Hit enter to searchOverlay or ESC to close

TGuide2.6.20_mixdown

Speaker 1: (00:00)
This is the Thomas guide your roadmap for navigating a 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 Guy with your host, John Thomas. I didn’t campaign spokesman melts down and Tom Perez says we’re going to Iowa for a recount. That more in this episode, the Thomas gap.

Speaker 2: (00:37)
Welcome back to a late afternoon podcast of the Thomas guide. It’s that time of the season. Oh my gosh. I typically clock out at about let’s say one or 2:00 AM each night with work and uh, uh, anyway, just got jammed up yesterday but we’ll do two PI. We’ll do today’s podcast a little bit later, but I’ll be back on schedule, uh, for tomorrow. All right, let’s get into it. Cause quite a bit has happened. The big news today, uh, is that Tom Perez made a statement on Twitter and he said this enough is enough in light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection plan. And in order to assure public confidence in the results, I am calling on the Iowa democratic party to immediately begin a re canvas. What does that mean? It means that it’s an absolute disaster in the democratic party.

Speaker 2: (01:41)
It means a recount. Okay. A recount of Iowa now, last night, I think 97% of results were in and Sanders according to the account that we may not be able to trust according to Tom Perez. But Sanders was in I think within three votes of the Buddha judge to tie with poo digit three delegate votes. Now remember, Sanders won the popular vote. It’s pretty clear, but he’s within three votes of actually winning, uh, outright winning Iowa by the traditional delegate, uh, delegate standard. So we’ll see if a recount, well, I think there were 3% remaining. We still even have that, but now you’ve got to recount. That’s going to delay. It is such a mess over there in Iowa and with the democratic party that we may not have certified results from Iowa before New Hampshire happens next week. I mean, what an absolute disaster. Um, again, I get back to, and this is the team that wants us to trust them with all of government, the keys to the nuclear weapons and wants to write the rules and control and control the infrastructure for a healthcare system.

Speaker 2: (03:08)
Oh yeah, absolutely. Brilliant. I mean this is, this is a disaster. It wouldn’t, it is funny, but it’s also sad at the same time. So Perez is coming in and uh, I can’t wait to hear all of the stories that come out of the recount and who’s serving whom under the bus. And anyway, it’s going to get crazy. Speaking of being thrown under the bus. So Simone Sanders, I’ve covered this on the show before. She is a senior advisor to Joe Biden. Uh, she used to be a frequent CNN commentator, I think out of their DC Bureau and she decided she used to work for in 2016 she was a spokesperson for Bernie Sanders. And then she decided, uh, well it looks like she got ousted because she had spats and whatnot with people in Sanders orbit. And now she thought she was so smart by hitching her wagon to what everybody thought.

Speaker 2: (04:12)
Well, she thought was going to be the winner, which was Joe Biden. So now coming off of a devastating loss, uh, in Iowa, which is far worse than they originally anticipated. I mean a fourth place, he, Joe Biden barely defeated Amy Klobuchar barely. There’s no way to spin a good outcome here. And Biden’s senior or comms director, I guess on CNN earlier had been questioning the integrity of the results, which sounds very familiar to what Democrats did in 2016, 2016. Right? You don’t like the, uh, you don’t like the outcome of an election, just say it’s, it’s a, it’s rigged, it’s fake, et cetera. So, uh, a, the CNN anchor was asking Simone it what she thinks of the results and if she believes the results, and Simone didn’t want to answer the question and she was trying to fill a Buster. You’ve got, I’m going to play this clip in a second, but more importantly into just listening to the style and approach of just trying to yell out, yell the host.

Speaker 2: (05:22)
I thought the host actually did a pretty effective job at trying to get her to actually answer the question. Here’s where Simone is running into a problem and really not equipped to handle this question. Simone’s done loads of tea of CNN television. I mean I think she’s on almost every, every day for a period of, well I think she started in the 2016 primary cycle and then she’s just on all the time, so she has a lot of honor your time, but this is a good, this is a good example of a where when you’re used to having media bias on your side and then it’s actual, you just, you haven’t developed the chops and you’re not really comfortable operating in a space where this is a tricky position to be in. No doubt about it, but don’t behave like she behaved. But let’s listen to the clip and we’ll, we’ll do a quick analysis.

Speaker 3: (06:21)
I was confused. You believe the results, the app that the eyewear you believe are the data that we’re seeing? We believe there. We understand the data is waiting for two hours. Why? If the data is correct data to the Iowa democratic party headquarters, they were unable to get [inaudible] the presidential preference cards. Ours are very important. So our campaign has fed and and what? Quebec. Simone. Simone. Simone is alone, right? Simone, here’s the deal. I’m going down a road and you’re not answering the question. Is this data correct in your view? Is it correct? Look, Brianna. I. Brianna. I have not analyzed the backends of the data. What we are staying and what we have implored to the Iowa democratic party are two things. One, we have to make sure we get it right. Getting it right means checking, checking again and triple checking and making sure that there’s a paper trail. The presidential preference cards. Don’t try to paint this as we’re trying to say. This is some kind of conspiracy theory. Okay. [inaudible] process. I’m repeating what your communications director is saying. [inaudible] process and our communications director is trying to preserve. Simone. We’re going to roll the sound bite. Let’s roll the sound byte. You guys roll it right then. What we think

Speaker 4: (07:42)
you have a process where you can’t be confident that the results that are being reported are reflective of the votes that people cast last night in the process. That’s a real concern.

Speaker 2: (07:52)
So you can see she just tried to fill a Buster. She tried to talk over the host and it, it just looked like an absolute disaster. Uh, didn’t make Biden look good and didn’t make Simone look good. This is in CNN has basically turned on the Biden campaign. And, and truthfully, they’re asking the right questions. I mean, the Biden campaign did fail miserably. They needed to come in a closest, second place at worst, but really what they needed to do was win Iowa, but come in and top two coming in a distant fourth. And that’s just a, it’s devastating to the narrative. Now, uh, if you look at a new morning console poll that just came out yesterday, uh, post Iowa, it has, this is a national poll, has Sanders beating Biden. Now Sanders nationally is at 25%. Bides at 24% now, technically it’s in the margin of error, but the trend line is there.

Speaker 2: (08:52)
Sanders has eclipse, Biden Bloomberg’s at Buddha judge’s at 12 Warren at 11 and so on and so forth. So Sanders is getting a balance out of Iowa despite this thing being muddied. And so some might speculate that that’s going to make New Hampshire even more more important than it might have otherwise been because it’s really the first is a popular vote, but it’s the first true opportunity on muddled that we’ll have to look at voters choices. So I anticipate Sanders will get even a bigger bounce coming out of New Hampshire. Assuming he wins, wins it, I think he will win first place. Remember, New Hampshire is, is now a Buddha judge’s final stand. He needs to win New Hampshire. If he doesn’t, that’s his last hope to become the nominee. Now, I don’t think Buddha judge is going to be the nominee, but he has to win New Hampshire. He really, really does.

Speaker 2: (09:46)
To get back to just have a shot at, at overcoming his real challenges, which is that he get 0% with African-American supporters. So, uh, that is, that is kind of the, the news of the day as it relates to, so relates to the race. Okay. I dunno if you’ve heard this yet, but I just, I got a chuckle out of this. This story shows me that everything the Democrats have done relating to impeachment relating to Trump is all premeditated and it is all about political optics and just defeating Trump in 2020. It’s not about doing the right thing. It’s not about, uh, having, you know, the Democrats aren’t sad about anything they have to do. No, this is all about optics and beating president Trump and that’s it. And they’re abusing their power and authority to hurt the president. Now, the president was, uh, gave a, I thought, a pretty good off teleprompter speech today, and we’ll talk about it in the podcast tomorrow.

Speaker 2: (10:53)
But, uh, he took a victory lap and he should, um, he, you could see the president was very upbeat in his address. He was happy. He was throwing some bombs. He was thinking lots of people for staying by his side throughout this. And he’s finally turned the page. He’s acquitted. So this story broke you. You of course will. You know, cause we talked about it, it’s all over the news that Pelosi tore up the president’s state of the union address, which was so classless. But of course people were asking, Oh she just did it in this heat of the moment cause she was so upset. Nope. Turns out it was premeditated. And how do we know that when a Pelosi sat down within a few minutes, camera’s show now looking back, that there are tiny tear marks into her copy of the state of the state of the union address, tiny pre tear marks.

Speaker 2: (11:45)
Now why did she do that? It’s because he knew that the second she got up that she was going to do this big public ripping apart of the speech and she wanted to make sure that it was a clean rip and that everything went well. So she did pre tears and then, you know, she instantly got up and toward the speech when it was over because she wanted the cameras to still be on her and the president. So again, premeditated, she knew what she was doing. She, she thought about how can she make a statement and uh, it’s just, it’s so classless, honestly. All right, two more things. One. So president Trump’s acquitted, he took a victory lap today. The next question to me is, or for me is when does he start pardoning people? Does he pardon Manafort. Does he pardon stone? Does he do it before his reelection?

Speaker 2: (12:35)
I can see both sides. I can see the one is, Hey, don’t do it until the day after you’re reelected. If you’re reelected, then do it. That’s this prudent thing to do. But this precedent may also feel a sense of duty that he needs to pardon a guy like Roger Stone who would not be in jail if it weren’t for getting wrapped up in this whole witch hunt. So we’ll see. I’m going to be watching to see if those pardons come down. Next story. A a California assemblyman introduces legislation dictating mandatory voting under penalty of law because the assemblyman’s says that he’s troubled by the lack of participation among the willfully uninformed electorate, a great mandatory voting. Oh, that’s just brilliant.

Speaker 2: (13:34)
First of all, if I’m all for people voting, I think that’s great. When you exercise your rights, that’s a great thing, but a ballot is more deadly than a gun, and if you’re afraid to give everybody guns, if you’re a little liberal elected official, why would you give them the power? Why would you mandate that they vote? When I’m in the mindset that I don’t want dumb voters go people who shouldn’t be voting or are a dumb voters, I don’t want the voting I want them to. I want there to be barriers in the sense of you got to make an effort to request about it. You got to go to a polling place. You should show identification to prove you are who you say are, and if you can’t do those hurdles and you’re not serious about your civic obligation, you shouldn’t be voting period.

Speaker 2: (14:25)
Now, why is this California assemblyman want to introduce mandatory voting? Well, I’ll tell you why. It’s a demographic thing. California’s demographics are such that it’s not just the California. The blue is that they will be able to pass any ultra radical liberal ballot proposition, um, or measure that they ever put on the ballot. Because if you have all of these uninformed ultra liberal young voters that are mandated to vote, they’re going to just be susceptible to the advertising that pulls at their liberal heartstrings. So this is an absolutely disastrous bill. I hope it fails. We’ll keep an eye on it, but, uh, uh, the Democrats have really gone off their rockers on this one. Okay. Make sure you go to the T guide.com and sign up for my email list. You’re going to get not only the daily podcasts, but other exclusive content only available. So subscribers go to the T guy.com. Of course you can tweet me at the Thomas guide on Twitter or find me on Facebook. And if you really liked the show, one of the ways we grow it is yes, tell a friend please. If you think somebody you know will be interested, but write me a review on iTunes or whatever platform you listen on so other people can see kind of what the show is all about, whether you value it. So thank you for listening. We’ll catch you tomorrow on another episode of the Thomas guide.

Reply