The Young Turks - TYT Extended Clip - February 5th, 2020

Episode Date: February 6, 2020

The debacle in Iowa is getting worse. Ana Kasparian and Jayar Jackson, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. 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. Hey, guys, you've heard of the Young Turks podcast because you're listening to it right now. But make sure that you subscribe and give it a five star rating if you like it. Thank you for listening. Welcome to the Young Turks, Anna Casparian and J.R. Jackson with you. We have a bonanza.

It's such a crazy day. I thought you can say a banana, manza because it's both, isn't it? Right. Iowa is a nightmare. And this story is developing by the time we air everything. We know who knows what's going to break in regards to the Iowa caucuses. But we're going to give you the latest that we have research, fact checked, and are able to comfortably share with you knowing that we have the facts on our side.

But later in the show, we'll give you the updates on the impeachment of Donald Trump. He was acquitted, we all know this. But there were some surprising aspects to it that we'll share with you. And then later in the show in the third hour, we have wonderful interviews for you, including probably the peak of my career, my ability to interview Nome Chomsky. So that will actually happen instead of the post game tonight. It's a pre-recorded interview, but you guys can check that out at 5.30 p.m. Pacific. 8.30 p.m. Eastern. It's open to the public. We're not saving it for our members. We want to make

sure everyone can see that discussion. So make sure you check that out. So two lengthy conversations tonight. It'll be great. I feel like I heard this years ago you talked about a Noam Jamski discussion when to talk. There's certain few people, him and Barbara Walters. That's your next. Right. Yeah. I grew up a little bit. So I would still love to interview Barbara Walters. But, you know, my views on certain things have changed since I was a huge fan of hers. But anyway, I do want to move on and get right to the Iowa updates because this story is outrageous. And this is exactly why people feel demoralized in our electoral system. So let's get to it.

There's been more chaos in the Iowa caucuses. First off, as we all know, it took nearly 24 hours for them to release about 62% of the results we had reported on that. that. And then an entire day later, they still have yet to release the full results, but they did release a new batch of results from some of the counties, bringing it to 75% of precincts reporting. Now, here's what we know based on the earlier reports of 75% of precincts reporting. Pete Buttigieg had a slight lead when it came to the state delegates. But the important thing to keep in mind is when it comes to pledge delegates, both Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders, according to these faulty results, by the way, are an incomplete results

are tied when it comes to pledge delegates. Now after that, they released 85% of the results, but the Iowa State Democrats tweeted this, there will be a minor correction to the last batch of results, and we will be pushing an update momentarily. So what was that update about? Well, they did release an update, and they said that these are the corrected results, but there's actually a huge problem. And that huge problem is that it appears that in certain precincts, in certain counties,

the delegates that were pledged to Bernie Sanders somehow ended up being given to Deval Patrick. I'll give you a specific example, and this is not a conspiracy theory. This is based on a hawk-eye supervisor who went to social media to share this weird inconsistency. So, I'm gonna move on to that. So Chris Schwartz, who is the Black Hawk County supervisor, tweeted the following. We have known for over 24 hours as verified by our county party that Bernie Sanders won the Iowa

caucuses in Black Hawk County with 2,149 votes, 155 county delegates. Now, he also included a screenshot of his post on Facebook about this, and he gets into more details. Now, the state party is now being forced to walk back their error of giving Bernie Sanders delegates to DeVall Patrick, who received zero votes in Black Hawk County. Press can direct message me. Okay, so I have more information on this, because it's not just about Black Hawk County. There are other counties showing some inconsistency, some weird.

abnormal results, but this is a huge problem. Okay, so this has been switched since the first night. The first night there was the delays, you had all the cable outlets, including us going, I wonder what's going on. And what we landed on that night was, oh, their system is flawed, they have this new system that's went into place, a week even before we even got to the Iowa caucus, these things were pointed out, and they just have to figure it out. We want to make sure we get it right.

That was the first time. Then we get the next day of 62% reporting for a certain percentage of the time. That was again Tuesday. We are held out at the end of Wednesday and we have another batch of a new report of a new findings for numbers and those are wrong. Right. So we've gone two steps past the original problem of, well, we use this new system, acronym slash shadow.

We use this new system and it's just not rolling out the best way possible, which was maddening enough for everyone, everyone involved, from people who were perceived of oneness to people like Biden who looked like he was doing very badly in the state. We've jumped so far that we're not even talking about that anymore because the level of problems that are going on. These mistakes that are happening now have nothing to do with that original problem with these reporting, I mean, with their new system. Yeah, the new batch of problems has nothing to do with the app, right?

So the first problem is the technology, and immediately what you hear from people in the media, from political figures is, oh, Bernie Sanders, people, stop with the conspiracy theories. Stop with the conspiracy theories. That's all it is. You just sore losers, people to judges up. Okay, but at what point do we acknowledge that the results of this caucus or the caucuses in Iowa have been compromised? Clearly it's been compromised.

And luckily, you have an actual official, the Black Hawk County supervisor, drawing attention to this. Because if there were, let's say, leftist investigative reporters looking into this, they wouldn't be taken seriously. And luckily, we have someone in Iowa who's like, hey, what's up with this Deval Patrick situation? He received no votes. Why are we having a conversation about Deval Patrick? These results make no sense. So I'm sorry, and even if there's not a conspiracy going on, the look of the conspiracy is the first problem you have.

So if nothing else, also, so Chris Schwartz, who was a supervisor we just read about, who was tweeting about, he's a supervisor in this area. If you're supervising an election, you have results and information. Each of them did, and they're sitting back going, why aren't our results being given to the people yet? I think there's a bit of an oversight of the fact that you know other people that are the lower level people underneath the Democratic Iowa Party. They don't want their names to be tainted with this. So he's putting out the information going, you guys aren't going to get Chris Schwartz wrapped up in this madness. So I'm going to give you guys the real information and let you guys try and figure this out. not going to have me be a part of your perceived cover-up, at least.

Right, right. So I'm happy that he spoke out, but Kyle Kalinsky made a great point, and this is, even if it's found that there's no malice and these are just genuine mistakes, there's a lot of damage being done right now to people's trust in the system, in their, let's say, drive or motivations to even go out there and vote, because it's demoralizing to see this happen. It's been a few days now since the Iowa caucuses took place. And we still have no idea what the real results are. And by the way, it's not just Bernie Sanders supporters who are saying it.

Even Joe Biden's campaign is saying, can we really trust this data? What's going on? So for all of you establishment types who might be watching this right now, thinking that we're wearing like our tin hats and we're ridiculous, keep in mind that, you know, Simone Sanders just recently went on cable news to talk about how these results are super fishy. And they are super fishy, right? Now, Biden didn't do well in the state, it's pretty clear, but the results are fishy when you have supervisors from various counties saying that there are inconsistencies in the results.

So it doesn't end there. Now, Kyle Kalinsky brings this up, and I think he makes a really great point here, and this is what I worry about the most. He had written via Twitter, how do we know you didn't undercut Bernie in every single county? Like it's now proven you did in Black Hawk County. What is your explanation for giving his support to Deval Patrick and Tom Steyer? And I think that question needs to be answered. So how did this so-called mistake happen?

How did that happen? How did Deval Patrick end up with Bernie Sanders, the votes that should have gone to Bernie Sanders? Well, there are other counties that are now raising concerns. So let's go to the next one. Been looking through these Iowa caucus results and found some weird stuff. In this precinct, Indianola 2, we see Bernie and Warren with zero votes. in the first expression, while Steyer and Patrick have massive viable pulls. In the final expression, these numbers are switched, okay?

So he shared the evidence of what he had seen and you can check it out for yourselves. And then he's like, you know what, let me double check because I want to make sure I'm not spreading any type of false information. So here's what he also found. I scraped these numbers off of the New York Times. So at first I thought, I may have transformed the data incorrectly somehow, but nope, you can see the same issue on the official Iowa Dems results page. So why do these inconsistencies exist?

How is it that Sanders, who polled incredibly well in Iowa, and Warren who also pulled pretty well in Iowa, have zero votes in this particular county? But then you look at someone like Deval Patrick or Tom Steyer, who did not poll well in the county, or in the state, I should say, somehow compiling more votes. It just doesn't make any sense. Well, best explanation, I mean, considering Steyer and Deval Patrick are on the lower level, again, like they were mentioning zero votes, yet two of the three in the top five, their votes were virtually switched.

So it's one of those errors that this could be the explanation. No one knows because they don't know. So I'm just speculating because that's all anyone can come from right now is there was a flip, a direct flip, like, hey, the ones who are near to the bottom are getting the numbers that people are nearest to the top, maybe some kind of computer error where some programming error flips things 100%, a 180 on its own head. That's the best they've got right now. I mean, that's the best excuse you've got right now, but we don't need excuses, we need

the answer. So whoever, I was a mechanical engineer in my first year of college. And so think of this way, this is one year in, I knew already if there's something that goes wrong with your coding or what you're trying to do, I knew some computer engineers and all that stuff too, if there's something wrong with your coding, you don't just go, I don't know, people say, well, you wrote it. Right. You tell me what's wrong.

Exactly. And if it's take you, now we're in the third day of this, why don't you have the answer yet? You're professional. You've been given this contract to put these results out, these very important results. You want to be first in the nation, but you don't take it seriously enough to make sure your things work? This is, this is elementary school type of mistakes. These are the kind of write-offs where you say, I don't know, I mean, somebody else figured

out for me. No, no, you're a big boy and girl, figure it out. This is, this is supposed to be a democracy. This is not a joke. This isn't a Miss America contest. This is to choose the Democratic nominee for the general election. This is what the Democratic establishment has supposedly been waiting for. This is what they think is incredibly serious.

This is what they have been focusing on in an effort to beat Donald Trump. So what's going on here? Because it's becoming harder and harder to not jump to the conclusion of foul play. I'm just keeping it real, right? They haven't given us an explanation. And it's like one thing after the next, after the next. I don't understand how anyone, any state official can think this is acceptable. It is unacceptable.

We need to know exactly why these mixups have happened, who made these mistakes, there should be a lengthy, detailed investigation, and more importantly, the Iowa State Caucus needs to, like they need to stop releasing partial results. Why are they releasing partial results on the third day? What is going on? We still don't have 100% of the results. And the results we do have are clearly flawed. There's no answer to that.

And again, maybe I think it looks worse. Like, if we don't release anything, then it looks like we're not doing anything. No, it's worse if you release, consistently release bad information over and over again. And you didn't see it? If you didn't see it, how do you think that people on Twitter are going to miss it? They're going to think, oh yeah, that makes sense to Paul Patrick, oh yeah, and Steyer. Just what we thought would happen. This is insane.

This is insane. It's unacceptable and even if, even if these were honest mistakes and it's becoming harder and harder for me to believe that, what it does to the mindset of voters is so incredibly damaging and maybe that's what people want. But one thing that I will tell you, regardless of who you voted for in this primary, you cannot get discouraged and you can't give up, okay? This is way too serious and the election officials behind all of this. Need to be held accountable, there needs to be an investigation, we need to know what's going on.

And we need to know who the real winner is. I don't trust any of these results right now. The story's still developing, and we'll give you updates as we get them and as we verify them. But as it stands now, I don't know what to believe in regard to the results of the Iowa caucuses. If you think about the mantra of the establishment portion of the Democratic Party, this entire build up to the city of election season, the one mantra has said, we need to have someone who can beat Donald Trump. We need to have someone who can beat Donald Trump, we need someone who can beat Donald Trump, that's the tagline. Not much about policy, but we need someone who can beat Donald Trump. You know what Donald Trump and his surrogates and everyone are doing right now, they're going,

this is a great opportunity for us to tell everyone in the country how corrupt, misguided, and nefarious this party is. Exactly. And he has been doing that. Yeah, whether it's true or not. They don't care. They say that when something is blatantly in their face, the facts, they'll flip it on its head. So when there's a lot of uncertainty, what do you think they're going to do next?

So is this helping defeat Donald Trump? Is this providing any kind of confidence in people saying what Buttigieg said in the night when he gave the Obama voice of those former Republicans, like he pushed that one time? How are you gonna get former Republicans to become suddenly Democrats in this election cycle if you don't have any kind of confidence in your process? That's exactly right. And we just talked about how Donald Trump has subverted the process last cycle and it's trying to do it again.

Guess who that takes attention off of? The guy who's really doing it. Exactly. And I just want to remind you of what the head of the Democratic Party in Iowa had to say five months ago. Here's Troy Price sharing how confident he is in this process. Just know this. On February 3rd of 2020, caucuses will take place in this state. We will be first. And they will be, without a doubt, the most successful caucuses in our party's history. I think this is the worst, like, example of Iowa caucuses in this nation's history. I can't think of a time where it was worse.

If you think we didn't like the process before, when it actually got results, the night out. Imagine after three days. Look, we're going to take a quick break, and we have other updates when it comes to Iowa. We'll share that with you and more. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-F-The Republic or 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 unlearn 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. When we return. Welcome back to TYT and J.R. with you. Thank you for being patient with us, guys. Look, the Iowa story we just did is like constantly being updated. We're doing our best to give

you guys the most up-to-date news that's actually been fact-checked and verified, because as you can tell, there's all sorts of stuff flying around social media. We can't just irresponsibly give you something that we don't fact-check ahead of time. But thank you for bearing with us. A few member comments, and then we have two other Iowa stories I want to get to. From our member comments, we have eclectic miscellaneous writing in and saying the Iowa Democratic Party literally changed the results they announced. So it's not a conspiracy theory. It's a fact that someone is changing the results.

Were the old results right? Are the new ones right? When will we have all the results? They aren't the questions, these aren't the questions of conspiracy theorists. These are people who want to be reassured that our democratic process is actually legitimate. And thank you, you put that so well. I just, I'm tired of being gaslit, you know, being called crazy. Oh, I mentioned that we were gonna cover that story on Twitter and someone referred to my tinfoil hat.

I wanna find that guy and strangle him, right? Like really, wanting to protect the democratic process that we're supposed to be functioning under makes you a conspiracy theorist? It's as simple as when in every other election cycle, do the Iowa caucus results come out? That night. What's different this year? What's different this year? What's different this year?

The frontrunner is a leftist. That's what's different. It's completely different. Everything is not working the way it usually does. And everyone is, so the alternative is to say, oh, that's fine. And then what would you say? That's what they want. They work real hard to manufacture consent, real hard.

Speaking of which, you should watch my interview with Noon Chomsky tonight at 8.30 p.m. Eastern Time on this show. All right, let's move on to the rest of the news. So, Bernie Sanders supporters are questioning the results of the Iowa caucuses, and they should because there have been inconsistencies that have been confirmed. And by the way, for all of you Biden supporters, turns out the Biden campaign has a similar concern, and they've been sharing it on cable news. So let me give you the details of what's been going on.

So first it started off with Kate Bettingfield, who's Biden's campaign manager. She said the following. If you have a process where you can't be confident that the results that are being reported are reflective of the votes that people cast last night and the process, that's a real problem. That's a real problem. Now Biden's senior advisor, Simone Sanders, also went on CNN to clarify it, but I'm gonna be real with you. Her interview ended up being a little bit of a disaster.

Let's watch. Is that what you're saying that we should doubt the numbers that we see? What I am saying is that on Monday night in Iowa, there were failures across the process when it came to the Iowa caucuses. There was confusion at the precinct. The app that the Iowa Democratic Party used in that work. We know that, Simone, do you believe that was there for folks to call in? People were waiting for two hours. Why can't you say if the data is correct or incorrect?

To the Iowa Democratic Party headquarters, they were unable to get that data in there. So what I'm saying is the foundation of this process? the presidential preference cards aren't very important. So all our campaign has said and what Kate Bedick said yesterday and what I'm saying today, Simone, Simone, Simone, I am going to interrupt you and you're not answering the question. Look, the interview did not go well and talking over one another doesn't get anything accomplished. Hey, we know you probably hit play to escape your business banking, not think about it. But what if we told you there was a way to skip over the pressures of banking by, by Matching with a TD small business account manager, you can get the proactive business banking advice and support your business needs.

Ready to press play? Get up to $2,700 when you open select small business banking products. Yep, that's $2,700 to turn up your business. Visit TD.com slash small business match to learn more. Conditions apply. I agree with Simone Sanders on one thing, and that is these results can't be trusted. They can't be trusted for a number of different reasons. First off, there was the technological issue with the app, and they claimed, the Iowa Democratic Party claimed that the app was registering incorrect results. So that's issue number one.

Okay, there was a coding problem. Issue number one. Issue number two, they haven't even released the full results yet. We're at, I believe, 82% of precincts reporting. That's what they've released so far. Why are they releasing little by little? because what if people stop paying attention after a certain point? And then you think that someone is the winner of the Iowa caucuses when in reality it ends up

being someone else. I think that that's incredibly irresponsible. Third, as we learned today, there were significant errors in who delegates were given to in certain counties. So Black Hawk County was an issue. You have a supervisor for Black Hawk County raising concerns over on social media to show that delegates who were supposed to be given to Bernie Sanders ended up being given to Deval Patrick.

And then the Iowa Democrats had no choice but to issue a correction on that. And then we saw similar inconsistencies with other counties. No, Simone Sanders isn't crazy for questioning the outcome or the results of the Iowa caucuses. Now, she clearly has a different agenda in mind. She wants to probably make the case that Biden did much better than he really did. But Biden didn't win in that state. We all know that. He didn't poll well, and he came in at fourth based on the faulty results that we have

seen, and he's way low. Yeah, and that train wreck of an interview, what you'll see is there was Simone Sanders trying to come in with an agenda to get a point across. And also to not say something else. It seems obvious. We're gonna start by, I've been saying this most today. I'm speculating here, but what it looks like is that you're like, okay, Simone, you gotta go on TV and talk about this, but don't admit that we think the results are faulty,

we obviously underperformed, we don't want people to then say, the Biden campaign complains says that's the reason why they underperformed in Iowa. That's the only, seemingly, the only objective from that section of the interview. So therefore, she can't answer the question and say, yeah, the results do seem a little bit off because then it'll lead then the anchor, I'm sorry, I'm forgetting her name right now. Brianna Keeler. Yeah, Brianna then we'll have to say, so is that the why you guys underperformed and you don't want the conversation to be about you underperforming.

It's all politics. It's trying to make something good out of a little bit of a failure in the state. Now, in that objective in doing so, you end up making yourself look worse. You can easily say, yeah, I mean, I think every campaign has said these results look a bit faulty. You know why? Because these results look a little bit faulty. Asked the Iowa Democratic Party.

They said the same thing. They've changed it three times. It's very easy to answer that question. Then move on and say, but we're not complaining about opposition if they ask you. There's a simple question to ask, to answer. If you don't answer it, then you look like you're trying to hide something. Totally, yeah. Like I said, she didn't handle that interview well.

Honestly, I don't think she's been doing well on cable news interviews overall, but it's not about Simone Sanders. It's about a legitimate concern about the outcome of the Iowa caucuses and what's been recorded as the so-called results, the way that the results have been rolled out, the fact that that there have been all sorts of weird inconsistencies with the results that have been rolled out. This is a huge problem and we're messing with what's supposed to be a sound democratic process. When you in any way make people question the legitimacy of our democratic process, it's

demoralizing and it discourages them from being politically active or taking part. And that's a huge problem. And there's also the concern that the election will be purposely rigged in a way to prevent certain people like Bernie Sanders from winning. And look, I get it, I get it. People get upset when you mention that. They think that you're being a little conspiratorial, but just keep in mind that our government has no problem going into other countries to overthrow democratically elected

leftist leaders because our country doesn't like leftist leaders. So what makes you think that they wouldn't try to do something like that in our own country? Well, we've had questionable election. I know, conspiratorial thinking. Oh my God, I know a little bit about this country's history and what we've done in Latin American countries. I mean, it's been a different way of having questions to our electoral process since forever

in this country. Whenever it's excluding people, when it's making sure there's pool taxes, and things like that to keep certain people with disenfranchising voters, that was all old stuff, which still happens. But then now, in coming to today's thing, we have all these other issues with technology, with new systems, apps, all this are going in now, and you have to try to then navigate it and still say we have this very fair process. A, sometimes things have to change, or maybe sometimes you don't change certain things.

You can have that discussion without looking like you're complaining. And as soon as you throw in the, hey, you guys are just complaining line, what are we complaining about? But it's worse than that. The person you're supporting is actually probably winning. What does it complain about? No, but it's even worse than them. By the way, I am complaining. Right.

I'm complaining. Go ahead and accuse me of complaining because that's exactly what I'm doing. You can't complain about a faulty system? You should complain if you feel like your democracy is under siege by bad actors, okay? Yeah. But the thing that I do take issue with is the accusation. that if you raise concerns over a compromised system, right, then you're no different than Alex Jones.

You think that there's a water that's making the frogs gay. You're crazy. No, no, no. This is based on what we have seen in this election, based on things we saw in the last election. And it's just way too convenient that every time there's an error, it negatively impacts a specific candidate. It's just too convenient, it's too strange. And if people actually care about beating Donald Trump or maintaining or protecting our democracy,

this ain't it. This isn't how you do it. And if you get challenged, if you get challenged because you're trying to get to the information about situation and say, well, you tell me what we're wrong, honestly, I don't have the answer because no one does. You can easily flip. If someone wants to take the dumb approach, this is what many times Republicans do, they'll I'll just say something that's flat out base and wrong, and the person who's challenged

them has to come with an encyclopedia or be Google themselves and have this litany of information to dispute your just dumb claim. So just say, okay, you tell me what happened then. Right. You tell me what's going on in Iowa. Totally. Yeah. If you're gonna challenge me about my obvious observation of what's not happening in Iowa,

you tell me what's happening then. And you know, maybe it is just a coincidence that the people behind this faulty app, have these deep-rooted ties with Pete Buttigieg, to the point where one of the, you know, very public people who's involved in this app is married to someone who's working on Buttigieg's campaign. Maybe that's just a coincidence. I don't know. Maybe I'm a crazy conspiracy theorist for finding that to be a little bit of an issue.

But again, if you care about democracy, this is something that should concern you. And you should be equally outraged if it didn't impact Bernie Sanders, if it impacted a different candidate because you want legitimate results. You want the voters who took time out of their day, in most cases their entire day, to go out there and take part in this process. You want to make sure you protect what they felt, you know, driven enough to go out and do. It's what you call principles.

If you have principles, you'll stand by them no matter what. Bernie Sanders was getting shellacked in the state and Joe Biden was winning it. And then all this stuff went crazy. Bernie Sanders supporters, I can say for a certain percentage of us the ones that I know, would say, man, this is making Bernie Sanders look bad. I don't want this to happen this way. I want to win legitimately because you don't want people to be turned off by him based off of things that have nothing to do with his platform and his policy.

Well, let's move on to one other aspect of the Iowa caucuses that's unfortunately also infuriating, but if you know the details and the facts of what's really going on, it's good news for Bernie Sanders. So, media coverage of the Iowa caucuses has been fascinating, especially when you come across headlines like this one coming from ABC News. In Iowa entrance poll, Buttigieg shows broad-based appeal. Biden, not so much. Now let's talk a little bit about broad-based appeal, okay? Because if you look at numbers, you will see that there is one candidate who seems to really resonate

with a broader base, and that person is not Pete Buttigieg. Now, as it stands right now, we don't know which of the candidates has won in the Iowa caucuses because the results have been faulty, there have been all sorts of inconsistencies and issues. But what we do know is that when it comes to young voters or people of color, they tend to vote for Bernie Sanders over Pete Buttigieg, and I have the receipts to prove it. So, let's look at the issues first. So when it comes to the issue of healthcare, 57% of Iowa caucus voters supported a single government-run health insurance plan versus 38% opposed.

Health care was by far the top issue out of four that were tested in the entrance poll. So does Pete Buttigieg want a single payer health care system? That's not check now. That's weird. Broad-based appeal. Interesting. Okay, well, let's go to racial diversity.

Among the comparatively few non-white caucus goers, Sanders won 43%. His competitors were clumped distantly. Buttigieg at 15% among non-whites, Biden at 13% worn and entrepreneur, Andrew Yang, 12% apiece. Hmm. Okay. So Buttigieg not doing as well as Sanders when it comes to health care, not doing as well when it comes to people of color.

Let's go to independents. Who did the best when it came to independence? Independence is how we beat down on Trump. I know, I mean, like the Democratic Party pretends like they really care about the votes from independents, right? We gotta find a candidate that really resonates with those independent voters. Well, as in 2016, independence in the entrance poll tilted towards Sanders. A potential challenge for him in a closed primary ahead, those open to Democratic.

only. He won 34% of independence versus 20% of Democrats. But Biden did know better among Democrats, 18%, and Buttigieg, again, won two in 10 in both groups. So I don't understand where that headline comes from because it makes absolutely no sense. Well, that's how it always works. They know people don't read past a headline. So a lot of times there'll be information in a piece, it actually explains something

It's completely opposite of what the headline says, but I mean, we need a headline just to say there's this level of what is exactly where they use. Oh, he shows broad-based appeal. Right. They didn't say diversity. I think it's a little different. It sometimes goes with these loyally terms. Broad-based appeal. So maybe, because he's appealing, what, the numbers were at 12% when it comes to non-white voters?

15 for Buttigieg. That's better than the 1% he was polling at nationwide. So you can, sorry. That was specifically the black voters, sorry. But, so you can justify by saying, hey, he has a broader based appeal than we were reporting before from 1% among black folks to 15 in Iowa. So it's false but not 100% false. So you can kind of have a leg to stand on because then people will leave going, oh man, Buttigieg

is really picking up that diversity vote that we thought he didn't have. But not really. When you have a candidate who's doing far better than him in that regard, how do you- And by the way, so maybe you can make the argument that the person, who wrote that headline for ABC just didn't know the facts. Maybe they got their facts wrong, except all the data that I read to you is from the actual article that has that ridiculous headline. So I don't know, the editor who wanted this headline, did that individual read Gary Langer's

piece at all? Did he? Because I also want to note, oftentimes the reporters are not the ones who choose the headline, right? So the editors typically sign off on the headline. I don't know for sure if that's how it works at ABC News, but that's typically the case. So if that is the case with ABC, that editor should be fired because he didn't even, he or she didn't even read the article, has no idea what's in it. Well, I mean, again, these are the parts of it that gives them an out.

We put the graphic up one more time. That subheadline, Younger, more liberal and issue focus voters pull for Sanders. See, we mentioned how Sanders is actually doing well with younger, more liberal. issue-focused voters. They said so in the headline. It's just I think where it maybe comes down to, at least when it comes to this particular headline is everyone wants, this is their mindset. Everyone wants to hear about how's Biden doing, how's Buttigieg doing.

That's their approach. And they're like, well, let's tell them how Biden and Buttigieg are doing. No one really cares about hearing about Sanders. So they went with who they figure are the notable names in this story. And that's all they think matters. It may not be purposeful exclusionary, but then they're like, oh, well, How's Biden doing? Biden's doing bad.

We have to put that in the headline. Hey, Buttigieg is doing better than expected. We had to put that in the headline. Sanders is doing well like we expected him too, so let's not say much, maybe just a light gray headline underneath it. I don't, look, maybe you're right and maybe I'm just super pessimistic and too jaded at this point at this juncture in my career. I feel that all this is intentional and malicious.

But it's not even an excuse. What I get floated is there possible reason? That's bad. You're supposed to provide the story, not tell your readers what you think or your viewers what you think they should hear. Right. Tell them the story. Well, when we come back from the break, we will switch gears a little bit and give

you some updates from what happened after Trump's state of the union address. There were some protests that you should know about, and then later on we'll give you updates on the impeachment vote. We'll be right back. 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.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's EXP-R-E-S-S-V-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today.

We hope you're enjoying this free clip from the Young Turks. get the whole show and more exclusive content while supporting independent media, become a member at t-y-t.com slash join today. In the meantime, enjoy this free segment. Welcome back to TYT, Anna Casparian, and J.R. Jackson with you. Let me read a few TYT lives and super chats, so we can hear from our viewers. Laura says, caucuses are so 1800s. Let's move on now.

I would like to see ranked choice voting and eliminate the delegates and super delegates. Yeah, so that's one problem. We had a discussion about the whole process of the Iowa caucuses yesterday and what would be a better option. But it's one thing to have a system in place that you don't really like and you think it's antiquated. But it's a completely different thing to have like shady results that you're gonna question because there are all these inconsistence. consistencies and all these flaws in the reporting. From the super chat section, we have Peter, excuse me, who wrote in and said, throw out the vote. Iowa has 30 days to redo their caucus vote using a new method approved by all parties.

So I was thinking about that. I mean, this has been such a disaster and the results have been called into question so many times now for legitimate reasons that I don't know if anyone's going to trust anything coming out of the Iowa caucuses now. Say that happened, you've got to go back out. Say you live in Iowa when this whole thing went down and you're now discouraged, or at least you don't know what's going to happen next time. Do you have the energy to do this again? You know?

Yeah. Like even with that potential, the potential solution, you can't just go out and do it again. That's why it's so damaging. There's no do-overs, even if you do it. It's not a real do-over. It's so frustrating. Evan says, what is strange to me is that Buttigieg and Sanders had very similar data released, both of which showed Sanders in the lead. So, you know, I had a source, I shared what the source told me yesterday about how the Sanders

campaign, based on their internal numbers, indicated that he had the most delegates and he also had the most in popular vote. And they felt comfortable with that. So each campaign has its own data. I just don't know what else to say. We'll keep updating you guys on the story. But for the meantime, we do have to move on to other news. So let's talk about that.

There were various acts of protest during Donald Trump's State of the Union speech last night. And one form of protest had to do with Democratic lawmakers who just decided to walk out in the middle of his speech. So one of those individuals was Representative Tim Ryan. And after he walked out, he explained himself on Twitter, writing that the president spent the first half of his state of the union speech talking about how great the economy is for American work. workers, but if that's true, why are so many Ohioans working two or three jobs and struggling to make ends meet? Now, Representative Ryan is actually correct about that, and we did do fact checking in real time when Donald Trump was lying about the positive nature of our economy.

Tim Ryan also writes the following, I just walked out of the state of the union, I've had enough, it's like watching professional wrestling, it's all fake. And I don't blame him for that because there were portions in our own coverage. where we just decided to, like, shut off the speech, have a discussion to fact check what Trump had said, and then we'd go back. But there really isn't a point to it, because of course he's going to go up there, and of course he's going to lie to the American people. It was really just nothing more than a rally event.

If you flood the speech with lies and then people are supposed to fact check it consistently, you eventually get overrun. Like I was mentioning earlier, whenever you just throw nonsense constantly at people, and then someone has to come up with the explanation and dispute it, that takes longer. It's easy to say, everything's the best, nothing's ever been this way. You know what happened? This happened. We're the best.

You've never had it this way. That's why, said it, did do this. You just, and people are like, wait, oh wait, wait, wait, he lied about that first. And what was the next seven? It's hard to keep up. That's the plan. And then after you do so, it's already permeated and hit enough people. It's just like whenever any kind of publication publishes a false story, and then they

have to retract it later. After it's retracted, enough people already heard the first thing and aren't listening for the attraction. So the explanations, especially for fans of his, nobody's listening to that. They're like, well, this is what the president said yesterday. That's the last I heard. I don't want to talk about it anymore. Then you had Representative Paschrelle, who also walked out, and he had similar reasoning.

I just walked out of the State of the Union. I can't stand a liar. This man's presidency is a national tragedy, and House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern was also seen leaving the House chamber during the speech and the seats for Representative Elhan Omar and Rashida Talib were empty before the address was finished. There were individuals who boycotted the State of the Union. They didn't even show up for obvious reasons, similar reasons. So Representative Acacio Cortez decided to boycott and so did Senator Bernie Sanders.

Because quite honestly, I'm sure there are more important things to do than to sit there for over an hour and listen to an unhinged lunatic, list all the things that he supposedly accomplished, but actually did not accomplish at all. At one point, he even mentioned how he successfully got hundreds of thousands of Americans off of food stamps. And the way that he framed it was meant to make it seem as though these are now financially independent individuals who don't need government handouts. He said they were lifted.

They were not lifted. So there's the term that you've risen rather than dropped. Yeah, he kicked needy families off of the food stamp program because that's who Republicans are. So let's not make any mistakes about it. Now, Democratic lawmakers weren't the only ones who participated in a form of protest. You also had a moment where Fred Gutenberg, who lost his 14-year-old daughter in the Parkland shooting, he started shouting something from the audience.

Honestly, I couldn't really hear what he was saying. I did hear someone shouting, and he was later thrown out. So I wanna go to what Donald Trump had said, which led to to Gutenberg walking out. Take a look. Just as we believe in the First Amendment, we also believe in another constitutional right that is under siege all across our country. So long as I am president, I will always protect your Second Amendment right to keep and bear armed. In reaffirming our heritage as a free nation, we must remember that America,

has always been a frontier nation. Now we must embrace the next frontier. America's manifest destiny. So Gutenberg was actually Nancy Pelosi's guest, and so she seems to be trying to calm him down there. But he was- I'm not sure what, yeah, it was probably already happening at that point where he's getting escorted out, and she's like, oh, who knows what exactly she was saying to herself, but it seems like she was against what was going on.

And he was, I want to clarify, I misspoke when I said that he walked out. He did not walk out. He was later kicked out because of what he said and how he was shouting during Trump's speech. So here's a video of that. In reaffirming our heritage as a free nation, we must remember that America has always been a frontier nation. Now we must embrace the next frontier. America's manifest, destiny, and the stars. I am asking Congress to fully fund the Artemis program to ensure that the next man-

Man, I don't know, like, his 14-year-old daughter's dead. And again, so then you kick him out. It's one of those things where, sure, he's not supposed to have outbursts in the chamber. He apologized for it later, said I need to control my emotions better. No, you shouldn't have to, number one. But I hear you, it's against the rule, so he had to leave. way it always works. You have to go across the board. I mean, think about a tragedy you have. Just because 9-11 was the tragedy of thousands of people versus the, I mean,

I can't remember the numbers from Storm and Douglas, but obviously it wasn't in the thousands. But each parent, each family that lost a kid there from two years ago, I mean, that's not, yeah, that's not even a, that's nothing you get over, ever, let alone in two years. So if someone has an outbursts because you're lying, directly to say there's a, our second Amendment rights are under siege. He has dedicated his life now to making sure more parents and families don't go through what he's going to go through for the rest of his life. He's not dedicating his life to that because his daughter's life is gone.

And the respect we get from our president is to say, these people that are doing that, the people whose kids were murdered, they're attacking other people who want to continue this way of down this path of murder and open shooting. So getting offended by that, I don't think. think is anything you have to apologize for at all. I know, I wish he didn't feel the need to apologize. What he expressed was completely understandable. That is raw human emotion in regard to losing a loved one in an incredibly disturbing and

unjust way. And to hear the President of the United States brag about how he is protecting the type of people who would carry out that type of shooting is enraging, right? Because look, that's essentially what Donald Trump is communicating. How many mass shootings have we had in this country? And the response from Republicans, including Donald Trump, is we're gonna protect your Second Amendment rights. We're going to pretend like we care about the Constitution.

We all know that Donald Trump doesn't care about the Constitution. He wipes his ass with it every single day, okay? That's what this whole impeachment trial is about. But he's gonna pretend like he cares about the Constitution just to ensure that he doesn't pass common sense, popular gun control, like federally mandated background checks, okay? That's what he's communicating to a man who just two years ago lost his 14 year old daughter in a school shooting. So he's siding with the gun lobby and he's saying you're under attack, you're under siege.

You know who's under siege? Those children that watched their classmates and friends die that day. They were under siege, they were hiding on the desk, they were hiding behind walls, They're hoping that someone wouldn't bust through the wall and shoot them next. But the people in power, the people with those guns, the people who want to continue to spread the use of these guns, they're under siege. It's a speech. Every word is planned.

Yes. There's no accidental words. It wasn't off the cuff. So just we talked about the welfare thing. When he said lifted, that was written in a way to make it seem like it was a positive move for those families. And it wasn't. This is the same way.

Hey, people with the guns, you're under attack. from this man whose daughter died. It's yeah, that's such a good point, JR, because it goes even further, right? It makes the victim out to be the bad guy. The person who lost his 14 year old daughter makes him out to be the bad guy. He's coming for you, he's coming for your constitutional rights. No, he wants to prevent children from getting murdered and gun down simply because they're in school, because some unhinged person has access to guns that they shouldn't have access

One more parallel, because remember Joe Wilson back when Obama's an officer said you lied and he eventually apologized, not on the floor, not on the House floor. But what happened after that, and I read a little bit more, he was suddenly, he was in demand at Republican fundraising circuits to make some more money because he'd become a celebrity. He was at an anti-tax rally on September 12th afterwards, conservative demonstrators were holding signs saying Joe Wilson for president. Twelve days after he yelled out, he collected more than $2 million from supporters. Goodenberg gets kicked out for yelling at Trump for lying, Joe Wilson screams at the president,

you lie and gets fundraising benefits off and speaking engagements. That's the difference in the way that we congratulate people and welcome them for their bad behavior in this country. And Fred Gutenberg apologized for it. That's amazing. All right, let's move on. It's maddening. And God bless America.

Thank you very much. There's a lot of media attention on Nancy Pelosi and how she ripped up Donald Trump's speech at the very end of his state of the union address. And you know, some are calling it a disgrace, others are screaming, yes, queen on social media as if she's done anything that actually leads to real resistance against Donald Trump's disastrous presidency. But what I do find fascinating and what I do, I will admit, enjoy, is watching. Right Wingers whine and cry and lose their minds over something so incredibly irrelevant.

Let's start off with Vice President Mike Pence going after Pelosi. I didn't see her do it. I found out just a few moments later and I think it was a new low. I wasn't sure if she was ripping up the speech or ripping up the Constitution. I mean, you know, it's clear the contrast here was a president who spent an hour and a half making speech about America. Right. And Nancy Pelosi in the final moments tried to make it about her and I think the American people see through it. I just I just have a strong feeling that she's going to be the last speaker of the house to to sit in that

chair for a long time. You know I've been to a lot of state of the Union addresses as a member of Congress and and now this was my fourth as a vice president of the United States and there's always a basic decorum and a basic respect. But to have her stand up and tear up that speech really dishonored the moment. And I really thought it was beneath the dignity of a joint session of Congress. I enjoyed that. Joint session of Congress, there's some points in that. Again, while President Trump is sitting in front of everyone lying, that's not beneath the dignity of the joint session of Congress.

bringing up agreed families and then congratulating yourself off of the deaths of their family members. That's not under, that's not beneath the dignity of the joint session of Congress. None of that is, it's just, if you have a piece of paper with someone's speech on it that was full of lies, that's, that's beneath the dignity. They don't care. It's the way it's always worked. This is an our political moment.

If you could hear, if you could hear to the planning rooms, because as he even admitted there, Pence didn't even see her do it. And then someone said, hey, hey, Prince, Mike, we have an opportunity here. You know, Nancy ripped up the paper. Let's say that we're aggrieved and upset about it. Let's say that it was an undercutting of democracy. Let's say that it was a great moment and Donald Trump had just unified the country and she divided us again.

He said everything about the unity part because that had been a little bit too far because there's nowhere in anything that speech that Trump said was unifying. But, you know, when a Democratic president gets up there and they say, how dare he didn't unify the country, he had a perfect opportunity to unify the country and he didn't do it. Where's that criticism coming from next? Can we just, let's get one thing out of the way, moving forward, and it's going to apply to every story that we do, okay? No one in the country is interested in unity, no one.

No politician, whether they're on the left or the right, is interested in unity. No one, no one, no one. The people who cry about unity the most are the ones who have the least interest in unity, right? And look, I'm not even interested in unity. Like, this is what I'm interested in. I'm interested in a just system. I'm interested in fixing a rigged economic system. I'm interested in economic equality.

Those are the things that we should be focusing on. But instead, they, like, throw out these vague, like, phrases, like, you, or words. Like, yeah, we want unity. No, no, there is a party in this country that has been a complete and utter disaster for everything that we're supposed to stand for, for our Constitution. They've been a complete and utter disaster when it comes to the working class in America. They've been a complete and utter disaster when it comes to law and order. So no, I don't want unity with them.

I don't, okay? So anyone who claims that they want unity, first of all, they're full of it. And secondly, who do we want unity with? Do we want unity with a group of criminals who are running a muck in this country? Or do we want unity with people who actually want to protect democracy? We like to say we don't negotiate with terrorists. But you know who the on unity always is? It's always Democrats.

They said this has been a, when we talk about impeachment, this has been a partisan impeachment process. It would be bipartisan if you accepted the truth. Why is it that we expect people like Joe Manchin who takes the call every time to be the ones to be like, oh, well, we'll reach out, we'll see your point of view. When's the last time you've had any anchor ask any substantive Republican, hey, how come you guys don't try and please the majority of the country who votes a certain way? The majority of the country is progressive, is Democratic, is somewhere in the middle. They are not right wing.

Are you gonna start accepting that the majority of the country doesn't agree with you? No one will ask that question because it's offensive. And it's not offensive to ask Democrats, hey, how come you won't give up the facts and just go with these guys because they're whining and crying? No, no, no more, we're not gonna do it. And then when you don't do it, they call you radical. They call you angry and they call you divisive. Can you imagine though if Nancy Pelosi really were the resistance?

And I'm not just talking about rhetoric. I'm talking about, you know, rallying Democrats to ensure that they vote against increasing Trump's military budget, working with Democrats to make sure that there's consensus on voting against Donald Trump's tax cuts for the wealthy, rallying Democrats to ensure that they vote against Donald Trump's rebranding of NAFTA, which essentially handed him something that he can campaign on in his reelection campaign. If she did all of those things, right, and more, and then on top of it, ripped up those papers, I would be yass queening her all day and night, but she hasn't been doing that, right?

So make no mistake, the only upside of what Nancy Pelosi did is that it got under Donald Trump's skin. He retweeted more disdain about or toward Nancy Pelosi than he did about any other thing that happened during the state of the union. And so the fact that he's like sweating and, you know, it's like a sweaty tooth madman over this, right? I enjoy that. But it does nothing to improve the lives of Americans. It does nothing to actually legitimately resist what he has unfortunately accomplished for the Republican Party during his tenure.

This is, I'm sorry, go ahead. No, no, this is the problem with not sticking a policy whenever you have something to say. Like you said, if she continues to take the policy and do things that are further marrying people and then not be distracted by what Trump does so much, then when you do rip up the paper, there's something that backs it. So now all this turns, again, she's going to get under skin. Because he hates women that have any kind of position of power, so she knows that. That's what she's really good at, because he's easy to get to with that.

But you have to continue with, if you stick to policy, people will go, man, there's something behind that rather than these are two grown folks who are having a fight. One of them's whining and the other one is making him whine more. And I mean, like you were saying, it's satisfying to see him upset, but it doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean anything, it doesn't improve our lives. There is one other upside to what Pelosi did. It led to an opportunity for Charlie Kirk to embarrass himself yet again. And I always love laughing at Charlie Kirk, everyone does.

Whether you're on the right or the left, he is mocked constantly for situations like the one I'm about to read, he tweeted the following, it's hilarious. U.S. Code prohibits the destruction of government records. Nancy Pelosi may have just committed a violation of 18 USC 271 section 271A when she ripped up President Trump's State of the Union address. This violation is punishable by up to three years in prison. Yeah. Okay, well, many social media users pointed out that you can't go to prison for destroying

a document copy and that the government shreds many copies of documents a day. There's no way he didn't know that. No, are you kidding me? Like, I don't think he did know that. That was an especially since it's on Twitter. I mean, I'm totally willing to believe that point of view because he's not a smart person. But that's one of those things where you're trying to get enough attention. When you tweet something out like that and you give the emoji to them, then you're like,

I just need some attention, I need some responses, I need people to go, yeah, that's all He was looking from there because he knew that's nonsense. Nobody really believes that. He doesn't really believe that. Who would want to be sideshow Bob? I don't understand people who are willing to be side show Bob just for like attention. Unprincipled people do because he has nothing to stand on. All he's got is attention.

Look at that face. His rent is paid with attention. If people don't give him attention or if people don't, if his supporters don't see him still as the biggest a hole they can find, then they'll be like, oh well, Charlie Kirk has, we have no more use of Charlie Kirk. He can't help us push the stupid vote anymore. That's his usefulness. He's serving his purpose right there.

Cash to check. Your parents are ashamed of you, Charlie. We've got to go to break. We'll be 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.com slash TYT. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.