The Young Turks - Republican Apologizes For Anti-Semitic Campaign Ad And Cops Called On Interracial Canvassers

Episode Date: November 2, 2018

A Republican running for office in Connecticut came under fire for an obviously insensitive and anti-semitic campaign flyer. An interracial couple canvassing for a Democratic candidate were confronted by an angry resident demanding they leave her "private property". Get exclusive access to our best content. http://tyt.com/GETACCESS 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. All right, welcome to the Young Turks. I'm your host, Jank Ugar. I've got a lot of exciting news for you guys today because that's what we do on the Young Turks. We've just got a couple of days left before the election.

And so today I roll out my predictions. Oh, it's a big day. It's a big day. How many seats will Democrats pick up in the House? How many will they pick up in the Senate, if any? Interesting. That's coming up later in the program. But I'd also like to announce important and exciting news for the Young Turks.

We are now on four new stations in Philadelphia, D.C., Boston, and New York. And I love this network that we're on, WMCN and Philly, WMBE in Washington, W. D.P. in Boston and WRNN in New York. So welcome to all those stations. We are on 7 to 9 p.m. Eastern every night there. Looking forward to sharing the news with you guys and our perspective and commentary and enthusiasm. As you will see for the new viewers, we're quite enthusiastic. We're enthusiastic about the news. We're enthusiastic about being progressive. And recently, a reporter called me part of the fighting left. And I said, I like the sound of that.

So now, in today's show, I also have other news for you guys, including Donald Trump pretty much admitting that he lies. I'm going to show you then his explanation of why he lies. And then Fox News's defense and how the media should just bow their heads are reported as if it's true. That's also a little bit later in the program. But unfortunately, we start with a fairly common theme these days in the Republican Party, which is fear and loathing. So they have been driving hatred in so many different ways.

And it used to be predominantly as Muslims and Mexicans, M&Ms, as they have been doing that for over a decade. It's not just Donald Trump. Republican Party has done that for almost literally. as long as I can remember, well, certainly as long as I've been covering politics. And I remember writing an article about the M&Ms about a dozen years ago. But now they've added to their repertoire, and the reality is, of course, they always wanted to in a lot of their voters also did not like other groups of people. And so their disdain for African Americans in this country is legendary.

They literally had a strategy called the Southern Strategy around it, and now we have gotten to the bottom of the barrel with. anti-Semitism. So let's start there and then we'll take it from there, unfortunately, as they seem to be attacking almost every group. Literally, in this show, we have a Republican attack against Jews, against Latinos, and against blacks. So the Muslims are starting to feel a little left out, but they're not in the news today. All right, let's go over here and start with the first story. Okay. So the Republicans have been on a work. path against many different minorities.

Unfortunately, the latest is Jewish Americans, and there was an extreme right-winger who did the attack in Pittsburgh, killed 11 people at a Jewish synagogue, six others injured, and I want to tell you about what a Republican politician is doing. But before we do that, we sent Emma Vigland, our reporter, to cover a Trump rally down in Florida. And I thought that this gentleman that she ran into was unfortunately emblematic of a lot of the right wing these days. Now, get a load of what you see tattooed on his back. Let's watch. So that's Obama. That's Hillary Clinton. Who's that down there? Osama bin Laden? No, that's the I toll of Khomeini. And then the worst enemy of the United States is on top, don't you?

On top, George Soros, who is the worst enemy of the United States. So on your back, you got George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Obama, and the Ayatollah. As negative, not positive. Right. You can see Michael the Archangel casting the demon into the abyss, and then you have below them the enemies of the United States in its constitution. So can you explain why Soros, Obama, Clinton, and the Ayatollah are the enemies of the state? Oh, come on, you know that. If you don't know that, you shouldn't be at a Trump rally.

That means that you are... I want, I'm just trying... You're 101. If you don't know George Soros is the biggest, largest, Donator to anti-American causes. Okay, so this conspiracy theory against George Soros has been anti-Semitic. from the day one. And so if you notice, he is above Obama, the president, Hillary Clinton, who ran for president

with Secretary of State, and randomly, again, on top of Homania as well, George Soros, deeply, deeply opposed to Ayatollahomani. So why is he at the top? Because he's the puppet master. And so if you said, hey, look, they're just against big donors. I love that talk, I'm against big donors. But if you talk about it in terms that are related to their actual donations, the Koch brothers, they're not Jewish, and they give more than Soros does.

You've got the Mercer's, you got Adelson. It's a mixed group of people. It's not remotely just a Jewish phenomenon. Of course not. It's a giant country, and unfortunately, we have open bribery in this country. In fact, the Republican Party revels in it. That is why they succeed so much is because they buy so much ads with the money that they get from giant corporations and they're very, very wealthy. That is a phenomenon that is upsetting to most Americans.

But that's a different thing than saying one guy is the puppet master who controls everything. And, oh, look at that, he happens to be Jewish. That is an old anti-Semitic trope that has been around for a long, long time. So if you're talking about policy and you say, listen, I want to take the Soros money and the Coke money and Bloomberg money, and all the different kinds of, and by the way, Chevron money and Apple money and giant corporations, whether you like them or you don't like them, Nike, Starbucks, hey, I think they do a lot of positive things in the world, Amazon, et cetera, you want to take all their money out, great, you want to take the union money out, great.

We should finance elections, the public, not the private entities, because if they do, then the private financing leads to private interests ruling over all of us. But that is not what this guy is talking about. Obviously, he's an incredibly unsophisticated adult, which is unfortunately very true of a lot of Trump voters. And so he's saying, ah, Soros, he's the main evil guy, and he's an enemy of the Constitution. Your guy, Donald Trump, just said that he would like to rewrite the Constitution and take away a birthright citizenship, and he'd like to do it with an executive order.

But wait, I thought you guys said you hated executive orders, I thought you said you care about the Constitution and that Soros and Obama were enemies of the Constitution. Here's Donald Trump trying to destroy the Constitution without going through an amendment. If he proposed an amendment, that's a totally different thing, and I'm super open to that. Not on birthright citizenship. He can propose anything he likes, but I would fight against that on policy grounds. But amendments are part of the Constitution, not an executive order that signs away a core part of the Constitution.

So the bottom line is they don't actually care about the Constitution, they don't care about any of that. They just keep pushing these anti-Semitic conspiracy. theories and Donald Trump did it again yesterday. They asked him about the caravan. They said, now, there's theories out there that, you know, in the right wing, extreme right wing, that Soros is funding the caravan. Total nonsense, totally made up.

And other anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, the Jews control everything, including a caravan coming out of Honduras. What the hell would anyone Jewish or Soros have to do with that? And Trump said, yeah, mm-hmm, I think that's possible. He's a monster, man. And so I said this a long time ago, right when he got in office, I said, look, the bottom of the barrel is anti-Semitism. Once we've gotten there, then all the demons have been released.

Because that was logically a forbidden topic in America because of, I don't know, World War II in the Holocaust, where six million Jews died. So, and normally, politicians in America don't go there. But I realized when I interviewed David Duke back before the 2016 election, right around when the campaign was getting started. David Duke did not talk about blacks or Latinos much. He was obsessed with the Jews. And I noticed that that's what the extreme right wing,

at the end of the day, they come back to the Jews. And now it's on their backs, it's tattooed, Trump reinforces it. We got a synagogue attack. We got bombings, including a bomb said to George Soros, yet they are totally unrepentant. This is after the bombing. This is after the shooting of the synagogue.

Now, look, that guy could say, oh, synagogue, no, I'm not saying it's anti-Jewish, I'm just saying, you know, he's the primary evil, right? Okay, I don't buy that. But secondly, they sent a bomb to Soros's house. Don't care. Because, look, that's domestic terrorism, and they're cheerleading it. So now we have another case of a Republican politician with another anti-Semitic attack. This guy is state senator in Connecticut, Ed Charming.

And his opponent is the rampant representative Matthew Lesser, who happens to be Jewish. So get a load of the poster that he put up a flyer criticizing Matt Lesser. It says, vote no, I'm Matt Lesser, and it has a picture of him looking greedy with large eyes, holding a bunch of money. Now, wait a minute. How does that make any sense? First of all, there's an older guy holding it on to his piggy bank, but Lester and the Democrats want to protect Social Security.

Mitch McConnell and the Republican leadership have talked about cutting Social Security at Medicare. So why put a money-grubbing picture of someone on a flyer like that totally irrationally and not connected to anything? Well, hey, look at that, I got a Jewish opponent and he's a money grubber. Oops! Did I put out an anti-Semitic flyer? They're disgusting, man. And so, of course, he took a lot of heat for that, and he must have gotten the talking to.

I don't think it worked. So they put out this statement. Now, I want to read you this statement on his Facebook page, but understand that this is not the Republican candidate. It's his staff that put out this statement. They said, the entire campaign committee, which enclosed members of the Jewish community, never discussed or considered Mr. Lesser's ethnicity, race, religion, or any other personal characteristics of Mr. Lesser.

And it was never our intention for the mailer to be anything more than a reflection of Mr. Lester's policy record. Right, right, right, hilarious. However, it is clear now that the imagery could be interpreted as anti-Semitic. For that, we deeply apologize as hate speech of any kind that does not belong in our society and especially not in our politics. Except you guys are the ones who made the flyer and sent it to everyone. And then when you got your hand caught in the anti-Semitic cookie jar, all of a sudden

you're like, oh, hate speech, oh, there's no place for it. except for when we were printing the flyers and sending him to everyone. But now we got caught, so we feel bad. Lesser himself pointed out, he said that he had not been contacted by Charmunt or state Republican leaders since the mailing went out. So there was no personal apology. There was just a bland statement from his office. What did the candidate himself say, though?

Before he was admonished by other Republican leaders, he said, the mailer makes the point that if elected, Matt Lester will undoubtedly vote to hike people's taxes again and again. Those wishing to betray a graphic illustration as something hateful are completely wrong. So he doesn't believe it. That statement they put out later, that's not him. He didn't sign it. He didn't say it. He didn't call Lester.

He hasn't told anyone in the media that he apologized for it. His real reaction was, yes, so what, what are you going to do about it, right? And you want to, if you actually had policy differences and you were worried that what? That Soros contributes too much, this guy's going to raise taxes, et cetera, and that they're money. Are you kidding me? How about your donors? How about your donors, Republicans?

But it's that convenient to attack them, one, because they're bribing you. Now, in America, we have the insanity of legal bribes called campaign contributions and independent expenditures. But you like those bribes when they go to Republicans. And number two, you know, some of your donors happen to be Jewish because it's a big country and a lot of them aren't. Ah, well, that doesn't get fear and hatred going in our base enough. So let's pick one Democratic donor who is Jewish.

Let's attack him nonstop. And if you've got a Jewish opponent, make him seem like a money grub or two. This is what the Republican Party has been reduced to. That's in Connecticut. That's not in Mississippi. That's in Connecticut. And by the way, very good reason as to why they finally pulled it off is because probably a lot of Republican voters in Connecticut also happen to be Jewish.

Of course, not a majority, it's a minority, but, and Jewish Americans generally vote for Democrats, over 70% Democrats, but they have to have some voter supporters, et cetera, that are Jewish in Connecticut that's back to the Republican Party. But guess what? But you should go to a doctor if you're one of those minorities, Jewish, Latino, black, Muslim, etc., a gay American that is voting for a Republican thinking they're on your side. They're not remotely on your side. They're coming to get you.

And they're proud of it. And they got a tattooed on their back. They got a printed in flyers. They got their president egging on anti-Semitism after the synagogue shooting. So that's the today's Republican Party. Okay. Now we move to hatred against African Americans. So by the way, if this is your first time watching the show, you're beginning to get a sense of it.

Okay. So now, there's a race in Pennsylvania where you've got a wonderful progressive Jess King. She is running against first-term Republican Lloyd Smucker. And Jess King is a just Democrat. She's uncorrupted, does not take corporate PAC money. You should look into supporting her. She's been on Rebel Headquarters, which is part of the TYT network. And so a lot of people are excited to support her, including Amanda Kemp and her husband, Michael

Jimenez. So they went to go canvassing in Pennsylvania, where this race is, and they went to Mannheim township, because that's where the race is, and they went to a gated community called Bent Creek community. And they happen to be a biracial couple, a man in camp is African American, and her husband is white. But they run into a woman in the gated community who apparently came out with shears in her hand, So I guess she was doing gardening, and she was quite moved immediately.

She was angered. That's curious. I mean, you have no idea what these folks are even doing. Why would you come out guns blazing or in this case, I guess shears blazing? So, well, I mean, here's a biracial couple in her gated community, I'm going to tell you about that community in a second. And so she asked them, you know, what are you doing here? Does she often ask other people in that community, hey, what are you doing here?

Does she know every single person in that community? Is she sure that they're not, they don't normally live in that gated community? It's hard to tell, okay? Also incredibly easy to tell. Anyway, so she says, what are you doing here? And they say, oh, we're canvassing. We came for a specific person in this community. We want to tell them about Jess King, but then we decided that we were going to just knock on doors.

This, by the way, it happens all across the country. It's actually a wonderful thing where volunteers go out and talk to their neighbors, talk to people in the community, and it's a personal interaction. I think it's one of the best things about grassroots politics in America. So, of course, this woman wanted to put an end to it. So she asked them about it, and they said, well, we're canvassing, which is very normal, but we're canvassing for Jess King. So they're perfectly honest about it. So what is the reaction? The woman whose name is Elizabeth Duffy Johnson, according to her.

to Amanda Kemp said, I hate Jess King. She's trying to take us to socialism. You can't do that here. So it appears that you'll, first of all, you came out for a curious reason. I don't know why you thought what they were doing was wrong. And then once you find out that they support a candidate you don't like, well, then all of a sudden, you are very, very animated. By the way, this Duffy lady is a member of the Republican Committee of Lancaster County.

So she's officially a Republican, and she wants to that couple out of there. So how about that community? Well, who's in it? Ben Creek, which was built in the 1990s, around a country club and a golf course, has been listed as one of the wealthiest 1,000 neighborhoods in the U.S. It is nearly 90% white. I don't know what the other 10% is, but apparently Duffy Johnson thought that it couldn't be these two folks.

So, is there anything wrong with a community that's wealthy around a country club? Of course not. Anything wrong with it being 90% white? Well, it happens to be 90% white. Okay, that's not the issue. The issue is when someone comes down and goes, what are you doing here? You don't look like us. Okay.

Now, let's get more into the person who came out and started this altercation in the first place. The woman who was later identified as Elizabeth Duffy Johnson. Gee, I wonder if she's at the country club with a name like Duffy. was a nickname. Anyway, a member of the Republican Committee of Lancaster County and a smucker campaign volunteer took the couple's picture and the white woman covered her face when they tried to take hers. Well, isn't that interesting, right? Ah, you guys are probably, she called the cops on him.

So that's why she's taking the picture. She's like, I'm going to get you guys. Look at Amanda Kemp. Does that look like a criminal? I mean, come on. I mean, maybe if you're racist, it does. Oh, she's black. Well, my definition.

She looks like the most normal American I have ever seen in my entire life. By the way, she is a visiting scholar at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster. Okay, but not to Duffy. Duffy views her to be a danger. So he starts taking pictures of her calling the cops. When they try to take a picture of her, they're like, okay, that's all right. You take a picture of us, it's a free country, and we'll take a picture of you. She's like, how dare you?

How dare you? What's wrong, Duffy? I thought you were on the side of righteousness and justice. Shouldn't you be proud? So, by the way, let's show you this happy couple here, happy other than what has happened to them now. And so I can't believe that anybody would look at that couple and think it's a danger. How could you possibly think that?

Okay. Okay. And then apparently Duffy went on to say, all this is private property. You can't be in here at all. I'm calling the police. And that she did. She called the cops. And by the way, the couple said, all right, okay, fine.

You know, nobody else, but you complain. All we're doing is trying to get. people to vote. So they left, they go home. And the cops pursued them. Apparently, Duffy recognized Michael Jimenez, the husband. And so I don't mean like it's a hot pursuit or anything. They went to their house. And Jimenez, who Johnson had apparently recognized during their encounter, spoke with the officer who asked a few questions before determining no criminal violations had taken place. Oh, you don't say. Turns out being an American and trying to get other people to vote is not criminal.

Okay. And even doing it when you're a biracial couple, even that's not criminal. I know that's going to become as a huge shock to some Republican voters in this country, but it's not. And once again, white right wingers, 911, is not takeout service, okay? It's not, hey, I'd like something delivered to my house. In this case, cops, I saw a black person. And they're trying to get other people to vote.

Man, I don't know when the Republican Party is going to get better, but it ain't soon, unfortunately. All right, especially when they're led by this guy. Let's go to the next story, Donald Trump. Okay. I love that graphic. Okay. So Donald Trump being interviewed recently, asked, hey, I thought you said you were never going to tell a lie. Listen at what he says.

The ending is very important and very telling. And then I'm going to show you some of his lies afterwards. Let's watch. I remember you remember well in the campaign. You made a promise. In this journey, I will never lie to you. I will never tell you something I do not believe. Can you tell me now, honestly, have you kept that promise at all times?

Have you always been truthful? Well, I mean, I do try. I think you try too. You say things about me that are not necessarily correct. I do try, and I always want to tell the truth. When I can, I tell the truth. When I can, when I can I tell the truth. Well, what's stopping you, big guy?

I try. I kind of try. Sometimes I try. A lot of times I don't try, though. So now, I'm going to show you the times that he doesn't try. And he knows it. He knows he's a liar. That's why he gives that answer.

Now, if you say to me, hey, Jake, do you try to tell the truth? I say, absolutely. Look, is everyone accurate on every single issue? No, and sometimes even our audience corrects us, and then we come out and corrected because we actually care about the truth. We care about getting it right, but Donald Trump doesn't care about that. He cares about winning, that's the only thing he cares about. In fact, if you remember, there was a story of how his friends at the National Enquirer printed

a story about how Ted Cruz's dad might have killed JFK. And he spread that insane conspiracy theory on Fox News before their contest in Indiana. That was a very important contest that proved to be decisive, and he spread that smear job against Cruz. After that contest was over and Trump had won, Wolf Blitzer asked about it back in 2016. And listen to what Donald Trump said. Watch. Yesterday with this National Enquirer story, I just want you to clarify, you don't really believe that Ted Cruz's father had anything to do with the assassination of President Kennedy. No, I don't.

And you don't believe, you don't believe in that conspiracy. Of course, I don't believe that. I wouldn't believe it, but I did say let people read it. Amazing admission, right? He said before the election, yeah, yeah, I mean, people should check it out. I don't know. He said, it's crazy. It's crazy what might have happened, right?

And then he turns around after he was like, of course I didn't believe it. So then Wolf actually followed up here. And I want to give credit to Wolf Bliss, which I don't often do. But look, I can't wait to give credit where credit is do. And so he did a good job of following up here and asked why Trump said that then. And his answer is very telling. Watch. Here's what happened. Ted Cruz's father, seems like a nice guy. I don't know him, but seems like a nice guy.

He made horrible statements about me, you know, praying for bad things to happen to me, okay, essentially. I said, that's horrible. And I was on a show, one of your competitors, and they showed me the clip. I said, wow, that's horrible. This, it's not just a one-way street, you know, where I do something. It was a horrible statement. I was actually surprised by it. And during that, and when I said how bad it was that a man would say something like that, I said, well, why don't you read the various magazines? Because it's not only there.

It was put in numerous where he has a picture of himself with Lee Harvey Oswald. I'm not saying they conspired. But the National Acquirer put it on this. I'm just saying it was all over the place. I said, well, why don't you talk about that? That was it. I'm not saying he did it, but I'm just saying it was all over the place. Now that you're the Republican presumptive nominee, you have to have a higher standard than to repeat conspiratorial theories like that.

First of all, I wasn't at the time. I didn't know if I was going to win Indiana or not. So I was not a presumptive winner at that time. I was going against them. They were going against me. Two parts there that are very, very telling. One of he says, well, you know, Raphael Cruz said horrible statements about me. So I said horrible statements.

We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-Fitting the Republic or U.S. UNFTR. As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-B. The Republic or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be, featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it. The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, you must have learned what you have learned.

And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained all at the same time. It's about him. Even though I just told you, I know that they're not true. truth it's optional and then to me the ending was even more telling where he says well it's a time

I hadn't won yet so I had to win that's what he cares about the most in fact when he was asked just in the last couple of days hey you call the press the enemy of the people all the time that might get somebody killed are you concerned about that he's like well that's but that's how I win in other words you die that's your problem not my problem I tell you nonstop lies and my voters are stupid enough to believe it. That's their problem, not my problem. All I care about is me, me, me, me, me, me. So that is why he is lies on a regular basis.

He's pathological about it. In fact, let me give me the numbers. The Washington Post fact checker reported last month that Trump had more than 5,000 false or misleading claims in the first 601 days of his presidency, an average of 8,000. 0.3 claims a day. That's amazing. That's amazing. I've never seen anyone in public life lie at this record rate, let alone a politician, let alone the president of the United States. And as you just saw there with your own eyes, he does it as a strategy, as a tactic, he doesn't care. He has no moral qualms about it at all. That's why he just said yesterday,

Oh, the caravan, yeah, it might be funded by George Soros. Later, he'll say, yeah, I was doing it to win. Of course I was lying. Oh, did somebody send Soros Obama? Who cares? Who cares? Oh, somebody shot up a synagogue. Who cares?

I was doing it to win. Me, me, me, me, me, me, me. The guy's sickening. But let's end on a little bit lighter, absurd note. I just want to give you one of the misstatements that he said recently. And this from the Washington Post. He, for instance, said a middle class tax cut would be passed by November 1st, even though Congress wasn't in session and had no plans to reconvene before the elections.

Hey, today's November 1st. Did they pass it? No. Did they reconvene? No. Was there ever a bill to pass another tax cut along the lines that Donald Trump talked about? No. What did he do?

Just lied about it. Just made it up. Doesn't care. Why he thinks, oh, well, that'll turn up my base. But you're turning out your base with a lie, and his answer to that is, and how do you think I turned him out in the first place? Total, complete, pathological liar with no qualms, no morality around it, no empathy, and this is our president.

Remember, the president is supposed to represent all of us. Do you think that he views the job in that way in any shape, form? No, he views it as me, me, me, me, me, me. The rest of you, that's your problem, not my problem. Okay, we've got to take a quick break here. When we come back, my predictions about the House and the Senate, who will win, who will lose. I obviously decide. So the truth when we were, no, it's a prediction.

But it would give you a sense before the elections as to where I think the range is going to be and what you can expect. Am I optimistic about it? Only one way to find out. Come right back. All right, welcome back to the Young Turks. We will do your comments a little bit later. And of course, we take the member comments first if you want to become a member t-y-t.com

slash join, and we're doing a fun little competition, which we'll talk about a little bit later in the program. But I've got a lot of news for you guys, so let's get it going. Okay, let's go over here. Okay, so Donald Trump recently asked to explain. if he cares, if the media is going to be attacked, because he keeps calling them the enemy of the people. I'm going to set this up for you guys and then go to Fox and Friends afterwards to get their

reaction of how the media should bow their heads to Trump and what their journalistic standards are, which is fascinating. But first, let's find out what the context was. Here's the original question that started the conversation. Here's a crap out of me, is that when, if you're saying, enemy the people, enemy the people. You have to fight back. You're right. No, but hold the second.

But this thing is. God forbid that like somebody, like you've got fervent supporters. They love you. They listen to you. Enemy people. Enemy people. They like me more because of that. They like you more because of that.

They like me more because of a sudden someone gets shot. Someone shoots one of these reporters. Don't you worry at all? I mean, people, you are like the most powerful man in the world. And if you say that word, enemy, enemy, literally tens of thousands of people go into a stadium to listen to you. And then people go on social media and they get themselves so, jazzed up. There's got to be a party that's like, damn, man, I'm scared that someone is going to take it. It's my only form of fighting back. I couldn't be here if I did that. So, great questions

by Axios there. And is Jim Van der Heide doing the questioning in that particular exchange? And I'm glad somebody finally asked it of him. And his answer is, yeah, but that's my form of fighting back. All I hear about is winning, winning, winning, whether you guys get shot. Is your problem, not my problem? So if you're in the press or the media, like Fox News theoretically is, well, that might concern you. And to be fair to Fox, some of their anchors have spoken out saying, maybe calling the press enemy of the people not a great idea because apparently many months into this, they looked

around and they're like, oh, right, we're pretending to be the press, that's funny. But yeah, all right, so maybe you shouldn't do that. But only a couple of their anchors said that. So now Fox and Friends is his home base, we're home of progress. Fox and Friends is home of Trump. So are they going to defend their own people in the media? Or are they going to defend Trump? Now, you know which way this is going to go.

But Ainsley Earhart here at the end says something incredible for someone that's theoretically in the press. Let's watch. Frustrating would it be if you're the president of the United States and every single time you turn on the TV on most of the channels, they're misconstruing what you say. And you know your heart and you know your words and you know your voice. voice and then you watch other people report on what you say and it's completely different than what you mean.

That has to be frustrating and that's why he's saying it's fake news and he's saying if you don't want to be called the enemy, then get the story right, be accurate and report the story the way that I want it reported. Yeah, I think it's a good point. No, it's not a good point. It's a terrible point. She said at the end there, if you don't want me to call your names, well then report it the story the way I want it reported.

Well, if we didn't live in a democracy, I guess that is how it would work. Kim Jong-un, another friend of Donald Trump, would love it that way and has it that way because he's a dictator. So he says, if you don't report the news the other way I want, we're probably executed, at least going to go to a gulag, that's for sure. Another friend of his, Vladimir Putin, you better be careful. If you don't report the news the way that Putin wants, a piano can fall on your head by accident, okay, and on and on it goes.

But that is not how the press is supposed to work in America. We're supposed to report reality, whether it is convenient or inconvenient to the people in charge. The press is supposed to be the watchdogs. Now look, I think that they've fallen asleep on that job for a great number of decades at this point, and I think they should have been a lot more aggressive in questioning both Republican and Democratic presidents and politicians. So I can give you a thousand examples.

I mean, obviously the Iraq war is a stunning example of the failure of the media to be watchdogs. They were lap dogs at that time. And the list goes on. But they never questioned Obama on his drone strikes either that killed innocent civilians. They don't question all the politicians on their donors, which actually is an enormous form of corruption that goes completely unmentioned in television, except for when now we talk about it on television. So, you're welcome.

But if you have those criticism of the press, that would make sense. But the Fox News criticism is the exact opposite. They say, no, no, no, no. If you would just bow your head to the president and report the news in the way that he would like, in other words, with political correctness, then everything would be fine. Understand that word political correctness is not some modern term applied to things that give you a fence. No, that's a term both from Stalinist Russia and for Nazi Germany, where they told the media

you are not to report what is factually correct, you are to report what is politically correct. What the politicians want you to report. Well, they would have loved that segment. That's keeping it real. Okay. Now, on to the main event. Let's go to my predictions. Okay.

Now, I want to give you a sense of where we are today in the House and the Senate and then tell you what I think is going to happen in just a couple of days in the 2018 elections. So first, obviously, there's 435 people in the House of Representatives, and I want to give you the breakdown as it currently stands. There are 195 Democratic seats and 240 Republican seats. That's why, of course, the Republicans control the House of Representatives. And significantly so, that's a big, big margin, obviously, that is in favor of the Republicans. There's actually technically seven vacancies.

But of those vacancies, five are in Republican seats and two are in Democratic seats. That's how you arrive at 240 to 195. And so that's a 45-seat advantage for the Republicans. I took math in college. And so can the Democrats really overcome that? Well, let's take a look at the basically the map of the House here. So you get a sense of where things stand, graphic 26. So a lot more red than blue.

And then, you know, you've got those vacancies. But as I explained to you, the breakdown of those, you have a sense of where it stands. All right. Now, how many seats do the Democrats need to pick up too much? make that swing. While they need to pick up 24 seats so that they can get to at least 218, and obviously the seats that they pick up, the Republicans lose, and that's how the math works. Once again, I took a little bit of math in school.

Okay, so now the relevant part is how many seats do I think the Democrats are going to pick up? Now, I looked at the polling, I looked at all the different websites that track this, and And on top of that, I did my own analysis. Now, the point of this is not to beat my chest and say, oh, ha ha, I got it right or later say I got it wrong if I did, which I do. If I do get it wrong, of course, I share that with you guys. The point is to give you guys a sense of the lay of the land and give you a sense of what

people's expectations are and why I think they're a little off. So, for example, if you go to real clear politics, they track all the polling. and they aggregate the polling, and they believe that Democrats are going to pick up 26 seats. According to the polling, that is not their opinion, they say, look, we're trying the polling, the average of the polling, I think there's a reason why the polling is a little off, and they say 26, that would be barely enough for the Democrats to win back the House. Well, I think that there are a number of issues with that. I think, first of all, most of the polling tracks likely voters, and when there is great

enthusiasm and energy as there is on the Democratic side in this particular election, it undercounts the number of people who are actually going to show up. Now, in 2016, that was actually an advantage for Donald Trump and the Republicans. He had unlikely voters show up. In fact, that's why we warned you ahead of time that that election was nowhere near a lock as the rest of the press was saying. I explained five days before that election that the polling actually indicated that Hillary was only up by two points in Pennsylvania, and that could easily swing.

And we saw unlikely voters come in for Donald Trump during the primaries. We saw unlikely voters come in for Bernie Sanders during the primaries because they're unconventional candidates. They're more populist candidates. That's why Bernie Sanders was supposed to lose Michigan by 18, but actually won it by two. And that is why Hillary Clinton had problems in Michigan and wound up, of course, losing Michigan. Because it's not that the polling is not scientific, it's that they're looking at a slightly wrong group, on average, but they wouldn't be, by the way, if it's an establishment candidate

versus an establishment candidate, which is a lot of the Senate. So I'll get to that in a second. But especially when there are populist candidates, so the one I cite often is Richard Ojetta in West Virginia's third district. Trump won his district by 49 points. So on none of the maps was Ojetta's race remotely close. They're like, oh, well, that's a no-brainer. The previous Republican congressman there won his seat, his election by 44 points.

That is not a close district at all. And normally that would be true. That is right. That is not a close district. But Ojetta is nearly tied in the polling. Now, even so, though, a lot of the people covering these races will go, nah, but he can't possibly win, because that is a red district. That is a really Republican district.

But what you're missing is, if someone runs as a populace as Ojetta is doing, well, that's a totally different ballgame. One, he closed a 49 point lead, which is amazing, and that is already being seen in the polls. And number two, more people might show up than the polls indicate because he is going to get unlikely voters to come out. So now, I wish there were more populist progressive candidates than our chances would be significantly higher. Unfortunately, especially in the Senate, there's a lot of corporate Democrats, and they don't

engender a lot of energy. But there is a national wave and a national energy. And I've already seen it in the primaries, far more women showed up to vote than they have almost ever shown up to vote. And so it depends on the state, it depends on the district. But overall, on average, women came out record numbers in the primaries. If they do so in similar numbers in the election that's coming up in 2018 for the House and the Senate, well, you'll have a dramatically different view of it.

I looked at the early voting to see, does it match out with the polling? Did it match up with the primaries? And there the answer is honestly mixed. So in some states like Texas, a lot of younger voters are showing up, certainly more than you would see on average. So Ted Cruz better watch himself. You never know what happens there. The younger voters are going overwhelmingly to better work, according to the polling, and according

to every other thing we've seen nationally. There's more young voters in Georgia, so that is not a good sign for Kemp in that race, in the governor's race, it's a very good sign for Stacey Abrams. Unfortunately, overall though, the younger voters in most of the states are not showing up in record numbers. If young people voted at the same rate as people above the age of 65, the Republicans would be completely wiped out. I mean, not wiped out, hey, they lost the House in the Senate by a little bit.

They would barely exist as a party. The problem is young people don't vote at anywhere near the rates of older voters, okay? But finally, on the issue of women, which is, and by the way, sorry, Latinos, very important do. If Latinos showed up the same numbers as white voters or even black voters, again, the Republicans would be toast, but unfortunately the early voting on Latinos is also mixed. Now, on women, that is where the energy is, and they are voting at greater rates than men already in early voting.

And because of that, the Democrats, I think, will pick up a lot more seats than others do. Now, I wish the numbers in early voting were a little bit higher, but unlikely voters are also more likely to show up on the day of the election rather than mailing in their ballots earlier. So is there a good deal of speculation in here? Of course there is. But I'm trying to do a real analysis for you guys as we did in 2016 and got it relatively right, as we've done throughout, and that's why I told you Donald Trump was going to win the Republican nomination, because we looked at the polling and we looked at the trends

and numbers matter. It isn't about who you want to win, it's about who do you think's actually going to win. So, having said all that, I haven't crunched the numbers to the best of my ability, I believe the Democrats will pick up 38 seats. Now, that is more than 24 they need. It's more than the 26 that the polling average indicates, at least on real clear politics, and obviously different sites look at it slightly differently and look at slightly different polls. But 26 is a number that makes sense based on the polling. I think they're going to go to 38. Now, could they go higher? Yes. But first, let me share what the map would look like if it is 38. So then the Democrats would have the House and they would have it significantly. They would have 233

seats and the Republicans would have only 202 seats. Basically, it would be a role reversal where the Democrats then could easily pass any legislation they want. Will they? Well, that's a different question. We'll handle that after the election. And believe me, we'll put a lot of pressure on them to actually do what they said they were going to do to continue to energize the voters. But I actually think the range is not 26 to 38. I think the range of Democratic pickups in the House is 38 to 50. And the only reason why I don't have it at 50 at the upper end of the range is because the early voting is not quite at the level that I would hope for in the demographics

that would help the Democrats. And also because there's still a lot of corporate Democrats out there running Republican light campaigns. I think that the populace are completely underrated. but so far there's not quite enough of them. I hope that in 2020 that changes after the populist progressives come up with victories that were unexpected. We already have had a lot of those, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in a very blue district,

but Kara Eastman in a very red district. And so if the Cara Eastman's of the world win and the Ojeda's win and there's so many others out there, just check out JustDemocrats.com to see those progressive populist candidates, then I think we could run more of those in 2020 and have bigger victories. But to give you a sense of what I think is the bias in the rest of the press, Washington posted a story about chance of Democratic pickups in Virginia. And there's a corporate Democrat that they said could win their race, even though she is trailing by eight points.

There's a more populous progressive, a strong progressive, Coburn in Virginia's fifth district, running against Riggleman, who is a very extreme right winger, they say that she has, does not have a good chance of winning, but she's actually tied. See, look at the bias. They're not actually looking at the polling. So in Washington, they have a pre-set mindset, and Ryan Grimm did a great story about this in the intercept recently, along with Breast. Breonna Gray. And they say that the Democratic Party, and unfortunately a lot of the media,

is obsessed with what they call Whole Foods districts, a suburban districts where they think they're going to flip Republican voters. Yeah, but no, you got to get your base to show up. If the Democratic base shows up, they win an astounding number of victories. The Democrats have a registration advantage over the Republicans. And in so many of these districts that even ones that are considered red, no, the Democrats have the registration advantage. The problem is the base doesn't show up. Why?

Because you don't get anything to show up over. So the Democratic strategy is run corporate, business-friendly, pro-war candidates because they'll appeal to suburban Republican voters who think corporations are awesome and war is awesome and go to Whole Foods. And so because of that lens that they wear, they go, oh, somebody's down by eight, they'll probably win because they're a corporatist. Or someone's tied, they'll probably lose because they're a progressive. That makes no sense at all.

That's exactly what they did wrong in 2016. That's why I think it could go all the way up to 50 if some of those progressives win races that the rest of the press does not expect. But I wish they had more populous progressives than we can get to the higher end of that range. Now, I want to do the Senate real quick as well. Obviously, there's 100 senators, you guys know that. And currently today, there's 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats, and so that is really close. Unfortunately, there's a lot more Democratic seats up than Republican seats.

So it is much harder to win the Senate, even though it's a smaller margin. It's overwhelmingly Democratic seats that are up for re-election because a third of the Senate goes up for re-election every two years. The next two cycles, by the way, there'll be a lot more Republican seats up, and then they earn for a world to hurt. But in this cycle, everybody believes that the Democrats are probably not going to be able to pull out a victory. In fact, they think they might lose one or two seats in this cycle. Well, look, here, I'm less certain because a lot of the Democratic candidates are Republican-like, total conservative corporate Democrats, and so they're going to shoot themselves in the foot. But I do believe that the wave is real. I believe that more women will show up.

I believe that there's a lot of people angry about Donald Trump. And I also believe, and this is important, that Donald Trump's strategy of trying to turn out his base by being more and more hateful almost every day leading up to the election, yes, we'll turn up a couple more people in his base, but we'll actually anger enough people in the Democratic base to have more of them show up. I think it is a counterproductive strategy as things stand now. And you have to understand something. Last point on this is just very important and is not taken into account by the rest of the media enough.

Donald Trump needed 85% of white evangelical voters to show up for him to win in 2016. And 81% of them voted for Donald Trump. That is an astounding number. It's nearly impossible to replicate. In fact, if you take white evangelical, in this case specifically, less educated, white evangelical voters out? Do you know that Hillary Clinton actually won non-college educated white voters by a large margin? So it's almost exclusively the evangelical base that is propping up the Republican Party. But if they don't show up at an

85% rate, which is record-breaking the rate that they showed up at 2016, then the Republicans are in a world of trouble. So despite the fact that there are these corporate Democrats out there running, in my opinion, terrible racism. across the country at the Senate side, I believe that the Democrats will actually pick up a seat. So I think they're going to pick up one seat, and the result at the end will be 50 to 50, a tie in the Senate. So, look, and I think that I can tell you some of the results already, Heidi Heidcamp, thought it was a genius idea to run as Republican light in North Dakota.

It is not. She's getting crushed, and she will lose. and I think that we were going to pick up some seats that are unexpected. It could be Tennessee, it could be Mississippi of all places, it could be Texas. But we will get, my sense is a victory or two that is totally unexpected. But unfortunately, I think that one of, one or couple of the corporate Democrats will bungle it, a candidate like Joe Donnelly, who's running nonstop ads celebrating the Republican party, a candidate like that could easily lose because they didn't make their own case.

Instead, they made the Republican case, and that is usually a recipe for failure. And at the end of the day, we might look around and go, oh my God, we had it. We could have even had the Senate if one of these knuckleheads hadn't lost the race, they had no business losing. So we'll see, but that is my expectations for what's going to happen. Good news is we're all going to find out together. So, t-y-t.com slash live will be on all day. We'll start at 1 p.m. and probably go to about 1 a.m. Eastern.

We'll also have special coverage from 6 to 11 p.m. on Monday. Do a pre-election show. We'll talk about this and get more into the particulars of the different races and the ballot measures and the governor's races. But don't miss a minute of our election coverage because this is, this is not a hyperbole. This is the most important midterm election of our lifetime. All right, we've got to take a break. We'll be right back.

We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks. If you want to get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media, become a member at t.t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free second. All right, back on the Young Turks. Let's go to member comments first. TYT.com slash join to become a member. Jay-key-Bakey's, right, saying if Trump feels his words aren't being reported the way he means them

and everyone's reporting the same thing, it sounds like Trump's a really bad. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing and selling our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them. It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to, trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you

from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine. So take back control of your life online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN. And if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash t-y-t, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for T-Y-T fans. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today.

Communicator. It's a very fair point. You should look into that. I am Sock, writes in. Jenkins already dusting off his told your crystal ball graphic. Well, we'll have to see, isn't it? So, come and see Republicans, come and see, t-y-t.com slash live on election night. Shadow president 420 writes in, Democrats and people on the left should never forget

that there are a hell of a lot more poor middle class people than than there are rich. If we can just get everyone to vote their own economic interests, we win every election by representing the vast majority of the people. And by the way, if you don't know why the Democrats don't do that obvious, super obvious strategy, It's because they're hooked on the donor money and the donors are rich, so they don't want to say, hey, let's help the poor in the middle class because the donors go, hey, where's my tax cuts? And a lot of donors say, hey, I'm socially liberal, and they are. So give the Democratic donors credit on that, way better than the Republican donors, but fiscally conservative.

In other words, I still want my tax cuts. So otherwise, if you're not tethered to the donors, you would run like Ojeda does. You would run like so many of these wonderful progressives do. You would run like Alexandria Ocaster-Cortez did. I mean, she beat the number four Democrat in the House, and she beat him with a stick. Okay, proverbially, right? Why? She actually ran towards the middle class.

And Crowley, why was he the number four Democrat in the House? Because he took among the most corporate donor money out of everyone in the house. Oops. It turns out if you get challenged and all you do is serve the rich. It's not a good strategy to win an election. Turns out there's a lot more poor at middle class, just like you say, than there are rich. Okay. And by the way, you don't have to hate the rich or be against the rich.

No, we just, all we want is a fair tax system, a fair regulatory system, one that represents all of us. Okay, eclectic miscellany on Twitter, writes, and can you imagine being the person who has to keep track of all of Trump's lies that has got to be the most depressing job in journalism? Fair enough, hashtag TYT Live, talk to us on Twitter during the show. We'll take a lot of your tweets in our election coverage, too. Thoughts on spoken on YouTube, super chat says, from North Dakota, caught Jenk mentioning Hyde camp, and I could only laugh.

She's doomed in my opinion, only because Kramer's supporting ads always mentioned Trump and Hillary. There are tons of us here in North Dakota that want this over. Yes, because you know why you want it over? Because Hyde camp doesn't fight for you. If she fought for you, then you'd be rooting her on, and you'd be hoping that she wins, and you'd bring everybody to the polls. Instead, Hydecamp says, oh, the Republicans are largely right, but I'm not so bad either.

That's why she's getting beat, I think, by 16 points. So, Jesus, man, they never learn. Anyway, let's go over here. We sent our reporter, Emma Viglin, to her Trump rally to ask a simple question. You say you're for the Constitution, but Donald Trump says he's going to take away birthright citizenship, which is clearly in the Constitution. So how do you explain that? Let's find out.

I agree with Trump, wholeheartedly. Even though it's a part of the Constitution. Even though it's part of the Constitution. You know, the Constitution's a couple of 300 years old. So I think it's time to change things. And that's why I'm not the Second Amendment, though. Never the Second Amendment. We have the right to defend ourselves.

Look, it's a couple 300 years old. Blazest it's hard. That's nothing wrong with that. Okay. So, but my amusement, of course, is centered around the Constitution is the most important thing. Almost everybody at the rally, Constitution, Constitution, right? But Trump wants to change the Constitution. Yeah, that's awesome.

We should change the Constitution. How about the Second Amendment? Oh, no, no, don't change the Constitution. By the way, it is okay. It's perfectly acceptable to say, yeah, some things should be amended. For example, we should get money out of politics. But just think about it for a second. Have a principle, have an ideology.

Are you pro-constitution? And by the way, that doesn't mean you're against amendments. I'm massively pro-constitution. I think our Constitution is wonderful. But part of our Constitution is amendments. That's the whole point. The Founding Fathers said, you should change the Constitution from time now. That would be a normal, acceptable answer.

Not, oh, do we never change it? I mean, okay, change it, but don't change it. Here's more of that. Absolutely should be done. It was designed for when slavery, when the time of slavery came in, and it was designed for those people so it would be for their kid. in design for this. It's retarded. So we definitely need to change it. And the better ways to do it through Congress, if he does it through executive order, it could be undone. So it's better

to try to do it through Congress. But absolutely. But you want to change the Constitution, which conservatives like to say they're strict constitutionalists. And I am too. But it was not written to do this. No, actually, it was written to do this. That's why it's in the Constitution. It says anyone who's born here is a citizen. And the writing is incredibly clear. Read the 14th Amendment. And of course, as usual, they have the facts completely wrong. Well, I mean, the executive order is not as good. Congress should do it. No, a bill could not change the Constitution either, only an amendment could. If he clarified that two-thirds of Congress should propose an amendment or two-thirds of the state should do a convention to propose an amendment, and then three-quarters

of the state should ratify, okay. But no, you cannot change the Constitution through an executive order or through a bill through Congress. I don't know, is it too much to ask, okay, maybe you don't know all the particulars of that, that's fine. You're a random dude showing up at a rally. But don't pretend that you're a huge fan of the Constitution and think that it should be changed in a way that is unconstitutional. Both the substance is unconstitutional, and the process he suggested is also unconstitutional. And remember when the Republicans complained that Obama did too many executive orders.

Let's note that irony as well. One more. There's a portion of the Constitution that says, depending on the legality, And that's what his lawyer said he can do, because we're originalists. We believe in the intent of the Constitution. You have to follow it. Well, it was upheld in 1898 in the Supreme Court decision for a Chinese immigrant coming over. They said, yes, you can't keep your children here, even if you weren't here legally.

1898? Yeah, Supreme Court decision. They didn't foresee what was going on today back then. I mean, they didn't know so many Latinos are coming. I mean, then they would have voted against it, obviously. Okay, no, there are no serious constitutional scholars that think that, I mean, because of the legality of it, that people born in America should not be citizens. That is not a real legal opinion.

But the reason they think that is because Trump says it. Now, do you think Trump actually talked to a single constitutional scholar of us? Of course he didn't talk to any constitutional scholars. He's not even going to do it. I mean, look, if they win the House and the Senate, then he might do it. So don't get too comfortable about that. But is his intent to pass that executive order or sign the executive order or pass a bill or to even get an amendment?

Of course not. No, it's his intent is to rile up that particular base and go to the Latinos are coming. They're in a caravan. They're invading. Oh, my God, we've got to do something. All right, you know what? I'm going to end their birthright citizenship. Kick them all out.

Wait, I thought you guys said just a minute ago that you were for legal citizens and legal immigrants. And you were just, it's not racial. It's just that you've got to follow the rule of law. And so that's why you were against illegal immigrants or undocumented immigrants. It turns out, no, you're also against legal immigrants and legal citizens and you're against the Constitution, at least own up to it, at least have the intellectual honesty to say yes. I mean, for as long as we've had the 14th Amendment, everyone born here has been a United States citizen.

But we would like to change that through an amendment because we don't like some people. And we don't want them to be citizens, so we're going to rule them out. By the way, as we did a total point out to you in a segment a couple of days ago, Donald Trump, Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump, all born to a mom who was not a U.S. citizen at the time. Ivana Trump was not a U.S. citizen when they were born. So if we're kicking people out, look, all the Trump kids were born in America.

They have birthright citizenship. But if it turns out, Trump takes away birthright citizenship, send them back, send them back. So I'd like to see what their reaction does. No, no, no, you see you should, but birthright, but for white people, but not for the other guys. We should change the constitution of it. But we should never change it, but we should change it for that. Keep the whites, the birthright, but not the others. Looking forward to that next time.

Okay. All right, one last story for you guys. this so-called hour. Okay. Chris Kobach is a person who is the leading advocate of the idea of voter fraud in this country, and hence the leading advocate for voter suppression. So voter fraud is a myth. I'm going to explain to you the real numbers after I show you this clip from CNN.

And it is used to depress a gigantic amount of votes throughout the country. In fact, millions of votes throughout the country. I'll show you the relative scale of the so-called problem and the so-called solution. But first, Jeffrey Tubin does a wonderful job of actually holding Cobach to account here on CNN and not letting up. Let's watch. I mean, Chris has devoted his career to stopping black people and poor people from voting. I mean, that's been your goal for decades. That is outrageous accusation.

Completely true. That is absolutely outrageous accusation. I mean, oh, so you, so if you are, if you like photo ID, you're trying to stop people of color from voting? Absolutely. That is outrageous. And by the way, the vast, when this question is polled, the vast majority of African Americans approve of photo ID. So apparently they're trying to do what you're saying I'm trying to. That is outrageous.

It is such a horrible accusation. It is a completely true accusation because, Chris, I mean, your whole career has, I mean, that's why you had this phony voter suppression commission that was such a preposterous. joke, established by the president, that it disbanded because it couldn't prove your claim that voter fraud is a problem in this country. Your problem is that some people vote for Democrats, and you want to stop that by establishing voter requirements. I love that Tubin didn't let up, because normally what happens is a Republican does fall outrage.

How could you? I am shocked and chagrin to find out that you think I'm doing voter suppression. Chris, every astute observer of politics knows you're doing voter suppression. You're the leading advocate of voter suppression in the country. That's why Trump put you on that commission. I'm gonna get to that commission in a second because the results of that was hilarious and Tuben is 100% right. So now, let me give you a sense of voter fraud numbers in the country.

There's been a great number of studies on it. Back in 2014, there was a study from the Brennan Center for Justice. Let me read that for you. I'm sorry, this one's from the Washington Post, actually. Brennan Center for Justice reported on it. A comprehensive 2014 study published in the Washington Post found 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud from 2000 to 2014. Oh, wow, there's 31 cases.

Okay, is that real? Out of more than one billion ballots cast, even this tiny number is likely inflated, as the study's author counted not just prosecutions or convictions, but any and all credible claims. 31 out of a billion, is that a real problem in this country? I don't know if you're good at math or not, but trust me, that is incredibly insignificant. In fact, don't trust me, I'll let me give you the numbers. The numbers come out to, and now this is from the Brennan Center for Justice on a different

study, and this is actually higher than the Washington Post numbers. The incident rates of water fraud ranged between, in their study, 0.003 percent and 0. 0.25%. Okay, that is minuscule, minuscule. Now you can say, hey, well, look, the Washington Postings from 2014, that's a whole four years ago. It's still a very new study. The Brennan Center for Justice, they care about justice, so they lean a little left, okay? But I want to give, so I'm going to go to the commission in a second, because that's the Republicans. But first, a fun fact about how small those numbers are, it is more likely the report noted that an American will be, quote, struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.

Okay, that is how rare it is. So, Kobach, though, says, all right, we need to do a commission. Trump agrees. Trump said that he was worried that three to five million people had done voter fraud in 2016, and that's why Hillary won the popular vote. What a preposterous, insane lie that is. I mean, that's one of his biggest lies on that's saying a lot. So they did the commission.

They're going to find the 3 to 5 million illegal votes, except they found nothing. They disbanded it. Tupin's right. It was so embarrassing. They couldn't find any voter fraud. So they're like, never mind. Never mind. We didn't want this commission in the first place.

So then they asked Kobach. They said, well, you did the whole commission. You got nothing. You said, no, no, no, there's been cases. There's been cases. So this was his best case. The commission was presented with a report claiming over 1,000 convictions for various forms of voter misconduct since 1948.

Wow. Wow. Okay. So, I did the math on this, so take it with a great answer because it's my math. But roughly about 4 billion votes since 1948, okay? And if you divide 1,000 by 4 billion, the voter fraud rate is. According to Cobach's own numbers is 0.0.0.0.2.25%. That is actually the lowest of all the numbers. So even Cobach's big claim was way lower than any other report's numbers.

Because it isn't a real problem. It's a giant lie. So then, of course, that leads the question of why? Why do they do this lie? What do you mean voter suppression? Well, the thing is, if you say you need a photo ID to vote, well, a lot of people don't have photo ID. Now, most people do have photo ID, so they think, well, I mean, everybody's got a photo ID, don't they? What's the big deal? The answer is no.

A lot of people who live in cities don't have photo IDs because they don't have cars. They take subways, they take buses, et cetera. A lot of poor people don't have photo IDs because they don't have cars. And even if they don't live in a city. And it turns out, this is stunning. 25% of African Americans in this country do not have a photo ID. Whereas only 8% of white Americans don't, even though, by the way, that 8% is also a giant number. Those are millions upon millions of voters that go to vote and they go, nope, sorry, if Chris Kobach

has his way, and he's now running for governor of Kansas and overseeing his own election in his sense, because he appointed all the people in that election. By the way, I would double check that election. I would triple check that election. Chris Kobach, I mean, you want to talk about voter fraud. What happened in Johnson County in the primaries was very questionable. And that Democrat, if it's anywhere near a close election, should immediately challenge it because Kobach put into place all the people that are in charge of counting the votes.

And Kobach wants to deny people the right to vote. That's the whole point of his career. That's the number one thing that he's known for. If anyone's going to cheat, it's going to be Chris Kobach. So, here's a guy who says we should deny millions of people across the country, the right to vote, and especially African Americans because it affects them more, the poor because it affects them more, people who live in cities rather than in rural areas, these are all more likely to be Democratic voters.

And he knows that, and that's the whole point, to tackle a non-existent problem. Their real problem is they don't want black people to vote because they think they're going to vote Democratic. They don't want poor people. They don't want young people to vote because they think they're going to vote Democratic. And that is the real fraud. And thank God somebody on TV finally called it out. All right, we've got to take a break.

When we come back a lot more, it was an amazing story of the son of a Ferguson protester who was hung with a noose. And it's an interesting story. don't jump to conclusions. Let's talk about it when we come back. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work, listen ad-free, access members-only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcasts at apple.com slash t-y-t.

I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.