The Young Turks - Washington Mind Virus

Episode Date: November 7, 2024

Congressman declares the country is ""effed"" and admits Democrats will change nothing. Conservative podcaster Patrick Bet-David A staggering class shift leaves Harris losing the working-class vote despite a major swing of affluent voters in her favor." HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian), Cenk Uygur (@cenkuygur) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞  https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER  ☞       https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM  ☞  https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK  ☞          https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH  ☞      https:/www.shoptyt.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. All right, welcome to the Young Turks, Janku Gran Experian with you guys, live from the Polymarket Studio. Okay, so yesterday we had a bit of an election, didn't go well, and so we're going to do the news for you guys. We got Patrick Bitt David on, a big conservative from online that's going to join us in a little bit. You get his perspective on it. But mainly guys, and I'll tell you this throughout the stories too, let's go.

Let's get back up. Get back up. So I don't, we're way too optimistic and hopeful here at TYT to let anything get us down. And so, and he hasn't done anything yet, at least this time around. So I'll talk to you more about that as we go along here. But we had a big night here last night, everybody worked so hard here. And I want to give a quick shout out right off the top to all the wonderful people that work here at TYT. So many folks you never see, you know, editing, producing, and the list goes on and on of all the different things we do to make this network run.

And I wish you could see everyone behind the scenes. But they work so hard and I appreciate them so much. And I know, you know, throughout the country here, a lot of folks are, you know, are, you know, are. hurting over what happened in the election. But we always are going to get back up and we're always going to fight forward and everything is going to be fine, guys. Look, whenever you run into a situation where you've got a significant hurdle in front of you, always figure out, all right, how do I make this an opportunity to do something

different, something better? Yeah. And so in this case, I would say the silver lining in this election is the Democratic establishment. have been burned to the ground. They have no credibility left at all. Finally, thank God. Now, they'll regroup and they'll have their mainstream propaganda, et cetera. But here as a community, we have a chance to do something positive, something hopeful,

and rebuild the Democratic Party as the party of the people. It won't be easy. It won't be easy. But at least we saw last night that the party of corporate donors doesn't work and is never going to work. Yeah, I want to do some thank yous. I want to share my gratuities is gratuity a good no it doesn't make sense no gratitude my gratitude there were good I am on maybe one and a half to two hours of sleep so I'm super out of it but I'll take your gratuity too okay no no no you got give me gratuity home boy all right

no but seriously I want to just stop and thank first of all Jank Uger okay for trusting the vision and you know what I mean by that I have said provocative thing well I don't think They're provocative, but they have come across as provocative messages on this show. And it's because I see things and I look into things that I think a lot of other shows try to shy away from. Or if they know the same information, they don't want to share it with their audience because they're worried about backlash. Jank trusts the vision, he trusts me, and he trusts that I do my due diligence in researching

and making sure that I do my best in getting you guys accurate information. I want to thank the audience for sticking around and trusting me and not falling victim to the ridiculous smear tactics out there about the show and what we're trying to do here. We're trying to get you guys accurate information. But most importantly, I want to thank my producers, Kate Bettino, Taylor Ellis, Alyssa Salmons, every single day they come to work, they bust their butts, and they produce excellent content for you guys that is well researched. and they do their due diligence, and while we're getting attacked, you think it only affects me, it affects them as well. And I hate knowing that they absorb some of the negativity because they don't deserve it. I'm, you know, part of the face of the show.

It's kind of something that we sign up for. But I want to thank them for everything that they've been doing for the hard work and the fact that they're never down. Like they never let the negativity get to them. They always somehow find the motivation to keep moving forward. So I love you guys. Thank you for the hard work. Yeah, now you're going to make me thank more people.

Real quick guys. There's 70 people that work here. We're trying to build a real network so the progressive populace can have a voice so that we're not constantly stuck in that mainstream media echo chamber. If we break out online as we have been doing and we really build a 24-hour channel as we have been doing, we can change the dynamic of American politics. So thank you to the producers from last night, not just from the main show, but the people who did the special election coverage, Marissa, Brett, Judith, amazing work.

But guys, I can't name everybody, but everyone all the way down there are Pittsburgh office that does the super hard work of publishing the videos, things that you would never think of, right? But figuring out the thumbnails and the titles and the algorithms and all of those things. And everyone that, you can't imagine all the different types of work there is here to get this product on air, not just this show, but the entire network and all the channels we have and all the platforms we have. you can have a voice and ultimately, and I was 100%, right, the people will thank most as the audience of the members, because without that, we can't do any of this. So all of us together as a community, employees here, the audience, let's go, let's go,

we got this, let's go fight forward, let's bring hope into the world, and let's get to the goals that we need to. And I think that in 2028, we could actually turn this significant loss into a massive victory. because at this point, the other side within our party has no credibility left at all. So now it's time for us to rise up and take charge. And yes, we can. Well, we go from hope to nope because I wanted to revisit an interview that was conducted last night during our election coverage with Congressman Steve Cohen. He's a Democratic congressman from the state of Tennessee.

And he said some things on the show that, well, I disagree with. Let's get to it. So I think we still got a race problem and a gender problem. And to win, we should have had a white guy, especially when you lose these races. You've got to beat the other team. And part of it's, a lot of it's race and a lot of it is gender. Men compete against women in sports. But worse than that, they said that they wanted to allow, and pay for sex change operations of people who are in prison.

John Podesta is a smart guy and Pagal is a smart guy and the people who ran the campaign are smart. And they do know their politics. We keep talking about how the Democrats failed and you're saying that these are smart folks. I don't see it. I don't see it at all. I see people who lost the Donald Trump twice. I don't think that's smart. I need to stop watching MSNBC, which, you know, Kornacki's going over all these numbers.

You know, it's depressing. Yeah, well, I agree that you have to stop watching MSNBC. Democratic congressman Stephen or Steve Cohen joined us for a conversation during our election coverage on election night. And we wanted to revisit the conversation to show just how dedicated Democratic lawmakers such as Cohen want to, like how dedicated they are to identitarianism and basically anything other than the issue. that matter to the Democratic voters. That conversation, Jank, blew me away. I was off doing another interview, so I didn't catch it live. But look, I want to show you how much he thinks that Democrats don't need to change a damn thing, let's watch.

I know Democrats, they won't change a thing, they won't change a thing. No, we won't, we won't. Yeah. What's amazing. So, so there was a lot of things that were so interesting in that interview. I'm so glad we did it because it gives you a sense of what the mindset in Washington is and what I call the Washington mind virus. Now, I'm not blaming Steve Cohen for it. He's actually been a pretty good congressman and won 10 times in a row in a majority

black district knows how to do politics, well, et cetera, and is an honest guy, like to a fault, very honest. And he clarified the white man comment a little bit later, but having, like he's not trying to say we only have to have white guys running. On the other hand, he does believe in identity politics. And so this, all the things that he said are things that almost all Democratic Congress. Congress people in Washington believe. And that's the problem.

The problem isn't Steve Cohen. The problem is the mindset. And so- Yeah, he's just one example, right? Right, right. It's kind of the hive mind of the democratic establishment. That's right. That's why I'm calling it the Washington mind virus, right? And so they think that, well, it's, first we've got to get the demographics right.

Guys, I don't know if you know this, but Trump won Latino men, period. He won the popular vote, period. So this whole like, oh, okay, now the Latinos are on our side and what we're going to do with women and all the side of any politics, it doesn't matter if you don't deliver for any of them. And they just not getting it, right? And the idea that these guys who do one gigantic failure after another after another, no matter how many times they fail, Democrats in Washington are like super smart guys, we've got to listen to them. Why? So let's get to the substance. Let's hear him out in regard to what he believes went wrong with Kamala Harris and the Democrats this time around in the 2024 presidential race.

What do you think went wrong in the Kamala Harris Democratic campaign against Trump here? You know, it's hard to say. I mean, I thought she ran a pretty good campaign, but I don't know that she was our strongest candidate. There's still probably a little antipathy towards a woman being president. and there's probably still some racial antipathy. You know, Barack won. Barack did fabulous, but it was Barack's election that brought about Donald Trump. And there were a lot of people that didn't like it and never did like it and didn't want to see it happen. And they didn't want to see another African-American be president.

So I think we still got a race problem and a gender problem. And to win, we should have had a white guy. I mean, people are going to be mad. But that's the facts. The demographics worked against us. I think because Kamala ran a good campaign and she's smart and she's experienced. It didn't make enough of a difference. Well, I think it's worth discussing the fact that Donald Trump actually managed to increase

his support among various groups of people, including black males and also Latino voters, Arab voters. Now, let's get to the details on that. NBC News found Latino men were breaking for Trump by a 10 point margin. Their exit polling found Trump secured 54% of the male Latino vote support in comparison to Harris's 44%. Four years ago, Latino men backed Biden over Trump, 59% to 36%. Now, Trump's appeal to Latino men is largely economic, okay, largely economic. And look, it's not just based on this one excerpt from this one piece. They've been saying it over and over and over again in poll after poll after poll.

Economy, number one priority, economy, number one priority. It must be racism, it must be sexism. No, they're telling you. No matter how many times they tell pollsters, focus groups, whatever it might be, hey, it's the economy stupid, they turn around and go, so you really want to protect undocumented immigrants? They're like, no, I don't know how much clearer do I need to be. Look, here's the problem with not just Democrats, but people that are in Washington. They view people in buckets, and they think everybody in the bucket does the same thing.

Is a monolith. Yeah, but that's not how it works in the real world. You know what Latinos are? Human beings? That's like everybody else. They have different opinions, et cetera, and you've got to deliver for them like you would anybody. And delivering doesn't mean just on Latino issues. It means on human issues.

Now, I hear the arguments already from, you know, the Democratic loyalists who say, well, I mean, the economy has improved under Joe Biden. And they'll note the unemployment rate, which is true. There's a low unemployment rate. They'll note the GDP. But guys, I want to be clear about something. And this is a point that I made during the Trump administration. When the Trump administration was, you know, boastful about their low unemployment rates.

Okay, but what are the quality of those jobs? are these well-paying jobs with benefits? Are these full-time jobs? Or are these temporary jobs, part-time jobs? Do Americans need to cobble together? Several jobs just to make ends meet? You know, that's a real question that I don't really see the Democratic Party delving into, probably because there are some inconvenient truths there that they don't want to have to contend with. The other issue is, I don't care about the GDP. Ordinary Americans, average Americans, don't care about the GDP. The GDP is not a metric that you should, you should should be boastful about when you're trying to make a case to ordinary Americans in regard to

how the economy is doing. Now, if you want to mention that as one throwaway metric, that's fine. But when it comes to ordinary people day to day, what percentage of them are living paycheck to paycheck? What percentage of them are not gainfully employed? What percentage of them, you know, are in an insane amount of debt, consumer debt is at record levels right now? These are issues that the Democratic Party has failed to address, and instead they have decided to really lean into the identitarianism, which is unpopular, mostly because it divides Americans based on either their race or their gender or their sexual identity. And at the same time, it leads to one ploy from the Democratic Party over and over again, and that's scolding, constant scolding,

constant accusations of either racism, bigotry, misogyny. People are sick of it. you're going to lose support among voters if that's your only game. If you're a one trick pony and that's the only thing you campaign on. And there's one other problem with what he was saying there. He's talking about, oh, you know, did we have the right candidate? Did she run a good campaign? She ran a good campaign. No, she didn't.

She ran a terrible campaign. But Democrats in Washington don't understand that because they think, what do you mean? She did the standard things. She went and did mainstream media. She raised a billion dollars. What else can you do? My God, you raised a billion dollars. The other thing you could do is win.

And so, and would it have mattered if they had another corporate robot instead of this corporate robot? It wouldn't have mattered at all because you guys are missing the forest for the trees, right? But the real issue is you keep running, people who are doing talking points. And they won't waiver from whatever the donors want at all. We'll talk more about it later in the show, right? Tons of ballot measures that passed that were democratic policies, but you don't run on those policies because the donors don't want those policies. I wouldn't even, Jane, don't make the mistake of saying democratic policies anymore,

okay? They're economic populist policies that the mainstream Democratic Party has completely abandoned and instead has focused on the identitarianism. Yeah, and I'll explain why a little bit later. But in this case, I don't, I think he's fundamentally wrong. I think almost all the Democrats in Washington think exactly like. him, which is, well, if we had a different robot with different talking points and appeal to different demographics, then we would have won.

No, no, you're going on an establishment route. That is a dead end. You have to turn around and go towards populism and actually delivering for your voters. But that's the thing they just can't even comprehend, like at this point. And then they wonder why they lost. Now, I want to be clear, I don't think that this ideology or mentality is representative of the whole of the Democratic Party. But after the election results, hold on, after the election results last night, I saw a few people on social media say some pretty disgusting things

about Latinos, especially Latino men, because they have decided to basically support Donald Trump. And they keep stating it has to do with economic reasons. But remember, women were supposed to be the ones to save Kamala Harris. She actually managed to lose support among women. More women voted for Joe Biden than they did for Kamala Harris overall. Also, she lost support among Latino women as well. Harris had a 25 point advantage with Latina women down from Biden's 29 point lead. I'm sorry, 39 point lead in 2020. And again, in fact, more women voted for Biden than Harris.

Biden won them by 57%. Harris won them by 54%. Also, eight in 10 black voters supported Harris, which is still an overwhelming majority. But that's still down from the roughly nine in 10 who backed Biden. So are they also racist and sexist too? Look, they probably will claim that. Anyway, look, guys, all of this is the wrong way of thinking about it. So instead of berating which demographic group betrayed you, first of all, they didn't owe you anything.

you owe them something, you should be worried about, hey, how do I deliver for them? But secondly, this whole idea of Biden versus Harris is wrong. It was, at the time, Biden was providing a change from Donald Trump and the debacle that we were in during COVID. And now Kamala Harris was stuck as the incumbent party and Donald Trump was promising change. So that dynamic is so much more important than Biden versus half. Harris, or how did Latina women versus African American men react to the candidates? They're not reacting to the candidates.

They're reacting to the times and the economic conditions that they're in. 100%. Well, we got to take a break. But when we come back, we're going to have a conversation with Patrick Bet David, host of the PPD podcast. Obviously, he is a Trump supporter, someone on the right wing. Very curious what his thoughts are on the election and what the future of the country looks like.

That and more coming up, don't miss it. All right back on the Young Turks, Jank and Anna with you guys, we've got a fun guest for you now. We sure do. All right, let's get to it. Joining us now is Patrick Bet David, host of the Patrick Ben. David or PBD podcast, big fan of Donald Trump obviously comes from a different perspective than we do here at TYT. But Patrick, congratulations. I'm sure you're related over last night's results. Yes, thanks for having me on. Well, I'll start off. Tell me what you think Donald Trump did this time around to attract a higher percentage of American voters. I mean, he honestly

He blew Kamala Harris out. It was unexpected. But what do you think he did this time around that made all the difference? Well, I will tell you, I think Kamala is the worst candidate the left has had in a while. I think if there was a primary, she wouldn't have beaten Josh Shapiro. She wouldn't beaten Pritzker, Newsom, maybe Whitmer at best, because that's just not her. I don't see her as a one. I see Whitmer as a one more than I see her as a one.

So it was a terrible candidate on the area of Trump, if you think about about 2020, there is an element. You know how you create content? Both of you would know this. You've been doing this for a long time at the highest level. I remember about seven years ago, six years ago, I pulled Mario and I'm like, Mario, watch the YouTube channel, the last hundred videos that we have, see how many of them have gotten over 100,000 views. And we first listed out how many videos we have produced over a million views, 100 views. So we had a lot of them. And I said, but let's look at the last 100 videos. And we looked at it. Only two or three videos were of 100,000 views.

He says, Pat, I cannot believe we're out only or two or three. I said, why do you think that is? And he's giving me his ideas, try to be nice to me. Like, well, I just think it's this. I said, it's not the thumbnail. I said, it's not the title. I said, it's not any of that stuff. It's the fact that I don't look like I'm enjoying creating content.

And the audience can tell. Whenever you're miserable like this and you're not happy about what you're doing and you're bitter and upset. The audience walks. They want to watch somebody that enjoys what they're doing. President Trump in 2020 didn't seem happy. He wasn't in flow state. In 2016, he was. In 2024, I will tell you, one of the interesting things that happened with him in this 2024 election, and specifically the last five months, I can't even say last year, I can't even say eight months ago. It's specifically the last five months. He looked like he started having fun. When he's having fun, he's talking, he's doing his trolling, he's, you know, getting on the

people's skin, he's doing his thing, he's being Trump, he wins, that wasn't the case in 2024. I can give you a lot of other things, but the one it fed, the X factor for me is he looked like he was having fun in 24, 2024, he didn't look like he was having fun in 2020. So Patrick, there's folks on the left who think that people voted for Trump because in the, in my opinion, the hilarious lingo of some leftists, they centered their whiteness above anything else. So obviously, you guys disagree that it's about race, right? Or gender. So what would you say your audience would say was the number one reason that they don't like the Democrats? They don't trust the Democrats and they prefer Trump. Well, I mean, if you think about for me,

I'll speak for myself. I'm still a registered independent till today. It's been 15 years that I'm a registered independent. You can go online and find out what PBD is. register for, you'll see independent. And I voted Bill Clinton. And I think Bill Clinton was a good president. Just so you know, I thought when people talk about Bill Clinton, I thought he did a good job. I thought him being able to sit there and work with Newt Gingrich, making things work, was exciting, was good. But at that time, I wasn't married, I didn't have kids. I'm 46 years old. Today, I got four kids. And I got to kind of sit down and think about who's better for my kids. I lived in California 24 years. I ran a business in California for 24 years. I left California

because one day some local, you know, assessor tax assessor comes up. And he says, hey, we heard your business has grown. I said, yes. Well, you need to pay a local tax assessor tax of $69,000. I said, what are you talking about? He said, yeah, I need to pay. I said, for what? So, well, based on our estimation, this is how much you need to pay. Nothing audited. Estimation. I go to the seventh floor, which was my accounting firm at the time. I said, what is this all about? It says, ah, happens one out of 20 business owners. But if they come to, you got to pay for it. I said, what are you talking about? $69,000? He says, yes. I said, what counties or cities in L.A. do I not have to pay a assessor tax? And I don't remember

at that time, I thought he said, Victorville, Burbank, Glendale, Santa Monica, a couple of these cities. I said, I want to move to Glendale. So I moved my headquarters to Glendale because I want to be in a place that I can reinvest that money into the business. Eventually, I left California because I didn't think California was a pro-business state. Hence, today, after COVID, two states in America lost a trillion dollars of assets under management, New York and California. Bad policies push business owners like me, like Musk, like many others out. Now, I go to Texas.

I live in Texas for five years, Dallas, Texas, fell in love with Texas. But I wanted the best of both worlds. I wanted California and I wanted Texas. California and Texas had a baby. It's Florida. I moved to Florida. Being in Florida, I like DeSantis that he protects my kids. Even in Texas one night when my first two kids are fully vaccinated.

The third kid, fewer. The fourth kid, we wanted the options on what to do and what not to do. You know, in Texas, there is no religious exemption. In Florida, there is. So for me at this phase of my life, when me and my wife are getting smarter, educated, we're making decisions on clear philosophies on how we want to raise our family, probably one of the main things that Trump appealed to family people like me. It sounded sane.

Some of the stuff the left was saying made no sense to me. What are we talking about on what some of the messages that were given? I understand the pro-abortion, the pro-life debate, no problem. I actually understand that argument on how it can be made on both sides. I'm a Christian myself. My position is pretty clear where I'm going to be at. But I can fully understand that being a debate to be talking about. They went a little bit too much. By the way, Joe Biden was a moderate Democrat. I know a lot of people on the right are going to be upset with me. How could you say it was a moderate Democrat? He was a moderate, but he was forced to act like he was a progressive. But Kamala was a progressive trying to act like she's a moderate and she wasn't and people just didn't believe her. Yeah, I disagree with you a little bit on that last point. I don't think Kamala Harris really has a political identity. I think Kamala Harris will kind of change her political identity depending on what she thinks is beneficial for her in getting elected. But just real quick note before I toss over to Jenk for another question. Please don't curse because we will get fined for it. Like you tell us him as high to Novasa, but don't don't use American curse words. I'm serious. Armenian just broke out.

Go ahead, Jeff. Yes, go from the show. All right. So Patrick, so look, I'm a populist, so I can't stand the donor class and the establishment, etc. I think the Democratic Party lost not because they use corporate robot A versus corporate robot B. I think that they all would have lost. I think that I think that Santa's probably would have lost.

I think that Trump has a gigantic advantage because he appears to be authentic. He appears to be populist. populist. I've been on your show, you know that I don't think he actually is populist. So that brings us to the question, which is, look, there is a real rift in the Republican Party for the first time in my life. In the old days, it was always, no, Mitch McConnell and Dick Cheney and George Bush are wonderful people. And God, it just, the donors need everything. And thank God, Mitch McConnell got it to them, right? And now I know a lot of people hate Mitch McConnell and they don't like the donor class, they become more populist. But I'm worried about their

authenticity. I'm worried that if Trump starts to do all the things that are not at all populace, but the old Republican way of give everything to the corporations, give everything to the donors, that you guys aren't really going to object and that your audience would be mad at you if you objected. And so I'm worried that that there will not be any kind of populace, not only an uprising on the right, but even an objection on the right if Trump begins to betray his promises, those more war in the Middle East, et cetera. I don't disagree with you. And by the way, you have to also realize, even on the right, after what happened with Hamas and Israel, the conservative had different factions that you would

look at on the positions that they had. And the military industrial complex community is like, hey, why are we trying to go to war, this John Bolton guy, this, this, all these, you know, Liz Cheney is now, this incredible woman that Whoopi Goldberg on the view. Oh my God, Liz, you're so amazing. Her father was like the ultimate military industrial complex. Now the left is kissing her ass. What the hell happened to the left? The one area with Trump that you got to give him credit for, he doesn't want war. And he said it and he did it while he was in. And I don't know if you guys saw what Dimitri Medvedev said a couple days ago when he came out and he said, if Trump even thinks about trying to prevent or get in the way of our war with us.

in Ukraine, there will be a JFK type style assassination. I'm sure you saw that. And then he came out and he says, Kamala Harris is dumb, is stupid, is uneducated and controllable. I think these are some of the words that he used against them. So of course, you know, the position that he had for the first four years doesn't want war. Is he going to go out and all of a sudden be pro war? If he does that jank the base that supported him is going to be very very loud and against it he it's just going to happen now who he puts in as his chief of staff you know is he going to bring somebody from the swamp who's he going to put around him as a team i don't know i mean at this point of the game the market votes you in then once they votes you in then they hold you accountable for

what you said you were going to do that part of course we have to watch to see what's going to happen The next 12, 24, 36 months. Patrick, I know you have limited time. Can I ask you one more question about the anti-war message from Trump? So I hear you that he boasts about not starting any new wars. He did take some actions in his first term that could have very well driven the United States into a hot war with Iran, which I was concerned about at the time. To your credit, you're right, the America first crowd, part of his base that does not want to go to war,

pushed back on the possibility of Trump conducting an airstrike in Iran, and he called that airstrike off. But I am worried because right now you have Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, elated that Trump got elected, because he thinks that Trump will do his bidding and will essentially engage in war with Iran on behalf of Netanyahu, in addition to allowing the Israeli government to do whatever they want with the West Bank and other Palestinian territory. So what are your thoughts on Trump potentially pursuing war with Iran? Yeah, so that's such a great question. So the other day, I had Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi here, right?

So when he's here, we're having a conversation together. One of the things I played is I played the clip of me asking President Trump when he was on the podcast saying, hey, Iran, the last time you put sanctions, there was so much pressure that Iran almost fell, okay? Voter turnout. All this stuff was high right now. Iran has a lowest border turnout. It's ever had only 39% showed up. I said, would you be willing to do everything necessary to help Iran go back to what it once used to be in the 70s where the regime falls and it goes back to democracy? And he didn't even hesitate. He just stopped me right there and says, look, Pat, we don't even know how to regulate ourselves, let alone another

country. It took him half a second to respond when he said that. I don't think he's on the same page with Beebe. I do think, you know, there is camera talk that you do. And sometimes you're speaking on camera, but people don't know, but you're really talking to your husband, right? Sometimes you're talking to your wife. Sometimes you're talking, just like we may talk to our wife or anybody. Sometimes he uses the camera to talk to world leaders. He's done this many, many times. And he's very strategic with the way he did with Kissinger, when he brought Schumer in, when he brought Pelosi in. I'm going to shut down the government. I'll take their responsibility. He likes to use that, right? I think with the camera, he may be saying

something with BB, but I think behind closed doors, I don't know if he's going to want that war to be there with him. I don't think that's a priority of this. Now, let's say the other part to be thinking about this. We already know on the first one, he did not create wars on the first one, right? Meaning the first four years. This is a second term. Sometimes when you run for office, my opinion, your first term, maybe if you said you're going to do five things, you only do two of them. And you don't do the other three with the hopes of getting reelected. Well, he didn't get reelected the first time, but now he's getting reelected for his second term, right? Is he going to go for everything? Because this is a legacy term. Is he going to be pushing

the envelope hardcore? What is he going to be going for the next four years? Everybody wants something, you know, Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, right? Everybody has something that, What's going to be his? Is it going to be peace? Is it going to be economy? Is it going to be wall? Is it going to be getting rid of the ACA? What is, is it going to be exposing the DOJ, the CIA doing the Twitter's file, FBI files? Is that what it's going to be? What is going to be his legacy? But if he all of a sudden goes pro war on his second term, it's going to really hurt the fact that on the first time he was a non-war president, everyone's going to forget about what happened on the first term. And everyone's going to say, oh, that was just one

term, he really all along wanted war. I'm not convinced he's going to do that. And I hope a BB and some others don't drag America into it. Knowing his ability to negotiate offline and using camera and media, I think he's going to be my success rate, I would put him on this on what I think's going to happen. I think 7030 BB's going to listen to him and not be as aggressive as he's been under Biden. Again, my opinion. Yeah. All right. Well, it's going to be really interesting to see because either the right wing base is correct about Trump or Benjamin Netanyahu is correct about Trump. But they can't both be right because Netanyahu definitely thinks that Trump's going to help him start the war in Iran. So now we're all waiting to see what happens.

But Patrick Bidavid, thank you for joining us, brother. And let's keep the conversation going. I like that it's not the old days where all we do is yell at each other with talking points and stuff. And we're having real conversations and finding common ground and plenty of things. we still disagree on. So thank you. We appreciate you joining us. And say hi to Vinnie for us. Anytime. Thank you so much guys. Appreciate you. Take care. Bye. Bye. All right. Let's take a brief break. When we come back, I want to talk a little bit about where working class voters went in this presidential election and more. Don't miss it.

your business banking, not think about it. But what if we told you there was a way to skip over the pressures of banking? By matching with the 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. Okay, back on TYT, Jank and Anna with you guys. I'm gonna read two member comments from TYT.com because they're fun. HXC, Mike wrote in about that interview, ha ha, Kamala is a progressive, hilarious.

I know, but you know, like in the right wing worlds, some of their populism anti-war stuff, great, fantastic, I'll take it, they've come in our direction, right? But when they think Kamala's a communist or a progressive or a liberal, I mean, it's so funny, right? She's just such a standard corporate Democrat. They just don't get that part. I got to make a point about something. So before coming in, I was listening to a super lengthy article in the Washington Post, like breaking down what was going on behind the scenes with both campaigns.

And they talked to campaign staffers and stuff, most of whom were off the record or anonymous. But what I found interesting is internal polling from Kamala Harris's campaign indicated that when she was talking about her record as a prosecutor, she would see a spike in the polls. And I'm really wondering whether how some of these races and ballot measures in California went yesterday have something to do with how poorly Kamala Harris did in the presidential race. Because in Los Angeles, for instance, I mean, the progressive district attorney was crushed. There was a reversal in the state with a ballot initiative to reverse the more soft on crime laws. And the reversal of the prior soft on crime proposition won by 70% of the vote.

And by the way, that ballot measure from 2014 that has now just been reversed, that was something that was championed by Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris. Yeah. So look, I can't stand that they call themselves progressive. I, in all of my years cover news, being in politics, I never once saw progressive say that they're pro crime. And then all of a sudden, overnight, we woke up one day and everybody's like, no, we should take all the felonies and turn them into misdemeanors. Why? Why should we do that? No, we should prevent injustice. And so injustice towards people who are detained, people who are abused by the police, who are unfairly prosecuted, prosecuted for things like smoking marijuana, etc. But we should also protect against the injustice that victims face of actual criminals like domestic assault,

etc. I don't want those to be a lower penalty. So I don't know where it came from, but it certainly didn't help the Democratic Party. And look, wherever you come out on that, one thing is clear, and that goes to the point that Anna just made, which is that the jury came in from the voters last night. And so it might have had some effect on Kamala Harris's, Anna's pointing out, but here in California, these are not Republican voters. These are Democratic voters who said, no, we did not want to turn those felonies into misdemeanors. No, we didn't want to say, yay, crime. We didn't want to pretend that there is no crime. We didn't mean any of that. And that's why it was 70 to 30. It was not unclear. So when you see people online pretending that

they speak for all Democratic voters, remember what happened in California. That isn't remotely true. It isn't within a million miles of true. And okay, now on a lighter note, the other comment I was going to read was bloated ego said, Alan's keys must have been for the wrong house. Apparently so. Somebody do a wellness check on Alan Lickman. Okay, Anna. All right, well, let's get to our next story. Let's talk about where working class voters went and who they supported in this election. This is a mandate to do what you said you were going to do. Get the economy working again for regular working class Americans.

Fix immigration, try to get crime under control, try to reduce the chaos in the world. This This is a mandate from the American people to do that. I think I'm interpreting the results tonight as the revenge of just a regular old working class American, the anonymous American who has been crushed. Conservative CNN contributor Scott Jennings is, he's right. He is right in his analysis here. He's right that many working class voters have realigned themselves with the Republican Party after years of feeling left behind by the dead. Democrats. Now, Trump did in fact make big gains yesterday with low income voters and Democrats or low income voters that Democrats lost. Pretty significant support from, and that's

according to the Washington Post exit polling from the 2020 election and last night's election. So they juxtapose the results in both elections. And let's take a quick look at this chart that'll help you visualize what's going on here. Okay. So in 2020, Biden won voters with incomes under $50,000 by an 11 point margin, 55 to 45. Now in 2024, Trump actually narrowly won with voters under who are making under $50,000. So Trump was at 49, whereas Harris was at 48. So that's a pretty huge swing. Okay, so again, these are the so-called low-income workers, individuals making less than $50,000 a year. So let's take a look at the $50,000 to $100,000 bracket.

That's what you're looking at on the screen right now. In 2020, Biden won voters in this bracket by 57 to Trump's 42. Now, if you look at the election yesterday in 2024, Trump won that same group of voters, 49 to Kamala Harris' 47. And then the one category in which Kamala Harris did manage to beat Donald Trump, I should say beat Biden is with higher income voters. Okay, so if you look at this in 2020, Trump won voters earning over $100,000 by 54 to 42. In 2024, Harris, Harris won those voters, 53 to 45.

So when you hear the allegation that the Democratic Party is now the party of elites, I think that it's being manifested in some of the results in this presidential race with Kamala Harris because clearly she has lost, you know, those making under $50,000, those making under $100,000, but anyone making over $100,000 was way more likely to support her over Donald Trump. Yeah. So Jeff Stein from The Washington Post noted these same numbers that Anna's talking about. And he wrote on Twitter, staggering class realignment slash shift in working class.

Okay, that's true, good. And then he said, Harris lost despite major shift of affluent voters her way. And I wrote back, not despite that, because of that. And it's amazing that they don't understand that in Washington. So when you court affluent voters by constantly bragging about all the corporate CEOs are on your side and how you raise the billion dollars, largely from spectacularly wealthy people in corporate packs. That doesn't play well with non-affluent voters. You want to guess if there's more affluent voters in the country or non-affluent voters in the country? Of course, there's more non-affluent

voters. This is so simple, such simple math, right? This doesn't take a four-dimensional chess to figure this out. So why is the Democratic Party so obsessed with the money? And even today, this story we'll do later in the show, they're like, they're bringing, we were at a perfect campaign, we raise a billion dollars. No, perfect campaign wins. Who cares about raising the billion dollars? Oh, I'll tell you who cares. The Democratic consultants do. Because as today, we are upset that we lost, Democratic consultants didn't lose. They got 15% of a billion dollars. That's why they emphasize the donors over the voters, because it literally makes them spectacularly wealthy. And then they think, who cares who wins? We're going to

do the same exact thing next time and next time and each time we're going to take 15%. That's the normal rate that they take. That's 150 million reasons for them to sell you out. And then Washington Post reporter, look, I don't know the context of it, so maybe he didn't mean it that way, but it's saying, I can't believe we lost despite the fact that we had the rich on our side. That is unbelievable thing to say. Okay, but this is what I need to understand, Jank, because any American worker in this

country who bungles their job. If I were to come here one day and decide, I didn't prepare a show, okay? I'm gonna come on the show and I'm gonna do whatever I want and I'm not gonna deliver on what my job title, you know, entitles you to expect for me, right? I think you'd fire me, I don't know, right? But there'd be consequences, there would be consequences. Yeah, I mean, people have to do their job. People have to do their job.

Elementary. So when it comes to these Democratic consultants, I get what their incentive is, which is that 15% cut, but the whole point of their existence is to help Democrats get elected. So when they bungle what they're supposed to do, where are the consequences? And why do these idiots keep getting hired? So, first of all, the Democratic Party at large has lost the threat, right? So they get confused the means for the ends. And so they're so obsessed with raising money.

And so we didn't get through a clip from my interview with Steve Cohen last night where they're a representative from Tennessee and he was like, well, we got to keep raising money when I question him on this thing. Let's actually get that clip ready if you guys don't mind. the last clip from the A block, but go ahead. Yeah, and so, no, but what's the point of raising the money is to win? Because the consultants I get, the lobbyists I get, but for the actual Democratic politicians, they actually do want to win, they, that their fame, status, power, et cetera, is on the line.

Would Kamala Harris wanted to be the president instead of not being the president? Of course you would, right? So why did they make the mistake of hiring the same consultants? Well, first of all, there's group think, right? So the chief of staff and the campaign manager and the communications director for AOC that pulled off a miraculous upset against Crowley. One of the greatest upsets in political history in America were never asked to do a single other job in Washington. Never hired for any other campaign, which is just amazing, right? Why? Because group think is, progressives are radicals.

They probably got lucky. I mean, they have an incredible track record of success. They created this Justice Democrats thing out of nowhere and got these improbable victories. But no, everyone in Washington tells me, I got to hire this guy and I got to hire that guy. Oh my God, I got to get them before the other candidates get them. They're because why? Because they're so good at raising money, money, money, money, money. And so the second part of it, the reason why they make the wrong decisions is because the donors aren't looking for a maverick.

They're not looking for an independent-minded person who's going to be strong and strategic and smart. and go, you know what, I'm in charge here. No, the donors want to be in charge. So that's why they pick weak candidates who they can tell them what to do and they will do them. And this is not even like, look, Grover Norquist, this is on the Republican side. It admitted to me and Ben Manquist when we interviewed him in 2004 convention at the GOP, at the RNC. We said, why did you pick George Bush over McCain? McCain had a better record in 2000.

but you're incredibly influential and incredibly wealthy group that has all the giant donor money went with Bush who seems less qualified, et cetera. He said, we asked McCain, will you do what we ask? And he said, well, you know, I'll take it into account, of course, but I'm the Maverick. I'm going to make my own decisions. And George Bush said, yeah, of course, I'll do whatever you want. So we picked Bush. And there you have it.

That encapsulates all of American politics. So they keep picking the weak, sometimes less intelligent person. The malleable. The malleable. That's a great way. And so it's a corporate robot that they program. That's why they all sound the same. That's why they all have talking points.

So the minute someone strong rises up, they go to crush them, right? Yeah. And the donor class is the one that then spends an unbelievable amount of money in primaries to defeat people like Bernie Sanders. They're like, that guy's thinking for himself. No, we can't have it. Give me somebody weak and malleable. And that's why you get the people going, oh, I don't know, I picked the hottest Democratic consultant.

I thought I'd win. So let's go to that interaction with Congressman Steve Cohen from Tennessee. This is the moment in the interview where Jank asked him specifically about the issue with the donors. Let's watch. The main problem is that Democrats take donor money and deliver for their donors and not for their voters. I don't think that the Democrats get it at all. I think they're going to go kiss more donor ass. They're going to leave their voters behind.

And like you said, they're going to whine. And so does anybody in Congress understand how much the country hates the establishment? I think that Citizens United is awful. And it's terrible that Trump has Peter Thiel and Elon Musk jumping around showing off their poopic and thinking there's somebody, some cheerleader type. But they made a difference, and they gave them money. And Robert Kennedy's going to be in charge of some health care and some food and drug stuff. Donald Trump is, like, in my opinion, a deranged clown, a buffoon of a man.

And so what does that make the Democratic Party if you lose to him twice? Well, it may be the American electorate, you know, because he got the vote. Some of them were people that were selfish and greedy, and they wanted better tax rates and get more money back to their kids who were the lucky sperm club. But it might have just been people that are angry about people getting handouts as they think. And a lot of the white voters thought that blacks are getting handouts, that the illegal immigrants are getting handouts, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. We have a constituency. And the only way to get to them is through advertising.

And the only way to get to them is through money. And if you give up all the money, you're not helping yourself. I'm going to be generous and just stop at saying that I disagree with what he says. I mean, look, again, I can't emphasize enough if you look at the polling and if you look at what voters have been screaming from the rooftops about, about seven in 10 Hispanic voters nationally rated the economy as either not so good or poor and a slim majority supported Trump. Roughly four in 10 Hispanic voters also said the economy was their top issue and these voters preferred Trump by roughly two to one margin over Harris. So like I know that we're

talking about money in politics here, but I wanted to also. also include that moment where he blamed the electorate for handing victory to Donald Trump, as if it's the voters' jobs to campaign and secure a win for Kamala Harris, it is not their job. Okay, the onus is not on them. So what is the point of raising the money if the money isn't going to help, you know, the candidate get elected because she isn't listening to the people. And that's what happened with Kamala Harris. Yeah, blaming the electorate for your losses is why.

Washington mind virus defined. Really? So look, I appreciate that he's honest and came on the show. I always appreciate when people do that. But again, it's not about him. It's almost every Democrat in Congress thinks that. He's one of the ones that are more left. The other candidates are way more corporate than him.

So, okay, I actually want to go to two members. I made two great points here about this topic. Concept of a username said 13 million fewer people voted this year. 13 million people weren't encouraged to vote. They had nothing to vote for. They were only told what to vote against. That's very true. It's such a great point.

And as I was looking at the numbers this morning, I was like, oh my God, look at how much less voters Trump had. And then, oh, my God, Kamala Harris, because Trump is winning the popular vote. So remember, Biden had 81 million votes. And now they're not, neither candidates near that, right? 13 million people less voted. Why? Because you didn't give them a reason to vote. And then you blame them for doing it like they let you down.

Was it their job to make sure that you had status and fame and wealth? Or was it your job to make sure that they had enough money to get by, et cetera? You're not motivating them. The race thing isn't motivating anyone. Anti-Trump isn't motivating enough people. So you've got to deliver. And then one more. And I love doing the show with you guys.

Thank you for being members through t-y-t.com. pessimistic progressive said, one other stat was that Harris went down in Republican voters from 5 to 4% compared to Biden. So all that courting Cheney voters resulted in what? Okay, let me just say, no one likes the neocons. No one. Okay, Republican voters don't like the neocons. Democratic voters don't like the neocons. The notion that Kamala Harris was somehow going to cater to moderate Republicans by prancing around with Liz Cheney. is laughable to me and she preferred to do that instead of actually listen to Arab American and Muslim American voters who wanted some commitment in regard to

reigning in Israel but she was unwilling to do that because she had donors from you know the the pro-Israel lobby and she wanted that money that money was more important she's like I can maybe make up the difference by trying to attract Republican voters but it didn't work and And anyone who honestly has two brain cells to rub together could have predicted that it wasn't going to work. But she went in that route anyway. And look, I wanna just address one other thing in regard to Donald Trump.

The media has been completely lying to you. What they'll do is they'll cherry pick sometimes completely out of context, moments from his speech that sound nefarious or sound violent or dangerous and ignore the rest of his speech or the rest of his interview. But you wanna know something? He was actually pretty disciplined in this election. He kept driving home the message about the economy again and again and again. And so whether you believe he's going to actually improve the economy, put that aside.

We're talking about the campaign strategy here. His campaign strategy was much better than Kamala Harris's, okay? And he understood, you say he's buffoonish, okay, I don't think he's a buffoon. He's smart enough to understand that economic issues matter to voters and that's the way he's is going to attract them, including black and Latino voters who typically and traditionally would vote for the Democratic candidate. I mean, and look, every time I would try to bring this up and tiptoe around it, people would get mad at me.

But reality is reality. And either you accept reality and recalibrate the strategy that the Democrats are implementing, or you just continue with the magical thinking and hope for the best. And that doesn't always work out, as last night was proof of. Yeah, I agree and disagree with you on that. So first on the what he says. Yeah, the media definitely cherry picks some things like blood baths that he referred to the car industry. He didn't refer to actual physical blood bath. And some of them just flat out lied about that. And that was really troubling. And we, and we made sure to point that out here. On the other

end, it's not like he didn't say unhinged things. He said, yeah. He said tons of unhinged things, right? So you didn't have to cherry pick to find a bad example. There was some, it was target rich environment, right? So on the, the reasons that he won, look, we all know he's not going to deliver. So like one of our members here, Rebel Dragon wrote in, I'm one of those low income voters. There's no way Trump is doing anything for people like me. People have short memories. He did nothing for us in his first term. That's totally right. I believe that's right. I don't think he's going to do anything for you now. He's going to do giant corporate tax cuts, et cetera. But as a matter of political strategy, he kept talking.

about and emphasizing, oh, I'm going to do better for the economy, I'm going to do better on inflation, I'm going to do better on immigration. These are things that every poll showed was among the top two to three issues. So when he's constantly emphasizing the top issues, in his ridiculous way, outrageous way, different things that he says, and in his fake way, like he's not really going to address those. But I just keep coming back to this guy, I think his name was Nick Smith. in Western Virginia when we interviewed him 2016 and he works at a Waffle House and he said

look these around here a lot of people working in the coal mines and we know the jobs aren't coming back but when Hillary Clinton tells us that they're not coming back and she said she takes all of our hope away tells you to learn to code and yeah yeah and does these things that don't help us at all Trump at least had the decency to lie to us and so as a political strategy that is true. What would be fantastic is if we once in our lifetimes, well, we did have one, Bernie, that actually said the right things and meant the right things. Oh my God, that would be amazing, right?

But at least he had enough sense to emphasize the things that the American voters actually cared about. And then he has this giant advantage of what I call accidental authenticity. It's just because he can't help himself. So he'll say in his speech, my consultants told me not to say this, but I like punching women in the face, uh, right? I'm kidding, a little bit of hyperbole, but he's, he literally talked about putting Kamala Harris in the ring with Mike Tyson. So he says these things that are crazy because he's crazy, but what it tells the audience subconsciously, the voter

subconsciously is that's not a corporate robot. That's a real person with all of his faults and et cetera. Meanwhile, the Democrats keep sending out these, hello, I have these great talking points, all the corporate CEOs are on my side and I was going to do something about price cashing, but I promise I won't anymore. Mark Cuban, please go out there and tell everyone I didn't mean a word. Well, then you're at a massive disadvantage. So what we're looking for here is a candidate that strategically talks about the issues that the voters care about, not your buddies in Washington and not your donors, but also for God's sake means it, which Trump does. All right, let's take a break when we come back for the next segment.

We'll talk a little bit about the positive news from yesterday. And believe it or not, there was some positive news that further reinforces the notion that the majority of Americans actually agree on important policies. We'll be right back.