Will Cain Country - Rachel Campos-Duffy, Sean Duffy, & Charlie Hurt: Fiery VP debate! But Who Won, Vance Or Walz?

Episode Date: October 2, 2024

Story #1: Will thinks Senator Vance won the debate hands down. But what did focus groups think? What did voters in swing states think? Story #2: Breaking down the debate with FOX & Friends Weekend co—Host and the hosts of the From The Kitchen Table podcast, Rachel Campos-Duffy and Sean Duffy, and FOX News Contributor Charlie Hurt. Story #3: The crew discusses the debate and potential for new College Football conferences. Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show! Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I think J.D. Vance was dominant. I think J.D. Vance won the vice presidential debate in a blowout. But what a focus group thinks? What do swing state voters think? What do we know today if we look beyond our own eyes about the way that debate went? Who won? Waltz or Vance two

we break down that vice presidential debate with a big panel including Charlie Hurt Rachel Campos Duffy and Sean Duffy three

college football keeps evolving and I'm not talking about U-TEP joining the Mountain West I'm talking about a new concept the Super League

72 teams 12 conferences the future of college football It's the Will Kane show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. Always on demand. Just hit subscribe on YouTube if you're watching right now or head over to Will Kane on Facebook. On all of those platforms, you can jump into the comment section, become a part of the show. In fact, we'll bring you into the show today. I want to hear from you who won the vice presidential debate.

J.D. Vance or Tim Waltz. You can also, if you're listening on Terrestrial Radio, head over to Apple or Spotify, and hit subscribe. I want to break this debate down from A to Z. I want to have a big discussion today, and we have an awesome panel. We have the host of the Kitchen Table podcast, Rachel Campos Duffy, also a host of Fox and Friends Weekend, and Sean Duffy, also host of the bottom line. And we have Fox News contributor, Charlie Hurt, all going to join us here in just moments to break down that debate. But let's get into what I thought, what you thought, And the best that we can tell at this early stage of the game, what voters think about who won the debate for vice president. Let's start with story number one. I thought J.D. Vance was dominant. I thought he gave a master class in debating. J.D. Vance came into this debate with reportedly very high unfavorable ratings, only a 39% approval rating. That's largely built off the image

and the brand people had painted of him as being this America First Nationalist Cat Lady Hating Ivy League at one time Hillbilly elegy author. I mean he is still

the author but it's like he was the turncoat you know he was accepted with an elite media and then he goes full Donald Trump I don't know what created that image I don't know what created that upside down unfavorability but he came in that debate last night and he managed to accomplish something that is very hard to do and that is he was assertive in his point of view i thought explained his point of view very well he did so

while projecting empathy many times throughout that debate i thought that on the topic of abortion he attempted to speak directly to women who have reservations about the policies of republicans of him, of Donald Trump. And I thought he did so effectively to the best that you can on what is a losing issue for Republicans. He also, in a really telling moment, I thought, when Tim Walt said that his son was a witness

to a school shooter during a volleyball game, stopped and said, Tim, I didn't know that about you. I'm so sorry to hear that. Just a very human and empathetic moment, and I thought J.D. Vance did a good job of being aggressive in his presenting his point of view, while being likable and empathetic. And what he does, and it came as no surprise

and what he did very well was, once again, it was essentially three-on-one. CBS moderators were embarrassing, just like the ABC moderators for. The rules going in debate, they wouldn't fact-check. And he said in the debate, I thought, you know, the rules were you're not going to fact-check. It's not because he's afraid of a fact-check.

It's because fact-checks themselves are a farce, as was the case when they attempted to fact-check him on illegal immigrants, or rather refugees and immigrant status of Haitians in Springfield, Ohio. He said, no, that's not correct Margaret Brennan after she fact-checked him. Here's the process through which they came. She over-talked him. She said, we're out of time. We don't have time for you to do this.

And then she dismissively said, thank you for explaining the legal process, Senator, before then cutting his mic. No such type of fact-check for Tim Walls. And at this point, I just want to say it's beyond embarrassment. You know, I don't even care. Forget Margaret Brennan, forget David Muir. There has got to be an executive in some ivory tower within Paramount, right? Doesn't Paramount own CBS?

Disney, which owns ABC. I don't know. Who owns NBC? That's ABC. Comcast own NBC now? NBC Universal. There's got to be an executive that looks at this. And I don't care if they're on the left.

has to be embarrassed about their inability to hire someone with integrity. You have to look at this and go, what an embarrassment for my organization. And if not those individuals, stockholders. You know, stockholders on any of these publicly traded companies have to at some point go, this is beyond the level of absurdity that you can't have an objective race for the presidency.

You can't have an objective inquisition of two candidates trying to be the leader of the free world. It's beyond embarrassing. On the other hand, Tim Walts. Tim Walts had several, I thought, very embarrassing moments, most notably when he couldn't explain why he lied about going to China during the Tiananmen Square protest. And his explanation for that was, I'm a knucklehead. Sometimes I misspeak. You know, the merits of that issue, I don't care. Like, you know, Tim Walts can travel wherever he wants, have a thirst for knowledge, see the way different societies work. I don't care. I don't. I am a little concerned.

He said, you know, I learned about governance while over in China, good governance. Hmm, what did you learn? What I care more, though, is that is a window into a guy who has had lies and lies and lies about his biography from his DWI in his past to his military service and whether or not he served in a combat theater, which he certainly has alluded to. Over and over again, IVF, he's lied about that, whether or not his family used the specific treatments he said, the Republicans are trying to get rid of. If he's lying repetitively about his record, his personal story, that's incredibly concerning.

I will say, beyond that, I thought Tim Walts went in, came off as generally affable. I think for anyone who, again, is independent and doesn't know which way they're going to go, they could excuse themselves for liking Tim Walts. I think he was bumbling at times. He looked like a deer in the headlights, and he was nervous. He was certainly not as smooth as J.D. Vance. But you have to understand, I think the bar on most of these debates isn't that high. and he probably performed adequately.

So let's go to what other people think. I have humility on this. I did the day after the Donald Trump, Kamala Harris debate, where I said, I thought Trump lost, but I have humility. Let's look at what other people thought. Washington Post today runs the headline, who won the Vance-Waltz VP debate? We asked wing state voters.

In their poll, eight people suggested Tim Walts performed better than J.D. Vance. 14 people said J.D. Vance performed better than Tim Walts. Frank Luntz noted pollster ran a Zoom poll during the debate. He had 14 people in his. He says in a post on X, final focus group vote tonight, 12-2 in favor of J.D. Vance. Now, you heard something different than that over on CNN where they had a focus group, and they asked one individual, the only one who said they changed their position from non-committal going in to a Walt Harris vote, said this is why he would not vote for J.D. Vance.

One of you said they've made up their mind. Ryan, who are you going to vote for? And what kind of solidified that opinion? Well, I'm going to be voting for Kamala Harris. You know, one of the stark sort of aspects of that debate that really stuck with me was when they were talking about January 6th and how Mike Penn certified the election and they were wondering if J.D. Vance would certify the election should Trump lose. And, you know, J.D. Vance didn't really give us a definitive answer and I'm disappointed in that fact. And I don't think that I can trust someone, you know,

with my vote if they're not going to respect it. Now I'm curious as to how really non-committal that guy was going in. This January 6th, with their cutting ads today, the Democrat I watched MSNBC after the debate. They seem to think that was the big moment. The J.D. Vance would not suggest that he would do the same thing as Mike Pence, where he would certify the election. The fact that he wouldn't say he would certify the election, that seems to be what they're going to cut campaign ads on.

But whatever with that guy, if that was his main thing, I'm doubtful he was non-committal going in, it's reflected in an NBC tweet and poll from last night. uh this is from media matters for america so take it forward it's worse but i assume they're just repeating what they heard on nbc says nbc news just pulled their focus group of six undecided voters in pennsylvania five of six said tim waltz won the debate that's different than for example what the betting markets are saying today going into that debate polly market had tim waltz had almost a 75% chance of winning the VP debate during the debate that

betting odds dropped to lower than or about 30 percent. I mean, it's a cliff. It's a huge drop during the debate. And that was reflected in a separate focus group conversation on CNN. He's very battle tested, very ready, and you can just see that he went to Yale, and he's very intelligent. And he reassured a lot of people, I think. Somebody else. It was a strong control of the facts. He ran the show. He remains steady during the whole performance, and I was very impressed with him being very sincere and authentic. He humanized himself and actually looked like a regular guy. That was the Frank Luntz focus group, which they aired portions of that on CNN.

So who won the debate? Jump into the common section. Let me know what you think. The most probable takeaway is that VP debates do not end up swinging elections. You could get out of that debate what you wanted to. That's what the final CBS News, UGov poll, showed. Who won the VP debate? 42% said Vance, 41% said Tim Walts.

17% said it was a tie. So in the end, I think J.D. Vance was dominant. I want to try to put myself in the position of people who are truly looking at this with an open mind and, I guess, an open vote. I want to have the humility of the world doesn't work exactly as the way I see it through my eyes. So you jump into the comment section. Who do you think won that debate? We're going to ask that of Charlie Hurt, Rachel Campos Duffy, and Sean Duffy.

Next on the Will Cain Show. Listen to the all-new Brett Bear podcast featuring Common Ground. In-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle, along with all your Brett Bear favorites like his All-Star panel and much more. Available now at foxnewspodcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts. That and other notable audio from last night's vice presidential debate coming up here in just a moment on the Will Kane show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel on the Fox News Facebook. page, just hit subscribe on YouTube or hit subscribe on Apple and Spotify. Joining me now are the host of the From the Kitchen Table podcast.

Just head on over to their show at Fox News podcast. Hit subscribe and you can always listen to the From the Kitchen Table podcast. Sean Duffy is also the host of From the Bottom Line and Rachel Campos Duffy. I'll host along with me of Fox and Friends Weekend. Good morning, guys. Hey, well. Good morning. It's great to be on the Will Kane show.

morning is isn't charlie hurt you don't get enough of me on saturdays charlie hurt is joining us we're having a little technical difficulty with charlie at the moment we're going to bring him in just in just a second hey sean you you and i were together the day after the debate between donald trump and comla harris and i remember we had a similar reaction and the reaction and i joke with your wife about this all the time you know i said you got to be able to see the world through different eyes than just your own eyes you know my eyes tell me last night that jd vance was absolutely dominant. But I do try to come into this this morning and go, yeah, but how did America, how did independent or non-committed voters feel about it? What do you think today?

So, Will, when we did the last post-debat coverage, this was after the Donald Trump debate. And both of us agreed Donald Trump wasn't very good, right? He took debate. And we were honest about that. Like, I wanted Trump to do well, but he didn't. And I look at last night's debate and hands down, J.D. Vance totally crushed, slapped, spanked, Tim Wals. I mean, Tim Wals came out like a deer in headlights, and he was nervous, and J.D. was calm, knew the facts, delivered the facts. I actually wish he would have called out Kamala Harris and Tim Wals more on their lies that the media wasn't willing to do over the course of this campaign. But I think he was trying to still be a nice guy and be a likable vice presidential candidate. it. If that was a strategy, I think he accomplished it. But all in all, I thought it was, to your point, a victory for

Vance. And just, I'm listening to the polls that you're laying out will. And I don't know what's debate they watched because I don't think there's any question about who want. Yeah, you know, Rachel, to the extent that these polls, I give validity. And by the way, Sean and I both said that. And I think we were both wrong for what it's worth, by the way. I think the polling after that debate showed that Donald Trump did much better than Sean and I thought. And that's fine. I want to own that potentiality because I'm trying to project what other people see, not just what I see, right? Um, J.D. And so, yeah, right. So here, I'm going to put a specific question you do, Rachel. There's a moment last night, which many people who agree with the three of us

loved. And it's when J.D. Vance wouldn't be fact checked, right? By Margaret Brennan. Um, in fact, I want you and everyone watching and listening to watch this moment. I'm going to ask you how you think this played. Here's that moment. The two of days, it's the, when J.D. Vance goes at the moderators. The rules were that you guys were going to fact check. And since you're fact checking me, I think it's important to say what's actually going on. So there's an application called the CBP One app where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole and be granted legal status at the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand. That is not a person coming in, applying for a green card and waiting for 10 years.

That is the facilitation of a legal immigration, Margaret, by our own leadership. Thank you, Senator, for describing the legal process. And Kamala Harris opened up that pathway. Those laws have been on the book since 1990. Thank you, gentlemen. The CBBODAF has not been on the books. It's since 1990. It's something that Chálla Harris created, Barbara.

Gentlemen, the audience can't hear you because your mics are cut. All right. By the way, we're joined now by Fox News contributor to Charlie Hurt. Now we've got Charlie's technical issues worked out. Welcome, Charlie. Thank you. We've got the technical difficulties figured out. That's my specialty.

I'm glad. Everybody's their own tech manager today. Rachel, here's what I was going to ask. you. Everyone who agrees with us, probably all four of us here, love that moment. Nicole Wallace on MSNBC said it was mansplaining that everyone, and I saw a tweet that every woman felt that in their bones as he talked over Margaret Brennan. Is there anything at all to that? No, totally disagree. By the way, you guys talked about why you were both wrong on the Donald Trump analysis after the last debate, and I think it relates to this. And why I think both of you,

I don't admit that we were wrong. Well, we were right, actually, but we'll come to that later. We were right. Okay. I think both of you, I think both of you liked J.D. Waltz, I mean, J.D. Vance, going after, in this last debate, more than I did. And I do. And I'll explain. So this moment was his strongest moment. And this moment was the most Trump-like moment he had.

So that might help set the stage a little bit for what I think happened. I think the reason why Donald Trump did so well, despite like what sort of the pundit class thought, is because what Donald Trump did by being bombastic and by not accepting the premise set by these really biased moderators during his debate was he exposed them. So, you know, he talked about the Haitian. and he said the dogs and the cats.

And it just, it destabilizes everybody. And so these guys just started taking off their masks all over the place. And at the end of the debate, when everyone sort of digested it all, I think what everyone came up with was, God, these moderators were horrible. And they were. They always are. And Donald Trump has a way of making them expose themselves in that way. In this case, I felt like the conditions.

geniality of J.D. Vance, while, of course, he came off as super intelligent and calm and capable in all those ways. To me, personally, it doesn't meet the moment. I hated seeing these guys get along. And maybe there's certain people that like it and the way he was so, you know, deferential and nice and da-da-da-da. It doesn't meet the moment. This is like game time. like free speeches on the line war and pieces on the line everything's on the line and there and there were so many moments that just tick me off like for example you know they he he did a great job by the way of bringing up the CBP pass or one pass which is basically like a fast pass in Disney world while all these other people have to wait in line the people that we actually really should have as as new

citizens the ones who do it right and sit in their country and and care about our laws and apply lawfully and wait five, ten years to get in line. These people are all getting a fast pass, like he said, thanks to the Kamala Harris wand. But he didn't bring up a lot. I mean, Tim Walt should have had to explain what happened to the 300,000 children that were lost at the border.

He should have had to explain, you know, and by the way, fact check, he said there was no children being used as mules. I would have come back if I was J.D. Vance and said, clearly you've never spoken to a Border Patrol agent. that is a flat-out line that's what should have been fact-checked so i guess i feel like jd bans appeals to people who really wish and probably for really good reasons wish we could go back to a different era when a pre-trump era when being nice and cordial worked i don't think it works anymore sorry

i'd go off i'm gonna i'm gonna rebut it no i love it i love it and okay i'm gonna rebut and put it to Charlie, though. So I think that, first of all, it's a tag team affair. And Donald Trump checks that box of creating chaos. And you're absolutely right about the chaos that he creates and the way it makes people rip off the masks. He doesn't need a double down on that with J.D. Vance. He doesn't need a tag team partner that fights the same way he does.

He needs a partner that fights with a different style. And I will admit, I think J.D., now go to you, Trump. I think J.D. threads are really fine a nice needle. And he does it on Sunday shows. He punches the moderators back in the nose, but does it with a smile and does it with smooth, like, yeah, I guess it's intellect. And I do worry to this, Rachel, that Donald Trump's style has a ceiling and the goal is to win. And you have to figure out a way to raise that ceiling. If Donald Trump can get you 48%, you need somebody who's going to get you to 52%.

And that's what I'm looking at with J.D. Vance, Charlie, that's why I think he was so dominant. it's his it's a style i think that ultimately has pretty broad appeal yeah and i and i do like having politics where you have uh politicians who are um you know more poised more politic more polished i i i like that actually but i completely agree with you rachel that we would not be here we would not have been we did we would not be where we were last night with j d vance against uh walls without Donald Trump, and without Donald Trump being the impolitic vulgarian that he is, without being the guy, the barbarian at the gate in 2016, we would not be here. Not only because, not just because Donald Trump picked J.D. Vance, which is obviously a very,

very important part of this, and it demonstrates his judgment. And also, not only his judgment, but also his judgment in terms of how much he's learned since 2016. He's a different candidate now. He knows more and he's willing to do something different. But also because, as you point out, he has smashed the system. He smashed the media. He smashed everything to the point where, you know, just if you just looked at J.D.'s record and his position on the issues, you would not have a Republican standing on the stage talking about the dangers of China, talking about the dangers of illegal immigration, talking about his very nuanced, complicated, you know, acknowledging the complexities of abortion

in America today, you wouldn't have had any of those things, except Donald Trump has, for eight years, demolished the system. But I also agree with you, Will, that I like where we are with this guy, because I do think that our politics is better if you have somebody who is able to be genial and able to sort of talk like that and win people over. If we could just talk about the issues, Donald Trump's side would be winning 60, 70, 80 percent of the of the American people. The problem is that you don't get there because the political set on both sides for so long has been so poisoned and so captured in ways that the only people who don't have a voice in Washington have been the American people for literally decades. And Donald Trump changed that. And I think that

going forward with somebody like J.D. Vance, after four more years of Donald Trump, we could be looking at a very sane, sensible kind of governance that I could not be more optimistic than I am today after watching what we saw last night. As an individual politician in my book, J.D. Vance went way up for me last night. I mean, like, I don't know. I was probably skeptical of his long-term political future, to your point, before this debate,

not because of his ideology or anything, but after last night, I'm like, I think this guy inherits the mantle in a way, I'm not saying I'm not anointing him. There's going to be a big competition, right? But he can inherit the mantle in a way that can really, really, appeal to the thing is rachel infinitely more skilled than ronda santis at at at the art of politics oh and infinitely 100% on that i agree and i and also jaddy vance is right on like on ukraine jd jd

jd vance is right on ukraine jd rites has jd vance has really great instincts i'm just saying wouldn't it be nice for don't trump for once to have an attack dog so he can show his softer side you You know, one of the things people really liked was the softer side. He is the attack dog. He actually does have a softer side. When we saw the great, when we saw his daughter, one of the most powerful moments of the convention, and Will and I have talked about this quite a bit on our show, was when the granddaughter Kayet came out.

And he talked about that. Donald Trump, when he came on, when I asked him directly, will you find, will you commit to finding the over 300,000 children that this administration has lost? and he said to my face, that's easy. Of course I will. I will do that. You know, he is somebody who genuinely cares, but he's had to fight so hard, tooth and nail, you know, scratching, plying, because all these attacks on him, it would be nice to have him. And I'm not saying Judy's not a good candidate. I think he's doing, he's delivering well. I think, um, a, a Vivek Rom Swami would be, would have been also really good. I mean, make, I'm going to say

can i can i weigh in you will because um of course what happened last night was jd vance was not trying to win charlie's vote or rachel's vote or my vote they've got our right right right there was a different set of voters that he was messaging to last night that's the undecided middle or persuadable voter that might think donald trump's a little too harsh for them maybe a little too bombastic yeah but it's like they could see jd vans to go you know this guy is cool calm and collective. And I kind of like that as a balance to Trump. It was that package that J.D. was rounding out for the ticket that could bring other people in to vote for them. Again, I would have loved for J.D. Vance to call Tim Walts a liar, right? Layout, you know, whether it was his rank,

military service. And now you lied about being in Tiananmen Square. What happened you lied about Tim? You lie about everything. I mean, like, that could have been really great. But he has your vote. We would have been foamy about that and loving it, but I don't think that would have worked to get the orders that they need. I love how most of us are like, smash-mouth politics is what we have to have to get there. And Rachel's like, no, smash-mouth politics is what we're here for. Right. They're so mean because they're so vicious on the other side. Yes, I agree.

She wants blood. I love it. Yeah. Rachel, Rachel's got the base. Sean, you brought this up. Okay, I want to see if you guys disagree with me. Hold on real quick. I want to see if you guys disagree with me, what I said earlier.

I don't think Tim Walts was horrible. I think that Tim Walts would give people excuses that want to vote that way, vote that way. But hold on before you get to address that, Sean, because you brought this up. This was Tim Walts' worst moment of the debate. Him talking about Tiananmen Square in China. My commitment, whether it be through teaching, which I was good at, or whether it was being a good soldier or was being a good member of Congress, those are the things that I think are the values that people care about.

Governor, just to follow up on that, the question was, can you explain the discrepancy? All I said on this was is I got there that summer and misspoke on this. So I will just, that's what I've said. So I was in Hong Kong and China during the democracy protest, went in. And from that, I learned a lot of what needed to be in governance. He said, I'm a knucklehead. That was his excuse. I'm a knucklehead.

Go ahead now, Sean. So, yeah, so that was the worst moment for him of the night. And I would agree with you, Will, that he did okay, right? But the question is with how nervous he was and how the policies they're talking about in air quotes because there's not really much policy there. How do you do that? How can you be successful in a debate when you can't really defend the things

that you truly think you want to do with the country? Let me give you an example of how the moderators set it up and curated a debate and questions to make it work for Tim Walls to make you say, and I would agree with you, that Tim Walls did okay. So here's the question.

The biggest issue for the American voter is what? the economy and inflation. That's the number one issue. And so what did the debate moderators ask for the, for the inflation question? They come in with inflation's a big issue. But the biggest part of inflation is the cost of housing. What are you going to do, Tim Walls, to affect the rate of increase, you know, of our inflation around housing, right?

So what the moderator did was specifically target to Tim Walls a question on inflation that was on housing, which is where they have one simple policy that, by the way, will not work. But Tim Walls could answer that question on inflation. Instead of coming back, J.D. Bans, coming back and going, well, how are you going to fix food prices and gas prices and insurance costs and everything else that we have been crushed with on the cost increase? The moderators gave him a tee up to answer it in a way that Kamla has come up the three policies she came out with. Yeah, go ahead. Here's the worst example in my mind. And then I want to hear why Rachel thought that Walt did all right.

I mean, this one upset me, and I rarely get upset at this stuff. I leave that to Rachel on like getting my blood up. All right, right? Right now, there's like 150 people dead in North Carolina, right? And the whole place is underwater in South Carolina and Georgia. And it's a complete absence of leadership and it needs action. Today, I need a leader. Look, sometimes I'm real sympathetic to like I don't want us to be a

four sycophantic people to Donald Trump. But I do know that he showed up. I do know that he's raised over $3.5 million on a GoFundMe. And I do know, because I called GoFund Me this morning, that money is going directly to three charities. I don't know what they are yet. I'm going to assume one of them in Samaritan's purse. But it's going to help people, okay?

And how did the moderators ask about this issue that is on? This is the front issue, right? There's a lot of big issues, but this is the one staring you in the face right now. How'd they ask it? What would you do about climate change? that was the question it was all about climate change and within one within one question it was about is climate change a hoax they took this from a very real world need an issue and took it to a Harvard classroom in 30 seconds and and also played it into tim waltz's hands it made me so

mad rachel i'll tell you what made me mad that it wasn't the first question that they started with the middle east as we're in the middle of this you know terrible catastrophic situation where you know hundreds of of Americans have died six states are affected we've just sent troops off more troops off to the Middle East than probably we've sent to help out in this situation I was mad as hell that that was the first question that wasn't that that was that the Middle East was the first question and not what was happening to Americans here and I thought it was emblematic of everything that's wrong with Washington D.C. and with the media.

Yes, this is a perfect example, climate change. They asked it in that context, but also they kept saying how it was a fact. Donald Trump would, and what J.D. Vance said was, well, assuming your premise, then he went on to answer in a very sort of, you know, free Donald Trump Republican way of answering a question. Donald Trump would have said, this is a hoax. He would have talked about how the other side, the Democrat donors are all making money off of all. off of this, what he calls the green use scam, because it is, and how it's hurting our prices of our gasoline and ultimately our food and the inflation. That's what I'm talking about. That's why I got frustrated. Same thing with abortion. The question was asked as reproductive rights.

What? It's about abortion. Tim Waltz came ready with stories about women who have so, you know, been affected by this. Why didn't, why didn't JD have? stories I know you we've had them on the show we've had a several women three of them who were who survived abortions one of them doesn't have an arm uh you know both of them all three of them talk about you know what they went through what happened to them um we've also had on our show the somebody who's who was um conceived after a rape his life is valuable um you know why don't we have these stories i felt like on abortion yeah but as a pro lifer i felt abandoned. And by the way, with IVF, too, one last thing, IBF, they just totally sold that out.

I'm like, wait a minute, IVF, you could have turned this into make America healthy again. Why don't we talk about why infertility is so huge now that it's growing? That was an missed opportunity. I felt as a pro-life. I'm going to go, Sean. I think Sean has the answer to this. And that is, I actually liked his answer on the climate change thing. Like, I can have the debate on whether it's a hoax. I like how he pivoted it to American energy. If you believe in this, then you would want to be on-shoring American energy. I thought that was a really smart pivot to not get stuck in the, is it a hoax debate? You don't want to be stuck there. And I also thought on the abortion, his point was to try to find new voters, not high-five the ones that are

already with you. Charlie, what do you think? Specifically on the idea that Tim Waltz did, what Sean and I said, Charlie, that Tim Waltz actually did okay. Yeah, I think he probably did okay in terms of people who were, you know, already going to vote for him. And but, you know, for, I thought his biggest problem, and while obviously the Tiananmen Square thing was just devastating, the entire country breathed the sigh of relief when he finally got out of that jam. And it was just, it was, it was painful, even as somebody who is not rooting for him. But I think that he didn't answer any questions. And for people who were for the first time dialing in to meet J.D. Vance and Tim Walz, they saw J.D. Vance, who was prepared, who answered questions and did it, albeit in a sort of

politic way and tried to be as appealing as possible to win over people that don't necessarily agree with them. And I get what you're saying, Rachel, about all that. We have for so long been captured by those types of politicians who have sold us out. time and again, but, but, but, but, but it is, it can be effective if the person has real principles that, that they don't, uh, that they don't, uh, that they don't bend on, but, but rather, you know, the difference between, you know, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a funny little thing with, in politics to have your principles that you don't bend on, but at the same time, you still have to negotiate and win over people.

It's a funny little dance, and for so long, we've had politicians who only did the funny dance and compromise, but never stuck up for their principles. But you can't really only have one and not the other. As Trump has said about abortion, you know, you still have to win elections. And, you know, the fight that we have on abortion is more with, you know, winning over our fellow Americans. You know, and you can look at the polling and see that. Well, I've not. I have not liked the way Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, but mostly Donald Trump, frankly, has handled abortion in this election. You know, some people say, well, you know, you're a one-issue voter?

Yeah, I'm a one-issue voter. I would also be a one-issue voter in the 1800s when the debate about slavery was being fought over in our country. So I don't have any shame about that. I think life and how we treat the most vulnerable humans in our American family is a non-negotiable. And I hate, I hated seeing during this election the kind of pandering. And I think we're actually, I think the pro-life movement has made a lot of advances. And I felt, you know, in terms of, you know, politically. And I just felt like I feel abandoned as a pro-lifer.

But Rachel, can you explain? Can you accept the fact, the idea that it is a multi-step process? And if we want to execute the long-term multi-term process, I would rather have J.D. Vance and Donald Trump in charge of the train than people who believe in post-birth abortion. And, you know, Governor Northam and Nancy Pelosi in charge of the train. I'm with you. I'm with you. I'm like a jihadist on. abortion. But I but but but but honestly though I don't I would wouldn't you rather Charlie then just go you know what it's it's for the state I'm not having this argument anymore I'm okay with that then so Charlie that clip I'm a jihadist is going to be about as bad as this one from tim waltz

on who he's friends with school shooters watch you previously opposed an assault weapons ban but it's only later in your political career did you change your position why Yeah, he sat in that office with those Sandy Hook parents. I've become friends with school shooters. I don't want to hammer him too hard because it was clearly a mistake. I don't know what he was trying to say. I don't think probably the victims of school shooters. I don't think that was a mistake.

You know what? You think he's friends with school shooters? Can I just say that was one of the moments that I liked the best out of Tim Walts? What? You guys think, can I explain? Because I think Of course I think you need to

Wait a minute Let me explain I think so many of those young boys Who end up You know In these situations Are truly hurting Traumatized

Young men They probably No they probably aren't psychotropic drugs They usually have no father They are You know in neglectful homes There's a lot of things We have not

Our country keeps focusing on guns. We're never talking about the drugs, and we're never talking about the home lives of these young boys who have been sort of abandoned in so many ways by their families and by our society. I have always felt, of course, the most empathy for the victims of these school shootings, but I have always reserved sympathy for these young men who I feel are lost boys. And that was actually a moment where I thought, you know, maybe a teacher, somebody at school could be somebody who reaches out to these kids and helps them. So I didn't hate that moment. I felt that actually brought out that I'm a teacher. I'm looking out for kids moment. I don't think that's

what he was talking about. I think you're right, Will, I think it was a mistake. He said something stupidity. He didn't know what he was talking about. What he was trying to say is, and it fell in with the list of other things, I'm a gun owner. I'm an NRA member. And he thinks that gun owners and NRA members are somehow the equivalent in line with school shooters. And so he said school shooters because he has no, he's because he's an idiot. And he has no idea what he was just sort of babbling at that point. I guess I didn't take it as a mistake. I thought maybe he was a counselor to somebody at his school. That's how I took it. I wish you would have gone back to again, we don't want guns in the hands of sick people. Okay, let's all agree to that. But we also don't want

to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, right? There's a distinct difference. And just because we have people who do bad things with guns doesn't mean that we take guns away from people who actually follow the law. Again, there's a whole bunch of products out there that people do bad things with. And we don't ban the whole product. We actually go, okay, how do we actually prevent these products? We don't ban knives. People stab folks all the time. Happens all the time. We don't ban knives. We go, well, listen, we got to make sure. What's going on with you, Rachel? You took connect to someone. We have that conversation about how do we identify a Rachel who stabbed her friend you know, earlier in the process before she gets violent? That's normal. There's been this

mission. There's validity. There's validity in all of your points. You know, Rachel, our relationship, you're in mind. Sorry that your husband's here while I talk about our relationship. But our relationship is a valuable relationship to me because we are so different in so many ways. But that doesn't mean we disagree. That's my point. It's like how it's actually I'll tell you about it later, Rachel, but I had a lunch with somebody you introduced me to and we were talking about how different you and I are, but that we end up, but we end up in the same place. I like what you had to say. Like I really do. I think I obviously have much more sympathy for these boys on their way like as they're losing themselves than after they have

lost themselves and have done this horrific thing. I just can't, I can't muster a lot for them after that. But it doesn't mean that you're not wrong that they're lost boys and that all the things you listed off, I think, are the things we should be talking about more than the gun. But Charlie's right. I don't think that's where, I don't think that's where Tim Walts was coming from. I think he just is not. I didn't occur to me that it was a mistake. I mean, I think that's you seeing the world. This is what I joke you about. This is what I always joked you about. I think that's you seeing the world through the way you hope it is, you know, or the way you want to be. Tim Walts is not where you are on that. That's, that's not what he is trying to.

my biggest law. I see the world as I want to see it, not as it is. I disagree. I see the world. I have plenty of flaws. Rachel is Jack Nicholson in a few good men. She's who you want on that wall. Yeah, you need me on that wall. You can't handle the truth. That's right. That's exactly right. All right, Sean, I know you have something. I'm going to set you up with this, though. I watched MSNBC after the debate. I wanted to. I wanted to see what they were saying. And it was bizarre a world, by the way. It was J.D. Vance was smooth but horrible. The moderators were outstanding.

And Tim Waltz knocks J.D. Vance out at the end of the debate. It was a knockout. But here's why they said it was a knockout. This is their big moment, Sean. And they say the campaign ads are already being cut. It is Waltz pressing Vance on January 6th. Watch. Would you again seek to challenge this year's election results,

even if every governor certifies the results. I'll give you two minutes. Well, Nora, first of all, I think that we're focused on the future. We need to figure out how to solve the inflation crisis caused by Kamala Harris's policies, make housing affordable, make groceries affordable, and that's what we're focused on. But I want to answer your question because you did ask it. Look, what President Trump has said is that there were problems in 2020, and my own belief is that we should fight about those issues, debate those issues,

peacefully in the public square. and that's all I've said, and that's all that Donald Trump has said. The real moment, Sean, that everybody's grabbing is after that, Walt says, would you have certified the election? Would you have certified the election? And he doesn't answer. He pivots to censorship. And they think that is a big, bad moment for voters out there for J.D. Vance. So, listen, they're going to play January 6th, whether they had that moment or not, right? That's their go-to issue with abortion because they have nothing else to run on. So, again, if you're a lefty on MSNBC, this is, this is, you got to grab at straws to claim that your guy won.

But we've got to be honest. So in California, Gavin Newsom just signed a bill because I think it was Huntington Beach, said we want to have voter ID in our community. And Gavin Newsom signed a bill that came to his desk to outlaw voter ID in the whole state of California. In Arizona, there are 218,000 people identified that were, that were, that were, we're, we're, not lawfully registered, right? So there are legales. They're not U.S. citizens. They're registered to vote in the swing state of Arizona. And in New Hampshire, they wanted to set up their laws to have you verify your citizenship before you register to vote, and the ASLU is suing New Hampshire. So, I mean, when we look at the electoral system where we're mailing in ballots

and we have drop boxes and there's no voter ID, well, of course people are going to question the results of that election, which is why anyone who's serious about how they conduct elections to make sure there's no fraud in any cheating, you have, you don't have same-day registration and you have voter ID, one person, one vote. We even did it in Iraq where people dip their fingers in the blue pane and put them up in the air. Yeah, that's what I want to go back to that. So I think, I think, not just it was smart for JD not to answer the question, but we have a long history of Democrats going to the floor and contesting the results of elections happens all the time, right?

And so Donald Trump answers this way. He's like, listen, I don't know if I'm going to contest it or not. I don't know what's going to happen. I want to watch and see how the votes are cast and is it, is it fair or is it not fair? Was there cheating or not cheating? And then I'll tell you. And so you don't know until you see it. If you're planning to cheat, that is exactly the question you would put before the person

who's running in that election. By the way, I love that he pivoted to. to censorship, because I do think that actually is the number one issue in this election. I thought he made a really great case for why that's the case, and how Kamala Harris and Tim Walts are people who, you know, want to, you know, ban political speech. And January 6th, I feel so bad for those people in prison. I never thought, I remember giving speeches, you know, 15 years ago about what Cuba was like, you know, how they execute and imprison anyone who opposes their government. It's really, really difficult for someone like me to see what we've done.

Many of those people did nothing wrong. They just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And they're sitting there under horrible conditions. And frankly, the Republican Party has abandoned them, with the exception of like two or three congressmen. nobody wants to touch them because the media and the Democrat Party has made it such a hot potato, such a taboo issue that somehow you're an insurrectionist if you care about the well-being of Americans who simply went out, most of them, the majority of them, to protest, as Sean said, some pretty shady stuff in our election.

Waltz was horrific on censorship, and it doesn't pass the minimum threshold for me on being a heartbeat away, from the presidency. I mean, he said last night that, you know, the test is yelling fire in a crowded theater. That's just as a fact check. That's not true. That's a retired Supreme Court opinion. Retired, by the way, in 1969. It's not the standard for the limitations of free speech. And he has said in the past that hate speech is not free speech. Welcome to America, Tim Waltz. Like, that's a, that's a Canadian thing. That isn't an American thing. And they're openly horrific on free speech. Does anything, Charlie, from last night, change? the race for president?

Oh, I think that, yeah, I think that people who are, who did tune in for the first time to meet these two characters came away with the belief that they liked J.D. Vance and they liked what he was selling and they trusted him. And they thought that he was informed and knowledgeable and defending their, his tickets platform. And he was a great emissary for Donald Trump. And they looked at Tim Walls and they saw somebody who was evasive, who did not answer questions, who is pretty unsurious and, you know, not able to defend, you know, like what Sean said, not able to defend. It wasn't that he wasn't prepared in terms of, you know, trying, you know, he studied hard and he had his little lines he wanted to drop and he dropped some of them. But the problem is he was trying to sell something that is unsellable. And so he sounded kind of ridiculous.

And I think that for a casual observer who watched that, again, if you're already in the bag for Harris Walls, just like if you're already in the bag for Trump vance, I don't think it changed anything. But if you were sort of went in open, you know, minded wanting to hear about it, I think you walked away thinking, that Walls was not a serious person, and he didn't want to answer questions, and J.D. Vance addressed even questions that maybe not all of them to Rachel's satisfaction, but he at least addressed a lot of questions, even questions he didn't particularly want to. And I thought that Vance did a good job of this. He pounded again and again the argument, and this is, I think, that what he wanted to establish, that trust yourself. If you thought you were better off in the four years that Donald Trump was president, then you are the past three years, then vote for Donald

Trump again. And that was the message he wanted to pound home. And I think he did, I think he did an excellent job of that. And I think that that could absolutely change a lot of people's minds, especially those people who I have been in disagreement with since the arrival of Donald Trump who don't like Donald Trump because of his style, but they like his issues. Vance, I think, reached those people and gave them a reason to say, you know what, I'm part of this future. I want to go with this ticket. Right.

All right, this is fun, like having all of you guys on. Go ahead, Sean. No, if we got to end the show, that's fine, but I was just going to say that we're putting grains of sand on a scale and how it's going to move. I would just tell you that Tim Walves did not deliver a confident, you know, message. and nor did Kamala Harris. And so they're not on the JV team. They're on the eighth grade team when they're playing here.

And I think people want to vote for them. I think there's a lot of people who want to come their way. They don't want to actually vote for Trump. But the pitch was not made effectively last night for the Walt's Harris ticket, which is why I think when people saw J.D. Bands, they're like, you know what? These guys actually understand the economy. They understand world affairs.

And on that slight balance, we're talking about, you know, just moving a little bit grain on a scale, I think that it's going to make a difference and it's going to favor the Trump fans. I'll be really quick. I think that I think Sean's right about that. I think that overall, JD did a lot better than Waltz. J.D. came into this with a very big deficit with women because the Cat Lady attacks actually were very effective. And I think he did a lot to rehabilitate J.D. Vance in this debate. I actually really believe that part. I just want Trump to have a bit more of an attack dog. I like Trump style, but I get that you guys like this, you know, more surreal style. No, I like Trump, too. I'm just talking with the election.

Not in place of Trump. Yeah, that's the thing. It's not about like, I like this better than Trump. This is about, it's a partnership. I do. And I think they're a good partnership and they're right on the issue. Don't put that evil on us. Lucky Bobby, come on. She tried. She does that. She does that. She stakes the high ground and he says,

anybody below the water mark is a traitor. Just hide the knives, Sean. Hide the knives. Hide the knives. Saturday and Sunday rolls the trader. Charlie hurt. We'll be watching the bottom line. And of course, Fox Friends are a weekend.

I almost plug something else, but I'm not allowed to plug it yet for Rachel. I will soon. But you can go get the From the Kitchen Table podcast from Sean and Rachel right now over at Fox News Podcast. I guess. Thank you all very much. Great to see you guys. All right.

Okay, I've got your comments here. I've asked you the question. We'll get it up here. We'll hear from you, and we'll talk about this radical reimagining of college football from some heavy hitters. That's coming up on the Will Kane Show. For a limited time at McDonald's,

enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Fresh excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. It is time to take the quiz.

It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at the quiz. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz. Radical reimagining of college football. I want to share with you in just a moment here on the Will Cain show streaming live at foxnews.com.

Fox News YouTube channel, but over on YouTube, there's also a Will Kane Show channel. Go subscribe over there. And then, of course, follow us on Facebook as well. You can jump into the comment section. So here's some of your feedback. RHRH 2025 says, LOL Vance mop the floor with both commentators and waltz. Talking about the moderators. This shouldn't even be a question.

Gert, I'm real careful when I read the names. Gergi says, obviously, Vance won. However, it is nice that they had a civil debate. You know, this goes back to the conversation with Rachel. You guys in New York can jump in as well. You know what, actually, I want you to. I think a civil debate, like the amount of times they were saying, you know, I actually agree with you on this.

I watched the end of the debate when they went and shook each other's hands. It was really actually kind of cool. And by the way, Vance is much taller than you think. But I think there's a bunch of America that's ready for that. Yeah. I mean, the blood pressure was just so low the entire time. And I think it was probably a good look for Vance, too, that he had. He was like, hey, I agree with him here because Vance was kind of in control and kind of the lead dog of this.

So it really looked like Vance was the one that was taking upon himself to lower the temperature of the country, which I think a lot of people on both sides are looking for. But do you also think that because... Vance looks... Go ahead, two days. No, because as the vice president. The presidential debate, there's a little less pressure on it, so they have the ability to kind of have it be less argumentative and less, like, high pressure than the presidential debate. So it seems a little more kind of. Only as a contrast to the top of the ticket.

Right. Because the top of the ticket is so combative, then you're this way. But if the top of the ticket is cordial, then your vice president is an attack dog. It's just kind of like a yin and yang thing. Tinfoil, I'm curious, so did you agree with... Right. That's exactly right. did you agree with rachel though because you're kind of a little closer to that like you you did you did you want jd vance attacking more by the way i kind of did there was moments and i thought

about after that i really wish he would have thrown a haymaker to he didn't throw many haymakers he jabbed uh waltz all night where i thought there was some real openings to do a haymaker now by the way that's the hardest thing to throw a haymaker and keep a smile on your face to throw a haymaker and still be um appealing but i actually think that's the hardest thing that's the hardest thing Vance can do it. He just didn't do it. It's like you on first take. Dodging, weaving, bopping. Maybe. Maybe. Test at a toy. Maybe.

I think there is a, you know, I think Rachel had a really good point. Just like, you know, we want, you kind of want your guy to, like, go for the knockout. But I don't think, I just don't think that was like what you do in this situation, right?

Like, in this situation, people already think you're weird. If you come across as aggressive, as Trump light, you just you kind of make yourself look worse than what you would have otherwise. Ken Smith says, I wish they would fact check

both sides, but that will never happen. No, that's why it's incumbent upon JD that he has to fact check the fact checkers. And that brings me to this. A.B. Took one in the face. Says, why are you people angry about being fact checked? I would want to know when

I'm being lied to. What am I missing here? Okay, I'll tell you what you're missing. Ooh. The fact checkers lie. The fact checkers are not always giving you facts. And increasingly, what you see when it comes to anyone associated with legacy historical media, meaning, and I, it sounds like it's just a cliche for me to say this, but at this point, they're all, they're all branded.

ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post, I don't trust anything. I have zero interest in their fact checkers. Zero interest because it's not about facts. They only go one way. They don't even give you facts. They splice the onion or sometimes even lie. Curfey Danish says, Vance was truth-splaining in the debate. I thought that was good.

I did see some tweets about, like, was that mansplaining and every woman's going to be offended by what he did and talking over them? I am curious if that would be the case at all. By the way, two of days, you won't mind me saying, you said during the commercial break, what was Rachel talking about on the, I'm friends with school shooters? See, this is what I think,

and I joke her about this, but I think it's true. So Rachel thinks about that issue deeply, and I agree with how she's thinking about it. Like, I think that that issue, you want to have a real meaningful discussion and action on how to address that issue? It's not about the gun. it's about the human being

and you gotta talk about what's going wrong with the human being but she's projecting the deeper things that she sees that issue onto what I think was a really shallow

mistaken-filled moment for Tim Walts he wasn't thinking the same things Rachel's thinking I mean we should fact-check the fact if he is friends

with school shooters I don't know you might be hey it might deserve how about from a moderator that might be worthy of a follow-up I'm sorry

what do you mean by that sir are you friends of school They didn't fact check. I mean You don't even need a fact check And you don't even need the objectivity You need the normal human emotion of curiosity Huh?

You know Wait, huh? You're friends with school shooters? We need to stop right there. Michelle Campbell says Vance wins with facts And his calm, cool delivery. Trump is known for being brash.

They compliment each other. And then G.J. says, well, Trump basically picked the same type of running mate last time when he picked Mike Pence. And he's a very articulate, every man type running mate with humble background. I like him. Yeah, but I don't think they're similar, those two. I mean, maybe in their style to some extent, I guess. No. I don't see it. Totally different. I mean, only in their cordiality, you know? Yeah, yeah, Midwestern.

Yeah. They're good, they're both good debaters. I don't know. I don't think Mike did very well last time. Yeah, he whacked Kamala Harris around. He's comic collected too. All our members, I'm speaking from that debate.

And the fly. Kind of interesting what it did. You know, it's kind of interesting and the fly, exactly tinfoil, the fly on Mike Pence's hair. It's kind of interesting with time what you remember from these, because it's very little, right? Like,

low energy jab. I'm speaking You just don't remember a lot of You know I paid for this microphone You know I don't remember Kamala I don't really remember Kamala

In the last election That much in a debate But I think the memeability of this This one's going to be interesting Hmm That's where you're too online I don't think so

Oh no We had some great games It's going out of this one We had the waltz Looking like this You had Van fourth along the camera. I had a great meme last night. I got a lot of views with the waltz. I know. You guys give way more power to that stuff. It's going to last, man. I'm telling you,

meme, meme magic works. All third in the group chat. All right. Let's talk about the future of college football. You know, it's continuing to shift, realignment everywhere. U-TEP joining the Mountain West. The PAC 12 continues to try to figure out its future inviting Gonzaga in as a basketball school. But last night, I was reading this article that I found absolutely fascinating. And that is, with the continued reinvention of college football, there is a group of heavy hitters, several ADs at some big schools, but also Jimmy Haslam, who is the owner of the Cleveland Browns and a huge Tennessee booster, who've come together and they're trying to put

together a super league. It's 72 schools that would separate from the NCAA, and they would separate themselves into 12 conferences and then have a 24-team playoff. I've got those conferences here. You can see they're broken into very geographically based conferences, like Carolinas, Texas, the plains, the southwest, the Great Lakes. Just for example, like, it's basically the old Southwest conference for this regional conference. Baylor, SMU, TCU, Texas, NAM, Texas Tech.

It splits up the SEC. Yeah, Georgia ends up in a different conference from L.A. who ends up in a different conference from Alabama and Auburn, three different conferences there that breaks up the SEC. And then under that, 64 schools in a group of eight conferences, and these are all the smaller schools. I mean, again, geographically broken up, but, you know, it puts Arkansas State, Louisiana, Louisiana, Texas, Rice, Sam Houston, Tulsa, and Louisiana Monroe into a conference together.

But the idea is that these schools. A handful of them can be promoted into the top tier. I don't know if it's on a yearly basis or how long. But they don't embrace relegation. Like nobody from the top ones gets relegated down. That's the secret sauce that's missing. How cool would college football be if we had promotion and relegation like English football or any football world soccer?

I'm against it this year. Yeah, I bet you are. Well, see, that's where people benefiting from the system like Notre Dame would never get relegated. I'm just trying to figure out which conference Florida State would be in next year. Yeah. None. Florida State would drop into the South.

So look at this, Patrick. Here's the Southeast Conference. Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Jacksonville State, South Alabama, Southern Miss, Troy, UAB, and U.S.F. It's more of their speech. So like USF's going up to the big leagues and Florida State drops down into this. I don't know, James, we did lose to Memphis this year. I don't even think we'd be in that we get there.

I think there should be more relegation and stuff like that in all sports in the United States. I think it makes it way more interesting. But the thing, it does, but it will never happen because literally those leagues, like the Premier League and soccer, they want to stop doing it, right? Because once you're in and you're a big club, you get so much more revenue. So the owners don't want promotion relegation. Your revenue is destroyed the minute you're relegation. The thing about this is, I mean, are those college presidents going to behave the same way? Probably, right?

Like you get dropped from the top into one of these, and all of a sudden your TV revenues are cut in half or, no, cut probably two-thirds, three-quarters. And I don't know how much power all those would, those presidents would have together to block relegation. But college sports is the most likely place we could get it. And how cool. I just think that would be so cool. Promotion, relegation in college football. There's something else. Someone just brought up in the chat, Sasser and Savesia, they're sick of the transfer portal, the transfer BS, because that makes it hard to watch for college football also, because these players are jumping around everywhere. Yeah. I mean, it's not going anywhere. I get it. I mean, you've got to be totally plugged in to know who's playing for your team, but I've always been a dork on, I mean, I keep up with high school football recruiting to Texas. So I know who those guys are.

My gosh. I'm going to keep up with the transfers. Fascinating. Oh, yeah, man. I can tell you about which juniors they're playing. Do you have, like, baseball cards of these high school players and stuff like that? No. No baseball cards.

You're, like, scouting turn the week? No. Well, I mean, I read a couple sites. Rivals. On the daily. 247. Oh, I go to rivals. I go to On 3.

Sports. By the way, I'm the same way with the Rangers in the minor leagues. I know they're minor league players and who's on the way. I like hope. I like the NFL draft. That's like a big part of sports to me. Like I want to know what's coming down the road and drafting players, recruiting players, bringing up minor leaguers from my team.

I can't tell you anything about your team, who you're recruiting. I do know that Texas is stealing some Florida State guys. If we got Myron Charles, he was committed to Florida State. He's coming to Texas. Four-star defensive tackle from Florida. No big deal. We're working on, we're working on Dailin McCutcheon. He's a wide receiver committed to Florida State, getting him back to come to Texas.

So, yeah, these are things I know about, and we're raiding Florida State right now. But there's no hope for you, Patrick, so why would you care about any of this? I don't care. It's fine. Football season's over for him. I'm in baseball now. Yeah. I mean, honestly, I actually like looking down the road in politics, too.

That's why I keep asking what comes after Trump, 2028, Vance. young kin like i do like this idea of development in the future as well i don't know i'm fascinated isn't that crazy though how quickly things changed in just two hours like two weeks ago vince vance was not the guy like we were thinking that the future is not looking good yeah yeah i think his prospects are way higher now way higher for the future that's a that's a four-man race i mean i don't know if that if he's the vice president if trump wins then he becomes number one after this and presumably those four years between the two but but real quick the key there is what is the relationship like through those four years

you know like is do they stay good um if trump loses i still think he's pretty high yeah i still think vance i mean you're probably looking at vance yonkin maybe desantis one more and then another group of people like one more Tom Cotton Doug Bergam can't forget that man good guy right

all right that's going to do it for us today hope you enjoyed high school football recruiting talk paired with J.D. Vance I will see you again same time, same place right here again tomorrow

Listen ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast, and Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon music app. It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at thequiz.com. Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz.