If Bloomberg is Nominee, Do Dems Stay Home?


Let’s go next to our caller from the two six,
seven area code. Who’s calling today from two six seven uh, David? Yes. Hello. Hi, my name is Greg. I’m calling from
bucks County in Pennsylvania. I’m a big fan of your show. Uh, 11, my friend, a lot of
my friends on the left on are Bernie supporters as I am. And uh, but I’m getting very concerned,
uh, about the idea of a Bloomberg candidacy and I’m concerned that it will depress, um,
it will depress votes and that we will end up with Trump. Again. I understand the arguments
that he’s kind of, he’s a version of Trump, but I also lived in New York for most of my
life and I lived through Bloomberg, the Bloomberg, uh, ownership. And I’m interested in what
you have to say, um, to Bernie supporters and people on the left who are getting, um,
disappointed about the idea of a Bloomberg possibility of Bloomberg candidacy and the
idea that they might not vote. They might sit this out and I’d love to hear what you
say. Let’s say about all that. I think it’s D I actually, I posted to my Twitter
page a few days ago, something like a, I’m getting emails from some Democrats saying,
if Bloomberg’s the nominee, they won’t vote. Where are you guys on this? And I got like
6,000 replies from a lot of Democrats saying I won’t vote if it’s Bloomberg. And I totally
understand that. I mean in Bloomberg, um, you have a guy who represents a lot of different
things. You have a guy who represents a possible sort of bailout for the of possible bailout
for the establishment that may be seeing Joe Biden tank and are unclear about Buddha judge
and Amy Klobuchar doesn’t really have support if Bloomberg’s really polling 15 nationally,
maybe he’s the guy to get behind. But then you have a voter turnout question which you’re
bringing up. And the question is, if Bloomberg is the democratic nominee, given that Bloomberg
was a Republican for so long, given that Bloomberg’s politics on a lot of social issues based on
videos that have come out recently seem to not be particularly enlightened and progressive
to put it lightly, what is it going to do to turn out and how will he fare against Donald
Trump? My answer is I don’t know. And the reason
I say that is I get emails about polling that says, Hey, you know what? In face to face
match-ups, Bloomberg does really well against Trump. And then I get other polling that says,
Hey, you know, what if Bloomberg’s the nominee that we’ll keep the largest number of democratic
voters home. So I understand the idea that Bloomberg as the nominee might depress turnout.
There are so many conflicting data points that I just don’t have an answer about that
right now. And all I can really say is if you support the policies of Bernie instead
of Bloomberg, just go out and support Bernie now and then if there’s a different nominee,
evaluate it and make a decision as to what’s best at that point. Yeah, absolutely. I think it’s incredibly
difficult. There’s not even enough information yet tonight it’s going to be a whole different
spin on this. Um, because of the debates and of course the mentioning media, MSNBC in particular
has been, uh, ridiculous. This is, this is in their anti, uh, in their anti Bernie, uh,
screeds. So, uh, yeah, it’s going to be real. And one last question. Uh, if you had to vote
right now and you had to choose between Trump and Bloomberg, how would you vote? Yeah, I, I would vote for Bloomberg over Trump.
And I know there’s a lot of people saying there’s no difference. It’s just a richer
version of Trump with a lot of the same ideas that the reasons why I would vote for Bloomberg
over Trump are number one, the Supreme court choices Bloomberg would make would not be
as bad as the ones Trump would make. Number two, Bloomberg actually has both sort of diplomatic
and, uh, political experience that Trump lacks, which is the source of a lot of Donald Trump’s
missteps. That would be number two. And then number three, although it would be no great
party if Bloomberg were president, Bloomberg would restore some of the respect from world
leaders that we have lost under Trump, although certainly, certainly not all. So for me, I
wouldn’t be cheering about voting for Bloomberg over Trump, but I would definitely vote Bloomberg
over Trump. Yeah. Thank David. I really appreciate your opinion and I’m a great fan of the show. Thanks so much.

Tulsi Gabbard Sort of Right About Something


I want to talk about an interesting issue
with everybody today. Should Democrats have Republicans in their administration. Today I’m going to tell you about what two
democratic candidates said about this tool. See Gabbert and Joe Biden and then I’m going
to talk about the concept of Republicans and democratic administrations, whether there’s
virtue in in some abstract sense in bipartisanship. And lastly, I’ll tell you why. This is actually a pretty meaningless promise
to even be making, so let’s get right into it. You all know I am not a supporter of tool. See Gabard, she is a soon to be former Congresswoman
from Hawaii who has missed the majority of her house votes recently. Uh, I am a, uh, supporting other people in
the democratic primary, not her, but she was asked would you have Republicans and independence
in your hypothetical administration? And she initially said, not only is she open
to it, she would commit to it. Let’s check it out. You talked so much about reaching across the
aisle. Yes, you can commit to Republicans or independent
into a gabardine administration. I would make that commitment. The first and foremost a qualification for
those that I would select for a service in my cabinet and in my administration would
be those who are committed to putting service to the our country and the American people
first. We should not be afraid of diversity of ideas
and, and take inspiration from the team of rivals that Abraham Lincoln to cha, uh, chose
to surround himself with, um, and, and draw strength from that and being able to deliver
that service and results to the American people rising above partisan interests. And again, putting service to the people above
everything else. She is willing to make a commitment to having
Republicans in her administration. Now, of course, this is always an easier commitment
to make when you have absolutely no shot at having an administration in which you would
decide about having Republicans or Democrats. But let’s take her at her word, except she
was asked to confirm. Oh, so you’re committing to Republicans in
your administration. She immediately backtracks and says, well,
I’m committing not to require that everybody be a Democrat, which is a very different thing
to commit to. Then having Republicans. This is the second part of the clip, which
a lot of people have not seen. So just to clarify that right now, if you’re
president of the United States, there will be, I will commit to making sure that there
is no partisan, um, requirement for those who I choose to serve in my administration. Instead, looking at that most important qualification,
are you someone who is committed to serving the people of this country, uh, not serving
for your own personal profit or benefit or anything else and that you’ve got the experience
to be able to, um, to be able to do the job? Okay, so before we even go further, notice
that she Insta flips. She first says, I, yes, Republicans, I would
commit to that. And then she’s asked, so are you, you’re committing
to Republicans and your administration? And she says, well, I’m committing not to
require everybody be a Democrat. Okay, cool tool. So a good one. Now before we go further, remember that Joe
Biden said he would be open to a Republican running mate, but he can’t think of one specifically
that he’d be interested in right now. And he was crushed by some Democrats. Remember this clip? Why wonder if Joe Biden would consider choosing a Republican as a running mate? The answer is I would, but I can’t think of
one now. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Look, no, I’m serious. No. Here’s what I mean. Let me find out. Know other, some really decent Republicans
that are out there still. Now let’s think about this more theoretically
and then specifically, this is basically the right answer in principle, right? I’m open to anyone who is the right person
regardless of party. If you’re asking me, are there any Republicans
today in 2020 that I can think of as running mates? I can’t think of one that’s actually the right
answer, but let’s take it a step further. There’s nothing inherently good about bipartisan
bipartisanship. We wouldn’t say, imagine that one party is
made up of all white supremacists. We wouldn’t say, well, I want people from
all parties in my administration, including the white supremacist party. Nobody would expect that. Now, I’m not saying the Republican party is
all made up of white supremacists, but the point I’m trying to make is there’s not any
inherent virtue in saying we will have people from all parties or from all political perspectives
in my administration, there are bad parties, there are bad political perspectives. So the first thing I think is important to
understand is that on the left we have to be consistent. Okay? If we like the idea of tool seeping open to
Republicans and the administration, it should be the same for Joe Biden. Joe is being upfront. He says, I’m open to it, but I can’t think
of anybody. I get it. There’s a difference between a Republican
vice president and a Republican somewhere else in an administration. But if we liked the idea of democratic candidates
being open to Republicans and administrations, then we’ve got to be okay with it no matter
who says it. But I don’t actually care about that. So specifically the idea of should Democrats
have Republicans in their administration? In theory, it’s not controversial. We should have the group of people to advance
a progressive agenda in total. If that includes strategically selecting some
Republicans to put in some particular positions, then why not? We should not ideologically rule out Republicans
with a partisan test. But the reality is that number one, for the
most part, it’s not going to be Republicans that help us achieve a progressive agenda. So again, there’s no particular virtue in
saying, sure, I’ll have Republicans, but let me kind of give you the cheat sheet real quick. This entire question is a meaningless political
game. I’ll explain to you why Tulsi didn’t say cabinet. She said, administration, and then she said,
well, I’m not saying I would have Republicans. I’m saying I wouldn’t require, everybody has
to be a Democrat. Joe Biden said, sure, I’d have a Republican
vice president except I can’t actually think of one. The number of people in presidential administrations
is gigantic and it’s actually no big deal to put Republicans in some positions, including
the less overtly political ones, and I would go even further. Could I find a tolerable Republican to put
in my administration in a position of some actual power to appease those who find virtue
abstractly in bipartisanship? Sure. If you said to me, you’ve got to find some
prominent Republican and put, put him or her in your administration, I could find a role
for like Utah Senator and former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney. Based on the things he did correctly in Massachusetts,
I could find something for him to do where he wouldn’t really do any damage and I could
say, Hey, I’ve got Republicans in my administration. Would he be the best person for whatever position? Maybe, maybe not. But if the point is to find Republicans to
say, you have Republicans in your administration, okay, I can find something for them to do. The point here is, and the takeaway is this
is a meaningless political game in that it all comes down to what you mean by Republicans
in your administration. I’m fine with what tools he said, even though
she walked it back and it doesn’t even really sound like she meant it. I’m fine with what Joe Biden said as long
as he and I agree that in the 2020 Republican party, I can’t think of any prominent Republican
that would be better as a vice president than someone that we can actually find choosing
from Democrats. So let’s not go nuts with the litmus tests. Let’s not go nuts with the concern trolling
the gasping that Joe Biden is open to a Republican vice president, even though he can’t actually
think of one that Tulsi Gabbert said she would be open to Republicans or her administration. Biden would obviously pick a Democrat for
vice president if he’s the nominee. Tool C has no shot. It’s an interesting theoretical discussion
and that’s that there’s no particular virtue in bipartisanship, but if you’re trying to
check boxes that you have people from all parties, you can do it safely and without
actually putting toxic Republicans in particular in positions where they would have any serious
amount of power or influence over the policy of your administration. That’s all this is.

Bernie Sanders on Iran, health care and Democratic electability


JUDY WOODRUFF: Democratic presidential candidates
have been speaking about Iran as they seek to contrast their foreign policy visions against
that of the current commander in chief. In New York City, former Vice President Joe
Biden said President Trump’s decision to strike out at Qasem Soleimani was dangerously incompetent. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), Presidential Candidate:
So the question is, was the reward of removing a bad actor worth the risk of what comes next?
We don’t have evidence to suggest that Trump or anyone around him thought serious about
— seriously about that calculus. JUDY WOODRUFF: Meanwhile, in an interview
with ABC today, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren expressed again her own doubt that
the president made the right move. SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), Presidential
Candidate: He is part of a group that our federal government has designated as a terrorist.
The question, though, is, what’s the right response? And the response that Donald Trump
has picked is the most incendiary and has moved us right to the edge of war. JUDY WOODRUFF: And joining us now from Burlington
to discuss the Soleimani attack and more, Democratic presidential candidate and independent
Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders. Senator Sanders, thank you very much for being
with us again. Let me ask you first about Iran. You have
criticized President Trump for targeting, the killing of General Soleimani. You called
it an assassination. But if the administration is able to produce
hard evidence that he was going to attack Americans, would you then say this was justified? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), Presidential Candidate:
Well, that’s a hypothesis. We haven’t seen that evidence. Frankly, I doubt that evidence
is there. Judy, I — what is going on right now feels
to me exactly what I saw in 2002 and 2003. And that was the lead-up and the justification
for the war in Iraq. I opposed that war vigorously, and it turned
out to be one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the history of the United States.
A war with Iran would likely be even worse. So, I will do all that I can to make sure
that, in this instance and in other instances, we solve international conflict diplomatically,
and that we try to put an end to endless wars. JUDY WOODRUFF: Senator, you have said that
this was in violation of international law. So, does that mean you believe President Trump
has violated — has committed a war crime? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Look, when you go around
assassinating leadership in governments, you are setting a precedent which says to any
country on Earth, hey, all we got to do is name these people terrorists, call them what
you want, and we can assassinate them. I think the world and this country is sick
and tired of endless wars that have cost us trillions of dollars, while our infrastructure
is collapsing, our health care system is dysfunctional. We have to deal with climate change and invest
heavily in transforming our energy system. Judy, in my view, we do not need to spend
trillions of dollars more in a war. JUDY WOODRUFF: Very quickly, on Iraq, you
have called previously for removing U.S. troops from Iraq. As you know, the Iraqi Parliament has said
U.S. troops should leave. Would you, as president, have U.S. troops pulled out? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Look, I want U.S. troops
out of Iraq. I have wanted that for a long time. But you bring them out in a measured,
intelligent way, working with the Iraqi government and with our international allies. What’s happened here, after the loss of 4,500
American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, trillions of dollars, essentially,
we are being booted out of Iraq. So, do I want to end the war there in Iraq
and bring American troops home? Absolutely. That is what I will do as president. But I don’t — it’s a sad state of affairs
to see, after all of this sacrifice, to see our troops booted out of the country. JUDY WOODRUFF: Senator, a couple of questions
on domestic policy. There are polls now that show most voters
would prepare to build on Obamacare, rather than go to a single-payer system, which is
what you advocate. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, depending on the
poll that you look out. The vast majority of people in the Democratic
primaries absolutely support a Medicare for all, single-payer system, because they understand
that, when we are spending twice as much per capita as the people of any other country,
and yet 87 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured, 500,000 people go bankrupt
because of medically related bills, all at the same time as the health care industry
and the drug companies made $100 billion in profit last year, people understand this system
has got to change. And my own view is that, after 100 years of
talk in this country about the need to guarantee health care for all, now is the time to take
on the greed and corruption of the drug companies and the insurance companies, expand Medicare,
and provide a Medicare for all, single-payer system for all. It will cost the average American substantially
less than what he or she is paying today. That is the direction we have got to go in. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, in connection with that,
Senator, you recently acknowledged that a lot of people would lose jobs in a transition
to Medicare for all. You talked just recently about a program to
provide jobs, to provide job training to people who lose their jobs under the program. Are
you guaranteeing that people who lose their jobs under this new system would have a job? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: We have built in a very
generous transition period. One of the reasons we’re spending twice as
much per person as any other country on health care is, we have enormous administrative waste.
We have all kinds of people in the bureaucracy administering thousands of separate health
insurance plans. We need more doctors, nurses, psychologists,
psychiatrists, counselors. We need people to deal with the crisis of opioid addiction.
We don’t need more people just arguing for — representing the insurance companies, telling
us that we’re not covered, when we thought we were. So we have a very generous transition period.
But, at the end of the day, Medicare for all will create more jobs in health care than
we will lose, because, when you open the doors to health care for all Americans, we’re going
to need more practitioners, more people providing health care, not just filling out forms and
having a massive bureaucracy. JUDY WOODRUFF: Something else, Senator. In recent days, you have been saying you don’t
believe Joe Biden can win this election, because you said he would bring a lot of baggage.
You said you don’t think he would create the kind of excitement and energy that’s needed
to defeat President Trump. Are you saying absolutely he would lose to
President Trump? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: No. No, no, no, no. I’m
not saying that at all. I think that any of — I happen to believe,
it will not shock you, I am sure, that I am the strongest candidate to beat Trump. But
I think other Democrats, including Joe Biden, can do it as well. But here’s my point. To beat Trump, you’re
going to need a massive voter turnout. And the only way you do that is through a campaign
of energy, of excitement. You have got to bring working people. You have got to bring
young people into the political process. The truth is, as I think most people know,
Joe Biden voted for the war in Iraq. Joe voted disastrous trade agreements like NAFTA and
PNTR, which cost us millions of jobs. Joe voted for a bankruptcy bill which really has
hurt working-class families. Joe was on the floor of the Senate talking
about, in his view, the need to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. I don’t think — I think Trump will have a
field day with that. And I just don’t think that the Biden campaign can create the energy
and the excitement we need to defeat the worst president in the modern history of this country. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, I know you believe you
would win the nomination, but, as you said, if you didn’t, are you prepared to support
Mr. Biden? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Absolutely. JUDY WOODRUFF: What about — I want to ask
you about one of the other candidates, though, because you have talked a lot about the billionaire
class. Would you be prepared to support Mike Bloomberg,
if he were the nominee? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I will support — look,
as I have said many time, I think that, in Trump, we have a pathological liar, the leader
of a corrupt administration, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a xenophobe. I am — I will support any Democrat who wins
the nomination. Hopefully, I will be supporting myself. JUDY WOODRUFF: Senator Bernie Sanders, joining
us from Burlington, Vermont, thank you very much. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Thank you.

There Are Signs for Tulsi Gabbard


Let’s go next to our caller from the four
Oh four area code who’s calling today from four zero four. Hi, this is Simon from the Davenport, Iowa
area. Hey, Simon, and what’s going on today? Hi. So a big fan of the show. I’ve been watching for two years now. Thank you. Um, so you may find this interesting. Um, so Tulsi Gabard has some signs up in the,
uh, area. And, uh, you know, I see like she would, she’s
doing the most she can with like the money that she has left. You know what I mean? Like I feel like she’s, she’s like doing like
a last push, like they’re placed in like a certain way where it’s like you might think
that, you know, they’re just placed in that, you know what I mean? I have no idea what you’re talking about. So Telsey has signs and the signs are good
or the signs are not good or what, what are the signs are desperate sign of different
desperation. They do. Yeah. That’s what I’m trying to say. That they seem like they’re signs of desperation. And, um, so that’s the first thing. Second thing is that was a little weird. The second thing is, uh, yeah. Okay. So I’ve been, uh, looking at your, um, commentaries
on, um, uh, Bernie’s chances of passing Medicare for all. Okay. Um, and I see like you’re missing a factor
and that factor being, um, that in the event we have a president Sanders, he is, um, saying
that he’s going to rally the people together. Um, towards the goal of Medicare for all it
maybe get out in the streets. And I feel like that’s really what’s going
to be the, the, the thing that tips it over the edge in the end. So what are your thoughts on that? I feel like you’re missing a factor. I’m not missing it. Um, I am just aware of the reality that in
the United States, um, there is a long history of throwing just enough of a bone to the people
to prevent the serious type of protest, mass rallies in urban centers, strategic, um, absences
from work in order to cripple industry. There’s a history in the United States of
the establishment and the corporate powers that be doing just enough to prevent that
from happening and keeping people, keeping workers in a precarious enough state so that
they lack the wherewithal and resources to do that because they make the calculus of,
well, they threw me a bone and I can’t really afford to do that. So instead I’m just going to go to work. I completely appreciate the idea of Bernie
Sanders. If elected saying, listen everybody, this
is an emergency. We need to pass Medicare for all right now. I think that it is just a miscalculation to
imagine that Bernie doing that is actually going to generate, uh, the type of activism
that will Medicare for all past given the degree to which the corporate powers that
be and the Republican party and insurance companies will activate against it. I’m not dismissing the power of activism. I’m not a do I, I just am, uh, less idealistic
than some others and people can disagree with me and that’s totally fine. Um, but I just don’t see that as likely. I would love to be proven wrong, you know,
to be clear, I’m not saying I would be against that. I think it would be great to actually see
a president say, Hey, everybody, we’ve got to do this thing. The thing is called Medicare for all, and
here’s what you need to do. That would be lovely. I just don’t think it’s going to happen. My prediction may be wrong and I would love
to be wrong. I, it’s not that I’m missing it, I just don’t
have the same interpretation as you of you as you do. Have the likelihood that that will, we’ll
get it. Get it done. Okay. David, thank you very much. Um, yeah, have a good day. All right. You too. Thank you so much.

2020 Campaign is Going to Be UGLY


let’s talk
about the 2020 election and what my approach is going to be because we’re quickly getting
into the 2020 election in earnest and this is going to be, I believe, an uglier election
than we have maybe ever seen in the modern political era. I’ll tell you how and why that’s going to
manifest the, let’s set it up. It’s January 2nd. The first votes in the democratic primary
are coming up in just a month. We have debate number seven for the democratic
candidates in a couple of weeks. Donald Trump is increasingly starting to campaign
for reelection in a serious manner. As serious as he does it. This is going to be an ugly election in ways
that may differ from past ugliness. So think back to the Clinton days, there was
an attempt, um, pretty late in the 20, in the 1992 election to attack bill Clinton by
publicizing a supposedly black loved child that bill Clinton had. If you watch the documentary, the war room,
which is an excellent documentary, you see bill Clinton’s advisers at the time, James
Carville, strategists, advisors, advisors, James Carville and George Stephanopoulos deal
with this possible smear about bill Clinton with a black loved child in real time. And that was very ugly in its own way. Um, in the 20 2008 campaign, the extreme racism
that we saw against Barack Obama. So there has been ugliness. 2016 was very ugly in its own way, but if
you thought that the Hillary has Parkinson’s conspiracy theories were ugly. If you thought Trump making fun of how candidates
look was ugly. If you thought Trump attacking Megan Kelly
about a bloody, you know what was ugly? Just wait until the 2020 election ramps up. There’s a really good piece by a conservative
Jonah Goldberg in the Los Angeles times about this, and even if you don’t agree with Jonah
Goldberg’s politics or his analysis of candidates, which I don’t, he astutely points out that
Donald Trump in 2016 had nothing to lose. He didn’t think he was going to be the nominee. He was already planning on what to do once
he lost the nomination, how to capitalize on maybe coming in a respectable second or
third place. Donald Trump is now the incumbent, and even
if he didn’t want this thing to begin with, he does not want to lose, and he is an impeached
president, which is driving him absolutely up a wall. We’ll talk about that a little bit later. Being president does not at all seem to have
matured. Donald Trump, if anything, he’s more childish
and unhinged than ever. And then you add to this a bunch of different
things add to this that um, he has this fragile cognitive state in which he finds himself
or an emotional imbalance or whatever it is. Something there adds on to the 2016 Trump
that we saw add to this, that in 2016, Donald Trump did not have the right wing media, uh,
supporting him all along. Remember that they eventually came to support
Donald Trump, but early in the 2016, uh, D a Republican primary really even in 2015,
Fox news was not with Donald Trump. A lot of that right wing apparatus that now
basically is with Trump, at least for now, they were not with them in 2016. So he has the benefit of that, which means
he will be able to get away with even more knowing that that right wing media apparatus
is going to defend them. Now that may change. I said it’s possible Fox would abandoned Trump
in 2020. Hypothetically. It doesn’t seem like it’s going to happen
unless that changes. We expect that the support is going to continue. This will further enable Donald Trump. Add to that Donald Trump’s friendship with
tabloid propagandists, David pepper pecker rather, which gives Trump more resources and
wherewithal to publish and push really horrible attacks on whoever is the eventual democratic
nominee. Over my vacation last week, I had the opportunity
to read almost all of Ronan Farrow’s book catch and kill, and that is another recipe
for a campaign that will reach levels of ugly that we have not seen before in his piece. Jonah Goldberg is already citing two early
examples of the type of campaign that this will be saying. Quote, first on Friday night, the president
retweeted and then deleted a post naming the whistleblower in the Ukraine affair. If candidate Trump had done something like
that, criticism from the right would have been deafening. Then on Sunday night at an event in Milford,
New Hampshire, the famously tactile Biden was greeted by a handful of protesters. Don’t touch kids. You pervert. One man who claims not to be a Trump supporter. Shouted a woman started a bar, a brief chat
of quid pro Joe. If you live in a swing state, it is going
to be even extra kooky, crazy ugly in 2020 if you live in a red state, a lot of that
ugliness is probably already infected like a virus. Many of your friends and neighbors and you’re
already in the thick of it and probably have been for the last year or a year and a half. One thing I’m looking at doing for myself,
for my own sanity, and I know that some people have noticed this, I’ve gotten emails from
people saying, David, I’m seeing you sort of pull back on social media. I’m looking at how much more can I pull back
on social media without losing touch with the audience, without losing touch with, you
know, the usefulness of those tools to an end up independent media show like this one
because it’s just too toxic. And I know lots of you have been feeling this
for awhile. Uh, I talked about this with Joe Rogan last
June when I was on his program. Let me know what you think. Let me know what you were planning on doing
when it comes to, it’s not just the ugliness that we’re expecting, but it’s also the even
bigger effect of these algorithmic echo chambers that are created and perpetuated on social
media. I want to hear from you. Leave a reply. If you’re watching on YouTube, send me a tweet
at deep Pacman. Otherwise, and make sure to follow both at
D Pacman and David Pakman show on Twitter. I want to hear from you. We’ll probably follow up tomorrow or early
next week about that.

Caller ATTACKS Because David Hasn’t Endorsed Bernie


Let’s go next to, uh, Oh, you know what? Let’s go to Dante from Florida who often has
interesting takes. We haven’t heard from him for a while. Dante is a Bernie supporter who at one point
flirted with supporting tool C but now he is strongly Bernie. Right. Dante? I think this time I’ve got it right. Okay. Uh, I was never really flirting with splitting
pills. The Gabbert I just always liked what she was
doing with the candidate candidacy and the foreign policy issues that she brought up. So I always try to give her some attention
when it’s, when I get the chance. Alright. But you were never considering supporting
her, you were always Bernie then? Yeah, it was always burning. Gotcha. Okay. What’s going on? Dante? Tell me. That was actually, um, something I wanted
to ask you about because I wanted you to clarify your position about not endorsing a candidate
in the primary cause it didn’t really make sense to me. So if you could explain that, what do you want me to explain your reasoning for why you don’t want to support
a candidate or endorse a candidate or which you think it might lead to? Cause I think from the explanation, if I heard
you, you said you don’t want to add to the, the circular firing squad on the left or something
like that by uh, supporting one candidate over the other. Yeah. Listen, I mean I’m nobody, I’m just a guy
who’s analyzing politics. Everybody who watches my show I think understands
my positions. You know, I’ve seen that there has been an
attempt lately to smear me as saying that Bernie and Warren are the same. It’s like, you know, I’ve been clear they’re
not the same. Bernie comes from a far more left place than
Elizabeth Warren. A lot of their policies today are very similar,
but you know, for example, Elizabeth Warren voted in favor of a, a scaling up funding
for the military. Something that I’m against. Bernie voted against it. Like they’re not the same. I’ve been, I’ve been abundantly clear at this
point. I just like, what do, what do we gain my,
by me coming out and saying, I am endorsing this person over that person when the truth
is I’m going to vote for whoever is the eventual democratic nominee. I’m not going to hide who I vote for in the
primary. I mean I’m just, I’m covering the issues and
the candidates. I just don’t see what advantage there is to
me now coming out and saying I’m all about this candidate over that candidate. I mean listen, like it’s no secret. I’ve made it clear. Bernie is to the left of Elizabeth Warren
and I would vote for either of them and I think it’s imperative that we remove Donald
Trump. Like what? What would an endorsement do it? What would you like? Would it make a difference to you if I endorsed
one person or another? Like you’re supporting Bernie, you know that
that’s fine. It’s not really the endorsement part. It’s more that you have a show and I think
it’s important to be crystal clear about it and leave no room for ambiguity in the audience. That brief hand is clearly better. You just a better candidate. It’s not that he does, he’s good on some issues
and he’s better than it was a bit worn or some issues and she’s pretty good on a day. She’s like, it’s not even close. Bernie Sanders. Well, but, but Dante, you understand that
that’s, that’s your opinion, right? But you, you say you, you host a, uh, program
in your social Democrat, and if you’re a social Democrat, it’s not really close. You say that Bernie Sanders is more far, he’s
more left. So by your estimation, that would mean he’s
better cause you, you’re a social Democrats. So you moved the social democratic ideology
of, uh, like social democratic economic reform and not as interventionist foreign policy
and a progressive tax system if the best way to run the country. And Bernie Sanders is more aligned with you
on those issues. So he’s the best candidate. So I guess that’s the point I’m trying to
make is it’s not that I think you should endorse him because of a boost that I think it would
give to Bernie Sanders. I think it’s just important to be clear that
if you’re someone who wants real, like structural change, fundamental change in, in us politics,
revolutionary like a political revolution, it’s not like you can just, Oh, choose either
one and it’ll be basically the same or be close to the same. It’s very busy. Very big difference, but Dante, let me ask you, let me ask you
a question. This is a thought experiment. Okay, so don’t, don’t go crazy and I don’t
want people in the audience to go crazy. Let’s imagine we all agree without placing
a value judgment on anything. We agree Bernie is to the left of war and
it sounds like you and I are on the same page about that, right? You said it and I’m saying it now. Dante, are you still there? You get it? No, but hold on Dante, but what we’re just
starting, I’m just, I’m laying it out for you. You and I both agree. Bernie is to the left Doug Warren, right? Yeah. Okay. Imagine that we became convinced that even
though Bernie is further to the left of Warren, this is hypothetical, that Warren’s policy
is more likely to become a reality for whatever reason. Right. This is hypothetical. Would it then still be just as clear to you
that that we are better off by putting in someone who is further to the left but less
likely to accomplish things? This is just a hypothetical. This is just me saying just because we identify
who’s further left, that’s not all there is to it. Would you agree that there’s some element
there that we would, we would have to consider about that in the hypothetical, but here in the, in the
real world, in the 2020 primary and we can, we can look at their record and we could look
at what they plan on doing. And Bernie Sanders, even though his policies
could with see more radical, he has a better chance of fascinated because he has a actual
plan doing it. Elizabeth Warren, she has not, uh, really
explain how she wants to get any of these things done because she’s not in favor of,
of primary incorporate Democrats like Bernie Sanders. If he’s not, she’s not going to, uh, bust
up the establishment like Bernie Sanders is. He’s not going to, she’s not going to do a
rallies in Joel Mason state when he votes against Medicare for all, like Bernie Sanders
said he would. So Bernie Sanders is bringing grassroots pressure
so he, his policies are better and he has a better chance of passing it. He has a, okay. But again, Dante, that’s, that’s your, you
seem to be mistaking. So I’m trying to have a conversation with
you about what you first brought up, which is just about, you know, the, the, the idea
of whether I should or shouldn’t be endorsing someone, but now you’re just making it, you’re
saying, well, your opinion is a, B, and C about Bernie, but I’m trying to have a different
conversation with you. You know what I mean? I think we’re talking past each other. No, uh, it’s not that I’m, Chris wasn’t your
opinion, you just brought up the fact that it’s, it might not be crystal clear that,
that Bernie Sanders is the best because she might be able to get her. It’s not about best. All right. Listen. Well, Dante, I think the, the takeaway I got
a lot of people holding, so I’m going to let you go. But the takeaway is you think that morally
I should be making an endorsement on the program. No, it’s not more where we, I think that you
should just be clear with the audience and make sure that there’s no room for interpretation. Elizabeth Warren, she’s not going to challenge
the political establishment. I, I believe that. I’ve been clear with that. So my, if you go back Dante, to my first,
see, this is the problem I have that I am being clear, but there’s a lot of propaganda
misstating my position. So for example, if you go back to the first
clip I did about, it’s called something like, there are serious differences between Elizabeth
Warren and Bernie Sanders. The primary thing that I stayed is that although
they’ve come close on policy in 2019 now 2020 Bernie’s approach is of totally read that
the system is broken and you need to change the system at its core. Whereas Elizabeth Warren comes from the camp
of fixing the things about the system that are broken. In my first clip pointing out the differences
between the two of them, I did exactly what you’re pointing out. I haven’t done, I’m not saying you have an identity, but I’m
saying, well you just said it, Dante, that’s you should be clear in, cause that’s,
it’s not just me. Other people who watch your show come with
the same takeaway. All right, well listen, do you know other
people? All right. Dante, point taken. Let’s make it about, let’s make it about you. I appreciate what you’re saying and don’t
worry. You’re going to know who I vote. Vote for that, I promise you. All right, Dante, thank you very much. Let’s take a quick break. If you are holding, don’t hang up because
we will be going right back to the phones after this.

DEMS: Will You Vote for Biden If He’s the Nominee?


A few interesting. Uh, it’s interesting how the dynamics on the
David Pakman show sub Reddit have sort of been shifting over the last few months. We have more moderators. I think the sub Reddit is now over 16,000,
uh, of our viewers and listeners participating. But the tone and tenor has changed in a lot
of ways and it seems to be getting more pragmatic in some sense. A few interesting posts I found this morning,
uh, at David pakman.com/reddit that I want to point out to you. One is from a user named, Hey, they’re 91
who says, will you vote for Joe Biden if he is the nominee? Um, presumably this is a question for democratic
party voters who may be supporting someone other than Joe Biden in the primary, in their
state. And, uh, I, my instinct and I actually want
to hear from the audience about this, my instinct is that most democratic primary voters understand
that if you fell for the idea in 2016, that if it’s not Bernie, who cares if it’s Hillary
or, or, or, or Trump. That was a disastrous point of view. And now that we see the effect that Donald
Trump has, uh, has had and will have on geopolitical alliances long after he’s out of the white
house, when we see the number of judges, not just to the Supreme court, but importantly
to lower courts, uh, and how Donald Trump will have a multigenerational impact as a
result of that. I hope anybody who thought Hillary or Trump,
it’s sort of the same if it’s not Bernie. I hope you’ve all been dizzy disabused of
that notion over the last few years. I know, I certainly have, I am not going to
be voting for Joe Biden in the democratic primary. I know that Joe Biden recently said he would
consider a Republican as a running mate. That’s bonkers to me at this point in time. Um, but if it’s Biden versus Trump, I’m going
to vote for Biden. The judges that Joe Biden would select would
be a far cry from those that Donald Trump has selected. The way Joe Biden would be respected around
the world, even if it’s not what I would like. It’s not the ideal. It’s night and day compared to Donald Trump. So if Biden is the nominee, I will be supporting
him over Donald Trump. I want to hear from you where, where is your
head? Uh, on this another post, uh, by a user named
posse Comitatus who said, Andrew Yang’s suppose it’s support for Medicare for all has become
more dubious after his more detailed proposal has come out. I read quite a bit about this, um, uh, over
the last 24 hours and I am struggling with Andrew Yang’s position on healthcare. Now, as many of you know, Andrew Yang granted
me, it’s either two or three interviews. He’s been on the program since he’s gotten
bigger and more well known. They’ve just been ignoring our requests for
an interview. I want Andrew Yang to come back on the program. So we could talk about this. I have questions about his healthcare plan. He had said he has used the term Medicare
for all, but also put out a plan that does not describe anything approaching Medicare
for all. I want him back on the program. I would like him back on the program to talk
about his VAT tax and the way that it would, uh, specifically be targeted, targeted so-called
luxury goods, uh, to not be a regressive tax. I have a lot of things I want to talk to him
about. I understand a lot of people want him back
on the show. They are ignoring us and listen, I understand
he’s getting on the Ellen show now. We are small potatoes compared to that. Um, but I think there would be value in him
coming back on and answering these questions. So if you want to respectfully ask him and
his staffers to get them back on the show, he’s welcome. Anytime I have questions about the health
care plan and many other things I would love to discuss with Andrew Yang. Uh, lastly, a user named nug Wrangler posted
to the subreddit debate was David Abata during the elevator incident. So on the bonus show on Monday, I told a story
of something that happened in an elevator at Paris, Charlotte Charles de Gaulle airport
on Sunday when I was flying back from Paris. And this has created a rift in the David Pakman
show community. Was I an alpha Chad VI by virtue of how I
handled the situation or was I a beta? And nug Wrangler says, I contend that David
did not tuck and run a beta would have actually stayed. I argue that David acted like a Chad strutting
through the elevator, the full elevator, all the way from the back whilst being weighed
down by pounds of luggage. I believe my behavior in the Charles de Gaulle
airport elevator, it was alpha. I do. And if this is at all interesting to you,
become a member and then listen to the December 30th bonus show and judge for yourself. Join the discussion is more than 16,000 of
our viewers and listeners already have at the David Pakman show subreddit. Find it at David pakman.com/reddit

Elizabeth Warren Polling Drops Big to End 2019


It is time for our final check of the polls
in 2019 we were away all of last year. This week it’s been close to two weeks since
we looked at the polls and when you zoom out the, the real story to me is basically bad
news for Elizabeth Warren. Let’s take a look right now in an average
of recent polls, it is Biden in first place with 28 Bernie and second with 19 these are
averages and recent polls and Elizabeth Warren in third place with 15 still almost doubling
Pete Buddha judge who is in fourth place with eight. Now interestingly, and we’re showing this
to our video audience, I’ll try to describe it to our radio and podcast audience. If you were to draw a straight line across
Joe Biden’s polling, which is the green line, you will see that he is very close to where
he was in early July. He’s been up, he’s been down since then, but
it’s basically an average of being in the exact same place. If you do the same with Bernie’s polling,
the light blue line, you see that he is roughly where he was in early may, but if you look
at Elizabeth Warren, you see a much bigger upswing in the earlier part of this year and
they pretty direct downfalls starting uh, with her peak in the first week of October
around 27%, almost actually tied for first place with Joe Biden down to where she is
today at 15, just barely more than half of the support she wants had. Now, if you look at the recent individual
polls that make up this average, you see that Joe Biden is right around the low thirties
with Bernie in the mid to low twenties and Elizabeth Warren not hitting 20% in any recent
poll. These are of course, national polls. If you look at the first primary States who
will be voting very soon. We have Iowa where Pete Buddha judge according
to the latest polls, which are still not that new Buddha judge with a slight lead over Bernie
Sanders, Bernie and second place in Iowa, followed by Joe Biden about a point and a
half behind. Then you look at New Hampshire and you have
Bernie Sanders, um, in first with Pete booted judge just behind him and Bernie and Biden
rather further down in third place. So what’s the trajectory here? What is next in 2020? The next debate is on January 14th. So far there are only five candidates who
have qualified. Those are Joe Biden, uh, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth
Warren, Pete judge and Amy Klobuchar. Then, and this is really important, we’ve
been wondering, is the DNC going to change the rules to let Mike Michael Bloomberg into
the debates? Michael Bloomberg is a billionaire who has
been self funding his campaign and not taking individual contributions. He very quickly was able to, with the expenditure
of more than a hundred million dollars in advertising, get himself five, maybe six,
maybe even 7% in one recent poll, which is quite remarkable given how short of a time
it’s been and it shows that at least to some degree if you’ve got some name recognition,
you can buy your way in if you spend enough money into a primary. We wondered because Bloomberg is not accepting
donations and to get into the debates you need to meet certain donor thresholds. Would the DNC consider changing the rules
in order to allow Michael Bloomberg into debates? Uh, starting with the eighth debate in February,
Tom Perez, the DNC chair says that they are looking at a different system for determining
who will be allowed into the debates. The idea that he’s using for cover is, listen,
we have had a system in place before anybody voted. Once people start voting, maybe we should
have a different system for determining who does or doesn’t get into the debates. Now I’ve been saying for weeks now they may
do this and this is how they figured out a way to maybe have some cover in doing it. Our friend Dave Weigel recently interviewed
Tom Perez and here’s how the conversation went. Um, Dave Weigel asked Mike Bloomberg said
he’s not going to raise donor money if he runs, he’s going to sell fund his campaign,
which would prevent him from accessing the stage under the DNCs rules. Is there any chance that the DNC relaxes the
donor requirement? If there’s someone in the race who’s polling
well or winning States but not raising money, and Tom Perez said, we have our rules in place
for November and December. Those rules of both the grassroots fundraising
threshold and upholding threshold that used to be either or. As you know Dave, and now it’s and for November
and December, those are the rules. We haven’t set the rules for after the first
of the new year and that’s something that we’re doing right now. We always set the rules early enough so that
we can give notice to the campaigns. And Dave Weigel said so it’s possible. It wouldn’t be both. It wouldn’t be an and anymore. Meaning both fundraising and polling and Tom
Perez said, we haven’t figured it out. One thing we will consider is what should
the rules of engagement be after people have started voting, because right now zero votes
have been cast, the voters haven’t spoken. What should the rules be once the voters have
spoken and we have some actual data from States? That’s the question we’re considering right
now, so we now have with debate number eight in February with the requirements needing
to be met in January. The opportunity for the DNC to change how
they determine who gets into the debates. We’re going to keep talking about that because
that could be a big deal in terms of, again, making the scenario one that ultimately leads
to an establishment centrist being the nominee and we’ll talk about that more in the new year.

Susan Page and Domenico Montanaro on the decade in politics


But we will now begin with the final Politics
Monday of the year. To do that, I am joined by Susan Page, USA
Today’s Washington bureau chief, and Domenico Montanaro. He is the senior political editor
at NPR. Let’s start with something unusual, shall
we? Let’s talk about the candidates who are not
in the top tier. I want to take a look at the eight candidates who didn’t make the December
debate, Michael Bennet, Mike Bloomberg, Cory Booker, Julian Castro, John Delaney, Tulsi
Gabbard, Deval Patrick, and Marianne Williamson. These candidates are still out there doing
the work. They are still in the field. Susan, let me start with you. Could any of them see a surge before Iowa? SUSAN PAGE, Washington Bureau Chief, USA Today:
It’s possible. There are some impressive names here, people
we have taken seriously as presidential candidates. But it’s hard if you’re not on the debate
stage, because that is one to have the main ways to get attention, that you show the contrast
with other candidates. I think the candidate not on stage with the
best pathway to becoming a major candidate is Bloomberg, just because he has all that
money. And if there’s a stumble by Joe Biden, he would have the resources to take advantage
of it. DOMENICO MONTANARO, Political Editor, NPR:
I would say that Cory Booker probably is one of the candidates who has an opportunity,
anyway, to make some headway. Now, his campaign sees it sort of a triple
bank shot, where Joe Biden would have to do colossally badly in Iowa and New Hampshire,
be out of the race, and have the black vote essentially up for grabs. And Booker feels
like he could be positioned pretty well in the south and do fairly well. That’s a triple bank shot, not really seen
as a viable path at this point. But you never know. I mean, we have four candidates who are essentially
the top tier in Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg. And there are
lots of different scenarios for whether this becomes a short race or whether this goes
on for quite some time. SUSAN PAGE: You know, we could also see them
come back as the running mate. Cory Booker, for instance, Kamala Harris, Julian Castro,
those are all options, I think, as possible running mates. They will have been vetted somewhat by having
run. They will have some experience on a national stage. So even if they don’t become the nominee,
we may not have heard the last of them. LISA DESJARDINS: It’s interesting. They’re
still putting up a fight. Michael Bennet announced just today he’s going
to have the first town hall of the year 12:01 p.m. in New Hampshire, so they’re still out
there. But one thing they all face is a looming Senate
impeachment trial for this president. Domenico, I want to start with you. What does
that mean for these candidates, especially the senators? DOMENICO MONTANARO: Well, I mean, I think,
when we talk about that top tier, Elizabeth Warren obviously is one of those senators. And if she’s — the last thing she wants to
do is be shackled to a jury seat, essentially, in the Senate, when she’s really made hand-to-hand
campaigning a hallmark of her candidacy. She’s really been able to connect with a lot of
Democratic voters on the campaign trail. She touts the number of selfies she’s taken,
tens of thousands at this point. And that’s really helped to sort of help her image in
what kind of candidate she can be. If she’s stuck in the Senate in January, before
Iowa and New Hampshire, that’s really not good for her. LISA DESJARDINS: Susan. SUSAN PAGE: And the problem these senators
have is, Senate trials, impeachment trials traditionally are not a chance to make a big
“Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” kind of speech on the Senate floor. You’re supposed to sit there and listen. It
makes it hard to get the kind of viral moment that might help them. It’s also not the topic
Democrats want to talk about. It’s President Trump being impeached. Democrats, however,
do not see this as big political asset for them. They would much be — prefer being — talking
about something like health care. LISA DESJARDINS: Let’s talk about someone
else who’s prominent during impeachment, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Susan, you are working on a biography of her.
I know because I have seen you there doing the work. I’m curious what your thoughts are
now, as we have this historic speaker, Nancy Pelosi, really kind of going head to head
with a historic majority leader, Mitch McConnell, two figures that I think will be in the history
books. Right now, Speaker Pelosi has not yet transmitted
the articles of impeachment. We don’t know when she will. What do you make of this strategy
by Speaker Pelosi? Are there political risks here? What’s going on? SUSAN PAGE: I was surprised when she decided
not to send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate. It’s not really a delay yet. It’s not really
a delay until we get into next week, when Congress comes back. I think she is trying
to be helpful to Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, to try to change or
effect, at least to some degree, the rules that will come — rule during the impeachment
trial there. But it’s a weak hand in a way, because Speaker
Pelosi doesn’t want impeachment be the topic hanging over the House. She would like this
to be off her plate over on the Senate side, so that her candidates, her Democratic candidates
in the House can turn to the issues that they know matter more to voters. DOMENICO MONTANARO: If she hadn’t brought
it up, you wouldn’t have someone like Lisa Murkowski right now coming out saying that
she felt that it’s disturbing that her Republican leader in the Senate said that he wouldn’t
be an impartial juror, that he wouldn’t be — that he’d be somebody who’s in lockstep
with the White House. That’s not the role that they’re supposed
to take. So Nancy Pelosi maybe buying some time for Chuck Schumer. LISA DESJARDINS: So, you see some real gain
potential here? DOMENICO MONTANARO: I mean, I think you can’t
over — you don’t want to overplay your hand and hold it out for too long, but she’s at
least raised the issue, even though people — but people in her caucus obviously expect
that she’s going to send it over pretty shortly after the holidays. We should also say, by the way, that Bernie
Sanders is one of the — going to be one of the jurors in the Senate trial as well. And
he is somebody I think you really need to watch in the campaign, because you have seen
his poll numbers come up. And you have seen this activist base. The
volunteer organization that he has in Iowa is really unparalleled. And to see him potentially
do well in a place like Iowa, potentially in New Hampshire, you could have a Sanders-Biden
race, for example, that reflects and looks a lot like that Sanders-Clinton race in 2016. LISA DESJARDINS: 2019 has not been a fast
year, at least not for me, probably not for our viewers. But it is ending. And with it
also ends a decade in politics. I want to ask both of you, going back to the
past decade in U.S. politics, what stands out to you about where we are and where we
have been? SUSAN PAGE: You know, the thing that surprises
me is that we had the election of Barack Obama followed immediately by the election of President
Trump, two men, both of them visionaries in their way, with such different visions of
what the country should be and where the country should go. And I think that’s one reason we have stoked
these tribal — this fierce tribalism, where no one seems to see any common ground between
the two sides, because their visions of the future have been so different. DOMENICO MONTANARO: You know, I think it was
a decade of polarization and partisanship. And it really took hold in the 2010s. You have President Obama signing into law
the Affordable Care Act at the very beginning of the 2010s. In March of 2010, he did that.
And that really set off the entire decade for what was to come. And you had — as Susan notes, you go from
George W. Bush. Who could be more opposite of George W. Bush than Barack Obama in 2008?
To then the rise of the Tea Party, which was really a backlash to President Obama, and
that gave rise to President Trump and one last backlash. In all of that has been the rise of progressivism,
which has been really pugilistic, and not wanting to compromise, seeing how Republicans
and the Tea Party didn’t. And we’re at this point where you have got a lot of clashes
to come. LISA DESJARDINS: A difficult question with
just one minute left. One thing I have seen in the last decade is,
it seems sort of a fear of leadership in Washington. I don’t think we see — we see people more
coached and less willing to take hard stances. Why do you — what do you make of that? What’s
happening there? SUSAN PAGE: I think it’s a time when our politics
are so frayed that it makes people cautious. People who speak in a spontaneous way, who
reach across party lines often have gotten punished. And I think that may have made — had
an effect on people’s desire — politicians’ desire not to — to keep to the script of
their side. DOMENICO MONTANARO: I mean, people get punished
for speaking out and trying to build a bridge, rather than blowing it up, as Amy Klobuchar
said in the last debate. So, until that kind of process changes, until
the type of politics we have changes, until the type of people who participate in elections
change, until the voters vote in different ways, you’re going to see, I think, more acrimony
before you see anything of going in the way back. LISA DESJARDINS: Well, you two trying to build
a bridge in our knowledge tonight, we appreciate it, Susan Page of USA Today, Domenico Montanaro
of NPR. I wish you a happy and hopefully very healthy
new year. SUSAN PAGE: You too. DOMENICO MONTANARO: You’re welcome. Same to
you. LISA DESJARDINS: And for more on the “NewsHour”
online, you can subscribe to “PBS NewsHour”s politics e-mails to receive weekly analysis
and commentary from the campaign trail, Capitol Hill, and the White House, as well as updates
on the impeachment investigation.

Elizabeth Warren Now Leads Dem Primary


Elizabeth Warren is now the leader of the
2020 democratic presidential primary in an average of recent polls. This is not my opinion. This is Matt. Bernie is more progressive. Bernie more decided Lee wants money out of politics. Bernie more decidedly wants Medicare for all. But this is a program that deals with what
is. So we are going to discuss what is and now
what people who email me, uh, want it to be will become very, very clear over the next
24 hours that I can assure you. So listen, no, the polls aren’t all biased
and done with only landlines speaking to people over 80 years of age. Okay. I still have people emailing me, stuff like
that. No Tulsi Gabard or Gabbard. However she says her name at this point. I know people keep telling me it’s different
things. She is not about to take the lead in the primary
as some people are still emailing me and saying, this is down to Biden, Bernie and Warren,
and yes, Elizabeth Warren’s rise has been slow and steady quicker lately and she is
now the front runner, admittedly still within the margin of error. Let’s look at the numbers first, which in
many ways actually resembled Barack Obama’s trajectory back in 2008 we’ll look at that
in a second. You will notice that from about April through
early September, Elizabeth Warren was slowly but surely climbing. Then we had an inflection point right around
the middle of September and the last three weeks have been explosive growth for Elizabeth
Warren. I will talk about why. Don’t worry. If we go back and look at the 2008 democratic
primary and Barack Obama’s eventual win, you also see an inflection point where Barack
Obama’s gains became a sort of more acute and accelerated. But that inflection point happened later in
the primary. It wasn’t until January of 2008 where we saw
that inflection point. Now, of course every race is different. Anything could still happen, but these are
the numbers today. Now let’s look at the recent polls that make
this up. If we look at what are now the last 10 polls,
Elizabeth Warren leads in six of them. If we look at the last five, Elizabeth Warren
leads in four of them. So what do we think is going on here? Things, there’s a few things to touch on. Number one, um, there is disaffection with
Joe Biden that is helping Elizabeth Warren, a plurality of Biden supporters say that Elizabeth
Warren is their top second choice. So when Joe Biden has bad performances and
they’ve been bad lately, when Joe Biden’s campaign is just low energy, it’s not good. That helps Warren more than any other candidate
because Warren is the top second choice according to the latest morning consult poll for Joe
Biden voters. That’s number one. Number two, and this is sad. I mean I wish it weren’t this way, but again,
I’m trying to deal on the program with what things are rather than what one might want
them to be. Bernie’s heart problem at least correlates
with Elizabeth Warren’s gain. You might remember that last week Bernie Sanders
had his heart incident. Uh, the same day actually that I developed
acute appendicitis and ended up in surgery October 2nd and from October 2nd through today,
it has been a decline for Bernie Sanders. You hate to see it, but I’m telling you what
the numbers say and that is a decline for Bernie that correlates with the, uh, heart,
uh, condition, the heart situation, uh, circumstantially at least it does seem to have effected at
least some voters. Number three, and I think this is what maybe
many of you are waiting for me to say. It cannot be denied that to some degree corporate
media would much prefer if it’s going to be one of the Progressive’s corporate media would
prefer that it be Warren over Bernie. And we know why. I mean I’ve, I’ve, I’ve not hidden this from
you. Elizabeth Warren is a much safer version of
modern progressivism to the system then would be Bernie Sanders. And so as Joe Biden has faltered, not only
are Biden’s supporters already predisposed to go to Warren as their primary, most preferred
second choice, uh, you have also seen that as no one else stands a chance. No one’s even pulling 6% right now. That has been a move on corporate media. To talk more about Elizabeth Warren and Bernie
Sanders, I was looking at some of the coverage, a numbers recently, a lot of the nighttime,
uh, cable news or, or rather network news channels, the half hour news, they are covering
Elizabeth Warren significantly more than Bernie Sanders. And I think it would be naive to think that
that does not have an effect as well. So this is where we are today. Now I know that there are lots of people in
my audience who don’t like it and I it right? Bernie is stronger on health care. There was no question Bernie is stronger on
money in politics. Those are two really big issues. The one upside here is if you are a Bernie
or Buster, uh, and ultimately you have to settle in some way even if you don’t vote
for her. But if you have to settle for Elizabeth Warren,
it’s not the end of the world. Okay. Like I, I know that there a lot of clicks
and money in online media for being unflinchingly pro or anti this or that, but that often makes
bad policy and it blinds people. And I don’t want to play that game. Elizabeth Warren has many faults. It is not the end of the world if it ends
up with someone who can defeat Donald Trump, uh, for it to be Elizabeth Warren rather than
Joe Biden. Right. Although there are no quote there, no question
that on many issues, Bernie Sanders is a stronger progressive. That being said, uh, number one, it’s not
over. Uh, this is just where we are right now. Bernie could well have a resurgence. And next I’m going to talk about what it might
take for that to happen. Uh, but the other question at a certain point
is going to be one of electability and there are a range of opinions about whether Warren
or Bernie would be better positioned to defeat Donald Trump. There is one really strong case that, uh,
suggests Bernie would be better positioned to defeat Donald Trump because Warren will
ultimately be framed very similarly to Hillary. Even if Warren is obviously more progressive
than Hillary, she will end up with a very similar public persona and we will have a
repeat of 2016 that is an argument for Bernie being more electable. An argument for Warren being more being more
electrical electable is that while some of her policies are not as decidedly progressive
as Bernie’s and as unflinchingly progressive as Bernie’s a, she will be seen as more of
a pragmatist who may actually be able to make her positions a political reality and that
that may be appealing to some voters. I’m merely telling you that there are stories
to be told on both sides about electability, which we will ultimately get into for sure. Many we’ll be paying attention to next week’s
debates to see how is Bernie looking, what is the dynamic between Bernie and Biden and
Warren, and that’s actually the next thing I want to talk about and I think that this
is going to be a very important conversation.