Hit enter to searchOverlay or ESC to close

TGuide2.17.20_mixdown

Speaker 1: (00:00)
This is,

Speaker 2: (00:01)
but Thomas, guide your roadmap or navigating the world with your guide. John Thomas, political savant, world-class analyst and culture critic. No need to Google directions. Just buckle up and enjoy the ride. This is Thomas guide with your host, John Thomas. Would Hillary Clinton be Bloomberg’s vice presidential pick and Tom’s siren? Amy Clover char,

Speaker 1: (00:31)
yep. President of Mexico. Those name in an interview with Telemundo. Oh, we’ve got politics. I’ll get into it in more in [inaudible]

Speaker 2: (00:39)
this episode of the Thomas Guy.

Speaker 1: (00:48)
Well it was anything but a slow weekend in politics, so I’ve got loads to get to. We’re going to get to your mailbag because I really appreciate it. Uh, we’ve been getting lots of questions from listeners and it, uh, and it’s really been a ranging all over the map, so of course you can always tweet me at the Thomas guide or write to me on Facebook, uh, or shoot me an email podcast@thetguide.com. Before I get into it, go to the T guide.com and subscribe to my email list if you haven’t done it already. It’s super important. I was just chatting with the listener the other day and she said to me, Oh, I haven’t been getting your emails. I said, well, are you subscribed? And she said, yes. Well, it turns out she hadn’t because we had relaunched the site a month or so ago. So I, I need, if you haven’t done it, it’s free.

Speaker 1: (01:43)
Go to the T guy.com subscribe. We’ve got a ton of bonus content that I’m releasing nearly every week, a private speeches to different groups that I’m basically taking a videographer with me everywhere I go. Anytime I give public speeches because I want you to be able to enjoy that same content. All right, let’s do this. The big news over the weekend, it still has me chuckling, is that Bloomberg, it will Matt Drudge of the Drudge report who doesn’t really traffic in unsubstantiated rumors, broke the news that he had an exclusive Intel from a senior Bloomberg staff member. Yeah. That Mike Bloomberg is considering Hillary Clinton to be his running mate. Now before you stop chuckling, let’s, uh, or after you stopped chuckling, let’s quickly look at this from a couple angles. First it’s pretty brazen of the Bloomberg team, whether they wanted to float this out there or not. Purposely. I think they did.

Speaker 1: (02:52)
I think this was a trial balloon, but it’s pretty brazen to already be floating vice presidential picks when you haven’t won the nomination. You’re not even the inevitable front runner at this point and you’re already laying out presidential vice presidential picks. So, uh, the arrogance that’s showing I think exposes a larger vulnerability that might team might blue Mike Bloomberg might have that aside. Let’s talk about the potential of a Bloomberg Hillary ticket. Well, uh, there were loads of Epstein didn’t kill himself. Jokes on the internet over this weekend saying Bloomberg, uh, is not if he won the presidency, he would not fulfill his own term because Hillary would say that that was the worst case of suicide she’s ever seen so that she could become a president. Very funny. Uh, but in all honesty, would Hillary do it? Probably if it was handed to her. Uh, everybody’s then asked him all the time, is Hillary gonna run for president?

Speaker 1: (03:57)
No, it’s too late. She’s not gonna run. Uh, logistically, no. And also the party blames her in part for their defeat in 16. So, uh, I don’t believe that, not to mention logistically with delegates and everything, there’s an infrastructure and all that. There’s no way for her to run for president or could she VP VBP um, yes. I mean technically she could. It’s totally possible. I’m not exactly sure what she brings to the ticket because she potentially out shines the person at the top of the ticket because she’s a bigger political force than he is. So it’s possible that she ends up dragging Mike Bloomberg down. I don’t think, I, I, this just doesn’t make sense. If you need a woman, if that’s what you’re worried about, find a woman. Um, in fact, I would argue as we’ll get into in subsequent are actually future podcasts. Uh, Bloomberg is about to have the bark ripped off of him because he’s beginning to get not even the front runner treatment.

Speaker 1: (05:09)
Maybe people are just, they’re beating them up and rightfully so on a lot of his positions that are not only out of touch with the current democratic party letter or just out of touch with America that some comments that are sexist, some comments that are racist. He still is embracing stop and frisk, although in just the last couple of years, although now he says it was a mistake, but it’s pretty clear and transparent that he didn’t, doesn’t mean what he’s saying. So I think Bloomberg, if he did manage to get the nomination, would need to choose an African American to be his VP. He needs to bolster that component of his idea of his ticket or you just obey the theory of really just doubling down on the brand. So finding another business person that kind of fits in line with the Bloomberg model. Um, what I’m, what has been floated today is a Bloomberg Romney ticket.

Speaker 1: (06:14)
They’re calling it the unity ticket number one. Would Mitt Romney do that? No, I don’t think so. Uh, he Romney is two out of, out of step with most democratic policies. Although I don’t think Romney is ultra conservative anymore. I still don’t think he could stomach being a Democrat. It’s just on issues of life and others. I just don’t think he could do it. So that’s not gonna happen. Add on top of the fact that I’m not sure exactly what Romney brings other than making Democrats feel good. It’s like the John McCain thing. Democrats liked McCain when he was anti-Trump, but remember when he ran for president Democrats, uh, John McCain was a racist and an evil human being. It’s just, they like Democrats like Romney at the moment because he took a position against Trump on impeachment, but they don’t like Romney. They don’t like anything about Romney.

Speaker 1: (07:06)
So that’s silly. So getting back to the Hillary thing, do I think it’s likely to happen? No, I don’t. Uh, it’s certainly entertaining water cooler talk. And I hope that Bloomberg chooses Hillary because I think it’ll, it will not give them any value add. In fact, it will hurt him. You want to upset if Bernie’s not the nominee? You know you want to, you’re already going to have trouble bringing those Bernie bros back to the table to vote for you. If you’re a Mike Bloomberg, Oh yeah. Throw in Hillary to add salt. That’s like adding salt to the wound here. Terrible decision. All right, speaking of Bloomberg, uh, gosh, the APO is just getting dropped on this guy day in and day out and it’s really gonna be interesting to see if his television ads can overcome all of the negative information that is being leaked out there. Is this information going to retain a roar enough to outdo the ads or are the ads so loud that uh, they can, did he did Bloomberg can jam past negative information?

Speaker 1: (08:15)
We’ll see. Time will tell. I think, I think if Bloomberg, and this is questionable today of whether or not Bloomberg will show up on the debate this Wednesday that remember the DNC just arbitrarily again, change the rules to, uh, eliminated the donor threshold and all this just to welcome Mike Bloomberg to the stage, which I think is grossly unfair to the other democratic contenders. If I were the Democrats, I’d at least be intellectually consistent. But then again, I guess this is more in line with much of the democratic party. They hate rich people. Unless those rich people are spending money against Donald Trump. Right? Um, it’s a, um, so I suppose that is a consistent thing. Uh, two go against their own standards and rules and by the way, they’re accommodating rules for an old white, rich guy, which I thought was the devil according to, uh, democratic, uh, messaging.

Speaker 1: (09:16)
But again, maybe I’m wrong. Uh, maybe it’s, it’s just a old white guys aren’t necessarily the devil if they’re spending fortunes to help get Democrats elected. So seeing how that’s all shaking out. Uh, all right, so there was a clip that was leaked this weekend just from Betty, I want to say, a year or so ago. And I pulled it because I thought it was instructive. Bloomberg is talking about farmers and why farmers cannot work in the information age. And in this one clip, he is essentially lost the farmer vote. And more broadly, I think this shows why he’s going to have a serious challenge winning rust belt States in a general election. And perhaps why Bloomberg is a fatally flawed candidate. Let’s just roll the clip. We’ll talk about it.

Speaker 3: (10:09)
Anybody, even people in this room. So no offense intended to be a farmer. You, it’s a processor. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water up comes the corn, then we had 300. You could learn that then. Then, um, you have 300 years of the industrial society. Uh, you put the piece of metal on the Laith, you turn the crank and the direction of the arrow and you can have a job. And we created a lot of jobs. One point 98% of the world worked in, uh, in agriculture. Today it’s 2% in the United States. Uh, now comes the inflammation economy. And the information economy is fundamentally different because it’s built around replacing people with technology. And the skill sets that you have to learn are how to think and analyze. And that is a whole degree level different. You have to have a different skill set, you have to have a lot more gray matter anybody, even people.

Speaker 1: (11:09)
So he’s essentially saying that farmers don’t have the intellectual capacity to evolve into a modern economy. That there’s a couple of things that are grossly wrong with this. Number one, calling farmers dumb is generally not a good thing, number one. Number two, it really shows Mike Bloomberg’s ignorance that he thinks farming is simply putting a seed in the ground, covering it up with soil and adding water to it. Modern farming is incredibly sophisticated using science and data, predictive modeling. Um, you coming up with hybrid versions of seeds in dealing with, uh, uh, dealing with changes in diseases and stuff. Hey, this is, it is anything but simple. And the few farmers that I do know are some of the best, most decent, most honest and quite frankly, they’re smart people. These are not people, uh, that, uh, uh, uh, have zero education. Um, it’s, it’s just completely wrong with Bloomberg saying, and it’s insulting.

Speaker 1: (12:25)
I feel insulted on behalf of the farmers, but just crassly politically speaking, he is screwed. Bloomberg is screwed. This kind of language puts him in this out of touch. Elitist. He’s the kind of billionaire normal folks don’t like. And that’s what he’s showing himself to be right now. He’s not a relatable billionaire. He, uh, he looks down on those in the non information economy. It’s, it’s really, uh, serious. This is bad. Really, really bad. If you’re Mike Bloomberg again, um, are his opponents, Howard, is his opponent’s going to exploit this? See, I think in a, now I’m more and more convinced, but I’m not 100% convinced yet, but I’m more and more getting there and in a Bloomberg, Bernie stackup, Bernie wins. I really do. Uh, Bernie can speak to regular folks and their concerns. Now he paws, he subscript prescriptions are out, are actually insane. Uh, but you feel that Bernie understands your plight and cares about your plight. I don’t think Bloomberg’s ads, I think they’re going to appear inauthentic because they are. Listen to Mike Bloomberg’s own words. Speaking of Mike Bloomberg’s own words, this just leaked. And uh, this is a whole

Speaker 4: (13:48)
[inaudible]

Speaker 1: (13:49)
S H I T sandwich for Mike Bloomberg. Apparently in 1990 employees at Bloomberg LP gave Mike Bloomberg a booklet I published booklet containing notable quotes that they said were attributed to him over the years as a birthday gift. Apparently Mike Bloomberg loved this book. The booklet is called quote, the portable Bloomberg and the whole book has been leaked. I pulled up some of the greatest hits. Actually it’s too racy to even talk about on the podcast. This is a family friendly show, but essentially it is, uh, the S the subhead of the book of the booklet. It’s called the wit and wisdom of Michael Bloomberg. It is a, a, it is a compilation of sexist, crude, and off-color remarks that Bloomberg’s employees have heard him make, including things like if women wanted to be appreciated for their brains, they’d go to the library instead of Bloomingdale’s. Um, and, uh, I’ve got a whole copy of the book.

Speaker 1: (15:02)
So if you’re really interested in what it says, we can go into more depth. Uh, maybe what we’ll do is a, uh, a live streaming chat, a video chat, uh, for my email subscribers only so that it’s a, we can get into, um, reading it verbatim. It’s, it’s [inaudible] pretty explicit. Now, what’s interesting is the Bloomberg team have now commented and said, uh, Oh, this was just a gag gift, but here’s the problem. Um, Mike Bloomberg’s long time senior VP and I guess, uh, also executive assistant, uh, co-sign the book and it says, and it says essentially that, um, this is 100% true. These are all things that Mike Bloomberg has said verbatim. And then she signed it. Um, now this has been floating out there apparently for some time, but not in the main stream. Bloomberg was able to get elected mayor of New York with this supposedly somewhat circulating out there.

Speaker 1: (16:01)
And why? Well, when Bloomberg spent $100 million for his election to mayor, it’s just a different level of, um, scrutiny. Uh, then a national press Corps in a democratic primary. It when the primary is, uh, ultra ultra liberal, or at least a portion of them are, uh, this kind of stuff isn’t tolerated. Now there, I will admit there are a couple of funny things here. This is more by the way than locker room talk. What Trump did, you know, grabbing him by the whatever one could say, call that as locker room talk. Um, this is so wide ranging. I mean it’s 30 or 40 pages of quotes. This is so wide ranging on Mike Bloom’s philosophy and Mike Bloomberg’s philosophy to life that it should give you some pause. And I’m wondering if the same Democrats who are completely outraged by Trump’s locker room talk, what are they going to do with this?

Speaker 1: (17:01)
I think in a completely disavow, the candidate say he should drop out or are they going to go well, yeah, but he’s really rich and he’s using his money to be Trump and I just gotta beat Trump. I have a feeling it’s the latter rather than the former. So of course some people will be outraged, but those people probably already supported another candidate like Bernie. But what about the people? They were leaning toward Bloomberg? Did they say enough is enough? Yeah. Orange man is bad because he’s a, you know, he’s a jerk. He says things that are sexist and racist and dah, dah, dah, dah, dah. Well, everything that they accused Donald Trump of doing is in this portable Bloomberg book. Then there’s a couple of funny things I will read. The, the, the ones that are kind of funny. Uh, he does a section called liberals.

Speaker 1: (17:50)
It says quote, the only liberal I trust is there a rich old liberal. Why? Because they’re old enough to understand what they’re saying and they’re rich enough to pay for what they say. Yeah, that’s pretty good. Um, there’s a, a lot of references to sex in here. Loads and loads. I won’t get into it. Um, I mean tons, but uh, so this is going to be a problem. We’re going to see how this expands. If Bloomberg shows up the debate, and again, there’s some speculation about whether we’ll lot will or will not show up on a Wednesday. I suspect he does. Well, the moderators and Bernie and others are going to have a field day using quotes like this. And some of the past statements in these video clips that we’ve talked about, just bludgeoning Bloomberg. Is that where he wants his opening, a opening salvo where he’s off script being transmitted to the American people on a state in which is not even, this is happening in Nevada and Bloomberg’s not even on the ballot in Nevada.

Speaker 1: (19:00)
So, um, we’ll see if he shows up. I suspect he does because at some point, you know, you’ve got to rip it off like a bandaid. You, you, you have to show up. Um, and not showing up becomes a bigger issue, arguably then these quilts, because then it becomes, he’s afraid of his record. He doesn’t want to answer questions. How is he going to take on Trump if he can’t even take on his primary opponents? And I think those are all valid complaints. Another piece of Bloomberg news, now he’s arguing that he’s a champion for women in the workplace, but there are loads of past sexism allegations that had been emerging. So, uh, on Saturday, for instance, Bloomberg vow to always be a champion for women and quote, uh, but details have emerged about the previous comments that he’s made regarding females at the company that he owns.

Speaker 1: (19:57)
Um, this is what some of this, the allegations that emerged against Bloomberg other, the Washington post is, has reported that he’s made crude remarks and fostered a culture of discrimination against women at Bloomberg LP during the late eighties and nineties, citing lawsuits filed against a former New York mayor. Depositions obtained under the freedom of information act and witness interviews tell the story. A number of lawsuits filed against Bloomberg have either been settled, dismissed in his favor or closed due to the plaintiff’s failure to meet filing deadlines according to the post. This ain’t good either. These are very problematic things. Now, here’s what I’m hearing from my sources, but it has not come out. We are only reading statements. We were reading lawsuits. We are reading the portable Bloomberg book. We have the video clips, we have our a Mike in a controlled scenario, uh, at forums, um, panels where you’re saying things that are out of touchy and rude and bad against farmers for instance, and stop and frisk, but he’s not actually seeing these overtly sexist things that he’s been known to say.

Speaker 1: (21:16)
Well, I’m hearing there are tapes. Oh, there are tapes. So we’ll see. Can Bloomberg get through this? Well, yeah, he’s going to survive to super Tuesday. Of course. Does this slow him down from getting the nomination? Certainly. Does it stop him from getting the nomination? Maybe, maybe not. I mean, it’s going to be a real test of how effective is this ad campaign against protecting him? See, normally why it’s this is much more cut and dry is because when controversy and scandal looms, it also kills off traditional donors from cutting more checks to a campaign and small donors from cutting checks. So it slows your momentum and then losing begets losing. You don’t have money to fight the attacks and you just continue to fall and fall and fall in the polls until you’re, you’re done. Bloomberg on the other hand can keep funding his campaign funding his effort, but is money enough to save him?

Speaker 1: (22:14)
It very well might not be, might not be because those ads just simply might not be credible and believable and enough to overwhelm a vicious new cycle after news cycle of wall-to-wall coverage on this. So if you’re Bloomberg, you don’t want a lot of coverage of the democratic presidential primary. You want, you want your ads do the talking, you want very little coverage and that’s your winning formula. So we’ll see. Uh, but it’s getting spicy for sure. Uh, and if we’ll see a Bloomberg’s up can navigate this storm, it is very, very difficult given the litany of problems that are emerging for him. All right. Something that also came across my desk, uh, that I, that I enjoyed was um, Tom Stier completely falls apart on ABC news is, uh, interview over the weekend with Martha Raddatz. So Tom’s narrative messaging shift has been the, he’s the only one that can be Donald Trump because he’s the only one that can attack Trump with credibility on the economy. And I guess he’s making that claim because he’s rich. Star’s rich.

Speaker 1: (23:30)
That’s a little thin. I mean, Star’s a former hedge fund guy. I don’t, not a real, he, he hasn’t built big companies. I mean, I would think Bloomberg can make a much better argument on that front. But anyway, that’s what Tom, the argument is Tom is making. And he went on ABC and he got shut down because the Martha the host through consumer our or, or American satisfaction on the economy in his face and said, well, what, what, how are you going to argue against Trump on the economy when most people think the economy is pretty good? Listen to the clip. Tom tries to pivot his way out, but Martha kept putting it to him and uh, Tom tried to even blame Martha for defending Donald Trump’s, uh, narrative, which is totally false. But let’s listen to the, let’s listen to the clip,

Speaker 5: (24:24)
mr sorry you say that you can take on Donald Trump on the economy. But the latest Quinnipiac national poll, again released just this week, says 70% of voters described the nation’s economy as excellent or good. So how do you convince them that a changes needed when they think they’re doing so well under Donald Trump?

Speaker 6: (24:47)
I think if you take a look at what he says, everything he says superficially sounds right, but it’s actually a lie. So when he says the economy’s growing, I can show that in fact all the money’s going to rich people when he says unemployment is low, which is true, I can show that the wages people are getting don’t support a family. And when he says that the stock market is up, these were his three big statistics, largely because of a huge tax break he gave to big corporations. But it also doesn’t matter that much because most of the stocks, 85% of the stocks are held by the top 10% of 10

Speaker 5: (25:23)
but I want to go back to that 70% number. You talked, you talked about the wealthy, they’re not all wealthy people. 70% say that the economy is good and they’re doing well.

Speaker 6: (25:35)
Well, I’m just saying here we are on a show and you’re standing up for mr Trump’s version of the economy. And I’m telling you,

Speaker 5: (25:43)
I’m telling you about a national poll. I’m not standing up for anybody. I’m telling you, I’m telling you about a national poll

Speaker 6: (25:51)
and what I’m saying is this, there is a different story of this economy and this country that has to be told. Mr. Trump has to be face down about what he’s saying on the economy because he is running on the economy. That’s exactly what he’s going to say. He’s going to say, I’m great on the economy and Democrats think so. How do you take them on that?

Speaker 1: (26:11)
He couldn’t answer the question. The Martha’s question is a salient one, which is when 70% of Americans think the economy’s doing really well or well, how are you going to attack Trump when 70% of anytime, 70% of any population things, one thing that’s a winning coalition you’re in. If you go in on that argument, you’re going to lose. So I thought Martha did an effective job at exposing the myth of Stiers argument and the fallacy of his argument he can’t taking Trump on in the economy is, is really a losing battle. Now the Democrats are going to have to speak to it because remember a job of a good political strategist and a good campaign is not to tell voters what to think but to speak to them on what they already care about. And the economy’s always a top, top three issue if not the top issue.

Speaker 1: (27:06)
So the Democrat, whoever the nominee is, is going to need to speak to that argue issue. But, uh, it’s going to be very, very difficult unless the economy tanks between now and election day and the arguments that Stiers using, it’s only working for the 1% because of Trump’s tax cuts and there’s wealth disparities and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That is a standard democratic talking point has been for decades now. I don’t see how Tom is creating anything new that a Bernie Sanders for instance, couldn’t say. In fact, Oh, maybe somebody else like a pea Buddha judge or somebody else could make that argument better cause they have to live well, Bernie’s getting a government paycheck, so I’m not really sure about that one. But, uh, but somebody who isn’t a billionaire as a, as Bernie like say, might be able to better make that argument then a billionaire who has no, is not impacted really by, yeah.

Speaker 1: (28:09)
He only has to benefit from this, this economy that he’s, he’s Cyrus probably exponentially more wealthy, ironically, under Trump’s economy than he was under Barack Obama’s economy. Uh, but, um, this is what this guy is the same guy who’s willing to smoke a few hundred million of his own dollars in a fee in a fatally failed bid for the president. I did state. So who knows? So I’m questioning his judgment for sure. Speaking of that, Bloomberg is now eclipsed over $300 million spent in advertising alone over 300 million in ads. Oh my God. That’s a lot of money in a, this early in a presidential primary. It’s just crazy. So we’re going to get into, in the next podcast, a Bernie and Biden. Oh, excuse me, Bernie and Bloomberg, my lobbing grenades at each other over the weekend, uh, in attack ads against one another. And why would you say, well, one could say this doesn’t make any sense.

Speaker 1: (29:11)
I mean the Bloomberg voters and our Bernie voters and the Bernie voters are not Bloomberg’s voters, so why would you be doing that? It’s actually really smart. They’re both well-served to kick each other’s butts for a couple of reasons. One is, uh, the, well, the main, the main reason is it elevates them both in the conversation nationally making this a two person race and killing off everybody, them making them irrelevant. That’s good. Bernie wants this to be a two person fight. Bloomberg wants this to be a two person fight. Bloomberg wants to make a Biden of Buddha, Jesuit club a char irrelevant and Bernie wants to make a warrant. And everybody else at Warren, a Buddha judge and all of these others irrelevant from him as well. So they’re both well served to escalate attacks. If Bloomberg shows up on the debate on Wednesday, you can bet that the attacks are going to fly between Bloomberg and Bernie all night long because it’s good for both of them.

Speaker 1: (30:16)
The question becomes just how does Bloomberg respond to other attacks from other candidates on the stage that he really, uh, while he does need to squash them, but he doesn’t get lifted up necessarily by engaging in a Warren Bloomberg attack. But the night if strategy, uh, rains, it should be a fight between Bloomberg and Bernie all night long. Okay. We’ve got a couple more things to get through on today’s podcast. This one made me chuckle so I had to get, get to it. Um, Stire club, a char and Buddha judge were interviewed on uh, uh, by Andres Lopez on Telemundo. This was on Friday.

Speaker 1: (31:11)
The only one of the three that could, when they were asked what the name of the president of Mexico is, only one of the three could even answer the question. Of course I saved the clips cause it’s so funny, a Buddha judge actually did to his credit know the name of the president of Mexico. Neither Stire nor Amy. Uh, Clovis char knew the president’s name, which is funny because they’re sitting there talking about the reason you know, Trump is so awful is, you know, he doesn’t have a grasp of foreign policy. He doesn’t know the elected leaders, uh, leaders personally in their names and blah, blah, blah. Yet they can’t name his name. So I pulled the quick clips from Amy Klobuchar and Stier Amy was so incense that she ripped off her microphone early and just kind of walked out before the interview was fully done.

Speaker 1: (31:59)
Now remember, Amy’s known for having a terrible temper STI, or at least had the decency to stay to the end of the interview, but it doesn’t look any better for Tom Stier. So let’s roll. Let’s roll the Amy clip first. Uh, we have limited time. Just one final question. How do you plan to win the support of the Hispanic vote in Nevada and the whole South West? If you can’t tell me who the president of Mexico, who is our neighbor to the South and has a direct impact on our communities for a number of reasons that I’m sure you know, because my heart is with the people of this country and my heart is with immigrants and I have a strong track record of working with immigrants. Well, she can’t remember his name, but she, her heart’s in it. She cares a lot. That sounds like a standard, a liberal, well, I just care a lot. I may not actually have facts or know what I’m talking about, but I just, I care so much about the immigrant community. Therefore, uh, I care and insert opponent doesn’t care. Therefore you should vote for me. Okay. Listen to the Tom Stier at least he kind of leans into it a little bit, but listen to Tom’s Dyess reaction when he doesn’t know the name of the president of Mexico.

Speaker 6: (33:11)
Do you know about his policies? I see he’s a very, he’s very progressive man. I’m asking because I feel like a lot of the times this is our neighbor to the South and a lot of people don’t even know his name. So you know, I forgot his name, I forgot, but I’m just saying I will follow this policy. I’m sorry that we aren’t Telemundo and our viewers are are Hispanic speakers and you’re running for, you want the candidacy to represent the Democrats and you can’t tell me the president of Mexico, you don’t know who the president of [inaudible] followed this look. I followed this election. I’ve watched what’s happened. Important to know who the neighbor to the South. I do. But let me say this. I followed this election from the standpoint of he was, he was the mayor of Mexico city. He’s a progressive man.

Speaker 6: (33:55)
I followed this policy from the standpoint of what does this mean for him getting along with us. What does it mean for him getting along with a right wing nationalist president of the United States of America and how are we going to relate to that? And so to me, I followed that very closely because there’s a real question in Mexico. Where are they going with their policies? This was a true change. It was a distinct change. It’s not. So have I met him? No. Have I, do I go to Mexico every single year? Yes. Do I understand that Mexico is at a crossroads in terms of how it is governed? And this was a distinct choice that scared the pants off people of business. People in Mexico, in the United

Speaker 1: (34:31)
who, you know him. I love his policies. Who, you know, that guy him. I’ve been to Mexico on vacation, on my yards. Of course I know everything about Mexico. Oh, geez. Uh, well, not only does this undermine their cases to make to the Latino community and shows the hypocrisy when they attack Trump, uh, on his relations with Mexico that they’re not personally invested in it at all. It’s just a talking point. Um, but, uh, it really is a failure of the campaign teams to prep the candidates you’re going on with Telemundo. They’re going to ask you about Mexico. Make sure you know the electeds names that you’re talking about. Interestingly enough, the, the, uh, the president of Mexico is a, he’s a, he, they call him the Bernie Sanders Sanders of Mexico. His name’s Manuel or broader and, uh, and he is really in line with Bernie Sanders. He’s ultra, ultra left.

Speaker 1: (35:41)
So, um, anyway, just a funny, when candidates can’t, there cloak gets clearly unmasked. Uh, they can’t, uh, are unveiled. They can’t, they can’t even really get beyond talking points. And that’s the heart of the matter here. Uh, these candidates are incredibly superficial, uh, and they just want to say orange man bad. And that’s, that’s what they anticipate too, to need to be able to do, to, to win the democratic primary. And by and large, that will work. That is the depth of the policy conversation. And you have to be able to pivot your way out of a bind. And you can see Stier actually, it’s pretty skilled at that. I think Buddha judge is the most skilled, he’s beaten, booted. Judge is really good at saying nothing. He filibusters and says nothing when he’s caught in a box. A Stire tries, a couple tried and true practices to go back to your, well, you’re just defending Trump.

Speaker 1: (36:42)
You’re a Trump sympathizer making this about the act, the moderator rather than about him and his ability to inability to answer the question. Um, and then he, and then trying to pivot back to a more broader theme rather than asking the specifics. Those are pretty good. Uh, but not good enough. Alright, let’s get into the mailbag. I’ve been receiving a few questions on Twitter recently, so I’ll get into it. AR Martin said, uh, heard the commercial for Daryl ICF for Congress yesterday. He saw how bad the losses were going to be in California last time. I assume Mr. Martin, you’re saying that’s why he did run for reelection and now he moved to a different, uh, campaign, uh, congressional district South of where he was before. It is heavily favored for Republican. So his biggest challenge if you’re Darryl Leisa is just winning the primary and it is a bloodbath.

Speaker 1: (37:42)
That particular district, Martin continues by saying, can you discuss what race is and some of the game plan that the Dems, no, for the Republicans this election and how best, how to find the best primary option for wins a well, if I understand this correctly Mr. Martin, your asking what are the game plans, how are the Democrats going to hold the seats that they flipped and what are some, how to find the strongest Republican primary, uh, candidates that can defeat these Democrats and flip these seats back? Okay. Big question. I’ll nibble at it and if you’re still interested let me know. We can go into it in future podcasts. These are California congressionals that you’re talking about. I think there are several opportunities, uh, for, for pickup. Um, David validate [inaudible] is running again, he lost his C2 TJ Cox I believe it is. Uh, David is a good candidate raising lots of money.

Speaker 1: (38:51)
He’ll have the resources to run a real campaign. Um, we could see this, that’s a district in which farming is a big thing. Getting back to depends on the, who the nominee is in that race. Uh, if Bloomberg is a nominee, you could see, just like we were talking about with the issue of farming, it validate may have a very, very good argument against TJ Cox. It turns out TJ Cox, uh, just got dinged for not paying his taxes over the last couple of years. That’ll hurt. Mmm. Going into the political cycle. So I’m watching that race validate it looks like the eventual primary winner. I’m now looking, the other opportunities for flips are in orange County, California. Uh, you look at the 45th, that’s Katy Porter. She beat Mimi Walters. Katie, this is a leaning Republican district. Katie is thought to be vulnerable. She’s raising tons and tons of cash from the likes of AOC and others in Elizabeth Warren.

Speaker 1: (39:50)
But the reason this she’s thought to be so vulnerable is because she’s far too liberal for the district. This is still a center right seat. Uh, the incumbent Mimi Walters, arguably didn’t run a as good of an effort as she should have last time. It didn’t take the blue wave seriously. This time around, the candidates are now in full disclosure. I have a candidate in that race. He’s the mayor of Laguna Hills. His name’s Don Sedgwick. Go to Cedric for congress.com. I think by any objective standard, Sedgwick is both the strongest to defeat border as well as the front runner in the Republican. It’s an open primary, but as a Republican field there’s about six Republicans running. Sedgwick is the likely Victor, uh, both in money. Uh, both in message discipline campaign team. He’s got me and my whole crew, uh, which are hands down the best. Uh, certainly in this race, not of course I’d like to say the country.

Speaker 1: (40:49)
Uh, so watch for Don Cedric, seriously check them out. Um, he will likely go against Katie Porter. Um, now remember, Democrats use ballot harvesting California to flip some of these seats. The Republicans are much smarter now in that sense. But here’s one of the biggest reasons, uh, well the reasons these, a lot of these incumbents are vulnerable because they have records. They voted with Nancy Pelosi, 99% of the time or more, they’re showing their real stripes that they may have run a model as moderates, but they’re anything but a Katie Porter is Elizabeth Warren’s campaign co-chair for president. She is Aneesh unabashedly and unashamed to be a full blown liberal. And that’s just not a good fit for the district. There’s nothing she can do. Well, she’s going to try to frame the race, not about her. She’s going to try to burn down. Uh, the incumbents as extreme right wingers are not, and the challenges is extreme, right?

Speaker 1: (41:45)
Ringer’s problem is, at least in the case of my client, he’s not an extreme right winger. So that’s going to be very difficult. A difficult story. Now she’s going to have Tanah money. I mean, like, you know, 10 million or more to tell that story with. So that’s what makes us eat challenging, but she’s going to need it just to hang on. So that’s a seat. Other seed is in the 48th congressional district. That’s like Newport beach area. Used to be Dana Rohrabacher is old seat. Dana, was it God awful incumbent? Uh, couldn’t raise money. Got smoked by Harley Ruda. Um, Harley’s running for reelect against, uh, there’s a lot of Republicans running, but the leading Republican, objectively, I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but objectively it is Michelle Steele. She sits on the orange County or a supervisor. She’s raised over a million bucks. She’s plugged into the community.

Speaker 1: (42:40)
All of the congressional leadership have already backed her and endorsed her. So watch her. That is a, I think it’s an R plus eight, meaning Republicans have a six or eight point registration advantage in that net seat. Ah, look at that one. Young Kim is back for a rematch can skills to scenarios in the 39th congressional district. That’s LA in parts of orange County. The problem is it’s become that seats become more democratic sense. She ran last cycle. So she is a good candidate for that seat. She does the right things. She’s a kind of looks and feels like the district. But uh, and, and the incumbent has a, a voting record. Now he ran as a, that would no record who said he’d be a moderate. He’s voted in line with leadership, pretty much 100% of the time. All of these, these candidates or elected officials, incumbents of all, all came out for impeachment.

Speaker 1: (43:36)
I think that’ll hurt him or hurt all of them. So there’s just so many more bullets in the chamber to use against these candidates that didn’t exist in the midterm. So that is a verbose but superficial analysis on some of the oddest races to watch in California. So take a look at those. Okay. Doug, at tax rehab on Twitter said, in spite of all the polls, voters under 30 and certain minorities simply don’t turn out to vote. Are the polls a true indication of results? Well, yes, they are. Uh, you are right that voters under 30, particularly in midterm cycles, but, but, uh, even in presidential cycles, do not vote at the same rate that voters above the age of 30 do. Uh, so to overstate there, there likelihood to out might be wrong. Mmm. Are the polls and indication of results. If a poll is done properly, they’re able to factor in the, what we call propensity to turn out and vote.

Speaker 1: (44:46)
So good polling like my firm does and there are other good pollsters out there, factor there. They uh, they weight their likelihood to vote as part of the overall sample percentage. So they give it less weight than older, more reliable voters. But there are still, there are people that are under the age of 30 that are going to vote. So you don’t want to just discount them. Now Bernie Sanders is counting to get there. His primary in part that he can shift the turnout model in a democratic primary and get younger people to turn out at higher rates than they’ve typically turned out so far in the first two States. It hasn’t proved to be true, but even still, the polls have pretty much called, they called New Hampshire pretty much. Right? Iowa was in the margin of error. They pretty much called right. Uh, and pollsters haven’t been taking into account a surge model for young people, at least in public polls.

Speaker 1: (45:38)
So yes, polling is right. Uh, good polling will ads. We add several tricks. Uh, we have propensity questions and others to gauge for surges in any subgroups and turnouts in the last few weeks. We’re not seeing any massive surge in young voters yet. It doesn’t mean it can’t change you going into November. So to your point, polling is still accurate there. Of course, bad poles out there, loads and loads of them, but good polling can measure that. And uh, and Bernie’s looking to shift the turnout model. Typically speaking, when we want to shift the turnout model, it is almost impossible to do that in down ticket races below the race for Congress because people just don’t care enough. Uh, too. If they’re not going to vote already, they’re not gonna turn out to vote for their assembly candidate or their city council candidate. So it’s very, very hard to shift the turnout model.

Speaker 1: (46:37)
So what we as strategists focus on is who’s going to vote? We figured that out and then we try to persuade the people who are going to vote to vote for us cause we don’t have the time, we don’t have the resources and the manpower to get them to vote. I was arguing with this. Something you’ll be able to do if you subscribe to my email list on the T guide.com, it’s free. You’ll get access to a forum. I did a sponsored, I think by LMU and the hammer hammer museum. And one of the questions that came about, uh, was, uh, to, uh, one of my panelists, uh, panelists was a Fernando Garah who’s a professor, a poly PSI professor at, at LMU who skews quite liberal, an unabashedly liberal. And he was attacking me for saying that, uh, I focus on likely voters and uh, and not just generally getting people to though.

Speaker 1: (47:32)
And I explained why and he said, uh, it’s people like me that hurt, uh, democracy because there’s proven studies to know that everyone would, would vote if they were just given the information about election. So if I, instead of targeting my communications to likely voters, if I just talked to registered voters, it, all of these registered voters would, uh, would vote. And the reason it’s a self fulfilling prophecy because I only talked to likely voters, therefore only likely voters vote and unlikely voters don’t vote. And shame on you, John Thomas. He’s dead wrong. Okay? Yes. If I had unlimited budget, if I had unlimited time and I could work for months and months and months on each low propensity registered voter, could I get more people than my likely model to vote? Yes, I could, but, uh, would I get every registered voter to vote? No, I wouldn’t.

Speaker 1: (48:33)
Sometimes there is literally nothing you can do to get a certain person to vote. So in a, in the tradeoff game of if I have a fixed amount of resources, I would be better putting more lead on the target of people I know are going to vote or might need a Nick or a nudge to vote. Then trying everything I could. Getting few repetitions of communication on everybody and being few tile on a lot of those voters that wouldn’t vote. Um, that is stupid from a practitioner’s standpoint and simply not true. In fact, uh, Fernando was bragging in the city of Los Angeles. He was, uh, he spearheaded this movement to change the, uh, to change the LA city municipal elections to sync up with a presidential cycle. Both in the primary and the general. And to me it was very transparent. They call it increasing civic civic engagement because turnouts anywhere from seven to 13%.

Speaker 1: (49:40)
Some of these LA city municipal races, people just simply don’t care about who their city council person is or school board, race, et cetera, et cetera. And turnout is getting lower and lower. Uh, and so Fernando wanted up civic engagement and so he, he came up with this idea to shift the dates. City council adopted it and there we are. Uh, it’s now sinked up with the presidential cycle. I know what he, I know why he did that. It’s very transparent to me under the guise of civic engagement, what it is, is it democratic protection because the more people, the more low information voters turn out in LA city because LA city skews heavily democratic and uh, it, uh, the more people turn out the more uh, lock on not just these city council seats cause the council seats are going to remain mostly Democrat.

Speaker 1: (50:31)
It’s on prep, uh, passing referendums and propositions. Uh, you can, the more Democrat voters you have, the easier it is to pass extreme liberal policies. Uh, that’s just the cold reality. Well, Fernando spent half a form and again, if you subscribe for by even unless you will see this for him, he spent half the forum attacking me for being an evil marketer, manipulating people with advertising. And I explained why that’s fallacy, but he said, you know, advert, you know, money is toxic to politics and advertising is toxic to politics, et cetera, et cetera. Well, I made the case the case very clearly to Fernando. What he’s actually done by shifting the, the dates of the election from, from off-cycle to on cycle for local elections is he’s actually empowered money in politics to shape our politics more. And why? Because when you have a presidential cycle versus off cycle, there are more low information voters, tons more low information voters.

Speaker 1: (51:43)
People who turn out at an off cycle election, particularly to vote on a local issue or a local race off cycle are way more engaged in their community and more sophisticated and care more about their vote than a low information voter who just happen to be showing up because they’re feeling the burn and they check boxes all the way down the ticket. So what does that mean? That means that advertisers have a greater impact when there are more low information voters and when they’re more high information voters. So what Fernando’s just done is allowed influence of money in politics, which he lows to have even more influence on what goes on in his city. And he said, well that’s not true. And then he just, he argued against himself earlier. He said, that’s not true. Studies have shown that voters come to the right conclusion no matter what.

Speaker 1: (52:34)
They always just come to the right conclusion. And I’m thinking to myself, actually that’s not true. Number one. Number two, you just spent half the other forum berating me for the influence of money in politics and advertising. I guess if advertising weren’t effective and then there would be no big deal for people to waste all their money in advertising, if people already come to the logical conclusions, which is wrong, advertising does work, it is effective, um, and it does have a disproportionate impact on low information voters. So anyway, you got, it was a fun forum. I do hope you give it a watch. We’ll be sending it out, but you’ve got to sign up for my email list. Okay. We’re clocking in and almost an hour on this podcast. So, uh, two more quick. Uh, uh, one more question. Uh, rush Corp posts on Twitter asks, can you please discuss any updates on the DA’s race in the podcast?

Speaker 1: (53:33)
Yes. Again, and I’ll do that in a future podcast because we’ve partnered with KFI radio and we’ve done a poll. My firm has done a poll, we’ll be releasing on KFI and then I can talk about it when it’s public, but I know exactly what’s going on in the DA’s race. We’ll get to that in a future podcast. Very short. Okay. Thank you so much for listening. I hope you enjoy this longer edition of the podcast cause there was quite a bit going on this weekend. You can tweet me at the Thomas guide, go to the T guy.com if you want. Leave me a review on iTunes and we will catch you when Yana and another episode of the Thomas guide.

Reply