Speaker 1: Cable news is ripping us apart, dividing the nation, making
Speaker 1: it impossible to function as a society and to know
Speaker 1: what is true and what is false. The good news
Speaker 1: is that they're failing and they know it. That is
Speaker 1: why we're building something new. Be part of creating a new, better, healthier,
Speaker 1: and more trustworthy mainstream by becoming a Breaking Points Premium
Speaker 1: member today at breakingpoints dot com. Your hard earned money
Speaker 1: is going to help us build for the midterms and
Speaker 1: the upcoming presidential election so we can provide unparalleled coverage
Speaker 1: of what is sure to be one of the most
Speaker 1: pivotal moments in American history. So what are you waiting for?
Speaker 1: Go to Breakingpoints dot com to help us out. Good morning, everybody,
Speaker 1: Happy Tuesday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 1: What do we have, Crystal, Indeed we do, guys. It's
Speaker 1: a big one today that you all probably already know
Speaker 1: that a draft opinion was leaked which indicates that the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is in fact planning to overturn Roe versus Wade.
Speaker 1: This is obviously a tremendous earthshaking moment in terms of
Speaker 1: American politics. We will cover that from all angles. Tell
Speaker 1: you what exactly was leaked, what it says about the
Speaker 1: leak itself, and also our own analysis based on polling
Speaker 1: and based on history of what we think this means
Speaker 1: for the political landscape. Of course, it's really anyone's guess,
Speaker 1: but there's no doubt that this is really a huge
Speaker 1: or shattering type of moment in politics. But that's not all.
Speaker 1: We also had the second Amazon Labor Union election yesterday
Speaker 1: on Staten Island. They went down to defeat. We'll tell
Speaker 1: you about that and maybe some reasons why potentially this
Speaker 1: time was different than last time and what it pretends
Speaker 1: for the future. And oh, by the way, it's also
Speaker 1: a big primary day. We have some big races in
Speaker 1: Ohio with implications for the future of the Republican Party
Speaker 1: and also the future of the Democratic Party. We gonna
Speaker 1: have a report from Jordan Chariton, our great partner, who
Speaker 1: is on the ground in Ohio right now with Status KUP.
Speaker 1: He's got sound both from the Nina Turner Chantel Brown race.
Speaker 1: He's also got sound from Republicans talking about how they're
Speaker 1: evaluating their options. There are some really interesting stuff, so
Speaker 1: we'll talk to Jordan about what the mood is there.
Speaker 1: But we want to start with what is obviously truly
Speaker 1: bombshell news, the leak of this draft decision that would
Speaker 1: overturn long standing precedent of Rowe versus Wade. Politico with
Speaker 1: what is you know, scoop of the ages here, go
Speaker 1: ahead and put this up on the screen. I'm going
Speaker 1: to take my time and go through a good bit
Speaker 1: of this, so you just have the facts of what
Speaker 1: happened and what the decision, the draft decision here ultimately says.
Speaker 1: They say the Supreme Court has voted to strike down
Speaker 1: the landmark Roe versus Wade decision, according to an initial
Speaker 1: draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, circulated inside
Speaker 1: the Court and obtained by Politico. The draft opinion is
Speaker 1: a full throated, unflinching repudiation of the nineteen seventy three decision,
Speaker 1: which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights, and a
Speaker 1: subsequent ninety two decision that's Planned Parenthood v. Casey that
Speaker 1: largely maintained the right. Alito rights Roe was egregiously wrong
Speaker 1: from the start, so, not mincing words here whatsoever, part
Speaker 1: of what he writes in the document, he says, we
Speaker 1: hold that Rowe and Casey must be overruled. It is
Speaker 1: time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of
Speaker 1: abortion to the people's elected representatives now. They go on
Speaker 1: to say deliberations on controversial cases can be fluid. Justices
Speaker 1: can and sometimes do change their votes as draft opinions circulate,
Speaker 1: and major decisions can be subject to multiple drafts and
Speaker 1: vote trading, sometimes until just days before decision is unveiled.
Speaker 1: The courts holding will not be final until it is published,
Speaker 1: likely in the next two months. I would say, though,
Speaker 1: is very unlikely that the contours of what is happening
Speaker 1: here are ultimately going to change. They say the immediate
Speaker 1: impact of the ruling is drafted in February. That's the
Speaker 1: date that is on. This draft that was leaked would
Speaker 1: be to end a half century guarantee of federal constitutional
Speaker 1: protection of abortion rights and allow each state to decide
Speaker 1: whether to restrict or ban abortion. It is unclear if
Speaker 1: there have been subsequent changes to the draft. Let me
Speaker 1: read you a little bit of the sort of you know,
Speaker 1: the TLDR of this lengthy draft Alito Rights Roe was
Speaker 1: agreediously wrong for the start, Its reasoning was exceptionally weak,
Speaker 1: and the decision has had damaging consequences, and far from
Speaker 1: bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe
Speaker 1: and Casey have inflame debate and deep in division. Of course,
Speaker 1: I don't think that this decision is going to lessen
Speaker 1: debate or lesson divisions, but we'll put that aside. In
Speaker 1: terms of who is siding with the majority here, we
Speaker 1: know Thomas Gorset, Kavanaugh, Amy Cony, Barrett, and Alito who
Speaker 1: drafted this decision. It's a little bit unsure what Chief
Speaker 1: Justice John Roberts is ultimately going to do. However, there
Speaker 1: is reporting that indicates he was going to dissent from
Speaker 1: the majority opinion and take kind of a middle ground zager,
Speaker 1: which was, you know, this was all came about because
Speaker 1: of this Mississippi law that banned abortion after fifteen weeks.
Speaker 1: So he was trying to find a way and you
Speaker 1: could hear this in the oral arguments too, where he
Speaker 1: could uphold the Mississippi law and yet not stripe down
Speaker 1: Row entirely. And so even though you know, it was
Speaker 1: very clear the Court is very conservative at this point,
Speaker 1: is very clear that there has been decades worth of
Speaker 1: activism to get justices on the Court for exactly this moment.
Speaker 1: There was a thought maybe they would pursue that middle
Speaker 1: ground of continuing to erode abortion rights, which has been
Speaker 1: the direction of the Court for years and years now,
Speaker 1: but not actually go the full distance and overturn Row.
Speaker 1: It looks like the only justice who will ultimately pursue
Speaker 1: that course here is likely Chief Justice John Roberts. So
Speaker 1: it really is an extraordinary moment. A couple more things
Speaker 1: within the legal reasoning here that are going to be
Speaker 1: major points of contention. Liberals are looking at this not
Speaker 1: just in terms of what it means for Roe, which obviously,
Speaker 1: you know, has extraordinary consequences. We'll get to some of
Speaker 1: that in just a moment, but also what it could
Speaker 1: mean for some other decisions which have been you know,
Speaker 1: which have been taken by the Court, which depend on
Speaker 1: some of the same legal rationale that Roe ultimately did. So,
Speaker 1: they write in this political piece, liberal justices seem likely
Speaker 1: to take issue with the leaders assertion in the draft
Speaker 1: opinion that overturning Roe would not jeopardize other rights the
Speaker 1: courts have grounded in privacy, such is the right to contraception,
Speaker 1: to engage in private consensual sexual activity, and to marry
Speaker 1: someone of the same sex. So in particular, liberals are
Speaker 1: concerned about the oberga Fell ruling. That's the one that
Speaker 1: granted the right to same sex marriages. There are others
Speaker 1: as well that sort of depended on some some of
Speaker 1: the same legal rationale. So it truly is an extraordinary
Speaker 1: moment and how it happened and when it happened, in
Speaker 1: what it means, and there is a lot to take
Speaker 1: in and a lot to process here today. Yeah, there's
Speaker 1: no way around it. So I think we can at
Speaker 1: least say within that So within the vote itself, we
Speaker 1: know then that that means that Justice is Alito Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: Thomas Barrett joined the decision now obviously and obviously Alito
Speaker 1: since he's the person who of course Justice Gorsuch as well.
Speaker 1: There were some questions on Justice Gorsuch given his ruling
Speaker 1: in the boss Stock case, but that was more on
Speaker 1: a libertarian minded view whenever it came to trans issues.
Speaker 1: So this one at least pushes that in that vein
Speaker 1: in terms of Justice Roberts, like you said, we do
Speaker 1: have reporting. It's difficult, you know, in terms of people
Speaker 1: familiar with thinking and all of this. We'll get to
Speaker 1: this in the leak section of our show. But you know,
Speaker 1: relying on all of these reports and we don't actually
Speaker 1: know the vote actually makes it even harder. And another
Speaker 1: thing I would emphasize is this is a draft report.
Speaker 1: As you said, it is possible that things have moved around.
Speaker 1: So from a lot of the legal analyzes that I
Speaker 1: have looked at and from my friends who are certain,
Speaker 1: is that the vote is almost certainly not likely to change. However,
Speaker 1: it could be that the opinion and the scope of
Speaker 1: the opinion could change somewhat whenever it's eventually issued. So
Speaker 1: this was not expected until July. Now. There's also a
Speaker 1: lot of questions here about what exactly the court is
Speaker 1: going to do. They could come out today and just
Speaker 1: be like, Okay, here's a majority opinion. They may, you know,
Speaker 1: the dissents and all that are still being written, but
Speaker 1: you know, given the extraordinary leak of what's happened here,
Speaker 1: we're just going to go ahead and make this, which
Speaker 1: may settle law. They have not responded, have responmented at
Speaker 1: all to this point, right, And that's another point where
Speaker 1: both pro live people and people who are pro choice
Speaker 1: are saying, is like, hey, this is a draft opinion.
Speaker 1: You know, the law of the land is still what
Speaker 1: it is, so this does not affect current laws that
Speaker 1: are on the books. That being said, when it is issued,
Speaker 1: it will have a significant impact and definitely just change
Speaker 1: the scope of our politics. Put this up there on
Speaker 1: the screen. There are twenty one states currently that have
Speaker 1: auto trigger laws that either ban or restrict abortion if
Speaker 1: Roe versus Wade is overturned. So there are a lot
Speaker 1: of laws on the books, and I'll just go ahead
Speaker 1: and read these. Most would ban abortion with limited exceptions
Speaker 1: like medical emergencies or in the cases of rape or incepts.
Speaker 1: Those are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Speaker 1: South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah. So those were all
Speaker 1: laws which were actually enacted mostly during the Trump administration
Speaker 1: as the ability so that the way the state legislators
Speaker 1: would not have to meet in order to ban abortion
Speaker 1: if they wanted to. It was like an auto trigger
Speaker 1: law in the event of what happened with Roe versus Wade. Now,
Speaker 1: there are other states which have some which will clear
Speaker 1: certain types of restriction. So those states trigger law states
Speaker 1: would choose to immediately begin enforcement. Other states would have
Speaker 1: a so called phase in period with the heartbeat laws
Speaker 1: that we've seen, So it's very very different in terms
Speaker 1: of state by state sure, and then I believe others
Speaker 1: also have. Oregon, Vermont and the District of Columbia have
Speaker 1: it is specifically enshrined all the way up until the
Speaker 1: point of birth. So that is just the clear uh
Speaker 1: kind of Now it's going to become a state issue,
Speaker 1: you know, if and when this does actually become the
Speaker 1: law of the land. And I think that people need
Speaker 1: to adjust how they're going to look at these types
Speaker 1: of polities because it's just going to change, you know,
Speaker 1: the state legislators themselves are going to become major flashpoints.
Speaker 1: And I think my question in your question as well,
Speaker 1: is like, how does this change the landscape in a
Speaker 1: state like a Pennsylvania, in a state like Florida, in
Speaker 1: a state like what are some other purple states that
Speaker 1: are at Georgia Actually, yeah, is one that could possibly
Speaker 1: go more rent as a result of this. We'll get
Speaker 1: to the policy Georgia actually has already. They have a
Speaker 1: very extreme ban already on the books starting at six weeks,
Speaker 1: so six week after that, you're done. I mean, for
Speaker 1: any of you who have been pregnant before you often
Speaker 1: don't even know till around six weeks. So you know,
Speaker 1: Georgia now being a purple state, I think, yeah, that
Speaker 1: could probably push the state more in the direction of,
Speaker 1: you know, a hardening sort of suburban democratic majority. But
Speaker 1: we'll get to a little bit more of that because
Speaker 1: we're going to delve into the politics here in a
Speaker 1: few minutes. You know, the reason why it's a little
Speaker 1: bit complex and you'll see slightly different numbers in different
Speaker 1: places about which states will effectively automatically ban or severely
Speaker 1: restrict abortion when this ruling does go into effect is
Speaker 1: because you know, the laws are complex. So you have
Speaker 1: some states that it's just straight out they you know,
Speaker 1: passed a law that says, if rog gets overturned, we
Speaker 1: are automatically these are called trigger bands, we are automatically
Speaker 1: effectively ending the right to abortion in our state. Period.
Speaker 1: You have some states there's a new one added to
Speaker 1: the listens actually that article was even written. That's Florida
Speaker 1: where they passed a law that was very similar and
Speaker 1: desand to signed it into law to the Mississippi law
Speaker 1: that was in front of the court. It is a
Speaker 1: fifteen week ban with exceptions. Only for life of the mother,
Speaker 1: but not for rape or incest. You have some states
Speaker 1: that had, prior to ROW an abortion band that was
Speaker 1: already pre existing and on the books, and then ROW
Speaker 1: went into effect and effectively nullified those laws. But the
Speaker 1: laws are still on the books, so you know, for
Speaker 1: some of those those are likely to come back into effect.
Speaker 1: As you pointed out, some places, it will happen immediately.
Speaker 1: Some places there will be a phase in over time.
Speaker 1: And I also think it's worth pointing out that because
Speaker 1: of the way that abortion rights have been sort of
Speaker 1: the ground has already eroded under abortion rights over the
Speaker 1: past decades. You already have a number of red states
Speaker 1: where the right is already effectively got. Texas is a
Speaker 1: good example. Kentucky, where I used to live, is a
Speaker 1: good example. You know what I was there. I think
Speaker 1: there was one clinic that remained in the state. That
Speaker 1: clinic was constantly under assault from Republicans who tried to
Speaker 1: pass these laws that were like putting out all of
Speaker 1: these superfluous medical restrictions that weren't really necessary for the clinics,
Speaker 1: but made it impossible for them to continue to operate.
Speaker 1: So there are already a number of states where the
Speaker 1: right is already effectively gone. I read a New York
Speaker 1: Times analysis this morning that was pretty interesting in terms
Speaker 1: of estimating what the overall impact of overturning ROE is
Speaker 1: likely to be, and what they found is in Texas,
Speaker 1: after their new law went into effect, abortions dropped by
Speaker 1: about ten percent because you had women who had the
Speaker 1: means at least who were able to travel across state lines.
Speaker 1: You had others who were able to get abortion pills
Speaker 1: in the mail. They estimate that it would this overturning
Speaker 1: of ROE would probably reduce abortions by about fourteen percent
Speaker 1: because it's more sweeping in scope. They also point out,
Speaker 1: which I think is always important to remember, who is
Speaker 1: the most typical patient seeking an abortion. It's usually low
Speaker 1: income women. So there is no doubt, just factually that
Speaker 1: this ruling will overwhelmingly impact poor and working class women.
Speaker 1: Wealthy women in this country, pre Row, post Row, and
Speaker 1: after this new overturning of ROW happens, have always been
Speaker 1: able to get whatever care, whatever doctors, whatever access, whatever
Speaker 1: procedures they want to get. That will undoubtedly still be
Speaker 1: the case. It's poor and working class women who will
Speaker 1: be affected by this. They are the typical abortion patients.
Speaker 1: And it's also worth pointing out here that the typical
Speaker 1: woman seeking an abortion is a mother who already has children.
Speaker 1: So listen, you know my personal feelings on this. I
Speaker 1: am a mother. I know that there are people who
Speaker 1: watch this show who have any range of views on
Speaker 1: the issue. I do think it's, you know, disingenuous to
Speaker 1: say that the moral issues involved are not complex or
Speaker 1: that there are not competing moral claims here. Personally, I
Speaker 1: have always felt that because it is a complex moral issue,
Speaker 1: the best thing, the best course for governments to take
Speaker 1: is to trust the women who are evaluating a very
Speaker 1: difficult landscape and making very difficult choices. So that's why
Speaker 1: I've always been pro choice and why I do, you know,
Speaker 1: think that this decision ultimately will be really damaging for
Speaker 1: a lot of women out there. And the last thing
Speaker 1: I'll say of this on my own personal opinion is
Speaker 1: that if you do care, and I do, and I
Speaker 1: know probably all of you listening do as well about
Speaker 1: reducing the number of abortions, because no one is like
Speaker 1: yay go abortion. Abortion is a wonderful thing. You know.
Speaker 1: You can look at the statistics and see that the
Speaker 1: vast majority of women who seek abortions are low income.
Speaker 1: And see that if you deal with material conditions and
Speaker 1: you allow women to be able to support their children
Speaker 1: and their families and create an atmosphere of thriving, then
Speaker 1: you are very you are going to have a very
Speaker 1: large effect in terms of reducing abortions. So that's what
Speaker 1: I'll say about it. It's funny, Chris. You know I've
Speaker 1: said previously I'd rather gouge my eyes out and talk
Speaker 1: about abortion, but I guess it's here, so cards on
Speaker 1: the table, here it is. I grew up in evangelical Texas,
Speaker 1: left a bit of a scar on me. I can
Speaker 1: just tell you personally, I consider myself a barstool conservative.
Speaker 1: I'm culturally center right whenever it comes to modern culture
Speaker 1: war issues, but I've always been safe, legal, and rare guy,
Speaker 1: basically a Democrat from the nineteen nineties. I mean, what
Speaker 1: you just espoused is literally what Bill Clinton said on
Speaker 1: the nineteen ninety two Democratic nomination. I know that's going
Speaker 1: to piss off a lot of my Republican and Catholic
Speaker 1: friends here in Washington, but look, I mean, I think
Speaker 1: I owe it to the audience to tell people where
Speaker 1: I'm coming from. So if you are a person who
Speaker 1: is super pro life and you're Catholic or Evangelical or
Speaker 1: somebody else, Orthodox, Jewish, etc. I am not going to
Speaker 1: be a representative on this issue, and I just think
Speaker 1: it's important for people to understand where I'm coming from.
Speaker 1: I do think some of the histrionics on this are wrong.
Speaker 1: I mean, for example, what you were talking about. I
Speaker 1: know several states New York, California and elsewhere are going
Speaker 1: to set up travel funds so that people who are
Speaker 1: in these places can travel to those states. I think
Speaker 1: that's very likely to be, you know, the next frontier
Speaker 1: of like a lot of abortion politics. But yeah, I mean, look,
Speaker 1: I mostly share your view on the entire thing. I'm
Speaker 1: pretty socially libertarian and have become so, especially over the
Speaker 1: last two years during the COVID pandemic. And you know,
Speaker 1: whenever I look at this issue, I mostly trust people
Speaker 1: to do what they want for themselves. I do have
Speaker 1: a real moral aversion to like partial birth, abortion and anything.
Speaker 1: You know, I was telling you there's a case here
Speaker 1: in Washington where there were some released photos of babies
Speaker 1: who were aborted when they're like seven months old. And
Speaker 1: now I was like, I'm sorry. You know that's crazy.
Speaker 1: That's a straight up murder. Now. You know, obviously you
Speaker 1: know the Catholics and the Christians and are going to
Speaker 1: be like, well, life begins a conception. Listen. I'm not religious.
Speaker 1: I don't share your view. I'm never going to You're
Speaker 1: not going to convince me of it. I do want
Speaker 1: to respect, though, the people who feel that way. It's
Speaker 1: a free country, you know, You're allowed to believe what
Speaker 1: you would like. And I know this is a number
Speaker 1: one issue for a lot of people who voted for
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. I do think and get to this in
Speaker 1: the Row Politics segment. Listen, I mean, this is going
Speaker 1: to have a significant impact on our public discourse. I
Speaker 1: would just ask you try and engage it in the
Speaker 1: way that we're here. Crystal, you just gave an extraordinarily
Speaker 1: compelling case, in my opinion, on the pro choice point
Speaker 1: of view. You could also see clearly why people might
Speaker 1: be able to descend from it. Guys, if you are
Speaker 1: out there, please just spend some time engaging both with
Speaker 1: the people on both sides and try to understand that
Speaker 1: they are not like demonic and they don't want to
Speaker 1: destroy you. Both on either side. Now, are there fringe elements,
Speaker 1: Like you said, are there people who are like Leana
Speaker 1: Dunham who literally support and celebrate abortion. Yeah, you can
Speaker 1: find that, frankly amongst all people. Well, you can also
Speaker 1: find That's what I'm saying. They're not exactly say I'm
Speaker 1: a murderer for what I just that's right. You know,
Speaker 1: people will call me a murderer too. I already know that.
Speaker 1: You can see that. Hear the screeching. I don't particularly care,
Speaker 1: but listen, those fringe elements exist on all sides of
Speaker 1: the debate. I would just say that, you know, let's
Speaker 1: all try to remember who we are. We've lived through
Speaker 1: much more content just times in this country, and I
Speaker 1: know it's a difficult time for people. I personally felt,
Speaker 1: and I know this sounds crazy. I felt a sense
Speaker 1: of dread when I saw the news because I was like,
Speaker 1: oh man, this is just like, this is the last
Speaker 1: thing we need in terms of ripping us all apart.
Speaker 1: But I also know that there are a lot of
Speaker 1: Catholic moms and you know, March for Life people out there.
Speaker 1: This is their number one issue. They've been trying for
Speaker 1: this for forty years and you know, people have constituencies
Speaker 1: in this country and it is what it is. You
Speaker 1: can argue that this issue is maybe the most central
Speaker 1: issue to why Trump ultimately was elected. Yeah, because I
Speaker 1: mean it was him putting Mike Pence on the ticket
Speaker 1: to shore up, to signal to evangelicals like I'm with you.
Speaker 1: You know, you may not love my choices in life.
Speaker 1: And I know in the past he's supported planned parenthood.
Speaker 1: I mean, he clearly like doesn't really care about the issue,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't matter what he personally feels, because ultimately
Speaker 1: he puts Pence on the ticket, he releases his lists
Speaker 1: of Supreme Court justices, and in the wake of the
Speaker 1: fallout from the grabber er by the pussy scandal, that
Speaker 1: really helped to shore up and bring home that Christian
Speaker 1: you know, evangelical base for whom this has been an
Speaker 1: extremely animating issue for decades. So and now that base
Speaker 1: is his hardest support. And to be quite honest, you
Speaker 1: know a lot of times we talk about like, oh,
Speaker 1: it doesn't make sense. You hear this analysis a lot
Speaker 1: like why do they love Donald Trump? This is why
Speaker 1: right here, because ultimately this was the issue, the number
Speaker 1: one issue that they were backing him for and now
Speaker 1: it's it's actually happening, the last thing I want to say,
Speaker 1: And then we can move on to how this came out,
Speaker 1: which is also you know, worth worth discussing and is
Speaker 1: also pretty extraordinary. Is they write a leader rights in
Speaker 1: this draft decision. We do not pretend to know how
Speaker 1: our political system or society respond to today's decision overruling
Speaker 1: Row and Casey. And even if we could foresee what
Speaker 1: will happen, we would have no authority to let that
Speaker 1: knowledge influence our decision. We can only do our job,
Speaker 1: which is to interpret the law, apply long standing principles
Speaker 1: of starry decisives. I think that's how you say that,
Speaker 1: and decide this case accordingly. We therefore hold that the
Speaker 1: Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Rowe and
Speaker 1: Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion
Speaker 1: must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.
Speaker 1: So Alito basically acknowledging here that this is going to
Speaker 1: be a shit show, that this is going to be
Speaker 1: trigger an incredibly tumultuous time in American politics, because you know,
Speaker 1: for the majority of the country, we're going to get
Speaker 1: to the polls. Roe is has been sort of settled law,
Speaker 1: it's accepted, it's you know, very significant majority support. Now
Speaker 1: Americans views on abortion are kind of all over the place.
Speaker 1: It's complex. You know, Americans buy and large a sort
Speaker 1: of moderate on how feel about abortion rights. Most people
Speaker 1: don't think you should have the right all the way
Speaker 1: up till you know the date of birth. But they
Speaker 1: also don't support you know, even in very red states
Speaker 1: the heartbeat bills that would say the moment that there's
Speaker 1: a heartbeat, you abortion is one hundred percent band. So
Speaker 1: you know, this definitely puts the court on the side
Speaker 1: of a relatively extremist position here, and you know, it's
Speaker 1: it's going to be it's the first time where instead
Speaker 1: of just this sort of casual erosion of this right
Speaker 1: or other things that have been broadly viewed by a
Speaker 1: large number of people as social progress, where you have
Speaker 1: an actual clear Oh, the bending of the moral universe
Speaker 1: doesn't actually always ark towards chessas it depends, of course,
Speaker 1: But I'm saying in terms of the majority of the country,
Speaker 1: based on the polling right, this is a decision that
Speaker 1: by the majority of the country has been viewed as
Speaker 1: progress for it to be then overturned. I do think
Speaker 1: that it is a real wake up call for a
Speaker 1: lot of people that none of these things can ultimately
Speaker 1: be taken for granted. None of it is completely settled ground.
Speaker 1: And that's just my encouragement to you, wherever you fall
Speaker 1: on this issue or any other on the political spectrum,
Speaker 1: to not take for granted any privileged benefit right that
Speaker 1: you enjoy in this country. Any and all of it
Speaker 1: can be rolled back if you are disengaged, if you
Speaker 1: were apathetic, if you think that, you know, you don't
Speaker 1: want to get your hands dirty in politics, or if
Speaker 1: you think that you're you know, too disgusted with the system,
Speaker 1: which I certainly understand and relate to to ultimately get involved.
Speaker 1: So that's sort of the ruling. As I said at
Speaker 1: the beginning. You know, there is some outside chance that
Speaker 1: it could change between now and the month or two
Speaker 1: months from now when it ultimately is is released and
Speaker 1: becomes law of the land, but I think that is very,
Speaker 1: very unlikely, and it seems incredibly, you know, almost certain
Speaker 1: that this is the direction the country has had it in. Yeah, Okay,
Speaker 1: let's go ahead and move on then to Scotis politics.
Speaker 1: Because this how this all came out is a crazy
Speaker 1: story in and of itself. As you said, basically scoop
Speaker 1: of this injury there from Politico and the overall analysis
Speaker 1: of how this is going to affect the Court for
Speaker 1: decades to come really is not yet being grappled with.
Speaker 1: Put this up there on the screen from Scotus Blog.
Speaker 1: The document leak to Politico is almost certainly authentic draft
Speaker 1: opinion by Justice Alito that reflects what he believes. At
Speaker 1: least five members of the Court have voted to support
Speaker 1: over ruling low Row, but as Alito's draft, it does
Speaker 1: not reflect the comments or the reactions of other justices.
Speaker 1: So that is definitely something to keep in mind whenever
Speaker 1: you're looking at that. We don't yet know if you're
Speaker 1: going to have concurrences from Justice Thomas, concurrensis from Justice
Speaker 1: Barrett and others that you know, the people should remember
Speaker 1: they don't they're not entirely familiar with the way that
Speaker 1: these things go. But there can usually be you know,
Speaker 1: up to like ten documents that are issued with different
Speaker 1: concurrences selective conferrence, he says, it can be hundreds of pages.
Speaker 1: It is noteworthy the draft is from February, So it
Speaker 1: could have changed, it could have already changed. That's that's
Speaker 1: an important thing, right, okay. And so then in terms
Speaker 1: of the leak itself, there's a lot of questions about
Speaker 1: this leak. Let's put this up there on the screen
Speaker 1: again from Scotus blog. It is impossible to overstate that
Speaker 1: the earthquake this will cause inside of the court in
Speaker 1: terms of the destruction of trust amongst justices and staff,
Speaker 1: this leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin. And what
Speaker 1: he means is that within the court itself, it is
Speaker 1: a long standing precedent you do not leak draft opinions
Speaker 1: because they get issued by the court itself whenever everything
Speaker 1: is ready as of because it is literally the law
Speaker 1: of the land. It can change markets, it can change
Speaker 1: the country. Obviously, this one is going to impact our
Speaker 1: politics dramatically. And so as I understand it, Having spoken
Speaker 1: now to some people who are on Scotus are familiar
Speaker 1: with the process for clerking, this is the cardinal sin.
Speaker 1: You are never allowed to leak, not only to reporters,
Speaker 1: but a draft opinion itself being circulated is like that
Speaker 1: is a whole other realm. Now we don't know the
Speaker 1: circumstances under which this was leaked, and I do think
Speaker 1: it is worth kind of understanding who the people who
Speaker 1: brought this to light are. So the two reporters who
Speaker 1: published this at Politico, Josh Gernstein and Alex Ward. So
Speaker 1: what's interesting about the two of them Because I actually
Speaker 1: knew Alex back in my Pentagon days. He is a
Speaker 1: national security reporter who used to work at Vox. Josh
Speaker 1: Gernstein is a legal expert. You and I are probably
Speaker 1: most familiar with him for his reporting on the FBI,
Speaker 1: so it's not that he's more familiar again with national
Speaker 1: security law. There are a lot of questions right now
Speaker 1: as to why exactly the person who broke Probably are
Speaker 1: the people who broke probably the biggest scoop of the
Speaker 1: last twenty years, are not Adam Liptak, who is the
Speaker 1: New York Times correspondent, Nina Totenberg the NPR Supreme Course.
Speaker 1: She may have been placed back off of leave for
Speaker 1: some ethical decisions, but anyway, Nina Totenberg, she's the previous
Speaker 1: person who ever actually reported inside the Supreme Court. Jane
Speaker 1: Mayer over at The New Yorker, there are many reporters
Speaker 1: in this town who have been covering the court frankly
Speaker 1: know the justices, if dined with them, been to their parties, weddings,
Speaker 1: all kinds of stuff. The fact that they did not
Speaker 1: report this and get this is pretty extraordinary. It leads
Speaker 1: to a question also on the leak strategy. And this
Speaker 1: is another thing I want to spend a little bit
Speaker 1: of time on, which is that there is an overwhelming
Speaker 1: assumption right now that this leak came from a liberal
Speaker 1: member of the court, either a Justice herself or himself,
Speaker 1: or a member of their staff. But there also is
Speaker 1: a prevailing opinion on the right, in right legal world
Speaker 1: that this was actually leaked, because this is the majority
Speaker 1: opinion that should have been and has now been kind
Speaker 1: of hammered away by Roberts or by Justice Kavanaugh because
Speaker 1: we don't know what the internal one is. So, I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't really know what to think. One theory floating
Speaker 1: out there is that the reason Gernstein and Ward got
Speaker 1: it is because it's possible that the email system for
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court was hacked and by like within the
Speaker 1: National security real Yeah, Like, there's one theory that this
Speaker 1: was actually a hack of their email servers, and then
Speaker 1: it was leaked, you know, to people who would be
Speaker 1: familiar with those types of sources, possibly like the NSA.
Speaker 1: Once again, by the way, this is not iculation. That's
Speaker 1: interesting though. Number two is that this was a liberal justice.
Speaker 1: I would say the overwhelming kind of opinion is on
Speaker 1: that one. Number three, it seems like to your point
Speaker 1: about who got the scoop, it does seem like if
Speaker 1: it was a liberal justice, it would go yeah, even
Speaker 1: like a Jeffrey Tubin or exactly, Yeah, Jeffrey Tuben is
Speaker 1: another one. He was written entire books on the court.
Speaker 1: I means, you know, the CNA. He was the first
Speaker 1: person who was on cns's his name at NBC. Who's
Speaker 1: very Pete, Pete Williams, Yeah, Williams. You know, these are
Speaker 1: people who have direct personal relationships tons of sources within
Speaker 1: the court, right, yeah, you listen. This is all pure conjecture,
Speaker 1: but I would think that if it was actually one
Speaker 1: of the liberal justices, that it would have come to
Speaker 1: one of those. I would so too. Maybe they're trying
Speaker 1: to carry cover their tracks. Also, it's possible that Justice
Speaker 1: said no idea, a member of the staff did it.
Speaker 1: Maybe they went to college with Alex Or with Josh Stuarts,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, who knows like how these all
Speaker 1: things play out. Also, I did see some criticism of
Speaker 1: Politico for publishing this story. Oh come on, please. If
Speaker 1: I had my hands on this, I hit published the moment.
Speaker 1: I know. That's what. I can't believe anyone's even art
Speaker 1: story of all time. I mean, in terms of national impact,
Speaker 1: it was crazy, and especially I'm sure it probably came
Speaker 1: from the same people who would be outraged that, you know,
Speaker 1: Twitter censored the Hunters and things like that. It's all right, guys,
Speaker 1: we got to be consistent here. I do think that,
Speaker 1: you know, it was wrong to sense of the Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden's story. Obviously, if you're Politico or any news organization,
Speaker 1: you run us all you're going to run, no question.
Speaker 1: I did think that, you know, there was a lot
Speaker 1: of conservative outrage about the fact of the league itself.
Speaker 1: I just want to say, like, to me, the substance
Speaker 1: is way more important than the leak. I am not
Speaker 1: outraged about the league. I view this listen. I have
Speaker 1: no respect for like the norms and guardrails of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. I think it's an undemocratic, unaccountable institution. I
Speaker 1: think it already kind of sucks. I think it's you know,
Speaker 1: I think it's norms suck too, by the way, like
Speaker 1: they have this instinct towards a total lack of transparency
Speaker 1: and also towards a total lack which we covered on
Speaker 1: this show, of any sort of ethical guardrails for their
Speaker 1: own justices, unlike other places within the judiciary, within the
Speaker 1: federal judiciary. So you know, and again it's the same
Speaker 1: type of people who are during the Trump era would
Speaker 1: have been like, ah, the norms and guardrails you guys,
Speaker 1: stop with your pearl clutching. Are now like, oh, how
Speaker 1: could you violate the sacred norms of the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: I get where they're coming from. I do think it's extrame.
Speaker 1: I think, really, whoever did this, you did us all
Speaker 1: a disservice, because really, Crystal and I agree with you,
Speaker 1: this substance is obviously most important, But there's a reason
Speaker 1: we led the show with that. That's not going to
Speaker 1: be my first take. My real thing is, guys, as
Speaker 1: people who we want to know the full picture. All
Speaker 1: we have is some draft opinion. We don't know the concurrence,
Speaker 1: we don't know what the law is we don't know
Speaker 1: who voted against. We don't know what the full effect is. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's say that you're whoever leaked this is pro choice. Well, listen,
Speaker 1: whoever you did this, you just put a lot of
Speaker 1: women who are Maybe there's a lady who doesn't go
Speaker 1: get an abortion right now. I mean, listen, it's still
Speaker 1: the law. You can if you want to. And there
Speaker 1: could be someone who says, I better give this shit though,
Speaker 1: right right exactly, I care it's extraordinarily likely that that's
Speaker 1: going to happen, right, I mean, you could go, I'm
Speaker 1: sure there's going to be planned lines down the block
Speaker 1: on planned parenthood here in Washington or many of the
Speaker 1: other liberal cities. So I just think whoever did this
Speaker 1: really did as all. I don't agree with that, because
Speaker 1: I ultimately think the more information and the sooner the
Speaker 1: American people have that information, the better. I mean, we're
Speaker 1: also going to be talking about voting happening right now
Speaker 1: in critical political primary races that you know could very
Speaker 1: much be impacted by what looks extremely likely to occur
Speaker 1: in this case. So so I totally disagree with that.
Speaker 1: I do actually think it was a service to have
Speaker 1: this information to have the transparency around it, to have
Speaker 1: insight into their thinking. And you know, I have no
Speaker 1: issue with I have no issue with whoever decided to
Speaker 1: leak this for whatever reason it was. And I think
Speaker 1: you're right to point out like there is sort of
Speaker 1: a working assumption that this was someone who was pro choice,
Speaker 1: who was upset about the direction of the decision, but
Speaker 1: one who wanted to try to put pressure somehow and
Speaker 1: like a hail married pass to get somebody to bend
Speaker 1: under public pressure and go a different direction. I don't
Speaker 1: think that there's any chance that strategy is ultimately going
Speaker 1: to work. So basically, I think this just gives us
Speaker 1: insight earlier to where the Court has ultimately landed on,
Speaker 1: you know, one of the central fault lines in American
Speaker 1: politics of the last fifty years. I would just like
Speaker 1: to say on this, which is that it will destroy
Speaker 1: trust on the Supreme Court and it will change the
Speaker 1: way that this works for all time, because, like I said,
Speaker 1: there is a pretty cordial relationship right now now between
Speaker 1: you know, like Justice Kagan as friends with was or
Speaker 1: Justice Ginsburg was really good friends with, like Justice Scalia,
Speaker 1: and the units to go to conferences together and Bryan
Speaker 1: Kagan is apparently close Roberts all this other stuff, then
Speaker 1: that stuff is over in terms of sharing pain. I know,
Speaker 1: I know you don't care. I don't really care about
Speaker 1: their U have a big impact, though I don't really
Speaker 1: know what it looked like personally. Be happy to see
Speaker 1: the UH trust and credibility of the Supreme Court go down. Well,
Speaker 1: this is going to change. I mean, this is certainly
Speaker 1: going to polarize it. This is going to polarize it,
Speaker 1: no question on the mods. The other thing, I just
Speaker 1: wanted to point out some of the history here because
Speaker 1: you actually sent this this morning, which is that there's
Speaker 1: no doubt that a leak, a premature leak of decision
Speaker 1: is extraordinarily rare, but is not completely unprecedented. And actually, interestingly,
Speaker 1: when Roe was actually decided, there was a clerk for
Speaker 1: one of the justices who gave I think was Time
Speaker 1: magazine the jump on the story. And then so the
Speaker 1: whole idea was, Okay, I'm going to give you insight
Speaker 1: into what the decision is, but it's embargoed until the
Speaker 1: decision actually comes out. And because there was a delay
Speaker 1: in releasing the decision, Time actually their magazine went to
Speaker 1: print and was on newsstands several hours before the decision
Speaker 1: actually came down and really sort of like screwed over
Speaker 1: this clerk who tendered his who was like, I'll resign
Speaker 1: if you want, and I mean the reporter, you know,
Speaker 1: and Time magazine really kind of screwed him over. Because
Speaker 1: when you have an embargo, you have an embargo, and
Speaker 1: that's that. So that is an instance when it was
Speaker 1: leaked ahead of time and there was a jump on
Speaker 1: the story is obviously a little bit different than this situation,
Speaker 1: where you know, it's clearly an attempt by someone to
Speaker 1: inform the public early and potentially try to affect ultimately
Speaker 1: the outcome here is whatever the outcome is here, although
Speaker 1: again I think that is extremely almost you know, impossibly
Speaker 1: unlikely to happen, but it is. It is very rare
Speaker 1: for this ultimately to happen and does represent in its
Speaker 1: way also a sort of watershed breakdown in terms of,
Speaker 1: you know, how the court operates. Again, I have no
Speaker 1: problem with that, but that's just like the factual way.
Speaker 1: It's a factual matter. It's going to change course of
Speaker 1: business there on the court, and you know that that
Speaker 1: is something which is going to be interesting. Also, let's
Speaker 1: go put this next one up there on the screen,
Speaker 1: just people who are asking about the authenticity. Here's what
Speaker 1: Politico said in response, and it should also be notable.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like the Hunter Biden story, where look,
Speaker 1: you think the Supreme Court's not aware that it is
Speaker 1: out there. If it was fake, they would tell it.
Speaker 1: They would tell it. Yeah, like they would have immediately
Speaker 1: shot it. It would have been like, this is a
Speaker 1: big report, this is not. Actually. There's a good example
Speaker 1: of this recently. Remember there was that story where people
Speaker 1: claim that Soda Mayor had to work from home because
Speaker 1: does thee courses wouldn't wear a mask, that's right, And
Speaker 1: they all put out statements being like, this is bullshit,
Speaker 1: that none of that happened. So we literally know that
Speaker 1: that happened. I think it happened like three or four
Speaker 1: months ago. So here's an example where been out there.
Speaker 1: Now it's worth filming this. It's eight forty seven am
Speaker 1: here on the East Coast. Guarantee you all of justice
Speaker 1: has been up all night. If it was fake, they
Speaker 1: would have told us so. But in regards to that,
Speaker 1: the Politico says, extensive review posts were confident of the
Speaker 1: authenticity of the draft. And again pretty much everybody who
Speaker 1: is familiar with the court says that this is absolutely
Speaker 1: an authentic draft. So look, take that for what you will.
Speaker 1: Let's move on to the politics of this, the most
Speaker 1: fun one. So how do Americans feel about abortion? This
Speaker 1: is one which is going to disappoint a lot of
Speaker 1: my friends who are on the right. Let's put us
Speaker 1: up there on the screen. Public opinion on abortion has
Speaker 1: basically remained static since nineteen ninety five. Like I was
Speaker 1: talking about there back in the safe, legal and rare case,
Speaker 1: so right here. In nineteen ninety five when this was taken,
Speaker 1: sixty percent of Americans said that they thought abortion should
Speaker 1: be legal in all or most cases. And in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one, the last time that Pew did did it's
Speaker 1: extensive data, fifty nine percent said that abortion should be
Speaker 1: legal in all or most cases. Actually, the low point
Speaker 1: for abortion in this country was two thousand and nine,
Speaker 1: when Americans said forty seven percent that abortion should be
Speaker 1: legal in all or most cases. I'm not exactly sure
Speaker 1: what was going on in two thousand and nine or
Speaker 1: why exactly that would have changed, but it's not two
Speaker 1: thousand and nine, So there you go Obama stuff party.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Yeah, I guess it could have been that.
Speaker 1: I truly have absolutely no idea. Now, in terms of
Speaker 1: views on abortion, how do most people feel whenever it
Speaker 1: comes to the trimester period, Because that really is where
Speaker 1: public opinion bifurcates completely. So people who think that abortion
Speaker 1: should be legal in all cases twenty five percent, people
Speaker 1: who think that abortion should be legal in most cases,
Speaker 1: thirty four percent, people who think that should abortion should
Speaker 1: be illegal in most cases, twenty six percent people who
Speaker 1: think that abortion should be illegal in all cases. And
Speaker 1: of course, got is the rape, incest, life of the
Speaker 1: mother situation? Thirteen percent don't know, don't have an opinion,
Speaker 1: two percent. Wow, abortion really is one of those people
Speaker 1: know where they stay in Paris, it was exactly where
Speaker 1: they feel. I do want to just pause you on that,
Speaker 1: because I do think it's worth noting that of all
Speaker 1: of those positions across the spectrum that you just lay down,
Speaker 1: the least popular stance is illegal in all cases only
Speaker 1: thirteen percent. That's like lower than defund the police level
Speaker 1: of support, and that is in fact going to be
Speaker 1: the law in quite a number of states. As we
Speaker 1: just went over so that's why, you know, and especially
Speaker 1: when you ask people how they feel about Row specifically
Speaker 1: being overturned. The latest poll that I saw again, it
Speaker 1: was very lobstited. Seventy percent wanted Roe to remain in
Speaker 1: place and only thirty percent wanted it overturned. In general,
Speaker 1: my sort of like grand view of cultural issues like
Speaker 1: abortion is that whichever parties see seems to be in
Speaker 1: the most extreme position is the party that's losing. And
Speaker 1: that's why I think you see the you know, the
Speaker 1: little bit of ebbs and flows that you see in
Speaker 1: terms of where people stand on abortion, I think depends
Speaker 1: on those same swings in terms of what party is
Speaker 1: advocating for what. So now you have, you know, Republicans
Speaker 1: who are very responsive to the furthest right voices on
Speaker 1: this issue, because those are the people who are most
Speaker 1: activated on the issue. They're single issue voters, this is
Speaker 1: their thing. They're very organized, they're very activated on it.
Speaker 1: And so you have Republican elected officials who are very
Speaker 1: responsive to the furthest hardest right views on this particular issue.
Speaker 1: That has led them to be out of step with
Speaker 1: populations even in conservative states. I think it was Mississippi
Speaker 1: that tried by ballot initiative pass fetal heartbeat law that
Speaker 1: got rejected, even in a state as red as Mississippi.
Speaker 1: Of course, we had you know, Todd Aiken and his
Speaker 1: comments about legitimate rape in Missouri, causing him to go
Speaker 1: down to a very unpopular Claire mccaskal at the time.
Speaker 1: So now you're going to have actually more pressure on
Speaker 1: Republicans to you know, from this activist base to okay,
Speaker 1: time to pass the law, time to make this the
Speaker 1: law in the state, if not the entire country. And
Speaker 1: that again is going to put them in a very
Speaker 1: extreme place, siding with thirteen percent of the country that
Speaker 1: believe it should be illegal in all cases versus the
Speaker 1: overwhelming majority opinion that says at least there should be
Speaker 1: some exceptions here. So I actually have a pulling here
Speaker 1: on roversus weight. And actually this is one of the
Speaker 1: only cases where support has gone up for do not overturn.
Speaker 1: So in August of nineteen ninety two, sixty percent said
Speaker 1: that do not overturn row, thirty four percent said yes,
Speaker 1: sixty two In January of three January thirteen remained static,
Speaker 1: But you saw a big jump in December of twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen sixty nine percent. Yes, twenty eight percent say overturn
Speaker 1: Now it is seventy percent. There's August of twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: so roughly approximate to where we are right now. Do
Speaker 1: not overturn Roe versus weigh at seventy percent? Yes, overturn
Speaker 1: Roe versus weighed at twenty eight percent. And the divide
Speaker 1: amongst Republicans is very real, and I want to spend
Speaker 1: some time here. Yeah, so total people say that sixty
Speaker 1: one This is the divide amongst Republicans in views of
Speaker 1: legal abortion illegal in all our most cases, thirty eight
Speaker 1: percent legal in all our most cases, sixty one percent. Now.
Speaker 1: Amongst people who are Republican, sixty two percent of Republicans
Speaker 1: say that it should be illegal in all our most cases,
Speaker 1: but thirty six percent think it should be legal in
Speaker 1: all our most cases now. Of people who identify as conservative,
Speaker 1: it's seventy seven percent illegal, twenty two percent legal. Amongst
Speaker 1: moderate or liberal Republican, I don't know who we call
Speaker 1: it a liberal Republican, but whatever, forty four percent illegal,
Speaker 1: fifty seven percent legal in all our most cases. Now.
Speaker 1: Amongst Democrats, it's not nearly split. Seventeen percent of Democrats
Speaker 1: say that it should be illegal in all the most
Speaker 1: cases and legal in most cases. Amongst conservative or moderate
Speaker 1: identified Democrats, it's twenty five percent illegal, seventy five percent legal,
Speaker 1: and amongst liberal Democrats it's nine to ninety one. So
Speaker 1: there's actually much bigger of a split within the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: And this is what I alluded to previously when I
Speaker 1: was describing my own views. I consider myself we got
Speaker 1: barsol conservative type. I'm very against political correctness. I'm very
Speaker 1: against some of these new culture war things that are
Speaker 1: happening with critical race theory and trans ideology. Those are
Speaker 1: frankly just as unpopular as a bore batting abortion in
Speaker 1: all or most cases. Now you are going to see
Speaker 1: a big split amongst those people, Crystal. So what I
Speaker 1: was describing to you is that one third of Republicans,
Speaker 1: especially one third of people who voted for Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: consider themselves pro choice. Now they didn't care because Trump
Speaker 1: was ultimately against political correctness. And if you see, also,
Speaker 1: we actually had a segment today we were going to
Speaker 1: do before all this happened, about how Republicans are leading
Speaker 1: amongst Latinos and amongst I think his parents under the
Speaker 1: age of parents with kids sixty something like that. Again,
Speaker 1: I would describe to the CRT in the trans debates,
Speaker 1: but when it comes to abortion, it's literally the opposite
Speaker 1: in terms of how that polling. And by putting this
Speaker 1: front and center as that, I do think this is
Speaker 1: going to be the one thing that could possibly change
Speaker 1: the outcome of the midterm elections. Now there is evidence
Speaker 1: possibly against my hypothesis. We saw that the Texas law
Speaker 1: did not ultimately change that much. Governor Abbott is sailing
Speaker 1: to re election now Governor Youngkin here not in Virginia,
Speaker 1: but in Virginia. Well, they ran a lot of ads
Speaker 1: against him, saying he's going to overturn abortion if row
Speaker 1: versus way. That didn't ultimately happen, but Governor Newsome did
Speaker 1: run on it, and he ultimately beat the odds on
Speaker 1: the recall elect not beat the odds he beat, I
Speaker 1: think is relatively the same margin. His polls skyrock his
Speaker 1: post pass for the text, and it ended up not
Speaker 1: being close whatsoever. So what do you make of that?
Speaker 1: I literally have no idea. It was all been hypothetical.
Speaker 1: There are two sides of it. Personally, I think now
Speaker 1: that it's real and people have to really decide and
Speaker 1: if it legitimately is on the ballot, I think this
Speaker 1: is going to hurt the Republican Party. I think red
Speaker 1: states will get a lot redder, a lot of the
Speaker 1: evangelicals are going to get a lot more excited. But
Speaker 1: places like Pennsylvania, places like Georgia, places like Florida, Well,
Speaker 1: Florida is probably a little bit different, but let's say
Speaker 1: the industrial Midwest and elsewhere where the barstool contingent is
Speaker 1: actually a lot higher. A lot of the people supporting
Speaker 1: the Republican Party are doing more so for cultural reasons
Speaker 1: outside of guns and abortion. That is going to have
Speaker 1: I believe a significant impact on their electoral fances come November.
Speaker 1: It'll be I could be completely wrong. Well, I think
Speaker 1: you know, you have said for a while that the
Speaker 1: one thing that could upend the current you know, destruction
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party that we were headed towards for
Speaker 1: the midterms would be that decision. Now that that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean it's going to play out that way, but it
Speaker 1: is that much of a sort of monumental pivot point
Speaker 1: in terms of the American political landscape that you could
Speaker 1: have it see it having massive impacts, especially because you
Speaker 1: have a Democratic base that has been completely apathetic, I
Speaker 1: mean disappointed in Biden on almost every level. His economic
Speaker 1: agenda completely bogged down. You know, you pointed to trans
Speaker 1: issues and CRT with parents. I would point to the
Speaker 1: fact that you gave people a child tax credit and
Speaker 1: then you took it away after a year, which we
Speaker 1: saw there was a huge drop in terms of support
Speaker 1: from parents who were receiving the CTC once that ultimately
Speaker 1: went away. You have inflation, you have I mean, there's
Speaker 1: manifest many issues in which Democrats feel very disappointed in
Speaker 1: the failure of this administration to live up to their
Speaker 1: basic promises. Now, I think you are going to continue
Speaker 1: to see a lot of frustration among the Democratic base,
Speaker 1: especially the part of the Democratic base that cares most
Speaker 1: about the issue of abortion rights, that says, where have
Speaker 1: you all been? You know, we knew that this was
Speaker 1: a possibility. And I do want to make the point
Speaker 1: that you know, Obama had a supermajority. The Biden administration
Speaker 1: has control of the Presidency, the Senate, and the House.
Speaker 1: They got rid of the Philbuster. They could enshrine abortion
Speaker 1: rights in law right now. It did not have to
Speaker 1: be left to this group of justices, and so as
Speaker 1: someone who is very upset with this decision and really
Speaker 1: abhors it, I'm equally I almost like I expect it
Speaker 1: from this is what I expect Amy Coney, Barrett and
Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh and co. To ultimately do. The Democrats who
Speaker 1: claim to support these rights have had years and years
Speaker 1: and years to codify it into law and protect against
Speaker 1: the whims of an unelected on accountable Supreme Court, and
Speaker 1: they haven't done it. So I think that's very very
Speaker 1: important to note. And I also want to say, because
Speaker 1: I mentioned earlier, that this is maybe the most central
Speaker 1: issue and a determining issue of why Trump got elected
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen. When he puts out the list of
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justice and that shores up the evangelical base,
Speaker 1: that was a huge turning point. You know, Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: was at the MET Gala last night, at the Gilded
Speaker 1: Age themed MET Gala last night, wearing her red ball
Speaker 1: gown with the names of like suffragettes and other women
Speaker 1: who inspire her. I don't know how she escapes any
Speaker 1: scrutiny and criticism from people who would be upset about
Speaker 1: this decision when she is the most proximate cause of
Speaker 1: the reason why we have these justices on the court.
Speaker 1: I mean, she ran a terrible campaign, not to mention
Speaker 1: her DNC allies to ring the primary to put this
Speaker 1: terrible candidate as the you know, standard bearer of the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. So I think you also have to look
Speaker 1: at the Democratic leaders who have had every opportunity to
Speaker 1: shore up this right, which is important to not just
Speaker 1: their base, but a lot of people across the political spectrum,
Speaker 1: and they have made every excuse in the book ultimately
Speaker 1: not to act. So make sure you direct some of
Speaker 1: your ire today if you are on the side of
Speaker 1: this issue that I am at those failures across many here. Well,
Speaker 1: there's also one Ruth Bader Ginsburg who deserves a lot
Speaker 1: of scrutiny here yea which I've always enjoyed. And there
Speaker 1: are this town is RBG Central, literally where I used
Speaker 1: to live. There are RBG posters everywhere. Every liberal girl's
Speaker 1: got the RBG sweatshirt, bobblehead mug. Some name their dogs cats. Listen,
Speaker 1: if you want to blame a single individual for this
Speaker 1: who had agency over that, it's Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I mean,
Speaker 1: she is the person who refused to retire under Obama
Speaker 1: and everybody was yes queening her at the time because
Speaker 1: she wanted to be retire under Hillary Clinton, and then
Speaker 1: she ultimately died under Donald Trump, and it's her seat
Speaker 1: which ultimately was the deciding vote in order to overturn abortion.
Speaker 1: This looks to be a five to four decision. Yeah, exactly. Vote.
Speaker 1: You're welcome, RBG. You know, like, I mean, seriously, like
Speaker 1: anybody who is real about this needs to reconcile themselves
Speaker 1: with the fact that Rbg's narcissism is the reason that
Speaker 1: this is happening if you are on that side of
Speaker 1: the issue, which is a little bit of a narrative
Speaker 1: violation which I kind of enjoy. Yeah. Well, and I mean, listen,
Speaker 1: we don't love to speak the dead, but those are
Speaker 1: just the facts. That's just a public figure. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: that one obviously yes, or was dead. You have to
Speaker 1: be honest about people, whether they're alive or dead. And
Speaker 1: the honest fact of the matter is that if she
Speaker 1: makes a different choice, which many activists were encouraging her
Speaker 1: to do, this decision goes in a different way and
Speaker 1: you likely have the continued sort of steady erosion. I
Speaker 1: do want to say, I feel like some of the
Speaker 1: conservative outrage at the fact of the leak versus the
Speaker 1: the focus. You know, there's more of a focus on
Speaker 1: that from the right than on the substance of the decision.
Speaker 1: I think in certain ways in terms of their outreach,
Speaker 1: I think that's a little bit telling, because if they
Speaker 1: felt like this was ultimately just an unambiguous great thing
Speaker 1: for them, then they'd be kind of cool with the leak. Like,
Speaker 1: for example, if a Bergefell, which you know, guarantee the
Speaker 1: right to same sex marriage, if that had been leaked
Speaker 1: ahead of time, I don't think liberals would have been, like,
Speaker 1: you know, apoplectic about the leak. They would have just
Speaker 1: been excited about the decision. So I do think it
Speaker 1: is a little bit of a tell that they also
Speaker 1: see this as probably very politically difficult for them. And
Speaker 1: the other piece that I'm frankly just not sure how
Speaker 1: it plays out is the organized effort among the evangelical
Speaker 1: right base to get justices on the Supreme Court to
Speaker 1: effect you this particular outcome has been a central organizing
Speaker 1: principle of Republican politics for decades now. As I said,
Speaker 1: very signific contributor, if not the most significant contributor to
Speaker 1: Donald Trump ultimately getting elected. And so when you lose
Speaker 1: that animating factor, you know, maybe it doesn't really change
Speaker 1: anything because now you still have the well, we got
Speaker 1: to keep our people on there because we don't want
Speaker 1: it to, you know, go back the other way. Or
Speaker 1: we got to make sure to elect Republicans in the
Speaker 1: legislature so they can enshrine this in law. But you know,
Speaker 1: it's also possible that this is which has been so animating,
Speaker 1: effectively being taken off the table for now could also
Speaker 1: have a deflating impact on some of the animating politics
Speaker 1: of the Republican base. Ultimately, I don't know which way
Speaker 1: that goes, but it's going to be interesting to see
Speaker 1: how that ultimately all shakes out. Soccer, there's no way
Speaker 1: to know. Like I said, I grew up around a
Speaker 1: lot of these people, a lot of these evangelicals. This
Speaker 1: is all they care about, this is all they've ever
Speaker 1: cared about. Here in the Northeast, we've got like the
Speaker 1: Catholic mom contingent. A lot of those people will crawl
Speaker 1: over broken glass in order to make sure that abortion
Speaker 1: gets overturned. So I don't know whether they're going to
Speaker 1: continue to come out and vote. If I had to guess,
Speaker 1: that probably gonna come out in big droves in order
Speaker 1: to support Trump because he can run on I'm the
Speaker 1: guy who got it done pretty big, you know, incentive,
Speaker 1: But in long run for organizing, for the church's support
Speaker 1: and the infrastructure that they've always given the socially conservative
Speaker 1: branch of the Republican Party. Honestly, I really don't know.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be interesting to me. There's it's possible that
Speaker 1: a human rights campaign phenomenon will happen, like you know,
Speaker 1: the human Rights campaign here in DC. They had all
Speaker 1: this money ahead of obergerfell, and then when it fell,
Speaker 1: they're like, well, now what do we do? Like you know,
Speaker 1: so now they're all in on trans and all this
Speaker 1: other stuff may become dramatically more unpopular, But at the
Speaker 1: time they had a real animating principle and there were
Speaker 1: a central force in our American politics. I mean, you'll
Speaker 1: remember in the two thousand and nine and twenty ten.
Speaker 1: I mean, they were huge in terms of their condigens.
Speaker 1: Oh god, yeah, I mean, and now you know, the
Speaker 1: Family Research Council, some of these evangelic concern women of America.
Speaker 1: These are titanic forces on the right in terms of
Speaker 1: their endorsement power and more. It's possible that they lose.
Speaker 1: They'll probably all pivot to you know, CRT or gender
Speaker 1: ideology possibly, but that's just it doesn't have the same juice, No,
Speaker 1: And it's a lot of very ephemeral issues, like I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean, they were so I mean, they got sort
Speaker 1: of spun up overnight, and that could be replaced by
Speaker 1: some other moral panic or outrage in three days. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I think there's a couple things here. I mean, another
Speaker 1: story we were going to cover before this happened was
Speaker 1: the fact that Biden and the Democrats are like, I
Speaker 1: guess we're going to run on Trump again in the terms,
Speaker 1: so we'll just like try to make it about Trump again,
Speaker 1: even though we had the Glenn Youngkin race and we
Speaker 1: know this isn't really working for us anymore. I guess
Speaker 1: that's what we're going to do. And they were actually
Speaker 1: kind of like secretly glad that Elon Musk might let
Speaker 1: Trump back on Twitter because they view it the way
Speaker 1: we do of like, oh good, we get this obnoxious
Speaker 1: asshole back that we get to point to every single day. Well,
Speaker 1: I think that thinking is all now completely off the table.
Speaker 1: This is going to be the mid term strategy for Democrats,
Speaker 1: and it's a potent one. I mean in terms of
Speaker 1: motivating Democrats to come out and vote, in terms of
Speaker 1: where independent stand on the issue, and this is an
Speaker 1: issue where independences are very much more aligned with with
Speaker 1: keeping Roe in place than with overturning Roe, and tend
Speaker 1: to be, you know, sort of in the center. And
Speaker 1: again Republicans have placed themselves now in the camp of
Speaker 1: the most extreme view on the issue. So this is
Speaker 1: going to be potent, and it also does give there
Speaker 1: is I think a genuine case that you can make
Speaker 1: that this does endanger things like Obergefel because it does
Speaker 1: undercut some of the legal rationale and reasoning there. You
Speaker 1: do have Republicans, you know, sort of, yeah, they want
Speaker 1: to talk about trans issues, but there's also this whole
Speaker 1: effort to paint you know, any gay teachers and whatever
Speaker 1: is groomers and the whole groomer discourse. So I don't
Speaker 1: think it's insane for Democrats to look and liberals to
Speaker 1: look at this decision and say, you know, some of
Speaker 1: these things that we thought were settled may not be
Speaker 1: so settled when we have a court that is clearly
Speaker 1: very activist, doesn't really care about president even long standing precedent,
Speaker 1: and is willing to cater to a conservative base, even
Speaker 1: when that means completely upending American politics. The other thing
Speaker 1: I'll say in terms of political impact is I think
Speaker 1: you're going to have a new group of voters who
Speaker 1: were not necessarily Bernie Sanders, people who are completely disgusted
Speaker 1: with the failures of the Democratic Party. I think you'll
Speaker 1: have a lot of you know, liberal women who were
Speaker 1: maybe like Elizabeth Warren type people. I mean, if you
Speaker 1: ever wanted to point clearly on a cultural issue to
Speaker 1: the utter failure of the Democratic Party across years and
Speaker 1: years like here, it is because again, like I said,
Speaker 1: Obama had a super majority. Okay, Biden, who who has
Speaker 1: talked about in shrining you know, row In law effectively
Speaker 1: at the federal law federal level, which you could do,
Speaker 1: has done nothing on it. Has not been interested in
Speaker 1: getting rid of the filibuster or even you knowing or
Speaker 1: amending the filibuster. And so I think this is going
Speaker 1: to be a very compelling case for a group of
Speaker 1: voters who has been just sort of like vote blue,
Speaker 1: no matter who, that the Democratic Party has failed in
Speaker 1: some really clear and really manifest ways, and that ultimately,
Speaker 1: even though again in the midterms, I think this will
Speaker 1: probably serve the Democratic Party and galvanize a base that
Speaker 1: has been extraordinarily apathetic, give them an issue to run
Speaker 1: on that where they are in the clear maturity. I
Speaker 1: do think overall for the Democratic establishment this lays very
Speaker 1: bare how just absurdly pathetic they have been in terms
Speaker 1: of standing for and protecting the things that they claim
Speaker 1: to care about and that they run on every election cycle. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that's fair. I just want to say one thing,
Speaker 1: which is that in the decision, Alito actually does say
Speaker 1: Obergafels protected law. So I think it's you can say
Speaker 1: he's lying if you want to. I'm just you know,
Speaker 1: I don't think there is any current political constituency to
Speaker 1: overturn Obergafel. Fifty five percent of Republicans support the decision.
Speaker 1: There is not even close to the same level of
Speaker 1: evangelical lie. But we just it. We just pointed out that,
Speaker 1: you know, this even goes against the significant portion of
Speaker 1: the Republican base. I don't put it completely off the table,
Speaker 1: do I think it's going to happen tomorrow. No, But
Speaker 1: do I put it completely off the table. No, because
Speaker 1: I think you do have a court that is, you know,
Speaker 1: quite activist and quite unconcerned with passport. I could be wrong.
Speaker 1: I don't think that that's the next battle of the culture. However,
Speaker 1: the other issue which you mentioned, which is important is
Speaker 1: on the Democratic row. So I actually went ahead and
Speaker 1: pulled so in for the first time this year. Actually,
Speaker 1: the Senate voted on Roe versus Wade, and there was
Speaker 1: an argument I saw advanced by Senator Sanders that they
Speaker 1: should break the filibuster. But by my account, the Democrats
Speaker 1: do not have the vote. So this was February twenty eight,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two. There were forty six ya's in order
Speaker 1: to protect Row, forty eight nay's, and six not voting. Now,
Speaker 1: the people who were not voting, notably Raphael Warnock. So
Speaker 1: he's come out on the record as pro choice. Obviously
Speaker 1: it would be a tough vote for him in Georgia.
Speaker 1: Another one is Senator Paul in Kentucky. I believe he
Speaker 1: is pro life. Another one was Senator Luhan New Mexico.
Speaker 1: He was I believe he was ill at the time.
Speaker 1: But here is one which was interesting Senator Kennedy of Louisiana,
Speaker 1: but most importantly was Senator Casey actually out of Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: so apparently yeah, and then Joe Manchin as well in
Speaker 1: terms of voting nay on that decision. So those different
Speaker 1: senators and how they fall. Right, go ahead, you have
Speaker 1: do you have where are Collins and Murkowski on that count? Right?
Speaker 1: So okay, let you have Collins. Okay, you do have
Speaker 1: a couple. Collins was a nay on that vote, and
Speaker 1: then let me see here, Murkowski was also a nae.
Speaker 1: So you do have a couple of Republicans who you know,
Speaker 1: Let's take a good point though, because Mansion says he's
Speaker 1: pro life, right, he would probably you know, vote against
Speaker 1: Roe being codified in federal law. But Collins and Murkowski
Speaker 1: at least claimed to be pro choice. And by the way,
Speaker 1: you know, Collins famously that she didn't think Brett Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: would overturn Roe versus. Wait, okay, how did that work
Speaker 1: out for you? Like that would clearly I think that
Speaker 1: was a pre election clearly not the case, definitely a
Speaker 1: pre election move. But so I think, you know, if
Speaker 1: you lost a couple Democrats, there might be a couple
Speaker 1: of Republicans you could ultimately pick up. And then the
Speaker 1: other side of this is if Republicans do take control
Speaker 1: of Congress, and I think we have c three that
Speaker 1: we can put up here this Forbes tear sheet, there
Speaker 1: is an organized effort to try to push a law
Speaker 1: that would ban abortion nationwide if Supreme Court it overturns
Speaker 1: Row versus Wade. You've got leading anti abortion groups and
Speaker 1: their allies in Congress meeting behind the scenes to plan
Speaker 1: a national strategy that would kick in if the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court rolls back abortion rights this summer, including a push
Speaker 1: for a strict nationwide ban on the procedure if Republicans
Speaker 1: retake power in Washington. Now, I don't know whether you have.
Speaker 1: First of all, I would say, as I said before,
Speaker 1: the Republican Party very responsive to this group of activists
Speaker 1: because they're very organized, because they're single issue voters, because
Speaker 1: they're very much like you know, they're very much a part,
Speaker 1: a core part of the Republican activist base. And so
Speaker 1: even in states where something like this would be pretty unpopular,
Speaker 1: you're going to see senators who back it and members
Speaker 1: of Congress who back it because of their responsiveness to that,
Speaker 1: you know, more extreme views of the Republican base on
Speaker 1: this issue. Now, do I think it ultimately would have
Speaker 1: enough votes, I don't know, But in terms of the
Speaker 1: politics for the midterms, it really doesn't matter because there's
Speaker 1: a very you can run on it. You can, there's
Speaker 1: everything you need here to make a very credible case
Speaker 1: that they would want to head in this direction. So
Speaker 1: you know, Democrats can say to voters in California and
Speaker 1: New York other states, blue states where you know, these
Speaker 1: laws aren't going to be impacted by Row versus way
Speaker 1: being overturned, like you know, you shouldn't feel so safe
Speaker 1: here ultimately, because Republicans are not content with just half
Speaker 1: of the states having abortion effectively and or extremely severely restricted.
Speaker 1: They're actually coming for the whole thing and these I
Speaker 1: also think these senators and members of Congress will be
Speaker 1: under tremendous pressure from the activist evangelical right to pass
Speaker 1: a measure such as this, because now it's like, okay,
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has done their part, where are you on
Speaker 1: this issue that you've been telling us is core to
Speaker 1: your belief system for years? So they will be under
Speaker 1: pressure to pass and codify something like a nationwide band.
Speaker 1: Don't underestimate the Catholic Church either. They're going to go
Speaker 1: full bore on this one. They have a lot of
Speaker 1: power here in Washington and over a lot of the
Speaker 1: northeastern Republican types as well. So yeah, look, I think
Speaker 1: the TLDR from this whole segment is going to change
Speaker 1: politics forever. This is the one thing that could possibly
Speaker 1: rescue the Democrats. It will scramble a lot of the
Speaker 1: way that we talk and we debate for a long time.
Speaker 1: Like you said, it could activate the PMC kind of
Speaker 1: liberal contingent and against the Democratic Party, which definitely could
Speaker 1: be interesting. Could also change the way that Biden and
Speaker 1: the Democrats and Chuck Schumer run the Senate. It's going
Speaker 1: to change possibly the way that they'll try and get
Speaker 1: something through the House. So buckle up, get ready. It's
Speaker 1: a whole new era. Okay. At the same time, though
Speaker 1: it is primary day, there are bill elections happening here
Speaker 1: too in Washington. That's right or sorry, here in America.
Speaker 1: So the biggest one everybody's eyes are on. Let's put
Speaker 1: this up there on the screen is the Ohio Senate
Speaker 1: race where the Republican Senate primary to replace retiring Senator
Speaker 1: Rob Portman. So obviously that is between JD. Vance, who's
Speaker 1: been endorsed by Donald Trump, Mike Gibbons, Matt Dolan, Jane Timpkin,
Speaker 1: and Josh Mandel. I always say these types of segments
Speaker 1: full disclosure. I've been friends with JD. Vance for like
Speaker 1: seven years, So take anything that I say with a
Speaker 1: grain of salt. I think it's important that people know
Speaker 1: that whenever you're giving analysis about a certain type of campaign. Now,
Speaker 1: in terms of how the polls are going for him,
Speaker 1: let's put this up there on the screen from Real
Speaker 1: Clear Politics. So Vance was not doing so well. It
Speaker 1: was roughly tied there with Josh Mandell until Trump came
Speaker 1: into the race and endorsed him a couple of weeks out.
Speaker 1: So green line. He's the green line for those who
Speaker 1: are just watching there. He currently clocks in on the
Speaker 1: day of the election at twenty six percent. I'll keep
Speaker 1: in mind these are averages of just two polls from
Speaker 1: the Trafalgar Group and from Emerson. We don't have a
Speaker 1: lot of high quality polling out of this race. It
Speaker 1: truly anything could happen now. Number two Josh Mandel at
Speaker 1: twenty two point five percent, then Dolan at twenty one
Speaker 1: point five. Dolan is an interesting character. So Dolan is
Speaker 1: a multi millionaire owner I guess Cleveland what is it
Speaker 1: called now, the Garden Guardian? Okay, the Cleveland guard And
Speaker 1: this is relevant by the way to the race. So
Speaker 1: one of the owners of this team. So he has
Speaker 1: burned about ten million dollars of his own money in
Speaker 1: ads in order to try and buy the nomination. Now,
Speaker 1: to be fair, he's actually a very anti Trump, criticized
Speaker 1: Trump whenever it came to January sixth, So a lot
Speaker 1: of never Trump folks are looking at this and, you know,
Speaker 1: kind of hoping that it'll play out. I honestly have
Speaker 1: no idea. I had to bet. I don't think he's
Speaker 1: gonna win. My understanding is that he's not exactly anti
Speaker 1: Trump in that he said he voted for him twice,
Speaker 1: that he would vote for him again if he's the nominee.
Speaker 1: But he takes the approach of like time to move
Speaker 1: on from the elections. Yeah, and he's very clear about
Speaker 1: it too, So he's sort of carved down this his
Speaker 1: His theory of the case is that you have Mandel
Speaker 1: and Vance and whoever the other one is that Mandel
Speaker 1: almost got in a fight with given they're kind of
Speaker 1: fighting over the same pool of like, you know, superstaunchly
Speaker 1: Trump pro Trump voters, and they're all angling to be
Speaker 1: like the most pro Trump and you know, gett in
Speaker 1: his best graces, which it is sort of sad to
Speaker 1: watch the way that this just becomes a single issue
Speaker 1: race around like who is the most who's a real
Speaker 1: Trump candidate? And so he basically says, Okay, you all
Speaker 1: can fight over that group of voters, which is almost
Speaker 1: undeniably the you know, majority of the Republican Party. But
Speaker 1: because you have a divide here, I'm going to go
Speaker 1: after this group that isn't so excited about talking about
Speaker 1: January sixth and a rigged election for the rest of
Speaker 1: their entire lives. And here in the final days, there
Speaker 1: have been multiple polls that show him definitely surging here
Speaker 1: at the end, I think that part seems pretty undeniable.
Speaker 1: Will he be able to make up ground and you know,
Speaker 1: actually best JD Vance, who seems to be in the
Speaker 1: pole position right now, hard to say. I think it's
Speaker 1: a probably still you know, it's definitely still JD's race
Speaker 1: to lose at this point. But it is interesting that
Speaker 1: that surge and that strategy, and he also has been
Speaker 1: until very recently effectively immune. People weren't really focusing on it.
Speaker 1: So they're beating each you know, their Club for Growth,
Speaker 1: beating up JD. Vance and the two other ones almost
Speaker 1: getting in a fist five, and like lots of muzzlinging
Speaker 1: between the three of them. And he's sort of come
Speaker 1: through unscathed until very recently when they saw him rising
Speaker 1: in the polls. And now the central attack on him
Speaker 1: is like, how could you change the name of the
Speaker 1: Cleveland Indians to the Cleveland Guardians. We're horrified, which is funny.
Speaker 1: I mean, TRAVI a pretty good attack and something about
Speaker 1: it said something about it too. Whatever. He put out
Speaker 1: a statement, so you know what you reference. There is
Speaker 1: a very interesting civil war. They'll try and break down
Speaker 1: as best as I can. Josh Mandel's race is being
Speaker 1: run by Ted Cruz's former campaign manager, and Ted cruz World,
Speaker 1: kind of what I call the true con world is
Speaker 1: all in on Josh Mandel. They hate JD. Vance mostly
Speaker 1: because of his position on economics, and they don't view
Speaker 1: him as trustworthy. They've been trying to hit him with
Speaker 1: never Trump. So then the Club for Growth, which is
Speaker 1: extraordinary libertarian and its economic outlook, has been going after JD.
Speaker 1: JD has been countering them, saying calling them the Club
Speaker 1: for Chinese Growth, which I think is funny. This culminated
Speaker 1: in a major fight between Donald Trump and JD Vance
Speaker 1: and the Club for Growth because after Trump endorsed JD,
Speaker 1: basically David McIntosh, the head of the Club for Growth,
Speaker 1: made it known he will be putting out continuing more
Speaker 1: hundred like tens of millions of dollars behind Josh. So
Speaker 1: Trump had his advisor test text David McIntosh and say
Speaker 1: go fuck yourself with so clearly, you know, a big
Speaker 1: wark and the Club for Growth is a major spender
Speaker 1: of cash on the Republican side. It's you know, up
Speaker 1: there with commerce long time, right, I mean massive, you know,
Speaker 1: going back to the tea party days. Coke funded very libertarian,
Speaker 1: pro business, kind of a big business in their outlook.
Speaker 1: That is a proxy fight really of almost Ted Cruz
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen because he's allied with the Club for Growth
Speaker 1: versus like Trump. Maga world has subsubstance to it. But
Speaker 1: it's also very odd because the Club has also endorsed
Speaker 1: Blake Masters in Arizona, who is like frankly even just
Speaker 1: as much of a populist type Republican senator. It's weird.
Speaker 1: I don't exactly know what's going on. If I could
Speaker 1: really characterize it for people, it's Ted Cruz versus Donald
Speaker 1: Trump all over again, and like and again, Cruse is
Speaker 1: probably gonna lose. Cruz is touring the state right now,
Speaker 1: actually with Josh Mandel and Holly I think is there.
Speaker 1: I'm Behalpa's on there on behalf of Jada Van. We're
Speaker 1: gonna talk to Jordan Cheriton, who's on the ground in Ohio,
Speaker 1: and he got some exclusive interviews with voters, Republican voters
Speaker 1: who were coming out of a JD Vance event, So
Speaker 1: you know, these are people who are likely to be
Speaker 1: inclined towards JD Vance. The thing that I found more
Speaker 1: most interesting about what they had to say is, of
Speaker 1: course Jordan asked every one of them like, what do
Speaker 1: you think about the stuff that he said about Trump before?
Speaker 1: And all of them again, this is coming out of
Speaker 1: a JD Vance event, so keep that in mind. But
Speaker 1: even the ones who were undecided said I don't really care.
Speaker 1: I knew I Some of them were like, I wasn't
Speaker 1: sure about Trump. Some were like I knew plenty of
Speaker 1: people who weren't sure about Trump at the beginning, and
Speaker 1: there was very much like he owned up to his
Speaker 1: mistakes and it's okay. So I do think, you know,
Speaker 1: I do think that Trump giving him the nod sort
Speaker 1: of made it okay for voters to be like, Okay,
Speaker 1: he made a mistake, in their view, a mistake, and
Speaker 1: now he's come to see the light and he's one
Speaker 1: of us. There's even one woman who was like, oh,
Speaker 1: the people who changed their mind about Trump, those are
Speaker 1: the best people, so forgiving you so anyway, anyway, I
Speaker 1: guess I guess Trump coming in endorsing him, there's no
Speaker 1: doubt that has definitely had a significant impact on the race.
Speaker 1: And even if Vance ultimately gets edged down by what's
Speaker 1: his face, dolen, I think that you still have to
Speaker 1: look at this race and see that, you know, Trump
Speaker 1: really did play a kind of kingmaker here and significantly
Speaker 1: up ended the thing. Peter tele also, you know, billionaire
Speaker 1: very significant in this race because at the beginning, Jade
Speaker 1: Vance was not doing well. They were running ads with
Speaker 1: all of his old Trump comments. It was not landing
Speaker 1: well with people, and so he was doing extremely poorly.
Speaker 1: And the two forces that really kind of propped him
Speaker 1: up were Peter Teel from the money perspective and Tucker
Speaker 1: Carlson from the media perspective. And the reporting is at
Speaker 1: Tucker and Don Junior were very influential in getting Trump
Speaker 1: to ultimately give him the nut. There was a little
Speaker 1: bit of an indication that maybe Trump's whole heart wasn't
Speaker 1: into this thing, or he just like endorsed whoever he
Speaker 1: was told to endorse here ultimately because he didn't quite
Speaker 1: get the name right. Let's take a listen to that sound.
Speaker 1: That's what they're waiting for. They're waiting for one race.
Speaker 1: You know. We've endorsed doctor Oz, We've endorsed JP, right,
Speaker 1: j D Mandel, and he's doing great. They're all doing
Speaker 1: good JP, JP Mandel, j D Mandel. Wow, Okay, true
Speaker 1: Turner Crystal Yeah okay. So big race for the left
Speaker 1: in the future of the Democratic Party also happening in
Speaker 1: Ohio right now. As you guys may remember, Nina Turner,
Speaker 1: who was Senator Sanders campaign co chair and of course
Speaker 1: has been with Bernie from the start, ran in a
Speaker 1: special election two years ago for Congress against chantal around
Speaker 1: ultimately pretty close race. They ran a lot of ads
Speaker 1: replaying her comments that say that said like voting for
Speaker 1: Biden was like eating half a bull of shit, and
Speaker 1: that really landed, and they had an overwhelming amount of
Speaker 1: money from Trump line Republicans, from corporate back to places,
Speaker 1: and every sort of Democratic establishment person flooding in Jim
Speaker 1: Clyburn really coming in, and ultimately Chantel Brown is able
Speaker 1: to beat Nina Turner by about five points, ultimately in
Speaker 1: the end, after Nina had been way ahead originally in
Speaker 1: the polls in this Cleveland, Ohio district. So now you
Speaker 1: have Nina taking another crack at it, and there are
Speaker 1: a couple of things that are different here. First of all,
Speaker 1: you do have, as we just covered, a very heated
Speaker 1: primary on the Republican side, and so last time around,
Speaker 1: Chantale Brown benefited from thousands of Republicans who actually voted
Speaker 1: in the Democratic primary for her, and so you know
Speaker 1: those Republicans this time around, they're going to be engaged
Speaker 1: in the j JP Mandel race and unlikely to have
Speaker 1: those crossover votes for chan Telbron. So that's one piece.
Speaker 1: The other piece is that and let's go ahead and
Speaker 1: put this Cleveland Plaine Dealer tears sheet up on the
Speaker 1: screen here, that says Democrat Chantel Brown and need a
Speaker 1: turn her face off again in redrawn eleventh Congressional district.
Speaker 1: And that's the key piece is. So now the district incorporates,
Speaker 1: my understanding, is effectively all of Cleveland, which Nina Turner
Speaker 1: won last time around, and also incorporates another piece of
Speaker 1: territory where Bernie Sanders one previously. So the thought is
Speaker 1: this is more progressive terrain. About thirty percent of the
Speaker 1: district is new, and so the thinking within the Turner
Speaker 1: camp is that you know this is a more favorable landscape,
Speaker 1: just literal landscape in terms of the lines of the district,
Speaker 1: and also that you are less likely to have those
Speaker 1: Republican crossover votes. So there has been very little and
Speaker 1: I should put my caveat on the table as you
Speaker 1: did with Jadie Vance. Nina is a longtime, dear, close
Speaker 1: personal friend, and I love her very much and I
Speaker 1: think she's a wonderful person and would be a wonderful
Speaker 1: member of Congress. So those are my biases on the table. Okay,
Speaker 1: So I didn't know whether this was a realistic path,
Speaker 1: whether there was actually really a chance that she could
Speaker 1: actually win. She explained it to me, and it made
Speaker 1: sense to me. But there's very little pulling ultimately in
Speaker 1: this race, so I just didn't know. But there have
Speaker 1: been some signs that the establishment is very worried about
Speaker 1: how this is ultimately going, because they are once again
Speaker 1: flooding the zone and really pressuring members of Congress to
Speaker 1: come in for Chantell Brown. All the way up to
Speaker 1: let's put this next piece up on the screen. Joe
Speaker 1: Biden himself has waded into this race to endorse Chantel
Speaker 1: Brown over Nina Turner. Meanwhile, this is something we have
Speaker 1: talked about, I think on this show before. You have
Speaker 1: the Congressional Progressive Caucus of which Chantal Brown is a member,
Speaker 1: but she is also a member of the like conservative
Speaker 1: like pro getting rid of a sault tax cap, basically
Speaker 1: new blue dog caucus. They're called the Democrat what are they,
Speaker 1: the new leaders? What the heck are their name? The
Speaker 1: New Democrat that's what they are, the New Democrat Caucus.
Speaker 1: But it's like the conservative Democratic Caucus. So she's not
Speaker 1: really progressive, but she wanted to get that label. So
Speaker 1: the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and my understanding is from inside sources,
Speaker 1: under great pressure, decides to endorse Chantel Brown, which is
Speaker 1: outrageous considering what a backbone of the progressive movement Nina
Speaker 1: Turner has been and what an icon she is ultimately
Speaker 1: in that community. It's not only that members of the
Speaker 1: squad totally silent. Bernie Sanders endorsed her a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks back, and that was, you know, that was significant,
Speaker 1: and that mattered and probably helped her with with fundraising,
Speaker 1: with excitement and all of those things. But up until
Speaker 1: literally last night, not one member of the Squad had endorsed.
Speaker 1: So there's a couple things to say about this. Number one,
Speaker 1: the just utter betrayal and pathetic nature of the so
Speaker 1: called Progressive Caucus and the you know, the Squad and
Speaker 1: all of that. That's one piece. The other piece is
Speaker 1: the fact that the establishment has thrown the Biden endorsement,
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton endorsement. Clyburn came to the district, a king,
Speaker 1: Jeffreys came to the district. You had other you know,
Speaker 1: significant like heavy hitters and Democratic establishment politics actually come
Speaker 1: into the district for Chantel Brown. That did kind of
Speaker 1: tell me that all right, at the very least, they're
Speaker 1: seeing some polling that says they're in the danger zone
Speaker 1: here that they've got to act, and a lot of
Speaker 1: money coming in and a new pack that was formed,
Speaker 1: the mainstream Democrat pack that's explicitly like against the Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders left, lots of money flooding in on behalf of
Speaker 1: Chantel Brown, and the pressure from the Congressional Black Caucus
Speaker 1: in particular on their members, people like Corey Bush, to
Speaker 1: stay out of the race or to endorse on the
Speaker 1: behalf of Chantel Brown again indicated to me like they're
Speaker 1: seeing something that says that Nina has a chance in
Speaker 1: this race. And then back to the squad. Last night,
Speaker 1: us put AOC up on the screen here with twelve
Speaker 1: hours before election day voting starts, and keeping in mind
Speaker 1: that early voting has been going on for quite some
Speaker 1: time now, AOC decides to check the box and wait
Speaker 1: into this race, sending out a fundraising pitch. Now, I'm
Speaker 1: not trying to be an asshole here. You check the
Speaker 1: box and that's better than I can say for any
Speaker 1: of your fellow squad members. Coming in with twelve hours
Speaker 1: before election is not going to do a goddamn thing,
Speaker 1: not one thing. You can't organize around it. People won't
Speaker 1: even find out and she or do, I mean, this
Speaker 1: is and if you did, let's say, you know this
Speaker 1: fundraising pitch, let's say does raise any money? What does
Speaker 1: it matter? You can't book TV ads at this point.
Speaker 1: It may personally help. Mean if she has debt on
Speaker 1: the campaign, okay, that's good, But in terms of affecting
Speaker 1: the outcome of the race, this matters not at all.
Speaker 1: So again and Mary and Williamson pointed this out on Twitter.
Speaker 1: The only really reason to endorse at the very last
Speaker 1: twelve hours before an election. I've never seen that before
Speaker 1: is because you look at the landscape and you think, oh,
Speaker 1: this person might win, and I want to hedge my bets.
Speaker 1: So I don't know what's going to happen here. We're
Speaker 1: going to talk to Jordan Charton. He's got a better
Speaker 1: sense of what's happening on the ground. But I can
Speaker 1: tell you there are some tea leaves that indicate at
Speaker 1: least that Nina has put Chantel Brown in a difficult
Speaker 1: position and has a fighter's chance at this thing. So
Speaker 1: that's interesting. Yeah, I mean, the AOC point is obviously
Speaker 1: pretty pretty telling. I mean it could be a good thing.
Speaker 1: If you want Nina Turner to win. Maybe she's privy
Speaker 1: to private polling. Well that's right, Yeah, she's going to
Speaker 1: try and take credit for it. So that's possible in
Speaker 1: terms of the way that it all goes down. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean it's pretty interesting in terms of I just
Speaker 1: don't get, you know, and luck, we could spend hours
Speaker 1: on this. The Tea Party people they never cared when
Speaker 1: Bayner would be like, you need to endorse somebody, they
Speaker 1: actually got points whenever they would say, screw you, Bayner,
Speaker 1: I'm going to go endorse whoever I want, you know,
Speaker 1: against what was his name, the House Jory leader who
Speaker 1: lost his seat, Oh, Eric Canter? Eric Canter, right, Eric Canton?
Speaker 1: I mean Dave Bratt. Like that guy was a hero
Speaker 1: and the people who all supported him were heroes too.
Speaker 1: So I don't get how the most radical members of
Speaker 1: the squad are so still willing to bow to the
Speaker 1: Democratic leadership. I truly don't understand the dynamic there. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean there's there. We could spend a long time
Speaker 1: like the psychology of that, and the Republican base is
Speaker 1: the Democratic base. There's no doubt the Republican base has
Speaker 1: a lot more sway with the Republican caucus than the
Speaker 1: like you know, than the Democratic base ultimately has with
Speaker 1: Democratic caucus. See the whole conversation we just had about
Speaker 1: Roe versus wait for more examples of that. Listen on AOC.
Speaker 1: I guess I would rather she checked the box than
Speaker 1: the people who didn't. But I just want you all
Speaker 1: to know, if Nina Turner does prevail, it didn't have
Speaker 1: anything to do with AOC coming in at last minute, because,
Speaker 1: as someone who at least ran one campaign myself and
Speaker 1: has been involved in a lot of campaigns, an endorsement
Speaker 1: the night before voting starts, when early voting has been
Speaker 1: going on for weeks and weeks, when the TV ads
Speaker 1: are already booked, This cake is already baked. AOC coming
Speaker 1: in in the last minute will not affect the outcome
Speaker 1: for good or for ill either way. So again, okay,
Speaker 1: you check the box. That's better than I can say
Speaker 1: for your colleagues, but you get no credit if Nina
Speaker 1: Durnal ultimately prevails in this race. Yeah, all right, we have,
Speaker 1: in my opinions, very unfortunate but not entirely unforeseen news
Speaker 1: to report on the latest Amazon union election, which is
Speaker 1: that the second election, this one also on Staten Island
Speaker 1: at a sorting facility crossed the street from the original
Speaker 1: victorious union election has gone down to defeat. Let's go ahead.
Speaker 1: Put the vote tally. Ultimately not all that close. You
Speaker 1: had three hundred and eighty voting in favor of the union.
Speaker 1: You had six hundred and eighteen voting against. This was
Speaker 1: a smaller facility, and you know, and let's go in.
Speaker 1: But Chris Mall's, of course, interim President of Amazon Labor
Speaker 1: Union statement up on the screen. He says, despite today's outcome,
Speaker 1: I'm proud of the worker organizers of LDJ five. They
Speaker 1: had a tougher challenge after our victory at JFK eight.
Speaker 1: Our leads should be extremely proud to have given their
Speaker 1: coworkers a right to join a union. Amazon Lee will
Speaker 1: continue to organize, and so should all of you. He
Speaker 1: goes on to say, nothing changes, we organize. Don't be
Speaker 1: discouraged or sad. So I think I'd love to talk
Speaker 1: to Christian about what he thinks happened here and why
Speaker 1: the outcome was ultimately different. But some of the indications
Speaker 1: we had early was First of all, Chris and Derek
Speaker 1: Palmer they were in the other warehouse, so their deeper
Speaker 1: relationships were likely in that warehouse. So that just makes
Speaker 1: sense in and of itself. The second piece is that
Speaker 1: this is a facility with a lot of part time workers,
Speaker 1: and that's just a very different and much more difficult challenge, frankly,
Speaker 1: in terms of organizing. And then the third factor I
Speaker 1: think is that you know Amazon did I think they
Speaker 1: probably underestimated Chris like many people did going into the
Speaker 1: first union election. They would not make that mistake again.
Speaker 1: They stepped up their union busting efforts. Something we shared
Speaker 1: with you yesterday which just indicative of the kind of
Speaker 1: games that they play. Go ahead and put this sweet
Speaker 1: up on the screen, is that the day after the
Speaker 1: union election, Oh, this says the lawyer for Amazon, Labor
Speaker 1: is planning on challenging I wouldn't expect it to change
Speaker 1: the resolutely election, but then again you had Bessemer's overturn
Speaker 1: and a redo, so you just never know. So we'll
Speaker 1: put that in there. Put the next one up on
Speaker 1: the screen, though, which is that Amazon will wait until
Speaker 1: the day after the election to announce that they're not
Speaker 1: going to give pay workers who are outsick with COVID
Speaker 1: or even in form workers when someone at their warehouse
Speaker 1: tests positive for COVID. This comes down after the voting
Speaker 1: already happened, so just indicative of the type of games
Speaker 1: that they ultimately play here. What I would say is
Speaker 1: just a reminder if you are a union supporter, as
Speaker 1: I am, that with Starbucks early on, first of all,
Speaker 1: the votes were much closer. They suffered a couple of
Speaker 1: early defeats before going on to a nationwide wave. The
Speaker 1: deck is still stacked, and you know, the game is
Speaker 1: still rigged in a lot of ways. When it comes
Speaker 1: to union elections, there will be setbacks, but this in
Speaker 1: no way like changes the direction and the energy and
Speaker 1: the historic nature of what Chris Mall's and his workers'
Speaker 1: allies there have already accomplished on stat Nyland. Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: it's it's very extraordinary, obviously, but you know, this just
Speaker 1: was frankly a pretty expected outcome. That's basically what we said.
Speaker 1: It's of course the COVID news there from Amazon is
Speaker 1: absolutely hilarious. Luckily, we do have some footage from Jordan
Speaker 1: Sheridan when he was there at the time ahead of
Speaker 1: the organizing just want to give you guys, you know,
Speaker 1: exclusive look always at some of the footage that we have.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen by the whole world seeing what
Speaker 1: we're doing. They will be inspired by the efforts that
Speaker 1: we're putting in that will make them on the unionize
Speaker 1: across the globe anywhere, any Amazon facility from different states,
Speaker 1: or any working place around the world, knowing that this
Speaker 1: is the time, this is the generation where you could
Speaker 1: have your your voice could be heard. Back in the days,
Speaker 1: it wasn't like that as as years of you know,
Speaker 1: other people fighting for the struggle, fighting to unionize make
Speaker 1: a working, working class world for employees a better place.
Speaker 1: So this is the time they could see this moment
Speaker 1: and it is very important, it's very significant. So we
Speaker 1: just got the news that the boat came in. Just
Speaker 1: tell me how you feelerate Yeah, I feel, you know,
Speaker 1: I feel the weight of the loss for the organizers
Speaker 1: who have risked their jobs, who have risked their livelihoods,
Speaker 1: right for their families, and so much sometimes arrest even
Speaker 1: to to work so hard to organize this warehouse. And
Speaker 1: I also am not entirely surprised because you know, if
Speaker 1: you remember Starbucks unionization efforts. They lost their second vote too.
Speaker 1: I think that that happens a lot of times because
Speaker 1: after that first victory, they really clamped down right and
Speaker 1: the union busting escalated. It's a smaller warehouse, so they
Speaker 1: were able to more effectively target the workers and promote
Speaker 1: you know, misinformation and negative narratives about the organizers themselves.
Speaker 1: And I think that that's what's the saddest is that
Speaker 1: they've tried to weaponize, you know, the the just the
Speaker 1: normal human vanity of the other organizers to say, oh,
Speaker 1: these people aren't perfect, and therefore you shouldn't support them.
Speaker 1: So I think everyone's feeling it. But what I know
Speaker 1: about these workers is that they've taken l's before and
Speaker 1: they just keep fighting. So that was from Jordan's cameraman
Speaker 1: who was there on the ground as the decision was
Speaker 1: ultimately coming down. And listen, I think the big question
Speaker 1: is what happens now? So do we see is this
Speaker 1: like kind of you know, one and done, it's an
Speaker 1: ally or that's what the Amazon corporate folks are definitely hoping,
Speaker 1: or is it like Starbucks where this got the ball rolling?
Speaker 1: And now Christian has already told us that hundreds of
Speaker 1: workers from hundreds over one hundred different facilities across the
Speaker 1: country have reached out to him about organizing. Now, do
Speaker 1: you have that Starbucks esque wildfire like spread? And ultimately
Speaker 1: only time will tell. We'll see, Crystal. What are you
Speaker 1: taking a look at? In the face of disappointing news
Speaker 1: about Amazon workers rejecting a unionization at a Staten Island
Speaker 1: sorting facility, Washington Post has some potentially significant news which
Speaker 1: shows that setbacks or not, the new emboldened labor movement
Speaker 1: is taking America by storm. Take a look at this. So,
Speaker 1: according to our friend Jeff Stein and also Greg Jaffy,
Speaker 1: Biden is considering inviting Starbucks and Amazon workers at the
Speaker 1: forefront of these new union efforts to the White House
Speaker 1: for a visit. Now, this would represent a significant, albeit
Speaker 1: symbolic step forward for an administration that has gone out
Speaker 1: of their way to signal neutrality on union fights. You
Speaker 1: might recall just recently, Biden seemed to side with Amazon
Speaker 1: workers during the speech before Jen Saki immediately walked it
Speaker 1: back from the podium. As a side note, Saki is
Speaker 1: a former employee of the heavy hitting Democratic Party consulting
Speaker 1: firm that was caught helping Amazon with their union busting efforts,
Speaker 1: but I digress a White House visit would also put
Speaker 1: a new face on the labor movement, helping to elevate
Speaker 1: the young leaders we've been talking about in interviewing here
Speaker 1: on our show, people like, of course, Christian Smalls, Angelica Muldonado,
Speaker 1: and Derek Palmer from Amazon, and people like the Rhodes
Speaker 1: scholar turned Starbucks revolutionary Jazz Brysack. Now, Jazz was at
Speaker 1: the forefront of the Starbucks union effort, helping to organize
Speaker 1: the very first unionized Starbucks. That's the Elmwood location in Buffalo,
Speaker 1: And she doesn't exactly look like the stereotypical burly hard
Speaker 1: hat wearing emblem of the union movement. Jazz was actually
Speaker 1: homeschooled in Tennessee and inspired by the words of stored
Speaker 1: socialist Eugene Debs, who proclaimed that while there is a
Speaker 1: lower class, I am in it, and while there is
Speaker 1: a criminal element, I am of it, and while there
Speaker 1: is a sole in prison, I am not free. This
Speaker 1: led Jazz to extensive study of the labor movement, a
Speaker 1: full scholarship to University of Mississippi, and ultimately a Rhodes scholarship.
Speaker 1: The first woman from the University of Mississippi to ever
Speaker 1: receive one. So when she landed at the Elmhurst Starbucks
Speaker 1: in Buffalo, she was ready. But what she could not
Speaker 1: have known was that so many others would be willing.
Speaker 1: Jazz Is Union organizing along with her, coworkers lit a fuse,
Speaker 1: uniquely meeting the moment and speaking to the shared frustrations
Speaker 1: of millions of workers across the country. In fact, that
Speaker 1: first Elmhurst victory sparked a nationwide landslide. As we speak,
Speaker 1: the nascent Starbucks Workers United movement has do feed it
Speaker 1: the multi billion dollar multinational Starbucks and their illegal union
Speaker 1: busting tactics in forty four out of forty seven elections,
Speaker 1: I think that's the final count, but they keep racking
Speaker 1: up wins. Many of those victories were unanimous or they
Speaker 1: were nearly unanimous. Thirteen New stores voted yes in just
Speaker 1: the last week alone. And by the way, they're just
Speaker 1: getting started here. Well over two hundred Starbucks around the
Speaker 1: nation have union votes scheduled. They are notching victories everywhere,
Speaker 1: from starbucks hometown of Seattle to read right to work states,
Speaker 1: places like New Wins in Augusta, Georgia, and Boone North Carolina.
Speaker 1: Now might seem surprising that a highly educated scholar would
Speaker 1: help lead a working class revolution, but the truth is
Speaker 1: it's really only too appropriate. Today, fifty seven percent of
Speaker 1: gen Z will go to college, but despite the hollow
Speaker 1: promises of college as a glide pass to middle class stability,
Speaker 1: many young college grads are forced into entry level service
Speaker 1: sector or blue collar jobs at places like Amazon and
Speaker 1: places like Starbucks. Somewhere around forty percent of college gods
Speaker 1: are under employed. That means working in jobs that do
Speaker 1: not require that four year degree. And that's of course
Speaker 1: to say nothing of those who went to community college
Speaker 1: or who started college but didn't finish a four year degree.
Speaker 1: In fact, Starbucks stands out in the food service industry
Speaker 1: for having a workforce that is comparatively more highly educated
Speaker 1: than other large food service change and Starbucks workers are also,
Speaker 1: on average younger than other food service change I don't
Speaker 1: think it's an accident that these younger, more educated workers
Speaker 1: would be at the vanguard of the new labor movement.
Speaker 1: The younger you are, the more likely you are to
Speaker 1: support Bernie Sanders and also to support labor unions as
Speaker 1: a whole, and the more educated you are, the more
Speaker 1: likely you are to feel like even if you get
Speaker 1: fired for union organizing, you're probably going to be able
Speaker 1: to land on your feet with another gig. In other words,
Speaker 1: looking at the reality of today's working class, Jazz is
Speaker 1: not an outlier. Even her socialist politics are not fringe
Speaker 1: for her generation. Get comfortable with liberal arts grads who
Speaker 1: put their pronouns in their bios as the new face
Speaker 1: of the American working class. It makes sense, doesn't it.
Speaker 1: I can certainly imagine how checking all the boxes of
Speaker 1: taking on the debt, going to the four year college,
Speaker 1: getting your degree like they told you to, only to
Speaker 1: find yourself taking orders from your friend's parents at Starbucks
Speaker 1: has got to be a bit of a radicalizing experience.
Speaker 1: And when we spoke to Professor Richard Wolf yesterday, he
Speaker 1: explained exactly what that radicalization looks like. What you're seeing
Speaker 1: is a whole generation that has absorbed these hits. There's
Speaker 1: not a word to say it hits to the working class,
Speaker 1: the middle class of his country. They're seeing it in
Speaker 1: their parents, They're seeing it in their strange school finances.
Speaker 1: They're seeing it in the quality of the jobs their
Speaker 1: seniors graduating seniors for the last two or three years
Speaker 1: have been able to get the number of them that
Speaker 1: are looking forward to being a barista in a coffee shop,
Speaker 1: or driving an uber car, or whatever it is they
Speaker 1: end up doing that. They're living out the constriction of
Speaker 1: the American dream. It's being pulled away from them, and
Speaker 1: it's very painful for them to see the implicit promises
Speaker 1: made to them by the school, by their parents, by
Speaker 1: the society, a a whole shrinking out of view, out
Speaker 1: of their grasp. They are upset, and they're beginning to
Speaker 1: think through that maybe mobilization in a labor movement is
Speaker 1: some kind of way forward when there looked to be
Speaker 1: no other ways. And for those of us who have
Speaker 1: studied the unionization drive of the nineteen thirties, that's what
Speaker 1: happened then. The Great Depression had to be in place
Speaker 1: from nineteen twenty nine to nineteen thirty two before people
Speaker 1: began to realize, oh goodness, we better join the union.
Speaker 1: That may make this bad time a little less bad
Speaker 1: than it would otherwise have been. Something like that is
Speaker 1: underway now. Now. That's not to take anything away from
Speaker 1: the non college workers who are courageously pushing forward this
Speaker 1: new union movement. Their leadership has been extraordinary and entails
Speaker 1: a much greater risk, frankly, since they don't have the
Speaker 1: benefit of that credentialed stamp of approval to fall back on.
Speaker 1: But college guards have seen firsthand that the past of
Speaker 1: the American dream, laid out by the politicians and by
Speaker 1: their Wall Street allies, it was a lie. Now they
Speaker 1: know without a doubt, well, they've got no choice but
Speaker 1: to take matters into their own hands. The college grad,
Speaker 1: Rhodes scholar barista is as good an emblem as any
Speaker 1: of the failures of the dominant economic movement of the
Speaker 1: last forty years, and the political consciousness raising doesn't stop
Speaker 1: with these young workers either. Part of why these labor
Speaker 1: movement sparks do feel different is because they're hitting iconic
Speaker 1: brands patronized by the upper middle class. How can you
Speaker 1: can certainly imagine how middle class parents might change their
Speaker 1: minds about unions when it's their favorite coffee shop brand
Speaker 1: being organized and their kid with the college degree who
Speaker 1: has the barista job. So, while yes, it'd be far
Speaker 1: more impactful for Biden to keep his campaign promise and
Speaker 1: actually deny federal government contracts to union busters like Amazon.
Speaker 1: It would be significant and meaningful to elevate these new
Speaker 1: revolutionary labor leaders putting on a pedestal a growing labor
Speaker 1: movement that crosses every divide from race to gender, to
Speaker 1: geography to education status, allowing them to make the case
Speaker 1: directly to him about how he should and could use
Speaker 1: the powers of the government to help them unionize and
Speaker 1: to secure or contracts. And if nothing else, you know,
Speaker 1: you want to see the drip that Christian Smalls brings
Speaker 1: to the White House. Soccer, I really have been thinking
Speaker 1: about the Starbucks thing for a long time, you and
Speaker 1: I And if you want to hear my reaction to
Speaker 1: Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 1: All right, Soccer, what are you looking at? Well? As
Speaker 1: a former White House correspondent, I've never really understood why
Speaker 1: the public glamorized it so much. The truth is it's
Speaker 1: really not a great place to do journalism. You mostly
Speaker 1: follow the president around like a trained monkey. You transcribe
Speaker 1: what he says, and then you try to get officials
Speaker 1: on the inside of the building to leak to you
Speaker 1: if possible. The best thing you can really hope for
Speaker 1: is an interview with the President, which itself is an annoying,
Speaker 1: negotiated process. I think the reason why, although it's synonymous
Speaker 1: with journalism, is just because of television and simply be
Speaker 1: the White House Press briefing. It's where I would, of course,
Speaker 1: often challenge Sarah Sanders or Donald Trump when given the opportunity.
Speaker 1: It's also where a lot of these people make their careers.
Speaker 1: How they ask the questions quite literally determines policy. Because
Speaker 1: the White House is only going to pay attention to
Speaker 1: the stuff that it gets scrutiny for. It's a bad
Speaker 1: systemic problem. The White House is accountable only to journalists
Speaker 1: that it picks. Thus those journalists and what they pick
Speaker 1: becomes even more important. And that is why I read
Speaker 1: a recent road profile on White House correspondence with a
Speaker 1: lot of interest. In the wake of the White House
Speaker 1: Correspondent's Dinner that really gives a game away, Political Magazine
Speaker 1: wrote as if it was a bad thing that there
Speaker 1: was a rise in a fall of a star White
Speaker 1: House correspondent. The star example that they gave, and no,
Speaker 1: I'm not kidding, was Jim Acosta, who used his carnival
Speaker 1: barking fame to score a weekend CNN show that currently
Speaker 1: has less ratings than a day when we don't even
Speaker 1: post clips here on breaking points. But the point was
Speaker 1: made that if you want to be as somebody in media,
Speaker 1: a great way to do it was to appear as
Speaker 1: if you were adversarial to Trump and his administration on television.
Speaker 1: But now with Biden, all of that has been taken away.
Speaker 1: One journalist who was a coward and was speaking anonymously
Speaker 1: told political quote Jensaki is very good at her job,
Speaker 1: which is unfortunate. They add, the work is a lot
Speaker 1: less rewarding because you're no longer saving democracy from Sean
Speaker 1: Spicer and his men's warehouse suit. Jawing with Jen just
Speaker 1: makes you look like an asshole. There it is. It
Speaker 1: was rewarding when the person was on TV. Now it's
Speaker 1: not rewarding because the liberal media boss thinks it looks
Speaker 1: bad to challenge the administration to its face. That in
Speaker 1: a nutshell, is the whole ballgame. By the way, I
Speaker 1: actually support the racous days of the Trump admin for
Speaker 1: everybody because it really was free and open. Now the
Speaker 1: journalists have no actual incentive in order to challenge the administration,
Speaker 1: which means in effect they are accountable to absolutely nobody
Speaker 1: in broader media. I've already explained here the seeing chart
Speaker 1: is rigged by the establishment press. The entire thing is fake.
Speaker 1: Where they privately admit the game is rigged, and ironically enough,
Speaker 1: they actually admit the path to success within that story,
Speaker 1: noting that the only actual star of the White House
Speaker 1: Press briefing room these days is Peter Doucey of Fox News.
Speaker 1: Now Look. Obviously, Fox has an incentive in order to
Speaker 1: challenge President Biden on the Hunter Biden laptop story, migrants,
Speaker 1: or any of the other myriad subjects, but the point
Speaker 1: stands his journalism stands out because he is willing to
Speaker 1: ask about the stuff that nobody else is asking about,
Speaker 1: which then leads to coverage here on our show or
Speaker 1: the wider Internet and contributing to many viral moments. It
Speaker 1: is easy to be a star reporter today for the Internet.
Speaker 1: The problem is that the incentives within the system that
Speaker 1: make it so. Being a star and challenging Biden or
Speaker 1: his paid propagandist would be exactly the way to get
Speaker 1: fired or marginalized in your job in the establishment media structure.
Speaker 1: One element that especially rankled me in a story about
Speaker 1: the White House Correspondence was a supposition that the Biden
Speaker 1: era is boring. Now that is superficially true. He doesn't
Speaker 1: tweet about Mika Brazinski having a bad facelift or Stormy
Speaker 1: Daniels calling her a horse face. But we're literally living
Speaker 1: through some of the craziest political times in modern memory.
Speaker 1: We have crazy inflation, massive gas crisis. We're possibly on
Speaker 1: the precipice of a major economic downturn. We have a
Speaker 1: major political realignment. Roe versus Wade was revealed as possibly
Speaker 1: overturned today, how the different parties are sorting out. Of course,
Speaker 1: we have the Great resignation. We have the end of
Speaker 1: the global pandemic. There is the first European war since
Speaker 1: the end of World War II. All of the stories
Speaker 1: I just listed require nuance, and more importantly, except for abortion,
Speaker 1: they don't really track onto the culture war or the
Speaker 1: everyday drama that Washington runs on. Now. Crystal and I
Speaker 1: built our business on that from the very beginning. We
Speaker 1: do segments far ahead of their time, just to make
Speaker 1: sure we have the research in case something pops, or
Speaker 1: we do it because we just think it's important. The
Speaker 1: most clicked on are viewed on segments are often ones
Speaker 1: that matter superficially for that day, but that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that it's all that you need to know. It's much
Speaker 1: harder to tell those stories, and it requires a funding
Speaker 1: model like ours that relies on subscriptions and direct support
Speaker 1: rather than just filling time in between commercial breaks. And
Speaker 1: by saying the quiet part out loud throughout the article,
Speaker 1: they show us that in reality, there is only one
Speaker 1: way to change this. The whole thing just has to
Speaker 1: be burned to the ground. Cable news as it exists
Speaker 1: and as it always will exist, is not supported to
Speaker 1: deliver you good journalism. The structure itself is poison. And
Speaker 1: in the current rigged system where the cable news companies
Speaker 1: get the preferential seats in the White House briefing room
Speaker 1: and command immense attention by the White House, there's no
Speaker 1: matter how much they shrink in size, when they still
Speaker 1: command an incredible amount of attention from the politicos that
Speaker 1: set the agenda. The entire thing has just got to go,
Speaker 1: and it's going to take a hell of a lot
Speaker 1: of money and effort and time. Look, of course, we
Speaker 1: are trying to do some of it here, but we
Speaker 1: cannot do that alone. Just like cable news, an entire
Speaker 1: new ecosystem needs to rise up from the ashes and
Speaker 1: make it so. The only way for people who want
Speaker 1: attention is to get it is to align with their
Speaker 1: ability to get attention while actually pressuring the White House
Speaker 1: its supply and its demand. And the current supply side
Speaker 1: system only rewards rewards sycophancy and irrelevancy. A new one
Speaker 1: can reward better topics. To give you a perfect example,
Speaker 1: YouTube just rolled out a new feature where you can
Speaker 1: see some of the top topics that your audience is
Speaker 1: searching for in the aggregate. Some of the expected stuff
Speaker 1: is there for our channel, like Elon Musk. But guess
Speaker 1: what number one for the show the housing market. We've
Speaker 1: tried our best to cover it, but really think about that.
Speaker 1: The conditions of your life are not reflected in the press,
Speaker 1: and thus they are ignored by the leaders. When is
Speaker 1: the last time you even heard a question about that
Speaker 1: in the briefing room? And until you do, we are
Speaker 1: going to see even more of a disconnect. My only
Speaker 1: faith is that things this fake can only go so
Speaker 1: long before they break. I think the housing one is
Speaker 1: perfect sample. I mean, look at that number one and
Speaker 1: if you want to hear my reaction to Cyber's monologue,
Speaker 1: become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints dot com. Joining us.
Speaker 1: Now we have Jordan Chariton, our partner over at Status ku,
Speaker 1: who is on the ground in Ohio tracking the most
Speaker 1: significant primaries there very closely. Jordan, great to see you, Hey,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me. First of all, let me give
Speaker 1: a shout out to the work you guys do, which
Speaker 1: has been truly invaluable to us already tracking the Amazon
Speaker 1: elected being on the ground in Ohio, So thank you
Speaker 1: for that. And guys, if you were able to support
Speaker 1: what Status qu does, make sure you go and check
Speaker 1: them out. Okay, that out of the way. So we
Speaker 1: already gave a little bit of a preview both of
Speaker 1: the Ohio primary and of the Nina Turner versus Chantel Brown.
Speaker 1: But just talk to us a little bit, Jordan, about
Speaker 1: what the early vote numbers look like, how things are
Speaker 1: shaking out, and whether there are any sort of tea
Speaker 1: leaves you can read about what is happening there for
Speaker 1: Nina Turner to start with. Yeah, so the early vote
Speaker 1: overall numbers are low. Turnout in primaries traditionally has been
Speaker 1: pretty low but they're also low in the areas that
Speaker 1: Chantel Brown really crushed Nina Turner in August, specifically an
Speaker 1: area Beechwood, which is, you know, a wealthier suburb, has
Speaker 1: a strong Jewish population. Overall there, the early vote was
Speaker 1: not good for Chantel Brown, which might explain why she
Speaker 1: brought in the cavalry this weekend, including Jim Clyburn, Hokiem
Speaker 1: Jeffries and others. Each Wood, for Chantel Brown numbers were low. Lakewood,
Speaker 1: which is new to the district. Bernie Sanders actually one
Speaker 1: Lakewood in twenty sixteen. Twenty twenty, the initial early vote
Speaker 1: numbers were not smashing or anything, but about eight hundred
Speaker 1: early in person votes. So that area, which presumably would
Speaker 1: be favorable to Nina, was better than the Chantal Brown stronghold.
Speaker 1: And it's raining here today, so that obviously adds something.
Speaker 1: There's already been issues with polling places and ballots not scanning,
Speaker 1: so I think it's going to be a close race.
Speaker 1: But as of now, in the early voting, this Chantal
Speaker 1: Brown stronghold was not doing so well. Got it, Jordan,
Speaker 1: You've been on the ground. You captured a pretty interesting
Speaker 1: moment there with Nina. Do you want to set it
Speaker 1: up for the audience where she runs into her former student. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so trying to interview Nita Turner in the street is
Speaker 1: impossible because everybody and their mother stops her, cars honking
Speaker 1: and people on the streets. But she actually was approached
Speaker 1: by former student. She was a professor here at the
Speaker 1: local Cuyahoga County College, and they embraced and the student
Speaker 1: told her how much he meant to her, including her
Speaker 1: being like a mother to him. All right, let's take
Speaker 1: a look at that. Oh my god, come over here. Okay,
Speaker 1: I had to say, this is my former Okay, oh
Speaker 1: my god. I'm good. I'm good, I'm blessed. I'm hanging
Speaker 1: in there. I'm surviving. You help me so much in
Speaker 1: my life. Thank you so much. You make me start
Speaker 1: crying because I remember you were going through a whole lot.
Speaker 1: I thought about you all the time. You always like
Speaker 1: a mother to me. Honestly, thank you. As I finished
Speaker 1: the police Academy work prime security right there, So I'm
Speaker 1: hanging in there now, I'm so probably I got it.
Speaker 1: You were one of those olds that I always afraid
Speaker 1: has got you because they have so much potential. You
Speaker 1: are realiant and that's why if that's so challenging, but
Speaker 1: you've come a long way. This is my dad. Pretty
Speaker 1: extraordinary moment there. I think it just reflects the fact
Speaker 1: that you know, Nina has outside of her national profile,
Speaker 1: which of course we all know about, she has very roots,
Speaker 1: very deep roots in this specific community, not only as
Speaker 1: a community member and as a teacher and professor, also
Speaker 1: as a former state senator. So you know, that's why
Speaker 1: she's always been sort of on strong grounding there. Even
Speaker 1: to whether some of the attacks that she's facing over
Speaker 1: the airwaves, yeah, absolutely. And you know I've covered a
Speaker 1: lot of politicians and most them were full of shit.
Speaker 1: Those were real tears a Nina Turner with Sheddick, and
Speaker 1: you could tell she's a genuine person. And it kind
Speaker 1: of goes back to Bernie. You know, the more people
Speaker 1: met Bernie during those two elections, the more they liked him.
Speaker 1: And I think the same thing is true for Nina,
Speaker 1: where Chantel Brown is more you know, scripted talking points.
Speaker 1: But it was really a powerful moment. It may be
Speaker 1: impossible to say, but obviously, you know we've been talking
Speaker 1: all morning about the leak draft of a Supreme Court
Speaker 1: decision that would overturn Roe versus Wade. Do you have
Speaker 1: any sense of whether that could play into this particular
Speaker 1: primary given the news just broke, do you think that
Speaker 1: that changes you know, does it make people more animated,
Speaker 1: does it increase turnound? Do you have any sense of
Speaker 1: how that might play. I think the voters that Chantau
Speaker 1: Brown would rely on, which are kind of the normy Democrats,
Speaker 1: a lot of older black women, if I'm being honest,
Speaker 1: I think they were coming out anyway. So I doubt that.
Speaker 1: I don't really have a good feel for the wider
Speaker 1: district because it just happened last night. But my guess
Speaker 1: is the voters that Chantal Brown already needed to come out, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, are more galvanized by that anyway, but they
Speaker 1: were coming out anyway. As far as Nina Turner, I
Speaker 1: think her voters were coming out either way also. Yeah. Interesting.
Speaker 1: At the same time, Jordan, you interviewed a couple of
Speaker 1: Republicans coming out of a JD Vance rally. Just set
Speaker 1: that up for the audience. Described to us like what
Speaker 1: you wanted to ask them about their reactions all of that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So JD Vance held an event with Josh Holly, Charlie Kirk,
Speaker 1: a lot of you know, the best hits for the
Speaker 1: conservatives and every state's and open border and all that stuff.
Speaker 1: So I kind of just wanted to hear from them
Speaker 1: why they supported JD. Vance, if they if they were undecided,
Speaker 1: because Cleveland actually is where Josh Mandel is from, so
Speaker 1: there's a lot of support, a lot of support here,
Speaker 1: and you know a lot of them several of them
Speaker 1: actually said that they liked that he JD. Vance had,
Speaker 1: you know, come come to see the light, that he
Speaker 1: reversed on Trump and that was pro Trump, like that
Speaker 1: was that was a plus that he you know, could
Speaker 1: admit when he was wrong. Others, you know, basically we're
Speaker 1: very concerned about immigration, one woman going as far to
Speaker 1: say she doesn't want them in her neighborhood. But overall
Speaker 1: one undecided, and you know two or three others that
Speaker 1: were sold on JD events, including because of his book
Speaker 1: and you know, behavioral health work. Why you described it right,
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to that. What's your dame? My
Speaker 1: name is Brian. Brian, tell me have you decided if
Speaker 1: you're voting for j D And tell us a little
Speaker 1: bit about why I haven't decided yet. I came out
Speaker 1: because I'm local. I've seen quite a bit of him
Speaker 1: on Fox News, and I agree with a lot of
Speaker 1: things that he says. I still, like I said, I'm
Speaker 1: still undecided, but you making my mind up pretty soon. Now,
Speaker 1: are you a supporter of the former President Trump? Because
Speaker 1: obviously j D years ago was critic of Trump, but
Speaker 1: now is kind of reverse course and supports the president. Well,
Speaker 1: I can understand that people are most accepting if you
Speaker 1: admit that you were wrong, if you fess up and hey,
Speaker 1: you made a mistake. People can make mistakes. But I
Speaker 1: think he's a tone for that, and he's come clean.
Speaker 1: That's okay. And do you agree some of the things
Speaker 1: JD Josh Mandel have said in regards to the economic problems,
Speaker 1: you know, manufacturing things like that leaving Ohio has to
Speaker 1: do with immigration and things like that. What do you
Speaker 1: attribute Ohio's economic issues to. I don't think it's as
Speaker 1: much immigration as it is politicians who are making money
Speaker 1: at the back door with China. If you ever noticed
Speaker 1: that if a politician is not already wealthy when he
Speaker 1: comes into office, be sure as hell leave office wealthy.
Speaker 1: Why is that? Why is it that someone would spend
Speaker 1: seven figures of his own money on a campaign for
Speaker 1: a jump to make six figures something to think about.
Speaker 1: So tell me what convince you to support JD. Event
Speaker 1: well convinced us. I like his policies, what he represents,
Speaker 1: and things like that, So I just hopefully you never
Speaker 1: know what politicians, but hopefully he promises what he delivers
Speaker 1: like Trump did. He may not like Trump, but at
Speaker 1: least he promised what he delivered. So what do you
Speaker 1: think about that? Because he get he gets criticized that
Speaker 1: he reversed course on Trump criticized him a twenty sixth diesibility.
Speaker 1: But like I said, I know a lot of people
Speaker 1: that didn't like Trump personally, but like I tell him,
Speaker 1: he did what he said he was going to do.
Speaker 1: He may not like his tweets and all that, but
Speaker 1: at least he did what he said he was gonna do.
Speaker 1: He's gonna build a wall, he was gonna do a
Speaker 1: lot of other things. And I appreciate that. That's what
Speaker 1: I want out of a politician represents us and not
Speaker 1: himself or Washington, DC. Who do you blame that the
Speaker 1: wall hasn't been completely built yet? Totally Biden's administration all
Speaker 1: a bunch of him and the other guy that's his
Speaker 1: Homeland secretary. It's been on TV the last couple of days,
Speaker 1: but he's been He's been pretty pretty awful for our
Speaker 1: country in every way every way. On Jay D you
Speaker 1: mentioned policies. What are some of the key policies you
Speaker 1: support that he supports. I like the fact that he
Speaker 1: represents pro life that's a big deal for us as Christians,
Speaker 1: and a lot of other issues. I'd have to go
Speaker 1: through them, but when I compare them, it's it's Josh
Speaker 1: Mandel or him. I think you do just such an
Speaker 1: excellent job of just asking the questions. That's all, you know,
Speaker 1: we wanted. So we're really happy in order to partner
Speaker 1: with you, and it's just so you know, valuable to
Speaker 1: us as a show in order to have that on
Speaker 1: the ground experience, it just means a lot. Yeah. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: And Jordan, last question to you on the Nina Chantal race.
Speaker 1: You were in the district last time around as well
Speaker 1: on the ground when Nina went on to lose by
Speaker 1: five points. This is just a you know, what are
Speaker 1: your spidery senses telling you about who's got lawn signs out,
Speaker 1: who's got energy? On the ground. What are the campaign's approaches.
Speaker 1: Do you have any sort of comparison between this time
Speaker 1: around versus last time around? Number one five to eight
Speaker 1: thousand Republicans voted for Chantel Brown in August, and she
Speaker 1: only won by over four thousand votes. Republicans are voting
Speaker 1: in their primary today. It feels like a brand new race.
Speaker 1: To me. The energy on the ground seems to be
Speaker 1: with Nina Chantel Brown's campaign, aside from unions, does not
Speaker 1: have a ground game. Labor unions are not going to
Speaker 1: ondoors for her, but that's about it. Nina Turner's campaign
Speaker 1: has been out since February. That seems they have a
Speaker 1: much improved ground game this time. They're also targeting not
Speaker 1: a big percentage, but the Muslim community here, the Latino
Speaker 1: community here. So I think it's going to be a
Speaker 1: close race. But I think Nina Turner's ground game is
Speaker 1: a lot better and more organized from what I've seen.
Speaker 1: And in terms of signs, I mostly see Nina Turner
Speaker 1: signs like on the grass in front of homes, so
Speaker 1: she's sean tel Brown signs over like highway overpasses or
Speaker 1: on public land. I haven't seen this many in homes
Speaker 1: and yes or no question. You think AOC's twelve hours
Speaker 1: before election voting starts endorsement makes a look of difference
Speaker 1: in this race. Not a link? Yeah there we are
Speaker 1: all right, Jordan, enjoy the day. Keep us updated on Twitter.
Speaker 1: Will be guys again. If you support what Jordan's doing,
Speaker 1: which has been extraordinarily beneficial for us already, make sure
Speaker 1: you help them out at status kup. We'll have the
Speaker 1: links in the description. Jordan, thanks so much. We're so grateful. Thanks. Jordan,
Speaker 1: really appreciate it. Man. Thanks, thanks guys, sir, thank you
Speaker 1: guys so much for watching. We really appreciate it. We
Speaker 1: really just appreciate your support at this time. You scrap
Speaker 1: the entire show late last night, had both that to
Speaker 1: stay up past bad time. It's okay, though, we all
Speaker 1: know that this is what this is what we live for.
Speaker 1: This is what we do. Make sure that we, you know,
Speaker 1: up late, wake up early in order to give you
Speaker 1: guys the news and also have on the ground stuff
Speaker 1: like from Jordan Sheridan. That's what your support enables from
Speaker 1: us to be able to give you the best product possible,
Speaker 1: remain nimble. All of that you had to you know,
Speaker 1: look it costs money to describe graphics, et cetera. So
Speaker 1: the better the more support you give us, the better
Speaker 1: of a show that we can possibly provide. So thank
Speaker 1: you all so much. We really appreciate it. Yeah, we're
Speaker 1: so grateful, guys. I have to say, Jordan, I think
Speaker 1: kind of proved himself with those Republican interviews logic that's
Speaker 1: right now. He's where people were concerned, and I was like, look,
Speaker 1: the guy does good interviews. I've seen him do Trump
Speaker 1: interviews before, so it was there. It was very interesting.
Speaker 1: You got to be, you know, a real voter, so
Speaker 1: we're heaping on to it, and you know, he asked
Speaker 1: relevant questions, so I think he's I think it's just
Speaker 1: such a benefit to have someone who can go to
Speaker 1: all of these different places and get a real feel
Speaker 1: for what's going on. And it's expensive to do that.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's why, you know, that's why it's it's
Speaker 1: easier to set up a camera and just talk than
Speaker 1: actually be on the ground and interact with voters and
Speaker 1: you know, yeah and travel all over the country. So
Speaker 1: you know, I think Jordan's a perfect example of some
Speaker 1: of the content that you all are helping to enable
Speaker 1: and so we are extraordinarly grateful for all of that.
Speaker 1: Have a wonderful day. We love you, guys. We'll see
Speaker 1: you back here soon. See soon. Six