# TRUMP ENDS AID TO ISRAEL IN LAST DITCH EFFORT TO SAVE MIDTERMS – w/ Emily Jashinsky

**Channel:** Mario Nawfal
**Source:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CLBUOrac6o
**Transcript page:** https://www.withtranscript.ai/video/1CLBUOrac6o

## Chapters

- 0:00 — Midterm Polls and Republican Trouble
- 7:35 — Texas, South Carolina, and Candidate Quality
- 15:25 — Impeachment Risks and Staff Anxiety
- 28:15 — War Messaging and Trump’s Credibility
- 40:00 — Independent Voters and Third-Party Openings
- 47:32 — Michigan Israel Debate and Closing

## Transcript

**[0:00] Speaker A:** I'm great. How are you doing?

**[0:02] Speaker B:** I am good. I am nervous and I'm not even American.

**[0:08] Speaker A:** It's a There's a lot on the line. It's crazy. That's all coming down to today.

**[0:12] Speaker B:** I'm not as deep as my co-host Brandon into US politics. I don't know why I don't find it as fascinating as geopolitics. Um but I've been sucked into the drama like the Al Michigan drama. That was fascinating. But I want to start with um

**[0:27] Speaker A:** it just you know the polling is looking terrible for the for the Republicans. The betting platforms give the odds of the the House is is is going to you know the the Democrats are going to win the House. That's pretty much a cert certainty. Now in terms of the Senate they the odds are 78% last I checked. It picked up a lot in the last few days. And um and then you look at what Trump is saying, it just indicates desperation. Suddenly now he's saying aid is going to stop to Israel. Um he's talking yesterday about a deal with Iran out of nowhere and repeats the promise of $5,000 to every American. So I'd love kind of your overview on where we stand right now as we get close to the uh to the end of this saga.

**[1:11] Speaker B:** Well, I mean Trump's reaction is odd because the polls have not looked good for Republicans for a long time. It's true they're breaking even more for Democrats in the last couple of days. Like the New York Times Sienna poll, that being the last poll from New York Times Sienna before you're going to election day, it's not going to make Republicans feel good certainly. But his speech at the

**[1:28] Speaker A:** What did the poll What did the poll say?

**[1:30] Speaker B:** So it just showed that in some of these key states like Texas for example, there was a really uh uncomfortable margin of loss so far predicted for Republicans. And that's in line with what we've seen from the polls. I mean, actually, an interesting fact in Texas is that when Beto and Ted Cruz were running, what was that, 2018? Ted Cruz was ahead in the Real Clear Politics average the entire campaign. Ken Paxton has never led once in the Real Clear Politics campaign. It's reversed. So, Terico has never been down in the realcl. The entire campaign. So, the polls have looked bad for a long time. And I feel like if Trump were desperate, his speech at the Lincoln Memorial yesterday wouldn't have been such a disaster where he's talking about naming the reflecting pool after himself and all of the various improvements to the reflecting

**[2:18] Speaker B:** pool. It was so weird and it's just again it's it's hard to understand what his strategy is.

**[2:24] Speaker A:** So what's your prediction?

**[2:27] Speaker B:** I would say there are two possibilities I'm looking at today. One is that this is a standard polling error that benefited Democrats, like the type we've seen for the last 10 or so years where there's about a two-point cushion that's to the Democrats advantage. Meaning that in those polls where we see Republicans running really close races, so South Carolina, Iowa, they actually win those comfortably. That's one possibility that Iowa, South Carolina, those races that have felt uncomfortable for Republicans, they end up doing okay and it's not as much of a blood bath in the House as people expect. On the other hand, I think it's entirely possible also that the polls, some of the ones that seem eyepopping, like the margins just seem completely improbable, end up being roughly accurate because there was a problem of underpolling people who flipped from Trump voters to now voting for an Abdul Sayed, a James Taro, a Dan Osburn in Nebraska, an Annie Andrews in South Carolina, Amy Actton in Ohio, uh Shared Brown in Ohio.

**[3:27] Speaker B:** So, it could be that the pollsters in their efforts to make sure they don't repeat the errors of the last 10 years just weren't able to pick up on the fact that some of the voters, especially in rural Republican areas, they weren't having an easy time reaching the exact same voters who vote on ending foreign wars and affordability. And those people might have been the ones that were switching to Trump. So, those are the two different paths. saying there's there could be an under representation of people that flipped away from the Republican party cuz usually we we've we've gotten used to the under reppresentation being um reflecting on Trump supporters and a lot of people are hoping on that. A lot of Republicans are hoping that this was this is what saves them in the Senate. But you're saying that the complete opposite could happen.

**[4:10] Speaker A:** Yes. Because I think some of the Trump reporter or some of the Trump voters that have been really difficult to poll over the years, these are are rural voters. Some of them didn't really vote before Trump. he was like very inspiring where they voted Obama Trump people in the rust belt uh who liked Obama because of the hope and change message after Iraq and Afghanistan or in the middle of Iraq and Afghanistan and they went to Trump and they saw something similar. Uh but they're the ones that would be most frustrated over the course of the last year as prices have ticked back up and we're in a foreign war and gas is $4 a gallon and it would be really hard for pollsters who have been trying to overcorrect for those people voting Republican and saying we don't think we're reaching enough rural Texans.

**[4:48] Speaker A:** We don't think we're reaching enough rural people in Maine. Maine is a really good example. When Susan Collins was last on the ballot in 2020, there was a Democratic opponent named Sarah Gideon. They felt Dems felt really good about her. They thought we are finally going to retake Maine from Susan Collins. And it turned out they had her up in the polls. They had Sarah Gideon, the Dem up by like eight points. She lost by like eight points when all of the ballots were counted. And pollsters said they didn't reach enough rural Republicans. The path that I'm looking at is actually some of those voters who stuck. I mean, Collins is a kind of tough example, but in any other state where you have these rural areas, people just really like Susan Collins and Maine for whatever reason. But if you think about Ohio, you think about Nebraska, you think about South Carolina even, some of those rural voters are the types of people who vote exactly on what Trump has walked away from.

**[5:37] Speaker A:** Two key promises, bringing prices down and not starting foreign wars. And so if you are overweing your polling samples to try to correct for those people voting Republican and they've flipped to Elsa or Annie Andrews or something like that, your polls actually could be overounting Republican support.

**[5:54] Speaker B:** Interesting. Do you think um first Texas, it's crazy that Texas has a 70% likelihood it will flip Democrat for the first time since before I was born. How wild is that? Since 1988. There's so much going on in Texas. Uh because if it were John Cornin on the ballot, James Talerico would probably be behind in the polls. The fact that it's Ken Paxton, this guy who is, you know, kind of a an odd duck but a populist by Republican standards who was doing antitrust going after big tech, but has all of these personal problems, is just an unlikable human being. Like as a candidate, he is not a warm fuzzy candidate. And it's a bad election cycle for Republicans. So yeah, it would be close for John Cornin. I don't blame Texas voters for not putting John Cornin through the primary because he wasn't great to Texas Republicans either.

**[6:43] Speaker B:** They disagreed with him on guns. All of that is to say Republicans went with Paxton. Now it's a very close race. It looks like Terico is going to win if we take these polls seriously and that's in and of itself fairly astounding. There are a lot of people who have moved to Texas postco from blue states. So that's another thing to keep in mind. There's been a lot of migration to places like Dallas and Austin. people coming from Seattle, California, those types of pl Denver, those types of places. And so maybe that has something to do with it. But what we're also seeing, Politico had a big story on this this morning. Trump has basically reversed his margins with Hispanics by 20 points. It's like 20 point drop of Hispanics who identify as MAGA. And that's a problem in Texas. If you want to, if Trump wants to, you know, have all of these rallies for Paxton, try to get him over the the edge, and you have this massive drop in MAGA Hispanics, that's a real problem.

**[7:35] Speaker A:** Um, I was looking at the South Carolina race. Um, Darlene Graham, Senator Graham's uh Lindsey Graham's sister, she's at 70 71% 70% likelihood to to win the race against Annie Andrews, which is at 30% the Democrat. Um, would you agree with those numbers? And do you think there's any chance Annie Andrews win South Carolina because that would be wild. I would like to see Graeme out of the out of the Senate because I know she follows a lot of her brother's uh policies which I'm not a fan of. But is that a possibility? I was getting there too much wishful thinking.

**[8:07] Speaker B:** No, it's definitely a possibility. Republicans I've talked to are absolutely nervous about South Carolina. They have shifted money to two red states. South Carolina and Kansas they've had to shift money to in the course of the last month. So even if they hang on to some of these these some of these seats by a shred um over the course of the next 36 hours, it's still a candidate quality problem for them because they never ever should have had to even with the war. They never should have had to be moving money to South Carolina. That is just in Kansas. That is clearly on Roger Marshall in Kansas and Darlene Graham in South Carolina for not being good candidates. And on Darlene Graham, that goes back to Trump. Trump was the one that decided to push Darlene Graham through the primary. She only won by about four points to Ralph Norman who probably would not be having a problem in this race.

**[8:51] Speaker B:** And so Trump deciding to interfere on behalf of Lindsey Graham's sister uh probably put Republicans in this pickle because the Graham brand is so polarizing even in South Carolina. And then on top of that, she was a bad candidate who had horrible debate performances that stuck in voters minds.

**[9:10] Speaker A:** Who did uh uh

**[9:11] Speaker B:** Darling Graham?

**[9:12] Speaker A:** Graham.

**[9:13] Speaker B:** Mhm.

**[9:14] Speaker A:** Yeah. Um, 94 years ago, Kansas was won by the Democrats. Since 1932, that's before World War II.

**[9:27] Speaker B:** It's a bad time to be a Republican. What a bad time to be a Republican. This war really messed up the party.

**[9:35] Speaker A:** I think that's well said. Um, because again, if you look at where the numbers were on February 28th, tariff related inflation according to the St. Louis Fed tariff related inflation had actually stabilized and was a pretty small part of overall inflation. That is the St. Louis Fed's numbers. They've looked at it. It's not just me. Um Trump had had that had managed that. Uh and I guess the court decisions were helpful probably to that extent as well, but he had managed that. On top of it, we saw gas and diesel prices spike. You and I know this, but there are some people who still say that gas prices are high because of blue states, Democrat governors, all of that sort of thing. But yeah, of course, uh I I host a radio show where people call in from 2:00 to 3 on SiriusXM every day and I still get callers who say that.

**[10:19] Speaker A:** But even in, you know, the cheapest states for gas, gas spiked, of course, after February 28th, diesel spiked, of course, after February 28th. So people are smart and can pin that for the most part to exactly what happened. And on top of that, the politics go to Trump making a major promise. In his acceptance speech, he said, "I'm not going to start new wars." That's his quote. So, you set expectations that high, walk it back, never sell the public really on the importance of the war. Uh, that's something that I think Republicans have been very frustrated by is he never made a concerted effort like the Bush administration did, as awful as that effort was. And we know it was, you know, full of of lies at this point. But that Trump didn't even seem to put together an effort to build this narrative with the public is frustrating for Republicans because even a lot of Republican voters don't buy into the war.

**[11:06] Speaker A:** And that's a Yeah, that's you can all point it squarely back to February 28th. don't think so. You you may be talking right now about Republicans holding on to the House of Representatives because of all the redistricting that went on if the war hadn't started.

**[11:18] Speaker B:** Yeah. Um actually curious, a lot of people are worried that Iran could preemptively were worried could still happen today, but looks extremely unlikely. Iran could preemptively strike the US to hurt Trump before the midterms. Politically speaking, do you think if Iran does attack the US right now, they restart the war today, would that hurt Trump? Because people are like, "Holy that that wouldn't have happened if Trump didn't start the war." Or could that help Trump politically because you get a rally around the flag effect? Maybe Trump Trump is seen as the strong man that could fight back against Iran

**[11:48] Speaker A:** or won't make any difference.

**[11:50] Speaker B:** I wonder if it would all come out in the wash because on the one hand, I mean, we have, you know, probably 12 hours overall of voting left, uh, you know, in the the whole country and so I guess on the one hand, do you have this question of people being afraid and then sticking with what they know? Uh, on the other hand, people are so sick of what Trump has gotten us into, they say, "Nope, this is it. That's the final straw." I probably think it would be more of the latter. People just saying, "Okay, that's it. Now, it's it's definitely done for me." Um, because he put us in the situation he endangered us. So, it'll probably more of that, but man, so many ballots have already been cast by the time that would happen that I don't know if it would make a huge difference on his on his favorability and approval approval

**[12:29] Speaker B:** numbers. I think they would plummet if that happened. H um what would it mean um you know how much influence would actually what would it mean if Trump loses the midterms if it is a blood bath like we're seeing in the polls or even worse as you've said underrepresented um in the interest of the Democrats if that does happen what do you think that would do to Trump's psyche because there's two you know some people are telling me Trump will be so upset he'd lash out at Iran he'd blame them he'd go all out in the next two months h before the the new members of Congress take office or the Second one and Trump realizes how damaging this war has been and kind of walks it back and changes his mind, goes down, either walks away or comes out with some sort of deal.

**[13:11] Speaker B:** What is more likely if we do see a blood bath?

**[13:14] Speaker A:** Yeah, it's so hard to know with him because on the one hand, last January he went to Iowa and immediately gave this speech tempering expectations for the midterms and saying, "Listen, historically the power the party in power loses seats in the midterms. So, you know, we know that going into this." And then the Iran war started and then as the polls started to look closer and closer he started blanketing the country with these rallies to get every single mega voter out to vote and that's where you know that's that was clearly aimed at the red states. So he's putting a lot of effort into trying to salvage some of these seats. So that tells me uh when he says think my name, think of my name being on the ballot, he does see that as a part of his legacy, meaning he will see it as a a dent in his

**[13:56] Speaker A:** legacy if this is really a bloodbath. And maybe he does then um lash out because what we're going to see from Democrats who aren't going to have a lot of power, I mean, it's it's a lot of power to hold the House and the Senate because you can do whatever investigations you want to do. You control the committees and that sort of thing. But if they want to pass legislation, that is to say, it's going to have to be bipartisan. Uh they will need Republicans. They will need Trump unless they can get veto veto proof majorities. So what are they going to do? Probably spend a lot of time investigating and maybe impeaching Donald Trump. And that's the type of thing where you can see the president certainly start lashing out even more than he already has because on top of it, he won't be able to do much.

**[14:34] Speaker A:** she'll be his agenda will be frustrated, bogged down in subpoenas, prepping for testimonies, prepping legal documents, that sort of thing. So, I don't know what effect it has on his foreign policy, but just on the politics of it, his dayto-day, yeah, I think it's it's fair to say that maybe he starts focusing, honestly, one answer might be maybe he does start focusing more on the beautifification stuff, like the reflecting pool, the ballroom, the arch. The ballroom you can walk by it, it's like partially made. Maybe that's what he spends all of his time doing because

**[15:04] Speaker B:** would be perfect like just just if he just focuses on that as best thing for the world.

**[15:08] Speaker A:** A Lego set.

**[15:09] Speaker B:** Yeah,

**[15:10] Speaker A:** exactly. So, you know, you'd expect your grandpa, you know, when when someone gets old enough, I'm thinking of my grandpa. He starts swearing about the nice, you know, I want to clean the pool. I want to fix the house. I like this new vase. Hang that painting. That would be a nice way to end Trump's term after this Iran war.

**[15:25] Speaker A:** Um, but what would um what would the Democrats need in the Senate to be able to impeach Trump? Well, they didn't even successfully do it after uh January. Well, after January 6 was kind of different. And they did get a lot of Republicans um to rally well a decent bit of Republicans to rally around them after January 6. So, I don't know because the definition of like impeachable offenses, I think Marjorie Taylor Green filed impeachment articles against Joe Biden on on day one. Uh the definition of what constitutes like high crimes and misdemeanor has really ballooned. Uh, and so I I mean if we go back to the Ukraine phone call, the Zilinsky phone call that was surrounding the first impeachment where basically every Democrat was in lock step with that impeachment, I think in retrospect it looks farical, but every Democrat was on lock was lock step about that impeachment.

**[16:15] Speaker A:** So I don't know that they would need much at all. I think they already feel perfectly comfortable uh day one filing impeachment articles. The question is whether Hakeim Jeff is going to be able to and Chuck Schumer are going to be able to say this is a good strategy or a bad strategy. If they want to do some investigations to kind of try to lay the groundwork for that, if they can even control some of their members from starting impeachment uh to the extent that they can, I don't think they're going to need much. Basically, I think they're going to be very comfortable building an impeachment case um some Democrats around anything. The question is whether Dem leadership like they did last time will be comfortable building those cases. Yeah, hopefully they learned their lesson from the lawfare. We saw how it backfired on them

**[16:56] Speaker B:** in the leadup to the uh presidential election.

**[16:59] Speaker A:** Um you talked about Trump telling people to vote like he's on the ballot. And um the way I interpreted this is rural voters that are usually underrepresented in the polls. Um I saw that as him trying to motivate them to go out and vote because that is the last hope the Republicans have. That's why Trump is saying cuz when you see him say vote like I'm on the ballot, you'd look at it at the beginning like hey wouldn't that backfire because Trump is the reason the Republicans are doing so badly. But the way I'm like why is he saying that? And maybe some adviser told them like hey we need those rural voters that have flipped things for you before. They were the ones underrepresented. We need to motivate them. Those MAGA supporters that all support you no matter what. We need them to go out and vote.

**[17:38] Speaker A:** because there was another um poll of statistic a few days ago how unmotivated Republicans are and the Democrats have skyrocketed in motivation to vote.

**[17:49] Speaker B:** Yes, this is really important um because you know we saw a leaked call of Ken Paxton after Republicans did their midterm con convention in Texas saying he thought it actually hurt him. But the reason the campaign, the Trump campaign and Trump himself has been targeting these areas, I actually don't think it's a terrible strategy because what they're banking on is in a red state, you still have enough hardcore MAGA voters, reliable Republicans that if you can get all of them out to the polls in a red state, so somewhere like Texas, South Carolina, Kansas, Nebraska, if you can do that, um you can make sure that by the time you're there, people are putting in their ballots early if they can. They're voting early if they can and they're not going to forget to vote on election day because there was a rally in their community and it's front of mind.

**[18:37] Speaker B:** Uh that's the type of strategy that they're going for, which is to say every single person that is a reliable Republican voter. They want them to turn out in a red state because then that overwhelms any flip-flop voters who are going from Trump to the Dem candidate in that state. Um because there's just it's in a red state there's just going to be more mega Republican voters. So, I don't think it's an entirely bad strategy, but if you're going to go to the rallies, get off script, and talk about a senator's ass, you know, dozens of times, um, over the course of a couple weeks, that's probably not a great strategy instead of making a message about the war, the economy that could persuade voters.

**[19:16] Speaker A:** What was the whole ass thing? I keep seeing it pop up, people mentioning it in the interviews. I'm obviously too busy with Iran and what's happening in the in West Asia, and the Middle East. What is it? Are people blowing it out of proportions? It's bizarre. just keeps popping up on and on and on. I don't know what to make of it.

**[19:31] Speaker B:** I was going to say you're so lucky for not having to think about the ass thing, but you're thinking about Iran. So, in a sense, it's lucky to think about the asses instead of Iran. Basically, Trump got on this I mean, he got on this bit for many rallies. It It had to be at least a dozen times where he was talking about Senator John Hustead of Ohio's ass and saying it's a great ass. Then he did it with Nicki Minaj when she was in Michigan campaigning for Trump. He said that Nicki Minaj had a great ass and he just kept lavishing people and physical compliments specifically directed uh at the posterior uh in numerous occasions. And I don't know if it's intentional. I'm tempted to think with Trump that it is intentional. He saw these things on, you know, being clipped on Fox and Friends and everybody having a good time with it and he thought it was bringing more attention to the rallies.

**[20:19] Speaker B:** Uh, but I think when people are looking at $4 a gallon gas roughly on average, it's just it's not funny. Um, it's already probably not funny to a lot of people, but it's less funny to them at that point.

**[20:30] Speaker A:** What do you think is the main reason Trump or the Republicans are in this position? Obviously, everyone points towards the Iran war first. Is that is that true? Is that fair? Is there anything else beyond that that really flipped things? I remember I made a post a week ago on October 31st. So, four days ago, I made a post on October 31st last year. the odds were 75% the uh Republicans win the Senate. Um 4 days ago it was 70 the exact day one year later on betting platforms the odds are the complete opposite Democrats 75% winning the Senate. Is it just the Iran war and what exactly about the Iran war gas prices the main reason is that the promise of forever wars because I don't know like you told me for example some Republicans blame the Democrats for higher energy prices for me like this is maybe because I'm too deep into this like I know all the granular details how many ships going through the straight of Ho what's happening in Ukraine all these things I

**[21:20] Speaker A:** monitor on a daily basis I know the average American doesn't and they don't have time for it and maybe some of them just listen to Fox News maybe some of them only listen to Trump or none of those none of the above

**[21:30] Speaker B:** so my question is What is um two things? What is the main reason the Republicans are in this in this position? And number two, what do MAGA voters that are still supporting Trump right now, how do they, you know, make sense of all these decisions by Trump getting into the this war with Iran Mandy?

**[21:48] Speaker A:** Well, I'll start with that last question first because it's one of the more interesting things in American politics, I think, which is that Trump comes along in 2016 and correctly tells people everybody else is lying to you. He was right about that. And because he was the one person who was willing to say that really about Republicans, Democrats, and the media in the most brazen, bold possible way, a chunk of the public then ascribed to him a level of trustworthiness that for some people has never gone away. So they trusted him because he correctly told them, "You can't trust anybody else." And so I think because of that, there are still people who really do trust him. he because they feel like, oh, the last 10 years has proved he was right. We can't trust the Republican establishment. We can't trust Democrats and we certainly can't trust the media.

**[22:35] Speaker A:** So, they they say, "Well, we have to trust him because he was right about those things." And I think that's what it comes down to a lot is people again like calls I get a lot on the SiriusXM show I do are he might know something that we don't um about, you know, he might have intelligence about Iran that we don't have. He might um sometimes you just have to trust him. He's had good foreign policy instincts, that sort of thing. um they maybe he knew that Iran was that an attack on uh you know the United States was imminent, that sort of thing. So there's a level of trust that I think does keep people going. Um now average Republican voters, what keeps them going much more than Trump is disliking Democrats more than they dislike Trump. But on the broader question of if it's all Iran, uh it's really interesting because yes, it's all Iran, but the Iran war made these other issues that Trump has gotten away with over the course of his political career

**[23:24] Speaker A:** so much more damaging. Fox News did a poll a couple of weeks ago that found corruption. Corruption was at the top of the list of things that people were extremely or very concerned about heading into the midterm elections. That's crazy. And of course, the first Trump administration with Jared Kushner and the Wheelings and Dealings, it was corrupt. It wasn't this corrupt. It didn't start with a meme memecoin rug pull. And I think after gas shot up to $4 a gallon, the memecoin rug pole, the ballroom donors all coming from big tech, that type of thing started to drive people insane in a way it hadn't with Trump before. it started to feel like he was uh screwing them to enrich himself. And that's where I think yes, prices went up with the Iran war. We all see it. We're not dumb. Gas went up with Iran war.

**[24:17] Speaker A:** You can with the Iran war. We all see that we're not dumb. Prices had stabilized ahead of the Iran war. That's one of the hardest things for Trump because tech is creating a booming economy with the stock market. Absolutely. Uh it's driving some positive economic metrics. But if g if prices are going up, Washington Post did a study recently that found actually in Republican districts, you're more likely to see places, swing districts, you're more you're more likely to see places where wages have not kept up with price increases. When that type of things happen thing happens, people find it much less funny that the 80-year-old man is rambling about John Ustead's ass and is uh taking donations for this massive ballroom from all of these tech oligarchs. It's like it that stuff stops being uh cute or a back burner issue and move to the front burner when prices are high.

**[25:08] Speaker B:** Interesting. Yeah. So people and we've seen this in multiple countries like people there's a lot of countries where people know about the issues and that's why China is really scared from its population is that they know about them but they're like okay at least the economy is doing well or at least I'm paying the bills and they would dismiss them. But when the when it starts to hurt their pocketbooks, that's when all these issues start to come to surface and they start looking at them in a very different way. Um, one thing I've speaking to people in the administration, I've gotten the sense of it in the last uh 3 four weeks is that people around Trump are seeing this as a sinking ship and they're trying to find ways to distance themselves themselves as much as they can also protect themselves before the the Democrats go after many of them.

**[25:52] Speaker B:** But in a way that does not upset Trump, does not get, you know, we still have two years of Trump presidency. Um, are you seeing similar indicators at all? Because I've heard other people mentioned the same thing to me that people around Trump, there was even a report yesterday that Hexath is preparing for the Democrats to go after him. Um, and a lot of people talking about Trump preparing to throw someone under the bus for the Iran war. I would have expected him to do that before the midterms, by the way. You know, trying to get some points by throwing Hex Seth or Cooper under the bus. That hasn't happened. Um, but are you getting it? You know, have you spoken to people that have said the same thing?

**[26:26] Speaker A:** Well, people are definitely concerned about investigations coming for especially lower level staffers. So, het this right because I mean it's out in the open. Thomas Massie filed impeachment articles against him already. And Thomas Massie is of course a Republican who's losing his seat. But Democrats are 100% going to pounce on HGth if Trump doesn't. It doesn't surprise me at I would I actually believe the rumors that Hagsath has probably uh been jockeying maybe to take a Senate seat in a place like Tennessee. I think Marshall Blackburn's running for governor there. So, there'd be potentially an open Senate seat if I'm remembering the details of Tennessee correctly. And it wouldn't surprise me at all if they move a little chess piece uh to prevent or to uh what's the best way to put it to maybe defang some of those investigations by moving Hexath from Secretary of

**[27:08] Speaker A:** War out of the Pentagon and then putting someone else in there who doesn't have to take the blame for everything. um and can you know be a fresh face. That wouldn't surprise me at all one bit. But yeah, I I think especially lower level staffers have a sense of anxiety, especially after Senator Alyssa Slotkin came out and said we should as Democrats want to stigmatize as much as possible the idea that someone would go work in the Trump administration right now. They felt like that was a shot against the bow that Democrats must certainly be prepping to go after some of the the lower level midlevel people and they're absolutely anxious about it and some of them are absolutely thinking about finding a private sector gig. On the other hand, there are a lot of people because this is the second Trump administration who are ride or die who will take this to the bitter end because they grew up with their political loyalties being shaped

**[27:58] Speaker A:** and forged in the Trump era. they will go down with the ship um because they see themselves as loyal to him. So, it's split, but it's definitely true that there's anxiety here in Washington about whether to stay or leave among mid-level staffers and low-level staffers.

**[28:15] Speaker B:** Seeing how Marjorie Taylor Green and others have flipped, people that were diehard Trump fans from the beginning when he was unpopular, um she was getting cancelled for supporting him. obviously Tucker and others um makes me think that even people that are perceived now as ride or die Trump supporters may reconsider it reconsider things if it continues getting worse especially if the Iran war restarts. I think you know a lot of indications that Trump was waiting for the midterms to to end before kicking off the war again. Um and I think that would um that would further crater the MAGA movement. Well, and you started by mentioning this like pretty I mean it's not shocking in a sense but shocking the way Trump rolled out this announcement that he's apparently ending aid to Israel

**[29:03] Speaker A:** on a Fox and Friends interview. It's crazy. Like that's the type of thing other presidents would spend months and months building up to that moment. And he apparently just rolled it out because he was having a good conversation on Fox and Friends. But who is he pleasing at this point? like that is going to infuriate uh the hardcore Iran hawks who have been rallying around him, circling the wagons around him uh condescending to the rest of the country for being upset about the war and saying you have no idea how big a threat Iran is, etc. That type of thing. So, he's going to upset those people in all likelihood. He's already upset some of those people by not prosecuting the war in a hawkish enough way uh by their sense. And everybody else is mad about the war, period. So, I don't know what his constituency is at this point.

**[29:52] Speaker A:** So, it's just really hard to envision how he writes the political ship. Um, I I honestly I really don't know what happened.

**[30:01] Speaker B:** Maybe he's trying to maybe

**[30:03] Speaker A:** trying to u trying to relate to the Tucker supporters, the MAGA base that has been alienated by this war uh by Trump's promise or breaking his promise of ending forever wars. So maybe he's trying to reach out to them because the neocons I don't think see them flipping to Democrats Democratic members of Congress just because Democratic candidates just because you know even with this comment by Trump which I think they won't take seriously either. He's made so many comments already um that have been dismissed you know $5,000 for every American. If people really believe that I think the Republicans will be leading in the polls right now. So people are dismissing these promises and even his uh the talk between with him and JD Vance yesterday both of them making statements that a deal is looking possible suddenly from like strikes are imminent to now oh we're

**[30:48] Speaker A:** close to a deal uh people have dismissed it so I just don't think neocons would uh would flip sides but I also don't think that comment would uh make much of a difference so late people have stopped believing Trump like I was thinking yesterday about the whole false news oh sorry fake news fake news you know it was very damaging to mainstream media years ago. Now, when Trump starts attacking a media outlet, if anything, it's um people have rallied in support of these outlets, and we've seen that when he blocked MS Now and uh Reuters, I think I can't remember who it is. MS now and someone else from the uh White House a few months ago.

**[31:23] Speaker B:** Politico and

**[31:24] Speaker A:** Politico. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. And back then that would have been uh detrimental for their for their uh subscriber base and their viewership, but it's just not having the same effect like what Trump says as being dismissed by people more and more because he's just said so many things and lied so many times like the Iran thing. We have a deal. How many times has he said we have a deal? How many times he said he's going to obliterate Iran? How many times has he said he's already obliterated Iran than to say we're going to strike them again? And I think even the people that are Trump supporters or don't pay attention to these on a day-to-day basis, they've just noticed that, okay, we really can't take him seriously even more than before. It's astounding to me to watch the hawks circle the wagons around Trump even as he does.

**[32:07] Speaker A:** He makes blunders in the prosecution of a war they support and they support so desperately. That's why they're circling the wagons around him. But he is like, let's just say they had a great let's say they have a great case. The war is wonderful. It's totally necessary. Americans will die if they don't prosecute it. His messaging on it has been fully insane and not in a Trump way where it's like, oh, he's talking about the lawfare. He's talking about the quote fake news and a lot of Americans get it and it drives a wedge between them and the media that's ultimately helpful for this has not been like that at all. He's talking about wiping out civilizations. He's saying the war is over that we're going to we've already won, but we still need to do this that. And 21 Americans have died. That is at roughly 21 communities around the country who have had local news reports on fallen American soldiers over the last year.

**[32:56] Speaker A:** That sticks with people. And it's crazy, I think, how little we talk about the deaths. I think it's like for what's been accomplished in this war, quote unquote accomplished in this war, it's completely stagnant. And 21 Americans, at least 21 Americans have died. So that does stick with people because it gets reported in their hometown papers and that's something that is on people's minds when they vote today. There's no question about it. So even the the people who support this war have to look back on it and say he completely bungled the important part of getting the public to buy into it period. Like there was no significant persuasive effort to get the public to buy into it because it was all over the map. They weren't a threat, then they were a threat. Epic Fury and then uh I'm sorry, first you had Midnight Hammer and the messaging around that seemed to conflict with the Midnight Fury with the Epic Fury um messaging.

**[33:50] Speaker A:** So, it's just been a disaster uh complete disaster and the idea that polls are crazy for suggesting that there will be a blowout today in the middle of all of this with gas $4 a gallon and a war that has been all over the map in terms of messaging. It's not like I get I I'm as distrustful as polls as a lot of people on the right are, but that's not shocking at all when you just look back at what's happened this year.

**[34:16] Speaker B:** Yeah. I was uh remembering the Atlantic piece by Robert Kayan, the the father of all neocons, and when he's talking about the uh the bombing not solving the problem and how Iran has gained strategic leverage through Hmuz, you know, it's over and you've lost even the hooks. Um, what else did I I had? Oh, I wanted to ask you about uh Tucker. So, Tucker put out that post that went crazy viral. I didn't expect it to get as much attention as it did two days ago talking about Trump being pushed by Netanyahu to nuke Iran and that so far he's resisted that pressure, but the pressure is ongoing. Has that had I don't believe Trump is considering nukes, but I could be wrong. Tucker is more connected than I am. But has that impacted um or Tucker's position as a whole, is that having much influence on the elections?

**[35:05] Speaker B:** Because in my circles, in the geopolitical world, he has significant influence. But for MAGA supporters, I don't know how much influence Tucker actually has or has had.

**[35:15] Speaker A:** Yeah. I think if people are still supporting Trump, they're very unlikely to be paying much attention to Tucker at this point because people who are still supporting Trump as a MAGA faithful as opposed to just a Republican who kind of holds your nose and votes for the GOP candidate that you don't really like and you're frustrated with Trump, but you really don't like Abdul Seiad of Michigan. Like that type of voter who's just not pleased with Mike Rogers, not pleased with Trump. Those people are uh I I imagine can still be influenced by Tucker. But if you're the type of person who goes to a Trump rally, identifies as MAGA before you identify as a Republican, that type of person I don't think Tucker has much influence over anymore because they are loyal to Trump over the GOP. They're loyal to Trump over Tucker. And uh they they just are of the belief that nothing he says matters or is true and is just all sour grapes at this point.

**[36:04] Speaker A:** So I don't think it's it's persuasive to those folks. It could be persuasive um to independent voters or Republican leaners who listen to Tucker and it makes them extra concerned that a vote for Mike Rogers, for example, would be a vote to continue pushing us to the the nuclear brink. But yeah, I don't think it's had a huge political ripple effect just because Tucker is kind of a

**[36:28] Speaker B:** he's kind of a niche now. He doesn't have, you know, the prime time seat on Fox News, which it's not what it used to be when he had his prime time seat there. But, uh, that is to say, we're we're more of a microculture than a monoculture. A series of micro cultures now than a monoculture. And I feel like the micro cultures that Tucker influences, we're already not pleased with Trump, if that makes sense.

**[36:47] Speaker A:** It does. I'm actually going to look at Google Trends, see Tucker's name being Googled in the US, how much has it changed since he was under Fox News versus now? Cuz like in my world, look, we're in war, Emily. can't move your mic cuz I hear the boom boom. I'm like, "Okay, I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry." Like, "Did the world just break out? The Trump bomb around.

**[37:06] Speaker B:** I'm in that world. I'm traumatized." Um,

**[37:09] Speaker A:** Tucker Carlson. Um, yeah, I was going to say, I guess this is an energy drink considering the midterms today. Um, let's see. Tucker Carlson. Well, uh, no, we have to look at United States. United States in the last five years. Let's see how much has changed. Okay. Wow. Okay. He was much bigger. Oh, no. About the same. So, he got fired in, let's see, he was fired in 2023, was it? Tucker was let go of Fox News.

**[37:40] Speaker B:** That sounds

**[37:41] Speaker A:** 2024. 2023, I think. 2023. Either way, before that, it was about the rating 10. Oh, okay. He's a bit smaller. Not much. Still pretty big. But yeah, you're saying he's um he's about half the size he was under Fox, which is pretty significant. Um, so I wanted to ask you,

**[37:59] Speaker B:** a lot of his audience now is on the left. I think I think that he has a significant from watch him on the left and he's still very influential in Washington. He's very influential among uh populist Republicans. But yeah, in terms of like persuading people um who might be persuadable

**[38:15] Speaker A:** is the is the AOC I'll offend him. Tucker's not going to talk to me after I say this. He's the AOC of the of the right. I'm joking. I'm joking. I'm not going to do that to Tucker. Um but um um about Tucker, his rating, I had a question. Um the whole Israel thing, uh stopping donations to Israel. I've dismissed it, but I haven't asked you. Do you think he's actually going to move go ahead with this or is that just a statement for the votes before the midterms? I should have asked you that at the beginning.

**[38:41] Speaker B:** No, I was thinking that as I was looking at the story, the first thing I thought was, is he actually going to do this? because the casual nature of the roll out just in conversation with the host some Fox and Friends makes me believe that there's been no kind of infrastructural buildup to disentangling because there's Camp David accord provisions according to Reuters at least last I checked that would mean you you can't totally get out of these commitments. So whether he would work to try and disentangle from the uh provisions that say we still have those commitments I don't know. He's definitely not done it so far that we're aware of. Um, so can he do it? Would he do it? Or is it just an election day type of thing? I think he he would do it. I believe that Netanyahu has talked to him about doing this.

**[39:26] Speaker B:** It's kind of a lood uh talking point as you know in recent years that they'd be better off without us uh kind of hovering or being like a sort of puppet masters h you hovering over and controlling the money in one way or the other and then having to be uh subject to the whims and the capricciousness of American politics. So it's not a crazy argument but it's definitely a popular talking point among Netanyahu world. So we'll see. But I wouldn't be surprised if there's a a draw down based on it whether they can do the whole 4 billion roughly 4 billion a year or not. I think that's a pretty open question.

**[40:00] Speaker A:** Yeah. Let me see who's going to be the prime. So there was a flip. I don't know if you follow Israeli elections but uh since last 48 hours

**[40:07] Speaker B:** Eisen flipped Netanyahu in the likelihood of being prime minister. So October 31st so 4 days ago even afterwards November 1st two days ago Netanyahu was at 41% likelihood to be the prime minister. Gienc. But then we got reports, we actually broke the story about reports of Gadi Eisenhot reaching out to the Arab parties in Israel and the odds of Gadi Eisenhot being prime minister is at 47 now and Netanyah is at 33. So, you know, I'd be pretty happy to see the the Democrats in the House and the Senate, even though I disagree with so many of their policies. I'm so keen to see the war in Iran end and restrictions put in place for Trump's capacity to make things worse in the region. And then if we get rid of Netanyahu, Bengra and Israel, and we have Gadia Eisenhot, even though it won't lead to much of a difference, um I just would like to stop seeing their face.

**[40:56] Speaker B:** Talking about all this not leading to much of a difference. I think it's the same in the US though. What about the whole uni party argument? Are Americans realizing that no matter who they vote for, when it comes to most policies, nothing really changes? Because Trump ran on shutting the borders. Okay, he's acted on that. The whole transgender thing was a big talking point back then. The lawfare free speech was a big talking point. And now we're seeing him use free speech and lawfare, free speech restrictions, especially when it comes to people criticizing the Iran war. Lawfare against people on the Democratic side, people that were targeting him. We've seen that happen in the last couple of years. And then on the the corruption in the government, it's gone and it's reached a new peak. And when it comes to foreign policy, um Biden supported Israel and what's happening in the Middle East and couldn't end the war in Ukraine.

**[41:44] Speaker B:** Trump is in the exact same position. Are Americans realizing this or they keep flipping back and forth, back and forth without noticing that whoever they vote for is going to lead pretty much to the same policies?

**[41:56] Speaker A:** I think in a macro sense, absolutely. Um Gallup finds a record number of Americans now identifying as independents. It's at like 45% of Americans identifying as independent. a huge number in their annual thing. Yeah, it's it's very very interesting. And on the other hand, in a micro sense, I think because Trump is the man who owns this war and owns these high prices and Democrats have decided to run relatively populist campaigns in places like Texas where James Terico is out there talking about how this is an election about uh the top controlling the bottom and it should be it's it's top down when it should be bottom up, right? He's using this populist kind of economic class warfare messaging

**[42:36] Speaker B:** helping Trump strategy.

**[42:38] Speaker A:** Yes. Yes. Totally. Totally. And he's a fairly like quote unquote moderate Dem by their standards as what they want people to see him as. And so it's just been in a micro sense in these individual states. We're seeing really high turnout so far. And I think what that means is that people are willing to go vote for the Democrats in some of these cases. um even though they don't trust both parties even though a lot of them identify as independents because they really really don't trust Trump right now and they see his name as being on the ballot. So what happens in 2028 is almost more interesting than what happens in 2026 because then um we'll see this interesting I guess after the war and maybe I don't know who knows what happens with AI at that point but uh all that is to say there's this really like cauldron for populism right now.

**[43:24] Speaker A:** It's like all of the right ingredients are simmering and we're in a very populist moment and people don't trust either party. Both parties have low favorability ratings. Uh but right now in 2026 because the Republicans so own the war and the prices, people are willing at least seemingly to vote them in higher levels because of that. So

**[43:41] Speaker B:** I don't think they trust either party, but yeah.

**[43:44] Speaker A:** Yeah. So you got all these people that identify as independents, but what that really means is they will vote for one of the party or the other depending on the policies of the day and where the US is at the at that specific time. So at one stage they'll vote for Trump because of XY Z. The next election they'll vote for whoever runs against Trump or whoever the Democratic nominee is because of other reasons. It doesn't mean 40% of Americans would vote independent, someone like Tucker or someone else, one of the other parties,

**[44:10] Speaker B:** right? Although I think there's a huge opening for a third party in the same way that Ross Perau was.

**[44:15] Speaker A:** That'll be exciting. That'll be exciting. That'll be I've been told Joel Kent's been me and Joe have been talking about it on he's coming back today. But we've been talking about it for a while. Obviously, there's that photo that went viral with him. Marjorie Massie, man, I love I love Massie and Tucker. Do you think Tucker has any chance of being the next president or the one after that? Especially after the war in Iran?

**[44:37] Speaker B:** No. I think if Tucker ran, he could be perhaps one of the most competitive third party candidates America has seen in decades. Um, he would have a chance of being a Ross Perau type candidate. I think if actually somebody like RFK Jr. ran, they would have a chance of actually making it a close three-way vote. Um, if they ran as an independent. Uh, and that sounds dumb to a lot of people here in Washington. and they would like laugh me out of rooms for saying that type of thing, but I think they underestimate what you were saying, which is how bitterly most Americans now hate, distrust, dislike Republicans and Democrats. So, if you have the right person, somebody who's um you can can win independent Dems and independent Republicans in a way that actually siphons enough of those folks away from the Democrats and the Republicans that is going to

**[45:25] Speaker B:** who's who's kind of untainted. It'd be hard for RFK Jr. now because he's in the Trump administration. and he would have to do something to really distance himself from a lot of the Trump administration policies, which I don't know if he would want to do. But, uh, if there's somebody out there like that who could, then the moment is is ripe for a serious third party opportunity.

**[45:43] Speaker A:** Yeah, I was looking at the odds of different people being the presidential election winner in two years. Vance is number one at 18%. Rubio's only at eight. I thought I saw a poll yesterday that Rubio overtook Vance in one of the polls. I I thought I saw one yesterday. Anyway, JD Vance is at 18%. John Oaf is at 14. AOC's at 12. Holy How times change? AOC's at 12. Gavin Esim is at 12. Marco Rubio is at 8. Kamala Harris still there. Four. Pete Buddhaj is at three. Josh Shapiro. James T. Ronda Santis 2%. Um, interesting. Yeah, JD Vance is going to be interesting. RFK is not even there. Not even on the list.

**[46:31] Speaker B:** Tucker is only at 1%. Dwayne Johnson's at 1%. People People gave Trump Trump people betting Trump would do it again at 1% Trump would be the president in two years.

**[46:41] Speaker A:** That's crazy. But if Trump had run as an independent in 2016 and it had been Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump, that actually could have been an election that was competitive for like genuinely both parties would have been in trouble competitive against a third party candidate. So if someone like Matthew McConna, like do I think that's kind of a joke, the idea that Matthew McConna would run for president? Yeah, I I don't think he has the chops that like a Trump has, but it's not impossible that somebody with a big name could roll in there and do something interesting because we are at this moment that we have not been before that I can remember at least in my early 30s. I don't can't think of anything along these lines where people were so distrustful of both parties, the media, the government, big business, all of that.

**[47:25] Speaker A:** And so somebody comes in and speaks to it outside of one party apparatus or the other party's apparatus, it is a very, very powerful moment.

**[47:32] Speaker A:** Just a quick question. I just realized it now. Um, the Democrats, or at least not the Democrats, sorry, I take that back. Um, um, I forgot her name. Um, Haley Haley Stevens was up in arms and some others that, uh, funded by Apac and obviously Mike Rogers were up in arms after that ad by Jenk um, went viral. And that ad was criticizing US aid to Israel, blaming that aid as having played a role in high prices in the US. And a lot of people share that sentiment now. Um, so everyone was up on up in arms. Abdullah and then Haley Stevens jumped chip to support Mike Rogers, the Republican. But then Democrats rallied in support of Abdul Assad. Now Abdul Assad's odds of being of winning the the election today dropped by 10 percentage points, I think, when Haley Stevens jumped ship and then picked up again the next day uh once the Democrats rallied in support of

**[48:27] Speaker A:** him. Now, why do I bring that up now? is um first what do you think it indicates but more importantly 2 days later or today or 3 days later Trump now is saying we're going to stop the aid to Israel.

**[48:38] Speaker B:** So pretty damn quickly this whole argument is becoming um becoming mainstream and even Trump is by later today Trump will be supporting that ad as his final show of desperation. But what do you what do you think what do you think all that indicates the whole Abdul Assai drama and also um linking it to what Trump said today? Trump will be appointing Jenk his true successors. True. By today, Jenk will endorse Trump and will be will be replacing Hexath.

**[49:10] Speaker A:** No, I think part of the problem is that Haley Stevens made her decision. I'm not sure that anybody ever would have cared that much about Haley Stevens, but this is going to be a very tight election. So, even those marginal changes do matter. Uh, and I think she made a mistake by framing her decision to flip-flop from uh, Elsa to Rogers as being the product of her getting disinvited by Elsa. Like instead of making about stupid,

**[49:34] Speaker B:** she later tried to she put out a long expost last night about all of her policy differences with Elsa. But like literally, that should have been the first thing she said. She should have led with that. Instead, it sounded like this bizarre personal meltdown. And I think she blunted her impact by that political error and the way she framed everything. On the other hand, um I think it's everybody is watching the Michigan race as a test for how the Israel question plays out in American politics in the near future. That is to say, if Mike Rogers gets resoundingly defeated by Abdul Elsad, and we're not talking like a point because Michigan's a purple state.

**[50:11] Speaker A:** Yeah. Yeah, if if Elsa comes out and knocks him out by more than five points in a purple state like Michigan that has been very Trump friendly in an election that had um featured heavy Republican attacks calling Elsa an anti-semite and what has Trump called him a jihadist, then it's a huge huge wakeup call for Republicans and Democrats that are favorable to the Haley Stevens side that it is no longer feasible to have that position In a swing state, you might be able to get away with it in safe blue areas, but in swing states, that is that dog's not gonna hunt.

**[50:49] Speaker B:** Yeah. So, I just got some news on a run. Nothing too significant. Um,

**[50:57] Speaker B:** cool. Nothing else on that front. No, no breaking news, thankfully. We'll see you in a few hours. Um, I know you're going to be covering that yourself. Um, Emily, it's a pleasure to meet you. It's a pleasure to have you on the show, and I thank you for your time. It's been a great conversation.

**[51:08] Speaker A:** Oh, thank you for having me. Yeah, I really appreciate it

**[51:11] Speaker B:** guys. Um, we'll be live again with Michael Tracy to continue the conversation. Let me know what you think of this discussion with Emily. I would love to have her as a regular on the show. She's uh I enjoyed the conversation. I hope you did as well. Going to go through the comments. I'll be live in 5 10 minutes with Michael Tracy to continue the discussion. Bye-bye.