Bill Kristol: Fake News on '60 Minutes'

It's called soccer. It's called football. Uh, soccer. Football. Domino's best deal ever lets you get any pizza, including stuffed crust, with any toppings for $9.99. Like, we can agree on that. Yeah, fully. So, pineapple? Don't ruin it. Get any pizza, including stuffed crust, with any topics for $999. Finally something everyone can get behind. And if the rest disagree, that's between them and Domino's. Which means the only thing left to fight over is who's ordering. Domino. Price is higher for some locations. Excludes Excel and specialty pizzas. Select this offer from 615 to 726. Online only. Size availability varies by crust. Max seven topics. Six per pan and New York style crust. Minimum purchase required for delivery. Prices participation delivery area and charges may vary. You're due for a change of scenery, so see yourself in Harford County with outdoor fun for everyone. Explore local hiking and waterways, great for fishing, kayaking and boating. Spend an afternoon at one of the 11 breweries, distilleries, and wineries, plus outdoor concerts, festivals, and events every weekend. Conveniently located just off I-95. It's time you see what Harford County has for you. Plan your trip at helloharford.com. See you soon.

Like, they didn't air that. Like, there's supposed to be a news organization, and there's a whole conversation about how their news organization folded to his extortion, and they just tried to pretend like it didn't exist. Do I shine up, be enraged about this? Should we sue? I feel like we should sue, Bill. I want to sue then. I feel like the bulwark has been harmed by the fact that they did not air that. I'll call some of our lawyer friend Ryan Goodman, who was on with me yesterday, distinguished law professor at NYU. I'm sure it'd be happy to take this suit. Maybe there's some standing issues, you know, and damages. How much were we damaged by that? We could be hundreds of millions. I was damaged significantly. I mean, Barry White's got $150 million out of the deal. So I think, I feel like I was damaged at least $150 million. I mean, I guess if I would have gone along with this bullshit that this was an election changing edit by 60 minutes, it's unclear how that exists since Donald Trump won the election. right? Then Donald Trump wins? I don't know how it could have been an election changing answer. And then this new supposed news magazine pays him off as a reward for paying him off gets an interview with him and then doesn't air any of the discussion of the payoff. It doesn't feel like free press, I wouldn't say. Doesn't he in the middle of this okay, some merger that the parent organization is very interested in? Maybe they should disclose that. I don't know. Just like simple minded of me to think that, I'm sure. And silly, but he also says they didn't air the 2020 election stuff entirely, right, that he goes on about the election being stolen. No, they didn't air it at all. So what do you make of that? I mean, I have assumed for five years that, you know, he knows he's lying and he's just, that's a core lie. He's got to stick with it. And he sort of repeats it when he has to. But I don't know. When you bring it up that way, just out of nowhere, maybe he, does he believe it? I really, this is an honest question. What do you think? You remember the, uh, Seinfeld where Costanza has given, I think he was giving Jerry advice on how to beat the lie detector. He says, it's not a lie if you believe it. Oh, that's good. I think it's that situation. I think it's because I think he's convinced himself a little bit, you know. I bet he could pass it. Yeah. I think at some level he knows it's not true, but I bet he could pass a lie detector because he's so convinced himself over the time. That would be my theory. I don't know. But again, you would think that. I don't know what this would do at this point. So it's kind of like I'm just barking at the moon a little bit over this, over nothing. But like, I don't know. The President of the United States advances on your news magazine an absurd, ridiculous lie about how he won the 2020 election by a lot. You'd feel like there'd be a journalistic obligation to kind of. discuss that a little bit right because a if it's in his mind that tells you something about the state of his mind is it's so beyond i mean we understand all the demigogy and the normal drifting in line but this is pretty far down the road of just believing in something that's ludicously so obviously untrue and has been extensively investigated it isn't just a slightly oddball conspiracy theory you know you know it's like kind of important theory kind of led to important events in january 6th 2021 And it's actually important now because what does it imply about the next three years, right? I mean. So if you guys, come on with the 2028 election. She's like, I don't know. I'm thinking about running. I might run. Dems have a good bench. The moon is made of cheese, et cetera, et cetera. Like, you think the interviewer would be like, wait, the moon is made of cheese? Like, why are you bringing that up? Like, that's essentially what happened. He just like brings it up apropos of nothing.

It also implies that he's going to spend the next three years, this happened, remember when he was president in his account, 2020. So he's going to spend the next three years preventing whatever moles and deep state operators are left in his administration and in government, I suppose, in state governments too and everywhere, from doing this again, which means the degree to which he is going to be focused on rigging the 2028 election his way, if I can put it that way, ensuring the 2020, which was a free and fair and honest election, doesn't happen again. Yes. I think that's newsworthy too, right? It's not just an... In a way, it's worse than the wound made of cheese, but that's kind of abstract, you know. This is like... Great point. It's relevant to the policy that the government is running. Great point. You're right. You have some bad answers. I want to just go through rapid fire really quick. Nora asked about the cost of living. She says this. And the people that say they're struggling with the cost of living expenses, what could you do about that? Trump replies, well, let me just say cashless bail is a disaster. It's got to be changed. Sanctuary cities really have to be changed. When I saw that clip, I was like, okay, maybe he was referencing something previous. And then I went and watched the whole thing. And eventually he does come back around to the cost of living question. He blames Biden. Offers no. solutions. That seems like a real vulnerability for him, I think, over time, no, for the Republicans. You can't answer that question. They don't even have like a pat bullshit response to what they're doing about the cost of living. You think they'd be at least like, oh, we got a plan, you know, two weeks. What is cashless bail doing in there? Is that if he hears that he hears cost and it triggers something in his mind about we don't like cashless bail, the cost of cashless bail has got up a lot. It's true. I blame Biden for it. You know, cashless bail was cheap under Trump. I mean, I don't know. We are at a level of ludicrous. I mean, I've always disliked the Trump's losing it. You know, it doesn't have all his marbles. He's losing it. He's fault. You know, I just think that's a, we need to take him seriously and it says that he's such a danger. And maybe he's a little slower than he was four years ago. But you hear an answer like that, you think, I don't know, right? Okay. On things that you don't know about, which one should I do next? Talk about the, uh, uh, Shang Pang Jiao. He's the, uh, Chinese national that we pardoned, that is doing business with the Trump family. Nora did ask him about this. It was the one time Trump seemed to get a little flustered. And he gives us a couple answers. First, he's like, are you ready? I don't know who he is. I know he got a four-month sentence or something like that. I heard it was a Biden witch hunt. Nora follows up. Then he's like, well, here's the thing. I knew nothing about it because I'm too busy doing the other thing, which I think means the job of being president, I guess. His kids goes on talking about how his kids are focused on crypto and how it's important that America is strong in crypto. You know, there wasn't anything particularly from that answer that I think was useful except for the fact that, like, that is obviously a lie. Right. And as far as like this guy getting pardoned who's doing a $2 billion business deal with the family on crypto.

I kind of just want to put a pin in that and keep mentioning it because it feels like something that will eventually come back around, particularly if the Democrats are back in power in 2026, at least in the House. Feels like something to investigate. Like, how did he get pardoned exactly? We didn't really get that answer. Like, Trump is like, I don't know who he is. My kids are doing a business deal with him. So I guess it is pardoned it. Like, who recommended it? Was it the kids? Was it, you know. Was it David Ballsax? Is it your crypto, you know, czar? So I don't know. Anything on Changpang Ziao? CZ? I love the I don't know who he is as kind of the all-purpose. Trump said this a long time, I think, way of ducking questions. Just say you don't know anything about it. Even though you literally pardoned this guy, he's only pardoned one guy, I think, in the last couple of weeks. He's the only guy. He's the crypto guy who's basically funneling billions of dollars. probably bad of criminal money to whatever, I don't know, money of unregulated money, let's say. Is it a son who's on the boy? I can't even have lost track of all the crime. Yeah, both kids. So I mean, all the kids, actually. Barron, I think, is in on this. But on the more substantive point of this, a friend of mine who's not. you know, that political and policy guy. You know, I just, the corruption thing, I just think you guys and the Democrats need to hit this war. It's so massive. How could you even raise it? I mean, it's like such a scale of billions of dollars and money laundering and stuff that it's not like he stole $120,000 from this, you know, or he was bribed for $80,000 for this deal. But maybe it is massive enough and pervasive enough that it could break through. Do you think it, what do you think about that? I think that the corruption stuff overall is absolutely a big deal. And I think it's a big deal substantively. And, you know, anybody you talk to that's an expert on this stuff globally, you know, says a corruption is something that can bring down the autocrats. Obviously, there have been times where corruption hasn't brought down the autocrats because corruption is kind of part and parcel with being an autocrat. You know, so I've been somewhat optimistic about that. The crypto thing, it's just. A weakness of it of using it is that Democrats don't understand it. Journalists don't really understand it, right? A lot of pundits don't really understand it. So it makes it challenging for people to make a compelling political argument because they feel lost and uncertain in talking about it. So A, I like my recommendation to. Democrats is to like learn about this a little bit more. Some people have been good on it. Chris Murphy's been good on it. It's not that complicated. If Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump can figure out how crypto works, you can figure out how crypto works. I guess I would just say. I'm sorry. That said, I've become more bullish on it that deciding to win memo. There's like one of the sub points of it was like a poll that they took where they were asking people. You know, about various issues and what their views on. The second most unpopular issue, I don't have it in front of me. I think it was like, I think the first was like regulating IVF. It was something birth control, regulating birth control. It was something in that reproductive space was the Republicans' most unpopular position. The next was Trump having a national cryptocurrency. And like the way that they framed it, maybe, you know, I don't know, maybe people were reading it as like Trump is making an official government cryptocurrency with his name on it. But even still.

The fact that it was unpopular made me think, I don't know, maybe this isn't as complicated as it just seems. It's just like, you know, you don't have to know the details of a stable coin to just say, like, this is crazy that the president of the United States has a coin that people are paying him off with. I don't know. And the fucking Syrian, the new Al-Qaeda Syrian leader cut off his family. He knows his news story over the weekend. The Syrian leader, like, said, it told his brothers, like, you have to stop doing business deals. that relate to the government. So it's like the al-Qaeda leader of Syria is less corrupt than the Trump family. So I don't know. Maybe that does sink it. Yeah. No, I think I want to provide. I mean, maybe not so much the crypto thing per se, but just the general massiveness of the corruption, the whole family being involved, the endless scope of it, than all the cabinet people, everyone now is involved, incidentally. It's really, anyway. The ICE insurrection answer is one of the thing I just want to mention before we move on. These are two separate answers. I'm just going to lumping them together. Trump said he could use the Insurrection Act. Nobody could stop him if he wants. Judges couldn't stop him. I just thought that's kind of ominous that he brought that up. He then doesn't decide about how he should be getting credit. He's like, Nora, you should be giving me credit for not using it so far. Let's just speaks to his compulsions and psychosis. He also says that he thinks ICE hasn't gone far enough. To me, those two answers tell you all you need to know about kind of the trajectory that we're on with both the... you know, a deportation campaign, but also the military and the street stuff. He still sees as a winner. He thinks he's a winner, and I guess he's come to believe it. I always thought there, too. He'd never been involved in anti-immigrant stuff before 2015, particularly. He employed a lot of them. He married two of them, you know. And it was not his thing, you know, other people we know, other wealthy right-wingers were very into that issue way back in the 2000s and so forth. So I've always assumed it was pure opportunism and pure demagoguery. But I think maybe your point about, you know, the Seinfeld point is right here, too, that he now has internalized it and he believes it. I mean, there's no polls showing that what ICE is doing is popular. And there's no way, I would say, I don't believe that it's going to get more popular, the more they go after people who've been here 20 years and so forth, right? I mean, they, you know. But so I guess he just believes it and has talked himself into that. Yeah. He's also in a immediate bubble of his own. Yes. Well, that's a very good point. That is very good point. I think that his information. Like how he's receiving information, I think, is more one-sided than even it was in the first time around. And so I do think that, like, he thinks. I think that if you asked him, what are your self-impressions of, like, what your successes are so far? I think he would say the eight-piece deals. Right. Like, that he thinks that he's brought peace to the world. Which, whatever. We'll table that. And the other thing I think you would say is, like, crime is down. Like, the city is like, we're working. Like, the tough. And the border is closed. Right. Like, the border is closed. Crime is down. That's succeeding. Like, there's less crime now. It's working what we're doing with the guys in the streets. And so if that is your, like, self-assessment of everything, then.

I think it's natural to think, well, let's keep doing more, like more, more crackdowns of the military, more ice crackdowns, yeah. And he yearns to use the Insurrection Act. And he totally misunderstands, like itless to say, it would be bad if you used, don't give me wrong. We don't want American troops. I don't believe routinely patrolling and doing law enforcement in American cities or anywhere within the United States. Huge opportunities for abuse. But as a literal matter of fact, as I understand it, the Interaction Act doesn't suspend any law. I mean, it allows the... military to enforce the laws, which is all problematic in a million ways. He doesn't get to order the military to do a lot of things that law enforcement can't otherwise do, like arrest people without cause, detain people, without, you know, letting them have habeas corpus and so forth. But he thinks it does. And if he thinks it does, no one's telling him it doesn't, and will ICE and others enforce it in the way he thinks as opposed to what's on the statute, I mean, the degree to which he's internalized, a deep desire to be a dictator. I'm going to not. you know, sugarcoat this is what you see there, right? Did you think? Yeah. That's really what he wants. I mean, yeah, it is true. All new drinks are now at McDonald's with refreshers like the strawberry watermelon refresher and the mango pineapple refresher with popping boba to crafted sodas like the Spriteberry Blast with Bari Weiss flavors and cold foam. Who knew ice cold drinks could be so fire? Six all new drinks are here. Now at McDonald's. Refreshers contain caffeine. Ready, set, summer with the Honda Summer event. With available features like all-terrain tires and off-road tuned suspension, the rugged Honda pilot, bridgeline, CRV, and passport. Have all you need to get summer ready with the most fuel-efficient full-line automaker in America. Visit your local Honda dealer today. See Dealer for financing details. Based on EPA estimate of 24 large full-line automaker fleet-wide fuel economy, EPA Automotive Trends Report 2025. Well, that takes us to the Venezuela of it, which is what you wrote about in the newsletter this morning. It's just kind of funny, as an aside, you start the newsletter with a reference to what was the movie? The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, 1948, Humphrey Bogart, John Huston, one of the great movies of that era, which was the great era of American movies. A little bit before you were born, I understand. Even a little bit before, even a little bit before I was born, but those were the things you saw. You know, in college, you know, 20 from 20 years before, right, when I was in college. Yeah, the treasured samar matter. Anyway, I thought it was funny because this happened sometimes, I think, to everybody in life where, like, you kind of gain, like, a cultural... tent something through osmosis. Like, I'd heard the, like, we don't need no stinking badges. Like, I'd heard that audio so many times, whatever it is. And it's used and parodied in later movies and TV shows and so forth. I think. I had no idea what the origin was of it until I was reading an article this morning. And there was a 1948 Saramadre film with the... I'm glad to provide a little cultural, you know, enlightenment here. We actually had a funny just as it was being edited. One of our colleagues was more your age, said, maybe you should

put in the fact that it's been quoted, mimicked, parodied, and subsequent movies. He mentioned a couple. But I wouldn't stoop to that level of just catering to people who aren't willing to go back and think about the 1948 movie. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Anyway, it's a little homework assignment. I've got to go pull that up. Anywho, you're writing it in regards to how essentially now both domestically with ICE and... internationally with what we're doing in the Caribbean and Pacific with regards to, you know, yeeding these Venezuelan boats that were no longer abiding by, you know, these norms of how you do things in a free country, where if you're police, you have to demonstrate that your police and show people who you are other than just, you know, kill and detain people willy-nilly. It's how they do things in countries where there is no rule of law. Countries where the gangs control the streets. And you point out that we are now officially today past the 60-day mark of the bombing campaign. The first boat that we took out was... September 2nd, today's November 3rd. And that means that they've officially broken the War Powers Act. You discuss this a bit with Ryan Goodman yesterday and in the newsletter. So let's talk about that. They acknowledge that the War Powers Act applied because they submitted this letter two days later, September 4th, which is the first step. You have to tell Congress what you're doing and give some rationale. Their rationale wasn't very compelling or detailed or convincing, but whatever. They sort of went by the letter of the law. And now they just decided to forget it. You know, this isn't hostilities because American troops aren't actually at risk. And though, on the other hand, half their justification for the whole thing is that we're a huge risk because each of these votes is killing so many people. And so why aren't people in America at risk? And why aren't the troops conceivably at risk if they're so powerful, these drug cartels? Anyway, it's all incoherent as a matter of legal argument. But he desperately does not want to explain what's happening. to Congress, and he certainly wants to keep doing it. I mean, again, one of these things, one thought, okay, he's first time, I keep getting suckered a little bit by Trump, you know, bombs a few boats. I think, okay, he's horrible and it's never going to, you know, he's doing his demonstrative little quasi-fascist thing, but he'll stop. It's accelerating, not the opposite. And now he's moving massive amounts of military hardware near Venezuela. And I guess I've lost confidence that he's not going to actually. bomb Venezuela, Venezuela bases and claim that he's destroying narco-terrorist centers. And, of course, that all ties it with a war at home against narco-terrorists here at home and Antifa. It is. whatever he's thinking, the sort of radicalization or intensification of authoritarianism, once you get going down this path is what strikes me. Well, the instinct is authoritarian, you know. Right, war in drugs, war in immigrants, war in Venezuela. It's all kind of a package. And ignore all the laws that might constrain to you. Military in the streets is part of the package, right? Right. Very much so. Yeah. Because it's the same. It's connected, right? It's like these drugs, whatever, these criminals have now gotten into the country and are in the streets. And so we need to.

crack down on it. I thought it's worth noting, though, that we had officially reached the point where it is an illegal war now, which is like not nothing, I guess, the peace candidate is conducting an illegal war. And then on 60 last night, Nora asked him about this and he said, about whether Maduro's days are numbered, and he said, I would think so, yeah. He kind of doesn't want to commit to anything. He does the Trump thing where it's like word salad, and it's like, well, I wouldn't tell you what I'm planning on doing and all that. But even to say that, you know, to me indicates that, I mean, all you can do is look at their words and actions, right? Which is they're bringing all this military hardware into the Caribbean. Trump is saying he thinks Maduro's days are numbered. Marco, obviously, wants regime change. It seems to me that they are planning on continuing this and escalating it without any approval from Congress. Yeah, I think Trump, apparently Marco, Pete Hegseth, they all believe they have the right to decide at some point that they want to get rid of Maduro, get rid of bomb various places in Venezuela. And Congress doesn't have to say anything ahead of time. Congress doesn't get any information in real time. It's really kind of startling. There are obviously great cases of presidential use of power and reaction before letting Congress know and times when we've done things. And we stretched a little bit the War Powers Act. But this is a level of just my commander in chief powers extend to the right to use force, whatever I want. against whoever I want, with no evidence being presented, with no obligation of accountability to Congress or to the public. And if you look at the rationale they're using, which tinged on this thing, which came up a little bit under Obama, if your forces aren't really at risk, if your fire troops aren't at risk, it's not really a hostility, which is not consistent with the original meeting of the war prior side. But anyway, basically they say that. Literally in the email, they sent the Washington Post that this is, you know, these are standoff drones and missiles. They were not, you know, we're not at risk. It's not like ground troops. Think about the implications of that minute for a minute. It implies that if we drop a nuclear weapon, I hate to sound crazy, but I mean, from 30,000 feet away and the American pilot's not at risk. If we use a missile and to continental ballistic missile to send a nuclear weapon somewhere, Trump just can do it, I guess, because there's no war powers obligate, you know, he doesn't have to go to Congress ahead of time, and there's no war power's obligation because no American is, you know, marching towards opposing forces. It's really nuts. And we'll see what happens with the Republicans on the hell. Yeah, Roger Wicker wrote a letter I saw. It's interesting. You mentioned the nuclear thing. And it does sound ridiculous. But like, we're testing nukes. Trump said he wants to test nukes again. You just saw that out there, which is, okay, like, we haven't done that in 30 years or so, many more. And nobody is actually testing nukes besides the North Koreans. Trump seems to be confused into thinking that China and Russia are. or he's lying, I don't know, whatever, either way, when the reality is that they've tested, like, I guess, the equipment, right? Like, to make sure that, like, the, like, that it launches, like the launcher, but they're not launching a nuke. They're, like, launching something else, right? But Trump, I guess, is claiming that he's planning on testing, testing nukes. I don't know. I hadn't really thought about that as a possibility enough to, like, develop a view on it, but it doesn't seem great. No, and I think, get back to your earlier point, I think the bubble he's in.

The degree to which he repeats these things that are just manifestly absurd with statistics about inflation is down and crime has gone away and, you know, just making things up. I used to think like he just makes things up. That's sort of what being a lying demagogue is. But I do wonder how much he is, as you say, sort of in a bubble where he believes his own bullshit. And that's more dangerous. I guess it's more dangerous than just lying. I mean, knowingly lying is bad and can be very dangerous for the country. But if he's delusional... And no one's telling him that he's delusional. That's not good. You're due for a change of scenery. So see yourself in Harford County with outdoor fun for everyone. Explore local hiking and waterways, great for fishing, kayaking and boating. Spend an afternoon at one of the 11 breweries, distilleries, and wineries, plus outdoor concerts, festivals, and events every weekend. Conveniently located just off I-95. It's time you see what Harford County has for you. Plan your trip at helloharford.com. See you soon. A colossal monster, a city and ruins, no way out, except inside of the all-electric Toyota CHR. John Cho's stars in, escape. Test drive Toyota's new all-electric family today. Toyota, let's go places. All right, one of the great heroes of our time, The Sandwich Man. Appreciate the listener at one of the live events that brought me the Crochade Sandwich. My daughter has enjoyed that. He is on trial, or I guess jury selection for his trial begins today. I should mention that they first tried to indict him on felony charges. The grand jury rejected that attempt. So then Janine Piro inserted herself as the U.S. attorney from D.C. So I just want to. Repeat that one more time. The US attorney from DC is Janine Piro, and Judge Janine edited the indictment, downgraded to a misdemeanor. That did get approved. And so now we're going to have a jury trial. There's jury selection for a misdemeanor Sandwich toss happening today in D.C. That seems unusual. I don't think a ton of federal misdemeanors come to jury trials. I don't know much about it, but I never really can't think of any offhand. It's very important to make that point, though. You know, Tim, it's very important when you have these National Guardsmen and others patrolling the streets of our cities. I want to throw a sandwich at them and that they really need to be, we need to spend millions of dollars on a jury selection and jury trial in the district of Columbia. That is, I mean, we have, we're paying for this. The taxpayers are paying for the prosecutors, the lawyers, you know, the courtroom, the security to go after this guy for a sandwich toss. Throw in a subway sub.

Salami, I guess, was on there. Okay, well, good luck to him in that trial. I'm feeling pretty good about it, but we'll continue to monitor. I want to do a little politics with you. An interesting NBC poll. I've been committed to not, like, overreacting to polls at this point because it doesn't really matter. We're a year away from the midterms. But there's one thing in here that I think it's worth noodling on. The Trump job performance is 43.55. 43 approve, 55 disapprove. The generic ballot for the midterms next year, which is basically saying to people like, do you plan on voting for a Democrat or Republican for Congress in your district next year? 50% say Democrat, 42% say Republican. And in the same poll, they asked, what is your opinion of the two parties? The Democrats have only a 28% positive. view and a 53% negative. Well, the GOP has a 37% positive view, 46% negative. I lay all that out because it tells you something, like even if the poll is off somewhat, right? Like, even if there's a margin of error one way or the other, like you can see the same people in that poll are saying, I have a negative view of the Democrats, but I'm going to be voting for them anyway next year. And I think that's pretty telling about like, who those, you know, about who those people are and where things stand. And in a lot of ways, I think it's one of the more encouraging data points we've seen for the Democrats, that there are a lot of people out there who are frustrated with them who also plan on voting for them in the midterms. Totally. I mean, the Trump approval is the predictor of the midterm vote. I mean, it literally isn't the sense that it's minus, Trump's minus 12. Midterm vote is minus eight for Republicans. But the Republicans are plus 10 over Democrats, something like that, right, in terms of the... general thought about the parties. So, midterm, this has been a Ron Brownstein theme for a long time, and I think he's got a lot of data to back it up historically that the best single predictor of the midterm vote is the approval of the president, especially when his party controls both branches of Congress. That was the case I was in 2018 and at other times as well. So that's good for 2026. The relative ranking of the parties is worrying for 2028, if you want to think about it this way, because the Democrats need to actually defeat a Republican, maybe not Trump, in 2028, running on like who can govern for the next four years, not who do you want in there to check this president you don't approve of. Single most important thing remains knocking Trump. If Trump's at 43 now, the single best thing the Democrats can do is get him to 40 or 38 over the next 12 months. And that's why I've been a little bit. impatient, maybe is the word, with all the democratic, you know, naval gazing, and we have to have this agenda and that agenda. I'm all for doing that work. It's very important for post-26, but the key political task over the next seven months is to further knock Trump's numbers down. I also think it's the key political task for the Democrats in their own coalition management. I think that there's a lot of misunderstanding of what their own base wants. I think certainly there are. some rabid partisans out there that want the Democrats to move left or want it to move center, right? Like, both of those groups exist. I think the former group is larger. But, like, really what Democratic voters want is for the Democrats to show some kohones and fight and be tougher and demonstrate some leadership and strength in this moment. And so when you see this gap where, like, 28% of...

voters say they have a positive view of Democrats, but 50% of voters say they're going to vote for them. That's who those people are. Like, there's a huge group of people that want to vote for the Democrats that think that the Democrats are fucking it up when it comes to checking Trump. And I'm sure some percentage of those people are mad about the Democrats ideologically one way or the other, but most of them are frustrated that the party is feckless. And so... you aren't helping yourself by doing internal, factional fighting and positioning. Like what you're supposed to do is demonstrate that you're not feckless. You know, it feels like some people have gotten that message, but not enough. I mean, I don't know if you could find this or deduce this from cross tabs in that poll. I haven't looked, but I would suspect that the Democrats who want the Democrats to fight, to stand up to Trump and fight, and suspect, I think they aren't quite doing it as much as they might do now, should be doing now. They are both leftists, progressives and centrist. Who believe that, right? I mean, it unites the Democrats, is what I'm saying. This is not like a progressive view. As we know from, I think, Bullwarkland, and I'd say personally from the No Kings rally I attended and stuff, plenty of centrist, ex-Republican-ish, never-trumper's voting Democrat these days, want the Democrats to fight hard around a bunch of issues and plenty of progressives want a fighter. Maybe they're slightly different on which issues to put first or second, but I'm not even sure there's that much difference on that. So I very much agree. Being it. It's fashionable to say, you can't just win by being anti-Trump. Oh, boy. But you know what? For now, you can win by being anti-Trump. And he should win my being anti-trump. You can, actually. In the midterms, you can. Yeah. And it's also the most acute challenge. Yeah, it's the right thing. Like, it's the biggest problem right now. Like, that's the other thing. Like, sure. Like, yeah, in the long term, there should be a fight over Medicare for all versus Medicare for some or whatever. You know what I mean? Over like opt in Medicare for all those who want. But like. You're not going to get any of those things in the next three years. Right. Right. So while it might have been a correct critique of the Democrats looking back, like looking backwards to 2024 to say maybe you focus too much on Nancy Trump and maybe you didn't offer enough of an alternative that galvanize people. Okay. Sure. Like for that academic conversation, which we can have on a podcast if you want, I do that for time to dime. Sure. Like for the candidates now. Like, that is not right, right? Like, that is not right for 2026. For 2026, it's go after this guy and fuck him up and politically and bring down his numbers. That's the job. On that point, final thoughts on the Virginia, New Jersey race. So we'll have governor's races in both states and the lieutenant governor's AG, et cetera. Tomorrow, there's a sub kind of interest in that Virginia race related to the midterms, which is, in addition to the governor's race being important, obviously there's been a lot of attention on the AG's race because of the Democrats deranged text messages, but the House of Delegates.

elections are also very important in Virginia because the Democrats need to hold that if they want to redistrict next year and and offset some of the Republican redistricting in other states. So that and frankly, the Virginia House of Delicates and Governors Jays is probably the most important thing tomorrow for the big picture of our politics for that reason. If the Democrats control both, then it seems like they'll redistrict and be able to gain. somewhere between two and four seats in next year's midterms. Do you have any other thoughts on final thoughts in those races? I'm here in Virginia. I think Abigail Spanberger is going to win big, maybe double digits. I think Democrats will pick up seats, maybe, you know, half a dozen seats. You're a little more in the House of Delegates to get to a comfortable majority. It makes it a little easier to govern for Abigail Spanberger, too. So I'm pretty bullish. And I think the polls I've seen have a drop off, as they is to be expected, for the AG candidate. But in one case, I think Jay Jones has dropped it's like plus four or something like that, plus three, when Abigail Spanberger is plus eight or ten, which shows you, again, how strong even a gubernatorial or AG election in an off year when Trump is the head of the other party is. I mean, how should I say this, how strong even in a non-federal election, even in a state election, in an off-year state election where there are not any national offices on the ballot even, how strong the Trump gravitational pull and push. And I'd say the same way about Jersey where I think, Cheryl, I will say this, you know, the progressives, I sometimes sympathize with the progressives when they wind that moderates aren't doing enough to help them once they won a nomination fair and square. New York City, I suppose. On the other hand, in New Jersey, a couple of progressive mayors have done almost nothing to help Mikie Sherrill. I don't even understand why. It's not like she lost the primary to her. She didn't run a nasty primary against them. She just beat them. And they're sitting on their hands. One of those criticizing her all the time. I still think she'll win by, you know, more than five, six points. But that might account for a little of the weakness there, though. Yeah. Don't do that. I know. What are they? You know, just get on board. Obviously, Michael Cheryl is the superior candidate here against this MAGA guy who's run three times. The other thing, just to note to your point about Trump, the Trump factor, not campaigning either state. Yeah, interesting. Obama campaigned in both. I'm pretty sure. I think so. Correct me if that's wrong. He definitely is in Virginia. I think he campaigned in both. Trump didn't either. He's doing a... teletown hall, I think, tonight into the states, which is like what you do. If you don't want pictures of yourself in the newspaper on election day, you know, or on local news, you're worried that's going to hurt your candidates. And it speaks to this conundrum that Republicans have still in non-Trump elections, which is like, you need Trump to turn out the less engaged voters that are only there for Trump. But. Trump also has a negative boomerang effect among the voters who are more likely to turn out in off-year elections, right? And so like on that balance, I guess they figure it's better to not have them participate. For all of their bluster about how strong it is and how biggest mandate was, like if Trump was that strong, you'd be in New Jersey tonight. He's not. Now, these are both states Trump lost by about six points in 2024, so you could argue.

If this were a state that Trump would want, if this election were happening in Pennsylvania, he'd be out there or Michigan, or did I think of a red state, probably would be out there in a red state. Well, we'll see what the results are. I'd say if the Democrats shouldn't get too high on this because they are democratic states, obviously, and so you'd. If Trump lost them by six, that means they what? They ran eight points ahead of about of the national average in 2024. So in a way, you'd expect, you know, this to be a D plus eight-ish-type state, probably, and that's probably what both of them could well be, I think. So the Democrats shouldn't get too excited, enthusiastic if Abigail Spanberger and Sherrill win. The Democrats have a good night. On the other hand, as you say, if Trump were really strong, they would put him into a state. He's only lost by six and turned out those voters, right? This is McDonald's, you can't get a $5 McChicken meal deal or a $6 McDonald's meal deal. So, there's a more for your money, with your meal deal. Just for time limited. Preasios and participation can vary. The prices can be more high. This is an ad by Better Help. Think about your mentors and idols, the people who inspire you most. While it may look like they have all the answers, they don't. But they do know when to ask questions and seek the support they need. In a world that glorifies hyper-independence, it's easy to forget that we're all better with a support system. Therapy is a great way to find a consistent source of support in your life. So you can break free from the outdated belief that seeking help is a sign of weakness. BetterHelp has experienced therapists ready to help you with challenges, ranging from anxiety and depression to relationships and stress. It's convenient, too. You can join a session with the click of a button, helping you fit therapy into your busy life, and you deserve that. You can even send your therapist a message anytime something comes up. Build your support system with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com today to get 10% off your first month. That's BetterHelp, H-E-L-P.com. Now to the topic of everybody's been waiting for. Woke Bill Crystal. There was some hand ringing over Wokebill Crystal. Was it Claremont? He was talking to some students. They asked about the New York Mayor's race. You, I think, pretty aptly observed that it would be absurd to be for Andrew Cuomo. in this race, considering he's one of the worst Democratic governors and he's sex-past. And it's like there's no good alternative to him, that there was no good alternative put up to Andrew Cuomo by the centrists or by the business community as an indictment upon them. And now they're going to have to get stuck with Zorro on and see what happens. And that seems totally fine for New York City. I want to contrast that, Wokeville Crystal, with the Democrats 2016 nominee Hillary Clinton talking about the New York mayor's race. on a live taping of the podcast unholy over the weekend. If you had a vote in this city, would you vote for Zohran Mamdani and Mum, darling? You know what? I don't vote in this city. I'm not involved in it. I have not, you know, been at all even asked to be involved in it, and I have not chosen to be involved in it. I will be there the day after, and everybody else should be, too, no matter what happens.

What is that? What does that mean? This is why the Democrats are so fucking bad. What is that? What is that answer? Just do what you do? Just like, look, we've got Democrats. We've got people in all of these states. I'm down the belt. Abigail Spanberger's great. Mikey Sheryl's great. Zohran Mamdani's a little to the left of me, but clearly he's superior to the disgrace sex past and the man in the beret. So I'm for all of them. Why would, you know, the fact that she can't say that is really, I don't know. It's just such a bad answer. I guess she is kind of former, yes, presidential candidate and so forth, something like me, who doesn't have to have an opinion about all these things. You think she might. She's a major Democrat. But that's been true of a lot of them, right? Chuck Schumer, I mean, a lot of them have refused to endorse them. Some have actually endorsed Andrew Cuomo, which I look, they're free to do. When I answered the clamored kids, I said something like, you know, I don't live there. I haven't, you know, been involved at all. I really haven't been involved in Hillary Clinton. We're similar in that respect. You know, I have been involved a little in Virginia, where I live for Abigail Spanberger. And I said I wouldn't have voted for Zohran Mamdani on the first round. I wouldn't have ranked him probably. But this is a choice. I would be inclined to vote from Zohran Mamdani. It was pretty wild. I think you can have plenty of reservations about him and still say, or you can say no. I'm just staying out of it. I don't know who I'd vote for. That's a perfectly reasonable answer. I have friends who are voting for all three. I have friends voting for Zohran Mamdani. People I kind of. respects their political judgment and agree with them on a lot of things. I have people I agree with a lot who are sucking it up and voting for Andrew Cuomo. They think it's important. It'd be better for the city. There's actually ran as some people who are voting for Curtis Sliwa because they can't quite vote for Mandi and they can't stand Andrew Cuomo and Curtis Sliwa's run a kind of entertaining campaign. And someone asked me, actually, is that okay if I do that? I said, hey, it's fine. You know what? It's a free country. It's a secret ballot. Pat Mornand. Yeah. And after the 76 election, I knew how much Pat, like Gerald Ford, who had appointed him ambassador to the U.N., and he respected him personally. He just thought he was a really decent person. And, of course, Moornehan served in the Nixon administration as a counselor and then Ambassador to India. So someone asked Moynihan, who did you vote for? I mean, of course, he supported Carter. He was the Democratic Senate candidate in 76, and Carter was the presidential candidate. But someone in a semi-private setting said, well, who'd you really vote for, Pat? And Moynihan said, you know, the Australian ballot, the secret ballot was a very important innovation in the history of modern democracy. And Moynihan gave like this 10-minute discourse on when the Australian ballot was introduced in the U.S., which I think is like the mid-19th century. I think they had open elect. Before that, you like stood in the public and said you were four. You know what I mean? It was very amusing, and he never said who we voted for. So people are entitled to do that. They can just say it's a secret ballot. But I agree. Hilary's. Sure. Yes, to just answer to just answer to just answer to do that, people are entitled to do that. People are entitled to do that. People are entitled to do that. People are entitled to clear my kids is totally normal. It's right. It's just like, I don't, wasn't supposed to guy wasn't my first choice. I would have, I wouldn't, I think you said, I wouldn't have even ranked him. I would have ranked to the other center left candidates. There were a bunch of other candidates. They didn't happen. These guys decided to put all their eggs behind Andrew Cuomo, who's a ridiculous. choice on personal and policy levels. He was a terrible governor. He seems like a bad person. He seems like he's running a terrible campaign. What do you want? And so like the idea that the Democratic leadership can't just say that. I find totally crazy when it's like this is going to backfire on them. I guess is my point. Like even if you're of the view.

that the Zohran Mamdani wing is like a little dangerous. Like you're a little concerned about it. You want to limit their power. You want to control. You're concerned about controlling power for the, whatever, center left, like more, you know, active, you know, wing when it comes to, you know, more strong military way, whatever you, however you want to frame it. Like you want to, you want to kind of sideline the Zohran Mamdani wing, the DSA wing a little bit. You're concerned they're getting too much power. Even from that perspective, the right thing to do is say, I'm for him. Good luck. We'll see how it goes. I've got some concerns. I've been hearing some good things. I hope he pivots to the middle. I've heard him say a lot of good things recently. It seems like he's pivoting more towards the center. We'll see. I support him. I want the best for New York City. I also am enthusiastically behind Mikey Sherilyn and Abigail Strander. Nobody would be upset about that. But what you're doing is you're fucking radicalizing people. I'm seeing it online. The people who are not even DSA. They're kind of soft Zohran Mamdani supporters. They're more progressive and they're excited about it. him because he's young, and they now see the entire Democratic leadership, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Hillary, Kamala Harris, not be able to answer the question. And it makes them all be like, fuck you, Democratic establishment. I'm going to go in for the craziest left winger possible just as a statement that you guys are all cowards. And so they are creating the environment that they're trying to avoid with their weak need answers on this. I just have some backbone. Anyway, that's my rant on this. And also, I mean, they, I think they're inviting some on the left to not support a moderate Democrat who wins a primary. Or in the case of Abigail Spanberger, for example, in effect, was strong enough to shoo away. There would have been progressive challenges to her. She is not where the entire Virginia Democratic Party is, which has its progressives, obviously. But they've rallied to Abigail Spanberger so far as I can tell. And there hasn't been a huge amount of lamenting that our people didn't run or didn't win or we have a ex-CIA person as our nominee and stuff. One does have to play it both ways. It has to be some limits. Obviously, you can imagine certain people being nominated or we wouldn't. One would just say, I can't support it. Fine. If that's a matter of conscience, you can't support it, say that. But don't, yeah, the ducking is a little bit much. I wonder if what, do you think what Hillary meant by the day after is that? She's alluding to the fact that Trump's threatening to cut off funds to New York if Zohran Mamdani wins and babysitting the National Guard. And she's saying we all have to rally to New York City the day after to defend it against Trump. If she's saying that, I agree with that. And I think that's actually an important thing. But again, the people who are being so standoffish for Mumdadi, so hostile to Zohran Mamdani are making it harder to say the day after, okay, he's kept. Jessica Tisch or something he does is a police commissioner who the business community likes very much, and he's a real centrist. And it's not right. The president does not have the right to unilaterally cut off funds, which isn't like the result of a local election, you know. And we need to rally to New York with all the demagoguing Trump and his people are going to do about Mam Donda, including, I do think they'll find some excuse to send in. the National Guard and do all kinds of other things. Of course they will. Do you think Hillary was alluding to that day after that? I don't. I can't. It was mysterious kind of comment. Yeah, like her little word salad answer. I just can't get inside her head. It's also like you knew you were going to get asked about this. I have an answer. Maybe she did. And I don't know. Maybe people should be there. Yeah, for sure. In the day after, I guess, whatever that means. I don't. I can't endorse that it. It was a good thing to say because I don't understand what she meant. Maybe that's what she meant if so.

If she still as a spokesperson, you can email me and I'll clarify people on the podcast tomorrow. All right. We need to laugh about one last thing. Laugh or cry or be scared. All maybe, I guess, related to this mayor's race. New York Post article. that House Republicans are exploring ways to prevent Zohran Mamdani from being sworn in as mayor if he wins on Tuesday. You might wonder, how could they be thinking of? How could they do that? What would be the rationale for trying to prevent Zohran Mamdani in their expanding efforts to turn us into an authoritarian autocracy? Here's what they're going to cite. The U.S. Constitution's insurrection clause. The post-Civil War 14th Amendment to the Constitution, barring from office anyone who is engaged in insurrection or rebellion or is given aid or comfort to the enemies of the nation. I can think of somebody that is engaged in insurrection, that there was an attempt to bar them from the ballot because they actually engaged in insurrection. And all of the right-wingers said that this was an outrageous affront and anti-democracy. And that was Donald Trump, was the person that engaged in, that did an insurrection, attempted an actual insurrection and a rebellion against the country. He's the president now. But the House Republicans are saying Zohran Mamdani's statements calling to resist ICE could violate the prohibition. I mean, you have to laugh. And it's just like, are you fucking kidding? The 14th Amendment is what you're going to use? Yeah, that is kind of wonderful, right? The thing they all said in the Supreme Court said, it doesn't bar Trump, didn't bar Trump from a federal ballot, which he actually, you know, which is the whole point of it, incidentally, amazingly to keep them out of federal office mostly. And yeah, anyway, it's ludicrous in eight different levels, of course. And, um. I guess they think it's a good issue for them to just highlight Zohran Mamdani and make him the face of the Democratic Party. And a lot of the Democratic centrists are all worried about that. And I've argued with some of them. And then after I was quoted with the Claremont thing, you know, how could he be saying this? You know what? If you don't want to Zohran Mamdani to be the face of the Democratic Party. Make Abigail Spanberger and Cheryl and Jason Crow and five million other friends of ours to face the Democratic Party and do a better job of that. You know, that's how you get a fit. You don't, you don't complain. You could chop down Mom Dondy's publicity a little bit. I mean, he's going to get a lot of attention. He'll win the election. Two months later, he'll be mayor. Even a week or two later, it'll be about the challenges he faces New York. And he'll be mayor. And then he'll do a good job or a bad job or a mediocre job or you can criticize him on this issue or that one. This is your point from 10 minutes ago. They're creating more of an issue here than they would otherwise, right, with all the hand wringing and lamenting about it. And they're playing into the Republican's hands as this idiotic. Now we're going to have some Democrats somewhere, some moderate Democrat who's so concerned about the left, such a danger, it's so horrible. First they were saying Latin acts. Now the...

One liberal city is going to have a very liberal and anti-itual, unfortunately, mayor. And it's so horrible that we have to really can't criticize the Republicans. You've got to understand why the Republicans are coming from, Tim. This is kind of, you know, there we're wokeness. It's just like, you know, we have Trump because, you know, some college professors did some bad things on campus. Now we're going to have this insane thing because this guy wins that after what? A million people vote for him tomorrow, incidentally, right? I also want to throw out with all that. I also want to try to come back for other Republicans, though, because I don't know. I mean, he's happy. Are you ready for this hot take? He's a better face with the Democratic Party than Hillary. He's at least appealing. There are people that have been not engaged in politics who like him. And so, I don't know, he's not appealing to the median voter in fucking Pennsylvania. I don't know. Some people are excited and engaged. There's something to that. He's certainly more appealing than fucking Mike Johnson or whoever these people are that are trying to keep him off the ballot. The good thing about it is that the Republicans are at least unapologetic about their anti-democratic efforts. Like we can not, not Democratic Party, but anti-democracy efforts. We can just see it. Like any time, any election they don't like, they're going to try to stop. And that's a good thing to know. But that is an important point. If I could just take 12 seconds on that. I mean, yeah, that they're so disregard the will of the actual voters. I mean, he's going to win to say tomorrow, presumably. And I don't quite know the numbers. I'll probably get him at something close to. million votes or three-quarters of million votes. And they're just going to, what, throw that, that, but that shows their deep contempt for democracy. And it fits in with the redistricting. It fits in with the voters' oppression. It fits in with all the talk about 26 and 28. And it makes me more worried that they will be considered, I mean, who knows how many House Republicans are signed out to this idiotic thing. But there will, there will not be no support in the Republican Party for Trump's efforts to put a major thumb in the scale in 26 and really. distort the elections in 2028, don't you think? I mean, that's not just a Trump thing is what I'm saying. It's now a Republican Party thing. For sure. I think for sure in 2026. And what exactly it looks like, like what the extent of it is, you know, all that is TBD. But I keep saying, like, look. They've laid out their playbook. And this is our own thing is ridiculous. Like he's going to be seated. And like this is just stupid like New York Times rage bait. They're not going to be able to use the insurrection clause from keeping him in. But like the fact that that's what their mind is is important. Because that to me, I think, has always been, that's been my top concern about next year is they'll try to do some hinky stuff before the election, whatever that looks like. Obviously they're doing the redistricting. Who knows what else they'll try to do as far as voter suppression is concerned. But I always just kind of stuff a lot of times backfires more. than it actually works. But if the Democrats win, particularly if it's close, they're going to do this shit. Oh, I can't seat this person, the mail-in ballots, this clause and some fucking, you know what I mean? Whatever pretextual reason they come up with, that is coming next year. And I mean, unless Democrats win about like 30 seats or something. But I think that if it's at all close, that's what's coming. And the failure to seek your help is really of a piece with that unprecedented. I mean, more than a month after she wins the election, she's certified. And Mike Johnson is using this fake excuse that they're not in session when he's sworn at other people in the pro forma sessions. So again, it's just, it's a minor thing. I mean, it would be the 218th signature on the Epstein discharge petition, obviously. But otherwise there's no votes. So it doesn't matter in some sense that much, except the voters don't have a member of Congress to call up and get their, you know, some help on something. But the voters of that district. Meaningful now? Because there's a lot of services that are being lost. Right. No, but so it isn't nothing. But mostly it's, again, an indication of how far they're willing to go.

Eich, 2026 could be rough in a lot of ways. Aish. It's hard to be run a democracy. One of the two parties isn't really committed to democracy, you know. Indeed it is. Indeed it is, Bill Crystal. Tomorrow night, everybody, we are going to be live on YouTube. I think it's at 8 Eastern that you got Sam Stein and friends with Bill. I'm going to pop on with Sarah and JVL, I think around 915 or 930. So go to the Bullwark YouTube page, subscribe to us then. And that will be tomorrow night, Tuesday night. November 4th. We've got a great podcast lined up for you for Election Day tomorrow as well. It'll be a little doubleheader. So we'll see you all back there tomorrow morning. Bill, thanks as always. My pleasure. All right. Everybody else, see you on Election Day. Peace.

by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.