The Michael Knowles Show - 2024 VP Debate | Daily Wire Backstage

Episode Date: October 2, 2024

Don’t miss the 2024 Vice Presidential Debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz, one of the most anticipated events of the election season. Get exclusive pre-show analysis from Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, Andrew Klavan, and Jeremy Boreing, followed by a post-debate breakdown with insights you won’t hear from the mainstream media.   - - -    Today’s Sponsors:   ExpressVPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/backstage   LeafFilter - Schedule your free inspection and get up to 30% off your entire purchase today at https://leaffilter.com/backstage   Lumen - Thanks to Lumen for sponsoring! To get 15% off go to https://lumen.me/BACKSTAGE and start improving your health today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hey, Michael Knowles here. The latest episode of Daily Wire Backstage 2024 VP debate is available now. Join me, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Claven, Matt Walsh, God King Jeremy Boring, as we discuss the vice presidential debate, the Iranian attack on Israel, and the abysmal response to the devastating floods across the southeast. Don't miss it. Enjoy. Well, folks, that ends the vice presidential debate. So here is the immediate takeaway. J. J. DeVance delivers one of the great debate performances that we've seen in modern history, truly a stellar performance from J.D. Vance. For all the people who believe that he was weird on the left,

there was nothing weird about J.D. Vance's performance tonight. He looked not only cool and collected, he looked kind and empathetic. He delivered what I thought was a truly articulate defense of Donald Trump's policy positions. I may not agree with all those policy positions, but he delivered a very articulate defense of them. He presented an incredibly non-threatening face to the sort of Trump Vance ticket. The goal for Tim Walls tonight was to make J.D. Vance look weird, was to make the Trump Vance ticket look dangerous and scary.

That's what they were intending to do. And J.D. Vance thwarted that by doing precisely the opposite. He played it cool. He played it low-key. He was very friendly to Tim Walls. At some point, I thought to myself, man, I wish he weren't quite so friendly to Tim Walls. I wish at some point he would jabbed Tim Walls a little bit harder. In fact, there were many times when the two of them would talk about how they were sort of agreeing with one another. But it was a very, very friendly debate from that perspective. That's very good for J.D. Vance, who, again, is trying to demonstrate to the American people

that the Trump van's ticket is not chaotic. It is not volatile. It is not scary. It's some people that you can trust. Meanwhile, Tim Walls looked really awkward out there, particularly at the beginning of the debate. I think he picked up some steam later on in the debate when they got to domestic policy issues on which there seemed to be both sides contending as to who could spend more. But at the very beginning, Tim Walls was stumbling and bumbling all over himself. He got a few cutaways that were pretty glorious of JD Vance giving the Jim Halpert from the office to the camera. I'm like, Is this guy really saying what he seems to be saying? Tim Walls made a couple of gaffs that were particularly egregious.

The one that is going to become the viral clip of the night is the one where he was asked about the fact that like everything else in his record, he's fibbed about when he went to Tianman Square and where he was during Tiananmen Square. He had said that he was in Hong Kong. That isn't true. He's fibbed about nearly everything. J.D. Vance really didn't call him on a lot of that stuff. He's pretty kind in how he did call him on it.

But Walls looked absolutely like a deer in the headlights to even asked the question. He started rambling about how he had grown up in a poorer community. And then finally, he sort of stopped and said that he was a knucklehead. And then he stopped again and then suggested that he misspeaks frequently. It was a really bad look for him. And there was a lot of that tonight. He had these sort of awkward cadences, strange pauses. He looked bewildered.

A lot of the time he's kind of writing a lot of notes. A lot of he must have written a book tonight on that podium. He also looked extremely sort of bewildered as to why he was up there, big eyes, a lot of split screens that didn't look very good for Tim Walls. At this point, Kamala Harris has to be thinking, why didn't she pick Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania, we all know, he was a Jew. She didn't pick Josh Shapiro for that reason. Shapiro certainly would have outperformed Tim Walls, who delivered what I thought was, at best, a mediocre performance. Probably the only good aspect of the night for Tim Walls came in that last sort of section

where they were talking about January 6th, and Walls was trying to call J.D. Vance on January 6th, I don't think that means a lot to people. It was also at the very end of the debate. I don't think it scores a lot of points. For J.D. Vance, then, 10 out of 10 debate. For Tim Walz, like a three out of 10, for the moderators, zero out of 10. Again, terrible moderation. These moderators said going in, they were not going to do some sort of big fact-checking routine. There was a point during this debate where J.D. Vans suggested correctly that many of the people who are in Springfield, Ohio, are not legal immigrants. And he was talking about how they'd been giving temporary protective status, which means that they didn't go through a green card process. And the fact-checkers

tried to fact-check him and suggested these were all legal immigrants to the United States were on the way to a green card. And he started correcting them. He said, no, that's not what, and they cut off the mics. So they'd said, we're not going to fact-check you. We're going to let you fact-check each other. Then they jumped into fact-check. Every question was to Tim Walls, some sort of question about Kamala Harris and Tim and Tim Walls and Donald Trump. And then they would go to J.D. Vans, instead of asking him to respond to what Tim Walls had said, they would then ask him the single most inappropriate form of the question. in an attempt to sort of cudgel him into a corner. So the moderators did quite a terrible job tonight,

but JD Vance is a pro. He handled it extremely, extremely well. This does a few things for Donald Trump. The thing that it does number one for Donald Trump is, again, it quiet fears that this is a very volatile ticket. Number two, for J.D. Vance, it does a lot. J.D. is obviously looking beyond just 2024. He's super young. He's my age. Jady is 40 years old, which means he's going to be at the center of American politics for years to come. This debate really enshrined that. The one thing that Vance didn't really do tonight, and I was hoping for him to do, was to really cast Kamala Harris and Tim Walls as radical. I don't think there was enough of that. I do think that Kamala Harris, he banged on her about not getting things done, which, again, is a great approach. It's something that I've

been recommending for a really long time. She is the current vice president of the United States. She is the person responsible for everything that is happening right now. He really focused in on that. But I don't think that he really drew enough contrast as to just how radical Tim Walls is. I was sort of surprised that JD didn't bring up the fact that Tim Walls had said that socialism is just another name for friendliness. I'm sort of surprised they didn't bring up in more robust fashion. Tim Walls's record on abortion, when he did bring it up, he brought it up almost half apologetically. And that brings me to sort of the final point that I have here, which is that when you listen to J.D. Vance's policies and where the Republican Party now is under Donald Trump,

there have been some pretty significant shifts. I mean, J.D. Vance is a pro-life guy. His answers on abortion, however, were obvious dodges. I mean, he was obviously attempting not to answer his own positions with regard to abortion. I get that. I get it. He's running for the vice presidency. He has no intention. And Donald Trump has already said he has no intention of signing into law any sort of federal law with regard to abortion. But J.D. could have been much more aggressive in pushing back against Tim Walls with regard to abortion up until point of birth. He tried to do it and then he sort of backed off a little bit. His answer was about how much sympathy and empathy he had for people who had abortions, which is fine if you then go to the next step.

and you say, but that still does not justify the end of a baby's life in the womb, right? Like, that is something that I think is sort of non-negotiable for a lot of Republicans and pro-life people, even if they plan on voting as I mean for Trump and for Trump in advance. I also think that there's a lot of talk about federal spending. J.D., obviously, is a much bigger government guy. I think it's fair to say after that particular debate that the era of semi-small government may be over. It's been over for quite a while.

I didn't hear a lot of talk about cutting the size and scope of government in that debate. But again, that is really not on JD. That's really on Donald Trump and the platform that he's proposing. So all in all, a very good night for JD Vance. Does it shift the nature of the race in any serious way? I don't think. So I think most people's opinions are set. But it does shift a lot of opinions about J.D. Vance going forward. Great night for J.D. Vance. Good night for the Trump Vance. It justifies Trump's pick of J.D. Vance in this race and really makes Kamala Harris look like a dunderhead for having picked Tim Wals. I thought there was one big revelation from the debate. Tim Walls' friends with school shooters.

I thought that was interesting. Maybe he made friends with them while he was handing out tampons in the boys' bathroom. I don't know. I do want to steal one point from Michael Lowe's before he has a chance to reiterate it. Right. You're welcome. Just like I stole your idea for a board game, by the way. Am that racist available? You're going to do a blank book next.

You can come out with cigarettes. I do think that all of the Americans who are not super clued into politics that I've been hearing for weeks now that J.D. Vance is this weird guy. We're probably mystified watching that and seeing this really cool, calm, collected, eloquent dude, totally unrattled up there. The last word you'd use to describe him is weird. So as you, now I'm, in fact, I'm pointing out.

You said it very well, what I said. Right. Yes. Well, because I had, I also thought it, but then you said it. So it's both of our points. So in a way, the media set J.D. Vance up for a victory here just by. What they did, too, the moderators were so bad. So bad.

And what J.D. Vance did so skillfully was, one, he treated them like the Haitians treated those cats and dogs. I mean, he absolutely devoured them for dinner. But then, importantly, he recovered. So instead of allowing them to rattle him, he remained cool, calm and collected. I totally agree with your point, Ben. There were moments where I, as a rock-rived Republican and conservative, but wished that he had punched a little harder, thrown a little red meat.

But J.D. Vance knew the occasion. He knew that this debate was not a didactic exercise. He was not there to instruct people on the bioethics of abortion or fertility treatments. He was there to win 5 to 7 percent of voters in crucial states. He knew where his weak points are. He knew where his strong points are. I thought he did masterfully in handling those questions in a way that didn't compromise as principles, but was reaching out.

I mean, everything down to wearing a soft-colored tie. It was about appealing to voters, countering the media narrative. I think he succeeded 100%. I think it's interesting to point out the way the moderators were bad because they didn't do to vans what they did to Trump, which was cut him off and say things that weren't true, basically. What they did was they directed every question to an issue that was of interest to them when that wasn't necessarily the issue,

which is, to my point, journals should be completely removed from the debate process. So, for instance, when they asked about the storm, they brought it around to climate change. But in fact, those storms have gone down since around 1900. they've dropped. The number of people who have died in climate-related incidents has plummeted. So there's no reason to talk about climate change. And I think that I would like to see Republicans stand up a little bit more to what is being used as a yet another reason to grow the government. I mean, if we don't start to say these things aren't true, I don't know why

people surrender to these lies. They do it because of the press. There was a lot of stuff. Every time Walsh opens his mouth, he lies. I don't think that guy can actually blink without lying. When he talked about Amber Thurman dying because of Roby, Wade was repealed. She died because she took the abortion pill, and then the case was mishandled by the doctors, but not because of the passenger room. She also didn't go to the hospital when she was supposed to. He didn't go to the hospital when she was supposed to. They didn't do a DNC and all this. But I mean, still, that's a major, major lie. When he said that the number of border crossings have dropped, that's a major

lie that doubled almost, I think. And I think that that that kind of thing, that the fact that Tim Wals gets away with it, it will be interesting to see over the days that ahead, whether that continues to to stick. I also, I agree with you guys about J.D. Vance handling himself beautifully. I expected it from him. He's just an articulate, educated guy. He really,

I wish I could put sometimes his soul into Donald Trump's body. So that Donald Trump had that personality and the charisma, but could bring out those kinds of specifics and the calm, cool, collected attacks. I think you're right that his point was to win over women and to win over

people who might think he was a little bit weird. I don't think this is going to make any change whatsoever. I just don't think there was enough in it. I was bored stiff after about 30 minutes. Well, that's actually what's interesting to me about the debate. And I'll say something nice about Tim Wals, too. And though I know it's unpopular to do so, this was a professional debate from competent candidates. Do I think that Tim Wals did as good a job as J.D. Vance, no.

Do I think J.D. Vance was a 10 out of 10? No, I think it was a 9 out of 10, though. I think that he handled himself incredibly well. But this entire debate took me back to a different time. in American politics. It took me back to 2012 when Barack Obama and Mitt Romney had their debates, and they were incredibly competent, thoughtful, articulate debates. Now, you had problems with the moderators, and very famously, Candy Crowley may have cost Mitt Romney the election in one of the debates. But since the 2012 election, we've not seen a debate in this country

where you actually heard substantive policy positions being put forth by the candidates who broadly speaking, had command of the issues who knew exactly what they were trying to accomplish and accomplished it. I mean, one couldn't help but wish that these two guys were running for president. Well, and to your point, Jeremy, I mean, this is actually gets to your point, Ben, about JD. JD is looking forward. He has to be because President Trump could only get one term. Right. He's not the only one looking forward, though. Kamala Harris is a weak candidate. She's never won a single vote in a primary while running for president. And Tim Walls, by current standards, is a young man, too. And he's probably looking ahead as well.

By the way, Kamala Harris, can you imagine her in debate with J.D. Vance? Oh, my God. He would just wipe the floor with her. Yes. If Donald Trump hadn't so trounced Joe Biden that Joe Biden literally had to remove himself from the election. We would have gotten J.D. Vance versus Kamala. And it just would have been carnage. Bloodbath. Just absolute carnage. Now, I will say four walls. I do think that the question is what each side was trying to accomplish tonight. So I think one of the things that Vance was trying to accomplish is what you guys are talking about. And what I talked about also. so because, of course, I'm right. And that is he was trying to look softer to a broader audience. He was trying to soften that image from the sort of hard-charging guy who's on stage with people who are sometimes considered fringy, to move offline and into sort of the touchgrass world. And I think that he succeeded admirably in that. But there was another thing on the table that he really needed to do that I don't think actually got done. And that was create a real perception that the Harris Walls campaign is deeply radical.

I don't think you came away from that debate thinking the Harris Wall's campaign is deeply radical. I think you came away from that debate thinking that there was a shocking amount of agreement on a stage between Vance and Wall. They kept saying to each other, I agree with you, I would agree with that except for, and so that was left on the table.

In that sense, I think that Walls actually got away with one, meaning that I think that Walls had a dual purpose. His dual purpose was to cast JD and Trump as totally out of bounds. You could never vote for them. They're so crazy. And he failed in that. He failed in that. But I think that he did succeed,

in making himself and Kamala Harris appear to be viable, somewhat center-left candidates, as opposed to the radical communist that he probably is. I mean, again, he is a person who literally said just weeks ago that socialism is another form of neighborliness. That's crazy. Like, how does that not come up on the debate stage? And so in that sense, I think that would that have radically changed the race? Probably not.

And so I think that the first rule of a VP debate probably is do no harm. So you can understand why J.D. didn't get too aggressive because he's figuring, okay, if I go overboard, if I punch too hard, there's going to be some backlash. I understand the strategy. However, it depends on how you think the race is going. If you think that Donald Trump is currently winning the race, perfect debate for JD, all you do is don't make waves, perform really, really well, be really articulate. If you think that Donald Trump is actually down in the polls right now, you got to take a swing because Trump doesn't have another debate coming. I don't, I so rarely disagree with you, but I'm going to offer up an alternative viewpoint.

And that is this, that I have friends in Hollywood who are to the left of us on every single issue who voted for Hillary Clinton, who voted for Joe Biden, who are strongly considering voting for Donald Trump in this election. Why? Well, because reality on the ground has asserted itself because the country is markedly worse than it was in 2019, and because they see in Kamala Harris a sort of vapid,

disingenuous character, who they are afraid will actually be in practice, what she appears to be. And because there is that group of people, because of RFK Jr. giving independence an excuse now, or a permission, it's a better word, not an excuse, permission to say that they're pro-Trump.

Because Mark Zuckerberg has given people permission to say that Trump was badass when he stood up and said, fight, fight, fight, in Butler, Pennsylvania after he took a bullet through the year, you're seeing this shift where people feel empowered to consider Trump in a way that even in 2016, they didn't, even in 2020. They didn't.

But there is one group of people that Donald Trump still has a major problem with, and that is suburban women. He does horribly with them. They see him rightly as being very boorish. They see him rightly as being very crude. I'm not convinced that this, like every other VP debate that we've witnessed in our lifetime, will mean nothing. I think that it very well could mean something. What it could mean is that J.D. Vance just gave that last holdout group of people permission to vote for Donald Trump.

And you don't have to move them seven points. You don't have to move them 20 points. There's a very narrow race. If you make a one, two percent change in that last holdout group of people who are so fundamentally, not fundamentally, not fundamentally, but sort of constitutionally opposed to Donald Trump. If you tell them, no, no, no, no, we're reasonable, we're sensible. You can vote for us. You could have an enormous impact in the election. I think that's what J.D. Vance was trying to do. And I think that he probably rightly has concluded people already know they're radical and are already very worried about ascending them, which is why people in Hollywood are saying outlaw that they might vote for Donald Trump. You may be right. But there's one work that needs to be done. Maybe he did it. To your point, Jeremy, with Trump, the man is a wrecking ball. And it is probably one of the greatest things about the guy. He's got other great features, too. But he's just this wrecking ball that comes in. And J.D. Vance is not a wrecking ball.

That's part of why he balances out the ticket. He is a scalpel. And he was surgically trying to carve out that little group that you're talking about. And I think he did it in as much as it has any effect at all in the race. I think he's a scene. I agree with all that. And that's obviously why on the abortion and surgery. it was killing me that he was taking such an apologetic,

like an incessantly apologetic tone almost with that. I understand strategically why he did it. And I understand why he wasn't being aggressive. I think that that was actually smart. The man was literally wearing pink. Right, yeah. And he did a couple of times. He even absolved Tim Walls.

I think on immigration, he said, well, I know that you agree, but I don't think Kamala Harris. No, he doesn't agree on immigration. But what I would have like to see maybe J.D. Vance do a little bit more is just challenge the premise on some of these questions, which doesn't have to be an aggressive thing,

but whether it's climate change. He didn't challenge the premise of like, why are we talking about climate change on this hurricane? It's got nothing to do with it. Abortion didn't challenge the premise. Even the gun violence epidemic didn't challenge the premise. Child care, you know, we're talking about the child care crisis.

Well, the child care crisis is a crisis mostly because we have a bunch of people that are having kids and aren't married, and so get married and then have kids and stay married, and the child care crisis mostly goes away. Maybe on that last one, I understand why you didn't want to make that point in this environment. But on a couple of the other ones, I think, and he's obviously really smart guy. It's like a strategic choice he made to not challenge the premise on some of these things.

And I'm not sure if it pays off or not. You know what I really care about? I really care about my internet privacy. It's not because I don't want the world to know all my terrible twisted secrets. I don't care. There's a far more important reason. Some of you may not know this, but I happen to be an elite gamer. Basically, every second, I'm not on camera.

I'm hitting clips and wrecking noobs online. Can you imagine the physical and virtual danger I would be in if all of my online adversaries knew my true identity? Well, that's where ExpressVPN comes in. When I use ExpressVPN, these tech companies can't see my IP address at all. So my identity is anonymous. It's not only the very best for online privacy, gaming online with a VPN can minimize lag

and enhance your connectivity when you're opponenting the nobs. Whether you play on PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo, Switch, PC, or phone, ExpressVPN has you covered. But I want you to know, ExpressVPN is not just for the geeks and nerds. If you're not protected, big tech companies can track what you're searching for, the videos you watch and everything you click. Ben, you don't play games. What do you think of ExpressVPN? What do I think? It's incredible. ExpressVPN is great. ExpressVPN, first of all, really easy to use.

I mean one button, you click it, you download it, you click it again. It's now on. You don't have to worry about it ever again. And it doesn't slow up your connection, which is the thing that I care about because I'm also anonymously online destroying Drew or something. I knew it. It's time to take action and defend your rights. Take back your privacy at expressvpn.com slash backstage. Visit the link to get an extra three months of ExpressVPN service for free.

Again, that's EXPR, ESSVPN.com slash backstage. expressbpn.com slash backstage to protect your data today. What I love the most about that ad read, I mean, other than the money that will undoubtedly come my way, is that most people watching the ad assume that you are joking about being a gamer. I know. And they probably even assume that you're joking about Ben not being a gamer. And if they only knew the truth. It's all true.

You know, one of the things that I think is sort of amazing about everyone praising JD's performance. And again, I agree. I gave it a 10 out of 10. Not a 9 out of 10. I think it was strategically brilliant. I think he did an amazing job with it. The agenda that he is pressing in that debate sounds with the exception of being harsher on the border like compassionate conservatism from 2000. It does. I mean, hate to break it to you, but every element of that agenda sounds like compassionate conservatism from 2000. What if we do more child care? What if we restructure the health care environment so as to make health care easier and more available? What if we do peace through strength?

I was informed that Reaganism was dead. I was informed that we were past the age of Ronald Reagan, and yet there I was sitting there and listening to the exact slogan from the Gipper himself, peace through strength. Despite all of the radical changes that have supposedly broken upon the Republican scene, it turns out that except for some trade policy, perhaps, and the border, again, both of those are important things. I agree with one actually on immigration. I kind of disagree on some of the trade policy stuff, except for that, sounds a lot like

kind of the Republican agenda for my entire lifetime. And in fact, the Republican agenda that was actually largely dissociated, from in 2010 with the Tea Party. And there's a lot of big government talk. I understand that a lot of this is being done because a lot of it's election erring and I understand you want to win. One of the things that Trump did, and it was a smart political move, although it broke my heart as a fiscal conservative, is when he said there would be no restructuring of the entitlements. And basically anybody who says that, we should just know, okay, Republican, anybody who says there's no restructuring of the entitlements is lying to. They're all lying. It's not true.

There will be restructuring of the entitlements or we're going to go bankrupt. There will be either a massive increase in taxes, a massive increase in inflation in order to pay off our national debt that we'll have to use in order to pay off the entitlements or a massive restructuring of the entitlements. There is no choice. It's just a thing that's going to happen. With that said, they're all lying about it. But, but, you know, again, we've heard so much about the Make America Great Again movement, how different it is in a wide variety of ways. But in terms of just actual on-the-ground policy, it kind of looks a lot, like a lot, like John McCain's circa 2008. This is a hugely important point, and you're absolutely right about it. It wasn't true

necessarily when Trump started out except for the entitlements. The entitlements was always the one that's stuck in my craw because you're absolutely right. We're going to have to, you're going to have to reform them. But it is something that is true. The great benefit of Donald Trump was he allowed people to use language again as

clearly so that we could say the things that we actually mean, that there is a problem in the black community with violence. There is a problem in the Muslim community with violence. A problem of fatherless children is enormous and has more to do with crime than anything else, certainly than racism or anything like that.

And one of the things about Trump when he started out was he just said that stuff. And it was beautiful. And I think that moment has passed. And I think is part of the reason that he's now acceptable, that you can walk down the street in San Francisco with a Trump hat on and not get, you know, clocked. And I think that this is, that moment, the Trump moment has really passed. The thing about it is, is that in Europe, these right-wing parties, or as they call them the far right, which just means right-wing conservative.

to parties. They take years to build themselves back up into acceptable parties. They win a seat here. They win 10 seats here. They win 20 seats. And then suddenly you maybe get one of them who takes over. Here you don't do that. It's win or lose. And people get frightened. They get especially frightened by the press and they start to back off. It goes back to what you were saying about challenging the premise. I think we don't do it enough. I think when we start to do it, when we get back to the Trumpian version of doing that, we will start to win in a bigger and easier way. It's going to take somebody with a little bit more finesse, I think, than Donald Trump. But there's also an importance to being wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove. In some ways,

Ben, I think your point is truer even than you're willing to grant, which is that you're right. There are a lot of resonances to some of the policies of the Bush era. Now, there's some big changes. JD and Trump, for that matter, call for more foreign policy restraint, certainly than we saw during the Bush era. That was a much more Wilsonian policy. I will point out that was not George Dulley Bush's campaign in 2000. Correct, correct. He ran against nation building. He was isolationists. Of course. But then even you can consider George H.W. Bush or certainly Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was called bellicose and a war hawk and a cowboy. But of course he did, in practice, have a relatively restrained foreign policy.

And he spoke a lot about free trade, but he also called for tariffs when he felt it was strategically important. And even going further back than that, you know, one thing that's going to stick in the craw of some people tonight is that J.D. Vance appeared to defend parts of Obamacare. Now, not all parts of Obamacare. He actually tried to hit waltz on the individual mandate, which was the beating heart of Obamacare. But I think he was being clever about this. He was trying to be subtle about it. But it tells you something about politics and conservatism, which is that when people get political wins, they really are wins, and you can't go back in time. The Tea Party ran on fiscal conservatism. We didn't get any of it. It just didn't work. Republicans have been running on fiscal conservatism, at least since Ronald Reagan, and it's never worked. We keep getting deficits. We keep getting big spending. Reagan got screwed over by Tip O'Neill, sure, and the Tea Party was traded out by the leadership. You know, you can make a thousand excuses, but it's just that's how the political system works.

So when Reagan ran as a Republican, he said, look, I'm an old New Deal Democrat. I didn't leave my party. My party left me. Now that was a way of spinning his evolution, but he didn't really challenge the New Deal. That was over. The old right used to challenge the New Deal. The new right didn't. We don't really challenge Medicare.

We don't really challenge Social Security. And now, as Obamacare has become the system, we can't challenge it in as aggressive ways we previously did. And so, you know, it's a sad fact of politics. But this was going to be interesting, okay, because when MAGA came along, one of the things that was shouted from the rooftops was, what has conservatism ever conserved, right? What did the movement ever win? You won elections, but then he didn't do anything with that. Now, listen, I'm a big fan of what Donald Trump did in his first term. I think that his foreign policy was excellent. I'm big fan of his judicial picks. I'm big fan of his tax cuts. I'm big fan of his deregulatory policy. But if you're going to make the point that you're making,

I think that that does require a more mature view of politics than what is currently spouted and has been spouted for many years in the commentariat, which is the idea that 100% of the loaf is always on the table. And I think that that creates a perverse incentive structure, even when it comes to many of the candidates who we run for higher office. One of the things that we saw from J.D. Vans, is that that is a person on the stage who's willing to take 80% of the loaf, or 70, or maybe 60% of loaf, in some cases, 50% of the loaf, because what he's, he sounded like was a moderate. Okay, what he sounded like tonight was somebody who on policy and in persona was quite moderate. In fact, if you compared his performance tonight in the VP debate,

which again, I think was extremely articulate to Mike Pence's VP debate performance in 2020, I'll venture to say that Mike Pence was more conservative on the stage than J.D. Vance was tonight on issues like abortion, on issues like spending, on issues like Obamacare. Okay, so what that means is that when we make arguments about the art of the possible and politics being the art of the possible, I think that we should, that everyone in our business should stop being a little disingenuous about this idea that the people you like are 100% gun-go going to fix everything tomorrow. That's just the way that it works. I think there are too many people who lie about this.

And then they suggest that when Republicans somehow fail to meet that standard, it's because their sellouts and their cucks and all the rest of it. Because by that standard, there are a lot of sellouts and cucks among the people we love. But there's a really important lesson here from this that you're making, which is Donald Trump spoke in a more moderate way than Mike Pence than most Republicans in my lifetime. J.D. Vance tonight spoke in a more moderate way. And yet think about the effect of Donald Trump's presidency. While he downplayed abortion in the 2016 campaign, he downplayed marriage and all the rest of it, Trump is the guy that got the originalists on the court that overruled Roe v. Way to half-century

victory. So there is some wisdom. And the Democrats are really good at this. The Democrats are really good at talking like moderates, moderations of virtue, but then advancing their agenda. And in crucial ways Trump did that, I trust that J.D. Vance would do that if he found himself in the Oval Office. If he talks a way that is not immoral and not dishonest, but is strategic and tactical and gets you over the finish line and allows a conservative agenda to flourish, I'm all for it. I think this is true. I do think that, you know, it's a game of checkers. The times when you get a triple jump are going to be very rare. You're usually moving one space at a time. And that's always true. And you're absolutely right that it's

It's bad to have a media that is constantly encouraging people to sound extreme. If only they use their Nietzsche and woe power, then we get everything. Exactly. However, however, there are big victories, and it would be nice if we would think to conserve them. For instance, you know, the Krauthammer rule that a truly successful president is when the guy after him, even if he's from another party, has to continue his policy. So Reagan was a truly successful president because Clinton basically had to continue his policies, the era of big government is over. And one of the ways he did that was reforming welfare.

And when they reformed welfare, we heard this was going to be a disaster. It was one of the most successful policies that came out of the Clinton administration. And Obama just gutted it. We just let him gutted it. Nobody celebrated it. Nobody said this is a great thing. He gutted welfare reform. We were right back where we started. I think the thing is, I really do believe that the great society has to be destroyed. And I think you have to do that step by step because so many people are eating off it, mostly in the government. Because it mostly is not doing anything for the people, but it's doing a lot for the government. But you have to start to take that thing apart.

Another big victory was the overturning of Roevi Wade. Yeah. And that's why, again, I understand all the strategic stuff. But I think there's a strategic mistake being made on the abortion issue by Republicans. Totally good at this. I understand that it is, there are elements of our position as pro-lifers that are unpopular. I get all that. We want to win the women over. Suburban women, I understand all that. But the leftist position on

abortion is in fact barbaric. It is in fact deranged. It's actually indefensible intellectually. There are so many landmines for the left on this issue that they're able to just like jump over because we don't guide them into it. So, and I've been, I've been waiting for someone to do this. I guess it's not going to happen this cycle. But in one of these debates, sometime I would love for a Republican to just turn to the Democrat and say, okay, what we're really talking about here, this is the fundamental issue here is what is a person? When is a person a person?

Right. Maybe it will be. When is a person a person? So turn to the Democrat and say, this is what we're talking about. So at what point is the baby in the womb a person? Can you answer that? And they won't be able to answer it. They're going to say, Obama famously said above my pay grid.

Okay, so you can't answer. You don't know when the baby's a person. And yet you're, so you're just saying, well, we don't know, but let's make abortion legal through all stages of pregnancy anyway, which is, so even from your own position, by your own premise, that's analogous to, like, throwing a hand grenade into a dark room, not knowing if there's a person in there. Right.

Well, guess what? If you kill a person in there, you're morally responsible for that, because even according to you, there might have been. So I understand that the difficulties of maybe articulating some of this in this kind of environment, but we just let them off the hook completely on this stuff. And it drives me nuts. And we let them do this thing with the bad, the hard cases that make bad law. You know, my 10-year-old was raped by her uncle and all this stuff.

You know, the answer to that is, okay, fine, but is it okay to abort a child because you want a capricorn instead of a scorpio? Is it okay because you want a girl instead of a boy? is it okay because you have it, you did a genetic test, and now they can prove that someone's gay, is it okay to abort him? I want to know the answers to those questions. Those questions are never brought up on a debate stage.

See, I agree with you. I don't think we can win the votes that we need. But that doesn't mean we can't win the argument. And J.D. Vance did it in, he talked about the partial birth abortion. Right. And again, he kind of, and I thought, and I was totally left to hunt on the hour. I mean, I'm saying all this.

Jady Vance did a brilliant job. One of the most impressive debate performances I've ever seen. So I don't need a nitpick. But at the same time, They let walls off the hook, and he said, well, I know we all agree that partial birth abortion is wrong. We don't all agree. Every mainstream Democrat, in fact, believes in partial birth abortion, which means just so everyone knows that you're killing the baby as it is emerging from the birth canal. I agree.

Look, as a pro-lifer, I think JD is ardently pro-life. But we're all watching that and we're thinking, if this were a pro-life speech, I'd be, you know, coming out of my skin. I do think JD's view and the Republican view, and I think it's a correct view, is that this issue in October, in November is not going to win any of those votes we have to win. And it's an important, it's to my mind as important an issue as any there is. But anytime abortion is being talked about, we're losing votes. If you're explaining, you're losing. It's a hard issue. It eludes people who don't have a serious bioethical framework. And so just like the Israel issue is tough for the Dems, for instance, this one is tough for us right now. But we don't have to explain. We can ask.

I mean, I love what you just said, Matt, that it isn't that we have, man, I lost what you said. I liked it. I'm sure it was. Whatever it was right. One thing we can all agree on, I would say. We're disagreeing on. But one thing we can all agree on, it's the most annoying part of election season. And I'm not talking about the incessant TV ads. And I'm not talking about the obnoxious political rants on social media.

No, no. I'm talking about the leaves in your gutters. Because it's autumn. You know, owning a house is great and all. But one thing I don't enjoy about homeownership. is the endless barrage of decay that accompanies all temporal things in this fallen world. And nowhere is that truer than in my gutters. When my gutters can't divert water properly, they send water down my walls and create fissures in my foundation which could crack and collapse and leave me homeless if I'm lucky, if I survive,

without anywhere to lay my sweet head. That's why I'm so happy to have a leaf filter. Leaf filter uses award-winning patented technology to keep every, out of your gutters except rainfall. You know, I'm something of a cheap skate, not telling tails out of school here, but there is no sense in being pennywise and pound foolish. Being a homeowner is all about the long run. And in the long run, this is going to save you so much money, so much hassle, so much heartache. Trust me, you want to take care of this right now. Don't let your home fall apart. Don't get up on a ladder every week, scraping out

that leafy muck. Could you imagine these delicate hands? Instead, spend more time doing things you love, like watching the Michael Noles show or smoking a Mayflower cigar. Trust America's number one gutter protection system. That, of course, is Leaf Filter. Schedule your free inspection and get up to 30% off your entire purchase at Leaffilter.com slash backstage. You get a free inspection up to 30% off. L-E-A-Filter.com slash backstage. See Representative for Warrant Details. Promotion is 20% off plus a 10% senior or military discount. only one discount per household. I wrote a little song to remind you,

Choice Hotels, get you more of the experiences you value. The Canberia Hotels got it all. A rooftop bar, have a ball. Bring a date, your squad, or even your mom. Book direct at choiceotails.com. What you said that I loved was we may not be able to win the votes, but we can win the argument.

And in the end, the votes are going to follow the argument. We have to fight, as I've said about abortion And since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, we had no plan. The Wright had no plan because it assumed that it was never going to win on overturning Roe v. Wade. It's going to take a generational effort of winning the argument before those votes finally do change. And what I object to is giving up the argument. I don't think that it is necessarily the case that in order to win in November, we have to just pretend that we're not a pro-life party. But I don't think that's what JD did. I agree with your point. But J.D. Van said, look, I'm pro-life. You know, we've got to do a better job at community. It's basically what he said. Here's my problem with that.

And again, I think we all agree. He did a great job. And we keep using that kind of disclaimer at the beginning because he did. He did a really good job. But there are some deeper issues that get uncovered in debates like this, and this is one of them. The thing that he did, that is a problem, I think, on this particular issue. And again, I totally understand the tactic, is when he says we have to do a better job of communicating, that immediately gets you into a democratic frame in which the problem is,

that we need to convince individuals that they should not abort their babies. Okay, that is not the question at hand. I, of course, agree that we should convince individuals that they should not abort their babies. Why we're big backers, for example, pre-born, big sponsor of a lot of the shows here who actually do that on like a case-by-case basis

and show women ultrasounds of their babies. You should check out pre-born. They're a really great charity. But when it comes to this issue, the problem with saying that is that what you're actually doing is undercutting the very basis of overruling Roe v. Wade. The basis of overruling Roe v. Wade

is that in states there should, in fact, be legislation. And that is not just a matter of convincing individuals. That is a human rights issue. And so what you could say, here would be a sample answer would be, listen, I'm going to be the vice president of the United States. The federal government's role in abortion has been spoken on by the Supreme Court of the United States already, which is to say it's extremely limited. This is an issue that has been kicked back to the states. And because there are different state definitions, that's just the way that it is. I will argue in every case that children deserve a right to life and people are going to disagree in various states, and that's the way that our system works.

Right? That's not going to be as evocative an answer for maybe some of the women that he's attempting to appeal to. But it is going to not undercut the argument that pro-lifers are now going to have to make for a generation in the aftermath of that. And the problem with making it into a question of individual willpower is that a question of individual willpower is the Roe versus Wade framework, right? Because the argument they're making is, well, sure, I mean, you're saying individual will and we get to make our, that's our argument, right? then all abortions should be legal and we should get to make the call. It is from just a political perspective, if you want to win the election.

You do, yes, you need some suburban women. You also need pro-lifers, and that is your base. And you need to mobilize them and you need to make them feel like you're their champion. And that's the really difficult needle that they're trying to thread. I'm glad I don't have to thread it. I know it's very easy for me that I can just rant because I'm not running for office. But I will say that there's that I am worried that there's a, a potential political problem here in that a lot of pro-lifers are really demoralized right now.

And I've been to these pro-life events. I've gone to the fundraisers. We all have. And you talk to the pro-lifers, you know, off the record, off-camera. And that's what you get, that they're just feeling really demoralized. Now, I've, everyone here has said the same message. If you're pro-life, vote for Donald Trump. Vote for him. If you don't vote for him. You're voting for Kamala Harris. She's radically pro-abortion. It would be an insane thing to not vote for Donald Trump, go vote for him, absolutely. It will save babies. But even so, when you have a demoralized base, that's going to hurt you politically. And so that's why we can't just completely ignore that fact. You've got to give the pro-life base something to hang on to.

It is kind of a positive thing that Republican politicians aren't willing to go the Obama route of like, I believe that marriage is between a man and women. Oh, no, wait, I evolve. You know, they actually are having a hard time lying. And so. they're coming up with all this stuff and they're bobbing the ball. But I do think that we can speak to the radicalism of the left. I think we can question them. I think we can answer the moderators with questions. We don't have to take on this. Oh, you know, a 10-year-old rape bites on. The truth is, and we all know this, America is one of the most radical countries of abortion in the world. That's why when they said 15 weeks, like that was a shock that's most of Europe.

That's most of Europe. Yeah. Far left and in some cases, full-on socialist Europe. Yeah. The only countries that have our level of. permissiveness around abortion are like North Korea. Right. Right. China. Canada. The most radical countries in the world, put them in a position of having to defend their radicalism,

even if you can't fully defend life in the ways that we have historically done so as a party. We're going to take some questions from our Daily Wire Plus members. If you're not a member, please head over to Dailywire.com right now slash subscribe. We have one of the biggest discounts that we're running all year long, 47% off using promo code fight, 47 for the 47th president of the United States, which is what we hope Donald Trump will soon be. Not only do you get to ask questions of us right now, if you're a subscriber, but you also get all of our amazing content. And right now, for example, you could see the documentary that started at all. What is a Woman doing incredibly well on the platform as people

are experiencing Matt for the first time with his theatrical release of Am I Racist. You've got all that kind of content, plus the daily shows available at dailywire.com, 40% off using promo code fight. First question from a DW member. Why and how do you think that Trump and Harris are so close in the polls and what does Trump need to do to change? What does Trump need to change in order to lead in them? So can I start with like a quick comment on the polls? Yes. So the polls themselves, I am not sure how much I trust them, which is a weird thing for me to say.

But when all the polls keep saying the same thing and they all keep saying that every single state is margin of error, I start to think that pollsters are grouping, meaning that they are just being risk-averse. When you're looking at these polls, what they're doing is they're constructing what they call likely voter screens. They're trying to figure out what the constituency of the voting population in each state is going to be. And that means they get to play with the numbers. There's something when it comes to scientific studies that are fake. It's called pe hacking. And what that means is that you're actually screwing around with the interior stats to come up with these statistically significant results you can get a published. And when it comes to these polls, I feel like there's some P-hacking going on.

Because when I see every single poll in every single swing state this tight, I start to think, I don't know, man, is that just a bunch of pollsters who are afraid to say what they actually think is going to happen in this election? So first of all, I recommend that we look at registered voter polls as opposed to likely voter polls, because again, those likely voter polls, they're so weird, right? When you're seeing a poll that's showing Donald Trump only losing union members by like seven to ten points and only losing Hispanics by 14 points, and then he's tied with Kamala Harris. You're like, what the hell?

There's no way he loses Hispanics by 14 points and maybe comes close to winning union members and then loses the election in the blues. Like, what are you even taught? But that's what all the polls are saying. And so all I can say is I don't think anyone has a read on the election. Anyone. I don't think pollsters have a read.

I don't think anyone has a read. I kind of swivel from having a gut feeling that Trump is going to win when I think about what a terrible candidate she is and when I think about the fact that I think there is a hidden mail vote that looks at Tim Walls and Doug M. Hoff and goes, ugh, God, no.

not that, anything that. But, and then I swivel into, well, does Donald Trump have a get-out-the-vote campaign? Like, what does his get-out-the-vote look like? Which to me is the single greatest factor in the election, and I have no idea. I'm hearing conflicting information on the ground from some who say, seeing a lot of Trump signs, people who are like, yeah, I haven't seen anybody door-knocking here for a year. So it's, I got no idea. I think that there are three plausible scenarios, and Trump loses two of them. Plausible scenario, number one, the polls are largely accurate. It's a very very evenly divided country. Trump has some good pickups among Hispanics. He has some good pickups among working men, and he wins the election. Option two, the polls are largely right.

It's a very narrowly divided country. Suburban women vote in greater numbers than men, even though Trump makes some gains, he loses the election. Right? That's kind of the 50-50. There is kind of an outlier possibility, and it really only works in one direction. And that is, with the near ubiquity now of mail-in voting, young people actually show up for the first time. Historically, young people don't vote in our national elections, and we always bemoan the fact. But it's actually quite a good thing. Young people, as a general rule, should not vote in our elections. Elections are supposed to be a little bit difficult to participate in, because then there's a kind of self-selection that happens.

If you're the kind of young person, as I'm sure Ben Shapiro was, who the day he turned 18, he found an election somewhere to vote. in and he knew everything there was to know about all the issues that were on the ballot, and he knew everything there was to know about each candidate on the ballot. He probably even knew the judges in California. Nobody knows the judge. If you're that kind of young person, great, vote. You're the outlier. You're the exception to the rule.

And you will take the initiative and you'll go register and you'll stand in line at your precinct on Election Day and you'll go in and you'll register your vote. And that's great. I'm glad that you vote. But what I don't is for college campuses to become part of the left's ballot harvesting operation because of now the ubiquity of mail-in voting. So it is at least possible that for the first time we will see massive, almost parity-level voting among the very young college-age population, as we historically always have in older populations,

because we've completely changed what it means to vote in this country. And if that is true, Kamala Harris will win 49 or 50 states. So I have to say that I agree with everything you just said except for one thing. I think there's also another possibility, which Trump will win by a substantial margin, a much greater margin than the polls show, because of the internals on the polls, which show that most people agree with him on most of the big issues. And the groups that are moving in his direction, like the unions and Hispanics, are actually substantial. And that could be a big difference. So if that, that is the, to me, that's the fourth option. I also agree with what you said that literally at this point, no one knows.

But when you say that Trump could win by a large margin, I don't think that Trump could win in a landslide. I think the only landslide possibility is that voting has just fundamentally changed in the country. Well, I don't know about a landslide, but I think a substantial, you know. I mean, he could win the blue wall states and he could win all the states. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, I mean, that's not totally. But I think the important thing here is that it is true that whichever, one you pick, you've got 50-50 chance of winning, and so you're probably wishcasting.

The one thing I will say is that there are polls right now that are showing that 51% of people who vote in the election are going to vote mail-in are going to vote early. And those people are going to vote extraordinarily high levels for Democrats. And every, so I've been around campaigning with a bunch of different Senate candidates. I was campaigning with Eric Havdi in Wisconsin the other day. I was campaigning with Sam Brown, Nevada. I'm going to go campaign with Dave McCormick in Pennsylvania and Bernie Moreno in Ohio. Every time I go out in campaign, there's one guy in the crowd who raises his hand and says, I'm afraid that if I vote by mail, then they're going to steal my ballot and dump it at the river.

Like literally every single one of these campaign events, somebody will say that. But what I keep saying to them is then vote by mail and then go vote your provisional ballot. Right? Because the reality is that one of the singly most damaging things that Donald Trump ever did was to himself in 2021 when he suggested that because he had not won the 2020 election, that no one should vote in the 2021 Georgia election because they were stealing the votes and throwing them in the river. It turns out that he set in the minds of Republican voters. this bizarre idea that if you vote by mail, there's somebody at the balloting place who's taking your vote and chucking it out. Now, whether or not that's true, and I really do not think that

there's a high likelihood that that is happening on a mass scale, whether or not you think that's true, it's the dumbest thing you could possibly tell Republican voters because then a lot of people ain't going to vote. They're going to get on election day and they're going to have a cold, they're going to have the gout, and they're going to be like, you know what, I can't vote today and does my vote really matter? It turns out Democrats do the only thing that matters, which is they tell everybody to vote early and vote often. The question, it's really a of whether every political rule, all the political rules have been completely thrown out, are we living in a country now where like none of the political rules that have governed this

country since its inception apply anymore? Because if any of that stuff, if just, if anything makes sense in this country right now, then Donald Trump wins because you've got a, a, the last president that dropped out of the race because he's senile, you put in this, this candidate, nobody knows anything about, and she's deeply unimpressive. You have Donald Trump has been almost assassinated twice. You have multiple crises in this country and abroad. You have war overseas. You have inflation here.

People are literally underwater, like their houses are underwater in multiple different ways. And so all of that should mean that Donald Trump wins. And if he doesn't, then that means we live in a country where like nothing matters. Were they eating dogs and cats? Yeah. Where they're eating dogs and cats and nothing matters. And it's just impossible to predict anything anymore. I think that's right.

He's actually almost been assassinated three times. Because of Iran, you mean? Because of Iran. Ben, I think you have something that you want to tell the people of... Do I? Well, I want to tell you about something we could all use some help with, aside from our early voting. And that, of course, is fitness. The reality is no matter how much you work out.

And I work out like a freaking beast. You're not going to be hitting your full potential if you don't die it right. See all these snacks we have before us? Why do you think most of us? Not me. But most of us are not jumping all over them in some sort of national geographic style feeding frenzy because most of us care about our diets and because we use this. The lumen.

The lumen is like a nutritional coach in your pocket. You breathe into it. It analyzes your metabolism. It lets you know if you're burning more fats or more carbs. You can do this in the morning before after your workouts, whatever works for you. Again, I exercise pretty much every day. I'm ripped beyond all reason and measure. And I like to use it after working out to see the impact of what I'm doing and how I need

to eat for the rest of the day. Not only do you get that data, Lumen will make you a personalized nutrition plan for the day based on those measurements. That meal plan will not include 90% of the stuff on the table in front of me. Having information about your health available at your fingertips, it's an absolute game changer for accountability and optimizing your fitness. I love this thing. It really is great. I use it every day. It can even help improve your sleep and energy level. So if you want to take the next step and improve your snacking and your overall health, go to lumen. dot me slash backstage, get 15% off your Lumen. That's L-U-M-E-S-Bash-Baxage for 15% off your purchase.

Ben, actually does work out every day and you actually two play video games. And dogs and cats live together. The whole world is unmad. Michael, how do the VP candidate's performances compare to each one's running mate? I thought that J.D. gave, as we've all said, gave one of the best debate performances for either the VPs or the nominees of anyone in my lifetime. I mean, it was up there with Reagan. And even Reagan had some stumbles in his debates.

So I thought he just did phenomenally. I thought Wals did better than Kamala did. I thought Kamala, she and Trump were basically a draw in the last debate. She helped herself a little bit. Trump was good. You know, he obviously, Trump in the Biden debate was extraordinarily good, so that he knocked Biden out, and Biden was extraordinarily weak. So I really, you know, not to be, I don't want to praise the guy incessantly, but I just thought,

especially compared to the degraded sense of debates that we've had going back to the 2000s, I just think Vance did better than anyone just about. Well, what Vance did is he gave a consistently good performance. It was reliable. What he did not do was ever have like a standout memorable moment. Trump is full of the standout moments. I mean, you can go through a lot of them. But this is actually a really good point, actually,

because I do wonder what impact that has, meaning the way that we consumed, we talked about this last time with the Trump versus Harris debate, where we watched it. And I think the immediate takeaway was Trump did not perform well, and Kamala performed better than expected, because we all sort of expected the possibility she was going to completely ward vomit

for like the entire time. And she mostly word vomited, but she didn't kind of vomit all over herself, so it wasn't particularly visible. And meanwhile, Trump was chasing every rabbit down, every rabbit hole was possible to find in a 300-mile radius. And one of the things that I said at the time, you know, again, being right always, is that when you look at how debates are then viewed in retrospect, what you see are the clips. Right. And so a lot of the clips went viral. The biggest clip that went viral for Trump was, of course, the eating the cats and the eating the dogs. It didn't seem to have any impact on the race because everybody kind of understood any meant, which is the way that things tend to process.

It certainly didn't seem to hurt him too much. But when it comes to this debate, I think there's really only going to be maybe one serious standout moment. Democrats are going to try to make the January 6th thing, standout moment for Walls. But the really only standout moment was that moment where Walls looked for a second, like a deer in the headlights, when he was asked about the China life. When that happened, walls looked as though a trapdoor had opened out from underneath him and he was wily coyote in the moment before he was about to plummet through to the alligators below. But that was kind of the only one. I'm friends with school shooters could go viral on TikTok. Yeah, but nothing JD said in particular was sort of like, this is the moment where JD just knocked this guy through a wall. And that's different. because it's obviously, he's obviously, mistrope.

It's funny, but no way. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Why do you think these are questions from our dailywire.com subscribers? If you're not one, you could become one with promo code fight and get 47% off. Why do you think the Dems oppose labeling the cartels terrorist organizations? Because they're the government of Mexico. You'd have to, it would have large implications. They're actually not terrorist organizations.

They're criminal organizations. It's a different category. I mean, they kind of are terrorist organizations. It's just the terrorism is. is not directed directly at the United States population. It's directed at the government of Mexico. I mean, they literally chop up police officers. Yeah, but that's because it's a criminal.

I agree. There's a distinction. I don't think that's a terrorist. I think of terrorism as targeting civilians to achieve political ends, whereas these guys, in a way, they sort of target politicians to achieve personal ends. For example, today Iran launched at least 200 ballistic missiles at Israel, and that is terror bombing. And the government of Iran is the largest state-speople. sponsor of terrorism. But the Iranian regime is not a terrorist regime because it is a regime. Its soldiers wear uniforms and drive around in tanks and therefore are a military. So while they can

engage in terror bombing as they attempted to do today, in other words, we're perhaps a bit loose with the term terrorist. The cartels are not, by the technical definition, terrorist organizations. They are national security threats to us. And I believe they should be handled by our military. I don't know why we don't go in with the military and bomb the new smithereens, but we don't have to call them a terrorist organization. No, we can bomb all kinds of organizations. Right. I can bomb anybody. America. Does the nice guy appearance between Vance and Walls seem to be genuine, or do you think it was a play? I think Vance probably has a slight anger problem, and I think Walls is obviously killing women and burying them. wearing their skin in a suit. Right.

Do you think JD has a chance to be president after Trump's presidency, assuming that Trump wins? Yes, of course. He has a chance to be president even assuming Trump doesn't win. I mean, he's super young. He's very good at this. His chances are much lower if Trump doesn't win. Yeah, for sure. I mean, listen, you're the running mate to anybody, and there's always this assumption that you are then going to be the next president.

And actually, it's kind of historically rare. I mean, it's been a while since this happened. Who has been the running mate on a failed ticket who became president? Wow, this is a really good quiz question. That's a really tough one. Let's see. On a failed ticket. Can we even remember the vice-

Golly, I can't, I don't know that I could. I was just thinking of Nixon. I was thinking Nixon. But no, he failed on his own run and then he got it the next time. Or, you know, a couple times later. Yeah. Wow. That is an excellent question.

You think somebody would have written a book about something like this? Ben. Oh, my God. Why do the Democrats keep saying that Donald Trump is the candidate of who benefits billionaires when almost all billionaires are on Kamala Harris's side. This would be the big question. I think the reason the Democrats keep saying that is because they keep playing this class warfare stick. They also say that Trump's tax cuts benefited the rich more than anybody, which is a total lie. It was actually a aggressive tax cut. It actually helped

people in the middle class and the lower class by percentage much more than it helped people at the top of the tax spectrum. In fact, I was living in California. He got rid of the salt deduction. My taxes went up, right? Because I was still paying that 13 percent state income tax. In the state of California, it wasn't deductible against my federal income tax. And my taxes as a non-billionaire, but as a rich person in California, actually went up under Donald Trump's tax plan. I think this is, by the way, one of the signal failures of the elite billionaire class, truly,

is that the divide between the billionaire class and the way they earn and then their values is truly shocking. Because if you look at it, there's a famous book called, What's the Matter with Kansas? Those were by Thomas Frank back in the 2000s, and the sort of proposition was, why does everybody in Kansas vote read when they're all on welfare? Because there's a heavy share of people who are on welfare.

And the answer, of course, was values. It turns out that they went to church. It turns out that even if you're on welfare, you really didn't want to be on welfare. And it turns out that people vote their values. Well, one of the things that's happened, I think a lot of the disdain that common people have for billionaires as opposed to, you know, wanting to be them and aspire to be them is the fact that billionaires, by and large, now imbib from this well of terrible social policies in which they hate church and they hate religious people and they hang around at cocktail parties in Silicon Valley. And they're like, Sam Bankman-Fried over in the Bahamas is setting up sex pods. And you're like, well, those are weirdos. those are really, really strange people.

And so that's actually created the case for a class warfare on the right, right? The reverse class warfare that you're now saying on the right, the anti-billionaire sentiment you see on the right, is not because Republicans or conservatives hate wealth or wealth creation. It's because they look at the billionaires in Silicon Valley. And this is exactly, by the way, what happened to JD Vance. Like on a personal level, this is what happened to JD Vance, right? If JD wrote, Hillbilly Alley, it was very popular with the Silicon Valley class,

so much so that he went to Peter Thiel and people in Silicon Valley and started companies with them. And then he has said this. He said, I hung out a lot with people in Silicon Valley. Valley, and I found that they actually hated my values. And it's one of the things that actually turned his politics toward this sort of more populist anti-capitalism sentiment in a lot of ways, and I don't think that's rare. What does the Minnesota law on abortion actually say? Is Vance right? Why can't the moderator say something on that? He repealed the requirement that doctors...

He, Walls. He, Governor Tim Walls, as governor, intentionally repealed a requirement that that made doctors provide medical care to babies who are born alive surviving abortion. And so, So there have been multiple cases. I think it was something like eight reported cases of babies being born alive, surviving abortion, so they're there. Like Governor Ralph Northam, Democrat in Virginia, saying the baby will be born and made comfortable and then we'll have a conversation about what to do with them.

That actually happened, and these babies died, and then there were no reporting requirements that Walls removed those. And so it's barbaric, and it is a defense of infanticide. It is for all intents and purposes, Wall saying kill babies who survive abortion. That's a minute. And that's the mainstream Democrat position, correct? Right.

To not provide aid to these babies. Because that's the position they have to take, really. You know, politically they have to take that position because if they say we're going to provide medical care and aid to the babies, then you're acknowledging, number one, the life of the baby, and number two, the violence of the abortion that the baby just survived. They can't acknowledge that. So this is the mainstream position.

And Fantaside is a mainstream Democrat position. It comes down to also your description earlier. of what partial birth abortion is, what late-term abortion is, that it is a delivery of the baby and then a killing of the baby during delivery. Which is why sometimes, by the way, sometimes it misses and crap, the baby's here, now what do we do? By the way, that's the question. I mean, the question that you asked is obviously a deeper question about abortion, what is a person? But the question that I just, that's super simple, that I wish somebody would just ask somebody

like Tim Walz on a stage is, would you veto a bill guaranteeing the life of a baby? maybe born alive during an abortion. Would you veto that bill? And then if he says, I would veto that bill, so why, then, you know, you did in Minnesota, right? I mean, you actually did. That's the thing you did. Right. Like, ask him straight up the question. That, that's the thing I wish that the advance had done today. Yeah. Here we go. And according to our crack research team, yes, this is exactly right. In 1920, Warren G. Hardy won. FDR was the running mate of the loser James Cox. I was going to say that. I had it. And then he went on to win the presidency four times.

Four hundred times. How do you think the purchase of over 200 radio stations by George Soros will affect the election? And why would the FCC expedite this? It's a question that answers itself. Yeah. It actually is a propaganda instrument that they're giving him because he's on their side. That's all it is. Will it affect the election?

It might, but probably not. It's probably too late. This question is for Michael. Did J.D. Vance make Catholics proud? The question is decidedly not for Matt. Yes, that's forget about that. Forget about that other Catholic. He did.

He made Catholics very proud because he did a fabulous job. And there was one moment that I thought was actually really masterful and helpful, which is there are certain issues that are extraordinarily controversial that are probably not appropriate to bring up in the weeks before a presidential election. One of those is IVF, which the Democrats have tried to make great hay over, and it's a relatively novel technology. It's one that the Catholics are opposed to IVF, the Southern Baptist. have recently come out against IVF, so it's not just the Catholics, but this is a new thing.

People are grappling with the meaning of bioethics, and it's an extremely emotional issue. J.D. tonight said, we want more reproductive help and reproductive technologies and therapies. And so he spoke in such a way that conveyed the true meaning of the Trump campaign, which is, we do want more reproductive help and family care and all the rest of it. But he didn't lie. He didn't contradict his beliefs and principles. He didn't scale. He didn't scandalize people with a controversial issue. He didn't needlessly raise an extremely controversial issue. I thought it was really well stated. It's part of why I say Trump is a wrecking ball and we love him for it. And J.D. Vance is a scalpel and we love him for that. By the way, I will mention that that was

the first mention. I think that I've heard of a presidential candidate actually invoking Christ on a stage. Yeah. Yeah, that's a good point. In decades, right? He did that in the middle of the debate. He did casually, which I thought was actually quite nice. That's a very good point. Another question from a dailywire.com subscriber. Can the DailyWire please do something to focus on nerd culture? There are millions of young men who don't know politics and love superheroes and video games and the fact that we aren't making it known that we care about what they care about as crime that'll end up falling in with leftists who do not appeal to them on these grounds.

I actually have played video games on the air. I actually had... Yeah, we know about nerd culture, the 70-year-old who read every book in the Westwood. I think I do... Who has been playing video games since they were invented. I do a lot to appeal to nerd calls, I feel like. I will say, I, you know, I did once do a nerd call. I did a thing.

I talked about video games on the show. I was defending gamers on the show. And then the gamers spent the next three days yelling at me on Twitter telling me, how dare I speak on this issue. I have no right to speak about it. That didn't happen. That's a thing that happened. So, you know. I will say this.

It was, it's going around right. now. I think that our friend Liz Wheeler may have started it on the right, although it's also going around on the left, this idea that it is a total stone cold no, like complete turnoff, absolute non-starter for a guy to play video games. Women hate video games. They do. And it is, I think it's, I think that that's absurd. Obviously, video games like anything can be abused and people can form unhealthy relationships as they can in the entire sort of interconnected online world and people can devote far too much of their lives to video games. But men should be allowed to have things that they like that women don't like. But do you agree, at least with Liz's

point, that video games give women the ick? Well, unless it's like a bejeweled or something, which women play lots of video games. Yeah, yeah. Candy crush. They just play candy crush. They just play video games that don't have, you know, story, depth, meaning plot. Actually, I, as someone who famously is not a video game fan, I do, I'm sympathetic to that because the argument gamers will make, especially as someone like me, is, well, you say video games are for kids, you're sitting around watching football on Sunday, what's the difference? I think there is a little bit of a difference, but I'm sympathetic to the argument. I actually think that it is pretty similar. And so my take on video games is similar to football. I like watching football. People can, men can have an unhealthy obsession with it, where it becomes your whole personality is football. Disappear for the season. Right, and that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's ridiculous, it's unmanly. Now your whole life is a game. It's, it's okay to sit down and watch a football game. I watch it as a family, it's a family thing.

And so it's the same thing with video games. If it becomes your whole life, it's the, if it's the focal point of you and your identity, then that's a problem because no form of entertainment or recreation should be the focal point of your existence, no matter what it is. That doesn't mean that we don't engage in that stuff. Yeah, I have to say your ravens look, and a, Amazing. 35 to 10.

But they looked like super. Oh, and the touchdowns? Yeah. They scored them. Joe Flacco, right? Joe Flackos? He plays for the Colts now. Yeah, sorry.

Why are Kamala and Tim bringing to attention the fact that they are gun owners? Won't that be controversial among their base? No, because no one believes them. Well, actually, this is a fascinating thing, actually. If you want to know where the parties believe the American people are, watch where they converge.

Yeah. It really is interesting. Like, you've watched the debate tonight. Again, one of the points I've been making is they kept saying they agreed with each other. So where do they agree with each other? Where do they think the American people are? So if you were to follow the arguments tonight, here's where you think they are. Hawkish on the border.

Hawkish on foreign policy, right? Both of them converge on them. We need steady, strong American leadership in the Middle East and both don't make that argument. Kamala Harris's guy falsely, right, he's lying. But on entitlements, both of them seem to be pretty pro-entitlements. On abortion, they both seem to be running away from the pro-life position, And unfortunately, as we've been talking about tonight, at least publicly, and on guns, both of them are running to the guns are really kind of great. Like, we all like guns, don't we?

And so, apparently that's where both parties actually think the American people are. And that is kind of a fascinating case study. Did you notice there was a really interesting, I think most people missed an answer when they tried to pin J.D. on some particular shooting with a particular father's culpability over guns where this kid got the gun. and J.D.'s answer highlighted a subtle difference between a conservative view and a, like, a libertarian view or a liberal or leftist view, where he said, well, in that specific case, I would defer to local law enforcement. I think they probably know their community better than some one-size-fits-all policy, you know, say machine guns for everybody or something nationwide.

That was, I think, indicative of his more traditional kind of conservatism. And I also think it played. How do you think the longshoreman strike will impact the election? I think if they continue to soft soap the unions, it'll be really bad for the Democrats. I mean, this is going to, you know, the big toilet paper shortages and food shortages and things like that. If Biden goes around bumping into walls and saying, well, we have to have the people talking with the, you know. I don't know. This feels like a setup to me, honestly. It feels like a setup.

Yeah, it feels to me like Biden Harris have already gone to the unions and then they've gone to the employers and they basically are going to, you know, walk out. Look at the strike that we just averted. Look how, and we did it on behalf of our union workers, because they know that they're really trailing with unions. This whole thing feels, it smells like a sentence. If you're right, then it's because Joe Biden wants Kamala Harris to win, and I'm not at all. There's one really terrifying thing that could happen in the coming weeks and months

with the Longshoremen strike, which is that it will be much more difficult to get Mayflower cigars, which is why someone should probably stock up on them, right now, everybody out there. If it's a setup, it would be fitting because the union boss looks like the love child of Archie Bunker and Tony Soprano, and he's, you know, he seems to be in the tank for the Democrats. But I don't know, you know, the head of the Teamsters comes out for Trump in this election. Maybe something really is changing. That's kind of been on my mind, but you may be right. It's hard to know. One thing that's on my mind, and I want to leave everyone

with this thought. Elections are incredibly consequential. We talked about it tonight, the changes in both parties as a result of elections, the change in our national politics just because of the success of Obamacare, not as success as a policy, but its success in becoming national policy. So elections matter. This election matters. I have a lot of people that I know, like multiple people that I know,

who are so afraid of Kamala Harris ascending the presidency that they've begun canning. And this is one of the things that I love about conservatives is that they think that if the end of the world comes, they can perhaps avert the worst impact of the collapse of our

society by having enough peach preserves in the pantry. Right. It's charming. And it is, of course, always possible that we could lose all of this. We're not promised tomorrow. We're certainly not promised that tomorrow will be good. We're certainly not promised that our complex government structures will hold throughout society. Throughout history, they change. Often,

often it's cataclysmic. Often people suffer greatly and for long periods of time when great empires fall. All of that is on offer. We could lose the country. I don't think that it's particularly likely. I think that should Kamala Harris win? And make no mistake, Kamala Harris could be the next president of the United States. It is, you can feel in your gut that maybe Trump is going to win. You can think that maybe people aren't paying attention to the media. I've got a sneaking suspicion that people aren't going to put up with this, but they might. It could be a worst case, like I said, young people could vote because of the ubiquity of mail-in voting. She could win 50 states. It could be a complete sea change in the country. And if that

happens, well, we'll just have to wake up the next day and get back to fighting. And the fight will get harder. There will be substantial policy that comes out of Kamala Harris Ascension that will set us back. It will be terrible. There could be what even seem like worst cases that they could take the Senate, do away with the filibuster, add two states, try to create sort of permanent one-party rule in the country. They could censor us greatly. Truly bad things can happen. And many bad things will happen if she is elected president, but it will not be the end of history. There is every possibility that the short-term pain of a Kamala Harris ascension could lead to a kind of national restoration, not through her presidency, but because of her presidency.

Her presidency could be like Jimmy Carter in the 70s that leads to Reagan in the 80s because it was so bad that it shook. Even all those new people who seem like they'll never change the way they vote. Should you be cavalier about that? No. When people like Dick Cheney or or David French or others say that they're willing to vote for Kamala Harris because of all of the unique evils of Donald Trump and because they want to save the Republican Party, many of their criticisms of Donald Trump aren't wrong. What they're fundamentally wrong about is their assessment of the left, right? They're sort of rightly observing that things, are happening on the right that they're uncomfortable with, and they're being, I think,

pretty polyana about, but people will suffer of Kamala. Like, it is a certainty that Kamala ascending will lead to suffering. There's a certainty that Kamala winning will lead to the destruction of many advantages that our values have in the culture. And so even if we think that is it possible that Kamala winning could, in a longer view of history, redound to the good of the country, maybe so, but that's not the... Yeah, that's for Providence to sort. Providence to sort out. What's before us is the election. And in the election, we have to do the thing that's given to us to do. What's given to us to do is to vote for Donald Trump. Not because Donald Trump is great. I happen to not think Donald Trump is great. We have disagreement

on this panel about how great he is or isn't. He is better than Kamala Harris. He is, the people he will appoint to run the federal bureaucracy are far superior to the people who she will appoint to run the federal bureaucracy. The judges that he will help move through the Senate are far, far superior to the judges that she will help move through the Senate. We've lived through four years of Donald Trump, and we know that despite his somewhat unique, I think, he has some unique character flaws. He also has many unique advantages that we've seen redound to the benefit of the country. That's what's been put before us. So I'm not trying to say the election isn't important. I'm not saying don't vote. On the contrary, I think you have a moral obligation to vote, and I think

you have a moral obligation to vote for Donald Trump. But we can't approach the election as though this is the last election of our lifetime. That kind of language is both demoralizing instead of motivating. People think it's motivating. But I think it's actually demoralizing. It keeps people from engaging in the political process because if you think it's all over, then there's really no reason for you to go to the polls.

But it's not just that it's demoralizing. It's also a kind of amelioration of your responsibilities because if you do the thing you're supposed to do and go vote on November 5th for the Republicans, and we lose, your responsibility. responsibility didn't end. You just have a responsibility the next day to fight the harder fight. And we're going to wake up and do that. I hope we wake up on November 6th. I mean, I think we're joking if we think we're going to wake up on November 6 and even know who the president's on December 15th.

I hope we wake up. Somewhere in mid-December, we'll have a president. And I hope that it's Donald Trump. And if it is, we're going to wake up and we're going to know that we have to hold Donald Trump accountable in some ways. And we have to support Donald Trump in some ways, and we have to continue to fight the fight. Have to drink a lot of champagne, smoke a lot of cigars. And if Donald Trump is not the president, fight's going to be harder. It may not be, you know, we may not live in the world that we want to live in. We may not be faced with the kinds of challenges we had hoped to be faced with. We may be faced by even harder challenges.

And if that's the place God puts us in the world, then we just wake up and we go and do that thing. You can't live your life as though you have no agency. You can't live your life as though the end of agency is, you know, 33 days from now. that you're still fully you and you still have responsibilities going into whatever is next. And that's really been on my mind to communicate because I see

well I see people canning peach preserves but it's more than that. I just see people thinking like somehow Kamala winning is the end. And it may very well be the end of some things that it's not the end of everything. It's not the end of the responsibility that God's given us.

When the Bible says that God establishes government, That must mean us, because sort of uniquely in human history, it's a government of the people. We are a functioning part of the government in a democratic republic. And that means that all the reasons that God established kings and queens of old are still in play when he established this country. And those responsibilities, many of those responsibilities now are with us, not just with the people who are in that top chair. and those responsibilities continue for as long as we're here. Thank you for joining us tonight for the Daily Wire backstage.

We'll see you. I think the next time we'll see you is election night. And so remember what I told you tonight. It's the last election of our life. Be afraid, be very afraid. And can your peaches. Can your peaches. We'll see you then.