Breaking Points with Krystal and SaagarBreaking Points with Krystal and Saagar

11/26/24: Trump Sweeping Tariffs, Kamala 2028, The View Meltdown, Lindsey Quiet Part Out Loud

View descriptionShare
Published Nov 26, 2024, 6:05 PM

Krystal and Emily discuss Trump promising tariffs on Mexico and Canada, CNN admits Americans love Trump transition, Kamala floats 2028 comeback, The View meltdown as Whoopi surrenders, Lindsey Graham says Ukraine war about money, GenZ shocking financial expectations, NBC gaslights on Thanksgiving prices. 

 

To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com

 

Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/

Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.

Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show.

This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.

So if that is something that's important to you, please go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints dot com.

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to a special pre holiday edition of Breaking Points. Crystal, how are.

You breaking Points at home? That's what we're doing, Breaking Points at Home.

It's for that extra flavor of authenticity. Contra morning Joe, as we discussed.

You, that's exactly right. We're taking a page out of their books. So I want to roll in here a little bit later. My eyes a little bit more red, my takes a little bit more cringe, all of those things, and later I'm going to make a trip down to mar A Lago and see if Donald Trump will be nice to.

Me and then we can get married. That would be the perfectly appropriate next step.

There you go as a good start this morning.

Yes, Spainer Mary, Soccer is still on his autymoon, but this will be the last show. This is the last Girls show. We did indeed set a record yesterday, as I predicted for length. But Soccer will be back here with everyone after the holiday, and I know he's very much looking forward to that.

It's crazy we went so long because I genuinely tried to talk less. I really genuinely did, and I'm going to try to do that again today and probably fail. So in the show today, we actually have a lot of news. Donald Trump making a lot of news yesterday with regard to announcing major tariffs against Canada and Mexico and also increasing tariffs on China. We also want to have this conversation that's been kind of floating around online about whether Trump is akin to a Republican Obama in his sort of like unique political skills. Obviously stylistically they're very different, but they both seem to have been able to put together coalitions of voters that no other politician really seems to be able to do so, we'll dig into that and some of the data that may back up or may refute that claim. We've got Kamala Harris planning her future. Apparently, Emily she's seeing out running for president again in twenty twenty eight. I'm sure what could go wrong. She's such a political phenom that this seems like a really great idea for the future of the Democratic Party.

I think she's got this in the bag. She's tan restling and ready.

Ready to go, fired up, ready to go. We've got some details about the Democratic response to Trump this time around. The resistance has been notably quiet. What does that mean? We have Lindsay Graham kind of spilling the beans on what's really going on with regard to our involvement in Ukraine. We have some interesting gen Z views of the world. The amount of money that they feel that they need to be able to make to be financially successful is really quite something. Also a big divide in terms of media consumption across generations that won't be surprising to you guys. And then we're taking a look at you know how much it's going to cost you get that turkey this year for Thanksgiving?

Surprisingly good News.

Yes, we had to do a little bit of cringy Thanksgiving morning show style content, otherwise it wouldn't be a pre holiday show.

I wanted to cook together, but such.

As life imagine, we tried to do that like separately at our home. So we said a disaster.

That a great idea. This is a fine substitute.

Before we jump in, we do have a little bit of holiday merch that we wanted to share with you guys, or sell to you guys or whatever. We're having a special right now, so you get a free holiday ornament with your purchase. That is as long as supplies last. And also, if you are a premium subscriber, make sure to check your inbox this morning. We're running a special discount for you guys. Those switters were a big hit last year. I now my dad really likes his. He was wearing it at my house over the weekend. So those are still available, so make sure to grab what you need for the holidays.

Truly. I have had so many people of the course so last year ask about.

The sweatshirts, so I do love the design.

They're awesome.

All right, let's go and jump into the show. Donald Trump making some big news yesterday that I'm really interested to get your thoughts on. Emily can put this up on the screen. Announcing some major tariffs against Canada and Mexico. Mexico is our largest trading partner, so that's quite significant. Also announcing some increased tariffs on China. This is the announcement about China. These all came out on true Socially, says I've had many talks with China about the massive amounts of drugs, in particular fentanyl being sent to the US, but to no avail. He goes on to say, until such time as they stop, will be charging China an additional ten percent tariff above any additional tariffs on all of their many products coming to the US. Of a thank you for your attention to this matter. And then the next one is the announcement with regard to Canada and Mexico. He says, as everyone is ware, thousands of people are pouring through Mexico and Canada, bringing crime and drugs at levels never seen before. Right now, caravan coming from Mexico, composed of thousands of people seems to be unstoppable in its quest to come through a currently open border. On January twentieth, as one of my many first executive orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a twenty five percent tariff on all products coming into the US and its ridiculous open borders. This terrif will remain in effect until such time as drugs, in particular fentanyl and all illegal aliens stop this invasion of our country. So Emily. A few things that are noteworthy. I mean, first of all, Trump was very insistent his entire time on the campaign trail that he wanted to have significant, across the board tariffs on all imports. This would be a huge step in that direction because taken collectively, I mean Mexico, Canada, and China make up a majority of our foreign imports, so this would be incredibly safe, magnificant. There is no doubt that it would increase prices. Mexico is responsible for some like seventy percent of our fresh produce imports. RFK Junior not wouldn't be too happy about that one. Canada really significant in terms of actually crude oil and also building supplies. Obviously, there are all kinds of things we get from China, and there's already significant tariffs on some segments of the Chinese economy to begin with. But you know, a few other things to note here. Number one, the framing in terms of fentanyl and illegal immigration seems to me significant in terms of a sort of legal rationale because typically tariff programs such as this would have to go through Congress. But the Trump administration has been looking at ways that they could circumvent that by you know, declaring this relevant to national security, So that justification seems to me important. You know, the courts have typically given presidents pretty wide lattice when it comes to terrors in the name of national security, so that's significant. And then the other big question mark, as always with Donald Trump, is is this a serious position or is this a negotiating tactic here out of the gates, Because if it's serious, I don't think there's anyone that would deny that this will have a gigantic impact on the economy and will undoubtedly spike gas prices, grocery prices, construction prices, and a lot of other things at a time when Americans are saying that inflation is their number one issue.

And that's what goes into these negotiations, is Claudia Scheinbaum going to look at Donald Trump and say there's no way you're implementing this, whereas Donald Trump is coming in and saying I will. That's obviously the big question because we've seen him do this. I mean, we've seen him do this many times as a starting point in negotiations. I think this is probably a starting point. But would he then go on the sliding scale, maybe even in the middle, even if he met, you know, someone in the middle on this, that would be catastrophic in terms of like its effect on the economy. I don't I shouldn't have used the word catastrophic. I should say consequential, Yeah, in terms of the economy, even if he cuts that in half to cut some type of deal. So that's I mean, because I think it is a starting point, and I think it's probably a smart way to get Mexico in particular to the table on this. But I don't think there's any way who would actually go through with that level in half. Maybe, I mean, it's just so hard to know.

With him, Yeah, I'm not so sure, because you know, he was very consistent on the campaign trail about his commitment to really shifting the entire American economy and revenue system. I mean, you talked endlessly about President William McKinley, right, and this was like the model for him, and obviously our economy and the world wildly different from at that time. I mean, now tariffs make up a completely inconsequential amount of the federal revenue to back up our budget. At that time, it was you know, there was no income tax at that time, so it was a wildly different scenario. And so yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if he does go through with it. You know, Wall Street and a lot of his Wall Street backers, first of all, they were kind of relieved when he picked Chargery Secretary Scott Bessant. There was a sense of like, Okay, this is like one of us. He's not going to do anything too crazy. And then the very you know, just a few days later, he's announcing this tariff program, which again would be incredibly I mean, catastrophic could be one word for it, but certainly consequential. Jeff Stein is tweeting about just how significant just this piece against these three countries would be. We can put this up on the screen to get a sense of the size that we're talking about here. He says, Trump threatens twenty five percent teriffs on all Mexico imports. And now again, this is just Mexico. The US imported four hundred and seventy six billion dollars from Mexico last year, more than any other country. A twenty five percent tariff on the imports would translate into a roughly one hundred billion dollar annual tax, or about one trillion dollars over the next decade. The back of the envelope calculations I saw people floating economists floating on Twitter, was that this would likely amount to about one thousand dollars increase in costs for every American household. So again, quite significant at a time when Americans are saying that inflation is their number one issue. So, you know, is he overreading his mandate here or you know. I've also seen some on the left say, you know, what, people might be able to might be willing to put up with some increased economic pain if they feel like, if they're convinced that it's in service of something that will benefit them. I'm skeptical of that logic, but I do want to, just like playing Devil's advocate, put that out there.

I mean, I think that's worth mentioning because we saw that with his China tariffs in his first administration, or remember you would have all of these like kind of do wee be mainstream media reporters going to talk to farmers in the Midwest and asking them, you know, they regret supporting Trump because of the tariffs, And what they would say is, no, we actually are okay with a little bit of pain. We want to see a light at the end of the tunnel, Like we hope that this isn't going to last all that much longer, but we understand the kind of end goal and we support the end goal. So that though on a mass scale affecting you know, all of these different products so significantly. Yeah, that's a little different. It is though. I think also we're saying Scott Bessen was reportedly chosen over Howard Lutnik because Donald Trump was worried about spooking the markets too much. And that's what gives me a little bit more reason to believe he's this is a starting point in negotiations. But again, a starting point doesn't mean that there isn't somewhere else he lands on that's still significant for some period of time. So I mean, I think it's absolutely like Jeff says this over and over again, it's absolutely true that Trump is dead serious about using tariffs this way. I think it's just a matter of how and how much.

Yeah, and again, just to go over some of the key categories here. Crude oil, so gas prices, especially in the Midwest. That's where a lot of the crude oil for the Midwestern refineries comes from Canada. So gas prices would almost certainly go up. Grocery prices on a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables undoubtedly would go up. Building materials. Another key thing that a significant amount of which comes from Mexico and also some from Canada are auto parts, so you know, goes into the assembly factories here for cars and the major American automakers, so a lot. I mean, Mexico is our number one trading partner, so obviously this would be very significant. We're also getting some details from what is the term for it, Attorney General nominee. I guess, Pam BONDI, let's put this up on the screen. She's got. We were asking the question yesterday Emily like who should be worried under the Trump administration with regard to the Department of Justice, Pam Bondi giving us our first indication. Here, she says to Nancy Pelosi, salaries one hundred and seventy five K, yet she has a net worth of two hundred million dollars plus. I will investigate and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Number one. Good, but just go after everybody who's insider trading, Like, you know, you may also want to look at Tommy Tubberville, who's disclosed two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in futures trading wheat, corn, soil, and cattle while he sits on the Senate Committee for Agriculture, as one example, that's from unusual Wales. The other thing is like, unfortunately, this kind of congressional insider stock trading is perfectly legal. So I don't know if you actually have the legal capability to go after any of these people because Congress has of course insulated themselves from the consequences of their own actions.

Well, yeah, which she would essentially have to be investigating is violations of the Stock Act, a bill that Nancy Pelosi kind of hilariously championed after being caught in the It was like the late aughts doing some of this or her husband doing some of this, and you would just be investigating is basically whether or not they filed on time. Like that's we've seen like late files like people do that, and it actually seems it sucks, Yeah, because you.

Can't slop on the rist. It's like a very small fine if you don't file your disclosures on time.

Right, But to actually prove I mean, she's willing, she's welcome to investigate and should investigate absolutely every single one of the Republicans that is doing the exact same thing. But she won't of course. But you know, if you're doing that, it's almost impossible to prove insider trading. I mean, it's just they're allowed to do so much of this. And that's why you if you want to do something meaningful on this, you have to chase legislation as attorney general, champion legislation. Get if Republicans have the House in the Senate, let's go bring it on.

Yeah, I'm not gonna hold my breath on that one. M But the other thing is that sometimes just the investigation, I mean, no one enjoys being investigated by the FED. Like even if you're not ultimately charged. If they're doing discovery and they're going through all your stuff and they're you know, harassing you for your files, et cetera, that can be you know, a weapon in and of itself. And it's something that Trump used actually last term to go after people like John Carrey and and others that he considered to be you know, adversaries and enemies. Going back to the economic piece, because this was also very significant. Obviously, Trump on the campaign trail promising mass deportations. This was one of his most reliable calls. They had the signs up at the RNC that said mass deportation. Now some of the farm groups that you know, we're big backers of his, by the way, are now saying this doesn't apply to us. Right when you were saying this whole like deport everyone, you weren't talking about our workers that we need on our farms, right. So this is from Reuter's US farm groups want Trump to spare their workers from deportation. The article reads, US farm industry groups want present elect to spare their sector for the promise of mass deportations, which could up end a food supply chain heavily dependent on immigrants in the US illegally. So far, Trump officials have not committed to any exemptions. Coordinated interviews with farmer worker groups and Trump's incoming borders are Tom Homan. Nearly half of the nation's approximately two million farm workers lack legal status, according to the Departments of Labor and Agriculture, as well as many dairy and meat packing workers. Mass removal of farm workers would shock the food supply chain and drive consumer grocery prices higher, said David Ortega, professor of Food economics and Policy of Michigan State. A Republican representative in California Central Valley, said farms in the area depend on immigrants in the US illegally and that small towns would collapse if those workers were deported. So, you know, even if like with the mass deportation, there's no doubt they're going to go forward with some level of mass deportation, right, I don't think there's any doubt about that, and the way they target at what it looks like like those details we really don't have a great sense of. But even if there's a dramatic show of that sort of you know, force and deportation, people going into workplaces, et cetera, et cetera. You know, that can cause a lot of people to go into hiding or flee completely. And while it's you know, it's really not good from a labor perspective that you have so many workers who are working under the table, oftentimes you know, below minimum wage employers not following labor law like that is a terrible that's a terrible situation for everyone and is something that you know, in my opinion, we need to legalize these works to bring them out in the shadows. But the fact remains, if you have a mass exodus of this immigrant workforce that our country at this point really relies upon, it will have dramatic economic consequences and ties in with the Tarff conversation too, because both of those things would have huge inflationary effects actually on food, grocery prices, et cetera, which again is what the American people are saying is their top concern and priority right now.

It will it would absolutely be economically consequential. I think it's one that is sort of it's such a tell to the point you were just making on behalf of the business community and Trump, by the way, Republicans overall this last cycle got so much money from home builders and building companies in general. If you look at the industry as a whole, they gave a ton of money to Republicans over the course of the last cycle, and you could just like, you can see how it's going to force them to come out and make more and more statements like the ones they gave to Reuters, which I see is kind of shameless, being like, yes, we have the shadow workforce that we exploit. Please do not touch them. It will you know, It's like they're holding our economy hostage to their ability to exploit in mass millions of workers. And so it's not great for them to have to come out and talk about that, and I think it would make the public more willing to accept some of the economically detrimental consequences that said Crystal, they I mean, this would be a big hit to the economy. There's there's really no question about it. And whether that's sustainable for Trump politically is a different question than the sort of substance of whether our economy should be built on this house of cards and what to do with the workforce. I mean, it's a different question. Would you know, let's say, in my perspective. I think you would be able to get Americans. This is like totally against conventional wisdom in Washington. I think you would get Americans stepping up into those jobs if there were you know, quote unquote mass deportations. But it would take a long time.

Well, it would take much higher wages.

Much it would take much higher wages, and it would.

Take means much higher prices at the grocery store and for building as well. We could put you could continue to lay on your point, Emily, Well, let's just go and put up on the screen. The industries where migrants are incredibly significant to the labor force, and you know, you can see here is across a wide variety of industries. Landscaping they say, private households. I assume that things like you know, nannies and housekeepers and that sort of thing. Services to buildings and dwellings. Uh, crop production, you know, meat packing, animal slaughtering, and processing. They say. Construction obviously very significant. And these are all areas where there's been a lot of sensitivity about prices. I mean, the cost of building a new house has been a major topic of conversation. So when you combine the tariffs on building materials coming from Canada and the tariffs on you know, agricultural products coming from Mexico with a you know, an undermining of the workforce that we really rely on at this point for a number of these industries. The immediate impacts are going to be felt quite significantly in people's pocketbooks.

Yeah, And the only other thing I was going to add is that it would take years to adjust to a new workforce and there would be a lot of economic pain over the course of that time as American workers. I mean, if you really want to get American workers into those jobs, obviously it's going to require higher wagers, and it's also going to require like people being sold on those positions and coming from different places in the life. I mean, it's just a it's a huge societal cultural adjustment. It's not just sort of a clickable a wand type thing. So, yeah, economic pain either way.

On that right. Well, And the other thing is that, you know, like most Western developed countries, we have an aging population. We actually are beginning to see the signs that we don't have enough workers for the jobs that need to be filled in our society. Birth rate is declining, and you know, the unemployment rate. Even if people are unsatisfied, they're unhappy with the economy. But the unemployment rate is quite low, labor force participation rate has gone up quite significantly. The problem, as opposed to previous eras, isn't that there aren't sufficient jobs. It's that those jobs aren't well paying enough. And so you know, the constricting the labor force and having fewer workers doesn't really solve the core problem that people are concerned about. It actually could create a new crisis where you just genuinely don't have sufficient people to be able to fill all of the jobs. Now, does that cause salaries to go up? Does that cause wages to go up? That's possible, although even that is not completely clear cut in terms of the studies that have been done. But no doubt, I think you and I are agreement. In the short term, it would be very painful. It would be quite a shock, an economic shock. If anything approaching what he's floating here, actually, you know, comes to fruition. And again, you know, I think a lot of the business community, obviously the farm industry groups, a lot of Wall streeters who really got on board with Trump this time. They didn't think he was really serious about these things, you know, they fell a I said a lot of stuff last time around, I didn't really do a lot of it. So he says he talks a big game, but when it comes down to it, he's not going to do that much. And by the way, Congress has to go along with it, and we've got our paid off representatives there. We're going to be good. Meanwhile, the people in his orbit have been thinking a lot about how they can avoid any of the stumbling blocks of last time howping you can avoid having to go through Congress for money for mass deportation or for the ability to institute a massive new tariff program. They have legal theories and justifications ready to go. There's no guarantee those all pass muster with the courts, but a good many of them will. So, you know, I whether he goes through with the full twenty five percent tariff, and exactly the contours of this, we don't know. But I think that people should take him seriously and take him at his word that he plans to have this sort of revolutionary style approach to the economy, which will be incredibly consequential. And I think it's very different than what a lot of the groups that backed him, thought they were going to get with him.

And yeah, and put Scott Pesson in. So that was supposed to be the kind of signal to Wall Street that it wasn't going to be as wild and wacky as maybe it would have been our under Howard Lutnik as Treasury. But you know what that actually means. It's just so hard to say right now because we've heard so little from Bessett, and you know, it's Trump is Trump. At the end of the day. You can fire people that aren't following what he wants them to do.

Yeah, I mean, the key connective issue with the people he put into place is he thinks they will all be loyal to him, meaning they will do whatever he wants them to do, and whether it's on tariffs or whether it's on like overturning an election. That was the primary test for the people he put into place. Just one more note on that piece. There are some some questions raised about Tulsea Gabbart that might be come up during her confirmation hearing. So you can put this up on the screen. This was an investigation from Mother Jones, but a lot of interesting details here. She's got three different packs and one nonprofit, and there's a lot of questions about the money that she raised well over a million dollars across these three packs and where it went. It appears that most of it just went to like you know, her aids, different consultants, fundraisers, etc. Very little spent on the candidates that she you know, was supposed to be endorsing and backing. And then her nonprofit called We Must Protect There is no disclosure about where the funds that were raised for that, what they actually went to, what sort of charitable giving came out of that. So in any case, some significant questions raised there about how those funds were raised and spent That could become relevant in a Senate confirmation hearing, especially because I think with Tulsia in particular, you're going to have a lot of Republicans who are a little leery of putting her in the position maybe looking for, you know, different ways that they could spike her nomination, spike her confirmation without like sort of directly going at the national security concerns that they have with regard to her.

Yeah, and you kind of peel the curtain back a little bit for like people in media Crystal, we look at a story like that. I think it's a story that kind of is trying to build. It's kind of planning a seed, and then you're trying to maybe get other people to come in and be like, yes, I have knowledge that X, Y and Z was done wrong at this pack in that pack, because right now, it's sort of a lot of smoke, I guess. I mean, I don't know why somebody needs four packs, to be honest, but one of them said that it would be Tulsi's like primary vehicle for getting her message out blah blah blah, meaning that it probably was like a lot of travel and aids helping with communications and all of those types of things as she campaigned in twenty twenty four. And I'm not sure that the donors would be especially upset about that. But four packs is quite it's quite interesting, and maybe, you know, I think that was a even corn story. Maybe he thinks there's more to kind of build off of, but so far, I think there's just so much more with Tulsa that'll be contentious with those Republican senators who are you know, it's all gonna come down to Syria basically, and talking the way she talks about NATO, so that I think will be much more significant. But maybe there's more here.

Yeah, could be. We'll see how that all unfolds. I think that could be a very interesting one. And then the other piece with a report like this is, you know, the Senate would have more sort of investigatory powers to be able to dig into whether if there's any fire there where there's smoke. So I think you're right about it, kind of planning a seed and a question mark in people's minds to follow the trail for there. All right, let's go ahead and get to how people are feeling about the Trump transition. So I wanted to take a look at a pretty interesting CNN segment taking dive into how people are feeling about the Trump transition so far. Harry Anton breaks down the numbers.

Let's take a listen President Trump's transition net approval. You go back to November at twenty sixteen. Look at this, it was just a plus one point, just a plus one point.

That is well well well below.

The historical norm. Look get where we are today, significantly higher plus eighteen points at seventeen points higher on the presidential transition net approval rating.

The bottom line is this.

If eight years ago Americans were lukewarm on Donald Trump, at this particular point, they're giving him much more of the benefit of the doubt. A lot more Americans are in love with this transition. This much more meets the historical norms where normally presidents get that boost coming out of their victory. And what we're seeing here is Donald Trump's presidential transition is getting a thumbs up, And dare I say two thumbs up from the American people.

So, Emily, what do you make of those numbers and how significantly different they are from twenty sixteen when it was, you know, and people were not really sure what was going on with him?

Harry Anton just pounding that ghost energy clearly day in and.

Day out, you feeling that hue.

He So I don't know how much to read into what this reflects the sentiments of the American voters, but I think where we can focus is the change. I do think like seeing twenty sixteen versus twenty twenty four is interesting and I wonder crystal again sort of contraconventional wisdom in Washington, if it's that, you know, the Robert F. Kennedy Junior is not a man of the conservative movement. Tulsea Gabbard is now very much in the conservative movement that doesn't but does not come from that place. Trump's cabinet in twenty sixteen was staffed with like vanilla Republicans. I mean, he put Rex Tillerson in there, and I guess that was interesting. It wasn't a very drain the swamp move to just like pluck the Exon CEO. It's one of my favorite Trump moves in terms of like actually undermining the drain the swamp messaging, like we'll just take the CEO of Exon and put them at the State Department and have funny.

That is like the definition of the swamp right there.

Yees, it's this is so stupid. But on that note, he was pretty much surrounding himself with conventional Republicans, and this time around, I can see how a people just have hired name recognition maybe and b there coming from different places, so you're maybe getting a little bit more like for example, Corey Booker has said he'll take RFK Junior seriously, and that's maybe one of the most high profile cabinet announcements. So it's one that people have heard a lot about and I think Bertie Sanders has had nice words for Tulsa Gabbard in recent days. So there's something. Yeah, I think I have to go double track, but there's something where you've had people reacting in a way that's sort of like, Okay, maybe more people are hearing about different coalition, different parts of the coalition coming together. That's my best guess as to why it's hire.

Yeah, My best guess is there are three pieces here. Number One, Trump is just a fixed your in American political life now, So he is you know, there are a lot of young people who have only known the Trump. He is not this like aberration in American politics at this point. So it makes sense that he would enjoy this sort of typical honeymoon period that all presidents enjoy because now he's sort of like a typical presidential figure, even as you know, if you look at historical norms and norms and his approach and whatever, obviously he's outside of that. But in terms of recent political history, he is now just sort of like, this is the norm in American politics. So I think there's that. I think the second piece, related to what you were saying, is the Democratic Party approach has been very different. We're going to cover in another block, how the quote unquote resistance has gone quiet, Like the vibe from the Democratic Party and a lot of corners is more like capitulation than resistance. And just as we saw with you know, the numbers on immigration, when you had both parties sort of accepting the same framework ideological framework around immigration, you saw the numbers really dramatically shift. I think it's the same thing. If you have both parties basically saying like, well, always making some decisions that are I'm okay with and I'm open to, etc. Then yeah, you're gonna have a public perception that like, oh, this seems to be going pretty well. And then the last thing, and I actually think this is probably the most important point, is that Joe Biden is so feeble and the Democratic Party in general is so feeble and incapable of making a decision and taking any action. Just the sense of like, oh, there's a lot of things happening and like a lot of decisions are being made. I think, irrespective of whether those decisions are good, bad, or indifferent, just the sense of action feels good to people. You know that someone is doing something and making decisions and they're bold, and they're controversial, and they're taking charge. Now does that last once those decisions actually have real work consequences, as we were talking about before with the tariffs, in the way that deportations may feel in reality versus how you imagine them to be in you know, the abstract, that's a very different question. But I do think that people are reacting to just the sense of like decisions are being made, and they're being made quickly, and they're being made decisively, and you know, that vibe, especially in contrast to a completely enfeebled Joe Biden, is creating a really positive impression.

Yeah, the point about Biden is a really good one. And I think actually what people were recirculating was an old Bernie comment about Tulsa. Obviously they used to be very close. So I retract that statement. Okay, you know, the point remains, it's obviously people who come from different parts, since it's not just a bunch of vanilla Republicans who are being slotted into these cabinet positions this time around. There are of course some Venida Republicans' for sure, that's for sure. I think that's very crystal that some of it is just a comparison with the Biden administration. And the only other thing I was thinking of you as you were talking that was interesting is if you remember back in twenty sixteen, there was a frenzy every single day about all of Donald Trump's tweets, and he just posts into the ether on social now, like even sometimes on Twitter, and it doesn't they're not making news cycles like they used to. There was just this sense of horror and norm shattering that you were talking about, how he's been normalized and the country's been sort of acclimated to trump Ism. But even just the way that could be shifting public opinion, because those is worthwhile to think about because those individual tweets, I mean, Paul Ryan would make a news cycle by his response his non response to the tweets back in that time, like twenty seventeen. And now it's like, we all just understand that Donald Trump is posting into the ether and that's how it's going to be, and we don't have to panic over everything.

He says, yeah, yeah, you know, my memory is not all that great, But I also remember in twenty sixteen, all kinds of like sort of chaotic things happen that weird like dinner with Mitt Romney and drama on Kushner and Chris Christie, and so I'm sure that also didn't feed like the most positive impression of the potence with which the transition was unfolding, because I mean, I don't think they thought they were going to win, so they were really dramatically unprepared to go forward and actually staff an administration. And I think that kind of showed. And this time around, they did expect to win, and they have been preparing to win, and you know, so he was ready out of the gates with here's here's what I'm going to do, Here's who I want, this is how we're going to do it. This is the policies we're going to put into place. These are the day one executive actions. And like I said, when those things actually hit and we see these people leading agencies and these you know, executive actions going into place and what they actually mean for the country and people's lives, it may be a very very different story. But right now, in the abstract, it's like, Oh, he's taking action. That's what I want him to do.

Mm hmm, Yeah, I think that's true, Crystal.

So I wanted to get to this, Emily and get your thoughts on this, because I think this conversation is very interesting and also has really important implications for the future of both the Democratic and the Republican parties, which is that some people been floating this sense that Trump may be kind of a unique figure to the Republican Party in terms of the coalition of voters he's able to pull together in the same way that Barack Obama was a unique figure in the Democratic Party with the coalition that he was able to pull together. One of the earliest signs of those parallels that obviously we're not saying they're like the same ideologically or stylistically, just in terms of their sort of political impact, uniquely felt political impact and coalition building. One of the earliest indications we got of that was after election night, we saw there were a significant number of voters who voted for Donald Trump and didn't vote for anyone else, left the rest of the ballot blank. We saw the way that even though Donald Trump was able to obviously be very successful for himself and you know, win the popular vote and win all the battle ground states, he didn't really have big coattails. Most of the Senate Republican candidates in the swing states lost. The exception was McCormick in Pennsylvania, where it was extremely, extremely narrow. And it was a similar thing with Barack Obama. Actually two thousand and eight, Barack Obama did have significant cotails, but after that he was famously unable to translate his popularity into popularity for the Democratic Party. He was not able to confer his popularity onto his would be successor, Hillary Clinton, et cetera. And so it does raise this question of whether Donald Trump is the sort of unique figure in the Republican Party and whether moving forward, whether Shady Vance or Ron de Santas or whoever is the standard bearer going forward, whether they will be able to keep together this very unique coalition that has come out for Donald Trump.

I mean, this is the trillion dollar question. It's so significant because I cannot envision another Republican being able to do what Donald Trump did on Rogan, being able to do what Donald Trump did on the Oban. JD. Vance literally did that, but it was it's not Donald Trump, and it's not Donald Trump in Florida getting a significant percentage of the vote and getting new demographic ships and all of that and then a big chunk of the state also voting to legalize weed and trying abortion rights in the state constitution. I just don't know if there's another Republican waiting in the wings. That Donald Trump is a singular and that's in some ways a compliment to him, and in some ways it's like Republicans are totally screwed after Trump because there's nobody. There's nobody that could do the Madison Square Garden rally that has you know, and by the way, that having watched the entire thing, like was the Tony Hinchcliffe thing helpful? Probably not, but it was very like there was something really politically amazing about seeing these random people coming together under the banner of trump Ism. They don't really care about the Republican Party. That's does it significant problem for Republicans right now? I don't think it's Don Junior. I just don't know that there's anybody that can do what he did.

Yeah, I mean, you know, one of the things the parallels to between Trump and Obama is obviously Trump is a celebrity, right has been known to American public for decades as a celebrity. Obama wasn't a celebrity, but in a certain sense he kind of was, like he ended up being more of a celebrity figure, this sort of especially in two thousand and eight, this kind of like political rock star figure that people thought it was like cool and edgy to associate with. He was only in the Senate for how many years before he ran for president, so he became more of a cultural figure and you see that in his post presidency too, than a typical political figure. And so in some ways I think they also share that in common. And you know, I don't want to like this can sound like cope from the Democratic side of like, all right, well we'll just get Trump dout and then we're gonna be good again. And I don't think that's true. I think the Democratic Party has a lot of problems that they have to work through, and they also don't have any like Obama level popular figure. As we're going to talk about how Kamala Harrison is that you maybe she'll run again. They've got a lot of work that they need to do, and they need to find much more compelling, controversial, like outspoken, charismatic, funny, whatever character that can can carry the mantle for the party. So they've obviously got a lot of work to do. But I just remember in two thousand and eight, and I felt this too, because I voted for Barack Obama, actually voted for Hillary in the primary, and that's kind of cringe. But anyway, I voted for but she.

Was running a strong progressive pro union that she was doing it.

Yeah, well I thought she was better on she actually her healthcare plan was better than him. But anyway, put that, we'll put that in the past. That in the past, We'll put my cringe Democratic party views in the paths. But you know, when he was elected, there was a sense of like it's over for the Republicans, Like they're never gonna win again. Look at this coalition he but look at young people, look at like all these shifts towards the Democrats. Look at him winning in Indiana, look at him winning in Iowa. Like these groups, the coalition of the Ascendant, it's only going to get larger, and Democrats are only going to win larger and larger victories. You know, there was this sense that it was like it was over for Republicans. And it wasn't just Democrats that thought that, Like Republicans kind of thought that too. They were like, damn, we're kind of screwed right now. And then two years later, twenty ten comes around and massive shillacking in the mid terms. Obama obviously is able to get himself reelected in twenty twelve, just as Trump was able to get himself reelected this time around. But in twenty sixteen, guess what, Donald Trump comes to town. So I guess the point here is just that the triumphalism, the sense of inevitability that exists right now, a lot can change in politics. Let's put a nine up on the screen that just shows the shifts from twenty twelve, which you know, talk about bracing for the Democratic Party. Look at the way that since twenty twelve, these are the shifts towards Republicans. Black voters R plus nineteen, Hispanic voters R plus twenty nine, Asian voters R plus seventeen. Other voters are plus seventeen. White no degree are plus thirteen. It's kind of funny because that's the group that is portrayed as having shifted the most, and they're one of the groups that has actually shifted the list. So that's kind of an interesting note. But non white with a bachelor's R plus twenty one, non white no degree R plus thirty seven. So you know, these shifts obviously, if they continue, like the Democratic Party is basically dead. But twenty twelve, of course, the last time that Barack Obama was on the ballot, So it's pretty pretty wild to see how much can change in politics just over the course of a single decade.

Well, and again, I just don't think there's anybody who's getting the votes of you know, all of these people in Florida, for example, that are going to vote to enshrine abortion too the state constitution. I don't think Jade Vance is getting as many people as Donald Trump is, and that's going to matter. Donald Trump looks like he's going to win the popular vote, but by a tiny margin. So that's I mean, that's a it's not an insignificant thing. And if we put a ten up. This is a Financial Times analysis that I think is maybe a little bit flawed about how Democrat political elites, as they put it, have started to diverge culturally from the median voter over the course of the last ten years, and what they're using as cultural issues. It's a lot of immigration and policing in particular, and we've seen this in other immigration analysis that it's just been really significant the drift. But also one of the things that the Financial Times has found in this analysis is that Democrats are as no longer being associated with the working class. They are being associated more with sociocultural issues than with class and economic solidarity than they had in the past. And the only other thing worth mentioning here is that the drift on cultural issues between elites and your median voter was especially acute with minority voters. And so you know that's policing is on obvious. Policing and immigration are two very obvious issues that would where you would see that divergence. And I don't know, Crystal. I think Democrats are probably on track to find a better way to have those conversations. And I say better politically, I'm not talking about better necessarily in substance, but it's that to me doesn't seem to be such an incredible sisifian task ahead of Democrats to at least message better on those issues.

Yeah, sometimes I think that this screen in particular that we have up right now, it can be a little misleading because you could pull a totally different set of issues like you know, abortion with no exceptions, getting rid of IVF, still not supporting gay marriage, which are all positions that many Republicans in the party today still hold, and it will also be dramatically unpopular, dramatically out of step with the public, not to mention, you know, stop the steal, also dramatically unpopular. So in some sense it's a race to figure out which candidate can overcome their unpopular positions. And I think the second graph that you were talking about gets much closer to the core of the problem, which is the issue isn't necessarily there, you know, where they pull on this or that issue. It's more that they have been successfully because they have abandoned a lot of their working class orientation on economics. They become associated solely with those cultural positions. So, you know, obviously I use the example of Bernie Sanders, but I do think it's a really illustrative example. Bernie Sanders is as left on any of these issues as you can effectively be, and yet he has so much credibility on working class issues that people are like, yeah, but I know what he's really concerned about, And it has a lot to do with me and my family and how we're going to get ahead. Andy Wassheer another example of that in Kentucky, Right, Kentucky veried very religious and very conservative state, and yet he actually vetoed some of the anti trans legislation that was coming out of the Republican legislature, knowing that would be very unpopular. But people voted for him anyway and re elected him in the state of Kentucky because he had so clearly delivered from them on affordable healthcare, on jobs, on union jobs in particular, attracted a lot of auto industry investment into the state, and so they felt like, Okay, well, yeah, he's you know, I don't agree with him on these issues, but that's not really what he's all about. So, you know, I think that piece about democrats need to be associated first and foremost delivering for the working class, and then you can get some leeway, just as Donald Trump does on the issues where he is profound saying things that are profoundly unpopular, then you can get some leeway on those pieces where public opinion goes against you.

Yeah. Trump first of all handled abortion in a way that I again cannot see because he's Trump, right, so he can say one thing one moment, then say another thing another moment, and it just voters see him as like, yeah, he just doesn't really care that much about the issue. I don't think any other Republican is in a position to be able to handle abortion the way that Donald Trump has to mitigate some of the electoral fallout, and that's a huge challenge for the party going forward. And the only other thing I'll add to this, Crystal is Bernie Sanders. To your point, I think this actually underscores your point. He is one of those people who has gone with the elite sort of drift opinion on immigration, and people aren't like, oh, Bernie Sanders hates the working class, because a lot of Bernie supporters aren't like they may disagree with his position on immigration, and for example, he one states like Wisconsin, where there are a lot of people who would be totally against the Biden policy on immigration. That Bernie Sanders has in some ways been supportive of asilent policies and those sorts of things, but it hasn't been a significant sort of albatross for him during his sort of late populist rise, even though it reflects some of the drift.

Yeah, I think that's right. All right, Let's go ahead and get to Kamala's plans moving forward. All right, So, Emily Kamala revealing some of her thoughts about the future. Let's put this up on the screen. This is incredible to me, honestly. Apparently she is thinking of running for president again in twenty twenty eight, telling her advisors and allies to keep her political options open because no one ever learns anything in the Democratic Party. She's also considering and this pathway makes more at least electoral sense. A potential run for California governor. I think there's a good chance she would be successful in amocratic primary, and obviously it's a Democratic state, so that's most of the ballgame if you get through the Democratic primary. Let me just read a little bit from this report and then get your reaction. Kamala Harris has been lying low since her defeat in the presidential race, unwinding with family and senior aids in Hawaii before heading back to the nation's capital. But privately, the Vice President been instructing advisors and allies to keep our options open, whether for a possible twenty twenty a presidential run, or even to run for governor in a home state of California in two years. As Harris has repeated in phone calls, quote, I am staying in the fight. She's expected to explore those and other possible pass forward with family members over the holiday season. Courty to five people in the Harris inner circle who were granted anonymity.

Emily, your thoughts, I mean, going from vice president to governor of California in substance, you arguably have more power.

Oh, it's not arguable. It's not even close. California's economy is the size of many, like large countries. It's extremely significant.

Officially, it feels sort of embarrassing to go for vice president to governor of California. I think she would be actually very well positioned to make a run for California governor. And you could see how this would be the reset politically that she needs to sort of get the stench of losing off of her, which is significant with candidates. It's actually something Trump had to overcome this time around. You know, anytime you lose like that, it's just your mojo. You need to go reset and figure out a way to deal with that. So I think she would be well positioned to maybe go to California to say I turned the state's economy around, I solved the crime problem, I solved all of these, you know, different issues that have been plaguing in California politics. Whether or she's actually able to do that is a different question from whether or not she could look like she suddenly got very tough. And you know, maybe she can say she got tough in a very progressive way or she got tough in a very conservative way, depending on what lane she decides to go through politically going forward. She's an absolute chameleon and could choose to go to either path regardless of what her actual beliefs are. But you could see how that would be something that could position her. And the only other thing I wanted to mention here, Crystal, is that it is astounding to me. I didn't realize Kamala Harris was in Hawaii. We are authorizing use of attack MS, our president could literally die at any moment, and Kamala Harris was relaxing in California. So that's sort of just a nice statement on where the Biden administration is right now.

Absolutely absolutely the case. Yeah, I mean, in terms of California, the two big things she's got going for her are name mighty and fundraising capability, Like she has always been very effective at fundraising from the two big California like pots of money, which is Hollywood and Silicon Valley. So you know, from that perspective alone, those two pieces, however she wants to position herself and what ideological coach she wants to don for this particular campaign, she would be well positioned to win a Democratic primary, and whoever wins the Democratic primary very likely to be the next governor of California. So I do think, just from a like what should she do next, the most politically viable path for her is running for governor. The president thing to me is so crisy, so crazy, although I mean she's probably looking at I think we have this poll of who Democrats won in twenty twenty eight, which is extremely depressing. Just because of her name I D and because she just ran for president, she is at the top of the list and it's not really particularly close, Like she gets forty one percent. Gavin Newsom, her fellow Californian, is next at eight percent, Shapiro seven, Pete six, Tim Walls six, AOC four, and Gretchen three and then down the list from there. I told you, it did give me special pleasure to see John Fetterman not even getting one percent of the vote. So maybe you should try running in Israel. Maybe he'll do a little better there in the polls than in the country that he doesn't seem to care nearly as much about. But I also think this is just a factor of she just ran. That's the name that's in everybody's minds. So we've seen the way she actually performed when it came down to a Democratic primary back in the twenty twenty race. Didn't even make it to you know, didn't even make it to the starting line ultimately because it was going so poorly for her. And then listen, I don't think it's fair to lay all the problems for this campaign at her feet, but she was the cannon and she does deserve some of the blame. This did not go well, and from a Democratic perspective, it was really a total and complete disaster.

So it's a flawless campaign. I was that.

I mean the fact that listen, I know there's been a lot of discussion about like should she have gone on Rogan And I think the fact that it probably was the right decision for her not to go on Rogan because she would be unable to handle just like a normal person. Three hour conversation tells you that you not the political actor that people are looking for in this moment, like that should be the bare bones qualification is that you're able to just go and shoot the shit with a podcaster for a couple of hours and not come off as like terrified or a freak or you know, stilted or caught off guard or whatever. So yeah, I don't think there's any chance she would actually succeed if she jumped into the presidential primary, whether she But the piece of this, Emily is that, like you know, any of these political candidates, they have a whole coterie of people around them who get rich off of their presidential campaigns. I mean, the Kamala Harris consultant group are going to cover this in a bit. You know, they get made millions of dollars off of this campaign even though they lost, So they have an incentive to tell her like I'll look at you in the polls, look at your your prime for success, Like nobody blames you. It is just this crazy set of circumstances and it's because of bi and it's because of this anti incomment bias. You'll get them next time around. She may be inclined to believe that well.

And one reason why we put B three up on the screen in California is especially a good arena for Kamala Harris to make this comeback. Now, Caitlyn Jenner was flirting and I would say maybe trolling yesterday on X with the idea of potentially running against Kamala Harris if she jumped into the gubernatorial race. Caitlyn Jenner said, if I ran and it was ultimately against Harris, I would destroy her. And since a couple of tweets along those lines, But the California Republican Party, you know, it's amazing that Democrats keep winning in California, given how the Democratic Party has handled the state of California. But one of the reasons for that is the Republican Party in California is an absolute disaster. And so if it's Kamala Harris versus Caitlyn Jenner, you can see where Kamala Harris is, you know, sort of slotting herself and to start looking or take a job that it's a lot easier for her to sort of make her own narrative and you know, be her own person and start making a political comeback. Now, Kamala Harris is I think a uniquely bad politician, even among politicians. This is a person who didn't even make it to the Iowa caucuses despite having a truly absurd amount of money behind her, as you guys covered support. Yeah, oh my gosh, they did it. Didn't even make it to the Iowa caucuses. So she's a uniquely bad politician. But that's where you know, California is the place where she's at home, because you can be a uniquely bad Democrat in California and actually succeed over and over again.

The machine, that California Democratic Party machine really does actually matter in the state, and I think she would have a lot of institutional support behind her. So do you think Caitlyn Jenner is serious about this?

By the way, Yeah, because Kate and that long shot run. I forget what was like two years ago.

I kind of forgot about that.

I know I did too, but you know.

Talk about like not even making it to the starting line, I forgot it even happened.

Yeah, right, I mean, on that note, if it's something that's sort of plotted early enough and is actual like the California Republican Party gets behind the money, gets behind the campaign. It could it could happen if it looked more like a traditional campaign. But obviously there's a primary and there's a process, and there will be other people who probably seem more serious than Caitlyn Jenner. But Kaitlyn Jenner has been hanging around mar A Lago recently, does a lot of Fox News. I mean, there's a world in which it's possible that Kaitlyn Jurder gets the primary nomination.

So California, don't they have the jungle primary system where it's like the top two vote getters. I mean think there have been some campaigns where Republican doesn't even make it to the general election. We have two Democrats, yeah, against the data for the general election.

Right, and that's where it's like, I mean, I don't I don't know how Calen general would be able to also somebody with a different political background, but a fairly conventional not like an RFK different political background, like a fairly conventional boomer Republican conservative, to be honest.

Yeah, yeah, all right, Well we'll keep your eye on it. And see see just how delusional Kamala is about after political prospects moving forward. So Emily, we were talking earlier about how the resistance to Trump this time around is uh not as heated. It's a very different approach than it was last time, and wanted to dig into that a little bit more, but just as a reminder, you know, this was the after Trump gets elected and there's all these thoughts like Russia inter feared, and Trump's never been present before, and no one knows what this is going to look like, and there was this just vociferous reaction against him and tons of energy among liberals that you know, the early culmination of which was the Women's March, which occurred in you know, January, after he's inaugurated. Just to remind people what that energy was like, let's take a look at a little news clip of that Women's March from the time.

The day after Donald Trump became their president. They chanted, they urged.

Regat this keep on coming.

They shouted, and they waived every insult they could, mustard pussy caps mocking Trump for comments he's made about women, reinforced in as many ways they could think of hundreds of thousands of Americans enraged by the man voted into office by millions of other Americans.

Now there is a People's March plan for January, but there are concerns that the term now will be significantly less than the Women's March. And just to give you a sense of how the approach and the energy is very different this time around, you even had on the view Whoopy Goldberg, who of course has been a vociferous Trump critic all of these years, saying, you know, I'll wait and see what he does once he gets into office. Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.

I understand all the things you want to see him be. I understand all the things that he promised he would be and he wasn't. And now that he has been given carte blanche, I'm not going to waste a lot of time on what he might do. But I'm gonna I'm gonna wait because I need to see what he will do so that I know what I'm going.

To do that I'm not gonna wait and see. I mean, this guy's.

Like, there's nothing to be done until you know what you're fighting. It's it's listing and the wind doesn't help you just get away from.

What I'm saying is.

I have no false expectations that at seventy eight he's going to all of a sudden turning. I spent weeks telling people that he was apocalyptic.

I'm not going to change now.

It can treating every single thing.

I think that's when.

We lose credibility.

Well, here's the thing.

You lose credibility in many different ways. If you don't know what you're talking about, and you accuse him of something, then then they're going to blow it back. That's why I say we need to wait and see exactly what you're going to do.

So Jeoh, I should put dramatic music like that. When we start to get.

Liked, Griffin can start trying to play us out to break, Like, okay, y'all, I've been talking for a long time. Let me just start to play some music. Play you off stage. That was what was going on there. But so there's a few things I think Whoope's comments well less dramatic than like Joe Amica going down to bar a Lago. I think in some ways they should be seen as a similar reaction. I think you can all so put them in a vein with Jeff Bezos deciding to not have The Washington Post endorse before the fact of Sindhar Pachai, of Mark Zuckerberg, of Tim Cook, all of these people going being like, let's make nice because this is the new reality. And you know, part of that is out of a desire to suck up to power as always, and part of that is out of like this kind of fear of retribution. I think from what be Goldberg's perspective, it's also her sense of like, Okay, well what we did last time didn't really work, so what can we do. That's a different approach my own personal her reaction is kind of the polar opposite because I don't have last time around, we didn't know what he was going to do, so then to me it did make sense to be like, all right, well, let's see how this goes this time around. This man was president before we know what he said on the campaign trail, we know who he's putting in place and what he is planning to do, and whether it's you know, mass deportations or I'm in support of some terrorists, but putting terraces across the entire economy that spikes inflation would be an utter disaster, the two trillion dollar cuts from you know, letting Elon Musk the richest man on the planet basically like drive government policy and run it to his own personal benefit. Like these are things he's already putting in place that he has argued for on the campaign trail, that he has some track record of being in favor of from last time around, even though he was diming in these certain ways, like I feel the polar opposite of what be Goldberg. I like, we already know who this person is. So in some sense, it's been it's been very frustrating to me to see the lack of concerted, like smart policy driven resistance to him this time around, even as last time, like you know, I found the Women's March in these sorts of things kind of like you know, liberal and cringey, But this time there just seems to be such an area of capitulation and if you put the shoe on the other foot, like Republicans never approach things this way of like, oh maybe maybe Barack Obama and Joe Biden, maybe Kamala Harris, maybe we're gonna like what they had no they from the beginning now a forceful, clear cut, aggressive opposition, and there's a reason why they do that. It's because it's politically successful.

It's pretty wild. I mean, first of all, to disentangle the layers of that cacophony. From the view, it was like they were making these different arguments that weren't even against each other. Like you had Alyssa far Griffin on the end of the table saying you can't treat everything like a five alarm fire. She was agreeing with on a Nabarro. She was like, he is the same guy, but if you treat everything like it's an emergency, people tune out. And Anna Navarro is sort of puzzled by that and saying and same thing. She's puzzled by Whippy Goldberg because she's been sitting at that table for years where they do treat everything as a five alarm fire, and she's I think actually right to call their bs on that and saying, Okay, so are you telling me that I should just pull my fire even though I think something is like dire and serious? It does Actually, Chris, I totally think it's like Joe and Mika.

You know that in one thing, he's Hitler and he's a fascist, Like, yeah, well, let's find some common grounds, like these two things can't coexist, right.

You know, It's like, did you believe that he was Hitler if you're now saying that that he was literally Hitler, or that he was actually a fascist or a diarthlet through republic, if you are now saying, let's give him a chance. So in that sense, I give him the first time in my life. I yeah, the first time in my life. I am sympathizing. I'm agreeing with the lovely at Navarro there. But the Joe Amica point, I don't think this applies to Whoopie Goldberg. But Chrystal I was working on a story yesterday about why DC seems so quiet. I mean, the Women's March was the pinnacle of the resistance. It was, you know, the snowball starting to roll down the hill of the resistance. And Ryan writes about this in his book, a very organic, genuinely bottom up way. But it also, I mean, the quote unquote resistance, the hashtag erstence was robust. It wasn't just the Women's March. Women's March was a powerful part of it, but everyone remembers it was so frenzied in DC. It was frenzied. People were hyperventilating, and I was working in a story about why that doesn't seem to be the case right now, and a longtime Republican lobbyist told me on the phone yesterday that everyone is quote scared to death and not saying anything. It is like the angel of death is hovering over their doors and they just want fucking Lamb's blood on their door. And they're hoping that the Trump administration has too many fish to fry they don't end up being one of the fried fish. And so Ryan is right that the women's merch was very much a bottom up type of thing, but there's really nothing coming from the top down. And this gets to the Whoopi Goldberg and Joe and Mika point, because people understand that Trump is going to come into office without the need to run for reelection again, and they understand he's coming into the office with these off season plans ready to go, and they're trying to avoid, needlessly after all of this time, putting themselves in the crosshairs. It's like, Okay, good good luck at this point.

Yeah. Well, and the other thing is like part of there's no examination of what the resistance ended up focusing on in terms of, you know, figuring out why it didn't work. They're sort of viewing it through the lens of, well, we were aggressively opposed to Trump last time and that didn't work, so this time, maybe we should be less aggressively opposed to Trump. And it's like, well, instead of that analysis, maybe you shouldn't have like indulged in this elaborate Russiagate hoax conspiracy that just turned out to not be true. Maybe if you had opposed him on the overt corruption, which was clear cut from day one. Maybe if you had opposed him on how he turned out to be a fraud when it came to his working class promises and his primary accomplishment was passing a tax cut for a bunch of rich people, maybe you should have opposed him more aggressively on the fact that, you know, his healthcare plan was an absolute disaster and he lied when he said he was going to get everyone healthcare coverage. Like, maybe the problem wasn't that you aggressively opposed him. Maybe it was that you opposed him on things that were like fundamentally not really factual or accurate or connecting to people's day to day Lives. Maybe that was the problem there, and so, you know, I do think that there is there's a very consistent elite like capitulation. You see it with Jared Poulis, who's like, oh, maybe RFK Junior would be great on this, even as you're like, yeah, but he also wants to like get rid of the measles vaccine. So you know, sure, okay, let people drink raw milk whatever. It's not really on far with opposing the measles vaccine. But you see that, you see Corey Booker, you know, you see Joe and Mika, you see whoopee here. You see a very different approach from democratic elites and MSNBC overall, very different approach, and I don't think that that is reflective of where a lot of the democratic bases. And I think that's why you're seeing so many people abandon MSNBC, why you're seeing like Kyle's channel is actually going through the roof right now, because people are looking for alternatives that are on the left, Like all these MSNBC refugees are flooding YouTube and podcasts right now looking for voices that are still going to be honest and credible to them. So I think they're gonna love Kyle. They are gonna love Kyle. I love Kyle obviously, so so I think there's a bit of a misread of the energy here at the same time, I mean, of course, people are kind of exhausted, like the elicit C three up on the screen. This is an article from Axios, The Resistance goes quiet. Democratic voters were just as disappointed, they write, but less shocked, and perhaps that's part of the reason for a different reaction. They also say they're concerned that this people's March, which is kind of, you know, inevitably going to be compared to the Women's March, that it may not have the same level of turnout that we saw eight years earlier. So you know, I guess part of it too is that he is instantly a lame duck, So that could also factor into the equation here of how people are viewing this residency.

Yeah, I think that's true. And you know, there's also lists of a freak out on the right, which is interesting because the never Trump guys, I mean, they were a kind of big part of the frenzy back in twenty sixteen and the hysteria back in twenty sixteen twenty seventeen, and they sort of sort of settled into their own like niche rhythm, and Scarborough is kind of one of them to some extent. But they're just I mean, what do they have to offer anymore? It's not novel that you have. Liz Cheney was rebuked I think pretty thoroughly as the numbers come in, so the media can't totally go along with that either.

Yeah. No, that's a good point. And the last piece we have here is, you know, part of the dynamic too, is that even the consultants who lost this race for the Democrats like, they're going to be fine. They made millions off of this race. They're going to be continue, very likely continue to be welcomed in elite democratic circles and maintain their racket at the DNC. I mean, these are things that myself and others should are and should fight against, but that's most likely path forward. And so for them a loss to Donald Trump isn't alarming. They're not going to be the ones who are, you know, suffering the brunt of the consequences they have. You know, if grocery prices spike, if there's mass deportations like they're not going to be the ones in the camps. They're not going to be the ones who are unable to pay their bills at the end of the month if those things come to pass. So, you know, they they're they're fine with a Donald Trump victory because they still get to move forward and get their multimillion dollar consulting contracts and get their you know, CNN hits where they can explain what we're wrong, even though that they're the ones that like caused the things that went wrong.

There's some upwards failure on the right. But I was talking to a Democratic consultant a couple of weeks ago about how they're so much on the in the Democratic Party. It's just you can fail upwards so easily. And that's what's going to happen to like all of these kmmal consultants in all likelihood is you can run a quote unquote flawless campaign and because joy Reid thinks that it was a flawless campaign and people like her, the ones that are hiring you, just those checks will just keep coming.

Yeah, it's also appoint that torre made with us, which kind of landed with me. Is like, you know, anyone who was at all associated with the Obama campaign is kind of treated as the political genius. But are they really because it's like, Okay, you were able to get Barack Obama elected, who anyone on the right of the left would acknowledge is like this generational political talent, Like did you really need to be a genius to pull that off? Or did you just happen to back the right horse at the right time, Because seem to be able to admit Romney have any right have any real success after that one moment in time, and yet they're still treated as these like, you know, unassailable political geniuses within the party.

I mean, we forget how incredibly unpopular George W. Bush was, like when people went to the polls in November two thousand and eight, how unpopular Republicans were, how bad the economy was. I mean, honestly, it wasn't that heavy of a lift when you have someone like Barack Obama. So that's a great point, Crystal.

Yeah, and it turns out Hillary Clinton also not a great candidate, So yeah, not like Obama. Again, Barack Obama this extraordinary political figure. You know, even as we have ideological disagreements with him, Both of us do. But yeah, so they just continue to get these gigs and be treated like stage wisdom, and it's like, you know, maybe you all should move it along too, because you are also partly responsible, quite responsible for the loss of the country to the Republican Party.

Thanks pop Ros. Senator Lindsay Graham had some predictably useful honesty to share about the ongoing and escalating conflict in Ukraine on Fox News recently. Let's take a listen to this club.

Ukraine is still standing. This war is about money. People don't talk much about it, but you know, the richest country in all of Europe for rare earth minerals is Ukraine. Two to seven trillion dollars worth of minerals that are rare earth minerals very relevant to the twenty first century. Ukraine's ready to do a deal with us, not the Russians. So it's our interest to make sure that Russia doesn't take over the place. It's the bread basket of really the developing world. Fifty percent of all the food going to Africa comes out of Ukraine. We could make money and have an economic relationship with Ukraine to be beneficial to us with peace. So Donald Trump's going to do a deal to get our money back to enrich our sales with rare earth minerals, a good deal for Ukraine and US, and he's going to bring peace and Biden's been a disaster when it comes to containing bad guys.

Okay, Well, that was Lindsay Graham on the on Sean Hannity Show just in the last several days. We can put actually D two up on the screen. So as you're listening to us talk about Lindsey Graham, if you're watching this, what you're going to see is footage of Russian ICBM missile strikes against a knee pro which is in Ukraine. So as Lindsay Graham is going on Sean Hannity to sell Republicans on this war being quote about money, and that's something that's you know, you hear it from Lindsay Graham and Lindsay gram types Mitch McConnell every once in a while. But what he said, I think is probably the most explicit bit of candor crystal that we've actually seen in a long time about where the heads of the people who are selling this war are at again. I'm just going to read the quote this war is about money. The richest country in all of Europe for rare earth minerals is Ukraine, two to seven trillion dollars worth. So don Trump's going to do a deal to get our money back to enrich ourselves with rare minerals. Meanwhile, Crystal, as we know, Ukraine is having a terribly difficult time recruiting its own people to fight this war. Well, Instagram is an air conditioned studio talking about getting our money back enriching ourselves with their rare earth minerals.

Yep, you know, this is the sort of thing that leftists, you know, have been saying about this war and the real motivations for it from the beginning, and are treated as like, oh, you know, conspiratorial and cynical and whatever. But this explanation makes a hell of a lot more sense in terms of our involvement versus like, oh, freedom and democracy, given how clearly hypocritical we are about human rights, freedom and democracy around the world, just given, you know, just based on how we feel about that particular conflict, in the particular actors in the conflict. So this explanation makes a hell of a lot more sense than what has been fed to the American people, which is I think part of why your support for continuing to our Ukraine has really fallen off. And obviously, you know, we've come to a place where even Joe Biden couldn't really explain what the path forward is. Even the greatest supporter or started question whether this makes sense as an endless obligation moving forward because there is no path to victory at this point. You mentioned the ICBM missile. I mean, one of the things that's really significant about that is it just demonstrates like Russia has not used all of the capabilities that they have. There are more cards that they could put on the table, and there are not a lot more cards that Ukraine could ultimately put on the table. So I think that's really significant. At the same time, you know, those who have been felt that Trump is just going to, you know, unilaterally back out of this conflict, some of his advisors are singing a very different tune, and they're sort of indicating that actually his plan is to offer Ukraine vastly more weapons in order to coerce Russia to come to the table and negotiate. So Seb Gorka, who is now going to be a top advisor making this case. Michael Tracy clip this, and I think it's really important to listen to what he's saying. And Gorka has always been big into like we got to defend Ukraine. That's been one of his big things. What he is explaining Donald Trump's plan actually is, let's take a listen to that.

I'll give one to a way that the President has mentioned. He will say to that murderous former KGB keronel, that thug who runs the Russian Federation, you will negotiate now, or the aid that we have given to Ukraine thus far will look like peanuts. That's how he will force those gentlemen to come to an arrangement that stops the bloodshed.

He says, the aid that we have given to Ukraine so far will look like peanuts. And Mike Waltz, who has been selected as the next National Security Advisor, has made very similar comments. He said Russia can be pressured to come to the negotiating table via increased energy sanctions combined with taking the handcuffs off. I mean, this is rhetoric that you've heard from Republicans this whole time of like the problem with the Biden administration is that they're doing too little for Ukraine. They need to do more for Ukraine. They need to take the handcuffs off Ukraine and allow them to win. And so it was really noteworthy to hear Gorka and Waltz kind of marry that with Trump's comments that, oh, I'm going to end this conflict. But apparently the mode that he's planning to end the conflict with is by offering Ukraine. We're threatened to give Ukraine vastly more capabilities than they've already been given at this point.

And against the backdrop of if we put B, if we put D three up on the screen, this is what's happening and unfolding over the last couple of days. We showed the vo earlier. We're watching what was happening. But just reading from Reuter's here, Russia fire to hypersonic intermediate range ballistic missile at Ukrainian city of de Nepro on Thursday, in response to the US and UK's allowing Kiev to strike Russian territory with advanced Western weapons and a further escalation of the thirty three month old war. Putin, in a televis address, said Moscow struck a Ukrainian military facility with a new medium range tripersonic ballistic missile known as a Rashnik, and warned that Moore could follow. He said civilians would be warned ahead of further strikes with such weapons. So this is sort of old news by now, but I think it's worth remembering in the context of Graham's comments and the context of what Crystal just showed from somebody we now know is going to be a senior advisor to Donald Trump. Now, there are going to be people around Donald Trump who disagree bitterly with what Gorka just said. That who would laugh frankly at what Gorka just said. But if we put the next element on the screen, this is going to be D four. It's a tweet from k File, who was digging through a new CBS pole. It shows, by a fifty one to forty nine percent margin, Americans think we should no longer send weapons to Ukraine, per a CBS pole and Crystal. That's not in any way surprising at this point, and part of the reason is because people like Lindsay Graham are doing such a god awful job of continuing to sell the war to the American people. That's not to say, you know, if they were doing a great job selling the word to the American people, it would be you know, suddenly everyone would be like, yes, we must fight, this is about democracy and freedom. It is to say, though, that the decline is because people I can see past some of the spin, and the spin has gotten I think, especially desperate. That's what the Lindsay Graham clip looks like to me.

Just yeah, I think that's true. And I do think that Gaza has really undercut there any sort of credibility that they care about democracy, human rights, et cetera, et cetera. You can't have that split screen and have people really feel like, oh, yeah, we're the good guys. Yeah, I'm sure that's what we're that's what we're in there for. It's just because we are so concerned about international law, Like, give me a break, it's preposterous at this point. Meanwhile, you know, tell me how you feel about the ICC arrest warrants. Tell me how you feel about the ICJ saying is plausible they're committing a genocide. Tell me how you feel about even you know, the lack of enforcement of our own laws that say that we should not be shipping military weapons to a country that is blocking humanitarian aid, which every independent organization around the world says clearly Israel Is and has been doing. So it's hard to be like, yeah, we're the good guys, we're the noble saviors of the world and enforcers of the international order on the one hand, when in another conflict, it's so clear that we are on the opposite side of any of that. So, you know, just you know, my final thought in terms of Gorka's comments, what was significant to me about what he said. Isn't him holding that view per se, although that is also noteworthy because he is going to be in a key advisory position, But he is claiming that what he is saying he is speaking for Donald Trump. He's claiming that this is Trump's plan that he's laying out. And Trump has been extremely cagy about any sort of questions about how you would resolve this conflict. He always goes back to what it wouldn't have happened under me, which you know, who knows. But some of the things that he did, actually, some of the hawkish behavior he had towards Russia, which was under covered by the media because they wanted the like Russia Gate narrative. Some of that was used by Putin as part of his justification for invading Ukraine. Obviously the fault lies on Putin. I'm not, you know, denying his responsibility, et cetera. But anyway, I don't want to get too far a field with all of that. But he falls back on wouldn't have happened under me? And you know, I'm going to solve it. I can't tell you how, because you know, I don't want to. I don't want to show my hand. So that's to me. What's so important about Gorka's comments here is he purports to be representing some of what Donald Trump actually plans to do here. And yeah, I think it's quite quite significantly different from what opponents of this war thought that Trump's plan would be going in, Like they were not thinking, oh, yeah, he's gonna he's going to escalate, to de escalate effectively.

Well, and what happened in the in Congress in the spring is that Republicans tried to tie border funding too, and this was I think strategically smart, but to increase Ukraine aid. And so when people like Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz voted against Ukraine aid. They had that kind of I don't know if fig leaf is the right word, but they sort of had that excuse that it was because they couldn't get the Swamp to agree to you know, creasing border security and so you can't be sending more to Ukraine without securing the American border. But that doesn't mean they weren't in favor of sending more to Ukraine, right, Yeah, So it's it's sort of a how much have some of these Republicans actually evolved on the war. Is it further in line with where the public has evolved on the war? I don't know, because it's actually sort of Trump gives everyone a nice kind of cover with this. Again. I actually think this is sort of a political stroke of political genius from Trump. But he's the only one that can get away with it just saying, hey, we'll make a deal. We'll make a deal. You know, there's nobody else who could just do that, who could just say that and have that either position on Ukraine people.

I feel like, all right, maybe, yeah. It's also I always point this out too. Trump is about relationships. He likes Zelensky, he likes Selensky, He's always likes Zelensky. Zelenski was the other partner on the perfect phone call. He appreciates that he didn't throw him under the bus, and you know when that all drama was unfolding, that he sort of like stood by his side. Zelenski made the truck down tomorrow lago they had a little photo op together whatever, And so that relationship dynamic can be underestimated in this situation either. So, Emily, we got a little zoomer news for the publics. This chart just caught my eye. I'm curious what you make of this. Let's put this up on the screen. They ask people, Okay, how much money do you need to consider yourself financially successful? Okay, And this is what it looked like by the numbers. So overall people say, Okay, if I had two hundred and seventy thousand dollars that I was making a year, I would consider myself financially successful. Was a lot of money. If you look at millennials, they say one hundred and eighty K. If you look at gen X, they say two hundred and twelve. If you look at boomers, they say just under one hundred k. If you look at gen Z. They say almost six hundred thousand dollars a year is what they would need to he considered to consider themselves financially successful, and the dynamic is similar when they think about net worth as well. Gen Z feels like they would need a net worth of almost ten million dollars to consider themselves financially successful. What do you make of this, Emily, Where do you think that this comes from?

I have no idea. I looked at the methodology of the survey and it was an online poll of people who were over the age of eighteen, and so, I mean, I don't know if part of this is just gen Z is younger and in a demographic where it's like hard to assess what.

They don't really know, right. I would almost think that that would argue in the other direction though, because I feel like, until you start paying bills, you don't realize how much everything costs and how expends it, how much money you need to make in order to like have a house and have healthcare and whatever. But I don't know, I feel like it's all like their favorite YouTubers TikTokers Instagram, the life that's depicted is very luxurious. I agree, So If that's considered like this is, you know, living like to use a really stereotypical example, but like living like mister Beast is like what it looks like to be financially successful, then yeah, you probably do need to make like six hundred thousand dollars a year to be able to afford that level of like travel and the beautiful home that's always on display, and the very curated life and the products that are being pitched to you on TikTok et cetera.

Right, And that's where I still think maybe this is the best explanation is is youth And maybe the inverse way that you were talking about is they don't understand how much life costs, so they just like grossly overestimate it's going to cost because they're told over and over again, rightfully, that the cost of living is going up, that it's increasingly harder to be successful in the United States. All that is true, but I wonder if that, like dumerism, just made them totally overestimate, combined with like the luxury new standard of what it looks like to be quote unquote successful, if you're inundated with TikTok influencers and Instagram influencers over and over again. Instead of like this definition of success being like the two kids white picket fence, sending them to college, whatever that most other generations are raised on that's been shattered, like post nine to eleven. If you grew up post nine to eleven, that's just not what you consider financial success anymore. You're totally in a different You're swimming in very different waters and influencer culture. So that's my best guess as to why it's such an outlier, but it's quite bizarre.

The gult between Millennials and Gen Z also very interesting there because Millennials had some of the more modest outside of boomers. They had the most modest expectations of like what financial success would look like, which I do think also makes sense for millennials being the youngest like generation that is fully adult, right, some Zoomers are adult, but some are not fully adult yet. But also given that we came of age during the financial crisis and that set back a lot of expectations for what was possible and you know, what was achievable and what you needed to be able to make do with, so that also makes sense to me. But yeah, I think I think for zoomers there's a sense of like, financial success means you're going to have a you know, beautifully pristine designed home. You're gonna be able to order Uber eats whenever you want, like you know, Uber eat sushi whenever you want, and not have to worry about it. You're gonna be able to like, you know, buy the things that your favorite creators like wear or try to sell to you, et cetera. And they're not wrong that to do all of those things would take quite a significant amount of money every year.

Yeah, no question about that. Now for some I think even worst news Crystal, if we put the next element up on the screen, this is E two gen z is not only are they financially completely out of whack, they're just not watching TV, Crystal. And for me, that's wrong with this incredibly disturbing. As this excuser who posted this says, Americans aged eighteen to thirty four watch less than five hours of TV per week. That is insane. Those aged sixty five and older watched more than forty hours per week. I actually guess, Christal, I'm not looking at this. I am in the eighteen to thirty four craphic and let me tell you, I watched way more than five hours.

Oh really, I watched like.

Five hours of TV a day.

Not actually, I mean I sort of going ways with it right at the moment. I don't really watch any TV, to be honest with you. Like, I mean, Kyle always has like Eve of the golf channel or the Weather channel on in the background because he's the ten year old man trapped in the thirty year old man's body.

But I love that.

Yeah, there's a lot of Weather Channel on at our house. It's pretty funny. He's into it. But in terms of me like sitting down and watching a show, I yeah, not so much. It's part of why I'm so pop culturally ignorant. I guess, well, no you're not.

I mean, Christly, you're the one who knows about the influencer selling the crazy clothes on.

The time that's only vicariously through my sixteen year old.

Well, this is like, this would be really I think this would be really great news if it wasn't the substitute being something that I think is much actually worse than TV's, which is phones. And this is like an obvious point. I don't need to be the one to say this but obviously the reason that younger people aren't watching as much TV as older people is because they're literally watching social media videos that are extremely entertaining but are also scientifically chemically addictive to your brain in a way that TV obviously isn't. TV is not algorithmic. It may be really harmful in terms of creating sedentary lifestyles that have contributed to chronic disease, but it's it's not actually like gamified into casino level addictiveness like social media is. It's such a powerful, powerful tool. So I would be excited about, you know, people watching less TV, even though I love TV and TV's life, if if it weren't being replaced by the phone screens, which by the way, the content is come on, there's so much good stuff on TV. I mean, it just makes me so sad, Crystal that people don't have the linear cable experience of like flipping through the channels and watching you know, the middle of Happy Gilmore and then.

Going to channel that is the last time, isn't it? Especially around this time of year, this will be a good transition into like the Thanksgiving conversation. This is the time of year when all of those like whatever the movies are that they bought the rights to. They're just constantly, you know, on TV, whether it's like, what was it the like the Charlie Brown Christmas movie would be on that one with the Little Boy with the Big co with that Christmas movie the Christmas is called Christmas Story or something like that.

Oh you're talking about Christmas Story.

Oh yeah, great, Yeah that was a classic Happy Gilmore that was one that was on in heavy rotation. Yeah, there were a bunch of them that just like, yeah, you were like, oh, I'll watch the last forty minutes of this movie that.

I already automobiles.

Yeah, putting it on the on TV now it's the destruction of It is the destruction of the monoculture. You know, there are very few sort of cultural touchstone points now that everyone can reference, which is part of why there's still so much reference to like millennial culture, because that was the last time when there was anything approaching a kind of like significant monoculture. You do have some things that break out of that, like Barbie and Oppenheimer or the classic example. They're trying to make Wicked and Gladiator to kind of like a similar energy, but yeah, it'll never be what it was, Emily.

No, and cable was the stepping stone away from monoculture, which is funny. So I we're kind of like waxing nostalgic over it now because it was like the it was breaking up the you know, broadcast networks, which were even less choice. You had even less choice. We were all watching way more similar content before cable. But it's it's still just you know, the TikTok is so algorithmic, and niche a fied and so it was Instagram. There's some stuff that rises above Barbie Oppenheimer, particularly viral memes, but we I don't know, we gained a lot from you know, being forced to watch the same like five things at the same exact time before you could record things.

And yet here we are on YouTube being the ones to benefit from the shattering of the monoculture.

I know, I was gonna say, it's it is a total double edged sword. There's some good, there's some bad, but you know, for example, I could only watch all of Dawson's Creek after DVR came out because TBS would play it every morning while I was at school. I'd set the DVR and then it would come home. It would be there before my parents got home. Sorry, Mom and dad. And that's how I was able to watch it. So technology can be good, Crystal.

Yeah, that's true. That is true, double edged sword. I think, you know, back at the advent of TV, there is a lot of concern about what it would do to us, and people cite that a lot as justification for like, yeah, maybe we're overly concerned about social media and new media and what it's doing to our kids' brains. But my view is that they were probably right about TV being bad for us. Yeah, just we've grown accustomed to it, and we are probably also right about social media and the shortened attention spans and the way that that gamification and the algorithm and what that is doing to our brains. We're probably also right about that being bad. And we're probably also find a decade from now, people will just not even talk about it anymore because it'll be so normal.

I think, Yeah, I mean, we could have an hour long conversation. I just think social media is so much worse, but that's probably the millennial bias talking.

Crystal could be all right, So you ready for some good holiday news?

Here?

I can put this up on the screen from CNBC or NBC one of the two anyway. Apparently, according to them, the cost of this year's Thanksgiving dinner is They describe it as historically affordable. So they say the cost of this year's holiday feast, estimated at fifty eight dollars for a ten percon gathering or five dollars in eighty one cents a head, dropped five percent since last year, and that is the lowest level since twenty twenty one, according to a nationwide survey of grocery prices. They go on to say, if your dollar had the same overall purchasing power as a consumer in nineteen eighty four, this would be the least expensive Thanksgiving meal in the thirty nine year history of this Thanksgiving serve that survey. Outside of the pandemic outlier of twenty twenty, Thanksgiving food prices are up nineteen percent since twenty nineteen. However, household wages have grown by about twenty five percent during the same period. What's more, they say, the average American also has to work fewer hours to buy the same meal than in previous years. So I'm sure Emily Trump will already take credit. He's already solved our economic woes, Thanksgiving is already historically affordable. All we had to do was vote Donald Trump back into office.

I saw some people really dunking on this article on X this NBC claim, and there are a lot of other outlets who have done the same sort of look at the basket of goods. And it's not surprising at all, Crystal, because we've seen we obviously have seen inflation decreasing. But why it probably is getting dunked on is that as inflation decreases, it's not going to where it was yet before the pandemic, so it still feels really high to a lot of people. And did a survey and if the Linden Tree survey found that costs would be up nineteen percent from a year ago, So they're saying that costs are up. But what was interesting about this survey is that ask people what they plan to spend, and when you're just doing the kind of basket you know, people are like, oh this the NBC one doesn't even include pies, blah blah blah. So it's kind of interesting to look at what people say they plan to spend, and apparently people are if you're hosting, people say they plan to spend four hundred and thirty one dollars on food, drinks, and core foror the celebration. That's an average of two to sixty five just for food and drinks, and they expect to host on average eleven guests. So kind of interesting. Inflation was on the minds of sixty percent respondents sixty percent of respondents who said it has impacted their plans for celebrating the holiday, with twenty seven percent saying they'll change food choices, twenty six percent turning to more coupons, and nine percent declining to host do to costs. And is actually not surprising to me at all, Crystal, because honestly, for the media, I think it's really dangerous to write stories like this and then bury in the NBC report all the way down at the end. I mean, this is like at least more than halfway through the story. And indeed, well, Thanksgiving food prices are up ninety since twenty nineteen, according to the same data, our household wages have been growing by twenty five percent during the same period. It's like, that's at the end of your story.

Well, the other thing is, you know, on average, wages have grown that much but you may not be one of those people who participated in the wage growth that is higher than what inflation has been. So the picture may be very uneven depending on where you are, and you know how significant these food costs are obviously to your overall budget. But I've to say, when I saw fifty eight dollars for a ten person gathering, that seems really like that would be difficult to achieve, you know, for ten people to feed them for fifty eight dollars if you're you know, all the traditional Thanksgiving fixings that you think about, like, I feel like that wouldn't even come close to being able to really meet the mark. They went through some of these different like holiday deals that they're having at Walmart, and I think was another one where they'll give you some bundle of goods, and I think that's part of what they built into their affordability calculus here. But yeah, I don't think that most people, if you just ask them, is this going to be the most affordable Thanksgiving in history? I don't think that they would really be feeling that.

No, And I get why the stories get written this way, but you know, in them, it was it was sort of like the people have Trump nostalgia line that we heard a lot of Democrats using during the course of the campaign, which people didn't understand, like the It's like, well, no, people do understand. It's just they remember in very recent history, before the pandemic, when there when their financial health was better, and they're comparing the last several years to that. So inflation can come down, but it's not enough for people who remember the economy before all of these totally corporate corrupted supply chains exploded and government shut down businesses, et cetera, and how this ripple effect on the economy that they're still feeling today. It's just it's a huge part of the story that you know, the media will write about, they'll cover it, they understand it intellectually, but it doesn't quite penetrate the same way it does for average Americans.

So, Emily, I wanted to ask you, what are your favorite Thanksgiving side dishes or main dishes? What do you look forward to?

Crystal? What an insufferable.

Question, cringe morning show.

Thanks, We'll do it, but I'm going to call you out on it. I don't know. I like my potatoes and gravye.

Good go to would you say pumpkin pie.

I like a pumpkin pie person.

I mean, I actually think I'm more of a pecan pie person, which even the pronunciation of which is controversial, Pecan versus pecan. Kyle's a pecan guy, I'm a pecan person. This is a source of strife in our marriage. I think I'd have to say so. I look, we're going to Kyle's family this year. We're gonna be at his mom's house. But the two dishes that I love the most are there's no offense to Kyle's mom and her cooking. I'm just not, as you know, I didn't grow up with it, so it doesn't have quite the same emotional resonance for me as my own mother's cooking. My mom's stuffing. And my sister makes this sweet potato casserole that is unbelievable. It's got like it's you know, so much better, so much brown sugar, and then the like, you know, the pecans on top. Oh my god, it's so good. It's so good. It's always the first thing to go.

That's that's what I usually make when I'm home, and it's the Trisha Yearwood sweet Potato Flet recipe and it's insane. It's insane. It's like a it's a cake, but you're just like putting it on your plate basically right, so turkey and it's totally fine. It's a one day a year where it's totally fine.

Yeah. My mom also makes a great cranberry relish that's like really nice and tartan, like goes perfectly with everything. Yeah, and it's that's like she only makes it at Thanksgiving, you know, so it's like you get excited for it.

Stuffing right, like good stuff. First of all, you only eat stuffing on Thanksgiving, and technvelve when it's good. It's really good.

Okay, but I want to normalize eating stuffing year round because even just the like stovetop like easy, so simple, low budget, and it hits like it hits, it's good. I think it does. You can go any time. Do I eat it year round?

Yes?

Yeah, yeah, definitely.

This is the first person I've ever heard. I'm sure will be flooded with comments of people saying I do that too. Crystal made me feel so much more secure in my own skin.

Yeah, I mean, stovetop is delicious. It's not my mom's stuffing, but stovetop is delicious, and if your junior wants to take that away from me, there will be hell to pay.

He does, I'm sure he. I can imagine what's in that stuff.

That's the other thing is like, you know, it's all well and good to be, like, oh, we should eat healthy or whatever. When you start trying to take away people's like free do's and you know, hosts cupcakes or whatever, I think there's going to be a very different reaction. Remember the freak out over Bluey to take away the sodas.

Yes, take it from my cold dead hands.

Yeah, that was a national outrage. People were furious and it wasn't even like you can't have soda. It was like, if you want to have a giant soda, you're gonna have to have it in multiple cups. And it was a pure fury across the nation. So I don't know if he's ready for that.

Yeah, who else wants to take it away from you? Is Sager?

True?

True?

No?

I think I mentioned this story the other week. But when I was in London recently, my friends and I went and they bought like sour Patch kids or something, and they were really excited about it and started eating the Star Patrick Kids and didn't realize that you couldn't use like half the ingredients that you use in US R Patrick Kids in the UK and they spit them out really interesting. Yeah, so again there's some good and there's some.

Bad indeed, indeed, all right, well, happy Thanksgiving to you, Emily, and thank you to everybody out there so much. We are so grateful for your continued support and trust in the show. And it's going to be really interesting times moving forward. There's not going to be any shortage certainly of things to talk about. So thank you guys out there, very grateful for you, and we will see you guys back here next week.

In 1 playlist(s)

  1. Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar

    1,045 clip(s)

Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar

Breaking Points is a fearless anti-establishment multi-week Youtube and Podcast which holds the powe… 
Social links
Follow podcast
Recent clips
Browse 1,048 clip(s)