The Tucker Carlson Show - Mark Halperin on Why He Thinks Trump Will Win and the Left’s Mental Collapse

Episode Date: October 15, 2024

Mark Halperin has better political sources than anyone in media. He now believes Donald Trump is likely to win. If that happens, Halperin predicts the psychological collapse of the Democratic Party �� “greatest mental health crisis in the history of the country.” (00:00) The State of the Presidential Race (06:37) Does Kamala Harris Stand For Anything? (12:23) What Is Harris’s Relationship Like With Joe Biden? (14:34) Harris Can’t Answer This Simple Question (17:01) What Do Harris’s Donors Think? (19:26) Mark Halperin’s Reporting That Biden Would Give up the Nomination (32:45) The Worst Scandal in American Journalism (44:17) Covering the Trump Campaign (55:54) How Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama Took Out Biden (1:45:21) War and NATO (1:53:48) Who Is Running the Country Right Now? Paid partnerships with: PureTalk https://PureTalk.com/Tucker Get 50% off first month PreBorn Save babies and souls https://PreBorn.com/Tucker Sambrosa Peaceful nights, restful mornings https://sambrosa.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At Desjardins Insurance, we put the care in taking care of business. Your business to be exact. Our agents take the time to understand your company, so you get the right coverage at the right price. Whether you rent out your building, represent a condo corporation, or own a cleaning company, we make insurance easy to understand, so you can focus on the big stuff. Like your small business. Get insurance that's really big on care. Find an agent today at Desjardins.com slash business coverage.

We're proud at TCN to announce the rollout of a new six-part documentary series called All the President's Men by our friend documentary filmmaker Sean Stone. It is an in-depth look at what happened to the Trump administration, the first Trump administration, 2016 to 2020. And while the rest of us were watching unknowing, the deep state, particularly the intel agencies and the law enforcement agencies, under the indirect command of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, set out to systematically destroy the lives of people

who had supported Donald Trump. This series explains how they did it with interviews with the people to whom they did it and presents it in a way that will shock you and that will challenge your understanding of American democracy, only on TCN. It debuts October 21st, six episodes, every Monday. Go to tuckercarlson.com. We highly recommend it. censored, of course, because we're not gatekeepers. We are honest brokers here to tell you what we think you need to know and do it honestly. Check out all of our content at tuckercarlson.com. Here's the episode. So where, like, where are we? So we're three, I think three weeks out today. What's the state of the race? Well, people say it's going to be close for sure. I don't agree

with that. I think it could be one one of them could win easily and i think today that's more likely to be trump all the variables that you would look at to say who's going to win point towards trump with four big exceptions that i think i know is what the democrats are relying on so barring these four things coming together i think trump will win and I think he might win easily. But she could still win. Number one is abortion. Just don't know how big a vote it will be. Now, I say to people, why wouldn't that be showing up in the polls now? Why would that be a secret? But the reality is there's an emotion to that issue. As you know, politics is about emotion more than anything else. There's an emotion to that issue that may be bigger than is currently measured. Number two is-

But to be clear, that's not showing up in the public polls right now. Well, I mean, by definition, it's not showing up in the two places you'd look for. One is in the horse race. She's not way ahead in the horse race. And number two, when you ask people, what's the most important issue to you? Abortion is well behind the economy, inflation, immigration. But we've seen its electoral power. And we know that Donald Trump thinks it's a big issue because he's struggled to neutralize it. He's not doing that for fun. He's doing that because he sees the same data, that there's a power to this issue that may be beyond the current measurements. That's number one. Number two is simply is a gender gap. Just the reality that women vote more than men. And again, they may, it connects to abortion, but it's not just about abortion because women don't like Donald, a lot

of women don't like Donald Trump. That may just power a victory. Three is her ground game, right? The mechanical process. Her campaign is run, the chair of her campaign is someone who grew up as a field person. I don't think that's ever happened in a major presidential campaign before. And they have way more money. And President Trump has gone out of his way to demonize early voting. He's trying to change it now. But the mechanics of that, if it is in fact close, people say that could be worth three points. Three points could well be significantly bigger. And then lastly is the notion that he has a ceiling. That if the third party vote is very low, and it's much more likely to be low like it was in 20 than high, like it was in 16 from the Libertarians and the greens and Cornell West, then it may be that he can't get above 47%.

That simply, what you call Trump fatigue or January 6th, whatever you want to call it, it puts off limits to him some number of voters. That she may, in effectively a two-person race in the seven states, may be able to get to 48, 49, and he can't. Those four things are what give Democrats hope that they can win. But in my reporting over the last week, Republicans are not measuring the drapes and picking the cabinet, but pretty close to it. Not at the level they were at the convention when Joe Biden was still their opponent, but there's extreme confidence that they're going to take the House, take the Senate, take the White House. Democrats are somewhere between worried and freaking out, and her conduct and her capabilities as a candidate are not

reassuring them. If they were honest about it, they would say, as some of them have started to say, how could we have dumped Joe Biden for someone who has a few advantages over him, but has many of the same problems, and by the way, some additional problems of their own. And I think they're recognizing that when you choose a candidate like that, you're taking a bit of a risk and the risk may not just may not pay off for them. So on what basis are they evaluating the race? Like what polls are both, people, you listen to the smart people with predictive success over time, what are they looking at? Well, they're looking at the reality that the race may be back. As some Trump people told me immediately after she became the nominee, we may be looking at a situation where she's back to where the party's back to where they were when Biden was the nominee before the debate. Before the debate, he had one electoral college path, which was to win the three Great

Lake States and the Nebraska Congressional District. And that's it. No one's ever won when they had one electoral college path. It's a margin of error, but not impossible. But they would have to be all in on that because Biden was not going to win the four Sunbelt battlegrounds. She's edged back closer to that. Okay. She may be able to win them or one or two of them, but it's possible that those are going to be as off limits to her eventually as they were to Biden. And she's weaker in the Great Lakes states than he is. So if you look at the private data and where things stand, these races are close. And if it's within two points, if Trump consistently has a two-point lead or a three-point lead or a four-point lead, does that mean he has to win the state?

It doesn't. But it's the consistency that has come in the last couple weeks in both parties' data where she has come down and he has come up a little bit that make them worried that she simply hasn't done enough to win. Her problem is, I say, the key problem of policy. The undecided voters just don't understand what she's about. And some of them find it insulting how little she's explained what she's about. And we really don't know. I've known her a long time. I've covered her a long time. I've studied her positions and her public policy engagement. I don't really know what she stands for. I don't know. I've known her a long time. I've covered her a long time. I've studied her positions and her public policy engagement. I don't really know what she stands for. I don't really know what she'd do as president. I don't really know what she believes in or why she's running. And you contrast this with Trump, where even his enemies can tell you right away what he

stands for, what he would do in a second term, at least the big picture. And his problem is personality. And he's done almost as little to address that issue as she's done to address hers. And that means, I'm amazed, people said for so long, so many people in the electorate don't want Trump or Biden, they want a third choice. You don't really hear that now nearly as much, but it's almost as true. Not as true because she satisfies a lot of Democrats who are not satisfied with Biden, but a true, because she satisfies a lot of Democrats who are not satisfied with Biden. But a lot of Democrats and certainly a lot of independents and centrists and moderates, they don't like either of these choices. And that's part of what Democrats are looking at, because I think in the end, as much as she's not satisfied people's desire for knowledge about her, they won't vote for Trump.

They just simply don't want four more years of Trump. And she's turned to that message in the last 24 hours the way Biden did. Now, I don't know if she'll stick with it, but she's now emphasizing this notion of we can't go back to somebody this unstable and this unattractive in terms of personality. Changing your personality is hard.

Well, it's probably impossible. And any attempt to do it comes off as false. So there's, of course, a cost and risk. But coming up with a platform is not hard. You just sit in a room with your pollsters and your policy guys and pick three topics and stake out positions that contrast with your opponents. And why haven't they done that? A lot of the questions about things she's doing and not doing are mysteries even to a lot of Democrats, even some people close to her. You've named one, but why is she doing one event a day?

Some days, most days. Why isn't she flying to three battleground states in a day? When people ask me why I think she's more likely to lose than not, her great weakness is she is indecisive. She doesn't like to make hard decisions. And coming up with policy choices is difficult. If you think of everyone who's been elected president since H.W. Bush, so Clinton onward, they've all put at the center of their campaigns a set of policy proposals and kind of an ethos of

the things that start with this sentence. What my party's gotten wrong is X, right? They've seized on some things that they really believe their party's out of step with the country and wrong on the substance. So Bill Clinton, 92, supported the death penalty, right to work, NAFTA, and welfare reform. And he would say,

my party's wrong on these things, right? It's obvious for the rest of what they did. Not only has she not said that, I'm not sure she believes that. I'm not sure that she thinks the party's out of step with the country on anything. And when you see, you know, government funded operation, operations for illegal immigrants who want, who want to change their sexual identity, no, no way would Bill Clinton or Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or John Kerry, no way would they have said, I'm for that. What is she? Because there's not strong public support for that. No, no, just the opposite. So, we say, why can't she come up with a platform? Any position she takes is going to be criticized if she moves to the center by the left. And even on the left, even if she takes something further to the left, as she has some of the things she's come up with, new government spending programs and tax programs, they're still subject to be criticized.

And she doesn't like to be criticized. She'd rather try not to take positions. which I routinely dismiss as crazy and evil and poisonous and all that, but paying for sex changes for legal aliens, that can't be a hugely popular issue, even within the party. It isn't, but it is a popular position for the loudest, angriest, most influential part of the party.

But if you do this as to soldier, that actually works. So if your goal is to get elected, I mean, this is an amoral evaluation of this, right? But you just denounce the unpopular wackos in your party. It's not hard, right? Well, it's hard for her because she's indecisive. She doesn't like, that is, I think, what explains it. You know, her big sister soldier moment was to say, I want to raise the capital gains tax rate less than Joe Biden. That was her big sister soldier moment. She also, you know, you look at her career, she's not really been a font of policy ideas.

No. And that, you know, she's stolen a lot of Trump's ideas, which, you know, Trump people don't like, but I guess it's smart if the other side's got a smart idea and you can claim it do. But in terms of original ideas, it's just not been her thing. And again, I think partly she doesn't like is now, the fact that there's a sitting president sort of't want her to win. I think he does want her to win. There are people who say he only wants her to win without disrespecting him, even though he has said privately to her and the teams have said to each other, she needs to do what she needs to do to win. I mean, you know, I saw his mental decline in 2017. I did too. You know, I saw him do a public event for a book in 2017 and I said, after the event,

thank goodness he's off the public stage. Thank goodness this didn't happen earlier. And so, the kids... Those of us who knew him before, and speaking for myself,

always liked him in a very shallow way, but, you know, he's a... Fun to be around. Totally. Sort of large personality touchy Irish guy

I like people like that but those of us who knew him it was immediately obvious that he had some sort of cognitive decline

it was just obvious so I think the things he's done of late that the press cast is hurting her I just think he's doing because he's

you know he's not he's not super sharp he's kind of out of it. And the staff is, as they have when he was still the nominee, being deferential to him. But there is a, again, just recently, in the last 10 days or so, there have been a number of things, like he went out in the briefing room right when she was starting her event. No one's really explained how that happened. It's hard to coordinate, right, between the West Wing,

Wilmington, and the vice president's office. Like those are three entities, busy people doing other things besides coordinating. So I think they've dropped some stitches. I think they're determined to stop dropping stitches the rest of the way. So you don't think it's passive aggression? I don't think it is. There are many people I respect who think it is. I don't think it is. I think it's just, it's hard and he's not up to doing hard things. And she's, even though she's not campaigning very much, she's still on the road. And it's just, I just think they're dropping stitches. I really don't think there's a passive aggressive or even a mixed feeling about it. I think he wants her to win. I mean, the toughest question for her that I have seen is,

how will you be different from Joe Biden? Yeah. Why haven't they thought through a better answer? Again, it's hard to get a straight answer about that. I think there's three things at play. Number one, she doesn't want to appear disloyal. And that is something he does care about. As I said, he wants her to win, but he wants her to win his way. He doesn't want her to win at his

expense. Okay. That is an ambivalence, but not the fundamental question of does he want her to win. So number one, she doesn't want to disrespect him. Number two, taking different positions from him involves risk. There could be a backlash, right? And she doesn't, as I've said, that's her main problem. She doesn't like to take risks. And then finally, there's just a basic performative question with her. That's not her only bad answer, right? That's the one that people are focused on the most, but she's just not good at delivering soundbites or complicated messages in a way that is helpful to her. She does these interviews where nothing bad happens and they give high fives that nothing

bad happened or only a few bad things happened. None of these interviews has she come out of where people said, wow, now I get it. Now I get why this person should be my president. And that's, again, just testament to she's just not that good at this thing called answering questions that are hard. Or easy. What do the donors who put her there think of all of this? Yeah. So I'd say impressionistically, because I haven't talked to them all, but impressionistically, about 80% of them are just, we got to look forward. The election's coming up. Trump must lose. We have to do everything we can to help. 20% say, how could we possibly

have replaced? We all said the only Democrat who could lose to Donald Trump was Joe Biden. How could we have possibly played a role in replacing him with apparently the only other person who could lose to Donald Trump? Now, Joe Biden and I and Kamala Harris would say these other Democrats would be struggling as much or maybe more than she would, even though they wouldn't have been as burdened with the Biden-Harris record. So what they're saying is, this is the best we could do. This is better than Biden. The pollsters and the public polls are saying she can still win it let's put our heads down and win but there will be a lot of soul searching about how they possibly could have placed her in this role without um without

the benefits of actually beating Donald Trump how did that um I think you were the one of the very maybe the first person uh to report that this coming, that Biden was going to step aside. How'd you know that, by the way? I predicted it, but just predicting you reported it. So how did you know that? And how did that happen? I reported it against my instincts because I did not believe Joe Biden would give the nomination up. First of all, it's embarrassing and, you know, it's staying on his legacy as much as they built it up as great for his legacy. But also, he

believed that she would become the nominee in all likelihood and that she could not be Donald Trump and that if somehow she didn't become the nominee, he didn't think Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer or any of these other people could beat Trump. And I think two years ago- Biden didn't think Kamala Harris could win. No. Or be a good president, as I understand it. So, he was- Really? Yeah. From the day, from the transition forward, he told Ron Klain and everyone else, she needs to meet with foreign leaders all the time. And she did. I mean, she's had an unprecedented kind of tutorial in that. She needs to be

supported and all that. We all know what happened. She did not run a good operation. There was leaking and her approval ratings were ridiculously low. Part of it was his own pride in himself, but the people around him, to a person, would not have told you

that she could be Donald Trump. So my point is, I reported on it thinking he's not going to step down. And I had lots of people who we know, you and I both know, very smart who say, you're wrong. He's going to have to step down. Particularly Republicans said, the party can't be that irrational. They can't say, we're going to continue along with a guy who 70% of the Democrats say shouldn't be the nominee. But he didn't have to give it up. So I can't obviously say exactly how I broke it, but it started with a tip about the vetting of vice presidential prospects by her. And one of the stories that hasn't been written yet, I'll tease it out here and hopefully someday

somebody will give me a big enough book contract I can write it, is she started maneuvering for the nomination well before the Sunday morning when he called her and said he was not going to run. And part of that was vetting of potential running mates, which her team knew that couldn't wait, that had to get underway. That's something, as you know, normally takes months. So I got a tip that that was happening. So every year when Apple releases the overpriced new iPhone, the big carriers play the same old game. Sign up now, next two years, some big cellular contract, get a free iPhone.

Well, what do you give up in return? A lot. Don't fall for it this time. Choose Pure Talk. With Pure Talk, you get great savings on the new iPhone 16, and you still get an affordable data plan that fits your needs on America's most dependable 5G network. Stop falling into the same trap and paying for unlimited data that you're probably not going to use. Pay for what you use. With PureTalk, for just $25 a month, you get unlimited talk, text, and 5 gigs of data.

That's more than enough for most people. It's not enough for you can buy more, you get unlimited talk, text, and five gigs of data. That's more than enough for most people. It's not enough for you can buy more, but it probably is. So why pay for something you're not going to use? With PureTalk, you don't have to. It's proudly veteran-led and its entire customer service team is right here in the United States, the country that you live in. So everyone can understand each other pretty well and they're responsive. No contract, no cancellation fees, 30-day money-back guarantee. Pure Talk is easy to switch to. The average family saves almost a thousand bucks a year when they switch. Try it.

Go to puretalk.com slash tucker and you'll save an additional 50% off your very first month. That's puretalk.com slash tucker. Switch your cell service to a company you can be proud to do business with. Whether it's a family member, friend, or furry companion joining your summer road trip, enjoy the peace of mind that comes with Volvo's legendary safety. During Volvo Discover Days, enjoy limited time savings as you make plans to cruise through Muskoka or down Toronto's bustling streets.

From now until June 30th, lease a 2025 Volvo XC60 from 1.74% and save up to $4,000. Conditions apply. Visit your GTA Volvo retailer or go to volvocars.ca for full details. No frills, delivers. Get groceries delivered to your door from No Frills with PC Express. Shop online and get $15 in PC Optimum points on your first five orders. Shop now at nofrills.ca. I mean, that's more than vying for the job. I mean, that is measuring curtains.

Oh, yeah. You're vetting your VP candidate when you're the VP? Yeah. But because she knew, as my sources said, that he was strongly considering getting out and more than strongly considering. There was a period of at least a week and maybe more where amongst a very small circle of people, the default was he's getting out. And it's just a matter of when and how. You'll recall he got COVID and that kind of delayed things a little bit. Was that actually COVID? I don't know of any reason to believe it wasn't. I know there's lots of speculation about it, but I think it was. So on one track, you have him sort of starting to realize he needs to. And then you have the Pelosi track. And the Pelosi track is part of why I was able to report what I was able to report, because she was determined to get him out. And she saw that Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer

and the donors were not doing enough to get him out. And so she felt she had no choice but to get him out. But again, not reported yet, she didn't want to be Kamala Harris. She wanted Shapiro to run, the governor of Pennsylvania. So she intended there to be a two-step process. And I'm not sure,

because I don't know this from her and I would take it only from her, I'm not sure if she knew the outcome, whether she still would have been for it. I think so, but I'm not sure because I don't know this from her and I would take it only from her. I'm not sure if she knew the outcome, whether she still would have been for it. I think so, but I'm not sure. What would this do? I remember hearing people told me the exact same thing,

that Obama wanted a two-step process. What would that have looked like? Well, lots of people talked about it publicly, right? There were people like James Carville and I think the other prominent people who talked about it. Um, there's others who, who wanted basically either in the run-up to the convention or at the convention, like one proposal was that Obama and Bill Clinton would pick six people and that those six people could run for the nomination by giving

speeches and having the delegates vote. And they didn't rule out Kamala Harris. But the clear kind of gestalt of it was, this is the way to stop Kamala Harris. The delegates were Biden-Harris delegates. She's the incumbent vice president. She's a black woman of color. And the campaign money could only transfer to her. So those are pretty big advantages, particularly this question of the delegates, right? They're Biden-Harris delegates. Were they going to vote for somebody else in a competitive contest? So the assumption was, even if you couldn't get her to stand down, and they knew they probably couldn't get her to stand down, who's going to run against that? Who's going to run against somebody with all of those advantages? And so I think what some people don't take sufficiently into account is the clock was ticking. If they'd had a year to figure this out, maybe things would have gone differently, but they didn't have much time. And the minute she made it clear to people, she was going forward. And he asked these other people, will you run against her? None of them wanted to. None of them wanted to. So, it wasn't a matter of... I thought Gretchen Whit them wanted to none of them want to so it wasn't a matter of of uh uh who didn't i thought gretchen whitmer wanted to none well first of all my sense of of the people who

get talked about the half dozen none of them are in a john edwards barack obama george w bush school of i must be president and of course bush was relatively ambivalent but he he's like yes that's something i want i think if you look at the six of course, Bush was relatively ambivalent, but he is like, yes, that's something I want. I think if you look at the six of them, not only are they ambivalent about running, let alone running against an incumbent vice president, I'm not sure if you offered them the presidency, any of them would take it like that. And some people think I'm naive about that. There are politicians who are ambitious, who think about the White House, but just from knowing them and the people around them, I don't think you could say about any of them.

Automatic, here are the keys to 1600. I don't know that they would take it. And I say that without hoping I don't sound naive. They're politicians who we have aspirations, but they're all relatively young. They've got, some of them have younger kids. They recognize the downsides of how it changes your life forever.

And none of them are um again in the bill sort of classic bill clinton like i'm at georgetown plotting how to get to the white house right they're just not like that so so i i absolutely strongly agree with what you just said okay good and i and i've seen it i saw chris christie i saw him do that in 2012 exactly there are plenty of people it It's a big step. Yeah. It's a life-changing step. And if you've got younger kids, it's just like, for some of them, it's a non-starter. Or if you've got a spouse who's ambivalent. Exactly. You can't do that. And if you look at the politics of the era we're in now, like a democratic president is going to

be attacked every minute on social media, no matter how good a job they do. Unless they can revolutionize our political culture, they're just going to have, you know, constantly bombarded. None of them have national security experience. Like, it's a big job. So, in some ways, in retrospect, it was a fantasy to think anybody would run against her. To say, I'm going to tear away Biden-Harris delegates. In addition, how are you going to design a system really where Bill Clinton and Barack Obama get to pick? They were put a premium on, and she did, on the nomination wasn't handed to her. And it really, in some ways, it wasn't. She earned it in the sense that she figured out what the

rules of the game were and she won the game. Yeah. I mean, if you had Obama and Clinton just make the decision, you'd have to admit publicly that it really is an oligarchy. Correct. Correct. Correct. And so, would they pick Bernie Sanders? You know, he might win if they pick Bernie Sanders. Yeah. They faced that problem twice before. Yeah. So, I was able to figure out that she was underway and then I was able to figure out that she was underway. And then I was able to figure out that he was working on a withdrawal plan. And then I was able to figure out that he had decided to withdraw as early as that weekend. This was on the Thursday night, the final night of the Republican convention. And people said, how could you risk?

I don't work for a big legacy news organization with lawyers and, you know, PR people. How could you risk reporting it? I had it just completely nailed. It wasn't like a tough call to report it. I reported that he was not going to endorse her, which when I reported it was true. What happened after I reported that was there were people in her camp who didn't want him to endorse her because he didn't want to seem like a coronation. They were confident that she'd be the nominee and they didn't want it to be the president chose the vice president. But he got a lot of heat from the minute I reported that from women close to her who felt differently about it and some women in Congress who said it would look horrible for you not to endorse her. So, from the time I reported, I think because I reported till Sunday, he changed his mind and decided, yes, he would endorse her. But others, as you know, did not because they wanted to not create the impression

that this was just an elite selection of the new nominee. How did he, I still don't fully understand how he dropped out. So, the media, which had cheerlead for him, obviously. But had stopped. Not only stopped, they started attacking him. Yeah. Right. So there's that. I felt that was a big deal just as an observer.

Yeah. But Biden himself was resolute, at least in public, but also every story you read said in private he was resolute. And then it just seemed to change. Well, you know, it's a normal thing. It happens gradually and then all of a sudden. So, I'm very frustrated with our business and with kind of our political media culture that for seven years, there could be this cover-up of all the major... How many years have you been in this business? Since 1987.

Long time. We're moving toward 40. Okay. So just to... I think this is the worst scandal in American journalism history. Because anyone knew what was happening. The public knew what was happening. The public knew what was happening. And yet the cover-up continued.

And when the cover-up was exploded... The cover-up of Biden's condition. A decline in equity. He spoke to a dead congresswoman. I mean, what more do we need to know? A congresswoman who had died. You know what I'm talking about? Yeah.

Okay. He speaks to a dead congresswoman. And his press secretary says he spoke to her because she was top of mind, because he was going to be meeting with her family. That's not forgetting somebody's name. That is a loss of acuity, which would disqualify him from being a museum docent. Much less having access to the nuclear codes. So that cover-up goes because some affection for Biden, the bullying of his staff,

but primarily because of the desire to make sure Donald Trump doesn't win. And then when there becomes no choice but to say we got to get rid of him now because he's a threat to the republic because Trump could beat him, they turn against him. They never acknowledge

their participation as co-conspirators in a seven-year-long cover-up. And then the same people get to cover the new candidate and Trump. It's staggering to me. Like, after weapons

of mass destruction, there was some soul-searching. Yes. After the Mueller investigation, there was some soul searching. After the Mueller investigation, there was some, not more than 5%, but some acknowledgement that perhaps the coverage was a little bit off. There's been zero, as I see it, zero soul searching acknowledgement. We wrote story after story about how well Trump misspeaks too, and well, Biden, there are days when he's good. And there are days, still to this day,

there are days when he's fine. But we all have seen people in decline. They have good days and bad days. Of course. They shouldn't be president. And that's not a partisan statement. That's just a statement about the rigors of the job. But the press turned on him and then acted like they had not propped him up for seven years. In one day, in one hour, watching my former colleagues on CNN pivot like that. Yeah. It's incredible. I was, my jaw, I couldn't, so I was out, I'll say I was out of the country when that happened, which made it even weirder to watch you know your country from the other side of the world and wonder what is going on here and it looked very much

like a setup very much like a setup um i think that because they all said the same thing at exactly the same moment yeah i think that they just i just, I don't think the conspiracy is that discussed. They just all have the exact same orientation and they're bullied in the same way. So I don't know that they have to and react to the bullying the same way. So I don't know that they had to discuss it. I do know that when I would talk

to White House reporters privately for major news organizations, they would acknowledge Biden, the acuity decline was substantial. They saw it. They just were in newsrooms where it was impermissible to say it. How could you not report that? I don't know, but no one did. Except for people from places like Newsmax and Fox, no one did. I really do wonder how people look back on that.

Because, again, they've moved on. But you know them all very well. I don't know how they think about this. By the way, for people who don't follow this stuff, you know, people who are watching this, I mean, I should just say the obvious, which is you are not just part of the news business, but really at the center of the political news business for, you know, many decades. It seems like decades. Because I think it was, it was there. So, you know, every single person personally. I mean, I just know that. Well, I know a lot of

them, but you know, there's a bunch of new ones. All right. But I'm saying a lot of them. I know a lot of them. Anyone over 30, you know. So what do they say? I don't understand how they could explain that. You know the presidency now, but you don't tell your viewers or readers that? The ones who will offer explanations blame their bosses. That their editors and their executive producers and their anchors didn't want to hear it. And that they would say it, and it just didn't part of the the the coverage some of them have said that but again to me the failure to acknowledge it what what they did i won't say it's worse than the original crime but it's pretty bad

it's pretty bad and of course it along with lawfare it helps trump extraordinarily because people say sometimes in our business oh i trust the american people they're way ahead of us on this one it's true it's not just a trope yeah the american people including democrats they saw what was happening they saw the clips on social media and that period leading up to the debate like when he was overseas when when the white house said, oh, this is, what was the word they had for it? Cheap fake, that these clips are selectively edited. I'd say he talked to a dead Congresswoman. We don't need more examples. Sure, are there some Republicans and some red people online who choose bad examples? There are, but we don't need good or bad examples. His mental acuity decline is obvious. And so, everybody knew, just to bottom line, and everybody who covers politics in

Washington, covers the presidency, knew. Of course, how could you not? Now, they might have had a different sense of how bad it was. Right. But I'll give you an example of the lack of accountability. Not only have they not acknowledged their own role, what about the role of the people around the president, who to this day say he didn't decide not to run because he had to acknowledge that his loss of mental acuity made it unlikely he could beat Trump. They continue to say he didn't think he could win or he was going to divide the democratic party the people the story of how they protected him there's been some piercing of that with foreign leaders saying you know anonymously

that he had this biden had this problem or that's problem you had the wall street journal piece which was actually weak tea about um about mostly republicans it was an absurd piece yeah so ridiculous but but i know many examples most of which I can't describe because of the terms in which they were shared with me. But Democratic members of Congress knew full well. Of course. And that Wall Street Journal piece, you know, the editors of the Wall Street Journal,

I'll just say, I think are very dishonest, but I know that they are, some of them. But that piece was really the only piece in a big, from big publication to make the point that, Hey, people are talking about his senility, but that piece was so watered down that it was like, what was the point of even running that?

I'm surprised they spent so much time on it. And that's what they came up with. But again, it helped, it helped Biden because it was a weak piece. Now, it hurt the Democratic Party because if Trump wins, history is going to show, of course, if they'd replaced him sooner with anybody, including Harris, they'd have had a better chance rather than rushing her into this. But how there could not be, I mean, she's not been asked about it. She was in the town hall the other day, but she's not

explained her connection to this cover-up. Kind of incredible. What was her connection to the cover-up? What is the truth? I don't think she was heavily involved with it because that wasn't her responsibility, right? She wasn't in charge of making sure the president's okay. Now you could argue they should have been, but that really is not the role of any vice president, let alone this one. Again, he had good days and bad days. And he had good hours of the day and bad hours of the day. So, my guess is when she saw him, most of the time he was fine. But I'm sure, just by law of averages, I'm sure she saw him when he was not.

Well, she must have known. Yeah. I remember when I was a kid and going into this business and hearing people speak derisively of the White House press corps during the 1930s, which covered up the fact supposedly that FDR was in a wheelchair and thinking, you know, how could that, you know, I mean, that's so North Korean. Yeah. That could never happen again. I've long been a critical critic of the press. I think that the degree to which Trump was helped from 15 onward with the press hostility is obvious. But this one really frightens me. It really frightens me that it's beyond just like society with alternative media and social media and White House briefings. And reporters presumably wanted to make their bones by getting big stories. No one reported it.

When it was clear they needed to turn, they just turned against him. No accountability for themselves or for the people in the government who engaged in the cover-up with them. I just find it frightening. Not just, it's fun to say it's a big media scandal and provocative to say it, but I find it frightening that that could happen in this country now. I find it frightening with all the media that we have, different from back when other presidents, Kennedy, Roosevelt, et cetera, Wilson, this is now. This is the age of transparency. And had he not had a bad debate,

he'd still be running for president. I find it frightening. How did he have, how did that debate happen? Well, there are a lot of Republicans who say it was a setup and there were people who knew he'd do badly and they made him debate to force him out. I just don't believe that based on what I know. He was on track to lose. Okay.

And there was no intervening event that they saw could turn things around. He was on track to lose before that debate? Yeah. He had one path to win, which was to win the three Great Lakes states and Nebraska 2 CD. And he was behind in Pennsylvania. I don't remember ever reading that story. Also, there seems like there's a lot of pressure not to report what the data show,

which is, you know, if a Democratic candidate or president is behind, no one wants to report that. Yeah. Do you think that's true? Well, it's true if it's a Democrat. That's what I'm saying. Oh, yeah.

He was on track to lose. He might have lost all seven battleground states. And he was in trouble in New Mexico and in Virginia and in Minnesota. Not as bad trouble as he was after the debate. But before the debate, things were very grim. Really? Oh, yeah. He had one electoral college path.

And it was not in states he was in. Again, I just don't remember ever reading that. It's true. And not to make it too personal, but I should just say, for those who don't remember, I always thought that you were a liberal Democrat. I have no idea what your politics are. I'm not going to ask you. I'm not a liberal. I just assume.

I'm a journalist. I'm an old-fashioned journalist. Okay, but I just never even, I didn't think of you as any kind of right-wing activist because you weren't. But I remember in 2016 when you said shortly before the election, I think Trump's got a pretty good shot of winning. Yeah. And that was, I think, just like your analysis. I covered Trump rallies in 30 states and talked to voters across the country. It was clear he could win.

And he did. Yeah. So you were right. Yeah. But you were attacked. You were denounced for saying that. I think covering Trump's really hard. Covering Trump is really hard, even if you want to be fair,

because he does say a lot of things that are untrue. He does break a lot of norms that at least cause reasonable people to wonder whether those are good norms or bad. And he doesn't play straight with the kind of decorum of interactions with the public and the press. And January 6th, and some of the things he's said publicly that are hateful and hurtful, okay? It makes him very hard to cover. But he's also hard to cover because most of the press covers him in a way that is unfair and that the American people, not everyone, but anyone who doesn't watch MSNBC primetime knows is unfair. It's right there with the lawfare. It's unequal treatment that's hostile to him. So covering him is really hard, but-

But you should be allowed to analyze the poll numbers. Well, of course. But also, to me, it's more- I mean, that's crazy. To me, it's more to appreciate that the things that people liked about him, who liked him in 2015 and 2016, are legitimate things. That they don't believe Washington stands up for them. That they don't believe there's too much government regulation.

They believe that there's no plan to deal with China. There were serious things he talked about that the border needs to be secure. There are serious things he talked about that are, he talks about them often, almost always in a cartoonish way. But those are aspirational things and worries of the American people

that other politicians in both parties weren't addressing. So you can analyze the poll numbers, but you can also say, as I said in 2011, which is really how I met Trump, he's talking about stuff that people respond to viscerally that aren't being addressed, and they're not incidental things. They're core things for tens of millions of Americans. So it wasn't to me when people say, oh, how did you know? It was not it was not hard. With the election just weeks away, Kamala Harris has only won a single clearly defined policy objective, and that's more abortion. This is not the pro-choice position of your youth, the safe, legal and rare pretense. This is more abortion is a good thing. Abortion anywhere, anytime, for any reason,

at any stage of development up to the ninth month. Who can be for that? Well, the modern Democratic Party is for that. Result, thousands of babies dying every day. And that's why Preborn's clinics, its network of clinics, are located in the highest abortion areas nationwide to help women provide counseling, care, and resources to women who are pregnant and desperate, to help them. Preborn has, over the years, rescued 300,000 children, all while sharing the message of God's love and offering up to two years of aftercare. The Preborn approach is changing hearts for generations to come. And that's the key, changing minds and saving people.

They do this with ultrasound. One ultrasound costs just $28. That's roughly the price of a very cheap dinner, maybe fast food. And for that, you can sponsor five ultrasounds for 140 bucks. Pre-born are committed to saving as many children as possible, changing minds, changing hearts, and they need your help to do that. Abortion should not be the basis of an entire political party. Even if you're pro-choice, that's disgusting. So if you want to help donate securely,

visit preborn.com slash Tucker or call hashtag 250 and use the keyword baby. This episode is brought to you by DAZN. For the first time ever, the 32 best soccer clubs from across the world are coming together to decide who the undisputed champions of the world are in the FIFA Club World Cup. The world's best players, Messi, Haaland, Kane, and more are all taking part. And you can watch every match for free on DAZN starting on June 14th and running until July 13th. Sign up now at DAZN.com slash FIFA.

That's D-A-Z-N.com slash FIFA. Mom, Mom, did you see my race? Of course I did, darling. Look, you did your best. You tried. The thing is, it's not about winning. It's about taking part. Next year you might do better. But I did win, Mom. You did? When it's sunny, make sure you can still see. At Specsavers, get two pairs of glasses from $149 and one can be prescription sunglasses. Hey, the sun won't wait. Visit Specsavers.ca for details.

Conditions apply. But it's it. Right. Well, I agree with you completely. And I also wrote a story in Politico making some of these points. But I wasn't attacked for it because I was already on the outside. You were the inside. And I just thought it was, the response was so interesting in 2016 because really the demand was not that, you know, you be like a democratic partisan. The demand was you just deny observable

reality. And that's a different thing. So I have great empathy for the people who support Trump and who are angry that the establishment media and universities and all these liberal cultural institutions are hostile to them. I appreciate, and to see their candidate get four indictments that are wholly political, even though some of the underlying actions were wrong, but wholly political indictments. But I also have sympathy for the people of Trump derangement syndrome. I get why they think this is the worst thing that could happen to America. And I hear it from Democrats all the time who say, Donald Trump being president is not the worst thing that's ever happened in my life politically. It's the worst thing that's ever

happened in my life. I don't want to put myself on a pedestal, but I don't believe there are too many people, forget just journalists. I don't think there are a lot of people who have empathy and understanding for both those groups. And I think that's the core challenge for the country right now is for all of us to try to understand both groups. But why do you, I mean, you're from Washington, D.C. Your father worked at high levels of government. You're very much from that. I mean, you're from, literally from that culture. Yeah.

And then you spent most of your life in New York City. I was once called the high priest of establishment journalism. Well, and that is, I was, I'm 55, I was there and that is totally accurate. So how do you wind up with empathy for Trump voters? Because three things. One is I covered Bill Clinton was the first presidential candidate I covered

and I went to 46 states with him and listened to people unhappy with the status quo. Not just the short-term economic pain, but the long-term dislocation we've seen since. With surveys, are your kids going to have the same economic future you didn't know? Do you understand your place in the world in terms of the economy? Are you confident that you'll have a career that you like? Are social changes, is the society changing in ways that are offensive to you or unsettling to you? So I saw the importance of getting out of Washington and New York and watching presidential candidates talk to voters and talking to the voters. And I saw some people like Bill Clinton and Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan, I put those three ahead of the others, saw the mood of the country and saw that their party was not necessarily addressing everything that needed to be addressed.

And they did. So that's number one is I just understood the concept of someone speaking against the status quo in the establishment. Number two, I've always seen liberal media bias, even when early in my career, Peter Jennings was my mentor. He saw it too. He was ahead of his time in understanding half our potential consumers were conservative. And so you have to constantly be questioning whether your news product and your analysis is appealing to the entire country and not just the people on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. And then lastly, I've always been concerned that the... How do I explain this? It's like, you have to be honest as a journalist. You can't just go, not just not go

with the Upper West Side, Washington DC mentality, but you have to be constantly questioning the assumptions. That's core to the job. And so I did that, whether it's politics or not, just are we thinking about this right the way? I covered the gaming industry for a little bit and I'm fascinated by it. And I think the way we cover the gaming industry

in this country is insane. And it needs to be different. If you look at most coverage of it, it's not. So you can say it about sports, about anything. What does that mean? I mean, not to get too sidetracked, but I'm interested. What does that mean? It's a huge business that's completely unscrutinized. Pardon my total ignorance, because i hate all of it yeah are you talking about gambling or computer games no no no uh well i could say it about both but i'd say it about i say i would say too about social media and about kids on ipads no i'm just talking about casinos yeah sports betting gambling how how is it covered that you think it's well it's barely covered and it's the the the the fact that it's like a regressive,

that it hurts poor people. The fact that these businesses are extremely powerful and they're lobbyists and they rarely have rules that are deleterious to their interests. And the fact that they create economic opportunity some places that has been successful. But just, it's one of the biggest businesses in the world. And you pick up the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Associated Press, the networks, they're barely covering it. And when they do, they're not covering to me the essence of what it's really like. So when I covered it, I got backlash from the people in the business, both in the journalism business covering it and from the gaming industry,

because I was coming in and questioning assumptions. How, as a society, are we thinking about this? I don't think we're thinking about it at all. Well, we're not, but we should be. Both the positive, but also the negative. The lives it destroys and the percentage of people's household income that they use on it. I find it insane. I find it insane.

I'm embarrassed that I haven't, again, I don't want to get sidetracked, but since you said that out loud, I'm one of the people who's ignored it. Think about how much coverage you've ever read in the New York Times about the gaming industry. I learned the other day that it's really common for young men

in their 20s, recent college graduates, who by definition have no money, most of them, to spend a lot on sports gambling. Yes, it's a huge thing. And the recruitment of athletes to raise the brand identity of the individual companies, it's a massive business. And just uncovered. And it's massive.

I forget how big it is, but it's huge. It's like bigger than like Hollywood, something, something, something combined. Really? Oh yeah, it's huge. It's like bigger than like Hollywood something, something, something combined. It's just, oh yeah, it's huge. It's huge. So again, I just always, as a journalist have said, people say Trump can't win. Well, I saw him speak at CPAC in 2011, that guy could win. And so just going to question. They did. Am I misremembering this? You were attacked viciously just for observing that, correct? Not in 2011. I was attacked- No, no, in 2016.

Oh, in 2016. Yes. Yes, I was attacked viciously. But I'm saying I saw it in 2011 as I started my relationship with Trump. I saw him speak at CPAC where Mitch Daniels and a bunch of potential presidential candidates spoke. And I went on TV the next morning and said, Trump was the best speaker, not just because of the performance, but he got the best reaction. And you may not take him seriously as a presidential candidate, but you need to take what he's running on

and talking about seriously. And I say always that Donald Trump is in some ways a complicated man, but in some ways he's simple. If you say nice things about him on television, he likes you. So he called me up and invited me over to Trump Tower. And I mean, he wasn't like my best friend, but I talked to him

about politics then pretty consistently from 2011 to 2015. And part of why I had some access to him was because when people on the networks were interviewing him and talking about him because he's a great box office, but mocking the notion that he could win, I took him seriously. Incredible. And then took heat for it, obviously, when he actually won. Big, big heat for it. Yeah. So how exactly did it happen that Biden went from telling the world, telling people around him that he was going to stay in with the full support, I think, of his wife and son to announcing that he was not running again? The data was very grim and inarguable.

Yeah. And he was presented with a lot of it. But Nancy Pelosi, who, as I understand it, has not spoken to him since he got out of the race, as we sit here today. Really? That's what she said, I believe, in an interview I just read. She knew where the pressure points were. She's extremely skillful, right? She knew what it would take to get him to cry uncle. And I'm not sure exactly what that included, except more and more governors and members of Congress saying he had to step down.

Donors saying they would not write a single additional check, right? So if you're the incumbent president and your fundraising dries up pretty completely, because he wasn't raising small dollars, right? He was reliant on big checks. Could you stay in the race if leading members of your party called for you to resign? Could you stay in the race if you had no money to run a campaign and really had to lay off tons of your staff, not be able to afford advertisement, not be able to fly around and do big rallies. Could you stay in? You could. But if Nancy Pelosi is saying to you, you will have no money, you will have almost no one supporting your continuing on, donors, celebrities, members of Congress, governors, you will lose and you will be blamed in history for having stayed in and lost to Donald Trump. Or we can celebrate you at the convention,

we can say you're like George Washington, and you can salvage your reputation. I think presented with those choices, he didn't have a choice. What was Obama's role? To talk to Pelosi and Schumer and others, Clyburn and others, about how you get him out, how you design a process to try not to get his backup, right? The psychodrama between him and Obama is real. I don't think it is between him and Kamala Harris, but between him and Obama, it's real. I remember Hunter Biden, who was my neighbor for many years, telling me more than once, when Biden was vice president, how much they despised Barack Obama. He despised Barack Obama. Well, what he did to Joe Biden in 2016, a man who'd run for president twice, who thought it was his birthright to then be the nominee in 16, to say, we're going with Hillary Clinton. That and the Biden family, that's as bad as it gets. That's as treacherous as it gets. And then in 2020, he didn't really

support him until he had to when it was just him and Bernie. So, Obama had to worry, and this is why Pelosi was singular. If it hadn't been to not be, and didn't like to be public anyway at this point, but he was careful to not have Biden think that he was engineering it. But he was strategizing about how do we put the pressure on him publicly and privately and how do we end up with the strongest possible nominee? Boy, this is not a sentimental group, I've noticed. I mean, loyalty, personal affection, long-lasting friendship, assuming that even exists in that world,

none of them play any role in any of this. I think there's some affection between Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. I'm sure. that even exists in that world, none of them play any role in any of this. I think there's some affection between Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. I'm sure. So there's some there. I mean, this is high stakes politics. I don't think that Nancy Pelosi, I don't know this from her,

so I'm speculating based on just observing her and knowing her a little bit. I don't think that she took pleasure in this. I think she felt bad for him. So in that sense, I think there was some humanity to it. There was just a problem that had to be solved. They were trying to switch from zero chance to win to a decent chance to win.

And so I don't know that there's room for sentimentality that would stand in the way of that. So they call on her to bring the dog to the vet to put him down. Well, they didn't really call on her. She stepped up because she saw in Clyburn and Jeffries and Schumer and Obama and Clinton, both Clintons, she didn't see sufficient effort. And the clock was ticking. Did you see, I just, I know I'm fixated on this, but I am fixated on it. Did you see prior to June of this year, any story in any major news outlet saying, hey, Joe Biden's going to lose?

Well, in my own work, yeah. Okay. In my own work. You've been exiled from that world. I mean, no, because they couldn't. I mean, you saw stories before they agreed to debate. You saw stories that said his fundraising was a real problem. You saw stories that said he was having problems in New Hampshire and Virginia and New Mexico and Minnesota. You saw stories saying he was having problems over the Israel war. You even saw the

press covering immigration like they'd never covered it before, not the way they would if it were on the other foot. You saw the coverage of inflation. Yeah, you saw the coverage. Part of why he had to agree to the debate was the coverage was was they turned on him to a extent not to the extent they were trying to drive him out of the race except for a few communists but yeah the coverage of biden from february or so onward was quite negative so we just got back from a month on the road coast to coast and everywhere in between 16 cities in 30 days and i've got to say almost everyone on our team looks suspiciously well rested every morning as we got back on the plane. It turns out most of them are using a product called Sambrosa which

is one of the sponsors of our tour. Sambrosa blends antihistamine with a syrup of herbs and honey and is designed to help you sleep well waking up feeling refreshed and revitalized and based on the sunny cheerful faces of the people I work with, it works. It's inexpensive. It's less than 50 cents a night. And we know the people who own the company, and they are great people. They are faithful people, and they are about the happiest family we've ever run across. The product, Sambrosa, has a ton of five-star reviews.

You can check it out on their website, sambrosa.com. Breaking news. A brand new game is now live at Bet365. Introducing Prize Matcher, out on their website, Sambrosa.com. So there you have it. How can you match that? Check out Prize Matcher and see why it's never ordinary at Bet365. Must be 19 or older, Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you or someone you know has concerns about gambling, visit connexontario.ca. Hey, we know you probably hit play to escape your business banking, not think about it. But what if we told you there was a way to skip over the pressures of banking? By matching with a TD Small Business Account Manager, you can get the proactive business banking advice and support your business needs.

Ready to press play? Get up to $2,700 when you open select small business banking products. Yep, that's $2,700 to turn up your business. Visit td.com slash smallbusinessmatch to learn more. Conditions apply. What's the underlying illness that he suffers from? No idea. How crazy is that,

that a nation on the cusp of nuclear war which we are to this day could have a commander-in-chief suffering from some illness and nobody demands to crazy find out what it is crazy and and the fact that the fact that i mean again this goes to the press course part of the conspiracy his doctor was never made available to answer questions that is they had a parkinson's specialist to commend yeah although that the facts on that a conspiracy. His doctor was never made available to answer questions. That is standard. They had a Parkinson's specialist come in. Yeah. Although the facts on that are still a bit murky, but- Well, they're totally murky. But how they could explain to any White House reporter's satisfaction why they weren't given

access to the president's doctor, I can't understand. It just should have been an alarm bell and they should have brought the briefing room to a halt. We demand to talk to the president's doctor, I can't understand. It just should have been an alarm bell and they should have brought the briefing room to a halt. We demand to talk to the president's doctor. As we've talked to past president's doctors, when this president spoke to a dead congresswoman, we need to access the president's doctor. And just the way the stiff leg walking and everything just, you turn the sound off and you could tell that there was a profound problem. And the American people know it. And's why you know i forget the exact numbers but like 70 said he shouldn't be running you know it's like there's a reason why the the the press had to say the emperor looked fantastic in his new clothes not you know i like the shirt but i don't like the pants they had to be all in on the emperor

looked fantastic because they couldn't they couldn't show any weakness i like the shirt, but I don't like the pants. They had to be all in on the emperor looked fantastic because they couldn't show any weakness. I like this shirt, but not the pants. Exactly. Couldn't show any weakness. Why? Because they couldn't do anything to be accused of helping Trump win. It's not my imagination.

The press has always obviously been liberal, always been sympathetic to Democrats, but this posture of like total denial of absolute big lie deception, that's a new thing. It's a new thing. It's covering Trump's heart. the right, I'll say again, are revolted by the slanted press coverage, the lawfare, the unequal treatment. I think people on the left have proper grievance about the things Trump has done that are, again, antithetical to a lot of what America stands for. They're right about that. He's hard to cover.

But the way that most of the press has chosen to deal with it is to just focus on the negative aspects of Trump and disregard the grievances of the other side. But honesty, just, I mean, even leaving aside the ideology or how you think Trump fits into American history, just like, I don't know if it's raining out, you can't say it's sunny out

because that's lying. I agree. But they, besides liberal media bias and besides just the emotional Trump derangement syndrome, they've decided that January 11th and Stormy Daniels and documents in Mar-a-Lago and his comments about immigrants are more important, are so important that they have to cover the exclusion of Americans being killed by people in the country illegally. That's just what they've decided. Is there any sense from within those big media organizations that they've committed suicide?

No. Their cultural, personal, institutional orientation is towards covering the news for half the country. That's what they do. But as a business, it's like they've destroyed themselves.

That's my read on it anyway. I worked for all those companies. I mean, the New York Times has created Wordle and Recipes, so they haven't destroyed themselves. There's always going to be a demand for news. And, you know, they all adapted like, you know, as you and I discussed, they adapted way too late.

But it's an industry in crisis, but some of the legacy players are finding their way towards digital survival. So I don't think they're all going to disappear and I think they'll be replaced. For sure, but the weaker ones,

CBS, I think, I mean, CBS is like almost done. I think NBC, CNN, I don't think they have bright futures,

but, you know, I could be wrong. They'll have to, you know, very late in the game adapt to digital sales and different models besides people paying for subscriptions people paying for advertising or cable systems paying for carriage they'll have to they'll have

to find different sources of revenue and they'll have to make products that appeal to enough audiences that there's there's there's this mass there but somebody's got to fill the assigned, the intended role of the media, which is to inform the public about things, factual things. Yeah. It's a crisis, not just a crisis in America. Obviously, other countries have this problem, but there is a market for news. People do want news. Well, you have to have it. Yeah. So we just need, whether it's legacy places that find their way or new places like what you're doing, what I'm doing, that say we're going to make money off of quality content that some number of people like, and we're going to find business models that work.

And we're not going to be wedded to the old business models, which is just not going to support journalism. How long were you at ABC? From 87 to 2007. Long time. How many years is that? That's about 20-ish years now. It's 97, 2007. Did you ever think that you would be part of independent media? I never did. I mean, I loved working for a big, powerful, you know, one of the most powerful news organizations in the world. And I assumed I always would. And I still think there's some value in it. I mean, you and I both now do things for ourselves and with our small merry bands that before 17 people would have been working on, we never would have had to think about it. But it's a small price to pay to not be freed from the downsides of being in an institution

where you can't do what you think's right some of the time at least. Or best, not necessarily right, but best. Like what, looking back, can you give examples of things that you couldn't do that you think you should have been allowed to do? File more Freedom of Information Act requests, even if they were going to annoy people we covered. So if somebody said, well, we're trying to book that person as a great guest, so please don't file that Freedom of Information Act request.

That happened a few times. Yeah. Now, there was another equity involved for the organization, right? They wanted a booking more than my fishing expedition on a FOIA. But I will say that that's an example. I could give a few others, but I was blessed when I worked for ABC, when I worked for Time Magazine, when I worked for Bloomberg. I was blessed with a fair amount of autonomy. So, I was never told by the corporate side what to say.

I was rarely told don't pursue something because of another equity. I gave you one of the examples, but it's more just, you know, putting on a TV show at a major network, like 200 people are touching the product, right? It's just a hard bureaucracy to be super creative in, but it also produces, you know, from a production point of view, quality stuff. That's a trade-off. I'm not imagining without getting into it. This is my read. You may disagree. I think in the end, you were very severely punished for demanding to think for yourself. That's my view of it, but I don't think you're the only one who was. It did seem like a systematic cleansing of anybody in media.

Not even, it wasn't even a left-right divide. It was like, I felt it was a testosterone divide, but it was to people like, no, no, no. I think this is right. I'm going to pursue it. Those people are all gone. I just have noticed. Well, I mean, it depends on the category.

I think people, particularly people who challenge the left, I think are more susceptible to that. You think? I mean, Rachel Maddow says stuff that's out there. She criticizes her own network sometimes. She pursues stories. She's interesting because she has a lot of power and autonomy. And there are other examples. To her credit. I've always, I disagree with everything Rachel Maddow says, but I have always admired that about her. But she's kind of the exception. There are others, but she's one of the exceptions that proves the rule. Most people don't want to cross the orthodoxy or their corporate bosses.

And in that sense, they're not so different than, you know, working for JPMorgan Chase or working corporate bosses. And in that sense, they're not so different than, you know, working for JP Morgan Chase or working for Boeing. Like, there's not a lot of stepping out of line. The difference is, of course,

to state the obvious, that we're, journalists are in a business of truth-telling and challenging powerful interests and holding powerful interests accountable to the public interest. And sometimes

that has to be, you know, either your own employer or sometimes it's liberal Democrats. Well, it's got to be that way, though. your own employer or sometimes it's liberal Democrats. Well, it's got to be that way though.

It's inherent. Like that's why we have First Amendment protection. Like the system is set up with a free press at the, really at the center of the enterprise, in my opinion. So where are we five years, 10 years from now? I thought there was going to be more joking around in this episode. No, I'm just interested.

It's like the grimmest episode of your program ever. Let's play paper football or something to shake up the mood. I mean, I'm a big believer in finding consumers who want quality. And that can happen independent of ideology. My new platform, we've not started to make a ton of money yet, but it explicitly tries to appeal to people, not just centrist moderates and independents, but people on the left and the right. And I'm hoping that there is a market for that that is different than the conventional wisdom, which is the only way to make money is to go hard left or hard right. Of course, right. Be the New York Times.

Yeah. But how does it work? We bring people on who are willing to talk about the country in a way that's not politics of personal destruction. I would say our model is peace, love, and understanding. And then we open it up to citizens from across the country. And so far, organically, Democrats, Republicans, Trump supporters, Trump enemies all come on and they all talk. And they're supposed to talk in a way that is respectful. And if somebody's disagreeing with you, I say, learn from them rather than say, this platform is too pro-Trump. Well, it's your opportunity to hear from pro-Trump people or this platform is too pro-Harris. Listen to them talk. And that almost doesn't exist in America today. No, it doesn't. What's the business model for that? Well, it's a platform that's not just about politics. Eventually, we're going to expand to sports and music and writers. It's called two-way. Almost all communication is one way,

right? It's you talking or writing a sub stack or writing a book or cable news. We bring people together with the people they want to hear from. And so if you get the best parenting experts in the world or NFL quarterbacks or great musicians that people are super fans of, sponsorships, payments, super fan payments that are higher than what they pay for a normal access through live video. And then eventually the ability to be the place that people come for two-way conversations.

But in politics, it has the additional element of all voices under one roof. And I have so hardened when people say, liberals will say, I understand why people are for Trump more than I ever have. The other day we had on, just by coincidence, we didn't book them,

two young black men, both live in Manhattan or live in New York City, both of whom explained extraordinarily well why they're for Trump and why they don't like the Democratic Party.

And they were listened to respectfully and liberals could ask them questions. That just doesn't exist anywhere else. No, it doesn't. So- I got to say that's consistent with my personal experience of black men specifically not that i'm around black men all the time but actually fairly regularly yeah don't know that many black men who are republicans

but i know zero black men who are liberals yeah not one i can't remember the last time i met one yeah what is that that seems like a trend if. If the anecdotal is even close to true, Trump will break the record among support from black men. I mean, he'll smash it if the anecdotal is close to true. It just, it's all over social media. It's all over my platform. It's all over every story I hear. And part of it, you know,

I'll give you a couple of elements of this that I think is important. Part of it is Trump has always had appeal with kind of a macho, rich, pretty wife thing. Oh, totally, yeah. Has that. But it's also, you know, this example of biased coverage. The press says when Trump says some young black men identify with him and their parents because he's been persecuted. The press says that's racist. My experience is just true. They get the fact that the legal system comes after people unfairly.

And if it can happen to Trump, it can happen to them and it has happened to them and their family and their communities. And then lastly, the failure of liberals to make life in cities for poor kids better is also a massive scandal. Another scandal is that the Republican Party hasn't done anything to capitalize on it and create competition to be mayors of these cities. for creating more economic opportunity. He did criminal justice reform. The other stuff, you know, his record is spotty. But he's saying, as he said in 2016, when people mocked him, what do you have to lose? These young black men say, the Democratic Party offers nothing to me. Trump might offer something to me

and he's done criminal justice reform. I think, again, you could be the most partisan Democrat in the world. If you can defend the performance of the Democratic Party to helping young black men, good luck. But I agree with everything that you've said. But what's interesting is that black voters, including black men, are not just like part of the Democratic coalition. They're the basis of the party's moral authority. After black women, they're number two in terms of degree of support. Right. But in terms of the story that Democrats

tell themselves about why they're right and why they're better than their opponents, it's all about black people. We've saved black people. And so how do they, like, what's it like if you're a democratic party, if you're Ron Klain and you all of a sudden, all the black guys are against you and for Trump, that must be mind blowing. Well, of all the sort of canary in the coal mine of those who believe, as some of my sources in both parties do, that Harris is about to lose and maybe somewhat decisively, she's spending three days, maybe four days at the end of the campaign, spending the majority of her time courting black men that's that's mind-blowing so what do they say they say they're a little bit in denial about the causes of it but they but they're not in denial about how big a problem is again testament to when have you seen a democratic presidential candidate with 20 days to go spending her time

day after day courting black men. But it's just weird because the one thing that everyone on planet Earth knew about Donald Trump was that he was a racist. That's the one, I mean, that line, I mean, that was the summary of Trump. So I had a black woman who lives in New York also, who came on my platform the other day. And when she was confronted, I connected her to an older black gentleman who's a Harris supporter. And he said, how can you support the man

who led the birther movement? How can you support the man who denied knowing who David Duke was? And she said, how about Joe Biden? He's of that generation too, hanging around with Strom Thurmond, supporting the crime bill. Her view was,

Joe Biden's got a racist past too i'm not gonna i'm not gonna decide who to vote for based on allegations about who's a bigger racist it's it's just interesting of all the candidates in the history of american politics for donald trump yeah to increase the share of the black vote and the hispanic vote well big time in that way and again the liberal press would say, how could Hispanics support a guy who's been so racist in his rhetoric about the border? And of course, as you know,

we're talking about people who've came here illegally and don't like to be lumped in with people who support more open border. Or even people who came here legally and benefit illegally, who benefit from the 86 amnesty, for example. Correct. And also people who came here legally and benefit illegally, who benefit from the 86 amnesty, for example. Correct. And also people who think bacon costs too much. Yeah. Well, amazing. So why did you, you said at the outset that everyone's telling us this is going to be

an extraordinarily close election. You don't believe that. Well, it might be. I just, I just think it's not a foregone conclusion because I think seven battleground states, six or maybe all seven could go to one candidate. They could. In other words, if one of them wins the seven states or six of the seven narrowly, by our recent standards, that would be an electoral college landslide.

And I think that could happen. I think whatever dynamics exist, there'll be some variation state to state. But if Trump won all seven, I wouldn't be surprised But if Trump won all seven, I wouldn't be surprised. If she won all seven, I wouldn't be surprised. And if that happens, it's not going to be close. I was talking to a member of Congress just a few hours ago who said, I'm totally convinced this election will not be called within a week of election day.

Will not be. Not be. Yeah. I mean, if it's close, it won't be. There'll be litigation and there'll be all the normal second guessing. Our elections are decentralized and really messy. And although there were efforts to fix that after 2000, it's just the American way. And in some of these states, like in Pennsylvania, the state gives incredible deference to the counties to figure out how they want to run things. It's a commonwealth. Yeah. And I think there's a real equal protection

questions. We saw that in Florida in 2000. Like, is it fair to one county compared to another county or the state of Florida compared to the other states that they count differently? It's got political implications that are messy, but it's a great 10th Amendment question. In what sense do they count differently? You know, when you can start counting different types of ballots and what the rules are for accepting ballots that have errors in them. You know, like if one county says, well, they said 2023, but they meant 2024. We're going to count that because we know who cares what the outside address is like. One county counts it and the other doesn't. Is that fair to the voters? Is

that equal protection? And even if the rules aren't different, just as a matter of course, say, well, in this county, they stopped counting at midnight because the election supervisor said, we have too many votes to count. We're going to go home. And in this county, they kept counting. And so now is there some chain of custody question in the county where the people went home and said, they'll come back in at nine o'clock. We just don't have uniform rules. That's just the way America is. So, I mean, I would say my base case, unlike everybody else's, my base case is we'll know by the next day, because I think more likely than not, it won't be close. But if your person's right, a week would be delightful if it was only a week. Could be significantly longer. Because once litigation starts, it never stops. And this time, the Democrats are as lawyered up as the Republicans.

In 2020, the Bush campaign said, we're only going to do Florida. I'm sorry, in 2000. They said, we're only going to do Florida. We think there's stuff in New Mexico we could do. There's stuff in a few other states. They said, no, we're just, and the Gore people went along with that. That won't happen this time. All seven states will be litigated. If the outcomes are- And to recap, those states are? To recap the states, there's the three Great Lakes states, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

And then the four Sunbelt states, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona. And the state where Las Vegas is, I can't pronounce correctly, so I never do. It's Nevada. Like Vlad. And it's Nevada. And in the last, say, 30 years,

I grew up going to Nevada. And we had a house in Nevada. Yeah. And everyone called it that. And now they will yell at you for calling it that. They will. They've renamed it. I have a mental block about it.

I say it wrong every time, even though I think I'm saying it right. They're so judgy about it. They are very judgy. That's why I don't even risk saying it. I call it the silver state or the state where Las Vegas is. Harry Reid's old state. Harry Reid's old state. Home of McCarran Airport, Clark County.

Plenty you can say about it. Reno in the north. So can we just go through those really quick? Yeah, sure. And love to get your view of where the race is. And let's just start with Nevada. Yeah. It's the hardest one.

The Trump people think they're going to win it and the Democrats think they're going to win it. Abortion, unions, the ghost of harry reid which they still cite so i would say there's consensus uh amongst my sources that of the seven states it's it's um it's harris's best but i wouldn't be surprised if trump won it. Economy's horrible. Inflation's been horrible. Housing's horrible. He's got, of course, a presence in Clark County, a lot of rural vote. So it's our best of the seven.

Well, he's taken Elko. We know that. Yes, Elko is his. But the change in, you know, Clark County is very, very heavily Hispanic now. And the change in voting patterns of hispanic voters or at least what we think is the change that's kind of what they're banking on they are um and and they're banking on the economy um and she's not uh she's she's a westerner right but

people there don't like californians you know typically there's a good reason yeah so again i think it's right that it's his least likely of the seven but he there are reasons to think For good reason. the gap between the leadership and the rank and file is smaller. There's a reason to believe that she'll do well. Unite here and the big casino workers unions. So I would say, again, her best state, but a state Trump can still win. Okay. Let's move. New Mexico? No, Arizona.

New Mexico is blue. Arizona is probably Trump's best of the seven. If there's a state she'll give up on, and I don't think she will because she's got so much money and there's only seven and she's got to fly out with it. Can you summarize where the money stands as of right now? Relatively. her money advantage, the Democrats' money advantage early on when Trump was having trouble raising money was significant. Then they had a money advantage but not dispositive. It's now potentially dispositive.

Not so much for the ads, although that matters too, but for organizing. She just, she has, she's raised a billion dollars since she got in the race. That's extraordinary. And that doesn't include the outside money. That's not directly tied. She's raised a billion dollars since she got in the race. That's extraordinary. And that doesn't include the outside money. That's not directly tied to it. She's raised a billion dollars?

Yeah, since she got in the race. She's raised more for her campaign and for the party committees that she controls than Trump has raised the whole campaign. So, typically when you're at race, as Trump said in 16, they'll have enough to win. They won't have as much money, but they'll have enough to win. It may be he doesn't. I'm not saying for sure, but her financial advantage over the last three weeks is considerable. Where's all that money coming from? Grassroots and rich people. One of the biggest mysteries in politics for the last 20 years has been Democrats' capacity to raise big money online compared to

Republicans. Jamie Harrison, who's now chair of the Democratic Party, ran against Lindsey Graham in South Carolina. No chance to win. Not a particularly good candidate. Nice guy, but not somebody people thought, I'll give money because I'll be president someday. He raised like $110 million. That's more than Marco Rubio, who should be a good web fundraiser, social media fundraiser, raised when he ran for president. They just are great at raising money from small dollar donors. Part of it was they started earlier with the thing ActBlue, but it doesn't explain it. And I talk to people about it all the time, I can't explain it. But that's a big part of why Trump's being outraged. And if they hadn't kept

indicting him, he'd be even more disparate. And then there's people writing big checks. Wait, if they hadn't kept indicting him, he wouldn't have raised as much money. Trump raised a lot of his online money in the wake of all the legal stuff, like literally on the days of indictments,

the days of bookings, court dates. That was a great equalizer for him to raise more money. But he's badly outraised. But again, I don't think it's dispositive. It might be dispositive, but I don't think it will be. I think Trump has just enough. And the Democratic Party has rich people. So does the Republican Party. The big disparity is not the rich people. The big disparity is the small dollars. There's some disparity, right? There's three kinds of money. There's small dollars, social media and online. There's bundlers, people writing checks of, you know, 3,900 or whatever it is now. And then there's

people writing super PAC checks for, you know, 10 million or, you know, less. Trump is, I think, being out-raised in all three categories, is my guess, but I think the biggest discrepancy is the one that's the most valuable, which is the low dollars, because people can continue to give to you. And for that money, the Harris campaign gets what? More TV ads, more digital ads, more field organizers, more offices, more get-at-the-vote operations. More lawn signs, I've noticed. More lawn signs. And more surrogate travel, you know,

just more of all the stuff you can spend money on. And again, no one's criticizing their operation in terms of how they're going about turning people out, voting early, voting by mail, and then on election day getting people to polls. Their team, led by the woman who's running the campaign, Jenna Malley Dillon, who's an organizer by trade, that's an advantage. So in other words, more money spent wisely. It's a big advantage. So you think Trump probably does have an advantage in Arizona? Yes. It's as bad,

just as, as the silver state is her best of the seven. My sources agree that Arizona is the best, his best of the seven. All right, let's move East. Um, Georgia,

um, is a, it's a, it's a tougher one. Um, he's, Trump is ahead. Trump is favored.

I think Georgia would be the fifth or sixth state she won if she's doing really well. In other words, if she wins Georgia, it means she's going to win all the Great Lakes states and probably the Silver State as well. So it's probably Trump's third best of them, probably. And I'd make him the favorite there. And my democratic sources today would make him the favorite there as well. There is a reality of democratic politics in Southern states, which is if you can increase the percentage of the vote that comes from black vote, which is called the contribution to the vote. So what percentage of the number of people who vote are black and she can get her numbers back up to where Democrats typically are, two big ifs, she'll win. But Trump is doing well with the young black men there. And, you know, the normal way he wins states, running up in exurbs in rural areas.

All of the seven states have a pro-choice energy. In the two Western states, there's ballot measures that will help there. There aren't in the five others, but Georgia, you know, the Atlanta metro area is very pro-choice, a lot of suburban women. So some combination of her swelling black vote, holding her own with black vote, and suburban voters, particularly women, she could win it. But Trump is the favorite there.

Okay, so we've named three so far. Yeah, North Carolina. It's funny, the vice president herself, I'm told, and a lot of her aides have been very bullish on North Carolina as the linchpin for replacing Pennsylvania if they lose Pennsylvania. I have one Republican source who I trust immensely regarding North Carolina who says no way Trump loses it. So the storm is a variable. No way to know who that helps or hurt. The governor's race is a bit of a variable. But my sources now, I trust the ones who say Trump is likely to win North Carolina, but the vice president's put a Sunbelt states and Pennsylvania, and she wins North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Michigan, she loses. So if she wins Michigan and Wisconsin and North

Carolina, but loses Pennsylvania, she needs one of the other three Sunbelt states. But North Carolina is the largest and same as Georgia, same number, But that's kind of the linchpin for them. So that's the biggest mystery. Democrats are very bullish on it. Republicans believe that it'll be Trump's in the end. Interesting. What about Wisconsin? Was considered her best of the seven until she started to slip there in the last couple weeks.

And it's always been a close state. Trump had his convention there, a lot of rural vote there, a lot of the social issues cut for Trump there, less pro-choice state than some of the others. So I would say, if you take the combination of my sources, it's a slight favorite to Harris. But if Trump's running the rest of the table, he'll win Wisconsin. I thought the whole point of Tim Walz was to shore up support in a place

like Wisconsin. Running mates really don't make a difference. Yeah. They just don't. As long as you pick someone who the public says is ready to be president, it's really very marginal. That leaves Michigan. Michigan. So it's a little bit of a cross current there because it's kind of the bluest of the seven states. But she's got a problem with labor. She's got a problem with, and done the things that the locals there demand. Like the local Democrats say, you have to go to union halls. It's not a must win for Trump, but I'd make it at this point, just like in Wisconsin, a mild favorite. And finally, Pennsylvania. Yeah. So it is said the winner of Pennsylvania will win. It's said by everyone all the time. Yeah. It's almost certainly true. I'm going to do a two-hour show called It's All About Pennsylvania because it sort of is. Now, I say Trump can win without Pennsylvania and she can win without Pennsylvania, and it's not far-fetched. They both have reasonable paths without it. So, people shouldn't say it's all about it. But certainly, the winner of Pennsylvania as a matter of demographics and electoral college math, is in the driver's seat. The other person has kind of has to circumvent conventional wisdom about where these states are to make up for the

loss of Pennsylvania. And Trump is ahead and he's been ahead for a while. Now, ahead within the margin of error, but if you're consistently ahead, even if it's in the margin of error, no one thinks these states are going to be won by seven points. So she's got demographic problems there. Changing her position on fracking was absolutely essential. Whether people believed it or not, she couldn't have won being against fracking. It's not as big a deal throughout the state as people think, but in the part of the state, it's a very big deal. So I may trump the favorite there, as do most of my Democratic sources, but she's spending an unprecedented amount of money. She'll continue to work it there as a Democratic governor. It has two Democratic senators. It's more of a blue state in terms of statewide office than a red state. Trump won it once and lost it once, but he's showing strength there with white working

class voters, with older voters, with black men, with the Hispanic suburbs around Philly. So, and that's a place, because Biden was born in Pennsylvania and so associated with it, that's a place where trading out Biden for Harris was probably a downgrade for them. That Biden, at least on paper, had a better chance than she does. Well, he's, of course, a loyal son of Pennsylvania. Yeah, he had his own problems. They've also not been a super big state about electing women to statewide office compared to some other states for whatever reason. And she's a California liberal. You know, one of the things I don't think we've discussed in our brief talk so far is she's really liberal, right?

She's really liberal. She's culturally liberal, she's economically liberal, and she's not done a sister soldier. She's not fleshed out a portrait of who she is, except for saying she's a capitalist in a way that has resonated with a lot of these undecided voters. And you see that in Pennsylvania as much as anywhere else.

They just, they see her for what she is. And that's not really what Pennsylvania is. Their governor is a pretty moderate Democrat. Introducing TurboTax Business, a brand new way to file your own T2 return, all while getting help from an expert who actually knows small businesses. Got a tattoo studio, toy store, tiny but mighty taco stand? We've got someone who gets small business taxes inside and out. Experts are standing by to help and review while you file,

so you know your return's done right. Intuit TurboTax Business, new from TurboTax Canada. Some regional exclusions apply. Learn more at TurboTax Business. New from TurboTax Canada. Some regional exclusions apply. Learn more at TurboTax.ca slash business tax. Remember in 2020 when CNN told you the George Floyd riots were mostly peaceful, even as flames rose in the background? It was ridiculous, but it was also a metaphor for the way our leaders run this country. They're constantly telling you, everything is fine. Everything is fine. Don't worry. Everything's under control. Nothing to see here. Move along and obey. No one believes that. Crime is not going away. Supply chains remain fragile. It does feel like some kind of global conflict could break out at any time.

So the question is, if things went south tomorrow, would you be ready? Well, if you're not certain that you'd be ready, you need Ammo Squared. Ammo Squared is the only service that lets you build an ammunition stockpile automatically. You literally set it on autopilot. You pick the calibers you want, how much you want to save every month, then they'll ship it to you or they'll store it for you and ship it when you say so. You get 24-7 access to manage the whole thing.

So don't let the people in charge, don't let CNN lull you into a fake sense of safety. Take control of your life, protect your family, be prepared. Go to AmmoSquared.com to learn more. And as we did say at the outset, or you said, she hasn't really, I mean, if I'm Kamala Harris and I'm from San Francisco by way of Montreal, I'm going to make some effort to convince people I'm not as liberal as they

think I am. She doesn't, hasn't done a ton of that. Well, she's, she's done small things on the margins and not, not put them in sharp relief so that everybody would hear them. Because again, she's cautious and indecisive. So she surely hasn't. And time's short. And of course, anything she does now will be seen by some voters as crazy. Of course.

What's the spread between the publicly available polls and the so-called internal polling of the campaigns? Like how different are those numbers? Depends on which apple and which orange you're comparing. But I would say, just like a back of the envelope, super rough thing, Trump, like two points stronger in a lot of the private polls, not in every state, but in some of the states than in the public polls.

What accounts for that? The public polls are done on the cheap. And of all the ways newsrooms have cut back, the polling budgets take a big hit, right? So a poll is only good if likely voters, if you know who a likely voter is, right? And the simplest explanation is if you say, I want my poll to have 40% Democrats, okay? Because that's what I think the electorate's going to be. So I think a poll that's good, that has likely voters, 40% of my respondents are going to be Democrats. So which Democrats are going to fill the slots? Because you're under pressure to finish the poll as quickly as possible. You want 400 respondents, say. The longer it takes,

the more money it costs because you're paying for the call center to continue to make calls. So the Democrats who are most likely to fill the slot are better educated democrats who are more likely to pick up a phone or answer an online survey and say i'm a democrat and i'm participating those wealthier democrats and better educated democrats because those are the particularly better educated are the are is the is the is the way to is a single trait by which you can most easily tell if they're a Harris voter or a Trump voter, they're going to fill the slots. So you say, okay, 40% are Democrats. So I'm not over-representing Democrats. You are representing Democrats who are more likely to vote for Harris than Democrats who are likely to vote for Trump. And that single variable is, according to my sources, probably the main reason why the private polling, which is more

expensively done and needs an accurate poll so they know how to make decisions about the campaign compared to the public polls, which just want to get the poll done so they can publish it for publicity. They're not looking to be accurate. they're looking to get it done as cheaply as possible it's more expensive to do private polls kamala harris just as you said raised over a billion dollars yeah i asked where that money went i should have pointed out that the consultants i have noticed just having known consultants for 30 years are richer than they've ever been and i'm not sure the public understands just how rich some i don't think it's true they're richer than they've ever been. And I'm not sure the public understands just how rich some can be. I don't think it's true they're richer

than they've ever been. Oh, really? Yeah. Maybe I'm just noticing. I'll tell you one- That some of them are not flying commercial anymore. Yeah. So a lot of, I think a lot of the change,

and I don't know, like dollar per dollar, like are they making 47 cents on the dollar compared to before? But I can tell you the Bush campaign really changed the culture. In one very fundamental way, the people who make the ads used to get what was called a percentage of the bond.

Of course, yeah. And that was ridiculous. 15% or whatever. 15%. So Bush negotiated them down to like 1% or something. He also said, you know, salaries are going to be controlled. Then when John Podesta was chair of Hillary's campaign in 2016, he said, if you're one of the many people traveling between D.C. and New York, you're going to take the bus for 12 bucks as opposed to the train or the plane.

Again, that was a very big kind of cultural thing of we're just not going to waste the campaign's money on either spending or salary. So my sense is that consultants don't make what they used to, spending or salary. So my sense is that consultants don't make what they used to, particularly ad buyers, but my sense is even pollsters don't make what they used to. But they do make a lot and they spend a lot on polls, which is why they're better. It's not a quantitative difference, it's a qualitative difference to say, we need an accurate poll so we know how to make decisions about this race. So a billion dollars gets dumped into just one side of one race in the final months, and no one's getting rich off that?

They're getting rich. I don't think the consultants themselves are making as much as they used to. That's my impression. Interesting. The consultants I covered early in my career were like millionaires who had like their own planes and vacation houses. Most of them aren't. A few are, but most of them now,

they just kind of change the culture of how much consultants get paid. What do you make of, and at our age, is it bewildering to you to see the shuffling of the parties? You know, Dick Cheney and his daughter now campaigning for Harris, endorsed Harris. Yeah. And then you see a bunch of people you thought, Bobby Kennedy.

Right. Campaigning for Trump. What do you make of that? Well, I'll probably anger some viewers here by saying, I don't think you can attribute what the Cheneys did to anything but their belief in the unfitness of Donald Trump to be president and growing somewhat from January 6th. I don't think the Cheney's are going to get rich off of this. Oh, no. I don't think they want jobs. I mean, I think it's possible Liz would take one, but I don't think she's doing it for that at all. I don't think they hate Donald Trump for some past personal grievance. I really do believe that they think what January 6th and related things and challenging the election say about Trump's character make him unfit for the job. And they're willing to support someone whose position on issues they find to be socialist or worse. So, I think that explains- But they don't, I mean, I know them. And my take is that what they care about is not January 6th.

They care about war and the foreign policy stuff. I don't, I disagree. I think that matters to them in terms of Ukraine. And we haven't talked about the forever wars. That's something you and I see eye to eye on. And I think another huge blind spot of the dominant media is America's the is america's bipartisan from bernie sanders to donald trump disdain for the forever wars and i know the chinese disagree with that point of view but i don't think that's what's motivating the mayor i i think i think they they um and again this won't be popular with everyone watching us but they they they think that that trump makes the planet less safe by not being supportive of ukraine and and and just not uh challenging putin as aggressively as they'd like

they definitely think that yeah but i don't think that's what i don't think that i don't think i don't think that they the um the characterization of them as warmongers or lovers of the military-industrial complex. I just think they have a different point of view about how to keep the planet and the country safe. Well, they certainly, I mean, I think both are true. Yeah. Well, both are true, meaning they care about January 6th and they care about wars? No, well, I think it's overwhelmingly war. I think that in their minds, they are keeping, you know,

an international order that's been very effective intact. And Donald Trump challenges that order. And that challenges, in their opinion, like a massive threat to the world. Right. And I think that's sincere. They think that.

But I also think they're war mongers. Like, I think they think they have high motives. They may be high motives, but I also think that the root of their power is planning war. That's what makes them feel godlike. So I agree with you on the substance of their objection. I disagree with you about that being, for Liz at least, whatever, what's the opposite of subordinate over January 6th. I think January 6th really

matters to her a lot. I just do. In terms of characterizing them as warmongers, I just don't agree if I understand the term. I don't think they love war. I don't think they profit from the military industrial complex. I don't think they love war. I don't think they profit from the military-industrial complex. I don't think they're on the boards of defense contractors or they're looking to get rich. Oh, I agree. It's much deeper than that. Yeah, but they

are, they just have a very different conception than Donald Trump and then a lot of the American people about how to keep us safe. Their view of how to keep us safe is to get us into endless wars. Yeah, I completely, no, no, I completely agree with you.

Yeah. And I never thought, I thought all the Halliburton stuff was absurd. Yeah. And also a shallow analysis. Yeah, I agree. I think it's actually much worse than that. But whatever.

Well, I mean, I think it's worse in the sense that they take their intellect and their worldview and they lock us into the loss of American lives and great cost and hurt our reputation around the world. Exactly the opposite of what they think. But I don't question their, in case of the Cheneys, I don't question their belief. It's not connected to self-interest. I completely agree. The reason I'm saying it's worse is because it derives not from greed, but from hubris. And I think that's much scarier than greed. And in other words, if you think you have powers that no human possesses. For example, the power to foresee the consequences of a big decision that you make. Yeah.

You know, a rational person, by rational, I mean someone informed by humility, which is, you know, a realistic understanding of limits of his power. Yep. You do something big like invade a country and an honest person says, I have no freaking idea really what happens next. And the Cheney's, because they are like everyone in DC, bipartisan, seized with this crazed hubris. They're like, no, no, I know exactly what's going to happen. This will start a domino effect where democracy takes root in the Middle East. And like, that's insane.

Well, the fact is we do know what's going to happen if we look at history, it'll end badly. Exactly. We do know. The only thing I don't like about when you say warmongers is to me, warmonger means somebody who relishes sending the U.S. to war and maybe profits from it or does it because they're insufficiently concerned about the welfare of the country. No, no, no. I'm saying something slightly different, which is someone who believes that the most important thing he does, and I think 90% of Republican senators feel this way, for example, is sort of manage the world and is convinced that he's doing a good job and this

is like a high calling and he understands, again, consequences which no human can foresee. So, that's deeply offensive to me because I think it's like stupid and corrupt on the most basic level. You don't understand the limits of human foresight, and that's a massive problem. Yeah. And again, history makes it pretty clear. And it infuriates me when people say Trump hates NATO, Trump wants to destroy NATO. He doesn't. He wants to reform it so that it's fair to American taxpayers and that its mission matches up with our security needs. I totally agree. I, by contrast, do hate NATO and like to destroy it. So I am the radical. Trump is totally moderate on this stuff.

Yeah, I agree with you. I mean, I would only want to keep it if it were really reformed. But I think there is still purpose for it. There could be, but man, does it hurt the countries that participate. In my opinion, it eliminates their sovereignty. Yeah. And foreign troops on your soil like that's a big thing yeah the problem is they just don't have an there's there's it's the best

arrangement for maximizing our safety even even with all the flaws if it were reformed it would be it would be it would be it even flawed it's probably still the best arrangement. But if it were reformed, I think it clearly would be. Well, Western Europe is done. Its economy is in shambles. But it's not going away. Right. It's not being sold to the Martians.

It's still going to be filled with Finnish and Belgians and Dutch. They're all going to be there. You know, as someone who's part Finnish, it hurts me even to hear the word Finnish because I just think that was a country that had sovereignty, that earned it by beating one of the world's great powers in an actual battle, the Winter War of 1940, and they just gave it up to NATO

and they're going to just really suffer as a result. But I mean, would the world be better if they all had their own robust armies? No, I mean, but I, you know, Navy's and Air Force and... You know, you could easily envision like regional cooperation between say, the four Nordic countries or Eastern.

But why is that better than a continent-wide force to deal with the realities, which is Russia and China are going to threaten us for a long time? But it's not continent-wide, actually. There's just an extension of a faraway empire that doesn't have any of their interests at heart. And also, it degrades the spirit of a country

to have foreign troops on its soil. I agree with that. You look at England and it's like, why is it collapsing so fast? And I think a lot of that is, and I don't think anyone meant to do this, actually. I think a lot of the worst things that happen, to your very wise and true point about the Chinese, I think they think they're doing the right thing. I think the people who administer the EU think they're doing the right thing. I think your average NATO commander thinks he's doing the right thing. But the effect of having foreign troops on your soil for 80 years is to eliminate any pride in your country. Yeah, I agree. And I think you see that Japan's probably the country I know best.

And America's troop presence is just deleterious to their feeling like an adult country. And that's one of the reasons they have such a high suicide rate. Same with South Korea. I agree. But again, there are threats in the world that are serious. For sure. That America cannot as easily deal with, deterrence and spying and action if necessary,

if we don't have North Korea, Australia, or South Korea, Australia, Japan, and NATO countries with some degree of military cooperation. I just think it's just the reality of real estate and how long it takes to get places. You know, we cannot defend and deter from the continental United States. Just not going to happen to the same degree that's necessary to deal with middle east and russia and china and north korea yeah you know it just it just it's just a requirement geographically to be there but i agree with you but it's hurt it really is kind of like munchausen's by proxy it's like we we're killing the people we claim to love well but if but one but one of the powers of Trump's idea is if they paid more

for it, if more of it was theirs, I think it would be less infantilizing and it would be, they'd be more full partners as opposed to being under the American umbrella. Part of the challenge is also the nuclear weapons, right? We don't want these other countries to have nuclear weapons. No, that's exactly right. And if we're not partnered with the Japanese and the South Koreans and the Europeans, they're going to want nuclear weapons. No, that's exactly right. And if we're not partnered with the Japanese and the South Koreans and the Europeans, they're going to want nuclear weapons. Well, and Japan especially, because Japan, I think people, it sounds like you like and go know the area, but the one thing, I'm no expert on Asia, but having spent time there, the one thing I'm always shocked by is how totally freaked out by Japan every other country is,

particularly China. Yeah. And South Korea, too, their ally. For sure. You don't think of Japan as a martial power, because it's not. But 1945 wasn't that long ago for them. That's exactly right. Yeah. And that's, again, there's downsides to our relationship.

People in Okinawa hate the United States because of our military presence. But the upside is we have effectively restrained them and allowed them to become part of the community of nations and develop a relationship with South Korea that's stronger now. It's one of the things Biden has done successfully in foreign policy. It's stronger now than it's been since the end of the war, in part because they do not have a military that's threatening to these other countries. Yeah, the japanese are so elaborately nice they're just such wonderful people it's so hard to yeah imagine what they were not that long it's amazing to turn in one generation and i mean

if anything they could use a little bit more of the fierceness i agree than the current generation but they've been turned into just completely defanged in a way that i think has hurt the society but had to be done to some extent because of of the specter of the end of the war and the strong feelings, as you said, in China and South Korea. Wow, to this day, really, really jaundiced view of the Japanese. Yeah, it's really noticeable. Now, you asked me about Bobby Kennedy. Predicting or explaining Bobby Kennedy is like predicting or explaining Kim Jong-un. I mean, he's just a, he's a mercurial man, that Bobby Kennedy. So why is he for Trump? I think he's anti-establishment

and he believes that the current military situation, food safety, foreign wars, all of that is, requires profound change. And so I think there's some really strong ideological ties to Trump. I think he also is angry at the Democratic Party for keeping him from being able to run for the nomination fairly and for attacking him personally. So I think that's part of it too. And I think Trump offered him the better deal for what it would mean to endorse him. But I think it's a mistake to just say he's a kook who wanted a big role. I think food safety, foreign wars, military industrial complex. Yeah. All that is, if he were 50, 20 years younger, had a normal voice, and stayed on message, I think he would have been a formidable candidate.

I'd be the president of the United States. Formidable. His announcement speech was one of the best and most important speeches of the last five years by any politician. But he simply doesn't have the discipline to do this. And in that sense, he's a great companion for Donald Trump who also lacks the discipline to stay focused on the core issues that have immense appeal across party lines, not just fringe.

So he told me, I think a lot of them, I think your analysis is fair, but he told me that the Democratic Party didn't even consider talking to him. And, you know, clearly he's got a real constituency. He's an energetic man, and he's got a lot going for him, despite, you know, the deficits.

And so, like, why wouldn't you make a good faith effort to bring him over to the party that he grew up in? I don't understand that. I think that, you mean after he got out of the... Yeah, or he's considering of the yeah and or he's considering getting out obviously he's considering getting out we knew that was going to happen so like why would the kamala people try for him they just decided to not elevate him by treating him like a serious person it's a decision they made to just brand him as a kook um i'd love to see

a parallel universe if b Biden hadn't run and he had run for the Democratic nomination. I would have been curious to see how he would have done. But they just decided when he was running for the nomination to destroy him. And he made it easy through his past and his present. But having done that, I think they just felt they couldn't suddenly change and decide he was a good guy. It's, it, it, it does seem like, and Bernie Sanders obviously felt this very personally twice nominee at least one of the two times. But that's, you know, that's politics. And whether you've got an incumbent like Joe Biden or a quasi-incumbent like Hillary Clinton, you know, the party establishment's going to do what it does. And pre-Trump, that would have happened

as well in the Republican Party. So, okay, I've got two more big questions for you. First, I should have asked you earlier, who is running the country right now? Do you know? Yeah, Joe Biden and White House Chief of Staff and Senior Advisors to the President and definitely Tony Blinken and Jake Sullivan. If you manage Joe Biden's time, if you recognize when he's up to it and when he's not, he can still make a lot of decisions, and I believe does. So I don't think there's any Barack Obama

or all these other things. But the White House chief of staff has to manage that. And then there's a few very close personal aides to the president who aren't famous people, but they help figure out when to plug him into this and minimize the prospect that a big decision will be needed to be made at a time when he's not equipped to make it. It's not a great situation, but it is as evidence of the fact that the number of times he's displayed abject inability, it's probably 25 times where it's just abject. Given the circumstances, that's relatively small, and it's testament to not just the fierceness of the conspiracy, but the degree to

which it's well-managed, have to understand under the circumstances, if there's not going to be an invocation of the 25th Amendment, if he's not going to resign, we have to be grateful that it's well managed. Let's say Trump wins three weeks from today. What happens?

The Democratic Party is, I mean, as you said, a lot of Democrats, maybe the majority, believe that Trump becoming president again is the worst thing that ever could happen. So how do they respond to that? I say this not flippantly. I think it will be the cause of the will question their connection to the nation, their connection to other human beings, their connection to their vision of what their future

for them and their children could be like. And I think that will be, require an enormous amount of access to mental health professionals. I think it'll lead to trauma in the workplace. I think there'll be some degree of- Are you being serious? 100% serious. 100% serious. I think there'll be alcoholism, there'll be broken marriages, there'll be- What? Yeah. They think he's the worst person possible to be president. And having won by the hand of

Jim Comey and Fluke in 2016 and then performed in office for four years and denied who won the election last time in January 6th, the fact that under a fair election, America chose by the rules pre-agreed to Donald Trump again, I think it will cause the biggest mental health crisis in the history of America. And I don't think it will be kind of a passing thing that by the inauguration will be fine. I think it will be sustained and unprecedented and hideous. And I don't think the country's ready for it. So mental health crises often manifest in violence. Yeah, I think there'll be some violence. I think there'll be workplace fights. There'll be fights at kids' birthday parties.

I think there'll be protests that will turn violent. I hope they're not, but I think there will be some. But I think it'll be less anger and more a failure to understand how it could happen. You know, like the death of a child or your spouse announcing that, you know, your wife announcing she's a lesbian and she's leaving you for your best friend. Like something that's so traumatic that it is impossible for even the most mentally healthy person

to truly process and incorporate into their daily life. I hope I'm wrong, but I think that's what's going to happen for tens of millions of people because they think that their fellow citizens supporting Trump is a sign of fundamental evil at the heart of their fellow citizens and of the nation. That's how they view it. Well, that's very heavy. Yeah. So that's one thing I think will happen. And then I hope that Trump handles it well. I hope that he recognizes both his responsibility and his self-interest, and that he chooses in his words and in his cabinet and White House appointments, nominations, and in his initial legislative

agenda, I hope he sees a confluence of interest between minimizing that mental health crisis and the success of his presidency. And I think he might. I'm bullish on him seeing the alignment of those two things. Wow. And if he loses, what happens? Well, it'll depend on how he loses.

It'll depend on if it's close and if he and his supporters see wrongdoing in casting and counting of ballots in the seven states. It's very difficult for me to imagine her winning by enough that that doesn't happen. I've been disappointed in the efforts in the states. There are some in every one of the seven, but they're not mature enough to prepare to explain to people, elections are messy, but this one wasn't stolen. Our electoral votes were awarded correctly to Kamala Harris. I think if that somehow goes well,

and if Donald Trump himself doesn't challenge the results, Twitter can do what it wants to do. I think that the negative impact of her winning on the psychology of the losers will not be as great, but I don't think it'll be nothing. And I think there'll be all sorts of things, lawfare, replacing Biden with her after Trump had spent millions trying to beat Biden, the media's completely full body on the scale. I think all those things will lead to mass skepticism that the election was fair. And I think it'll be up to luck that the result is clear-cut enough that people don't feel reflexively it was unfair. I think it'll be up to what Trump's attitude is. And I think it'll be up to the governors of the states, whether they're Republicans or Democrats, and most of the battleground state governors are Democrats, to be as transparent and clear about any irregularity and its potential impact on the outcome. If all that happens and Kamala Harris decides to, in the transition and in her inaugural address and in her legislative agenda, to be gracious.

I think that we could be in a decent place. I think there'll probably be a Republican Senate. And I think people have failed to game out, if there's a Republican Senate, a Democratic House, a Democratic president, all of MAGA and those unhappy with her winning will put their chips in the Senate and say, it's up to the Senate to keep her from turning this into a far-left country. And that goes first and foremost in the initial instance to nominations. I think it'll be very difficult for her to nominate anyone acceptable to the left who can be confirmed by that Senate. So they'll just keep people in place?

Well, I mean, you can't be acting forever. It's very limited what you can do as an acting secretary. And she'll want her people. So I worry a lot about that. One of she emerges from this election with the country in love with her, not a whole country, but enough to have a honeymoon. If she rises to the occasion, if world leaders don't seem poised to take advantage of her in some way, even if all that happens, I really do worry about her getting a government in place because I don't think a Republican Senate is going to confirm the kind of people who Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and AOC are going to demand her to nominate. You hear people mutter darkly about some kind of civil conflict, the possibility of that. Are you worried about that? Less than most, but I don't dismiss it entirely. Again, I'm a big believer in governors, right? Civil conflict will take place in the state of some governor, by definition. I hope the governors all have great bipartisan

plans for minimizing this and for policing peaceful protests and not allowing them to escalate, but not trampling on the First Amendment. I think we could have violence regardless of who wins. I think both sides are capable of that. I think the chances of it are minimized if the losing presidential candidate makes it clear they don't want that to happen. And if the governors are vigilant in devising plans to balance public safety with the First Amendment. If those things happen, I really, I'm not all that concerned about violence. If those things don't happen, I'm deeply concerned about it. Mark Halpern, I am grateful. I mean it, that you are still a powerful voice in media after all these years. Well, you're very nice. It's great to be here. And your place in the world,

as you know, we have lots of mutual friends who say to me and to other people you know, what's happened to Tucker? What has happened to Tucker? And I say, let me go find out.

I'll be back. So I'll go report back. You're right here. Right here. Good natured, iconoclastic, interested in the world. And as we say, unafraid to stand up when you agree and disagree. My cousins all say that. What happened to Tucker? We're worried about him. Yeah. I have dinner all the time with people who've known you for longer than I've known you, and they just all, what happened to Tucker? What happened to him? What happened to Tucker? Well, it just,

it was too corrupt for me. Had to leave. Yeah. But so I'm, I'm glad I can, I can go back to New York and maybe I'll do a zoom. Give the ball my best. I will. I'll say here's, here's what happened to Tucker. He's got a nice desk, nice table with some good microphones, sturdy, eats right, exercises when possible. When possible. Anyway, you're nice to host me. Thank you. I loved it. Thank you. Good to see you. Thanks for listening to Tucker Carlson Show. If you enjoyed it, you can go to tuckercarlson.com to see everything that we have made, the complete library, tuckercarlson.com.