California’s Vote-Counting Chaos

Instagram teen accounts default teens into automatic protections for who can contact them and the content they can see. Explore teen accounts and all of our ongoing work to protect teens online at Instagram.com slash teen accounts. Instagram teen accounts, automatic protections for teens. Instagram teen accounts have built-in content settings and limits for who can contact teens. Plus, teens under 16 can't change these default safety settings without parental approval. So parents can help teens connect safely. Instagram teen accounts, automatic protections for who can contact teens and the content they can see. Learn more at Instagram.com slash teen accounts. heart of our nation's capital, Washington, D.C., backed by the trusted voices of Team Fox, a clear, fresh voice cutting through the noise to tell the truth. It's Guy Benson with Guy Benson.

It is Monday, June 8th, 2026. Welcome one and all to a brand new broadcast week here on Guy Benson. I'm your host, Guy Benson, a political analyst at Fox News, and a senior columnist at the Washington Examiner. And we are here together, as always, every weekday, between 3 and 6 p.m. Eastern. We've got a great show lined up for you. I'll get to the lineup in a moment. First, I will remind you that if you want to get in touch with the show, with us, you can do that via email, GBS at fox.com. You can also follow us on social media. I do recommend that. At Guy Benson. Personally, I am at Guy Benson. We'll get to our first guest here in just a moment. In the next hour, U.S. Senator John Houston of Ohio will be our guest. As will Greg Swenson. There is a big, big fight in the United Kingdom. politically speaking, over a terrible, lethal incident involving a killing of a young man in the street and the police response. And now JD Vance has gotten involved and commented publicly on it, which is now drawn hackles from some people in the British government and media. We will talk to Greg Swenson about that whole very nasty episode. and how it is very much shaping the moment in British politics and now involves American politics as well. And then in our final hour, just after Five Eastern, Tom Bevin of Real Clear Politics, you bet we are going to get to California. And the saga that keeps dragging on out there with their vote counting and some major changes and a lot of, I would say, instability questions out there about what is going on. We will talk to Tom about that. Plus, we'll see how things are going down in Illinois, as the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois might be right on the brink of losing the Chicago Bears. As we mentioned last week, Tom is based in Chicago land. I can't imagine that's playing too well for the party that controls the state and the city. All of that coming up on the show today. We begin, though, with Mark Dubowitz, who is the chief executive of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. And, Mark, it's good to have you back on the show. Welcome. Thanks, Guy. Honored to be there. All right. So there has been this very, I would say, tenuous ceasefire, which in some ways has been a ceasefire in name only between the United States and the regime in Iran stretching over weeks, as there have been skirmishes and various confrontations, kinetic confrontations, during the ceasefire, but always downplayed, as the Trump administration has been seeking some sort of a deal. with what remains of the regime in Iran, which has sent a lot of missed signals, mixed signals, as they so often do. And they've gotten sort of escalatory again in some of their attacks, including just in the last few days, hitting the airport in Kuwait, attacking and, you know, lobbying attacks at our men and women stationed in the region. And there's been...

In the last few days, at least behind the scenes, reports of a real battle between President Trump and Israeli leadership, because the Israelis are saying we've got to respond to some of what's happening in our country with this Iranian proxy Hezbollah attacking us from Lebanon. We can't let that slide. Trump doesn't want any of that to disrupt the possibility of a deal, which I sort of get. And it seemed to come to a head a little bit yesterday with Trump giving these quotes about how... The Israeli Prime Minister just has to go along with whatever Trump decides, and he was going to tell the Israelis not to retaliate against attacks from not just Iran, but Hezbollah as well. But now the Israelis have retaliated, and there are questions about whether that was done in conjunction with the U.S. or in defiance of the U.S. How do you see this right now? What are you hearing about this latest response from the Israelis that at least initially President Trump said he was going to tell them not to undertake? So I think President Trump had a conversation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, where the Israeli Prime Minister explained to the president that if Iran is firing ballistic missiles at Israeli civilians, and if Iran back Hezbollah continues to fire missiles, drones, and rockets killing Israeli soldiers and civilians, that the Prime Minister of any sovereign country has to respond. And I think President Trump understood that. He's understood that. since his first term and has been very supportive of Israel through both terms. I think he also, I hope he's appreciating that a ceasefire means both sides don't fire at each other. And in the weeks that you've mentioned, the Iranians just keep firing at the United States, at our Gulf allies, and at Israel. And if we back down, if we allow them to continue... firing without a response, then all they'll do is continue to escalate. And, you know, unfortunately, I'll put more Americans in harm's way, and God forbid, they kill an American. So I think the president understands that he might be in negotiations, but he can't tolerate Iran escalating against America, our allies in the Gulf or in Israel. Okay, so I had read. And there's two sort of narratives here. And I always want to be careful about just, you know, embracing one or the other. Some people are saying, with Israel hitting targets inside Iran, and now it looks like Iran might be escalating further or maybe not, right? You're trying to read into what the Iranians are actually doing. But Israel did hit back. fairly significantly inside Iran. And that's being described by some people as the Israeli leadership basically ignoring what President Trump told them and doing their own thing, which could be infuriating to Trump, who's trying to land the plane on whatever this deal could be. Then the other side of it and other reports that I've seen are that...

Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu had multiple conversations. Yes, some of them were testy and a little spicy, but on this one, the U.S. gave its blessing, and Trump gave his blessing to what the Israelis were going to do. And Benjamin Netanyahu would not have openly defied Trump this way. So this was Trump acceding to what the Israelis have to do, understanding the dynamic that you just described. Are you led to believe one? storyline here is true over the other based on either, you know, your instinct and your experience or just direct knowledge of what happened here. I am hoping it is the latter and not the former. I believe it to be the latter. It's been the ladder for all through Trump's first term. through Trump's second term. In fact, there's been a lot guy, a lot of reporting, breathless reporting over the past year and a half about all these severe disagreements between Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu and that they were at odds last year in April, May, and then they were at odds again in January, February of this year. Well, it turns out they weren't at odds. They were closely coordinating U.S. and Israeli political, military and strategic planning before the 12-day war last year. the 38-day war this year and have been really closely coordinating all of their responses. So I think there are a lot of people in Washington, unfortunately on the Democratic side, some on the Republican side who want to see a lot of daylight between Jerusalem and Washington, and are disappointed when a U.S. President and the Israeli Prime Minister are closely coordinating. So they put out a lot of these stories. A lot of them are kind of source. to unreliable parties and it turns out. True. Although Trump did admit himself, right, in a podcast interview last week, that it got. pretty tense in at least one of the calls with Benjamin Netanyahu, right? So that's something at least that's been confirmed by Trump. That doesn't mean that he and Benjamin Netanyahu were not on the same page for this latest round of Israeli strikes inside Iran after all these attacks from the Iranians. But this also goes to another sort of either or. There could be maybe some gray middle ground. We've seen, and I know you've been watching this as well, Mark. Some people, pro-Israel Americans, and I'm one of them, who've been watching... The last several weeks in particular, and they're saying Trump has become so fixated on a deal for a deal's sake, any deal. He's falling into the Biden-Obama trap here. And his comments about Israel and trying to handcuff the Israelis and not responding to any of this, this is something of a heel turn. He's gotten totally distracted and off course on this stuff. That's one.

thing that i've heard the other hand is nope some of this might be for show trump's instincts and record is good and we trust him and we want to give him space to do what he needs to do as long as the israelis can do what they need to do as well if not in conjunction i am still in that second camp Although with some growing concern and consternation recently, what do you make of that dichotomy? Where do you fall on that spectrum? If you agree with that spectrum. No, I'm exactly where you are. I'm in the second camp with some closing consternation. I think President Trump does want to deal. I think you'd like to resolve this diplomatically. I don't blame them for wanting to try. I just don't think that there is a deal to be had with this regime. I think that the regime believes that they can do to Trump what they've done to every other president, particularly Biden and Obama, which is to string him along in endless negotiations, and then offer him minimal concessions and try to get billions of dollars paid up front to relieve the economic crisis in which they find themselves. And at the end of the day, the president is not going to get a satisfactory deal either on Hormuz or on Iran's nuclear program. And I worry that... It's taking him too long to realize that. And more that time goes by, the more that we get closer to not only the midterms, but to January 2020, and President Trump leaves office. And I'm deeply concerned that there will not be a president in the White House in 2029, who is as focused on the Iranian threat as President Trump. And then the Iranians will just rebuild. Their nuclear and military and defense capabilities, in fact, everything that the Israelis and the Americans have so successfully degraded, and they'll be right back as a threat. We have about a minute and a half or so left. What would – because, look, there have been these punishing blows delivered to Iran's regime. It's nuclear program. It's missile program. It's Navy. It's military. I mean, there's been a lot of great work done by the United States and Israel, and some help from the Gulf Arab states as well. It would be great to then get a strong deal that could resolve this in a way that I think Trump would find acceptable. In your mind, what would that look like? What is a good deal that Americans should feel good about if it can be achieved? Well, I think it's a deal that addresses President Trump's overwhelming priority, which is to ensure Iran ever as a nuclear weapon. To do that, they have to dismantle Iran's remaining nuclear facilities. They have to get out to thousands of pounds of enrich uranium at all purity levels. They have to ensure that there are no underground enrichment facilities and that there will be a permanent ban on Iran's ability to enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium, which are the key fossil materials Iran needs to develop nuclear weapons. You get that deal, President Trump.

has ensured that Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. Again, deeply skeptical the Iranians are going to give up those valuable nuclear concessions. And I think President Trump is going to find soon enough that he can't resolve this diplomatically. He needs to militarily open the Strait of Rameau, so Iran doesn't have a permanent stranglehold over that critical waterway. And he needs to ensure that the remaining targets that are on Admiral Cooper's... target list. Or at least remind the Iranians, hey, we can start this back up and here's a foretaste of that unless you get very serious and we'll see what happens here. Mark Dubowitz of FDD starting the show today with us. Thank you, sir, and we will be right back. You're listening to a new generation of talk, Guy Benson. Cheers to America's 250th birthday. Get 20% off your first purchase at Fox Newswineshop.com with code FM Radio 20. 20% discount excludes wine club offers and cannot be combined with any other promotion. Expires July 31st, 2026. Must be 21 older to order. Please drink responsibly.

I'm Guy Benson. We are back. We were just talking about foreign affairs. On that subject, a new poll from Elon Musk University and UGov asking Americans if they would rather live somewhere other than the United States. It is America 250. In fact, I have a few thoughts on that. Some color commentary from my household coming up in the home stretch at the end of today's show. It's America 250, this big anniversary year. We're approaching the 4th of July, and for many of us who love this place, we are approaching peak patriotic excitement and fervor around this extra special holiday in a matter of weeks. And yet we continue to see polling where an awful lot of people in this country don't seem to like it very much, to put it mildly. I think there are quite a few people, sadly, tragically in this country who hate our country. And I think there's been an indoctrination of kids along those lines. I think that there is an ethos in elements of our politics where it is actually the approved, in fact, demanded opinion to take a dim view of this country. For a long time, a lot of people on the left would indignantly. insist that no one should ever question their patriotism. Now, if you look at the patriotism surveys and polls, very consistently, lefties, liberals, progressive Democrats, that tribe is much, much less patriotic than conservatives and Republicans. That is just a reality. This is what they offer to pollsters. They admit to this. Again, it's sort of part of the tribal behavior. is to not be overly laudatory of the United States, not to be too patriotic, and then it devolves down from there into full-blown anti-Americanism in some quarters. But this is what they volunteer to pollsters. Routinely, like this is not a slander or a smear. This is how they view themselves and their own views of this country. So they've gone from, how dare you question my patriotism, to basically patriotism is to be seen skeptically at best. We played the clip a few times last week of that MS now host on one of our competitors. Someone who was born abroad, then lived in Canada for a long time, moved to the United States, chose to become a citizen here. And all the amazing rights and benefits of being an American citizen, what a gift this person has become prominent and successful and wealthy and still says celebrations of July 4th this year are something that he's very uncomfortable with because of all of our racism. That is, sadly, the mentality. Which brings us to the poll that I mentioned a moment ago. Let me bring you the punchline here, the dark punchline. According to this you gov poll, 55% of Democrats said they would rather live in a different country than the United States compared to a fraction, 10% of Republicans. In this poll, at least, a majority of self-described Democrats say they'd rather live somewhere else.

It's amazing. They embrace illegal immigrants breaking into this country, but they at least tell pollsters they want to break out. I'm not sure that people who answered that question that way can get all Huffy if someone at least asks a question about their patriotism. If your position is, I want to leave and live somewhere else, I mean, okay, kind of speaks for itself. I've got a plan. I've got a deal. Go. Go somewhere else. Eat your heart out. Enjoy the rest of your life abroad, not here. Just stop voting here. You don't like this place. You don't want to be here. Stop influencing our elections and our decisions. Go somewhere else. Stop voting and you can maybe try to vote in your new country. And good luck with that, by the way. Choose wisely in terms of culture, in terms of quality of life and creature comforts and opportunities. And, you know, health care availability and innovation. Yes, even immigration laws. You might find it quite difficult to settle in your preferred foreign country. But go do your research. And if you can make it work, have at it. But just leave your voting pattern behind. Please. We'll be right back.

Sounds like in their meetings toward the end, there was not a whole lot of listening being done by Scott Pelly, and certainly no benefit of the doubt was given to her at all. The knives were out for her before she even got the job. Now, I think some of those questions are fair. Like, is this person familiar with how a global TV network operates and how that news organization does its work, given her print background? That is fine. To have questions or concerns about that, I think she's a very smart person with an ability to handle a steep learning curve. Again, I don't think the benefit of the doubt that he mentions was actually extended or afforded to her. But clearly a lot of the problems lay beforehand during the buildup, the rumors that she might be getting the job, which is why I also don't believe this idea that he didn't know who she was. If that's true, He was very much living under Iraq in the information news space for the better part of several years. Bari Weiss, maybe not a giant superstar, maybe not a network anchor, quaffed with the voice and all that like Scott Pelley, maybe not a traditional news executive on the TV broadcast side. but someone who had made major waves in the space overall and had garnered a lot of attention as a leader, as a journalist, as a writer, as a thinker, as someone engaged in the news cycle on a frequent basis, asking interesting questions, writing interesting pieces, printing and publishing all sorts of different opinions and news, to not know who Bari Weiss was at all, not to know the name, if that confession is accurate. And he had, I guess, missed all the rumors and all the speculation and conjecture about the future of the network that he holds so dear. Do you believe that? I mean, you can draw your own conclusion there. But if he is confessing accurately that he had no idea who she was, what an admission of a blind spot, a huge, glaring blind spot about the information silo. in which Scott Pelley existed and apparently still exists. And I will get to more evidence on that front in just a second. Then you had all the reporting about the confrontations, how he comes out and embarrasses one of the new bosses at a recent meeting. This was one of Bari Weiss's hires. Again, some with a great journalism pedigree that I guess Scott Pelley wasn't impressed with and really was unwilling to. respond well to private overtures and instead was accusing the leadership of murdering CBS News and what are your qualifications and all of that. It was just textbook insubordination. Very rude, not the benefit of the doubt, none of those things. He made a big show either to martyr himself and then do exactly the type of publicity tour he's doing now with all of his millions in the bank, or because he thought he could successfully lead one of these newsroom coups that we've seen on the left in recent years, whenever anyone tries to come in and write the ship.

in a listing, lilting, left-wing organization, they go crazy internally and drive that person out or those people out. We've seen it a few times. Maybe that was the goal. But the way he was conducting himself, the way he was treating his superiors, his management, his bosses would be obvious immediate grounds for dismissal in virtually any job anywhere in this country. And yet the New York Times interviewer on this podcast asked him, well, you know, when you were behaving that way, did you think you might get fired? Listen to this answer. And again, assess it for believability. Cut 29. You then do have a meeting with CBS leadership after this very contentious interaction. Can you tell me about that meeting? And if you were at that point, going in expecting to be fired? Oh gosh, furthest thing from my mind. It hadn't occurred to me. But it really didn't occur to you that you could be fired after so many of your colleagues had been let go, after you'd had this, you know, very contentious interaction with your new boss? You know, some reporter I turned out to be. I just didn't connect the dots. Hmm, a little self-deprecation there. But yeah. As our friend Charles C.W. Cook noted online, this is not exactly the work of a brilliant investigative journalist, is it? Wait a second, we've hired this person to run CBS News. I've never heard of her. Really? Now I'm going to go into a meeting and embarrass these people to their faces in front of everyone. And golly, gee, it just didn't occur to me that doing such a thing might get me fired. Gosh, furthest thing from my mind just didn't connect the dots. Is this man a moron? Or is this man being deliberately obtuse, disingenuous, et cetera? By the way, on this score, Katie Couric, who, of course, was at CBS News for a long time before that NBC. I guess she's got her own podcast or whatever she's up to now. She addressed some of this. And even though ideologically, she's definitely on board with him on the team. I'm sure she's anti-Barry, aren't they all, the whole thing. But even she at least had the wherewithal and the basic integrity and intellectual honesty to just state the obvious. You can't treat your bosses that way, especially in public and have no idea that you might lose your job. Here's Katie Couric. I guess throwing some cold water on that answer and that whole explanation, the spin from Scott Pelley, cut 26. I am really astounded by the mess that has been created at 60 minutes. On the other hand, to say Scott Pelley's tirade and expressing expressions of anger and frustration, which I totally understand and relate to, were extremely impolitic. I think is also a massive understatement. And I don't think that Bari Weiss had any choice. But.

to let Scott Pelly go. I mean, I think it's a classic definition of insubordination, and I'm not saying that I don't agree with Scott. Classic definition of insubordination, yeah. Kirk is basically saying, yep, I'm on the team. I agree with you, but you did it in such a way that was so obvious that Bari Weiss didn't have a choice. You think that would be plain as day. Well, Scott Pelley. says that he didn't realize that, apparently. He also, and to me, this is the most important clip in the whole interview, because ultimately I don't care that much about the psychodrama going on at this network and some of these people and the self-importance and all of it, the navel-gazing. I think a lot of Americans are like, oh, gross, screw this, these people deserve all of this. However, there was a moment that I think... actually goes deeper and is more illustrative of the wider problem than any other piece of minutia or nugget or juicy detail or gossip from this interview and this whole kerfuffle. And that was right here with Scott Pelly. Just admitting he has no idea why his profession is in so much trouble and is completely out of touch with the American people. He seems to think this is a Bari Weiss problem when in fact this is very much a Scott Pelly mainstream legacy media problem. Cut 27. What was the feeling about that particular opening salvo to the team? Uh-oh. She, I am told. said something to the effect of why do you think the country thinks you're biased but she didn't offer any kind of a metric you know what's your metric why do you think so do you have a poll is there market research what are you talking about because we certainly didn't believe that there's the money soundbite Bari Weiss in taking the reins at CBS News. It's like, hey, let's do some introspection here, everyone, some self-reflection. Why is it that the country has lost faith, not just in this network, but in the media generally, that's her point. And Pelley's like, well, she didn't offer any example. What are you talking about? Do you have a poll? Is there any market research? What are you talking about? We certainly didn't believe that. That's the problem, Scott. That right there is the problem because she is right. objectively she is right and the fact that you disagree or don't know i'm not actually sure what's worse that you don't know this or you're pretending not to know it if you're asking for metrics and market research and polls let me help gallop late 2025 Question, in general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media, such as newspapers, TV, and radio when it comes to reporting the news fairly accurately. A great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all. And the numbers have just cratered over the years since the 70s. A great deal or a fair amount used to be in the 70s. That number is now in the 20s. It's at 28%.

28% of Americans say they trust the mass media a great deal or even a fair amount. That combined number is 28%. While more, 34% say not at all. None. No confidence. And 36% a plurality say not very much. So when you have the not very much plus the none at all in the confidence in the media, when you combine those two, that would be 70% of the public, Scott Pelley. That is Bari Weiss's point. And you can say you don't believe that. Well, then you've got a big problem. As for the partisan bias component of this, and I'm sure people like Scott Pelly would swear up and down. Absolutely not. That is, we are not biased in favor of one side or the other. I don't know where she's getting that. We certainly didn't believe that. Okay. Here is another Gallup poll from recent years. The headline on this graphic is, more Americans believe the media favors Democrats and the Republicans. And the margin is 64% to 22%. I'd love to meet the people who believe the media. favors Republicans. That's amazing. That's just like, get me some of those hardcore, powerful hallucinogenic drugs, please. That would be the hardcore Dem Base. They're like, oh, this corporate media just loves the right. I don't even know how to deal with that, honestly. But the vast majority, a super majority of the American people, roughly two-thirds in this poll from Gallup, And I quoted other Gallup data a moment ago about the lack of trust. And part of the reason for that lack of trust is because 64% in this survey, Gallup, of Americans say the journalists, the media, favor the Democrats. They're on a team. And Scott Pelley's like, well, what's the metric? Do you have a poll? Yes, there are many, Scott. And again, I repeat, I'm not sure which is a more damning indictment. of you as a journalist, an information gatherer and understander, that you had no idea that this was the case and that all this data exists, and that the problem is real and acute and growing, or that you are aware of those things and you're just playing dumb as part of this story that you're trying to tell. Those would be the options. And it seems as though Scott Pelley's now former boss, Bari Weiss, has much more of a finger on the pulse of how the American people are feeling about our mass legacy media than this guy who's now doing a series of interviews where he is exposing his either ignorance or his dishonesty. As Katie Couric said, it seems as though Bari Weiss did not have a choice. More of Guy Benson coming right up. Same issues, but with a fresh perspective. Guy Benson.

Back on Guy Benson, thank you for listening. A disturbing terrorism plot thwarted over the weekend. At least we found out about this over the weekend. This was a terror threat from within. Headline from the New York Post, California ex-Navy sailor, age 25, caught in ISIS plot to kill U.S. special forces using rocket-propelled grenades and drones. So you've got these two men living in California. charged with this terrorism plot associated with ISIS, the radical Islamist jihadists, they wanted to target our special forces using these explosives. One of them lived in Southern California, another somewhat nearby, both in their early to mid-20s. They also had a third associate out of Kansas, also in his 20s. They all have last names that are Kurdish and or Arabic. And this was ISIS inspired. This was ideological. This is the jihad. In this case, homegrown. Prosecutors alleged that the three men paid $2,000 to someone they thought was from the jihadist group to buy rocket-propelled grenades and UAVs for the attack. According to a criminal complaint filed in federal court in Kansas, the three men allegedly spent more than a year communicating about extremist plans, including discussions about leaving the United States to join ISIS. One of the men, Guff 4, his last name, made a series of violent statements, including saying it would be, quote, sick, like in the cool way, to have his name placed on a drone then used in an attack to kill U.S. servicemen. He also spoke about beheading a female soldier and stated he wished he could kill 300 million Americans, just wants to kill us all. One of these guys used to be in the U.S. Navy. And as it turned out, the person, or at least one of the people they were conspiring with was an informant or an agent, and they've been caught, and they're now in a heap of trouble. I'm glad this was stopped, obviously. But it underscores A, we do have a problem. It's not just outside our borders. There is a homegrown jihadist issue in this country. And the unsettling question is how many other potential emerging cells like this might exist around the United States? I wonder if it is, quote, unquote, Islamophobia to report this news just to tell you about it. I'm sure some would say so. But it is news nonetheless. Another hour of Guy Benson up next. U.S. Senator John Hustead, who's up for election this year will join us about his race, about the latest developments in the U.S. Senate in the last couple of days. Big hour coming up. Don't go anywhere.

new generation of conservative talk right here right now fair fun and backed by the trusted voices and reporting resources of fox news you're listening to Guy Benson and now here's your host Guy Benson It's a new hour here on Guy Benson, middle hour of three, Monday edition of the program. Thank you for tuning in. Guy Benson.com. Podcast always free when the show is over. Let's bring you a Fox News alert with Dow finishing modestly in the red, down 80 points at the closing bell today. The Dow finishing at 50,786. Well, joining us here on the program is U.S. Senator John Houston, the junior senator from Ohio, who is in cycle this year seeking to be elected by the Buckeye State to a full term in the U.S. Senate. And he actually has an interesting biography, having served in multiple capacities for the people of Ohio, something that I want to actually ask about here. But senators, good to have you. Welcome back to the show. Great to be with you. Thanks for having me on. So one of the bullet points on your resume, on your CV, is that you served for eight years, if I'm not mistaken, as the Secretary of State in Ohio. And I'm just wondering, as you watch what's unfolding in the state of California, which is not unusual for them, I need to point this out. This is how they always do their vote counting. It takes days and weeks and the better part of a month often to get all of their counting done. And then you compare that with how other places do their vote counts. I know that some people say, well, California says so many people, they're trying to do it deliberately and have as much participation as possible and they want to get it right. So that's why it takes so long. And then you see the madness play out as they execute on this system that they have for themselves as someone who is in that position. as Secretary of State, in a highly watched state like Ohio, just tell us what you think of the California system and how it compares to what Ohio does. Complete and total incompetence is what I think about the California system. Most states, including Ohio, where we pride ourselves in making it easy to vote and hard to cheat, 99% of the vote is counted within 24 hours. And just think, this is a low turnout election in California. This isn't even a general election, and they're nearly seven days in and still don't have an outcome in the mayor's race or even, frankly, in the governor's race. And it's incompetent. It's bad. It's a primary election. It's bad law. It's bad administration. It is complete and total incompetence. And by the way, I don't ever want to hear a Democrat talk about Republicans undermining election confidence when the very execution of the election in California is the ultimate undermining of voter confidence in an election system.

When you not only go so slow, but then in going slow, you have a major change in an outcome, that kind of stuff undermines election confidence. Yeah, and then they've got, you know, all the ballot harvesting nonsense. I mean, it's just an absolute free-for-all out there. And it's not – and this is such a key point that I'm going to keep coming back to because, unfortunately, I think we're going to be covering this for days. This is what they do. It's not like – they have this system, and they're like, well, gosh, yes, it's imperfect, but it's better than any alternative that we can find. This is not true, right? Like, I talk about Florida being, in my mind, sort of a gold standard in all of this, which was not always the case, right? They had a big mess on their hands in 2000 and went out to say, we're never going to let this happen again. California embarrasses itself every election, and the people who run that place are like, yep, we're going to do this all over again next time, and we're not going to change. When you hear some of the excuses made, like, oh, well, it's just, it's a lot of ballots, or they're trying to get everyone to participate as much as possible. They're just being thorough. Those are kind of the claims that are made to justify the unjustifiable. You guys have to process many ballots in Ohio as well. You do it completely differently. Is there any reason? why that model could not just be picked up and dropped onto California to clean up all of this if they wanted to. There is no excuse for it. It's not like Ohio and Florida are small states. Yes, California is a very large state, but these other states, we're getting it done in 24 hours or less. Their system is incompetence. It really is. You can bring the resources to bear on something that's so important as an election to make sure that it's done in a very timely manner. The problem that they have is one of the problems that they have is that the sole tool that they use to validate whether somebody is a... um it is legitimate or not is their signature so we've made expert hand readers out of all the precinct uh in elections officials well i've seen some of it's just like squiggles or like a smiley face right like it's it would Crazy. If you would simply use photo ID or the five, you know, the photo ID driver's license number, last four digits to your Social Security number as unique identifiers and actually have a system that's accountable, the problem with California and why they have to go so slow is they want an unaccountable system. And if they had an accountable system, this could go so much faster. Yeah, that. is what they want the people that control the system like it when it is baffling and embarrassing to everyone else and by the way you mentioned voter ID i know they're strongly against that out there the democrats who run the state voter ID is on the ballot a referendum on the ballot in california

this year in November. So if you're listening out there in California and you're frustrated, that would be a big reason to turn out and have your voice heard in November because that question is literally on the ballot as a ballot initiative in November. Senator, I want to turn to your race in Ohio. where the former U.S. Senator, your opponent, Sherrod Brown, Democrat, is trying to make a political comeback. He was voted out of office by Ohioans not long ago. He's trying to crack back into this thing. And I've seen some polls that show you narrowly leading in the race. There's a Fox News poll that has you down, actually, high single digits in that race. Where do things stand right now? Is Sherrod Brown perhaps going to make a comeback? Are Ohioans... warming back up to him because of dissatisfaction around the Republicans? Well, first of all, the polling data will always fluctuate. We have polls showing us ahead. There are other people to show us behind. Look, the voters are going to make their decisions over the next five months. I expect we'll have polls showing us ahead and polls showing us behind all through that process. But we have a tough race. There's no doubt about it. He lost in Ohio two years ago to Bernie Moreno by over 200,000 votes. President Trump was on the ballot then. It's a midterm election, which means we have a different turnout environment, which always in a midterm election makes it more challenging. But I've won four elections in Ohio. The last time I was on the ballot in Ohio, I won by 24 points. And so I'm confident that we will be successful, but it's going to be a tough race. There's no doubt about it. He's been in public office for 52 years, okay, the last 32 of those in Washington. And, you know, he talks about the system being rigged. Well, you want to know something? He's the one that did the rigging. He's the author of the failed swamp in Washington. He's been here. didn't accomplish anything, can't really talk about anything that he's accomplished in 52 years of public office. And I'm out there talking about the things we have done to help working families, like the working family tax cut plan, which for the average family of four in Ohio will save them $6,000 a year. The average family of four making $80,000 a year will save $6,000 a year to spend and save on their priorities. So we're going to be talking about the things that we've accomplished, the fact that he failed to accomplish. anything in 32 years. The voters of Ohio fired him, and we need to keep him off the job. And I'm working real hard and getting all kinds of support from people all across the state, from law enforcement to labor unions, to business. People that endorsed him in the past are endorsing me in this election. And we're going to fight hard to get a victory in November because it's essential. It's essential.

for our state and for our country to keep the Senate majority. Yep. And, I mean, I would just say you can't have a Senate seat in Ohio go blue this cycle and expect to hold the Senate in all likelihood. I mean, this is a must win, I think, for the GOP, which is why it's a high-stakes race. The Senate very, very important for all sorts of reasons. I would just note you guys did. Do the whole Voterorama thing and pass that. reconciliation bill to fund ice and border patrol for the next several years uh overcoming what would have been a democratic filibuster by using reconciliation and so democrats you know shut down the government to prevent this republicans have now in the senate funded it the house will act soon that's just another note out of the u.s senate very curious what your opponent would say about all of that i know he's trying to stay out of it like he doesn't really know even though he spent as you said 50 years as a politician so i'm not sure that washes U.S. Senator John Hustead of Ohio, our guest, here on Guy Benson as we begin this second hour of the program. Senator, thank you very much for your time today. Great to be with you, and please tell everyone John Hustead for Senate.com, please go look us up. You're listening to a new generation of talk, Guy Benson. I'm Guy Benson. We are back. Over the weekend. The civilized world marked the anniversary of the D-Day invasion in Normandy, France, in World War II. An extraordinary military endeavor that involved a lot of planning and subterfuge, of course, and valor and courage that many of us simply cannot understand and comprehend. Now, many of us in this country who've worn the uniform and have put themselves in harm's way can't imagine. But many of us cannot. And I think the debt of gratitude that the world owes to those men on that day cannot be overstated. One of the most powerful days of my life was in 2006. I've mentioned this before. I was in Europe. with a buddy, just traveling around, as college students sometimes do, and we made the last-minute decision to take a day trip to Normandy and get a tour along with a handful of other Americans, coincidentally, around those beaches with an English-speaking tour guide, and I'll never forget it. From walking along... Utah Beach and Omaha Beach watching people frolicing in the surf and then imagining what had happened exactly on that spot those decades earlier. The juxtaposition was extraordinary. Some of the Nazi gun encampments and nests were still there. Some of the guns are still there. You can walk sort of in those almost caves. It is eerie. It is very, very creepy thinking about, again, who was manning those guns and why. And then the day, our tour concluded at the American Cemetery, a beautiful, serene, perfectly manicured place. And having lived through that day and learned what we learned and walked those footsteps, retracing those battles.

It was emotionally overwhelming as the American flag was lowered at dusk to taps. And I remember just completely losing it. How couldn't you? And every year we mark D-Day. The saving of the world, not an exaggeration. We mark it for good reason. And I've been told by several people there's a new movie out currently in theaters, Brennan Frazier and others, called Pressure, which was about the D-Day invasion and how it was supposed to be several days prior, but it kept getting pushed back because of weather and various factors. And I just can't imagine that stress, that pressure, hence the title of the film. and the deliberations, the anxiety, that stress building inexorably with the stakes literally as high as stakes can be for humanity. I plan to see that movie. I wish I'd had the chance to see it, frankly, over the weekend as we were commemorating D-Day. Because, and this strikes me often when I'm reading about history or watching movies like this, We look back with 2020 hindsight on success, right? We look back and say, oh, well, we know how everything turned out. It can still actually be very dramatic, right? The not tightening in your stomach as you watch these things or read the details. But imagine how it was at the time without the benefit of knowing how things would go with everything on the line. with potentially world-altering decisions being made. Just incredible. And I'll come back to me, at least in my mind, unfathomable to be placed in those positions. And yet people had to make those choices and those decisions that reverberate all these years later. One of the ways that I like to spend D-Day, every year is watching some of, if not all of, President Ronald Reagan's speech on the 40th anniversary of D-Day. President Reagan gave one of the most moving tributes that the English language could conjure. The powerful words written by Peggy Noonan, who have gotten to know a little bit, what a beautiful artist she is using prose. spectacularly talented. I enjoy her columns in the Wall Street Journal, but this might have been one of her finest hours and helped create this indelible moment for President Reagan as he saluted the men who risked it all on that day. Here is a little bit of that tribute, of that speech, the boys of Pointe to Hawk. That was a place that I visited on that tour in 2006. President Reagan, in Cut 32, said this. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a ranger would grab another and begin his climb again.

They climbed, shot back, and held their footing. Soon, one by one, the rangers pulled themselves over the top, and in seizing the firm land at the top of these cliffs, they began to seize back the continent of Europe. 225 came here. After two days of fighting, only 90 could still bear arms. Behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there. These are the boys of Puentejo. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war. Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender's poem. You are men who in your, quote, lives fought for life and left the vivid air signed with your honor. Remarkable. Beautiful. Moving. Every free person around the world, American or otherwise, should be stirred by this memory. To those men who achieved what they did and to all the other men and women behind the very risky, high-stakes success of that day, we say collectively from the bottom of our hearts, thank you. Again, what a debt of gratitude. Guy Benson continues after this break. Guy Benson, sponsored by Previgin. Previgin, made for your brain. Half time on Guy Benson, Monday edition. Thank you for tuning in. Guy Benson.com podcast always free. We now welcome back to the show Greg Swenson, who's an American businessman who spent a lot of time living and working in London. And when UK and U.S. politics intersect, we like having him on the show. Greg, welcome back. Great to be with you, Guy. I want to talk about the Henry Nowak case, which is a terrible, fatal incident. involving a killing in the streets of the UK and police involvement. I know it's caused quite a scandal over there. It's now spilled over into the U.S. and now a bit of a war of words between members of the Trump administration and the British government. Before we get to the political fallout, just explain for this audience if they haven't heard about this Henry Nowak case. What happened? Yes. So this is a classic. you know, DEI is so pervasive and it's really infiltrated the institutions in the United Kingdom, including the police force and the judiciary. So what happened is a young man was walking home from a night out with his friends and he was killed via a knife, you know, so basically it was a knife homicide. And he was killed by an ethnic minority. In particular, he was a Sikh Indian.

And so it wasn't as much that it was a racial killing, you know, an ethnic minority killing a white person. It wasn't that. It's the fact that when the police arrived, they immediately suspected that there was some racism from the white victim rather than, so then rather than looking after the victim. And they were told that, right? They were told the accusation against the victim was that he had been racist. So the police show up with this thought in mind that this is a racism incident. You've got a guy who's been stabbed in his bleeding. Go ahead. Exactly right. And so, and then the perpetrator claimed to the police that the white victim had used a racial swear. And I think when they called in the mother of this boy, this other young man, the Sikh young man, you know. called in to the police and said there was a racial incident. So the police family was in on this racial storyline from the get-go. That's right, the brother and the mother. And so there are a couple of things to keep in mind. One is that just explained the probation or the, you know, the pervasiveness of DEI. Guns and knives, carrying knives are both illegal in the United Kingdom. So you not only can't you carry a weapon, but you can't carry any kind of a weapon and any kind of knife that could be used in a crime. But they make an exception for the Sikh population because it's part of their heritage to carry these ceremonial knives. So that was one sort of DEI problem with this incident. But then, of course, the worst part was that the police immediately assumed that it was the white young man's fault because that's what they were told. And they're trained that way. They actually are trained. And you saw this with the rape gang problem in the UK as well. They automatically assume that the white person is, you know, at fault. And they are hypersensitive to any perception. of racism or mistreatment of a minority group. And so it's not just that these were rogue cops that made a mistake. It's that the institutions are actually training the police. to behave this way. And I think a key part of this fact pattern, too, in this specific case, and part of the reason why I think there's been such outrage, including some of it spilling into the streets, and part of the reason why I think there's been so much outrage, one of the elements of the fact pattern here, Greg, and this is manifested in major protests, in some cases flaring up into violence as well, is that this young man who was murdered, Henry Nowak, who happened to be the white victim in this case, He was bleeding out. He was dying in the street. And the police showed up with this racial mentality because of that lie that was told about the victim. And they handcuffed the victim. And he died as a result of these wounds having been handcuffed by the police begging, saying he was bleeding, that he couldn't breathe. And they just, they didn't believe him. And that's how he ended up dying. And the police say, oh, well.

Yes, this was a mistake, and they're sort of half admitting to it, but saying, actually, you know, no one could have saved him based on what the medical experts are now saying, that's their second part of the spin here. But I think the image of a victim being blamed for racism and then dismissed and, in fact, handcuffed by the police as he lay there and died and bled out, I mean, that's about as outrageous as you can fathom. It's totally outrageous. And I think it's one of the biggest incidents in my 12 years of living in the UK or in and out of the UK now. But it gets worse, Guy. We found out on Saturday. I was actually opining on this subject on television when the news came out that the police, just prior to the trial, and by the way, the Sikh man was convicted. And it, of course, got the minimum. And, you know, I think there's a good argument to suggest he should have gotten, you know, more than the minimum. But anyway, prior to the trial, the police sent a memo to the prosecution, to the, to the Crown Prosecution Service, and tried to suggest that there was merit to the argument that the white young man was behaving in a racist manner. And it was totally untrue. But they just wanted to get that perception out there. Now, by the way, even if it was true, it's not. a permissible reason to murder someone if they say something offensive to you. So my understanding is there's no actual evidence that this kid was being racist at all. But even if he had said something racist, that's not good. We can condemn that. It is not a death sentence in, you know, this kind of like, you know, street vigilante justice, quote, unquote, which is part of the way that some people are trying to almost quasi-justify. Just killing. Yeah, it's really outrageous. And then later on Saturday evening, we found out that the police actually allowed the murderer, the perpetrator, to keep his ceremonial knife on his person while he went to the jail. So they did finally bring him in. Well, you've got to respect his heritage and his rights. Yeah, exactly. Well, Henry Noak is bleeding out, having been falsely accused of racism and is bleeding out in handcuffs. So our vice president, JD Vance. This is quite a stir in the United Kingdom. It's gotten some attention here. JD Vance caught wind of it. And JD Vance tweeted, and this is a partial quote, Henry Noak died the same way a civilization dies, abandoned, handcuffed by authorities who neither trusted nor cared for him, and accused of hate crimes he did not commit. His murder is as tragic as it is enraging. He should still be alive today, and he would be if the last few generations of European elites had stood their ground.

against the politics of self-hatred and the mass invasion of migrants. That is the beginning of JD Vance's comment on this, which has gotten a very stern reply from members of the UK labor government, a very unpopular government, by the way, lashing out at JD Vance saying it was very inappropriate for him to weigh in, considering that this was a domestic matter in the United Kingdom. But a lot of people have pointed out that... These British politicians, including the prime minister, they had plenty to say about George Floyd, for example. When he was killed in Minnesota, in 2020, you had Keir Starmer, now the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, taking a knee and taking a photograph, kneeling, and all of that. And so David Lammy. who is the deputy prime minister in this lefty labor government, he was asked on Sky News by a TV presenter named Trevor Phillips. Well, why is it that JD Vance isn't allowed to comment on what happened here to Henry Noak, but you guys all commented when George Floyd died over there. Here's his attempt at squaring that circle, cut 36. The second context, of course, is that we are in government. The JD Vance is in government. When you're on the backbenchers are in opposition, you're free, frankly, to reflect on anything. But I think there is a distinction. No, it's okay for the opposition to be irresponsible. So I guess David Lemmy's response here is, well, it was different. When we were the opposition party, we can say whatever we want. But JD Vance is the sitting vice president, therefore it's very unsavory for him to comment. You might think it was right or wrong for JD Vance to say what he said, how he said it, when he said any of that. Like that's fine. Have that discussion. I agree with much of what he said, by the way. But to pretend that it's totally different. Because all the labor rights and lefties in the UK who were going on and on about George Floyd, you know, more than an ocean away, that was fine because they were just in opposition at the time. That seems pretty weak. That seems like weak sauce to me. Because they were the, and they were the opposition leadership, you know, so that's another important issue or an important fact. And look, you know, that was a great headline today in the spectator that said. Basically, the title was JD Vance is right about Henry Novak's death. And so it's, you know, and yeah, you can argue whether, you know, he should have got involved. And I do think this case is much more about DEI than it is about mass migration because the murderer, the perpetrator, actually was born in the UK. Now, you can also argue his parents were migrants. So I think mass migration is a top issue for... for the people in the United Kingdom and most countries in Western Europe now. So I think it's a completely legitimate comments. And I'm glad you mentioned Trevor Phillips guy. I mean, he's a brave man. He's a man of African descent, and he's an anchor, a news anchor on a very left-leaning station, which is Sky News, sort of a mainstream media station in the UK. And he went to one of the...

marches, one of the protests that was called Unite the United Kingdom. And it was sort of an anti-D-EI, anti-mass migration protest. And he made this remarkable comment on Twitter. And he said, it was a really family-friendly, pleasant crowd. It was like just a really pleasant event. I actually went to it myself. And I too was surprised at how pleasant it was. It wasn't like a, you know, a bunch of hooligans running around. And yet, Sky decided to take down the post because it just didn't fit the narrative of their own journalist observations. It's something he actually went to report on that. That is very interesting. I also think it's telling, and this is the last point I'll make, Greg. I think it is telling that you have so many of these elites in government in the Labor Party and in the media in the UK who seem more upset about the words Nigel Farage. has said in response to this terrible episode and the tweet from JD Vance then they are about the actual episode itself not just the killing but what brought about the killing and this i think broken really racialized system That is a two-tier enforcement regime that has, I think, quite rightly brought about a great deal of ire and disgust among the British people. And once again, many of these elites missing the boat entirely, lashing out at their preferred, you know, pinatas and scapegoats rather than dealing with the actual problem that was exemplified in this terrible, deadly episode. Greg Swenson. He is our guest on Guy Benson, an expert on U.S., UK politics, having lived over there for quite some time. And Greg, we always appreciate your time and insight. My pleasure, Guy. Great to talk to you. Likewise, and we will be right back. A fresh perspective on the topics of the day. It's Guy Benson. Back here on Guy Benson, President Trump was... On NBC, meet the press over the weekend. Kristen Welker, the anchor, had traveled to Wisconsin to interview President Trump, and it did not end well. He basically walked off the set. Here's how that conclusion sounded, cut 38. evidence than ever presented. Let's talk about your elections in this country. We're like a third world country. Your elections are crooked and you're crooked and Mr. President. And so is ABC and CBS and CNN. But Mr. President. You're one-sided crooked network. So let's call it quick because I've had enough. Thank you, darling. Have a good time. Mr. President, let's please, I traveled all the way to Wisconsin. I've sat in the rain with you. I know. I've traveled all the way to Wisconsin. On an office. the rain and I've given you enough time. You ought to straighten out your press because you know what? A country can never be great with a dishonest. Listen, we traveled all the way to Wisconsin. And he was done microphone off and that was the end of it.

And look, I think some of his points about the press and their bias completely earned. I think some elements of our elections are deeply flawed. And the California system, for example, is such a disgraceful mess. We'll talk about that coming up in the next hour. But this was a relitigation again of... election theories and going back to previous elections and Trump with his various comments and assertions and of course she was pressing him on it and they love asking these questions and he always takes the bait he loves talking about this I don't think it is actually beneficial to him to be talking about this and having these fights the American people want to see an improved economy They want to see their dollar going farther. They want to see an improvement in their own personal economies. And every second President Trump is having these battles with journalists on this subject is a second he is not talking about, for example, what he plans to do, how some of his policies are working, the Good Jobs Report that we mentioned on Friday. I just don't think it is productive for him, but I don't think he can resist it. I think it is one of his self-destructive tendencies, and then he gets very fired up and emotional about it and snippy, and then he walks off the interview. And look, if you love him and you agree with him, you're going to cheer it and say, yep, that's my guy, sticking it to these journals, and they deserve it. But to the... average American who is not necessarily a hater or a lover of Donald Trump, right? Just someone who's trying to make the best of their lives, maybe voted for him because they felt like that was the best plan in 2024. I just don't think that this does him any favors at all. So that's part of my take on this clip that went viral over the weekend. Meanwhile, there's a lot of criticism for President Trump from all different quarters about his decision tonight. to attend the NBA finals game in New York City. Madison Square Garden, the Knicks are up two games to nothing. They've gone down to San Antonio, took the first two games. Could they come home and win it all? Haven't won a championship in decades. And Trump is attending game three tonight. And people are not happy about it, some of them. Even Ann Coulter, who is... at times venomous in her criticisms of Trump. She says, of all the selfish, narcissistic things Trump has done, attending MSG to see the Knicks play in person Monday night is the absolute worst. 20,000 attendees will be massively inconvenience for all the extra security. The NIC's watch party at the Garden is canceled. Thousands of extra law enforcement officers will be required, pay for it by tax dollars. Traffic will be a disaster. Also, he can sit in the garden rather than watch the game on TV. Presidents ought to be willing to sacrifice once in a while. Stephen A. Smith, the sports commentator, agreeing with Ann Coulter, cut 42.

This president has no business showing up in New York City. I am dead serious. It is selfish. It is narcissistic. It is ridiculous that he is coming to this game. I would say the same thing if it were Obama, George W., Clinton. I don't give a damn. We went back to Reagan. I don't understand this mindset. He's been a Knicks fan. Trump has been a Knicks fan for years. There's videos of him at Nix games back in the 80s and 90s, a decades-long fan. They're back in the finals for the first time in many years. Like the guy can't go to the game. Yes, there's some added security presidents go to major events. It's somewhat inconvenient, I think, for the attendees who are shelling out thousands to go to the game. But a Knicks fan in the president going to this game, I just think a lot of this is overblown, these critiques. Let the guy enjoy the game. And as someone who's not a big NBA fan, but grew up rooting for the Knicks, I'll just say, go Nix. Hope he sees a good game tonight. Final hour. Guy Benson, coming up next, when we come back, Tom Bevan on the aforementioned debacle in California with the vote counting, which of course is still going on. We'll touch on that and more straight ahead.

Raise your glass to Guy Benson Happy Hour. Brought to you by the Finnish Long Drink. Finland's most popular alcoholic beverage is taking America by storm. Visit thelongdrink.com. And now, here's Guy Benson. It is the happy hour here on Guy Benson. Thank you very much for being with us on this Monday. Guy Benson.com is the online home podcast is free, lots of content as well, every day on demand. If you're looking for that podcast, it's not just at Guy Benson.com, but also Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you get your favorite podcasts. This radio hour is sponsored by the Finnish long drink, which is refreshing and delicious. It is alcoholic, so please drink responsibly 21 plus only. the longdrink.com. With us now, Tom Bevan, co-founder and executive editor of Real Clear Politics. Tom, always good to have you. Welcome back. Great to be with you, guy. All right. Let's talk about California. and the lack of finality in a number of the races out there, including the gubernatorial race, as the count just continues and will likely continue, at least in some of these races, for days on end. And then, of course, there is the Los Angeles mayor's race, where there have been some pretty dramatic developments. By the way, just as a parenthetical, I looked up earlier this afternoon, what NBC News was. at least estimating to be the outstanding vote count statewide in California in this primary, as we're waiting to see who the top two finishers will be. I'm talking about the governor's race. Right now, Xavier Becerra has been projected to have clinched one of those two spots in November. Steve Hilton is still several points ahead and hundreds of thousands of votes ahead of Tom Steyer. So that would be a Democrat and a Republican if this holds. But NBC is guessing, and it's all a guessing game out there, that there are still well over 2.5 million votes left to count, Tom, and we're six days into this. Election Day was a week ago tomorrow. And then back and toggling to the mayor's race in Los Angeles, there has now been a big move where Nithya Raman, the left-wing hardcore socialist. who came in a relatively distant looking third place on election night. In fact, was in tears on election night. She has now surged with a bunch of these ballot drops being very, very favorable to her. She has surged past Spencer Pratt and is now in second place and, in fact, gaining on Karen Bass, the failed left-wing incumbent. who has the yellow checkmark next to her name. She's moving on to the general. And some outlets are projecting that Rahman will now be her opponent, a Democrat versus Democrat left and lefter mayor's race in Los Angeles with Spencer Pratt on the outside looking in. And that is a major reversal of fortune.

in a matter of days. A lot of people crying foul, or at least very concerned about this trajectory and how this could have happened. There are theories and conspiracies flying. What do you make of all of this? Well, look, it is, A, the way that California counts its balance is a travesty. I mean, it just shouldn't be happening like this, in part because it does breed this, the, you know, Suspicion. I mean, let's be honest. There are, and, you know, as we watch this happen, it is, you know, you have all of these mail-in ballots. You have all of these, you know, drop boxes around in California, but in Los Angeles County in particular. And so suddenly you have a situation where Nithya Raman, who, as you mentioned, was in tears on election night, apparently has this huge... sort of hidden enthusiasm in all these mail and ballots, apparently she wasn't even aware of it, but she's, you know, she's getting drop after drop with, you know, 40% plus. beating Karen Bass by 7, 8, 10 points per drop and beating Spencer Pratt by 20, 25 points per drop. After she had not done that in the initial days of the counting, that's kind of the disconnect that a lot of people are saying, well, hang on, she just started performing gangbusters this late in the process to overtake Pratt. I think a lot of people look at that and say, that does not seem to be legit. Look, and this is a thing. I mean, I think that this should be, there should be an audit. There should be an investigation. I mean, the Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s not even done, so we'll wait and see where it ends up. But, you know, if this turns out to, and look, it may not be that there's straight up fraud, like people making up ballots and inventing things. It may be the, the, the, it may be what they're doing illegally in terms of ballot harvesting and going into, you know. Old folks homes and rounding up or filling out ballots for people. I mean, what's homeless people, right? Skin row. Yeah, exactly. I mean, we don't. I think we need to have a better look at this, a better understanding of just how this all went down so that people have some sort of. Some sort of trust in the system because right now they just don't. And if you even voice any sort of skepticism about this or incredulity about the way this thing goes down, people will call you election to not. You know, they just try and shut down any questions about the integrity of the process in California and in L.A. County in particular because of the way this whole race has been run so far. So a few more things on this. My general sense of it, just to be clear, Tom, is not necessarily that this is a giant voter fraud operation that has cheated Spencer Pratt out of a spot in the general election. I think they have a system out there that is by design so permissive and so opaque.

that the ballot harvesting process that is legal. I think it's important to underscore that. That's separate than saying it should be legal or that it's a good practice at all. I think it's awful. But ballot harvesting and this sort of thing is legal out there. And I think it allows for exactly this sort of thing to happen. I don't think it's a fluke. I think this is... how it works for the party in charge, and they like it that way. And that is separate than saying this is all a bunch of fraud and the elections being stolen. I think that the system is rigged through the law legally in such a way that this type of thing at least can happen, number one. Number two, I think that there are some explanations. People who I trust, who I think are sensible people, are explaining why. This is how some Democrats voted in the patterns that they did, holding their ballots back to the very end, keeping an eye on how things were going, hoping to lock Spencer Pratt out of this. So like some strategic voting along those lines and withholding ballots until the last minute. There was some of that sort of gaming the system, again, not illegally going on. I'm sure is completely plausible. That's my second point. And then the third point is even if... Every single element of this is above board in the legal sense. And I would not be surprised if there's at least some low-level fraud going on. I think that's true in many elections. Maybe not decisive. I think you need evidence to back that sort of thing up. But even if it is generally a legitimate, quote-unquote election where things are being done in accordance with the law, it is a system that is so... trust crushing and shambolic and third world in nature as to be a total disgrace and a mockery of a functioning democracy. And I think sometimes you see widespread consternation and confusion about, you know, why there's this bewilderment, why on earth would a state like California home to? Silicon Valley, right? Some of the best technological minds in the world are concentrated in that state. How can they not adopt something that is more functional and better? I talk about the Florida example all the time. Just adopt it. We know that it works incredibly well. Why wouldn't they do that? And I think the answer, at least as far as I'm concerned, Tom, is the one party cabal that dominates California, sees this system, understands that it is atrocious for the various reasons that. we've talked about, that it breeds distrust and disaffection and disillusionment and uncertainty and long humiliating vote counting sagas and all of that. And even though that system does not work in any sort of meaningful or constructive sense, it does work for them. And therefore, they are not inclined to change a thing. That is my take.

I think that's right. I mean, you know, there are, there's some stuff circulating on X about, you know, Kamala Harris's race for AG where she was behind for four weeks until the, you know, the very end of the counting and then she ended up winning by 1%. This is not, this is not like a revelation. This is how things have been been done in California for some time. And they have not. the desire to change has not been there. And despite the fact that, you know, election after election, we sit here particularly in presidential, but also in midterms, and we wait for days and weeks for California to count their ballots and come back and eventually tell us who won some of these close races. And so even though there's a lack of trust out there, they haven't made that change. And it is, you know, look, it's, it's, it's one of those things. I suspect the more I look at this, that your, your theory is right, that this is a, you know, this is a ballot harvesting phenomenon on Nithya Raman's part and maybe some strategic voting took place. But it is, it is noteworthy that. You know, that the candidate, and I see, I saw Harry Int and on CNN saying, well, this is, you know, this is the worst outcome for Karen Bass. Like they didn't want, they wanted Karen Bass to run against Spencer Pratt because she would have crushed him. And they didn't want to run against Nithya Raman. So therefore, you know, that just, it's a conspiracy theory of trying to lock Spencer Pratt out or something like that. But the fact that Niphi Rahman is the one who is benefiting, right, from all of these harvested votes or all of these mailing ballots, I mean, it does, again, it makes you question the system. And Democrats, they need to reckon with that at some point. I mean, it has to be something that's done to restore some trust in the system because unless they like it, right, unless they feel like they get their way and it really enrages and demoralizes independence and centrists and Republicans and right-leaning people, so maybe they won't participate so their grip on power grows even stronger, right? That's a cynical take, but I don't think that there's such thing as too cynical. when it comes to assessing California politics, I will just say, I mean, the fact that we are almost a week into this and are still quite a ways off, millions of ballots away from getting all the votes counted in California, it's just, it's embarrassing. It is a national disgrace that our most populous state operates this way. And I think it's a reflection on California governance broadly. They can't do anything the right way, including count their votes in this scheme that is, that just, you know, beggars belief. And they stick with it. They stick with the failure because of entrenched interest. That is the story of California and their governance.

sticking to failure because it benefits the entrenched political interests of the people who run the state. That's one thing to keep in mind. The other thing is, Tom, I know some people think we should go to a national popular vote situation, and there's various ways to get to that. And I think some of those ways are constitutional, some of those ways would require a constitutional amendment. Regardless of the mechanism, if we were waiting as a country to see what the final vote total would be, on a national popular vote tally. And the last thing we were waiting for for week after week after week was for California's numbers to come in as the numbers, let's say it was a very close election, drew tighter and tighter with the Democrats starting behind and going. I mean, it is not a far-fetched scenario at all to imagine how truly. destructive, that would be writ large. Because at least this is contained. This cancer is contained to California under their system and their elections. If you then taint the whole country national elections with this, presidential elections with this, then it becomes a much bigger problem in my mind. 100% agree. A few more points to get to because this is a very important ongoing discussion. Tom Bevan's standby. We'll be back with more on Guy Benson next. America is listening to Guy Benson. Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics, kind enough to be with us through the break here on Guy Benson. All right, Tom. Last thing on the California stuff. And we've got a lot of people listening to us in Los Angeles right now on KABC. If it ends up being Karen Bass, Karen Bass, this. flailing, failing incumbent, who is so left-wing that she traveled years ago on multiple occasions to Cuba to train in guerrilla tactics with literal Marxists. That's Karen Bass's history, an actual stooge of the communist regime in Cuba and doing these guerrilla tactics like seminars and training sessions in communist Cuba. That is going to be one of the candidates for mayor seeking a re-election. And then the person... opposing her in the general election, if it's Nithya Raman, will be someone who is campaigning to her left, saying that that Karen Bass that I just described is not left-wing enough. If those are the choices facing the voters of Los Angeles in the general election, my heart goes out, truly. to the Spencer Pratt supporters and for the people who are sick of the status quo and don't want anyone who's created this mess in charge of continuing it. I feel so bad for those people. On the other hand, I feel like if this is what the system begets, and if these are the candidates that are selected as the top two, then a place like Los Angeles, I'm sorry to say, gets what it deserves. Yeah, I mean, welcome to Chicago. I mean, this is, we've already seen this movie, right? We had Lori Lightfoot and was challenged for her reelection and ended up going with someone who was further to the left.

who turned out to be even more, I think, incompetent in many respects. And he was driven almost entirely, his election was driven almost entirely by the teachers unions and there get out the vote machine. And so, you know, so we have Brandon Johnson. I mean, I think that's probably that that is a dynamic. It's certainly within the realm of possibilities that. that voters in Los Angeles are going to not be, there will be a majority of voters who are not going to be happy with Karen Bass, and they're going to look to the alternative, regardless of... Of that alternative. Yeah, and then you've got a Katie Wilson type figure in Seattle, a Zohran Mamdani figure in New York, a Brandon Johnson in Chicago, and maybe L.A. is like, hey, let's join that parade, which is, again, just something that I cannot fathom. And yet, this is what we see in a lot of our major cities. Tom, very quickly, since you did mention Chicago and WLS land for us, and you live out there, just quickly, your assessment of how this Chicago Bears News is going down in your neck of the woods. Oh, not great. I mean, it has highlighted the fact that the politicians in Illinois are, and look, this is mostly on Brandon Johnson and the city as opposed to J.B. Pritzker, although I don't think he has done enough either in terms of trying to keep the bears in the Chicago land area. in the state of Illinois. And if it's not a 100% done deal yet, but if it does go down that the Bears move to Hammond, it will be a black mark on the legacy of everyone, particularly Brandon Johnson and J.B. Press for it. It's not going down well here. Nor should it. I mean, the Bears should have found a way to accommodate the Bears. Again, the plan they had in place, it wasn't like a... complete giveaway of taxpayer money to this franchise. It was almost like a joint venture where the city was going to provide the infrastructure and the bears were going to provide the funding for the stadium. And so it seemed like a pretty good deal and one that should have been a no-brainer, but ends up being something they just could not get done. Yeah, because the Democrats in that state and in the city were jerking the bears around and there was already this initial rapacious, how can we tax this thing to death already? And ultimately, One party rule in Illinois might result, quite likely, with the Chicago Bears leaving not just the city, but the state itself to Red Indiana, pretty extraordinary. Tom Bevan, co-founder and executive editor of Real Clear Politics who lives in Chicago land. Our guest here on Guy Benson, Tom, thanks so much. Thanks, Guy. We'll step aside and come back on the other side of this break.

Talking about the issues you care about, Guy Benson. Earlier in today's show, we welcomed U.S. Senator John Houston of Ohio, who's up for re-election this year in a must-win race for the GOP in the Buckeye State. One thing about his biography is that Senator Houston used to be Secretary of State, Houston, in Ohio, for eight years overseeing, among other things, elections. We were just talking with Tom Bevan earlier this hour about the fiasco, that this rolling mess. in California of their system of vote counting. I couldn't resist, but ask Senator Hughes said about his background in this, his expertise in this, and how he views California's process, if we want to call it that. Here is part of his answer and the ensuing discussion. I'm just wondering as you watch... what's unfolding in the state of California, which is not unusual for them. I need to point this out. This is how they always do their vote counting. It takes days and weeks and the better part of a month often to get all of their counting done. And then you compare that with how other places do their vote counts. I know that some people say, well, California says so many people, they're trying to do it deliberately and have as much participation as possible and they want to get it right. So that's why it takes so long. And then you see the madness play out as they execute on this system that they have for themselves. As someone who is in that position, as Secretary of State, in a highly watched state like Ohio, just tell us what you think of the California system and how it compares to what Ohio does. Complete and total incompetence is what I think about the California system. Most states, including Ohio, where we pride ourselves in making it easy to vote and hard to cheat, 99% of the vote is counted within 24 hours. And just think, this is a low turnout election in California. This isn't even a general election, and they're nearly seven days in and still don't have an outcome in the mayor's race or even, frankly, in the governor's race. And it's incompetent. It's bad, it's a primary election. It's bad law. It's bad administration. It is complete and total incompetence. And by the way, I don't ever want to hear a Democrat talk about Republicans undermining election confidence when the very execution of the election in California is the ultimate undermining of voter confidence in an election system. When you not only go so slow, but then in going slow, you have a major change in an outcome, that kind of stuff undermines election confidence. Yeah, and then they've got, you know, all the ballot harvesting nonsense. I mean, it's just an absolute free-for-all out there. And it's not, and this is such a key point that I'm going to keep coming back to because, unfortunately, I think we're going to be covering this for days. This is what they do. It's not like...

They have this system, and they're like, well, gosh, yes, it's imperfect, but it's better than any alternative that we can find. This is not true, right? Like, I talk about Florida being, in my mind, sort of a gold standard in all of this, which was not always the case, right? They had a big mess on their hands in 2000 and went out to say, we're never going to let this happen again. California embarrasses itself every election. And the people who run that place are like, yep, we're going to do this all over again next time and we're not going to change. When you hear some of the excuses made, like, oh, well, it's just, it's a lot of ballots, or they're trying to get everyone to participate as much as possible. They're just being thorough. Those are kind of the claims that are made to justify the unjustifiable. You guys have to process many ballots in Ohio as well. You do it completely differently. Is there any reason? why that model could not just be picked up and dropped onto California to clean up all of this if they wanted to. There is no excuse for it. It's not like Ohio and Florida are small states. Yes, California is a very large state, but these other states, we're getting it done in 24 hours or less. Their system is incompetence. It really is. You can bring the resources to bear on something that's so important as an election to make sure that it's done in a very timely manner. The problem that they have is one of the problems that they have is that the sole tool that they use to validate whether somebody is a... um it is legitimate or not is their signature so we've made expert hand readers out of all the precinct uh in elections officials well i've seen some of it's just like squiggles or like a smiley face right like it's it's Crazy. If you would simply use photo ID or the five, you know, the photo ID driver's license number, last four digits to your Social Security number as unique identifiers and actually have a system that's accountable, the problem with California and why they have to go so slow is they want an unaccountable system. And if they had an accountable system, this could go so much faster. Yeah, that. is what they want the people that control the system like it when it is baffling and embarrassing to everyone else and by the way you mentioned voter ID i know they're strongly against that out there the democrats who run the state voter ID is on the ballot a referendum on the ballot in california this year in November. So if you're listening out there in California and you're frustrated, that would be a big reason to turn out and have your voice heard in November. That full interview with Senator John Houston of Ohio, big election for him coming up this November available online. At Guy Benson.com is part of the free podcast every day, on demand, no charge at all, start to finish at Guy Benson.com, as I mentioned, or foxnewspodcast.com.

or wherever you get your podcasts. When we come back to Home Stretch, some star-spangled swag here at the house as we're getting really hype for America 250. We'll talk about that. Plus a fake holiday that Christine wants to try to celebrate. That's next. Same issues, but with a fresh perspective. Guy Benson. And now, It's time for your favorite segment of the day. Home Stretch. It's basically the only segment I'm on, so I've declared it the audience's favorite segment. Guy Benson. Home Stretch Monday edition, Guy Benson. Online home, Guy Benson.com, podcast free, of course, every day on demand. So a couple things to get to, Christine, you informed me of something in the commercial break in my ear. That today is a celebratory occasion. What would that be? It's our holiday. Today's National Best Friend Day. So when you say our holiday, who are you talking about? You and me. We're best friends. Me and you? We're best friends. Today's National Best Friend Day. We're not. You know, you should text Jason Rance. Your actual best friend, our guest host, our great friend out in Seattle. where I think didn't you come up with a whole song about how you're best friends and you'd sing it to him? Yeah. So you didn't have a song for me, which is fine. Let's keep it that way. So congratulations to you and Jason on National Best Friends Day. How wonderful. Although the other thing I might bring up is Dylan. Our DC-based producer, is he not your best friend as well, I think. Do I recall that correctly? Dylan is my best friend. I have multiple best friends. Right. So since he's not here, He was not able to defend himself last week about his incorrect opinion about Diet Coke. He's still not here back tomorrow. And therefore, I'm just going to throw him right under the bus as well and wish him a very happy best friend's day in the context of you, his mentor and his best friend. I'm sure he's going to shed a tear of joy and sentimentality as he listens back on the podcast. Any message for him since he's out on this Best Friends Day? I'm sure you've spoken several times already. I have been texting with Dylan, yes, about a few things. I will text him, happy Best Friends Day. I just assumed go right to the top, but since you're having an issue with this that we'll have to, you know. work out off air. Well, I'm glad that you think I'm the very top, but I'm the very top of the list of people who are not your best friend, right? We're mean. No, I'm not saying that we're not friendly. We're friendly. Friendly. We are friendly acquaintances and colleagues. I think is what's fair. And to celebrate National Best Friends Day and a big. Big happy one to all who celebrate. I do have to say that we have festooned our house with some swag. Now, admittedly, it was not for this holiday. It's for a much bigger one, which is the 4th of July coming up in less than a month, which happens to be the 250th anniversary of the United States of America, something that I've just been so excited about all year long, but it's going to culminate and crest on the 4th.

And I think I may have mentioned this at some point, Christine on the air, as almost like an aside. But for years, I have always wanted to hang bunting at the house. I think it is such a classic look. And I'm talking about the semicircular, star-spangled banners, red, white, blue that you'll see for the July parades, that kind of thing. And I finally just decided why wait around for the right moment. I did some Googling. I made the purchase. I got a three-pack. So three big, beautiful bunting banners. And they are now all hung at the house, strategically two in the front, one in the back, looks great. I was not sure about the size. I went with the standard size, which is six feet across, which seemed really big. Like that's my height. But when you actually see it hanging on the house, it looks proportional. It looks correct. And we've gotten some compliments already, and I'm feeling very, very good about it. I sent you some photos, Christine. Do you approve? Oh, I 100% approve. I spoke to Bobby over the weekend and said you inspired me. And I would like to, I would like to buy bunting as well. But first, I got to get a flag. I don't even have that. You don't have an American flag? Well, we had just, I mean, not that we just moved, but this is a newer home and we have not put up. Have you been there for like two years? Yeah. Okay. That's a long wait for a flag. We're getting there. If you love America, Christine. I do love America. We're getting there. Maybe you could find a new best friend and it could be America. You could get a flag. She is my best friend. We, of course, do have an American flag out front, although Adam has requested, and I think he might have purchased the Betsy Ross style flag with the 250 logo in the middle of that circle of stars, which is a flag we'd probably fly. roughly now until the end of this year and then it would maybe not be used that often because it is a flag tailored specifically to this moment. But I like the idea. I think it's a cool look. So that might be a tweak in addition to our America 250 aesthetic here at the house. Now, I just want to say one thing because bunting in my mind. calls to memory a few very specific things and when bunting is appropriate slash in the season. I think a lot about it, of course, with the 4th of July and the summer generally, especially up in New England in Cape Cod where I spend a lot of time and will be spending some time, God willing, this summer as well. I also associated with New York Yankees playoff games because they hang bunting only for the playoffs and maybe opening day at Yankee Stadium. So that's one other association that I have here. And I was thinking, Christine, moving forward, because yes, of course, with this being the 250th anniversary of the country, I think there's extra license to be extra patriotic with this kind of thing more than usual. But in the future...

I just want to give you my overall thought on when the bunting is appropriate on the house moving forward. Now, with you, I'm sure your timeline is completely different because you put up, you know, Christmas stuff in August or something. And your Halloween stuff goes up maybe now. Do you have Halloween stuff on your house now? I forget. But it's always way too early. For me, though, My plan for the bunting in the future at the house is, here we go. Memorial Day weekend, let's say Wednesday or Thursday before through the day after Memorial Day. So the better part of a week around Memorial Day, then it comes down, then it goes back up for the entire month of July, just a star-spangled July with the bunting. Then it comes down. And then it returns for a similar short little stint around Labor Day. And that's it. Into storage until the summer season kicks off with Memorial Day the following year. That's my like thumbnail sketch of the plan. I almost don't want to ask you if you think that's a good plan because you're going to disagree because you have these very bizarre calendars when it comes to your brain and how it processes like holiday seasons. But go ahead. Yeah, no, I would say, I mean, I'll buy Fourth of July decor on the interior. And a few things on the exterior are already up. They stay up throughout the summer, actually. So like from Memorial Day till I start fall, it's always like all the red, white, and blue stuff. But can I just tell you what I found online? Okay. A five-foot jumbo inflatable. Uncle Sam in a red, white, and blue suit. No. For a number of reasons, you know my thoughts on the inflatables, Christine. But come on. Isn't that awesome? Are many battles over eyesore lane and your choices, your decor choices inside and outside. But here's what's going to happen. Cookie is going to, at some point, have one too many mamas juices or vodka's or whatever you're drinking. Mm-hmm. You're going to spot this life-size Uncle Sam in your yard. Forget that it's inflatable and lose your mind about a home invader. You're going to think it's an intruder, and you're going to call the police. You're going to be screaming. You're going to wake up the whole house, and it's just going to be Uncle Sam out on your lawn. And then you'll be like, oh, yeah. So I advise against it for many reasons. That's okay. I found so many other inflatables right now. I didn't even think about July 4th inflatables. But considering it's such a special, special year, I just found an Uncle Sam riding a motorcycle. No, no. You know what? Just start with a flag. How about that? It's been two years at the house, no flag. Baby steps, Christine. Classy steps. American flag. And then frankly, you can stop. Maybe bunting. If you've got the right setup for bunting, it's always a good idea. Not too much, not too little. A tasteful amount of bunting. No, it has to go everywhere. And also, what about like the tea-stained bunting? So it makes me feel like I, you know, I'm...

back yesteryear yeah but no one thinks that's authentic so it ends up i think not quite fitting but you know what you do you christine you know what the look is here i think it looks good so good yeah so you're going to probably do the opposite of whatever that is i'm going to do more Yeah, I just, oh, just so much more. By the way, I mentioned Cape Cod and how I plan to be up there a little bit this summer with my family. You gave me on National Best Friends Day, Christine, you sandbagged me with some very disturbing news. The best gift on National Best Friend Day. Oh, and what was that news? She's ahead into the Cape the same week that you are. Not the full week. I have to go pick up my daughter. My daughter is actually vacationing up there with family. Will she not be with you in Mexico or what? Well, I'm getting her so then we go to Mexico. Yeah. That's like a joke. It's a joke, but it's actually real. So you'll be up there. Now, you don't know where I'm going to stay. We're renting a house this time. I'll find it. I'll figure it out. That'll be a carefully guarded state secret. I know people up there that might talk. I'll just tell you it's the house with bunting. You could just go door to door. See how long that lasts. We got to go. We got to go. But I'm feeling great about the bunting. Oh, it's just so patriotic. Such a good look. Get the flag, Christine. Tasteful bunting. We'll talk about it more. Send me pictures when it's done. It's Guy Benson. Back here tomorrow in 21 hours for the Tuesday edition. We'll talk then. Maybe you could find a new best friend and it could be America. You get a flag. She is my best friend.

Listen to the show ad free on Fox News Podcast Plus on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music with your prime membership, or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.