The Young Turks - Inevitable Consequences

Episode Date: November 17, 2022

Poland says that the missile strike that killed two, was most likely from Ukraine but, Poland still blames Moscow. The big announcement Donald Trump made last night was as predictable and as boring as you’d think. Twice as many Republicans than Democrats died from COVID before the 2022 midterm elections. Greg Gutfeld admitted that Republicans would have been better off if Roe V. Wade hadn’t been overturned. Host: Ana Kasparian Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. 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. Woo! It's up! Welcome to TYT, I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and we have a jam-packed show for you today. Later in the program, we'll talk about the latest in regard to legislation protecting marriage equality. There's some big news out of the Senate today.

with some caveats that I think we need to focus on. So we'll discuss that. Later, we'll also talk about new analysis showing just how much of a difference COVID vaccination denial made in regard to COVID-related deaths between Democrats and Republicans. Did that play a role in the midterm elections? Well, we'll talk about that and give you the data. We'll also discuss some of the reactions to Donald Trump's announcement just last night that he is in fact running for president in 2024.

So while the Republican establishment certainly seems united against him, I would warn everyone to be cautious because I still think Trump has a pretty good shot at winning the Republican nomination. I'll make that case later in the first hour. Second hour, John Iderola will be joining us and we'll talk about some of the pending changes that Musk has referenced for Twitter during a recent hearing that he had to testify at. So lots to get to today. But as always, just want to encourage you to like and share the stream if you're watching

us online, on YouTube. And if you're not a member, you can become one by going to t.com slash join. We're going to have an awesome postgame today, including one of the most embarrassing moments for Carrie Lake. Oh, it's just so good. Sorry, I was savoring it just as I was thinking about it. But anyway, we got to move on. Why don't we start with some of the bigger news of the day, including updates to marriage equality.

In a surprising display of actual bipartisanship in the Senate of all places, the Respect for Marriage Act has passed 62 to 37, meaning that the vote easily passes the the legislative filibuster in the upper chamber in the Senate. Now here's what the bill entails, okay? There are caveats here. While I want to be celebratory, while I want to feel good about this, I have some major problems with the way the Senate version of the bill was written. The respect for marriage act would require that people be considered married in any state as long as the marriage was valid in the state where it was performed.

Okay, we're going to pause right there. Okay, let's come back to me. Let's come back to me. So if you're living in one of these red states that likes to punish its constituents by passing, you know, anti-same-sex marriage laws, well, you wouldn't be able to get married in those states should this conservative Supreme Court decide to reverse the Supreme Court ruling earlier back in 2012 that legalized same-sex marriage, federal? So if they reverse it and this legislation comes into play, what it would mean is some states could still ban same sex marriage. You would just need to go to a state that has not banned same sex marriage, get married there, and then the backward state that you live in would have no choice but to recognize your same sex marriage.

So there's a lot of this states rights language in the way that this was written. It's still some protection for same-sex marriage, so I'll take it. But these caveats do make me incredibly uncomfortable. Let's get to the rest of it. The bill would also repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, good, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman and allowed states to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. That part I'm totally in favor of.

The law has remained on the books, by the way, that defense of marriage act, despite being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell versus Hodges. Okay, so that was the Supreme Court ruling earlier in 2012 that legalized same-sex marriage. Now, the Republicans who voted for this bill should probably get a little bit of a shout-out, especially since there was a tremendous amount of pressure among conservative media pundits to vote against this legislation, and they voted for it anyway. So that includes a lot of people I don't like, to be honest with you. But nonetheless, you've got Roy Blunt, Richard Burr, Shelley More Capito, Susan Collins, Cynthia

Loomis, Rob Portman, Dan Sullivan, Mitt Romney, Tom Tillis, Lisa Murkowski, Joni Ernst, Todd Young. It is notable that, you know, even though Democrats have such a slim majority in Congress, certainly that's the case with the Senate, they found a way to make this happen when it came to same-sex marriage. And we should celebrate that. That's a good thing. But when they had a super majority under the Obama administration, certainly in the first two years of his administration, they just, they just couldn't pass protections for reproductive rights on a federal level. They just couldn't do it. They couldn't do it. It was the blue dog Democrats. They had such a difficult time with that. Anyway, clearly they weren't interested in codifying abortion rights. And Obama

or ran on it. And then immediately, as soon as he got elected, said it wasn't a priority. It's not a priority at this time. Okay, great. Further reinforcing what I had already come to believe, which is that when it comes to women, they're usually not first in line. They're not considered a priority when it comes to these types of issues, right? So forced birth, forced pregnancy, I mean, they just don't have the will to fight, you know, to prevent that from happening to us. And I'm specifically talking about Democrats here. Nonetheless, let's move on, let's go back to celebrating some protection for same sex marriage. There are some downsides here though.

For instance, Senator Rob Portman noted that the bill would not require any state to perform same sex marriages if it chooses not to. Which I think is unsurprising considering, you know, should the Supreme Court reverse a previous Supreme Court ruling that legalizes same sex marriage, you know, nationally? Well, yeah, I mean, according to this legislation, some states can just outright ban same-sex marriage. But they would have to recognize same-sex marriage if the couple ended up getting married in a state that has it legalized. And to be clear, this bill does not codify Obergefell v. Hodges. It just doesn't, okay?

Because if it did codify it, then same-sex marriage would be legal. It would be the law of the land. No state could ban it. And to be quite honest, I see same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue. And when it comes to civil rights issues, the federal government should offer protections for people. Okay, so think about it. We consider it a civil rights issue in terms of people of color, right? Businesses, for instance, are not allowed to discriminate against individuals based on the color of their skin, based on their race.

And that's because of federal protections, federal protections that ensure that this type of discrimination is unacceptable. This bill, by the way, that just passed in the Senate also protects interracial marriage, which, I mean, it's 2022. Great. I mean, the fact that we even need to do this at this point in time is insane. But at least it mentions it and we have some protections for interracial marriage. But nonetheless, just going back to the same-sex marriage, we're talking about individuals who identify as gay, it's not like they made a decision to identify that way. And if they did make a decision, they deserve protections anyway.

But nonetheless, why are we treating gay people differently from black people, women, And any other group that's considered marginalized, vulnerable to, you know, right-wing culture, war antics, why is same-sex marriage different? Why aren't there real federal protections for same-sex marriage? Because here you have all these caveats. And I see this is a civil rights issue where gay people deserve the same type of protections that black people do, that Asians and Latinos do, that everyone, you know, has protection against discrimination from, that has protections against discrimination.

But let me give you some more. So the Senate also voted on an amended version of this bill because the House of Representatives had passed a far better version of this legislation previously. And so senators agreed to add language to the Senate version, ensuring that churches, universities, and other nonprofit religious organizations could not lose tax-exempt status or other benefits for refusing to recognize same-sex marriages and could not be required to provide services for the celebration of any marriage. They also added language to make clear that the bill does not require or authorize the

federal government to recognize polygamous marriages. Or, yeah, so yeah, marriages between multiple people, polygamous, yeah. Anyway, look, I just want these politicians to explain to me. why gay couples are being treated differently when it comes to potential discrimination from other groups that have federal protections against discrimination. I want to understand why they don't see this as a civil rights issue. I just want that explanation. And more importantly, since, you know, Capitol Hill wouldn't allow someone like me to be

anywhere near these members of Congress or these senators to ask these questions, I just want, I want a reporter to ask. I mean, they're over there in Capitol Hill asking the same boring questions over and over again. Ask them why they see gay individuals differently from other, you know, historically disenfranchised groups of people who currently do have federal protections who get to enjoy certain civil rights. Why isn't this considered a civil rights issue? I'm just curious about that. But the fact that this offers some protection against what could happen with this highly conservative Supreme Court makes me feel a little bit better. I just wish the original version of this bill was the version that the Senate had voted in favor of in a bipartisan fashion.

They did not. They added all these caveats. So now in order for this legislation to pass, it needs to be sent to the House. The house needs to vote on it. And then as early as next week, it could be passed into law. And so again, there are some benefits here. I don't want to downplay it or undermine that. But there are also some flaws that I think we should have a sober look at and ask some real questions about.

Because again, I do see this as a civil rights issue that deserves the same protections that other groups enjoy in this country. And I just, no one's asking why gay couples are being treated differently. All right, well, let's move on. We've got some other news, including an update on the missile strike in Poland. What really went on here? The president of Poland says there is absolutely no evidence indicating that a missile that crashed into his country killing two local farmers was fired by Russia intentionally.

In fact, he believes that it was likely a Russian-made missile that was part of Ukraine's air defense system. and that missile inadvertently accidentally landed in Poland. However, they're still blaming Russia for the ultimate war and how it, of course, is going to lead to some of these unintended consequences. Ukraine defended itself, says the president of Poland, which is obvious and understandable by firing missiles whose task was to knock down Russian missiles. The Russian side is to blame for this tragic event. And look, to some extent, he definitely has a point. After Russia lost territory in Ukraine, specifically Kyrsan, Putin started to do an increased number of missile strikes, especially in civilian territory, specifically focusing on

civilian infrastructure, and this is typically what he does. So for instance, Russia fired 96 missiles at Ukrainian cities on Tuesday alone after being forced to withdraw from the southern city of Kyrsan last week in a major blow for Moscow. A missile landed in a Polish village near the Ukrainian border, killing two farm workers. Now following the incident and following the preliminary findings of this investigation, Ukraine's president Vladimir Zelensky seems to reject. Ukraine's president Vladimir Zelensky seems to reject the notion that this was a missile that was part of Ukraine's missile defense system.

He thinks that that's not true. He's completely blaming Russia for this. And to be quite honest, after news broke that there had been a missile that landed in Polish territory killing two people. I was impressed with how measured the United States response was to it, how careful and calculated Biden was in responding to it, because you don't want to needlessly spark World War III before you do an investigation. Zelensky, on the other hand, was a little belligerent in his remarks.

And I'm going to give you his statements and what he's currently saying in regard to this investigation in just a moment. But first, some more info regarding the, you know, the talks that occurred after this incident. So, for instance, Polish officials said late Tuesday that they were considering asking NATO countries to begin special high-level consultations. Those consultations known as Article 4 in reference to NATO's founding treaty are a step short of invoking the alliance's mutual defense pact known as Article 5. I mean, Article 5 would mean they're going to war with Russia. So they're not asking for that, but they are considering Article 4. However, at the NATO ambassadors meeting on Wednesday, Poland chose not to ask for Article 4 consultations at this stage, a Polish NATO official said.

So it doesn't appear that there's going to be any escalation from the fact that this missile landed in Poland, and that's good news. Poland summoned Russia's ambassador around midnight Tuesday for a four-minute meeting that occurred without any exchange of courtesies or handshakes, a Polish foreign ministry spokesperson said. The government wasn't ruling out expelling the ambassador, but also had made no imminent decision to do so. I would not expel the Russian ambassador from Poland. I can understand the tensions, I can understand the fears and the worries and the anger toward Russia. namely Vladimir Putin, but you have to maintain some avenues for diplomacy. And I think expelling the ambassador kind of cuts that possibility off.

And I don't think that's a good idea. Now, Ukrainian officials are now calling for NATO to declare its airspace a no-fly zone, which they've been demanding since the beginning of the war. That's also a bad idea. No-fly zone means that NATO countries are now directly at war with Russia. That means that NATO allies would be, including the United States, of course, would be shooting down Russian planes, Russian aircraft, Russian weaponry, whatever it is. And you don't want to be in a direct war with Russia. That's also not a good idea.

That's also an escalation of war. And considering how Ukraine's been able to take back some of the territory from Russia, I think that it's unnecessary to do this, to needlessly escalate the war. Now, Kremlin spokesman, Dmitri Peskov said that there was another hysterical and frenzied Russia-phobic reaction in the West following reports of the incident in Poland, which was not based on any real data. He said the government in Warsaw could have been more restrained and professional when addressing issues that could escalate a situation. But this is the interesting part.

He noted what he described as the restrained and much more professional. reaction of the American side and the American president. And you know what? He's right. Biden did do a good job. In fact, here he is responding to a reporter at the G20 summit. Can you tell us what you know so far about the explosion and colon, sir? No, that's the Biden I like. Okay, no, I don't, I'm not going to comment on it. I don't have the details yet. I'm not going to needlessly say something that could be inaccurate, that could, you know, inadvertently escalate the war. No, keep it simple. Keep it simple. Okay. Later, when he had a few more details about what occurred, he answered some questions.

This was about an hour later. Let's take a look at that. Mr. President, he asked you to really to say whether this missile was fired from Russia. There is preliminary information that contests that. I don't want to say that till we completely investigate. But it is, it's unlikely in the minds of the trajectory that it was fired from Russia. That was a perfectly fine reaction. I mean, just waiting to see what really occurred, waiting for an investigation, using belligerent rhetoric toward Russia, when you don't have all the facts yet, is not a good idea. It could, again, increase tensions, it could escalate the war, more people could die as a result.

And really, what we need to push toward is a peace deal. And it really does suck that on the day that Vladimir Zelensky shared his 10-point plan toward peace, meaning, you know, his openness to potential peace negotiations, this incident occurred. And hopefully that doesn't throw the possibility of peace negotiations out the window. But unfortunately, the same can't be said of Vladimir Zelensky when it comes to, you know, waiting, being patient, holding back, and not engaging in belligerent rhetoric. So he said this, hitting NATO territory with missiles, this is a Russian missile attack on collective security. This is a really significant escalation. Action is needed.

Okay, he should have retracted that, number one, because it turns out that it wasn't an intentional strike by Russia, and it appears that the missile actually belonged to Ukraine and was part of Ukraine's missile defense system. Now, Zelensky denies that, he rejects that. I don't know why. I mean, why would Poland want to lie on behalf of Russia if Poland is genuinely concerned about a security risk here? It doesn't make any sense. He had also said immediately after the news of this missile incident. He also said Ukraine has long warned the war could spill across borders and added it's only a matter of time before Russian terror goes further. I can totally understand his frustration. This war has been so incredibly brutal to Ukraine, to Ukrainian civilians.

It's been a complete and utter disaster. And Zelensky has fought back. He refused to flee the country. I think for the most part, he's been a pretty good leader. But he's got to put his emotions aside and be careful in what he says and what he accuses Russia of. Because again, that could also escalate the war. And this is basically a major step back after he had shared his 10 point plan toward a peace deal. And also Financial Times reporter Christopher Miller says this. Zelensky, live on state TV, refutes Western leaders' statements and preliminary evidence that missile, which killed two in Poland was Ukrainian, I have no doubt that it was not our missile or our missile strike, we have to participate in the investigation.

So he's denying it, but again, I really failed to see how Poland would benefit from lying on behalf of Russia, if Russia did in fact do a missile strike in Polish territory. It doesn't really make any sense. But we'll keep an eye on the story and fill you in as we learn more. But for now, hopefully there's no indication that there's an escalation in the war in Ukraine. All right, we got to take a quick break. When we come back, we've got Trump's announcement for 2024 and some of the reactions from right. wingers to his speech. Don't miss it. It's a doozy. We'll be right back.

announcement last night. In order to make America great and glorious again, I am tonight announcing my candidacy for President of the United States. Ah, yes, former President Donald Trump, who lost re-election in 2020, has officially announced that he plans to run for president yet again in 2024. And while the right-wing power players, including the conservative press, and, and Republican politicians seem to have soured on Donald Trump following the poor performance of his candidates in the midterm elections.

The real question is, how do Republican voters feel? And I really do think there's a disconnect here, and I think anyone who is underestimating Donald Trump is making a huge mistake. And I'll make my case for that in just a moment. But first, why don't we take a look at all these right wingers who are kind of dunking on on Trump today, claiming that his speech was low energy and he doesn't have a shot. Well, I should note that his daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, did not show up for the speech.

They sat this one out, and it turns out that Ivanka and Jared have no interest in being involved in Donald Trump's reelection campaign. So, or I should say, second presidential campaign in 2024, here is a video. explaining where her heart's at. Well, I spoke to several people who are close with Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, and they tell me that the couple is not going to be involved in a potential Donald Trump's second run for the White House. That includes campaigning for him. That includes should he win and being inside the White House. They really didn't want him to run again, but he can't help himself.

He's going to do what he does best. And for those of you who are probably thinking, well, I mean, it's. hearsay, do we really know that's what Ivanka and Jared are thinking and feeling? Oh, no, they confirmed it in statements to Fox News. This time around, says Ivanka, I'm choosing to prioritize my young children and the private life we are creating as a family. I do not plan to be involved in politics. Here, here, I support your decision. Okay, women should be able to choose. Good for you, Ivanka. Sit this one out. Now, Rupert Murdo. Murdoch is also refusing to back Trump, and the New York Post, which is under that Murdoch umbrella, of course, keeps slapping Trump down.

In fact, here's their latest cover where they barely even make any mention of Trump. They certainly don't mention him by name. They focus the cover on crime. And then at the very bottom, you can see, Florida man makes announcement, page 26. Oh, God. All right. And so what happens if you go to page 26? I was curious about it. Well, you'll find a little blurb that says, been there, dawn that. Love it. And then it was actually well written. I enjoyed it. They write this. With just 720 days to go before the next election, a Florida retiree made a surprise announcement Tuesday night that he was running for president. Trump kicked things off at Mara Lago, his resort. and classified documents library. Speaking of which, for anyone who thinks that Trump can't be investigated or indicted

because of his announcement that he will run for president 24, you're mistaken. He could still be investigated, he could still be indicted. The question is, will Merrick Garland actually do it? And I wouldn't put any money on that. I just wouldn't. Now, there's more, the National Review, which National Review was never really effective. fan of Trump's. But nonetheless, they had their own piece on his announcement with a very simple headline. Let's take a look at that. No. Just no. And in it, they write, the Trump

administration was chaotic, even on its best days, because of his erratic nature and lack of seriousness. Because, you know, Republicans should be known for their seriousness. He often acted as if he were a commentator on his own presidency and issued orders on Twitter and in other off-to-cuff statements that were ignored. He repeatedly had to be talked out of disastrous ideas by his advisors and Republican elected officials. He turned on cabinet officials and aides on a dime. Trump had a limited understanding of our constitutional system.

And at the end of the day, little respect for it. All right, some harsh words from the editorial board over at the National Review. But even former Trump staffers didn't have nice things to say about him following his speech. Alyssa Farah, who of course was his former communications director, said, you try being high energy when you're running for president primarily to try to avoid indictment. Sarah Matthews, who's his former deputy press secretary, says, This is one of the most low energy, uninspiring speeches I've ever heard from Trump. Even the crowd seems bored.

Not exactly what you want when announcing a presidential run. In fact, the speech was low energy, I'll say that. He did go back to all his favorite hits. So his 2016 campaign, you know, it kind of mirrored that, although the tone was less energetic, right? So the anti-immigration stuff, drain the swamp stuff. He leaned into all of that. And it worked for him in 2016. Will it work for him in 2024?

Well, we'll wait and see about that. But what was really interesting was that during his speech, people were trying to leave. And they were blocked from doing so by security. Let's watch. I actually saw people trying to leave and people leaving early even before he, He was done. He's still speaking now. And then they, I think perhaps a little concerned that the hall would empty out too much. They actually started preventing people from leaving. So now they're no longer allowing people to leave.

And there is some evidence of that, more than just a reporter speaking into a camera to tell us that that's happening. The footage that you're about to watch shows a crowd. Let's put the video up, keep the volume down. I'll explain what's happening for our audio. viewers, listeners. You know, you see a crowd gathering by the exit, but they're unable to leave because security is blocking them from leaving. They're forced to stay there to listen to the entirety of this hour plus long speech. And we all know what Trump is like. Trump is obsessed with crowd sizes. He doesn't want to be humiliated with a wide shot of a half empty crowd or, you know, half the chair's empty.

And so these people, these poor people, poor. I mean, they wanted to be there in the first place. So how poor are they, right? But no, they can't leave. They're stuck. They're stuck until the very end. Love it. All right.

Now, let's pivot, though, because we heard from the Republican establishment, right? The power players in the media, the power players within the Republican Party, meaning politicians, elected officials, they've all kind of soured on Trump. But it would be a mistake to think of them as the voice of the Republican voters. Because that's where I think the disconnect really does exist. I haven't seen any indication at all that Republican voters are willing to abandon Trump for Ron DeSantis. Now let me be clear, I've seen some polls that indicate that more Republican

voters would vote for DeSantis over Trump. But I actually think that it would be dumb to put too much weight behind those polls. Okay, the polls, polls haven't been working for us. So I'm going to need to see more than just, oh, this one random poll shows that DeSantis is doing slightly better than Trump. And there's other stuff that's really standing out to me. For instance, while Trump certainly did get a lot of backlash during the, you know, because of the poor performance of Republican candidates in the midterm elections. Let's not forget that Trump's candidates easily won in their primaries against other Republican non-Trump candidates. Okay, so Republican voters overwhelmingly supported Trump's picks because they support Trump and his

brand of republicanism. The other thing I want to kind of draw a little bit of attention to is, well, this video. So this is before the midterms, a little bit before the midterms. Michael Shore went to Miami specifically. Remember, Ron DeSantis is the governor of Florida. So if ever you would find a place with a higher concentration of DeSantis supporters, it would be Florida, right? Well, every single person that Michael Shore spoke to like Trump more than DeSantis. Let's watch. Trump may have to beat Ron DeSantis in a primary to get the nomination. Who would you support Trump versus DeSantis? Trump?

I'm Trump. Well, that's a tough one because I'd love either one as president, okay? And I'll tell you this. Trump's my president and DeSantis will be my next president. If Trump wins, if he runs, he'll win. If he decides not to run, he may not. DeSanis will be president. Either way, it's going to be Trump, and then DeSantis.

Who would you support DeSantis or Trump? Right now, Trump. Yeah, Trump. What could change that? They're running 2014. Yeah, Trump. And then for 28, DeSantis. That would be a tough call.

But hopefully it'll be Trump for president and DeSantis for vice president. I hate to burst that bubble, but you can't, no, but you can't have two people from the same state on the presidential ticket. Oh, okay. I think I would go with Trump. I don't follow Mr. Trump because I like Trump. I go after Trump because I like the way he does things. I don't like very much the way he talks, but I don't care about the way he talks. What I do care is, where are we going with Mr. Trump?

And that's the point I want to get. You know, the Cuban Trump supporters really need to like shed the accent, which makes me find them incredibly endearing, right? I hear that guy and he's like, a rabid Trump supporter, but I'm like, aw. Anyway, all right, let's move on. So I thought that that video was telling. Obviously, that's not some scientific, you know, study into where the hearts and minds of Republican voters happen to be at the moment. But I do think that, again, we haven't really heard much from the actual GOP voters, Republican

voters. And the other thing that caught my attention today was this little video out of New York City. So let's take a look at that. USA! USA! USA! This is very disrespectful in the Arab states. Ron has got two big for his bridges. He's out. He has plenty of time to gain wisdom. Trump or death. Let him stay in Florida for a while. Remember when they did the Saddam Hussein statue came down? Remember when the Saddam's statue came down? He said, my father used to say to me, he used to say, hold on, he used to say, son, I brought you into this world, I can take you out.

Everything, everything this is happening has. Everything he's got to Trump. It's Trump or death. Yeah. Now, those two guys are not necessarily representative of the majority. of Republican voters, but I can't help but think about the low blows that Trump is very likely to use against Ron DeSantis. He's been mocking DeSantis today for bragging about what a Trump supporter he was when he

was running for governor in Florida. Remember, he had a political ad where he's like talking about his love for Trump. And Trump posted that video on truth. social today and mocked Ron DeSantis. So I don't know, I think it would be a big mistake to underestimate Trump and think that the Republican establishment is providing a voice for Republican voters. I think that there is a disconnect there. I'm very curious to see how it all plays out. But if Democrats are giddy at the thought that Trump is running in 2024 and they think that means that they'll easily win the presidential election that year, I would

would just warn them, don't make the same mistake you did in 2016. Just don't. All right, that does it for that story. We got to take a quick break. When we come back, though, we'll talk about the difference between COVID deaths among Democrats and Republicans and see if it made any difference at all in some of these close midterm elections. Welcome back to the show. Let's get to our next story. A lot of these elections were very close. And I'm wondering how much of an impact people who died from COVID has had on these races.

I'm talking about specifically the close races. Well, now we have a little more data to kind of decipher whether or not Republicans who died of COVID had an impact on some of these close midterm races. So the National Bureau of Economic Research has conducted a study titled excess death rates for Republicans and Democrats during the COVID-19 pandemic. And in it we learn that, unfortunately, there were far more Republican deaths than was necessary. In fact, because of the misinformation regarding vaccines, many Republican voters decided not to get vaccinated, and as a result, far more of them died compared to Democratic voters. In 2018, according to the study, and the early parts of 2020, excess deaths. rates for Republicans and Democrats are similar and centered around zero. Both groups experienced

a similar large spike in excess deaths in the winter of 2020 to 2021. However, in the summer of 2021, after vaccines were widely available, the Republican excess death rate rose to nearly double that of Democrats. And this gap widened further in the winter of 2021. So some person on Twitter tweeted to me to say, yeah, well, I mean, maybe there are more Republicans that died because they didn't get vaccinated, but pretty soon there's going to be a lot more Democrat deaths because of the vaccine, except no, that's not going to happen. And it actually pains me. I don't feel good about the fact that there were people in this country, our fellow Americans,

who were intentionally misled, and they died as a result of that. It makes me sick to my stomach. But let me continue with this study. This gap widened further in 2021, according to the study's authors. This rose to a 153%. Let's go to the number two, please. So this gap widened further in the winter of 2021. The study said this rose to 153% to a 153% difference after all adults could take the vaccine in Florida and Ohio.

And the gap in excess death rates between Republicans and Democrats is concentrated in counties with low vaccination rates, if that wasn't clear already. Jason Schwartz, who's one of the authors of this study and also teaches at Yale, says if Republicans are dying in increasing, numbers relative to their democratic colleagues in a political climate where there are so many close electoral contests, could that have been the decider in a particular race? Our study can't answer that, but it certainly seems plausible given just how stark the differences in vaccination rates have been among Democrats and Republicans. So to be clear, their study did not analyze how much of a difference this made in close races. But I do want to kind of turn to something that caught my attention.

So first, there are some limitations to this study. Because of the data available, they mostly focused on Ohio and Florida. Okay, so they, and Ohio and Florida might not be representative of all these other states. So that's a limitation to the study that you should be aware of. But nonetheless, I mean, when you think about it, let's go to Arizona, okay? the gubernatorial race in Arizona between Republican Trump pick, Carrie Lake, and the Secretary of State and Democratic candidate Katie Hobbs. Hobbs won, but she didn't win by much, okay, so that's the outcome of that gubernatorial

race in Arizona. It's a difference of about 17,209 votes. There's been a total of 31,613 COVID deaths in Arizona. So could that have had an impact? Maybe, I don't know for sure. And obviously, not all of those deaths are attributed to Democratic voters or Republican voters. We don't know the breakdown in political identity. We do know that more Republicans unfortunately died because of the misinformation they were

fed by vaccine deniers and such. But I mean, could that have made a difference in Arizona? Maybe. And maybe it's a bad idea to, you know, discourage your base to protect themselves in the middle of a pandemic when you're going to need their support. And I don't know if Republicans, Republican politicians, namely, or members of the media have really learned anything from that. I mean, and also like the whole focus of this conversation is pretty crude and terrible, right? Because you shouldn't want anyone to needlessly die. Like that should be the number one driver and motivation for the Republican Party. What can we do to protect

as many people, regardless of their political affiliation, protect as many people as possible. So they don't have to die early so they can live long, thriving lives. No, but instead, for some reason, it would be, you know, politically beneficial to share misinformation with their own voters and supporters, knowing full well that they were lying about the vaccines and its efficacy. And twice as many Republicans, according to this study, died compared to Democrats. It's just, I, incredible. It really is incredible stuff. So I'm sure there's going to be even more analysis on this, even more studies, but a lot of these races were super close, and honestly, the number of COVID deaths could have made some difference. Again, we don't know for sure, but it's just something to keep in mind.

All right, let's move on to how women are used as pawns by the Republican Party. You can't really blame the Republicans in Congress or Kevin McCarthy because they didn't do the Roe v. Wade reversal. That was the Supreme Court. So it would have been far better off if that hadn't happened. Well, I'm glad that everyone's admitting that now. Oh, it was a little bit inconvenient for the Republican Party to have a Supreme Court do something they've been goading the Supreme Court to do for, you know, about 50 years. Because it turns out that what they wanted was incredibly unpopular and it could have hurt them in the midterms. And it probably did hurt them in the midterms. You know, the thing about rights is once people have them and get to enjoy them,

They get real salty when those rights are taken away from them. So the reversal of Roe v. Wade was the first time the Supreme Court had snatched rights away from the American people that had previously been granted to the American people by the same Supreme Court, okay, by the same part of the judiciary. It's just, it is incredible that they did not see this coming. So, oh, man, it didn't work out for Republicans in the midterms. Gee, it was going to be a red wave, except what have they offered people? What is their alternative to democratic leadership?

We're going to take your rights away. We're going to investigate parents if they make a decision about the health care they want to provide to their children who come out as transgender. We're not going to really talk about the economy other than complain about inflation without offering any real solutions to combat it. That's what the Republican Party did in the midterms. And so, yeah, do I think taking rights away, abortion rights, reproductive rights away from the American people was unpopular and hurt them during the midterms? Absolutely. But it was one of many factors.

Let's not get it twisted. What's sick about this whole thing, though, is that everything they do, you know, constantly weighing in on culture war narratives, it's all meant to be a distraction from the real robbery that takes place, right? They love to help their corporate donors rob all of us. That's what they do. But they need something to run on. So they run on culture war narratives.

We're going to outlaw abortion. We're going to outlaw this. We're going to make sure government gets involved in the most intimate elements of your life. And they're shocked that it turns out that, no, Americans don't want big government when it comes to social issues, when it comes to our personal lives. when it comes to things that might make us happy, but have absolutely no negative impact on anyone else. Government shouldn't be involved in that. Government, though, should be big when it comes to, you know, regulating some of these corporations, namely the corporations that have been penalized as of late for breaking child labor laws. We just did a story yesterday about a slaughter

house that was employing children as young as 13 years old, assigning them to overnight shifts. Yeah, I want big government when it comes to doing something about that. But Republicans certainly don't. What's also interesting is how the reversal of Roe has impacted the personal lives of very young people in this country when it comes to dating, when it comes to intimacy. There's a lot of fear and for good reason. So the latest Singles in America survey, which is an annual study of 5,000 single people in the country conducted by match, found that 78% of singles of reproductive age said that the overturning of Roe has in fact changed their sex life. So let's get into some specifics. In fact, 25% overall and 28% of Gen Z

say that they'll use or ask their partners to use condoms more often, which I don't have a problem with. I think that's a good thing, even though they really need to get the condom game, you know revamped like really you guys can't figure out how to make a condom that doesn't feel terrible like figure it out okay it's time nonetheless let's move on um there are other results of this survey that i think are telling so 20% overall or 27% of gen z are more hesitant to have sex 20% overall 27% of gen z are more afraid of getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant as they should be and 13% said that scotus meaning the supreme court decision made them more hesitant to date. And when you have statistics indicating that over the

last several years, intimacy among young people has really taken a big dive. You have fewer men, young men in meaningful intimate relationships, which is also not a good thing. This is not, this is not a positive development in our country. People should not be living in fear when it comes to their personal lives, their dating lives, and whether they get intimate with a partner. But this is what they're having to deal with now, because if you're one of the unlucky individuals who lives in a red state that has effectively banned abortion and you don't have the resources to travel out of state, to have your needs met, well, you're screwed. And there's also no social safety net or support system to catch you if you fall economically,

financially. So yeah, didn't work out so well for Republicans. What a shocker that this was an incredibly unpopular thing to push for and succeed in accomplishing. Wow, who could have seen that coming? You know, Greg Gutfeld maybe would have some redeeming qualities if his comedy made up for his stupidity, but it doesn't. So no redeeming qualities for Greg Gutfeld. Yet, he's still employed at Fox News, and I'm sure makes a ton of money spewing his moronic takes.

All right, we got to take a break when we come back for the second hour of the show. We'll talk about a big strike that's taking place in California right now among academic workers in the UC system. And we'll also discuss some big changes afoot for Twitter. Come right back. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks, support our work, listen to ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com at apple.combe. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.