that environment that is inclusive of people who have a different way of doing things so that we can come up with the best plan, the best course of action, the best outcome. And that's true of the military and every agency across the government. That to me is what real leadership is about. And that is essential that that changes. Another one of the many reasons why it's important that Donald Trump wins this election. So a couple of other questions, and I'll let you go. You

debated Kamala and you pretty much wiped the floor with her. What advice are you giving to Donald Trump, if any? And what do you think about

the attempt to change the rules now by Kamala in the debate? Yeah, you know, Donald Trump is not a politician. I think that's what a lot of people really, really love about him. And so it wouldn't surprise you to know, Glenn, that he doesn't do debate prep like a typical

politician would. So, but it's, but it's been great to be able to spend some time with him and his team. Really, for me, if there's anything that I can help with at all, it is just the fact that I've shared a stage with Kamal Harris. I know how she thinks and how she is going to, how she's going to try to lay some traps, try to bait Donald Trump into, to walking into the narrative that she's going to try to push for the American people. and quite frankly, how she's going to try, how she will try to hide her record.

That, to me, is the biggest thing. She says one thing that is directly opposite to what her record shows. And so this really will be an opportunity for Donald Trump to expose that to the American people. And to your second question about, you know, Kamala Harris is trying to change the rules here now less than two weeks before the debate. I think it points to that fact, points to her weakness that the American people need to see. She's demanding that the debate be seated and that she be allowed to bring in notes into the debate. Why does she need notes? If she knows the issues, if she knows her stands on the most important policies and the challenges the American people are facing today,

why does she need notes? Well, we know why. It goes back to the thing we started our conversation with is because she needs someone else to tell her what to say. Yep. Okay, last question. Yesterday I had RFK Jr. on at this time. And conservatives like me, people who have been waiting for people to wake up and see the insanity in the country, are excited because you're now campaigning for Donald Trump. RFK is campaigning for Donald Trump. And it seems like there are people waking up to see this party that says that they are protecting democracy. is the furthest thing from, you know, defenders of democracy. Do you see people waking up? Have you experienced, you think it's happening, or are we being too hopeful? No, it is.

And this is, I'll give you just two brief anecdotes that happened within the last 24 hours. I landed in an airport late last night at about 11 o'clock at night, was walking off the plane, and a guy named Jake walked up to me and said, hey, you know, I really appreciate what you did today. And he talked about his family. His family comes from a long line of traditional Democrat, you know, construction union, hardworking American families. They have voted Democrat almost their entire lives.

And it is not until just recently, just over these past few days that they have, he got calls from his dad yesterday after I made my announcement. He said, wait, hold on a second. What's going on here? I need to pay closer attention to this and rethink the way that I thought I I was going to vote. Second story, there's a teacher at a small private school who I met during my campaign for the presidency in 2020, follows me on Instagram. He talks about real education, not the broken education system, but he has always voted for a third party candidate. He voted for me,

but he had voted for third party candidates, and that's what he was going to do. And his statement yesterday, to me and on his Instagram was, hey, I think we need to rethink things. If Bobby Kennedy and Tulsi Yabbard and other common-sense-minded Americans who we support are now endorsing Donald Trump, he's like, I need to check myself. I need to look in the mirror and say, what am I doing to actually make a difference rather than just make a statement? That is fantastic news. Tulsi, thank you for everything. And I'll see you Friday and Saturday, right, for the barge for children.

Yes, I will see you there. I look forward to it, Glenn. Okay. All right, bye-bye. listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. Hello America, welcome to the Glenn Beck program. So several times Bill Marr has called out Kamala for not doing interviews. And he's particularly pointed out she needs to do interviews with people who are, quote, more centrist like me. She needs to win his audience over. Well, Quentin Tarantino was on and he says actually doing

interviews is a really good thing. Can we play cut seven here real quick? It's amazing. I think there's just all about winning the election, all right? And then the easiest path to winning the election. Look, you can talk about maybe she should have had more guts about this or that and the other, but we're the president. Right. And Trump's not the president, and we're the fucking president, and now it's going to be about this. But this is about winning. What most people don't give the Democrats enough credit

for, all right, but we give the Republicans credit for. It's like, no, sometimes it's just about winning. And it doesn't matter how we look at this moment. It's about winning. Right. This is about winning. Yep. Okay, we got

it, Quinn. We got it. We got it. That's fantastic. So what is he saying? She doesn't, he was defending that she doesn't have any policy points out and that she hasn't done any interviews. He is pushing for a machine. He's saying the machine is already in. It's already running. She doesn't matter. So just win. That is a little terrifying. And I think people are starting to wake up to it as evidenced by RFK Jr. Tulsi Gabbard and others that are starting to say, I'm questioning

my involvement with the Democrats, is all of this making any difference at all? Looking at the polls. Well, it's still too early to tell, right? All this stuff just happened. The RFK endorsement, the Tulsi endorsement, the Democratic National Convention is going on. You know, is the poll bounce, I should say,

is still going to be going on. You'd expect, every time you have a convention, you have a bounce in most circumstances. usually two to three points. You'd expect that to kind of kick in this week. So the polling should be very good for Kamala Harris this week if historical patterns sort of follow the norms. In this election, it's always difficult to say

that something's going to follow the norms, but that is what we would expect in this situation. Right. Now, I've talked to a lot of people who are, you know, looking for, hoping for Trump to win here. And I've sensed, I don't know if you sensed this, Glenn, a lot of pessimism lately over the past week or two, like walking very close.

to the edge of the cliff considering jumping off, but maybe not quite have taken the leap yet. I think everybody is in that position on both sides. I think both sides have good days and bad days where you're like, we're going to win. And the next day you're like, good heavens, where there's no way we can win. Yeah. I think everybody's feeling that way. Yeah. And I felt it was like universal confidence for most on the right when Biden was the nominee. And now we're into the point of the opposite. It's a universal pessimism now that Kamala is the nominee, which is incredible. But you should look back at Kamala's history a little bit. I think people forget the 2019 campaign and think Kamala Harris just failed. And it was a different kind of failure than

most other failures, if you will. When she launched her campaign, this is the period we're in now. When she launched her campaign in 2019, she literally rocketed all the way to the top of the gambling markets for Democratic nominee. Her launch was really good. In 2019. It was really positive. She had a well-attended speech. People were going crazy. She got all sorts of incredible media attention around that time. And she actually went ahead of Bernie. She went ahead of Biden and went into first place in the betting markets. Do you remember what I said about her? The first time I saw her on the campaign trail, she was doing something I don't remember. and she was giving an interview

and I came in and I said, I think I'm concerned about her. Yeah, I know. She's relatable. She seems nice. Now, all of that stuff has been disproven. But it was again, that feeling that she gave everybody at the speech

that if that's the snapshot you get of her, you're like, I like her. Yeah, and I think, you know, we talked about this at the time and we were mocked by self. for that. And, you know, of course, she wound up being vice president of the United States. We were talking about her in sort of a long

shot capacity. Who's the person outside of the major features who could make a run at this? And she did make a run. She actually made a second run during the campaign during one of the debates. Now remember, we're all looking at this debate coming up and saying, oh, well, Donald Trump's going to crush her. Well, she has

had minimal but existing success at debates. When she went up against Joe Biden, she did the very pre-planned story. Again, brought herself to script. That's what her goal is always in these moments to take herself from an off-script moment, but bring herself back to script. And she was able to do a scripted moment where she basically called Joe Biden a big fat racist. And that was successful. And she actually, once again, for the second time during the campaign cycle,

went up to first place in the betting markets. I believe she was second or third in the actual polls at that point. And that is a significant thing. The point I may The reason I make that point is because she also then collapsed in both circumstances, took a lead that she had been given, and squandered it into miserable failure and then she didn't even make it to Iowa. So that is, that, that, though, came from time. Yep. And time is limited.

The one thing that we don't have. Yes. That happened at about three months, which is about what we had from the very beginning of this campaign. One way to look at this campaign, if you kind of want to look at this campaign, if you kind of want to look at it now. And you're saying, okay, well, she's sure she was able to avoid some interviews at the beginning. She's now been able to avoid about a third of the campaign doing any interviews or presenting any policies. It's a 15-week campaign for her, and she's through five.

And we should note, she said, when finally asked briefly on the runway, whether she would ever do an interview, she said she would schedule one by the end of the month. Well, it's August 27th. Okay, we have nothing on the schedule. Also, she didn't promise to do one in August. She just said she would schedule one in August. So it's very possible she schedules an interview for the year 2038 and we never actually know. Well, if she does do an interview, you know, it's probably going to be a softball interview anyway. But it will make the longer she waits, the more important that interview is.

Right. But I mean, if I were her in her campaign and did not care about the country, in fact, probably wanted to destroy it. I would I would recommend her doing something like Rachel Maddow who will present, who will come up with a mod a modestly intellectual interview that is incredibly tilted in her favor to present her with every opportunity not to make a mistake. And while a lot of people would mock her for doing that, you know, the media doesn't seem to care about it much at all, although it may be some of the pressure is increasing. Axios had an interesting story on this front today. But when it comes to

the state of the race, and I do a podcast, by the way, called State of the Race, it's available on the Studez America feed wherever you get your audio podcast. And we update this in a couple times a week with, you know, sort of larger in-depth looks at this type of stuff. But if you look back at June, mid-June, okay, this is before the debate. Donald Trump is at 44.6% in the polls. Currently, he's at 44.4% in the polls. Currently, he's at 44.4% in the polls. So there's been almost no change at all from before the debates to right now when it comes to the support level for Donald Trump. What has changed here is Kamala Harris, who went, it was actually Joe Biden back in mid-June, of course, but has gone from basically 42 to 47.

So at the time, Donald Trump's got about a two-point lead over Biden. Now he trails by about three points, two and a half, to Kamala. still all of it in the margin of error. Or all of it in the margin of error on both sides. You know, that is important to point out, Glenn. But where do these five, where do this 5% come from? Largly it came from RFK. What you had is a situation where a decent amount,

about 5% of people who would typically vote for Biden, were over to the RFK side of things because they looked at Biden as embarrassing and unpalatable. Like they just, They're normally left-wing-type voters. They looked at Biden just like, this is, I can't justify this. This is insane. He can't even speak.

He can't walk. They were in that category. And what happened with the Harris change is that that Biden problem that was somewhat unique to Biden, was cured by Harris. The people who were RFK supporters that were Democrat leaning largely left RFK and went over to Harris. That caused, you know, RFK's percentages to go from about 10% to about 5%. That was basically the loss there. And one of the reasons why RFK looked at the polls and said, okay, like, we're going the wrong direction here. Let's look at a different approach to still make a difference.

And that's when he started calling around and wound up talking to Donald Trump and makes this endorsement. Now, when you look at that problem that is solved for Democrats, it still existed for Republicans. before Harris steps into the race, RFK Jr. is typically hurting Biden more than he's hurting Trump. When Harris steps in, that reverses. And it winds up being much more significant to Donald Trump than it was to Kamala Harris. The Harris people who were thinking about Harris went to Harris when she's dropped into the race, where that was not the case with Biden.

So you have this situation where RFK now presents an almost unique risk. to Trump rather than to Biden. RFK Jr. talked about that in his speech and talked about it in the interview a little bit with you yesterday. He became something that was not hurting both sides equally or as it was earlier in the campaign where he was hurting Biden more. He became a candidate that was hurting Trump a lot more. Now, when you go through this, and I went through a few dozen polls from the Biden era

and the Harris era to try to look at the effects there. And we did see that play out. where about 65% of the voters that were in the RFK people category were Trump-leaning voters, and only about 30 to 35% of those people were Kamala voters. There's also a contingency of people who are going to vote third party or maybe not vote at all. You kind of throw them out for the time being. For this exercise, it was about two to one when it comes to Trump voters versus Kamala voters. when you go through all of that and break it all down,

it looks to be a little bit over a point between 1.2 and 1.5% movement toward Donald Trump here. And you might look at that and say, well, that's not that big of a deal, right? 1.2, 1.5 points. Isn't this race? In a race like this, that is massive. It's almost impossible to move a race like this by that. Without Google.

without Google, without some major development, right? And this is, I would say, on the category of a major development. Some people are trying to demean it. You know, other people have tried to run this same analysis. Nate Silver ran a similar analysis. You know, he's running a much more, you know, much more, I'm sure, high-level analysis than I am with my stupid Excel sheet. But he came up with about 0.6 points of effect.

But even 0.6 points is a massive, massive difference in a race like that. this. And if you think about the way this race is unfolded, you have a situation where Joe Biden went through about five of the worst weeks humanly possible for a campaign, right? He had the horrible debate performance. His opponent had charges against him dropped. We forget that that occurred. It was almost like not even a factor. His opponent had an assassination attempt against him. He had terrible interview, terrible press conferences. I mean, it was as bad

as it could possibly be. When that was followed by a great convention. Followed by a great convention by the Republicans. When all of that was over, Donald Trump led the national polls by about three points. Three points. That was at three points. After all of that.

Kamala Harris comes in. She's named the nominee. She has five of the best weeks possible for any campaign. Every single piece of media that comes out about her is positive over and over again. She's treated as the new Rosa Parks. She is the queen of all of the world. They have this big convention. Arguably goes pretty well. She gives a speech that was well received. All of that happens. And now she, in polling averages, leads by about three points. The entire range of outcomes for this election is

probably something like Trump plus four to Trump minus four. Maybe there's a little more on the margins of that, but not much. And so when you can move one point of voters in an election like that, that is a massive, massive difference. And that's why it is a big deal for the RFK junior endorsement. People are trying to downplay it on the left, but I don't think that's wise.