The Young Turks - Election Eve Panic!

Episode Date: November 5, 2024

Harris and Trump battle down to the wire in swing states, according to Times/Siena polls. Trump discusses reporters being shot and regrets leaving the White House after his 2020 loss. Claims of voter fraud flood social media ahead of the U.S. election. Netanyahu’s office faces accusations of leaking information to prevent a Gaza cease-fire." HOST: Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur), David Shuster (@DavidShuster) HOSTS: Cenk Uygur (@social) & Ana Kasparian (@social) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞  https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER  ☞       https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM  ☞  https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK  ☞          https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH  ☞      https:/www.shoptyt.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. How do you like my garbage truck? Welcome to our trash revolution. Begha! Welcome to the Young Turks. Jake you or David Schuzer with you guys a day before the most uncertain election of our lifetimes.

Live from the Polymarket Studios, David, this is crazy. I have never seen an election. Not just this close, but this unpredictable thoughts. I hate to rain on your parade, Jank. You know I love you, but I have a feeling this is actually not going to be close and that all the polls are going to be proven dead wrong. And we'll get into that in a moment. I just, there's a lot of anecdotal evidence and also some hard evidence that suggests women are turning out in far greater numbers than anybody had anticipated. And if that's true, then all the pre-election polls were off.

Okay, so can't wait is my answer to that. So we've got a hell of a show for you guys, all the things that I promise over the weekend. We've got the latest polls. We have the Epstein tapes of how close to friends they were with Donald Trump. We've got all the madness of Tucker Carlson now coming out and saying that the abortions are causing hurricanes. Like maximum madness the day before. And then in the bonus episode, I begin the populist revolt.

12 people have already joined me, so it's nearly complete. We'll explain what we're going to do after the election, no matter who wins, perfect time to be a member. Hit that beautiful join button or t.wit.com slash 2024. All right, David, let's get to it then. Bombshell earthquake, bomb shell earthquake tsunami. That is how the U.S. political world is describing a staggering poll that came out over the weekend in Iowa, A red state, the survey for the Des Moines Register by respected pollster and Seltzer prompted this headline.

Iowa poll, Kamala Harris, leapfrogs Donald Trump to take lead near Election Day. Here's how. A new Des Moines Register, a media com Iowa poll shows Vice President Harris leading former President Trump, 47 to 44 percent among likely voters just days before high stakes election that appears deadlocked in key battleground states. The results follow September Iowa poll that showed Trump with a four-point lead over Harris and a June Iowa poll showing him with an 18. point lead over Democrat, President Joe Biden, who was a presumptive Democratic nominee at the time. Anne Seltzer, who put together this poll, she then won on television a lot, and she explained the 4744 margin for Harris this way. Digging into the data, we determined that it wasn't

people switching positions. It was new people, perhaps a bigger pool of people, deciding to vote. And at that time, our definition of a likely voter was somebody who tells us they will definitely vote. And the numbers were especially notable among older people, among women, and among college graduates. These are all groups that are tilting toward Harris. So it seemed like there was a get off the bench moment. A separate poll conducted by Emerson finds that Donald Trump is ahead in Iowa by 10. So what's the difference? Well, Anne Seltzer said that Emerson, and she kind of ranked on Emerson and another media

parents, Emerson started with their assumptions and started with a model about what the turnout would be for various demographic groups, including women and older voters. Seltzer said she, by contrast, surveyed that to come up with her model about what the demographics and the participation would be in the election. So women are breaking for Harris by double digits, according to Seltzer. And even if double digit is the lead that Donald Trump has with men in Iowa, because women are coming in as a much larger percentage of the electorate, 55, 56%, that helps explain why Harris, according to Seltzer is winning Iowa state that Donald Trump is supposed to win. Now, Ann Seltzer's survey has caused heartache and heartburn from Maga World because, again, if women are turning in higher percentages for Harris and there are a higher percentage of the electorate, then the pre-election polls, most of the polls are wrong. And according to the latest New York Times, Siena poll, late deciders are coming in 55% for Harris, 44% for Trump. And the 8% of the elector, this is what 8% of the elector makes up the decision

late. Again, they're breaking for Harris by, you know, you're looking at it, 11 points. The polling comes as more than 70 million Americans have already voted, according to the University of Florida election lab, roughly 40% of those surveyed by the Times, in a poll across the seven battleground states said they had already voted. Harris wins those voters by a margin of eight percentage points the polls found. Trump has an edge among voters who say they are highly likely to vote, but have not yet cast a ballot. So the question is, will the voters who have yet to cast a ballot, will they be able to erase the margins for Trump that Harris has already accumulated? In other words, where more Trump voters show up on

election day, and usually that's the case based on 2020 and also 2016, is a is that early voters favor the Democrats, late voters to favor the Republicans. But will Donald Trump be able to run up his numbers in enough of these states on election day to make up what appears to be a Harris lead? And some interesting information about early voting. In North Carolina, for example, the election already has 59% voter participation before election day. In 2020, the overall participation in North Carolina was 72%. There was also something like 16 to 17% of the elector that voted on election day. So again, the question becomes, What percentage is voting on election day?

Does that number still withstand the Harris lead or is it something that turns the numbers back around towards Donald Trump? According to a number of, now back to the Iowa poll, because according to a number of strategists, it's more than just Iowa that is at stake if in fact, Ann Seltzer is correct. If she is correct and women are a larger part of the electorate and there's a greater percentage of older voters that are polling for Harris than for Donald Trump, Well, that could have an impact, not just in Iowa, but in a lot of other states as well. And in fact, in Kansas, there's a poll that shows Donald Trump, who Donald Trump won Kansas by 14 points in 2020. He's only ahead of Kamala Harris by four. So there is a suggestion here that perhaps Ansela is on to something, and that has led to some remarkable pronouncements by some former Republican Strouders, just including Mark McKinnon on CNN. She's been the most reliable pollster that I've ever worked with in my career.

And I've worked with a lot of them. So it just, if directionally she's right and Trump just wins Iowa by a lot less than we thought he was going to, that just has huge consequences for the actual swing states. So again, I think if Seltzer is half right about Iowa, I think Harris could win all seven swing states. So I'll just say it now, I know you're not the prediction fixes, but I'm getting in it. Harris is going to blow the doors off. misconvigated because of women and the granny gap. And of course, they could apply

not just to Iowa, but also to Wisconsin and Michigan, other Midwestern battleground states. And by the way, I mentioned Kansas a moment ago. Kansas was one of those states that had an abortion ballot on that was essentially up for a referendum to try to further restrict abortion after the Supreme Court Dobbs decision. That was rejected by the voters. They rejected the abortion restrictions. Abortion restrictions have been defeated in every state where they've been on the ballot. So even Republican states, women have come out and said, no, no, we're not going to have this. And they voted against it. Also in special elections, for the last two years since the Supreme Court Dobbs decision, Democrats have outperformed in congressional elections and special

elections and state and local elections that they were expected to lose or be close, they have outperformed the pre-election polling and the expectations, which suggests that women are a bigger part of this electorate than they would have been had it not been for the Supreme Court decision two years ago. Now, there's one of the thing to keep in mind in all of this. We talk about under, we're talking about overperforming compared to the polls. Somebody else who has overperformed repeatedly in his elections, Donald Trump. He was expected to lose some of these battleground states to Joe Biden by much greater margins than he actually did. And so the lingering question out there is, are there enough people out there who do not want

to admit to pollsters and surveys that yes, they're pulling the lever for Donald Trump? Will that number essentially mean that Donald Trump's expected final result will be higher than the poll suggest, and we will soon find out. Jack? Okay, I've got even more information that's late breaking in a second for you guys. But first, let me begin to break this down. This election is not necessarily going to be the closest. There's been some unbelievably close elections, obviously 2,000 Bush v. Gore, separated by a couple hundred votes in Florida, and then 43,000 votes in the three swing states in the last election made the difference. So I don't know that this is going to be the closest. In fact, at the end of the day, as David's pointing out, it might not

even be that close, especially in the electoral college. But what it is is the most unpredictable election of my lifetime. It's for the two reasons that David explained there. So in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump got all of these unexpected voters. And even in the states that Joe Biden won, Michigan and Wisconsin, for example, he had around an eight-point lead and barely wound up winning them by about 0.6. So tons of unexpected voters came in for Donald Trump. And I've explained that phenomenon for the last eight years. No one in mainstream media wants to hear it. And they still don't understand it. It's people who don't normally vote going, oh, there's someone that's against the system. Well, I hate this system. I'm going to show up and vote for that guy.

Now, I think, of course, Donald Trump's a fake populist. You've heard me say that a million times. But that is what's driving them. On the other hand, in 2022 and 23, a ton of unexpected women voters showed up, and the Democrats did better than expected, which hadn't happened in a long time. So what we're in is a battle of unexpected voters, which side is going to have more unexpected voters? So when we look at that, well, a couple of data points that David just shared with you stick out to me as the most relevant.

The late deciders breaking 11% in favor of Kamala Harris is a big deal. Because now we're no longer talking about polling and the assumptions that those different pollsters make when it comes to their polling. Now we're talking about actual votes, right? And if she's winning by 11% in people who actually voted already, well, that's a big deal. And especially because in that category, they hadn't made up their mind until very recently. So they're breaking towards her. We're not talking about the people who are already on the two different sides. So score one for her on that.

And then to me, North Carolina was really interesting because Kamala Harris's team pulled out a lot of their ads from North Carolina around a week ago, even less. And that seemed to be signaling surrender there, that they had lost. and the polling was trending towards Donald Trump in North Carolina. It looked like he was going to put it away. But now, over 50% of the vote is already in. And you know on election nights, we'll tell you, as the percentage of the vote gets higher, it becomes so much harder for the other side to overcome a lead,

because let's say it's 50% of the vote is in and Kamala Harris is up by 8, which is actually the situation in North Carolina, And we believe so far based on the information that we have, it's not at all definitive, guys. So if that's true, then Donald Trump would have to win the other 50% by more than eight points to bring it back to a tie and then to be able to take the lead. Right. So that's a lot of votes to make up. And so I think that if those numbers are true, that's super hard for to make up. On the other hand, here's a new data point. John Ralston is the most respected reporter in Vegas. He's been covering these elections for a long time. He's been right about a lot

of the election results. He kept talking about rural voters coming in at much larger numbers than they normally do in Nevada elections, and that was leaning towards Trump. So he was giving signals throughout that Nevada was headed towards Trump. But here at the last day, he turned around and said, no, based on what he's seeing recently and his intuition and all the other things that go into it, he believes that Kamala Harris is going to pull out Nevada barely by like 0.3% or so. So the two most important demographic groups are both women. It's just two different kinds of women. So one is independent women that are now coming in in that Seltzer poll in Iowa at two to one margin for Kamala Harris. Remember, this is not Democratic

women. This is independent women. And now independents outnumber Republicans and Democrats in the country. So which way independence break is super relevant. The late deciders going to Kamala Harris, independent women going to Kamala Harris in giant numbers. And then the last one is potentially the most important, senior women. So that is why Caitlin Collins on CNN reporting that those Iowa numbers came in like a gut punch to the Trump team, because if they're losing senior white women in the numbers that they're losing them in Iowa, if that poll is accurate, oh boy, then they're in a lot of trouble. And they're bleeding out senior voters in a ways that people didn't expect. Meanwhile, this is again, this election is so topsy-turvy. We're in the middle

of a transition. The parties are transitioning, the voters are transitioning. So Trump is picking up a lot more younger voters who are frustrated with the Democratic Party and Kamala Harris and the inability of Democrats to ever get anything done. On the other hand, the Democrats are picking up a lot of senior voters who are worried about Donald Trump's instability and his attacks on the Constitution and democracy. So at the end of all of that, with now less than a day to go, I'm at, I don't know, and I think that everybody should be at, I don't know. I think both sides are overconfident. Those unexpected voters from Trump can still show up, just like they did in the last two presidential elections.

And those unexpected women voters are already showing up. And the question is, to what degree does that cavalry arrive? Is it a normal size election, a little bit more than normal, or do they show up in giant numbers? I'm so glad you mentioned younger voters because one of the things that Ann Seltzer pointed out is that the share of the Iowa electorate when you look at older voters and younger voters was much more sort of weighted she found towards older voters. People over 65 were turning out. out in a greater participation than a lot of people had thought. And people who are younger voters, 25 and younger, were turning out a much less number than a lot of people who thought. And if you go through some of the pre-election polls that have been over the last couple

of weeks, especially, so there's that in Iowa. If you go over the pre-election polls, especially some of the Republican paid for polls that are out there that, in my view, are not scientific or statistically significant in the least. But a lot of them used a model that suggested, okay, we'll take the number from 2020, that will have women will be something like 53, 54% of the electorate. Okay, that's fine, except that in some of these battleground states, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Wisconsin, not so much, but Michigan, you're looking at numbers

of 55, 56% women in terms of the overall makeup of the election. And so when you have that one to two percentage point difference in terms of the overall participation and you have a larger pool of women and you already have women who are voting for Harris over Trump, as you said, you know, by 15%. 20 points, that's where the difference becomes. And that is, there's not enough male voters, even if they're supporting Donald Trump in the same way that women are supporting Kamala Harris, there's just not enough men to make up that gap. And then likewise, you add to the mix, if people over 65 are breaking for Harris in the way that they're breaking in Iowa, and you don't

have the younger turnout that a lot of these pre-election polls suggested, then that means these pre-election polls were wrong. And I think the other piece about it is we know there are some of these pre-election polls that were done by Republicans that were part of a strategy by the Trump campaign to be able to say, look, the election was stolen if I lost because look at the pre-election polls, I was winning. I was winning all these states. There's no way I could have lost unless the Democrats stole it. And I think there are some organizations, some fly-by-night organizations that decided to participate in this and to essentially cook the books to try to help Donald Trump and perhaps give more enthusiasm to Republicans and to press Democrats. But that also fed into

of the narrative because the mainstream news organizations that did essentially a polling average, they included all the numbers. They included every poll in terms of their real clear politics average of the polling for the states and nationally. And so it had the effect of some of these Trump favoring polls, tightening the race and making it seem much closer than it might otherwise have been. So I think to your point, it's a sort of a chaos election. Nobody really knows, but at least in terms of likely voters who's showing up the numbers are not matching with some of these pre-election polls had been counting on. And I think that's why you're seeing so much enthusiasm for Kamala Harris and a sense of a dread developing in the Trump campaign.

Yeah. So tomorrow, our election coverage starts at noon Eastern. Don't miss a minute of it. It's going to be amazing. David's going to be part of Michael Schor, Anna Kusperian, John Iderola, et cetera. And we're going to focus right at t.com. And at tyot.com, we'll also have all the election news, all the exit polls, all the, you know, hubbub around the long lines, the Republicans claiming fraud, etc. But I want to end on a couple of important things here. So to David's point about some of the nonsense polls in there, real clear politics is a place that a lot of people go. But they included two nonsense Republican polls at a minimum, maybe three. And so that skews their average. And that skews the way the people are looking at it. I try to ignore the

as much as possible. But still, at this late date, the very last polls that came in, most of them have Kamala Harris winning the election overall. But New York Times, and now there's two butts there. One is they're all over the place. Some have her holding the blue wall, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, and others, but losing Nevada and Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia. Others have her winning Wisconsin and Michigan and Arizona and North Carolina, but not Pennsylvania. And they're just, they're all over the place. Every poll has different states going to different people. Kamala Harris is winning almost all of them that are not like weirdo, Jerry-rigged Republican polls. But New York Times Sienna poll comes in at the end. She wins

overall but she's tied in Pennsylvania and Michigan. Well, if she doesn't win Pennsylvania and Michigan, she's not going to win. So that leaves us that it is near impossible to one last thing. The national average has them close. See, that doesn't make any sense either because you were close nationally, then the Republican candidate is much, much, much more likely to win. But yet when you look at the swing states, they're not matching any of the old patterns. And ultimately decides it is state by state so the swing states will make all the difference. So that leaves Nate Silver, Frank Luntz, Harry Enton, and myself for whatever it's worth, all that I don't know and neither does anyone else. Okay, the

people who are usually the most certain are the least certain in this election. But David, it seemed like you might be more certain. Well, I'll give you one thing I am certain about, and then I'm curious about your opinion. Rina Thea on Twitch, one of our members there wrote in, Women Might Save You All. Well, that's definitely true because if Kamala Harris wins, it will definitely be because the cavalry arrived, and that cavalry is female voters in larger numbers than expected.

So that part is clear, but we don't know that that's definitely going to happen, or maybe the Trump voters overwhelm, et cetera. right. So if she wins, it's because of women voters, but I don't know at this late date whether she's going to win. David, you sounded more confident before we came on air. What's your take? Yeah, I'm going to go on. I don't think it's so much of a limb because, look, I make this decision in part based on what I've seen in some of the cross stabs and some of the percentages of people who have already voted, the way the numbers are coming in. I do think that women as a percentage of this electorate, it's coming in higher by a percentage point or two

the nearly all the pre-election polls. So that favors Kamala Harris. The other part is, if again, you look back at the last two years, every single election Democrats have outperformed the pre-election polling. Ballot initiatives, special elections, mayoral races. There was a race in Anchorage, Alaska, Republican town that Donald Trump carried by 14 points. This year, the Democrat won by 12. I mean, there's just, it just feels like there was this wave of participants that have not previously been counted as likely voters. So my sense, and, you know, maybe it's going going on in a limb, maybe it's overconfidence, maybe it's partly wishful thinking. But my gut tells me that the polling is wrong, that there's a greater participation of women than anybody had

anticipated, that younger voters are not going to turn out for Donald Trump in the way they had been counting on, and that, yes, senior voters are breaking harder for Trump. And remember, in the course of four years, you get a cohort of five or six million senior voters who are not voting anymore because they're dead or they're incapacitated. So there's a group that, you know, essentially reshuffles in terms of the older cohort. So to put it bluntly, I think she is going to win six of the seven battleground states. I think some of them will be very close, Nevada and Arizona, very tight. I think North Carolina and Georgia could be tight.

Pennsylvania could be tight. But I think you'll have a couple of them that she'll win by 50 or 60,000 votes. And I'm pretty confident. And I know this may be an outlier. I think that by midnight, Eastern time and election night, we're going to know that Kamala Harris has won this election. And the only thing that's left is certification and maybe. making sure that the ballots are official.

But I just think that there are going to be so many states that she's going to win battleground states that it's going to be over on election night. That's where I feel it's going. Okay, strong statement. I like it at noon Eastern tomorrow on election day when we start our coverage on t.com. I will be forced to make a prediction. And I will. And we're going to ask you guys, our viewers, to make predictions.

And whoever is the most accurate will be declared the election champion. of the world. Now, what does that mean? Nothing outside of you being election champion of the world, but you'll get to brag about it for the rest of time, that you are the one person who knew best. So that's what we're going to try to determine. And Jen, I'm going to add some fun. If I'm wrong, if she does not win six of seven battleground states, suppose she only wins two or three and it's tighter she loses the election, I will come back on TYT and I will literally eat this paper that I've written some of my data on. I will eat it on live. E.Y.T. I will humiliate myself. I will shame myself. I will apologize. I will say, never

believe Schuster again. He's wrong. He's an idiot. He's a moron. But I don't think that's going to happen. I think she's going to win and it's going to be a blowout. I like how strong David's coming in. It's usually my move. Mike, in this case, I'm not at all sure, but David seems very sure. I'm so curious to see if that's going to turn out to be true. I can't wait. So I hope We see you all on Election Day and see how it actually turns out. All right, we're going to take a quick break here. Let's see, we've got so much more election news for you guys, including Donald Trump's wild new threats when we return. All right, back on TYT, Jank, and David, with you guys.

Make sure you're checking out, David, on Rebel Headquarters. Rebel Headquarters is a great channel out that TYT has. Tons of our poster on there, so definitely check that out. You get a chance on YouTube. Hubcaps, thank you for the wonderful donation through t.com slash 2024. Guys, that is super important to us. We're trying to raise $100,000 through the election. definitely need it. We wouldn't ask if we didn't need it. And we're trying to make this,

you know, this year our last ask. I mean, two, two, two. I hope so. Because we got to stay in business here as we go along. And it's been super hard times in media. So t.yt.com slash 24. And then on YouTube, Mika Peabody, Michael Flanagan, Christian Emery. Thank you so much, guys, for joining. They hit that gorgeous join button below. Gabby Mathis gifted five and Dawn Whitehead, gifted one membership on YouTube to. You guys are all amazing. We love our audience. David. Well, Jenka, Donald Trump seems to keep inciting violence. Watch. I have a piece of glass over here, and I don't have a piece of glass there. And I have

this piece of glass here. But all we have really over here is the fake news, right? And to get me, somebody would have to shoot through the fake news. And I don't mind that so much, because I don't mind. As we get closer and closer to that moment when the balance actually start getting counted, Donald Trump keeps ramping up his very dangerous rhetoric this time inciting violence against the press. This was his Pennsylvania rally on Sunday. he said he would not mind if somebody shot through the press to get to him. As usual, Trump's team is trying to engage in some damage control, this time putting a

truly bizarre spin on Trump's comments. Trump campaign spokesperson Stephen Chung said in a statement, the president's statement about protective glass placement has nothing to do with the media being harmed or anything else. It was about threats against him that were spurred on by dangerous rhetoric from Democrats. In fact, President Trump was stating that the media. was in danger and that they were protecting him and therefore were in great danger themselves and should have had a glass protective shield also. There can be no other interpretation of what was said.

He was actually looking out for their welfare for more than his own, far more than his own. Wow. In addition to making light about violence against the press, Trump also made this concerning comment during the rally. Watch. We had the best economy ever. We had the wall. We had everything. I built over 500 miles away.

They don't even talk about the wall. But we had the best border, the safest border. I won't pull down my world's favorite chart because I don't want to waste a lot of your time. But my world's favorite chart, done by the border patrol, it said we had the safest border in the history of our country the day that I left. I shouldn't have left. I mean, honestly, because we did so well. He shouldn't have left. And there's your admission from Donald Trump about his desire to state office. Just two days before the election. And Jank, one other thing that has

happened on this day, Donald Trump made a remark where he talked about inviting Mike Tyson that maybe Mike Tyson should get in a ring with Kamala Harris, suggesting that he would like to see Kamala Harris punched in the face. It's bizarre. Jank? Yeah, I mean, he's mainly punching himself in the face by doing this rhetorically. And in in the elections. When you are trying to win an election where there's going to be, it appears, record voter turnout from women, to constantly be talking about attacking women is not a great idea. And so I'm going to protect him whether they like it or not. Not a good look, right? And now talking about putting her in the ring with Mike Tyson makes you sound like you're a wife

beater, which, by the way, according to his ex-wife, Ivana, he is. And so, and you allow people to bring back all of those stories of all the different sexual assaults and domestic assault, et cetera, that has haunted Donald Trump in the past. Now, no smart candidate would say things like that, but Donald Trump, as we all know, is not a very stable genius. He's a very, very unstable person. That's why he says ludicrous things that cost him tons of votes before the election. That brings us to the media thing. Look, guys, I get that he had a joking tenor to that conversation, but after they all yelled at us and everyone involved, Democrats, media, the MAGA and Trump did, like, oh my God,

you guys said mean things about Donald Trump. And some of them were such insults that we think that it might have led to people taking a shot at him. So you all have to bring now your brother. I remember Pierce Morgan yelling at me for about 20 minutes straight about, oh my God, the Democrats have such terrible violent rhetoric. And you can't say the democracy is on the line. If you say democracy on the line, that means he's a fascist.

That means he's like Hitler. That means somebody should, like eight different steps, right? Here, there's no extra steps. He says, they'll have to shoot through the media, which I wouldn't mind. So what happened to be outraged by violent rhetoric? I guarantee you, Pierce Morgan, MAGA, Trump world will not be outraged by it at all because they feel that they are entitled to say things like that, but no one is allowed to say anything back.

I don't want either side doing any violent rhetoric. It's a really dumb idea and for Trump to do it. Well, he could say he was joking, but so was the comedian who called Puerto Rico garbage. How's that working out for you guys? Again, if you're a Republican, you should be 10,000 times angry at Donald Trump than we are because he's costing you the election. None of this makes anybody at home who is undecided go, you know what, Trump's not joking around about shooting the media.

That makes me think that he's really stable and that's the guy we got to go back to. I bet we won't have four years of anarchy as he calls out enemy from within and how people he doesn't like are criminals and rapists. should we use the military to shoot them and the media ha ha wouldn't it be funny if they were shot so please spare me any fake fake fake outrage about what any democrat says after Trump says all of this well the irony of this jank is that also i mean there's already sort of a blame game that's sort of being by both campaigns if harris loses they've already tried to figure out you know who's going to be responsible to blame joe by and if if Donald Trump loses some of his people

already saying it's Donald Trump's fault and I think there's actually some merit to the argument that Donald Trump's campaign has actually been fairly disciplined. If you look at the speeches, just the part that is actually supposed to be on the prompter, not the ad living, he's constantly supposed to be focused on inflation, whether inflation is up or down, is irrelevant. He claims it's the record inflation, immigration, that we have a, you know, a swarm coming in, that violence is up, even though that's not true.

But the campaign itself has been very disciplined in trying to get voters to focus just on that. And if you look at the advertisements, the ads are fairly effective in drumming home those messages. But what Donald Trump, who has always been undisciplined and always likes to sort of ramble has been doing for the last several weeks, is constantly stepping on the campaign message. And it's, you know, I guess there was a time four years ago, maybe even eight years ago where Donald Trump's rambling, so a little more, in a little more bite to the curveball. He hadn't quite lost a step yet. And so I suppose there was a sense of humor when Donald Trump would sort of go off the cuff and very charismatic and he would engage voters. and they loved it.

But now Donald Trump is old, he's lost a few steps, he's slower, and some of his comments just don't make any sense. And at a campaign where discipline, really, it would be crucial for Donald Trump if he's going to win this thing, he's his own worst enemy by constantly reminding people of things they don't like about him and constantly energizing women, older voters, people who care about democracy, people who don't like wife beating. I mean, Donald Trump was essentially checking all the boxes for essentially getting out the vote for Democrats.

Yeah, and two more things from what we just discussed. Him saying that I shouldn't have left. Like, what is that? Like, okay, hey, we, I wish I had won, but we would have had a better four years, perfectly fine. Of course, that's totally fine, right? I shouldn't have left. Well, brother, that's how losing an election works.

You leave. If you say I lost the election, which he knows he did, and you don't leave, problem. In fact, that's the number one reason why seniors are switching over to Kamala Harris is because this guy says he won't leave. But this idiot doesn't realize that. And he's like, oh, I got a great idea. I'll tell him everything is rigged. Then I'm not going anywhere. I'm not going to accept any defeat. I mean, they asked him a simple question during the debates. Are you in favor of a peaceful transfer of power? He's like, well, it depends. No, it doesn't

depend. The peaceful transfer of power is at the very end. After all the counts and recounts, etc. So if you've gotten all your recounts and you've gotten all your court cases, it doesn't depend. You need a peaceful transfer of power. That's why we talk about how he's a wannabe dictator, et cetera, because he doesn't understand the simple concept of if you lose, you leave. And so this guy, he's, look, the mainstream media used the word, uses the word disqualifying way, way, way too often. They'll drop it at the, you know, at any mention of a thing that they don't like. But not leaving after you lose an election and encouraging a riot where they chanted about

killing your vice president and you saying he deserved it to your chief of staff and talking about terminating constitution. Yeah, yeah, those are reasons why people say, I. I think it is disqualifying. What if we put you back in and you don't leave? Finally, we'll end on a funny note because he, David Ray did you, Stephen Chung's comment about the rally comment about shooting at the media. He said that he, that Trump was just looking out for their welfare, the media's more than his own.

Except you heard him say, well, they'd have to shoot through the media. And I don't think I'd mind that. How is that looking out for theirs? So that's my point, guys, whether it's Trump or all the people around them. They don't mind lying to you brazenly and rubbing your face in it. Yeah, he said, shoot the media, I don't mind, whether it was joking or not. And I'm going to now pretend that he meant protect the media. Well, okay, why don't you just hang a giant sign around your neck saying, I'm a giant liar.

You should never trust anything that comes out of the Trump campaign. But they found, as I understand it, I mean, I don't know what's happened in last day or so. But they found, in Lancaster, they found 2,600 ballots all done by the same hand. In other words, the same exact penmanship, the same hand, the same everything. It was all done by the same pen, the exact same pen. The exact same pen, the exact same hand, that everything Donald Trump said there is a lie. In Pennsylvania, up to 2,500 voter registration applications, registration applications, not ballots, were identified as potentially fraudulent.

But of course, facts that never stopped Donald Trump from crying election fraud. And with the election day, of course, coming up very soon, it does look like we're in for many more lies from Trump and other Republicans. In fact, just this morning, Donald Trump Jr., Donald Trump Jr., said the following. Watch.

You know what they're going to try to do. We've seen this playbook before, but this time we're prepared. So if we win decisively tomorrow, you don't give them a week to find that magical truck filled of ballots, right? No one knows where they came from, but take back your country, America. Take it back from magical ballots that are suddenly going to be trunked in. Well, on Steve Bannon's podcast, Tucker Carlson pushed the lie even further. What I'm really struck by is how virtually every Trump voter I talked to, and maybe even some on the fence voters, says basically the same thing.

You know, it's just a question of how much the Democratic Party cheats in this election, which is another way of saying the whole country seems to have accepted the reality that, you know, one of the two big political parties doesn't believe in democracy is willing to cheat and ignore the will of the population of the citizenry. that's really dark as someone who spent, you know, I don't know, something like 15 hours in depositions imposed, I mean, by voting machine companies. And I was never named in any suit by a voting machine company, but they went out of their way to harass me, I think funded by Reid Hoffman, stole all my text messages leaked into the New York Times. I'm bitter about it still. But the, you know, for the last year and a half, the whole, you know, conservative media has been cowed into ignoring what's really obvious, which is we should not have electronic voting machines. They don't work. They're not more efficient. They're not better at counting, and they don't produce the result faster. The only reason

to have electronic voting machines is if, you know, you want to subvert them. Wow. Well, based on the claims from Donald Trump and his lackeys, including Jr. and Tucker Carlson, it seems like the writing is all in the wall. If Trump loses this election, if he does anything but win, Donald Trump and his supporters are going to cry foul. And of course, Donald Trump's cronies are going to back it up. And a vast majority of Americans see this stunt coming. A majority of American, 70 percent, according to BBC, expect Trump to reject the result if he loses, according to a CNN SSRS poll released Monday. It's also worth noting that many of Donald Trump's fake electors from 2020 have returned for the 2024 election. Of the 93 Republicans

designated as prospective presidential electors for Trump from the seven battleground states, Eight are facing felony charges for signing false electoral college certificates in 2020 according to a political analysis. Another five signed similar certificates in 2020 but were not charged and at least six others played notable roles in challenging the results of the 2020 election or promoting election conspiracy theories. All told at least one in five prospective Trump electors from battleground states this year had some connection to the scheme to overturn the 2020 election. The make matters even worse, disinformation. Disinformation is running rampant on social media.

Here's an example. The FBI and the US intelligence officials now saying Russia is behind a fake video now circulating online, showing a man who claims to be a Haitian immigrant who says he voted multiple times in Georgia. Again, the video is completely fake. Man who says he's a Haitian immigrant claims to have voted multiple times in Georgia using multiple IDs. So across the United States, a lot of election officials, Secretary of States, people who are in charge of elections are racing to try to debunk these fraudulent claims. Here's Pennsylvania's Secretary of the Commonwealth named Al Schmidt. He went on CNN to push back against Trump claims of voter fraud in his state of Pennsylvania.

I was a Republican election commissioner in Philadelphia, elected in 2011 and reelected in 2015 and reelected in 2019. investigated hundreds of allegations of voter fraud and that's why I feel like I can speak with some degree of authority and knowledge about when it occurs and when it doesn't occur and when it does occur the extent to which there's evidence of it and allegations of widespread voter fraud in Pennsylvania are completely and totally unfounded. Voters should have confidence that we will have a free, fair, safe, and secure election in 2024, just as we had in 2020. But a lot of Americans are now going to face a choice. Do you believe some of these election officials, including Republicans who say that the elections are free and fair and safe?

Or do you believe Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr. and Tucker Carlson and some of the other lackeys and minions who seem eager, Jack, to go ahead and promote this nonsense in order to somehow get Donald Trump back in power, even if it means lying about something that hasn't even happened yet. Truck loads of ballots are coming, says Don Jr. and Tucker Carlson. It's absolute nonsense. Jay? Yeah. So two things that you mentioned that are, but one of them is important. The other one is hilarious. Well, I'll get back to that in a second. But to the core of the issue, you know all the cases where we have the same handwriting, the registration applications, and a couple other cases in some states.

why we know about them, because they were caught. Oh, right, that's the system working. They seem to have forgotten that completely. The Democrats are rigging these elections. That's why the Democrats turned over fraudulent applications. Wait, what? So the Democrats and the Republicans caught different people trying to cheat on registration applications

or maybe a couple of instances of balance. Well, by definition, that's the system working. Okay, then how about the ones that are the hundreds of things out there that are unproven, okay? Well, first of all, some of those, this is a good, might be surprising. Some of those are not malicious. A lot of those are right wingers who believe everything Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump and every liar in right wing media tells them. And so they think that there's fraud everywhere. So they're like, my neighbor voted for Kamala Harris.

That's obviously fraud. No, that's not fraud. That's just your neighbor voting in a different way than you, right? Oh, yeah, what about this? What about that? Oh, she came in voting with a red shirt. Well, I don't know what you're talking about, okay? So my favorite, out of all those insane allegations, is they got one guy on video.

They're like, look at this guy dropping off all these ballots. voting station. Who is he? Well, good news, they found out who he is. The mailman. Come on, guys. And this is exactly the nonsense horse crap that, or I should say, mule crap, that Dinesh Susa did. And he put out that stupid movie 2000 mules and then the distributor of the movie then pulled it back later. So sorry, sorry, it was filled with lies. Sorry, stop suing us. Yeah, it was totally a lie, right? So there's no, and then he would do the same stupid You'd be like, look at this, ballots being moved, yet by election workers. They have to count them at some point.

That's how it works, right? And half those guys are Republicans and half the votes that they count them for, we're Republicans. So okay, all that is total nonsense by a cry baby, Donald Trump, spoiled little brat, and you're ready to go, I don't care that I lost, daddy give me my toy back, right? And that leads to the most important number that David read for you guys. That's 70%. 70% of the country thinks that Donald Trump is going to cry after the election if he loses. Cry and cry and cry and never admit that he lost.

So some portion of those are Republicans who think, good, that's what we do if we lose. We just cry forever, right? And or good people who genuinely believe because of the lies that they've been told that the election was stolen from them and that the Democrats are working with Soros and Chavez to steal all the lights, whatever, okay? So, but remember guys, a big portion of that giant number, 70% are people who are going to vote against Donald Trump because they hate his crime. They hate that when he loses an election, he won't leave.

So it's a terrible strategy. And every advisor he has had has told Donald Trump, look, in the polling, it shows that when you keep insisting like a lunatic that you won the last election, the overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe you did, and it hurts you because you look ridiculous and insane. He's like, I don't care, I never lose, daddy told me I never lose, I'm the only winner, me, me, me, me, me. Okay, well, then lose the election like a moron, which is exactly what he's doing now. And the last part is the funny part.

Did you notice what Tucker Carlson said? He had the conspiracy theory about Reed Hoffman. I don't know who got his text. I don't know how they got his text. I don't know. But he said, oh, yeah, this guy got my text. Oh, so those texts were real. Remember, in the text, he talked about how much he hated Donald Trump's guts

and how he thought he was a malignant force who should be avoided at all costs. So the texts were real, Tucker, but you're out here pretending that you're Donald Trump's best friend? Hilarious. Thank you for the admission. You hate them. There's no bigger actor in media than Tucker Carlson. Tons of right wing media actually believe the stuff that they say.

But Tucker Carlson doesn't believe a word of it, and he just confessed it to you guys while pretending to say all this lunatic stuff and pretending to be in favor of Donald Trump, as he costs Donald Trump more and more votes as the election happens. All of a sudden, we're going to show you one later today. The demon talk and how the demons are attacking, you know what that does? It turns off potential voters to Donald Trump because he doesn't want J.D. Vance to be the presumptive nominee. That's a longer conversation. We'll have it later in the show. All right. Yeah, David.

One other thing to sort of watch with all of this is there's already apparently a pressure campaign by the Trump campaign on some members of Congress, basically saying, look, no matter what happens on Tuesday night, when the votes come in, we don't want you going and supporting, you know, declarations of Kamala Harris wins this state or that state. We don't want you saying anything or else. And I keep thinking, well, what's the or else? I mean, if Donald Trump loses this election, what leverage does he have over sitting members of Congress who say, no, I accept the results? Because Donald Trump is done. So it's sort of an interesting dynamic here that, sure, I can understand why, you know, until every vote is counted, until it's official, and they're going to be voters on the West Coast, and you don't want to

cost, you don't want to cost, you know, house seats in the West Coast by prematurely declaring, oh, yeah, the election's over, Donald Trump is lost. Kamala Harris is going to be president. But on the other hand, it's not like Donald Trump has a sort of leverage that he might have had, say, four years ago or certainly eight years ago in terms of pressuring members of Congress to go along with his nonsense. Yeah, David, my only answer to that is that he will lie so many times that he'll get his base to be super angry at the Republican politicians that acknowledge reality. So they're going to have to battle that base for a long time, even if Trump is gone. And the more Trump lies, the more they believe him, and the more they think that election

was stolen, that everything is rigged and nothing is true. So that's the albatross around the Republican Party's neck for a long time. But hey, Democrats, don't get too smug. The establishment is the albatross around your neck and you don't even realize it. So we'll see what happens after the election. But one thing that would be nice is if everyone acknowledged objective reality. And to the Democrats' credit, they generally do do that. They might complain, oh, it wasn't our fault. It was Jill Stein.

It was the Russians. It was this, it was that. But at the end of the day, they accept the results. But Donald Trump is a unique danger to democracy. He never accepts results if he loses. So that's why people are going to vote against them. Because they think this guy cheats and doesn't really believe in our system. of government, and I think they're right. All right. We're going to take a quick break here. We'll be right back.

going to love that. I want to thank a whole bunch of good people. Carrie Dragon Yaya, thank you for the gifted membership on YouTube, J. Bomb Dragon and Mad Max Saturn. Thank you for gifting five. We appreciate you guys. Richard Monroe and Montego Bradley. Thank you for joining through the join button below American Heroes. And then some things be a dragon. I can't read it on air. Thank you for joining. We appreciate your sense of humor. Love all you. you guys. And then one last shout out to M. Bartnick, who also just became a member through t.yt.com slash 2024. We appreciate all you guys. You allow us to do the most honest news program in the country and to fight for a little bit of positive change in the world. We're earnest

like that, but that's what we do. And by the way, we're doing a state competition through Operation Hope as well. Go to t.yt.com slash hope to become a state captain if you want or participate in that competition, let alone the election champion of the world that will be. be doing on the site as well tomorrow. All right, David, what's next? Thanks, some interesting news from the Middle East. Benjamin Netanyahu's office is in the throes of a scandal and it's generating a growing controversy in Israel. Multiple suspects, including a close aid to the prime minister, are being detained for allegedly sharing and distorting classified information. The leak seemingly unlawful appears to have served Netanyahu's

own interests and may have prevented a hostage. deal with Hamas. So let's break it down. Two months ago, Netanyahu said that Israel troops, Israeli troops had to control Gaza's border with Egypt, this is southern Gaza, to prevent Hamas from re-arming and smuggling Israeli hostages that they took into Egypt. Well, many in Israeli security establishment dismissed the demand and accused Netanyahu of avoiding a deal to keep the war going. Yet within days, two journals, Germany's build and London's Jewish Chronicle publish articles based on documents that supported Netanahu's point and point and suggested that Hamas was obstructing a deal.

The reports centered on three documents. The first was Netanyahu presented the first in early September, the day after Hamas killed six Israeli hostages. Netanyahu said it was the outline of Hamas's strategy to use psychological warfare against the Israeli public. The second document reinforced Netanyahu's claim that then Hamas leader Yaya Sinwar would use an Israeli withdrawal from the Egyptian border to smuggle hostages to Egypt and Iran and possibly Yemen. A third was said to have been found on Simoire's computer, laying out instructions and how to handle negotiations in a way that would lead to deadlock. Netanyahu referred to the document at a cabinet meeting after its publication and said, it reveals Hamas's plans to wage war until further notice until Israel is defeated. Well, the validity of the reports based on these documents was almost immediately questioned, and it appears that some of the so-called evidence had been distorted.

According to an Israeli newspaper, Israeli intelligence doesn't know who wrote the first document, which doesn't match the handwriting of any senior Hamas leader. The document allegedly from Sinwar had been manipulated to present Hamas, Hamasistan as more hawkish than it was, and was likely written by mid-level officials rather than Hamas leadership. The reports actually triggered a rare investigation accusing Israeli officials, including a Netanyahu aide of leaking, classified documents, and exaggerating their significance. Until now, a judicial gag order had prevented most of the details, though, from being released. The judge in the case partially lifted the order on Friday, revealing a joint

investigation by the Shimbab, the Israeli police, and the IDF, concerning a suspected breach of security involving the illegal distribution of classified information. A court order made public on Sunday said that information taken from Israeli's military systems and illegally issued may have damaged Israel's ability to free hostages held by Hamas in Gaza. And it may have put Israeli intelligence sources in danger as well. Four suspects were initially arrested for taking intelligence and leaking it to the media, and one was released on Sunday. Two of the three suspects are still in custody.

They are defense intelligence and intelligence officials. The third is named Eli Feldstein, who served as an aide in the prime minister's office. Feldstein began working there a few days after the October 7th massacre, but actually failed a shin bet background and security check. Nonetheless, Feldstein took on the role of BB's spokesperson and was responsible for media relations, along with some other folks. He was in Netanyahu's close circle and even attended classified meetings with Netanyahu. Of course, Netanyahu's office denies there have been any leaks. They say the investigation is part of a deep state witch hunt aimed at undermining him.

Sounds familiar, right? Well, but Netanyahu's opponents in the Israeli government disagree. Opposition leader Yelopeed on Sunday accused the prime minister's office of leaking face. is fake secret documents to torpedo the possibility of a hostage deal to shape a public opinion, influence opposition against the hostage's families. They said it implied an active campaign to discredit them. The families, the hostage family said this implied an active campaign to discredit them. And the hostage families called it a moral law that has no depth. This is a fatal injury to the remnants of trust between the government and its citizens.

The hostage families are calling the scandal one of the biggest deceptions in the history of Israel's government. Jack? I'm a little confused by this. I want to ask you a question, David, because to me, leaking questionable intelligence is, I would say Israel 101,

but really any country, U.S. 101, whenever the government wants to prove something, you know, whenever it's something that's against the government, America chases you to the end of the earth. Edward Snowden's still in Russia because he leaked things that were true and actually helped us make the correct decisions, but when government officials

leaked, there's no consequences at all. And it's, and questionable intelligence, that's what idea puts out every other day. So what's going on here? Why is there a rebellion here within the Israeli government over this particular document? Well, Jenk, it's being described as you remember before they're the run up to the Gulf War, when there was Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell and others talking about, well, we don't want the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud. And this, they, you know, they essentially, it was like the Alleyoop. They cherry picked intelligence. They put it out there on the Sunday shows.

And then that essentially helped Dick Cheney and others slam at home to take the United States to war in Iraq. Well, in Israel, the stakes are somewhat similar in the sense that there's this effort by the prime minister's office, allegedly, to take some fake information to sort of throw it up there and then say, uh-huh, this is why we can never have a hostage deal with Hamas, because Hamas does not want it. And while the issue, of course, in the Gulf War was the U.S. essentially invading Iraq, in Israel for the last several months, ever since it was clear that Israel had essentially dismantled Hamas, the number one concern, the greatest concern among Israelis has been, is there any way to get the hostages returned safely? And there

has been this perception, and I think it's legitimate to a certain extent, that Netanyahu has not wanted to prioritize the hostages return. He has wanted to prioritize totally erratic and pounding Hamas into dust, which, okay, maybe that's his military strategy, but these two things are sort of at odds with each other. And so you have Netanyahu essentially his office trying to say, look, there's no way we can get the hostages back because look at this intelligence evidence that we have, even though now it seems the intelligence evidence was false. And it makes a lot of Israelis, and particularly opposition leaders in Israel, of which there are many, wonder, well, has Netanyahu been deliberately sandbacked?

The greatest concern that exists in Israel is that polls overwhelmingly show. Most Israelis, they would take a deal now, they would have taken a deal six months ago to end the war if they could have the hostages back. Netanyahu knows the polling and what he's essentially been caught doing is trying to essentially manipulate the public to make it seem like, oh, there was no possible way that we could get the hostages back. So let's just continue bombing Hamas when some of the information he was using was not only perhaps cherry pick, but was simply wrong.

Yeah, I guess I'm surprised that people in Israel don't already universally know that Netanyahu has no interest in getting the hostages back. He's scuttled every peace deal himself. The Hamas agreed to a peace deal back in July 2nd. And then Nan'iahu changed the terms. So, you know, there's tape from the idea of entering Syria over the weekend. So I'm wondering, last thing on this, is there a split in the Israeli government now where the real issue is get the hostages back, do a ceasefire, withdraw from Gaza and Lebanon, and

call it a day, that's one camp. And the other camp is, no, we don't care that we killed every leader of Hamas and Hezbollah. We want to take northern Gaza and maybe southern Lebanon. And so we're going to throw the hostages onto the bus. We're not doing any peace deal. We're just going to keep going. That to me is clearly the Netanyahu camp. Is there that other camp?

Is there, and is there any chance of that camp that says, let's wrap this up and get the hostages back wins? I don't even know how they would win. There is a chance, Jank, if the hostages, some of them come back and based on, you know, the information that they provide about where they were capped and what conditions they were capped and by whom, if it turns out that it might have been easier, for Israel to get the hostages back a few months ago, then it has seemed so far, that would be devastating to Netanyahu. It would probably bring down his government, his premiership, because if it comes, if it does turn out that Netanyahu could have gotten more of these hostages back and took active steps to block it, that would bring down his government. Likewise, Netanyahu is also getting pressure from the right, because there are some people who are

even more hardlined than him, who, for example, with Iran are disappointed that Netanyahu's military, that the Israeli military didn't go and bomb Iranian nuclear sites and oil facilities. And Netanyahu's position of only attacking some of the missiles and the air defense systems did not make them happy. So in the weirdness of Israeli politics, we have a variety of coalitions that can also essentially gang up together to bring down a government. Netanyahu's getting it from both sides. But I think the threat of from the left and from the center of Netanyahu bypassing opportunities to get the hostages, that's the more serious threat to bring down as government. And look, I have my own sort of criticism of Netanyahu, and I would love to

find out if the hostages could somehow get out, okay, exactly, where were they kept? What were the conditions? What were the possibilities? What did the hostages know? The people who were keeping them, what kind of orders were they under? Was it possible to get the hostages back if certain steps had been taken? And if it turns out that it was, that is huge for Israeli society and a huge blow to Netanyahu politically. Yeah, obviously the Israeli society seeing something different than we're seeing. So if they were here, I would tell them, mystery is solved. He could have gotten the hostages back. He chose not to. That's super obvious to the entire planet, except Israel apparently. So if this controversy makes it more obvious to the Israeli people, then it'll

have done a great service. All right, everybody check out David on Rebel headquarters. We got a whole other hour coming up for you guys, including a potential October surprise. Jeffrey Epstein tapes about Donald Trump. We'll tell you about that when we return. Thank you, David.