Newt analyzes the presidential debate between President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. Newt observes that Harris focused on style over substance, while Trump emphasized key issues like the economy and immigration. The debate was marked by perceived bias from the ABC News moderators, who appeared to be more supportive of Harris. Despite Harris's polished presentation, Newt argues that Trump effectively addressed the core concerns of voters, particularly on economic issues. Polls taken after the debate suggest that while Harris performed well stylistically, Trump gained ground on substantive issues, reflecting a divide between elite opinions and those of the general public.

Newt analyzes the presidential debate between President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. Newt observes that Harris focused on style over substance, while Trump emphasized key issues like the economy and immigration. The debate was marked by perceived bias from the ABC News moderators, who appeared to be more supportive of Harris. Despite Harris's polished presentation, Newt argues that Trump effectively addressed the core concerns of voters, particularly on economic issues. Polls taken after the debate suggest that while Harris performed well stylistically, Trump gained ground on substantive issues, reflecting a divide between elite opinions and those of the general public.

Join Newt Gingrich, former U.S. Speaker of the House and Ph.D. historian, for the most diverse, informative, and entertaining podcast available. Every episode is an education.

Join Newt Gingrich, former U.S. Speaker of the House and Ph.D. historian, for the most diverse, informative, and entertaining podcast available. Every episode is an education.

Newt's World

Episode 750: The Presidential Debate – Who Won?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/clips/6850a9a7-fb61-4982-8a4d-b1e90135ccc4/transcript

Newt talks with former Congressman and physician Dr. Greg Ganske about the growing public health risks posed by online sports betting and emerging prediction markets, framed by a broader discussion of sports’ role in personal development and community life. Dr. Ganske argues that sports uniquely teach discipline, teamwork, goal setting, and community cohesion. He warns that the rapid expansion of online betting, driven by ubiquitous smartphone access and aggressive advertising campaigns featuring major sports leagues and star athletes, threatens this integrity by increasing incentives for cheating, point shaving, and manipulation at both professional and collegiate levels. Dr. Ganske highlights gambling disorder as a medically recognized condition associated with loss of control, financial ruin, deception, and bankruptcy, affecting an estimated 2-4 million Americans, with another roughly 10 million people at high risk. Their conversation also examines prediction markets on platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, which position themselves as regulated futures markets under the CFTC but, in Ganske’s view, exploit regulatory gaps while enabling betting on elections, assassination risks, and other sensitive events, compounding incentives for abuse. Dr. Ganske outlines potential federal responses, favoring regulation over outright bans due to constitutional and First Amendment concerns.

Newt talks with former Congressman and physician Dr. Greg Ganske about the growing public health risks posed by online sports betting and emerging prediction markets, framed by a broader discussion of sports&rsquo; role in personal development and community life. Dr. Ganske argues that sports uniquely teach discipline, teamwork, goal setting, and community cohesion. He warns that the rapid expansion of online betting, driven by ubiquitous smartphone access and aggressive advertising campaigns featuring major sports leagues and star athletes, threatens this integrity by increasing incentives for cheating, point shaving, and manipulation at both professional and collegiate levels. Dr. Ganske highlights gambling disorder as a medically recognized condition associated with loss of control, financial ruin, deception, and bankruptcy, affecting an estimated 2-4 million Americans, with another roughly 10 million people at high risk. Their conversation also examines prediction markets on platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, which position themselves as regulated futures markets under the CFTC but, in Ganske&rsquo;s view, exploit regulatory gaps while enabling betting on elections, assassination risks, and other sensitive events, compounding incentives for abuse. Dr. Ganske outlines potential federal responses, favoring regulation over outright bans due to constitutional and First Amendment concerns.

Episode 967: Regulating Online Sports Betting

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/clips/35ebcf6f-7091-460a-a4cc-b42d015d36d6/transcript

Newt talks with Zack Smith, Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, about Trump v. Barbara, also known as the birthright citizenship case. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 1, 2026, to determine if President Trump’s executive order violates the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Trump’s order seeks to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary visa holding parents. The key issues include the meaning of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language in the 14th Amendment, which the Trump administration argues was intended to only grant citizenship to children of U.S. citizens or permanent residents, not to those born to temporary or illegal residents. They also discuss whether the historical context and original understanding of the 14th Amendment at the time of its adoption supports the administration's position, or the broader interpretation of birthright citizenship. Modern issues like "birth tourism" and the ability for large numbers of people to easily travel to the U.S. to give birth, are discussed in the context of the intent of the 14th Amendment's framers. The Court appeared divided during oral arguments, with some justices seeming skeptical of the administration's position, but Smith notes it is difficult to predict the ultimate outcome. A decision is expected by the end of the Court's term in late June 2026.

Newt talks with Zack Smith, Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, about Trump v. Barbara, also known as the birthright citizenship case. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 1, 2026, to determine if President Trump&rsquo;s executive order violates the 14th Amendment&rsquo;s Citizenship Clause. Trump&rsquo;s order seeks to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary visa holding parents. The key issues include the meaning of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language in the 14th Amendment, which the Trump administration argues was intended to only grant citizenship to children of U.S. citizens or permanent residents, not to those born to temporary or illegal residents. They also discuss whether the historical context and original understanding of the 14th Amendment at the time of its adoption supports the administration's position, or the broader interpretation of birthright citizenship. Modern issues like "birth tourism" and the ability for large numbers of people to easily travel to the U.S. to give birth, are discussed in the context of the intent of the 14th Amendment's framers. The Court appeared divided during oral arguments, with some justices seeming skeptical of the administration's position, but Smith notes it is difficult to predict the ultimate outcome. A decision is expected by the end of the Court's term in late June 2026.

Episode 966: Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/clips/8f46ee1f-36b7-4f3b-9c88-b42a002a110d/transcript

Newt talks with David Winston and Myra Miller of the Winston Group, about the 2026 midterm elections. Inflation and the economy remain the central issue for voters. They discuss how war-driven spikes in gas prices may be seen as temporary, potentially buying the Trump administration time if voters expect prices to fall once the Iran conflict and Strait of Hormuz tensions ease. Turning to party dynamics, they describe the growing importance of independents, whose share of the electorate rose from 27% in 2020 to 34% in 2024 and now exceeds at least one major party in many competitive states. Historical swings show how dramatically independents can shift outcomes. David and Myra argue that independents are becoming an “existential threat” to both parties and that their voting is driven primarily by economic concerns, especially cost of living. Looking ahead to 2026, they recommend that every Republican campaign adopt two core strategies: a clear economic message that educates voters on the benefits of the “Big Beautiful Bill” and a specific plan to win independents, recognizing that an effective independent strategy is inseparable from a strong economic strategy.

Newt talks with David Winston and Myra Miller of the Winston Group, about the 2026 midterm elections. Inflation and the economy remain the central issue for voters. They discuss how war-driven spikes in gas prices may be seen as temporary, potentially buying the Trump administration time if voters expect prices to fall once the Iran conflict and Strait of Hormuz tensions ease. Turning to party dynamics, they describe the growing importance of independents, whose share of the electorate rose from 27% in 2020 to 34% in 2024 and now exceeds at least one major party in many competitive states. Historical swings show how dramatically independents can shift outcomes. David and Myra argue that independents are becoming an &ldquo;existential threat&rdquo; to both parties and that their voting is driven primarily by economic concerns, especially cost of living. Looking ahead to 2026, they recommend that every Republican campaign adopt two core strategies: a clear economic message that educates voters on the benefits of the &ldquo;Big Beautiful Bill&rdquo; and a specific plan to win independents, recognizing that an effective independent strategy is inseparable from a strong economic strategy.

Episode 965: The Winston Group on the 2026 Midterm Elections

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/clips/fa601dba-8651-4ac4-adfa-b428015bad9e/transcript

Episode 750: The Presidential Debate – Who Won?

In 1 playlist(s)

Newt's World

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips