10/20/26: Wild Potential Midterm Scenarios, GOP Abandons Trump, MAGA Implosion Weeks Before Midterms

This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Lisa, tell them about our new show. We have a new podcast. It's called Don't Lie To Me. I'm Lexi Juanio, we're two best friends, 22 years apart, but so close at heart. And I'm Lisa de Julio, the old one, which means we have wildly different references, occasionally different opinions, and at this point in my food days, I've lived it all. Now in my 30s, being the founder of new shoes, good taste is my business. Listen on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Lacey Mosley, author, actor, stand-up comedian, creator, and host of Scam Goddess Podcast. The True Crime Comedy Podcast, all about robbery, fraud, and those who practice it. Each week I bring on an amazing guest. Ooh, I scammed them. What? I could talk to you for an hour. You're a generational yapper, like me. That's why I had to make yapping a job. And now you can catch full episodes of my show on YouTube. Start listening to Scam Goddess on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Scam Goddess! There are thousands of podcasts that can tell you how to better yourself. Get worse with Kyle Pru is not one of those podcasts. So if you're interested in getting thinner, going to therapy, starting peptide, setting boundaries, taking supplements, making your better getting closer, then I would humbly recommend other podcasts. If you're interested in blackmail, love, balmen, cloning yourself, or getting revenge, then we've got a little something, something for a dastardly individual like you. Listen to get worse with Kyle Pru on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Howdy, busy day. Don't have time to listen to the show. Catch up on Breaking Points with our free daily newsletter. You get our breakdown of every daily story. And lots of links in your inbox every day. So, head over, breakingpoints.com. You can sign up for the newsletter at the top for free today. Good morning, everybody. Happy Tuesday. Having an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? Indeed, we do. Deep dive into the midterm elections from a variety of angles. Logan Phillips is going to join us momentarily to take a look at the numbers. And okay, let's say we had a polling miss the size of 2016. What would that look like? What about 2025? We're actually Democrats. We're underestimated. We will go through all of that with him. Then we're also going to take a look at the impact specifically of Trump in this election cycle. Some new numbers are out that show Republicans are not running ads with his name in it. What's so every is virtually disappeared from the Republican side in terms of their ad campaigns. Democrats on the other side are talking about him nonstop. So it tells you quite a bit at the same time. One of the major issues that is emerged in the midterm elections is concerns over Trump and Trump family corruption. JD Vance once again in the hot seat over this as new revelations have come out alleging a major pay for play scheme. Involving the Kennedy Center will get into all of that. We got a soccer special here taking a look at the way that boomers are organizing nationwide against paying property taxes. Having a lot of success in a wide variety of states. We're also going to take a look at Michigan specifically where Abdul-Assad seems to have had the most viral clip of the entire campaign. Some interesting media commentary around that as well. And then we're going to be rejoined by Daniel Lid. He's the mathematician that we had on before to talk about the AI revolution in math. And whether or not he is feeling existential dread over the state of her profession. Actually, he seems to have a more hopeful outlook. So excited against that. Yes, that's exactly right. Before we get to that, though, it's some interesting exchanges. So we received some interesting emails over the last couple weeks. Let's put this up here on the screen. These are from our producer Griffin. Both of these are from two separate firms who purport to represent Kalshi. And they have emailed us. This is my personal favorite one. We hope you're doing well. We're reaching out to discuss a Q4 partnership between breaking points in Kalshi. A federally regulated US exchange. They say breaking points is a strong fit for this campaign based on your content and audience. So it appears that these people think that they can just hire these firms and just blast creators, YouTubers, et cetera. First of all, they're obviously wasting their money because they've never listened to our show. But we just wanted to deliver our official response of not only no, but fuck no. We do not want your blood money. And that is why we have premium subscriptions. Not now. Not ever. The business will go over. I'd rather go bankrupt before we take your disgusting money. And I hope that you people get thrown into prison. And if I have anything to do with it, that's the how we will end up. So because of all of you, breakingpoints.com, the premium subscribers, we are in a position where we can say, no, fuck you. And so that is our official response to Kalshi. So yeah, there you go. And this isn't just a Kalshi thing. This is for anybody who wants us to do an ad read, be it manscaped or any of these people. But in particular, these as literal scum of the earth over at these gambling companies. And then so with that, we also have, we need your help. So I don't game. I've never played GTA. I hear it's big. So this advertisement was placed in Miami. And apparently in this universe, there is something called Weasel News. And. It like play, this is according to Griffin. It plays in the cars that you steal right place in the car that you steal. Anyway, so they have apparently for the first time these hosts of Weasel News. Now a lot of people, many friends, people who don't watch the show, like, and any of that, they're like, dude, this is literally you. So what do you guys think? I personally, I don't see it. I see it in Crystal's case. You see it in my case. Oh, I see it so much more in your case. I don't see it. I just totally, I see it. So a few things. First of all, the, they would have been doing the graphics a number of years ago. This is a point that Griffin made. And I used to have that haircut. You did have it. And I used to wear the big earrings like that as well. And I know my earrings are a little more tame. I do have a little bit of a bigger pair on today, but my earrings are typically a little more. I restrain these days. The outfits are totally as you literally have that tie. I do own that exact tie. And I used to wear it. And I used to wear it all the time five years ago. That's true. Talk to me about the glasses. Okay, but everybody, a lot of people wear these types. Well, obviously number one, I'm not black. That seems to be like the biggest. I'm sorry. Like, obviously they wouldn't do exactly us. I'm also not. I don't know if that she's like Asian or Latino. Some sort of like racially ambiguous. But they, you know, it's drawing inspiration. That like, it's very much looks like a pocket square and the tie. And that shade of blue. I do actually own that exact outfit. So I, I don't know. I don't know. So when the game comes out, we'll take a listen. We'll let us know. You guys let us know what you think. Is it us or not? I truly, like I said, I've never played this video game in my entire life. I'm not going to play it. I guess I wish you guys all the best. But yeah, let us know. Let us know in the comments section. If it is, I at least know enough to know that it's a great honor. So thank you. And for increasing the profile. Even if it's, yeah, like caricature is your boundary. Yeah, whatever. It's like in the culture. Yeah, it's one of the biggest cultural, you know, I know enough to know that every guy who I know is going to take work off or whatever. There's already an estimate that they're going to, the US is going to lose like hundreds of billions of dollars in productivity on the day or the week or whatever after the game comes out. Okay. So with all that preamble with our screw you to Calci with our plea for whether that is us or not according to you guys. Let's get to our interview with the great Logan Phillips. I'm Hamza. And I'm Martin. And we're the hosts of Out of Character. It's a podcast. I know there's a lot of them to listen to these days. How are you going to get to us? Well, there's a specific reason why you should listen to us. We are the best podcast in the entire world. I swear. I know, bold. But why don't we list some of the things we might talk about on a regular episode? So sometimes we'll talk about, I don't know, the Uber driver we just had. And how nice they were or if we tip them or not, come and find out. Sometimes we'll talk about that weird news story from last week. It's the one you're thinking about. Trust me. Or maybe we'll talk about music and what's happening in the underground or drama music or TV shows or the Med Gala and what the actors wore. What we're saying is we're not afraid to talk about everything under the sun. And if you want to see what that's like, come join us. It's a place where everyone can hang out, anyone, wherever you're from, whatever you're like, you're welcome. Listen Out of Character from Will Ferrell's Big Money Players Network. On the I Heart Radio app, Apple Pods or wherever you get your podcasts. Lisa, we should tell them about our new show. Oh my God, Lexi. I'm Lexi Iwanyu, where two best friends, 22 years apart, but so close at heart. And I'm Lisa Julio, the old one, which means we have wildly different references, occasionally different opinions. And at this point in my 50s, I've lived it all. I'm not gonna get any worse than fighting. That is wild. I learned that about you today. my business, and I've always got something to say. - If man were just honest about this, there would be so much more peace in the world. - We're gonna talk about dating, relationships, beauty, getting older, and a little wiser. - We're best friends, but we don't always agree. - Because you told us how accommodating you are. - Obviously, I would do what I think I could do to fight the fight, but there's only so much fight I can fight. - Don't lie to me. - Don't lie to me. - Don't lie to me. - Liar. - Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I don't really care. - I'm Lacey Mosley, author, actor, stand-up comedian, creator, and host of SCAM Goddess Podcast. Each week I bring on incredible guests. It's like Conan O'Brien, Iowa Deppery, Lamon Morris, and Nicole Byer. - Ooh, I scammed 'em. - What? - I could talk to you for an hour. - You're a generational yapper, like me. - And the scams run the gamut. I'm talking about scams from the 1800s, all the way up to today. I also warn you and keep you safe against scammers. Call your grandparents, tell your parents to stop clicking on links, please. - If there's a scam, I'm here to protect you. And I'm also here to laugh with you. So if you like fun, if you like comedy, and you like learning and protecting yourself from criminals, start listening to scam goddess on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. - We're very excited now to be joined by our great friend, Logan Phillips, of RaceToTheWhiteHouse.com. It's good to see you, Logan. Thanks for joining us, man. - Hey, great to be on as always. - All right, so our weekly check-in, let's go ahead and put a three up here on the screen. Here's what we've got now so far from Logan's website. Tell us a little bit about where things look in your current forecast, Senate, House, and Governor's races. - Well, this is a really unique election and that it's kind of battlefields America. We're seeing places in play all across the map, ranging from Maine to Nebraska and Kansas. And so we have both a chance for historic election for Democrats where they can sweep them up. And there's also a chance here where they don't gain that much in the Senate and they only pick up a little bit in Governor's races. So that's what kind of makes this race interesting is because they're overperforming so much in red areas, boy, does that increase their maximum potential? But you could come up short, gaining a lot of ground as Hillary Clinton did in places like Arizona and Texas if you don't win, doesn't get you much. - Right, makes sense. - So we wanted to dig into this question of a potential polling mess at this point, because we've touched on this with you before we wanted to do it in a bit of a more systematic way and say, okay, if we had the polling mess of 2016, what would that look like? If we had one like 2022 or 2025, what would that look like? Let me go ahead and start with a New York Times analysis. This was from Nate Cohen. We can put this up on the screen. And we can get your sort of overall view here. He says polls show Democrats ahead. Are they, quote, right this time? And, you know, he has proper level of skepticism as we all should. The polls are not going to be exactly correct. They will likely be off in one direction or the other. He does however point out that the polls have been closer in midterm elections. And in fact, at times they have underestimated Democrats in midterm elections and they dramatically underestimated Democrats in the 2025 gubernatorial elections both in Virginia and New Jersey. So what is your sort of overall view of your level of confidence in the polls right now and some of the things that you're paying attention to before we get into the specific numbers? - I would say that you can't just look at the polls here. All of the indicators to me look really good for Democrats. First, they had did an outstanding job in these special elections. And I think that's true also if you combine that with what happened in California and Washington. They were outperforming expectations if it were like a neutral cycle by like eight points. - Wow. - And since then, the environment has moved in their direction by like a point or two. So you have that and you also have the fundraising. Now, I know that's not going to sound right at first because if you're talking about the super PACs, then Republicans have a big advantage with the actual donations to candidates from individuals which is a better indicator and more predictive of candidate success. Democrats have been swapping Republicans in race after race. - You mean like small dollar donations? - Just regular donations that exclude PAC money or self-funded. - And why is that? Just like that it's voter enthusiasm, it's grassroots. - I think it's a combination of two things. One, frankly, I think Democrats that is their bread and butter these days and Republicans have gotten a little less active on campaigning because they I'm fundraising because they know they're going to get it from the PACs. But it's also separate from that. I think it's a sign of enthusiasm and this does make my personal forecast a lot more accurate when you take this into account. So maybe that's not true anymore with the era of PAC money, but I still think it says something about the quality of the candidates and the quality of their operation and the base enthusiasm that Democrats have which I think is still higher. - Yeah, well, we were talking before we turn the cameras on about Kansas and Roger Marshall. And this is a race that going into the cycle. No one, including Roger Marshall, would have thought that this seat would have been in play. He's barely raising any money at all to his Senate campaign at this late date after you very much know that he has a real race on his hands. - Yeah, this is even like Nebraska last year where people weren't taking its seriously to the end. And maybe you guys were on it. - Yeah. - Especially, most people weren't. Everyone's been talking about Kansas for months except it seems Roger Marshall because I don't know what he's doing. I don't know how he's raised that little. It's baffling to me. Like you'd think someone would come in and just rescue him and bring him along to fundraisers and raise more than the pitiful amount he's gotten. So yeah, he's relying on outside money. And to some degree, like we see this every cycle that when there's a huge wave, the people that loses the most on the very far fringes are candidates that have been safe their whole career that have never tried to have to actually win swing voters. Maybe they did their first time. - Well, yeah, that's why when you're like, oh, how does he not raise any money? He's never had to. You just win the primary and that's it. It's over. You need a few token million dollars and then you get the R next to your name. Everybody checks the box and you get to move on, right? You buy your house in Washington. You don't think about it. You put your kids in a Washington high school 'cause you're never gonna leave, right? Like that's literally the mindset of these people. One important part of the Nate Cohn thing before we move on is the big question of these red states. Like it's the Kansas, it's the South Carolina's and it's the others where you have the similar kind of enthusiasm going into 2018. But at the end of the day, the Republicans come home. What meaningfully makes today's race different than that race at the time? - Yeah, I think it's definitely different. I just don't know if it's different enough for Democrats to win. I think they're gonna win Texas and I think Kansas is a toss up. But voters are really frustrated with the Republican party and this includes some genuine Republicans and a lot of our leaning independence. This does not mean that everyone's turned and would often be framed as such that it's not true. But a sizable portion in a coalition in elections that are as competitive as America, which might be the most competitive in the world, that's massive. And so it's, you know, this is the problem for Republicans that they're rallying, call for Donald Trump, that everyone and most voters in the party buy into is that the system is not working for them. They already felt down their lives but it's been doubled down in messaging time and time again. That politicians are corrupt. That people are not putting them first and then now they're seeing those same things being done by a president that they thought was gonna change things. I think that has gotten more people to start to question things. And the thing about Trump is once you start to question him, a lot of the things that you just dismiss because their Trump being Trump starts to really get on your nerves. - Yeah, that's true, fair. All right, let's dig now into the numbers. Let's put this first graphic up on the screen. Okay, so what we asked you to do here is to take the current polling average in all of the Senate races. That's the column that you see here on the left for Alaska, Florida, Georgia, et cetera, on down the line. And these are all of the races that are even colorably interesting in the Senate. And then to apply to it, what if the pollsters are off by the average amount they were off in 2016. Now, 2016 and 2020, there was a very similar polling mist. They underestimated Republicans by what was it? It was about what, three points? Yeah, roughly right about three points. So what do we see if we have a similar polling mist as what we saw in 2016 and in 2020? - Yeah, what would happen is this Senate would become a battleground of a different nature. It kind of flips. Democrats would have about a 30% chance instead of about a 70% chance in the Senate. Because Republicans would be on track for basically keeping everything the same. They would lose North Carolina still reasonably cleanly, but they would pick up Michigan Ohio. And when I say pick up, I want to be clear. This would be so close that it basically isn't really even picking up. It just means it's a straight down the middle race. Michigan would be separated by 0.01 percent. - Wow, oh my gosh. God forbid, I'm like a horrible situation. And Ohio, you have by 0.1%. So if the 0.01 and the 0.1 holds, you end up with Republicans holding onto the Senate, narrowly holding onto the Senate. Even in the realm where you have that level of mist that Republicans are underestimated. - Yeah, and that's on paper, right? So you have those two races, which I think are basically tied. They could go either way. And then you have Alaska and Texas, which would be around a percent difference or less. So the thing is, this misses ever happens across the same, almost every one of these years, even when there's a huge polling list, there's gonna be a race where there's an exception that goes the other way and someone's underrated. So Republicans would be clearly favorite to win the Senate in this scenario. But Democrats would still have a fighting chance. - Interesting. - Okay. - So let's deal with this too. So 2016, why were the polls wrong? A lot of our audience is young. They may not even know they were in high school. Or if something like that, why were they wrong? - They should be reaching into my 2016 brain here. - I know, especially for those of us who had to sit through those long New York Times profiles about white people in Ohio or whatever at a diner. But yeah, go ahead. - Yeah, well, the reason they won is that people under, people missed what was happening in 2016, going into the election, which is that Trump brought a ton of new voters that were disproportionately white, didn't vote too often, didn't have college degrees, who felt they were left behind and Trump's whole campaign was, you're getting screwed and I'm going to change things and it motivated a lot of new people. You know, they figured that out in 2008 because maybe the first black president made it a little more obvious that black voters were gonna turn out at high levels, but they completely missed the ball in 16. I and then into. 2020, which was also a big miss, you had, I think, a lot of this came down to COVID. Some of the same problems repeated themselves, but also Democrats were home way more than Republicans in a way that might not ever repeat itself in that types of dynamic. What do you mean by that, like how? Who was more likely to answer the phone? The person that was worried about the pandemic. Right, right. Right. The way color worker at home, Democrats, core base, excited to tell pollsters how much they hate Donald Trump. Yes. Even though Biden ends up winning, when we were covering that together, I mean, it was looking like, oh, he's gonna be a bloodbath, right? And it's not gonna be anywhere close. And then it was very close. Okay, so let's bring our minds forward a little bit in time now to 2022. Economic number, Biden's in the presidency, economic numbers are not looking great. People are dissatisfied, everyone's thinking, oh, it's gonna be a red wave. Now, the polls never showed a blowout for Republicans, but we were all kind of applying our 2016-2020 minds saying, oh, if the polls show Republicans leading, it's gonna be Republicans by even more than that. So the general consensus was a red wave is coming, and then it did not arrive. And in fact, the polls underestimated Democrats by a bit in that particular cycle, by about three and a half points in that cycle. So here we have the numbers for 2022. What you see here is that if you have that level of a polling miss under estimating Democrats, it becomes quite a blowout on the Democratic side. You have states that are flipping that you never would have imagined before. Obviously, you've got Iowa flipping. You've got Kansas going, and not by really that narrow of the margin, you have the Democrat winning by four points in Kansas. You have South Carolina going blue by two and a half points. And of course, Texas, James Salarica would prevail by almost six points. So that is another possibility that is on the table here. Yeah, and that's why this is honestly, when you guys messaged me about this last night, it was a brilliant idea, because it shows exactly what we're dealing with. The map is so broad. We haven't experienced this before, at least I haven't, because I wasn't paying them much attention in 2006 when I was 13. So this is definitely an election where these races could be in play, because they're over-performing so much in these red areas, and if they just do a little better than with the polls, so just a little better, they can cash in on a historic level that would change the next six years of our politics. Yeah, so let's talk through the structural things again, what happened with that mess? So with that mess, I mean, generally, I remember, I used to say, like, you know, the breaking points rule is you take a Republican number and you add five to it, or something like that. You know, I was like, Jesus, you know, I just seen too much at this point. Yeah, it's like, well, and then, of course, that was the one year the rule completely falls apart. Structurally, what happened? Because I've actually seen some people say, hey, if you paid attention to the special elections, the ingredients were all there, you should have just, if you just looked at that, you could have predicted democratic over-performance. That's kind of what I did. Yeah. Okay. So, all right. So, but then what did everybody else miss? What were the structural ingredients for what went wrong in that race? I think they missed that the change had happened, and look, this is just part of the human condition. We always over-learn the lessons from the last big thing that happened. I mean, you know, I'm bringing a little broad here, but mistakes followed from World War One, cause World War Two, right? America always goes from excessively interventionalized to completely losing sight of the world to getting too confident. Then now we're in Iraq, now we're in Iran, et cetera, right? So, this is the same thing that happens with people talking about politics, and if you want to be better than the conventional wisdom, that's literally all you need to do. Well, it's not all you need to do, but it will help, is just recognize that everyone else is over-indexing for what they literally just saw yesterday. And that's what happened in '22, because they were really big signs in that Republicans were doing quite well in special elections, and they were doing a lap better in the polling, and then the bottoms started to fall out after row, and they started nominating candidates like Doug Masteryano and Pennsylvania, that we're talking about kicking voters off the roles as a central campaign message and banning abortion in places where voters disagreed with that. So, that conjection, that wasn't every candidate, but we had a lot of those candidates disproportionately in swing races, I feel like even more than in just red races, and so Republicans weren't able to take advantage. I also think, and this is a huge contrast with this year, Joe Biden did not force Democrats to stick with him all the time, a lot of them separated themselves. Yeah. He would really complain to them on the phone in leaked audio, but yeah, yeah, but he didn't say it, you know. He did it in a normal way, right? The president grumbles and doesn't take it, isn't it happy that all these people, especially if this is their second term, that they personally recruited to run and were, in theory, inspired by him or her, and then now they're like, running for the hails, trying to avoid them like crazy. Yeah, that probably drives all presidents crazy, because they'll have egos, but they're at the end of the day. They want to win the Senate. They put it aside. Trump's made it way harder, and you see Ashley Henson and Iowa, for example, toss a brace, but she was losing earlier, and now it's basically tied, and that's because, I think in part, she's done a really good job of saying she wants to be a pie partisan, creating her own brand that's separate from the party. Michelle Tafoy is doing the same thing in Minnesota. It's a very tough year to run, but she's way overperforming the rest of her party, Susan Collins does that. That's not what most Republicans are doing, and so that could be the thing that sinks a lot of these people. Interesting. All right. So now, let's talk 2025. Now, this may surprise people, because well, first of all, there were just fewer elections. Which is basically Virginia and New Jersey have their gubernatorial elections. And because the polls were directionally correct, they showed a victory for the Democrats in both cases. I don't think people really processed how much of a miss it was, but let's put this up on the screen. This of the years we're focused on here was actually the largest polling miss. It was about 8.1% of a miss under estimating Democrats. Okay. So now we're getting really wild, okay? If we had a polling miss in 2026, that was the same as the polling miss in 2025. So just last year with Virginia and New Jersey, you would end up with Democrats having a super majority in the Senate, something that seems impossible, I think is probably very unlikely. But if you did apply that same polling miss from just last year, that is what you would end up with. Yeah. Now, this type of miss is more of going to happen when it's a special, it's an off-year election. It's sort of halfway to a special action because the turnout gap can be bigger. And so that's harder to estimate. Is that what's going on there? Yeah, it's harder to estimate, and you more likely just to have a big miss with two races and you are with like 35, right? That being said, I mean, look, this is like the best case scenario for Democrats. It's unlikely this would be a historic miss, but there's like a five to, you know, somewhere between a five to 10% chance of this type of thing happening. And in this scenario, look, we've incredibly limited polling in this immediately, but based off the small polling we have Mrs. Hippy and Louisiana, would I believe flip in this map? So that's totally not really wild. Yeah, I'm not, I'm not there yet, it's like you said, but like, again, structural ingredients, I think that's what we got to try to look at. Like when I look at your map, for example, and you have toss up in Kansas, toss up in Iowa and toss up in Alaska, already, these are such dramatic problems. And a lot of things have to go right. So I think the bigger question is how much of this is local or national, like you've talked previously here, candidate quality, how it really matters, in particular for Texas, like Talleriko, right? Like I feel, I personally think if Kornin was the nominee, he would probably win. And I don't think he would win by a lot to be clear. It would be maybe even less than Ted Cruz and Beto, maybe one or 0.5. I'm just like, yeah, I feel like enough of the traditional people are just going to come home. But I open, you know, the paper this morning, and I'm looking at the Dallas morning news, who my whole life endorses John Kornin is like, where would James Talleriko? Now, is that going to swing a ton of people? No, but it's indicative of, I know that these are upper crust rich people who send their kids to SMU, they're holding their nose, and they're like, I'm going Talleriko. That doesn't happen with John Kornin, in my opinion. So that's my question is like, how much of this is local candidate quality, and how much of it is national? Like, because for a lot of years, it didn't really matter who the candidates were. It's by plus or minus two, something like that, because at the end of the day, whoever's in the Senate, you're voting for Trump or you're not. And that really matters, right? In terms of who that person is, what have you seen in your analysis? Yeah, I think it's both. I mean, you're not talking about Alaska being in play if, even if Peltola running if this environment was like, technically bad for Republicans, but not terrible. Interesting. That being said, look, this is my hot take, and maybe I'm going to look down for this. But I genuinely believe that we're getting a little less polarized after sprinting in the other direction, when I mean by that to put in English, is voters have been less willing to break with their party. And so red states vote, redder, blue states vote, bluer, and we feel like we're long past the era where you saw Democrats representing places like Missouri and South Dakota and Republicans winning a lot of blue places as well. And so maybe that's going to change a little bit. Because people don't like either party. They think the whole system is wronged. That is like the consensus across America and candidate quality might mean a little bit more. Mm-hmm. Yeah. I mean, I could see it. Look, the one thing that you have to accept in politics is whenever you get sort of like a mental frame of what's going on, things shift. Exactly. So I could definitely see that. You know, I want to talk a little bit more about all of the polling misses and try if we can to put some theories together. So it certainly seems like there is something about when Trump is on the ballot, pollsters underestimate his support, his support specifically. Whereas the midterm elections, it's been more of a mixed bag. And in fact, I mean, these two midterm elections the most recent, the 2022 mentor and the 2025 off-year election, they underestimated Democrats. And look, pollsters are human beings, they want to try to adjust things, they have gotten a lot more shit for underestimating Republicans than they have for underestimating Democrats ultimately. So do you think that part of the reason why the midterm polls have been wrong in the opposite direction is because of pollster over correction trying to make sure at this time we don't underestimate Republicans? Yeah. I think that could be part of it. And also, like, I just want to say on the 2022 map, I forgot to say this before, part of this is because we're using real clear politics, which does tend to have a Republican bias. I don't know if that's because they were embarrassed about 2020 and trying to over-correct, because they didn't include some very good polling in New Hampshire, their poll they called, the pollster they called the best that released a poll two days before the election because it would have moved their average to showing Maggie Hassan winning the race. And like, so, so their mis was a lot bigger than other people that year, to be fair. That makes sense. Yeah. All these random Republican pollsters came out of the woodwork and- Yeah. Yeah. And to make adjustments for that and start instituting bias checks, like, that's the downside of RACP versus, you know, myself and Nate Silver is that they don't correct for partisan pollsters and they do like three or four and it's kind of open for interpretation of the most recent polls. And so, like, if you're just including all of them and two of them are Republican pollsters, you're more at risk of making this type of mess. That being said, like, I think part of this is that pollsters job has gotten way harder because I think the answer rate for polls by phone is like less than 10% of what it was in 2016 and it was, it was surging down at that point too. Because people, when you get a random call, like, we were number when we were younger, you usually answered it. Now it's, well, five years ago, it used to be a scammer now. It's AI. Right. You know, pretending to be your grandma asking for money. I've gotten 60 layers before I answer a phone call. Like, I went to the carrier to block unknown numbers. I have a screener. I have, like, if I'm answering your phone call, it's your real person. Yeah. I can't be, I can't be the only person. Yes. I've paid money for apps that will block mobile calls like I answer the random numbers because I need someone to you so that these polls are better. Oh, fair. So you're part of the polling bias. Yeah. Well, let me ask you this, Logan, so if we understand the limitations of the polls, we understand that we've had a variety of misses and a variety of directions. What other things are you looking at? What are, when you say the fundamentals, what do we mean here? And is there anything you're looking at? People are starting to parse through the early vote data, which I always think is a little bit of a dicey proposition, especially if you don't know what, I mean, I'm not, I'm looking at it. I love it. I'm an early vote crack at it. I just, I can't get enough. And we are going to try to do is I'm going to, anyway, putting that aside, what are you seeing right now that you think people should be paying attention to? I'll tell you, I'll put my cards on table. I was saying yesterday in our planning call that we need to get a graphic that's just like the gas prices, the average today, what it was a week ago, what it was a year ago, what it is for diesel, because I don't know that there's anybody better indicator of the mood of the country and where we're likely to end up on election day. So that's my, you know, simple, heuristic. What are the sorts of things that you're specifically looking at? Yeah, I actually haven't looked at the early vote this year and I'll be honest, I'm a little scarred for life from it because in 2016, my friend that worked at the DNC was giving me all this information he was so confident about how amazing Clinton was going to do after the strong numbers in Miami, which actually went amazing for Democrats, they did, they did horrible, they're really everywhere else in the state, or at least in the northern part of the state, I should say. But like I think it's so easy to see what you want to see, voting patterns change, Democrats might even be scared about the mail and ballots after Trump was up to some stuff trying to change the rules and there wasn't successful, like this could all change the way people vote cycle to cycle. And so drawing these big conclusions from it, it literally might be a signal that Democrats have decided how much they're going to spend in early GOTV, right, and trying to bank in some votes in mail, or how much Donald Trump has decided to encourage or discourage people from using mail and ballots. Well, I remember for Democrats, 2024, the lines were out the door in northern Virginia, but we're like, oh my god, look at all these Democrats, Trump wins all seven swing states. Including, by the way, his margin of Virginia is higher than it. Oh, well, even worse than looking at the really vote data, it's like looking at like there's a long line in Fairfax County, this, you know, I mean, that's really not that I won't do that. I was going to say, I still do that, but because they're just some desperate for any sense. Okay. So early vote, you're like, just don't even look at it. Yeah, but I will also like an answer your question better next time, but I will say I anecdotally looking on Twitter, you see people cherry picking a vera, you know, I'll see the same state analyzed and totally polar opposite directions. So putting aside early vote, what else are you looking at? Yeah, honestly, I like doing a combination of quantitative and qualitative and they're just between personal conversations, focus groups I've listened to. There is so much frustration with a lot of Trump voters and I don't necessarily say like some of this is actually died in the wool Republicans, but especially soft Trump voters, they're just certainly not happy with what's being delivered. It's sort of a crisis for them about who they're going to vote for. And so these conversations are very much reflecting what I'm seeing in all these other indicators. And I genuinely think that means something. I think you got to combine that with the data because you're not going to talk to everyone. You're just not. So you're no person in America unless they're traveling all over is going to have a proper read of the whole country, but I'm also really hearing this from folks that both first and second hand there in places like Southern Texas in the Rio Grande Valley, whose family always votes for Republicans, but this year like they are just so frustrated with what they've seen from ICE, what they've dealt with with prices that they're going to flip for Tallariko. And so like, and some for Hina Josa, like this is definitely happening again. It's a question of how much and how much decides who actually is going to win these races. But I think it's really clear that the movement is real. Interesting. Well, if you want another data point off our YouTube analytics alone, I thought Trump was going to win. And now off of our YouTube analytics, I'm like, it's going to be, you know, 60 seats for the, for the Democrats. What do you mean when you say that? Well, you can just tell, like general, like what people are looking at, like, oh, what's going to in the click rate, what generally, you know, people are into what the, oh, yeah, I noticed in the comments. You know, things like that. Don't read them. We don't read them. But it's in general, you know, it turns out the reports that we get back. And then also the shareable, the like ratio, all that other stuff. I'm like, yeah, I mean, look, people call it the podcast election. So it's like, take it for something, right? Yeah. In terms of how that looks. So anyway, you have a little peek behind the curtain for everybody. Okay. Let's get to the next part with the GOP Lisa, we should tell them about our new show. Oh my God, Lexi, we have a new podcast. I'm Lexi, you want to wear two best friends, 22 years apart, but so close at heart. And I'm Lexi Giulio, the old one, which means we have wildly different references, occasionally different opinions. I'm not going to get any worse than fighting. That is wild. And I've always got something to say. If men were just honest about this, there would be so much more peace in the world. We're going to talk about dating, relationships, beauty, getting older, and the little wiser. We're best friends, but we don't always agree, because you told us how accommodating you are. Obviously, I would do what I think I could do to fight the fight, but there's only so much fight I can fight. Don't lie to me. Don't lie to me. Don't lie to me. Don't lie to me. Lier. Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts, I don't really care. I swear. I know. Bold. Trust me. Or maybe we'll talk about music and what's happening in the underground or drama and music or TV shows or the Med Gala and what the actors wore. It's a place where everyone can hang out, anyone. Wherever you're from, whatever you're like, you're welcome. And out of character from Will Ferrell's Big Money Players Network on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Pods or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Lacey Mosley, author, actor, stand-up comedian, creator and host of Scam Goddess Podcast. The True Crime Comedy Podcast, all about robbery, fraud and those who practice it. Each week I bring on incredible guests like Conan O'Brien, Iowa Debris, Lamor and Morris and Nicole Byer. Ooh, I scammed them. What? And the scams run the gamut. I also warn you and keep you safe against scammers, call your grandparents, tell your parents to stop clicking on links, please. If there's a scam, I'm here to protect you. So if you like fun, if you like comedy and you like learning and protecting yourself from criminals, start listening to Scam Goddess. on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your pocket. >> Yeah, I've got it. >> All right, turning now to the GOP, Logan, you were just talking about how Republican voters are sounding off organically behind the scenes about how they're pretty much done. Here is B8 is a farmer in Georgia, basically saying I'm done with Republicans. I'm going to go ahead and vote for John Ossoff. Let's take a listen. >> On his vineyard in southern Georgia, Gary Paulk feels the impacts of many of President Trump's policies firsthand. >> The fuel today is last as high as it would have been this time last year. The President says all the time that he is doing these nasty portations because non-citizens, people who are here illegally in some cases are taking jobs from Americans. Is that the case? >> That's just, that's not true. They're not taking jobs from Americans. And actually, a lot of times, they are filling jobs that Americans don't want more ag jobs and more labor and jobs, construction jobs. >> Paulk also worries about access to health care and rural areas after his 36-year-old daughter Amy suffered serious strokes that nearly took her life. >> Amy has come a long way, she still can't speak very well, she's just now started to eat some soft foods, but she's the fighter. >> After weighing all these factors, Paulk has decided for the first time in his life to cast a ballot for a Democrat, incumbent Senator John Ossoff. He doesn't agree with the Democrat on all issues, notably abortion, but it is Ossoff's help in getting federal aid after Hurricane Helene wreaked havoc on Paulk's grape crop that one is vote. >> Save my comments for why Americans are taking that job. But nonetheless, Mr. Polk voted for Republicans, now he's voting for John Ossoff. I also that one was interesting because the first farmer I've listened to who is not voting Democrat solely because of diesel prices and/or tariffs. And so that is an example. Another thing Logan, which I often find in these things, is people are actually very bad at being like, this is why I'm no longer done with Trump, they'll make something up, right? But a lot of the times, they come back to, it's a feeling, it's like multi-factorial. But nonetheless, it fits as you were saying with a lot of the focus group data that you've listened to. Like, where does that fit in? >> Well, most people aren't like us three, we're right there. >> Right. We think about it all the time. >> We think it's exactly give their reasons because they just are analyzing it over time. And you can see Biden's numbers dropped after Afghanistan, no one was talking about that in the next election, but it changed the way people saw. >> True. >> Right point. >> That's a good one. >> Yeah. So, what was the question you're saying? >> Just how does it fit with the focus group and other stuff that you've seen? >> Yeah, yeah, I think that is really representative. There's all sorts of different reasons, but above all else, people think they're not delivering. And the difference here is what you said about John Ossoff, which is what he is exceptional and every person in the Senate now should learn from. You need staff members that are obsessed with making people's lives better in the state or district. Because that is what everyone says about Ossoff as they call his office and they are the problem solving center, both in getting individual help and also like making changes to bills. That's what you're supposed to be doing when you're in office. >> Interesting. All right, let's put B1 up on the screen. So this shows Trump's midterm rally schedule. He's headed to Kansas. Or would have thought that one would be on the map, North Carolina, South Carolina, Iowa, Florida, Georgia and Michigan. So some of those are places we would have expected to be battlegrounds. Some of them decidedly not, South Carolina looking at you. However, how excited Logan, first of all, what can we glean from the schedule reading the tea leaves about how they're feeling about how things are going? Second of all, how excited is let's say, Mike Rogers going to be to have Trump show up in the state of Michigan. >> He's probably not going to be excited, but there's actually an argument from doing this, okay? So Donald Trump is clearly hurting Republicans. But to some degree, that's priced in. All right, the stronger the linkage, the better for dance. That's the downside of him coming. The upside is Republicans are a lot less motivated and he is better able than anyone else in their party to get a stir some excitement and energy. So if they don't have as bad of a turnout gap, they might be able to be safe in places like South Carolina, for example, which I think they're going to win, but isn't play. And then it's the persuasion gap which will be real and this certainly doesn't help. That being said, I did see Ashley Henson when she was in the White House with Trump. Every quote she said was intended to not be able to be clipped about how great Trump is. It was meant to be specifically about a mill or a- >> I noticed that. She's like, Maggie, Mr. President, for bringing steel to our state. >> Second, if you look at the look in her eyes when he says, and Ashley, we're going to be in Iowa, she has a pretty good poker face, so you really got to look at the eyes. It's the same look I have if I'm nervous at a bar and not feeling like fully myself and talking to a cute girl. She's like, he looks like, she look a little dead in the eyes and scared. >> I can't relate, I can't relate. Let's put B2 up here on the screen. Here's what Trump is currently focused on, meanwhile. He says New Mexico should immediately change its name to New America. We are not Mexico, we're the United States. The name should add great value and prestige to the home state, home values and incomes of rise. And you would even be prouder while saluting our American flag, maybe even the crooked elections that New Mexico is known for would become honest again. So, meanwhile, that's what he is focused on. And this fits very much with B3, we'll put that one on the screen. This is very interesting from The New York Times, where they talk specifically about how there's something missing from Republican ads as the midterms near. If you go down and you look, Trump has effectively disappeared from Republican campaign ads. And so, they show how Democrats have dramatically spent an ordinance amounts of money, like tens of millions of dollars, with Donald Trump's name in the ads as the closer we get to election day. Then, they show comparatively that Republican mentions of Trump after September have effectively been nuked, and especially from the time period of before the Iran War. It's basically after the Iran War, his name drops off a cliff with a lot of these Republicans in their ads, whenever they're talking about why somebody should have liked them. Yeah, that's because he's so unpopular right now. And it's also like a strength of support thing we've talked about this before. People that don't like Trump can stand him and people that like Trump are split evenly between liking and loving him. So, it's part of this is the reaction that it's going to cause. Like I think his approval rating is a little weaker than the top line number would say for that reason. And I think separate from that, right, like the big message you're seeing if there's any overall national message, something you're hearing from Abdul Al-Sahid and candidates all across the country is twofold. One, Donald Trump has the wrong priorities, two, they're campaigning on Donald Trump's priorities. But with a different set of policies to get there, and it's sort of like a message saying to some people that are Republican, I'm actually going to deliver on the change that you wanted, and we need to refocus on what our priorities are. So I think there's some Trump voters that are willing to vote for the Democrat or the independent in like a Dan Osborne situation in Nebraska because they want the priorities back to what the types of things Trump ran on, but has mostly ignored since he got into office this term. Let's put before up on the screen, this is a new Reuters poll that finds Trump falling to his lowest approval rating for their polling at 31%, which is really scraping the bottom of the barrel here and the midterms, obviously, just around the corner. You have you to ask me a few weeks ago, Logan, I was very much remembering 2018, which was a good year for Democrats, but there were originally some states like this and some districts, like red districts that were on the table. And there was a coming home for Republicans where the losses were stemmed. And ultimately, yes, Democrats had a good year, but it wasn't like a catastrophic error-defining bloodbath of the sort that could potentially be on the table this time around. However, as we become very close to the day, and Trump's approval rating continues to fall, and I'm looking gas prices still very high, a lot going on in the Middle East, but those these and the Red Sea and the administrative form moves and all of this, it doesn't seem like you're having quite that same effect as you did in 2018. In 2018, the Kavanaugh hearings really did a lot, and I was working on some campaigns at that time. The polling could see it shift in red districts. As far you haven't seen that same coalescing, there hasn't been a turnaround in the polls even in these red districts. Isn't getting to be too late in the game at this point. Yeah, I think so. I mean, it's not like it is too late in the game for state like Iowa or ones that are really close to shift, but for the whole thing, yeah, I mean, this is such a different race. Let's go back to 2017 for a sec. What happens? I think it's literally the day after, if not a few days after. You have the biggest protest, arguably in American history, for the women's march, where I think where people came for that in DC, then the inauguration, at least it felt like it. Yeah. So people who did not like Trump were outraged and scared and mad from day one, and that way built so that by the start of 2018, it was like a D+A year, and then the car was parked and it was there nationally, and in the individual Senate races and governor races and House races, the Democrats were all ready to vote and saying they were decided, and then the Republicans didn't know much about the candidates and so that gap narrowed, and it was a pretty good year polling wise. But if you look at the polling a few months earlier, before the election, it wouldn't have been, right? Here, look, I don't know which direction the polls are going to miss, so maybe it's not going to be as extreme as it looks right now, but this is clearly, I believe in the momentum. to move polls very strongly. If you're seeing a shift across the board, the direction of the campaign is definitely shifting. And here things went from, okay, Republicans are gonna have a slightly worse than average year to this could be absolutely terrible for them. And that has happened since like March, where Democrats were a little behind the curve. Help, they were losing in the national polling at a certain point last year, like up until like halfway through the year. It has been a slow shift away from the Republican party. So the momentum is not going back to them. I think it's kind of plateaued, but for month after month, Democrats were gaining. And I don't think you're gonna have a massive shift back across the country and Republican's direction in the next few weeks. - Yeah, what's fascinating? I mean, Crystal's point was talk about gas earlier. I'm looking right now. Gas is 427 a gallon nationally. I mean, what are we doing here? Right, it's 427 a gallon. It's been over $4 a gallon for six months. The price of Brent crude oil, not that anybody should care, because what you care about ultimately is refrying products. The price of Brent crude oil is $111, barrel. I mean, it's the highest that it's been in months. So, you know, you put those two things together, and that means that 427 is only going one direction in the next couple of weeks. When people go to vote, gas will be over $4 a gallon. I can say that pretty confidently. And diesel will be well over six bucks. If you're in California or in, you know, in a lot of these other battleground states, like for example, in Michigan, Michigan is some of the higher gas prices, around 450. They're national or they're statewide diesel prices around, you know, $6.42, which is higher than the national average. I mean, at a certain point like these things, plus the approval rating and all that, they're just, it's going to sink you. Like it will sink the type of momentum that you're getting. - And I think Trump is literally, like his biggest weakness comes so into play during an economic challenge that people blame him for, because he is not doing what every other candidate would do. - I feel your pain. - I feel your pain. - He's not saying I hear you. He's saying you're wrong. The prices are, I think just yesterday, he said the prices are going down, down, down. And people don't want to hear that, they want to hear, I'm working on this and I'm going to do my best to make it better instead of saying you're dreaming. Like it's just insulting for people and that's part of the reason why some folks are willing to say, China grab his attention and say listen, this is real. That's the way to tell the president that it's real if you're a Republican and you start voting the other way in a red state. - Yeah, I get it. Last one I have for you, let's put B5 up on the screen here. So we've been talking all about the Senate, right? And that's where the most exciting action is because that's the house that's most in play, the chamber of this most in play. However, if we look at the house, I think most people think, okay, Democrats are going to win the house. But there is a question of how far the wave goes. And so the Washington Post did this breakdown of now you've got some deep red districts that have become house battlegrounds and they lay out some races to watch here. And we've had a few candidates on who would be in some of these districts, we talked to Nicole Loclin last week in floor to 26. It's the R plus 18 districts in Florida. However, heavily Latino seems to be shifting very dramatically. What sort of outcomes do you think are on the table in the house? Because I ran in 2010 as a Democrat disastrous year for Democrats and it was a sort of year where you were looking at like, oh my God, this person lost, that person won 2008 was the opposite on the Democratic side. There were races that suddenly were in play that nobody was paying attention to. That had very little money spent and raised they're completely under the radar. So what are the sort of outcomes that you think could be on the table here in the house? - All right, I didn't know that crystal that kind of breaks my heart. You'd be so good at it. Although you're ready to show us. I guess it worked out. - Things worked out, just fine. Look, they're worried about me. - My cousin ran in 2015 in Loudoun County. And as a Democrat, he lost by like one percent. He was outspent 10 to one. And that was like the last time Loudoun County was competitive and it was an amazing year for Republicans, like he would have won easily. He's now moved to Ohio. So unfortunately for him, but it is all about the years. Anyway, I think the thing that's unique about this cycle is you have a lot of really great candidates. There's a lot we can say about Democratic leadership in failures last year, but one thing they didn't fail at, and maybe this isn't Democratic leaders, maybe this is the infrastructure of grassroots, so many good candidates ran in states, in races across the country, because what happens in waves that is in your tough places, people will run because they've had enough and they want to make change happen. And on the other side, people won't even, you can't even get a candidate sometimes, right? And so like that is what certainly happened to Democrats in space in this cycle. So if it becomes a mega wave, they have a real chance in lots of competitive districts, like at least a phonic district, to me looks competitive. And Blake is the first thing to start to cheat, but like he has raised so much money from actual donors, he's running against Anthony Constantino, who's been self-funding. And when you have these candidates raising these enormous amount of money in places that are supposed to be over R+10, but people are really dissatisfied and it hits that district extra hard. Now you have a chance to be able to win, right? So there is like, to me the median scenario is like Democrats 233 in the house. And part of, it could be, - How much the gain does that explain it to you? - It's not that much because Democrats barely lost the house in the last two cycles. So it would be like a gain of like 20 seats. But if it gets bad enough for them, you're gonna see some breakthroughs, even in a very cherry-mandered era, which makes big gains harder. You know, it's really a question of how many of these hard-to-reach places that have Republicans that have never had to run a competitive race before in their lives that are just not ready for it. - Yeah, I mean, just to put a finer point on it, you mentioned at least DeFonix district. This is the district Donald Trump won by 21 points. - Yes. - That's insane. - It is insane. - For that to be even talked about as competitive, yeah. - Yeah, I mean, I can't wait to see. - Because yeah, if you move, let's say you win that by five. - I mean, that's still humiliating. - Yeah, you gotta contest it in the future. You can't cherry-mander your way out of this. You know, so there's always a certain amount that you can do at a state wide. My biggest questions, you haven't spent any time on this, but state legislators too, for the next upcoming map cycle and for what all that will look like. And especially after what we saw in Virginia and a lot of the crazy stuff that Republicans pulled, like if you get them legislator sweeps, which I've heard is on the table and like some very-- - I think so. - Swing states as well. Like I'm like, a lot of these maps are gonna be cherry-mandered right in the other directions. - Well, for next year, yeah. You're probably gonna see mid-district cherry-mander and become more common. - It's gonna be the norm now. - Yeah, it's how I win it. - No, you're making a really good point. And actually, this is where Republicans, I never thought about this before. This might be the biggest mistake Republicans have made. - Oh, the mid-district thing? - I totally agree with you. - Because now, like, 2030, this is me getting ahead of my skis, but whatever, right? - Just do what you do. - I think in 2028 Democrats will more likely than now in the White House. Obviously, it's competitive, but I think they're gonna win. Which means in 2030, they're probably gonna have a terrible year because it's a midterm. And normally, that means the GOP would be able to, like, cherry-mander the heck out of the map, again, like they did in the 2010s. But if we're doing, like, mid-districting, Democrats can lock in a lot of advantages and places to be able to staunch how much of a wave 2030 would be, which means the Republicans don't get 10 years. - Yeah, no, that's what I'm thinking. Like, my immediate reaction, because that's exactly what happened. People were saying about Obama, remember, Obama, like, what was it? I forget how many state legislators that were lost by Democrats under Obama. - Yeah, exactly, it was a disaster. And the way that structurally screwed them going into-- - Like, if you had to always intend instead of '06, in a way-- - Exactly. - Completely different. - We live in a different world, if that happened. - I don't think people in the House-- - In 2012, he comes into a second term with another trifecta-- - Right, exactly. Who even knows? What happened? Like, there's so many different things that we could be living in. Anyway, yeah, nerdy segment, but I hope you guys enjoyed it. - Thanks Logan. Thanks for stopping by, man. Appreciate you. - No problem, guys. - I'm Hamza. - And I'm Martin. - And we're the hosts of Out of Character. It's a podcast. How are you gonna get to us? - We are the best podcast in the entire world. I swear. - I know, bold. - And how nice they were, or if we tip them or not, come and find out. - Sometimes we'll talk about that weird news story from last week. It's the one you're thinking about, trust me. Or maybe we'll talk about music and what's happening in the underground, or drama and music, or TV shows, or the Met Gala and what the actors wore. And if you wanna see what that's like, come join us. On the iHeart radio app, Apple Pods, or wherever you get your podcasts. - Lisa, we should tell them about our new show. - Oh my god, Lexi, we have a new podcast. I'm Lexi Iwaneo, we're two best friends, 22 years apart, but so close at heart. And I'm Lisa Di Giulio, the old one, which means we have wildly different references, occasionally different opinions. - I'm not gonna get anywhere to fighting. - That is wild. - Now in my 30s, being the founder of new shoes, good taste is my business. - Because you told us how a comedy is. Don't lie to me. Don't lie to me. Don't lie to me. Don't lie to me. Lier. Listen on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I don't really care. Thank you, Crime Comedy Podcasts, all about robbery, fraud, and those who practice it. Each week I bring on incredible guests like Conan O'Brien, Iowa Debris, Lamorne Morris, and Nicole Buyer. Ooh, I scammed them. What? You're a generational yapper. Like me. I also warn you, and keep you safe against scammers, call your grandparents, tell your parents to stop clicking on links, please. So if you like fun, if you like comedy, and you like learning, and protecting yourself from criminals, start listening to SCAM Goddess on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. SCAM Goddess! JD Vance sat down with Mark Halperin for an interview on a variety of topics, but Halperin pushed him in particular on Trump family corruption. Let's take a listen to how he handled that. One thing we hear from the two-way community all the time, and I bet you hear it too, is a disappointment and concern that the president's family has gotten much wealthier while you've been in office. How do you feel about the fact that they've gotten wealthier while you've been in office? Well, I think they were already very, very wealthy family, and I think it's a family. I think it's a family that's suffered extraordinary financial consequences for him being president the first time. And I think if you look at the long sweep of the first Trump administration, obviously that four-year period in between and the second Trump administration, I just don't understand the argument that somehow politics has made Donald Trump or his family much better off. I mean, their lives were nearly destroyed, their business was nearly destroyed. They tried to throw the president in jail for something like 900 years, so I don't see the benefit there. Now, I do that there's a separate concern that I sometimes think gets muddled with the first concern, which is that is DC just too corrupt of a town. The people get too rich for knowing the right people. Do they sell access to the president? Now, I've never seen any evidence that anybody's selling access to the president or certainly selling access to me. But like if there's a credible accusation there, I guarantee you the president of the United States is going to be the first person in line to say that's ridiculous and despicable, and I am too. No one is selling access to the president, he's never seen any evidence of that. I mean, I think that is pretty preposterous, just to give one example, and Pedro Gonzalo shout out to him, tweeted about this, he says, "Last year, Vance's inner circle opened a private club in D.C. with a $500,000 membership fee, virtually. Everyone involves a close fan's ally from David Sacks to Donald Trump, Jr. The whole idea is to have an exclusive place for Trump aligned elites to hang out close to the halls of power. It really is remarkable what A Hit the Crit Vance is." I mean, we could go through, we could spend the entire day going through the Trump era scandals, some involving directly him, a lot of which has to do with his crypto, wealth, newly found, crypto wealth, even if you think so, about all of the schlocky merchandise that he's constantly, the sneakers and the watches and the God knows what else that they're constantly hawking. And you sit there with a stray face, "Oh, I don't think they profited off of the presidency. Literally no one buys it." Even Republicans don't buy this at this point. You actually made a fantastic point yesterday where you should say, "We find that disgusting and that's why we told Kimberly Gilfoyle to go and we've opened DOJ investigation." But Trump's not going to have that. He needs you to defend him. I was reading a little bit behind the scenes about that ridiculous woman who became the press secretary, Katie Zachariah. I don't even know if that's her name. I didn't have enough time to learn it. And now I don't need to forget that she exists completely. Apparently, the reason that she was picked is that she would strategically book herself on television at the moments when she knew Trump was going to be watching TV, like, "Oh, I don't know, 10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time." And she would put herself in a position where she was like vehemently defending Trump. Trump went over the chief of staff's head and specifically booked her because he needs people to defend him specifically on television. So when Trump sees a clip and you don't adequately kind of suck up to him enough, that's it's just you can't have that. Like, the Kimberley Gilfoil example we gave is exactly what you would do rationally if you were running, but you're not dealing with a rational actor. It's just funny, too, because you can see how JD will break whenever he wants to. Like, for example, in that same interview, Mark Halperin goes, "Okay, are you going to endorse Netanyahu?" And he was like, "No, I don't endorse foreign leaders." Not true. No, it's a different foreign leaders. We play a clip on our show of him in Victor Orbán doing a rally in Hungary, where he's the vice president. And which, you know, you probably shouldn't be doing that period, which is because Orbán lost, which is pretty humiliating. But beyond that, and Trump is indoors, all kinds of Bolsonaro and all these other people across the world. But it's like, he's not going to get in trouble with Trump for not endorsing baby. But the one thing is if you don't say that he hasn't enriched himself, it's over, right? Side note. But did you see that Bolsonaro is using AI to like change his sort of like, shrubby white guys, the pointers into like hot, Latina and sex to make it look like that too? He's supporting him. Props to him, you know. Anyway. There's always a humiliation in terms of our actual supporters. Our friend Juan was sending me, he was down in Brazil yesterday. So he's sending me-- We should have him on, actually. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Actually, Juan, now you're in. He literally sent me this picture of Flavio Borsanaro 2026 and that Trump was right about everything had in English, together being sold at Brazilian rallies, just so people know. He said it's very 2024 down in-- Interesting. Side note. Anyway, it is a day that ends and why, which means we have a number of new potential corruption scandals circling the Trump administration, which is also circling the drain. And this one really sort of fits into the lane of sub-pidivipers and they're all coming after each other now, as the wheels come off and everyone is starting to hate one another and the glow of victory and sense of ascendance is gone. The bloom is off the rose, so to speak. Now you have these fights starting to break down. Kimberly Gillfoyle was one of them and now you have this one. Let's put this up on the screen. This is reporting from Axios. They say, "Secret pay for play text rocks the Trump White House." Okay. So we've got a number of characters involved here. We've got Alina Habba. We've got Rick Grinnell, who previously was very involved in particular in some of the Venezuela machinations. And we have this Turkish businessman, Terhan Milden, who Alina Habba just married. So Alina is alleging that Rick Grinnell, sort of put the screws to her now husband, Milden, to donate millions of dollars, some of which was supposed to go to this sketchy African enterprise and no one's really nailed down what that piece of this was supposed to be. And the other half, which was supposed to go to the Kennedy Center donation, which along with the ballroom, something Trump is very fixated on. And once it's named after him and they're closing and they want to renovate, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So this money was supposed to go to the Kennedy Center as a way to curry favor with Trump and gain this Turkish businessman access to Trump and the administration and get the insider VIP treatment, which by the way, apparently he did get. He was spotted at the Kennedy Center next to JD Vance, et cetera. However, now Alina is claiming that Rick Grinnell stole this money and never gave it to the Kennedy Center fund. They she brought this to the White House and now it's a whole thing. He denies it completely. I genuinely actually looking at this, not that I find any of it preposterous to believe that the sort of favor trade is going on. But he does make some good points about the story, not totally adding up. And her numbers have shifted over time and they use like a British spelling of the word, I think center, which he wouldn't have used because he's not British. So anyway, there are some holes in the story. But soccer, first of all, no one would be shocked if this sort of paid play thing was going on. Very similar to what was going on with Kimberly Guilfoyle while she's promising, hey, you give me this and I'll be able to help you out in this variety of ways. But also now we have a lot of drama and messiness, which is truly breaking out. Oh, you know, I believe Rickson is a story, but what I do not, what I don't, what I definitely believe is Alina Habba is using this to look, this is what people don't get. And none of these people have any principles. And at the end of the day, she wants power and she's, she's a power hungry and a media like literally like all she wants to do is be linked to Trump because she was his lawyer, personal lawyer, nominated, humiliated, obviously, whenever that didn't work out for her. Now she's married some billionaire who people didn't even know anything about trying to use the money and proximity to Trump. Apparently, you know, there's some allegations around business dealings and things like that. But what the pit of viper story kind of shows you is this is what it's all going to look like. Come a year from now, a year from now, we will be sitting here and covering some of the most shocking, you know, revelations in terms and what sometimes they may not live up to the hype or not. But like every other day, there will be congressional investigation subpoenas, these people will be before Congress. There will be an, if you thought the Supreme Court stuff precedent that was set previously was crazy, it's good about to get crazier. We have executive privilege and total immunity for official acts. All of that will be rechallenged in court as they take them. for not fulfilling their obligation to come before Congress. So stonewalling, special counts like I could go on forever. -You're also going to have more people who, you know, Kimberly Gilfoil may take this path, who see that the Trump ship is sinking and want to get off. -Yes. -And so they offer up what they have, and they offer to testify. And so you'll have all of these grudge matches of people who have probably secretly hated each other for a long time, playing out in public as well. So we're just beginning to enter that potential era. We also have more reporting from the Washington Post here about Trump's ballroom fund. Let's put this up on the screen from the Washington Post. They dug in here to the full list of major donors, something that has not been previously reported. And keep this up on the screen. Let's take through some of these names. We'll be familiar to you. I'll look, who's number one on the list there, Sagar? The Adelson Family Foundation, surprise, surprise. Coming in, number one on the list, $25 million donated so that Trump can have his ballroom. Next, we've got Apple sucking up to him with the big $25 million. Then we have the co-founder of the Dishnack Network and Echo Star. Then we've got Nvidia, Jensen Hwang, and all of these people/entities coming in at $25 million. Then we drop down to Google. We've got $22 million. We've got the Lura and Isaac Pearl Mudder Foundation, Isaac is the former CEO of Marvel Entertainment, $20 million. Lockheed Martin, those defense contractors can always be counted on for some millions flown into your coffers. And next, we have Microsoft at $10 million. So a list of players that you would probably expect. Let's go ahead and put the next piece up on the screen here because this is where the corruption angle comes in. So this is a chart from this same article that shows not only who is paying, but also indicates that about half of the entities or individuals who have donated to this ballroom fund have also received federal contracts during his second term. So everyone knows this is a big priority for Trump. He talks literally obsessively about it far more than he talks about your condition, your standard of living, the cost of living, any of that. He is obsessed with this frickin ballroom. And so you've got people who know this is the way to get in his good graces and ultimately to potentially be able to get federal contracts. Now, what the White House responds is that the people who complain about this would also complain if it was taxpayer spending it. True. >> Yes, correct. >> I complain about both of these things. Guess what, we have a process in place. If you have a priority in something you want funded, you are supposed to go through Congress and get it approved. And then there is some sort of democratic check on this. And yes, I would oppose that because I think there are far greater priorities than you having this gilded ballroom that you're obsessed with that you want to put your name on. So yes, you're right. I do oppose either funding mechanisms through the corrupt donor process or through the now taxpayers dollars are not only going to, you know, your various wars, illegal and horrific wars overseas, but are also going to your gilded ballroom. >> See, but the real question is whether you support unlimited funds to destroy the ballroom. Because that's not a matter of what it costs. It has to be raised to the ground and the original East Wing must be built brick, you know when billionaires are like, I ship dimension over and re-deconstructed the marble. That's what I want. I want people crawling through the landfills and re-getting the East Wing supplies. Wherever it is, no matter the cost, tens of billions. >> Yeah, we're making a ducking spray program. >> I think we can alter it down as like a community effort. >> I'm sure. >> Like as it come a great killing together. >> And by me? >> I'll be there. >> And then, you know, the restoration can be done as a sort of jobs program. >> I use the administration. >> Anyway, actually returning to the graphic. Can we put it back up on the screen? The original C3, just so I can show people. It's very important to actually go down this list so you guys can see Adelson goes without saying that's just the Israel pay for play screen. But take a look at the other people who are three out of the top five, Apple, Nvidia, and Google. Well, what do you think all these people have in common, shall we? So for example, Nvidia needs Trump on export controls. 25 million is nothing. They print that in a single second over at that company, which has a lot, the Nvidia's market cap is larger than the entire European stock market, all right? And then same whenever it comes to Apple, why? Tariffs, because their tariff exemption on China is the only thing keeping that company together and all of its profits. And yet, even with that, remember, if you guys, I like I got me, I was day one iPhone duo customer. I mean, these things are going for $2,500 now, right? So $3,000 if you want a terabyte. I mean, obviously I get it. It's always been more expensive, but that's still pretty shocking. And a lot of that is because of global trade. Tim Cook and now the new CEO have played Trump like a fiddle for years whenever it comes to tariff exemption. And then finally, Google. So obviously, if they say it as settlement funds from Trump's lawsuit against YouTube, but you and I both know what this is. This is about antitrust exemption and specifically with Google what they really need. I was just reading about this. Sergei Brinn basically went 20 years without ever being involved in politics just didn't give a shit, right? Well, all of a sudden the California wealth tax comes on and Sergei who has some maha girlfriend or something like that now and a super pro Trump, he's never spent more money in politics is an entire life than against the billionaire tax in California. That's what this is all about. It's purely, it's not even ideological, it's greed. Like straight up greed. And continuing down Pearl Mudder from Marvel Hollywood. I mean, people have no idea 'cause they probably have never looked the paramount merger and everything that's gone on also with Disney. They need significant regulatory approval and everything behind the scenes on Hollywood. I don't doubt that some of this is ideological but it's not a coincidence that the vast majority have immense business interests before the government. And that's of course, of course. Yeah, very obvious what's going on here and it's utterly disgusting. Saga, you flagged this this morning. I'll put this up on the screen from ProPublica. New revelations about how not only is Trump engaged in all sorts of corrupt schemes, but he's also using his FBI to erase a bunch of investigations that were previously ongoing. There were some reporting Susan Collins in particular. Now we've got some new information here from ProPublica about a South Carolina alleged bribery investigation. Well, the investigation part is real. The bribery allegations obviously are alleged that may have saved both Lindsey Graham and Jim Clyburn. So a little bit of bipartisanship here. Not surprising when you're talking about corruption from this investigation. Saga, what do we know about what was going on here? What's alleged to have been going on here? It's kind of complicated, I'll explain it. So Martin Cowell, former CEO of Hawaii Naval Contractor, told the FBI his business model was trading campaign donations for federal contracts. And in South Carolina, he made cash for contracts arrangements allegedly with Lindsey Graham, James Clyburn, and Joe Wilson. So this is a bipartisan scheme. And who each of whom said he asked them for 100 grand. Graham met with Cowell and one of their lobbyists at a stake house here in Washington. Graham's campaign required a 40,000 contribution just for a 45 minute meeting. Cowell says Graham agreed to support 10 million a year in funding in exchange for a $100,000 pledge. That same week, his office confirmed to the Office of Naval Research, $10 million should go to the Natech University, South Carolina partnership, and the contract was awarded in July of 2020. So the contract timeline and all that stuff basically lines up. Similar thing happened with James Clyburn, let LD specific to this company had language that appeared in the House Appropriations Bill. Clyburn, remember, is one of the most powerful members of the United States of Congress. So these two people basically come together, or these people come out, and in late 2024, they go after them. Basically they're saying, hey, you guys are subjects. After Trump returns to office, the DOJ public integrity section loses its authority to bring new cases. The assigned prosecutor leaves the cash betel purges the corruption unit. The person who was in charge of the unit then fired in October of 2025. And the agent who originally was looking into this is pushed out in early of 2026. They now say that the case is dead. So basically, the guy pled guilty in 2022 to a legal campaign donation and loan fraud. He's actually serving prison sentence for 87 months. But they shut the investigation down into Lindsey Graham and Jim Clyburn. Basically, Clyburn and Graham's office and all these other people are like, oh, he's a convicted felon. He's telling lies and all that, which might be true. But also, if you take a look here, at the end of the day, and to be fair, they're like, he's seeking a sentence, reduction and all that. ProPublica hasn't pretty dead to rights in the fact that regardless of whether it was true or not, it was not properly investigated. And that's what cash betel and the FBI. Obviously, they say we looked into it and nothing came out of it. But, you know, I mean, the story, here's the thing. The details do line up. Like he had the dinner, they gave the cash, the contract flowed. I mean, I wouldn't say it's enough for me, but it was smoke and all of that that's around here. So FBI shut it down. Just wanted to give a shout out to ProPublica because these types of stories are so difficult to do and they actually did all the leg work. Well, the link in the description if you want to go read it. Yeah, they did a fantastic work on this. And, you know, I think some of the most shameful stuff that Trump has done, too, is these like pay for pardon things. But all of these criminal broadsters who've done horrific things and, you know, are let off the hook because they hire the right person and funnel one into the right person and suck up to Trump in the right ways. And it's utterly disgraceful and disgusting of use of power. - Exactly. - All right, let's get to property tax. (upbeat music) - Lisa, tell them a better new show. I'm Lexi Yuanil, we're two best friends, 22 years apart, but so close at heart. And I'm Lisa Giulio, the old one, which means we have wildly different references, occasionally different opinions, and at this point in my footies, I've lived it all. Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. - I'm Lacey Mosley, author, actor, standup, comedian, creator, and host of SCAM Goddess Podcast. Each week, I bring on an amazing guest. - Ooh, I scammed them. - What? - And now you can catch full episodes of my show on YouTube. - Start listening to SCAM Goddess on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ SCAM Goddess ♪ - There are thousands of podcasts that can tell you how to better yourself. Get worse with Kyle Proo is not one of those podcasts. So if you're interested in getting thinner, going to therapy, starting peptide, setting boundaries, taking supplements, making your better, getting closer, then I would humbly recommend other podcasts. If you're interested in blackmail, love, bombing, cloning yourself, or getting revenge, then we've got a little something, something for a dastardly individual like you. Listening to get worse with Kyle Proo on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. - This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed Human.