Speaker 1The polls say Republicans are likely going to get absolutely shellacked in the midterm elections. Today, I'm going to talk about why that is happening. There are four specific reasons, and we're going to go through all of them. And then we're going to talk about one specific reason why Democrats could totally blow it. Plus, we'll get to male cheerleaders in the NFL, obese, psychotic women getting shot in New York City, and fashionistas who apparently love Nazis. This is The Ben Shapiro Show. Okay, so there are four reasons that Republicans look like they're about to get their asses handed to them in the midterms. Today, I'm going to go through why things look pretty rough for the Republicans. Tomorrow, I'll talk about why they could buck history and the Democrats could fall apart. But here is the very short story. People want normalcy. I've been saying this for literally years. They just want normalcy. In 2024, Trump was the normie candidate, and Kamala Harris and Joe Biden were very not normie. In 2020, people wrongly perceived Joe Biden as a normie, and so he won. Again, what people want in the United States from their politics is very simple. They basically want two things. One, a healthy economy. Two, they want to feel secure. Those are the things. That's all the things. Every single poll is downstream of how people feel about those two things, economic success and the prospect thereof, and security. In fact, every time you look at a poll of priorities, everything can be boiled down to those two things. Harvard-Harris poll, July 2026. Looking at which issues, dominate voters' concerns, the top two issues are price increases, inflation, affordability, 34%, economy and jobs, 30%. By far, by far, the top two issues. And then healthcare, which is also a cost and affordability issue. So the top three issues, like 85% combined, again, you can pick more than one. The top three issues are all economic security related. The next issues are crime and drugs, 15%, U.S.-Iran conflict, 15%, immigration, 21%. Those are all security related. And then you have corruption at 19%, which is people concerned that other priorities are taking people away from the things they ought to care about, like economy and security. And again, that makes sense. This is the reason why people institute governments. The Constitution of the United States essentially deals with a federal government that is capable of doing two things. One, protecting private property rights, and two, ensuring national security. That's the whole thing. So again, every election in the United States comes down to those two things. And that's the whole thing. So again, every election in the United States comes down to those two things. In varying degrees, economic success and security, always. And how people feel about whether those things are being achieved will determine whether the party in power retains power or not. So this brings us to four reasons for why the Republicans look like they're going to have a bad election cycle, like a very bad election cycle. One, obvious off your election dynamics, which we'll talk about in a second. Two, President Trump is extraordinarily distractible. He is not focused on the things that people want him to be focused on. And he feels like he is picking every apple off every tree. And he's not focused on the things that people want him to be focused on. Three, bad candidates do not help. And four, there are actual traitors in the GOP who want Trump and the Republicans to lose. You want Mike Johnson to lose and John Thune to lose and are more than excited. They're ecstatic about the idea of a fractured Republican party. So some of these four things can be changed. Some can't and are basically baked into the cake. So let's begin with where we are because we are now, it's September, we are now about two months away from the election. In the polling data at this point, the Democrats are about six and a half points up in the generic congressional ballot. In 2022, it was basically dead even at this point. In 2018, it was D plus eight about now, that was a good year for Democrats. In 2014, it was D plus 1.5, which was a decent year for Republicans. Now, good news, Republicans generally outperform the generic congressional polling in terms of seats. Because you don't vote for generic Congress, you vote for your specific Congress person. So it may not be as disastrous as it sounds. But in the Senate, things are looking good. And in the Senate, things are looking good. And in the Senate, things are looking pretty negative for the Republicans right now. North Carolina is a state that President Trump won by some four points in the last election cycle. And North Carolina right now looks like it's going to go for the Democrats. Roy Cooper is up eight versus Michael Watley. Texas, which is a state that Trump won by 13 points. James Tallarico, the self-righteous LGBTQ plus minus divided by a sign advocate howdy doody doll, is up two against Ken Paxton. We'll get to more on that in a minute. In Ohio, Sherrod Brown, who had a formidable record of winning, elections in Ohio before he was defeated by Bernie Moreno in the last election cycle. He's running again against John Husted, who took J.D. Vance's seat. And Sherrod Brown right now is up about three points against Husted in Ohio. Ohio, again, is a state that President Trump won going away. He won by 11 in Ohio. Maine, which is a state Trump lost. Troy Jackson, who is basically Graham, Platt, and the like, is up two versus Susan Collins. She's a survivor, but that is a very tight election. Alaska, a person named Mary Peltola, is up two against Stan Sullivan. Alaska is a state that President Trump won, again, by 13 points. Iowa, right now, is about dead even. Ashley Hinson, the Republican, is up about a point and a half against Josh Turek, the Democrat. If that polling were to hold, Republicans would lose the Senate, which, again, is insane considering that Trump won pretty much all of these seats, many of them by double digits. 13 Alaska, 11 in Ohio, 13 in Texas, 13 in Iowa. Okay, so this brings us to reason number one where Republicans have a problem with the Senate. And the reason number one is that Republicans have a problem, and this is the obvious one. You all know the answer already. Midterm elections are bad for the party in power. And that heavily correlates with the approval rating of the president at the time of the election. So in 1982, for example, President Reagan's approval rating was at 42%, and Democrats picked up 26 seats in the House and one seat in the Senate. Fast forward four years, Reagan's approval ratings were in the 67% range. Democrats still picked up eight seats in the Senate and five seats in the House. In 1990, H.W.'s approval ratings were at 58%. Democrats picked up seven in the House and one in the Senate. In 94, Clinton got wiped out. His approval ratings were in the mid-40s, and Republicans picked up 54 seats in the House and eight in the Senate. That, of course, was the big Republican flip. First time Republicans had won Congress in 30 years. In 98, there was basically no change. Bill Clinton's approval ratings were 66% at the time. In 2002, Republicans gained control. They gained control of the U.S. Senate with a couple of seats, but that was because it was right after 9-11, and George W. Bush had a 63% approval rating. By 2006, again, reversion to the norm. Bush's approval rating was in the mid-30s, and Democrats had a wipeout election in 2006. They picked up 30 seats in the House and six seats in the Senate. In 2010, Republicans had a wipeout election against the Democrats. Barack Obama's approval rating at the time was 44%. Republicans picked up 63 seats in the House and six seats in the Senate. In 2014, again, Republicans had a good year. Obama was stuck at 41%, and the Republicans picked up nine in the Senate. And 13 in the House. In 2018, you remember the first time around for Trump, Democrats picked up control of the House. They gained 40 seats from Republicans, and Republicans actually won a couple of Senate seats because it was a very weird election cycle. Trump's approval rating at the time was 41%. And of course, the last midterm election cycle, 2022, Republicans picked up control of the House, and Democrats picked up a Senate seat, and Joe Biden's approval rating was 40%. So right now, Republicans are defending somewhere between 21 and 26 vulnerable seats in the House. So that'll limit their losses. They're not defending 40, 50 seats. That is because of migration. A lot of purple seats have turned red. Migration from purple areas has turned some seats blue. So that means fewer vulnerable seats for Republicans. And again, the House is pretty closely divided right now, obviously. In the Senate, as we've mentioned, Republicans are vulnerable in a wide variety of states. So right now, again, Democrats look like they're in pretty good shape in the off-year election cycle, and that's normal. It is normal for the out-of-party power to look pretty good. Again, right now, if you look at our sponsors over at Kalshi, they believe the Democrats have the advantage in Maine, in Ohio, that they have the advantage in North Carolina, that they have the advantage in Michigan. So factor number one, midterm election, the president has a low 30s approval rating, doesn't bode well. Which brings us to the things that you can change. You can't change the timing. You can't change the fact that when you're the in power and people are in a bad mood, they tend to swivel to the other party. Happens all the time. But this brings us to factor number two. And this really is the biggest factor in the problems for Republicans looking forward to the election. All right, coming up, we'll get to the second reason why Republicans got some 2026 troubles. But, you know, we have bigger troubles than that, even than 2026. One of those problems is continuous inflation of the currency. We eventually have to inflate or tax your way out of it. It's one of the reasons why diversification into precious metals has always been a smart move. Now, I can't tell you where gold is going to be six months from now because I don't know. And nobody does. But I do pay attention when some of the largest financial institutions on planet Earth put their own numbers on paper. JP Morgan is telling clients gold could hit six thousand bucks an ounce by Q4. Citibank has put a ninety dollar target on silver. Those are their predictions, not mine. Both metals are still trading below those targets right now. Again, forecasts are not guarantees. Things could change. But if you're looking at the way the currency is being inflated globally right now, if you're looking at the way the currency is being inflated globally right now, if you're looking at countries like the United States and something hard and fast like precious metals, not a bad investment. Take a look at the central banks. They bought a record 289 tons of gold last quarter, up 62 percent year over year. This is one of the reasons I recommend Golden Crest Metals. They're a boutique firm with transparent pricing, widely recognized liquid coins and real people, not a giant call center. Right now, get a free 2026 info kit or a free portfolio review, plus up to 25 grand in free silver on qualifying purchases. Call 888-429-3999. Text Ben to metals at 638257 or call 888-429-3999. or go to goldencrestmetals.com slash Ben. factor number two is that president trump is not focused purely on the two things that matter the economy or security he's been fragmentary in his approach to both of those things see here's the thing when it comes to politics most people are not granular addicts of politics even most people who consume this show for example don't necessarily consume it every single day the percentage of americans who consume politics at granular level they're watching it day to day like a sport or something is very low so overall what do americans want they just want direction they want a narrative they want a gestalt they want a feeling of what is happening they want solidity they want predictability they want to know where those where everything's going right president trump is famous for none of those things he's not famous for being predictable for being solid for being narratively consistent now there are benefits to that right because trump is non-ideological because he is a so-called pragmatist this means that he is wedded to any particular ideology he will pick from various buckets and he his policy will be very trial and error he'll try something it fails he tries something new but the result is especially when the president is is running issue to issue that the administration feels and is narratively confusing so take the economy again the american people are very concerned about the economy now realistically the economy right now is doing pretty well our unemployment rate remains low historically our inflation rate is down in the mid threes okay so it's not amazing but it's also not catastrophic right now we need to bring it down a little bit so that it gets below the rate of increase in wages but we are in by no means are we in a disaster level economy here in the united states obviously the stock market is doing quite well we have a series of booming businesses okay but people feel discombobulated they feel as though there's a grab bag of various policies none of them directed at a singular end so let's say that the president actually were narratively directed and let's say that the president said listen here's what i want i want economic productivity we need to be the leading economy on planet earth the way that you become the leading economy on planet earth is to drive up productivity to drive up innovation that means leaving money in the pocket of the american people so that they can build and consume that means relieving regulation that means battening down the hatches against global opponents like china but it also means cutting better trade deals with our friends right we have a singular end that singular end is america out producing out competing defeating everyone else on earth and not just in a zero-sum way maximizing economic gains and everything is geared toward that now the president doesn't tend to talk like that and so what you end up with is a weird sort of grab bag of policy so on the one hand he wants productivity so he's very pro data centers for example but also he wants protection against the of global economics he wants tariffs does he want low prices because he says he wants inflation to go down does he want low prices or does he want to reduce the interest rates and increase the prices does he want trade war with canada or does he want you to have cheaper lumber so that you can build and these are all discombobulated policies does he want regulatory relief or does he want to take government stakes in private companies does president trump want to ferret out waste fraud and abuse and put his vp on it or does he want family and friends making bang including people who are associated with the administration who is he going to deploy to discuss economics is he going to deploy scott besant the treasury secretary who is good at it or is he going to deploy peter navarro and howard lutnick to rant about tariffs and railroads that discombobulation has a cost again it's okay for people to feel a little discombobulated when they feel like things are going swimmingly people can stand an awful lot of confusion if overall they feel safe and secure and economically successful but when things start to feel dicey if they don't feel like we're driven toward an actual end it starts to feel like you're a sea in choppy waters the same thing by the way is true with national security again there are only two issues and two issues in the end for the american population economics security that's it so on certain issues president trump has been perfectly consistent right illegal immigration is a national security issue he's been very consistent on it which is why that has always been his best issue but on national security it feels discombobulated it does does the president want to face down america's enemies like iran or does he want to treat with them while ripping on allies right does he want to take an anti-russian position does he want to go to the eu and rip on the eu does he want to yell at the italian prime minister does he want to be friends with the italian prime minister like what are we doing does he want to oppose china i mean every aspect because china has been interfering in a wide variety of ways in the american economy even in our election system or does he want to make nice with china and talk about what a great friend he is with xi jinping and even with regard to specific policies even the ones that i like what does he actually want to do when it comes to iran does he want to treat iran as an implacable foe and does he want to bring them down the way that reagan did the soviet union or does he want to pretend that they're rational actors and deploy jd vance to broker a crappy mou does he want to open the strait of hormuz or abandon the strait of hormuz does he want to land via ai or does he want to send jd vance to talk about how wonderful the pakistanis are like what what is all of this and when you feel confused and you feel dyspeptic you tend to turn to the other party now again there is some method to the madness historically speaking for president trump his approach politically has always been laser pointer with cat right the media are the cat and he just points the laser and then they just jump wherever he wants them to jump but when the seas are placid that's fine when the seas get choppy you start to feel a little seasick and right now people are getting sick of feeling whipsawed and you can see this right one of the kind of fascinating things about trump's disapproval versus approval rating this is from nate silver's aggregation of polls so you can see where the streams crossed i've mentioned this many times his approval and his disapproval ratings so basically his approval and disapproval ratings crossed streams for the first time when it came to liberation day liberation day was the moment right that was the day when he decided to tear up the living hell out of pretty much everybody on earth and his approval ratings basically have never recovered it looks like just a straight algorithmic line down that's all it looks like it looks like a basically it is just a declining a declining line at a fairly steady pace since that moment why well because that was the moment for a lot of americans where it's like his priority is not economic strength it is whatever the hell it is and it really has not abated since because once you believe the president does not have singular focus on say productivity competition economically outstripping our opponents growing america once you believe that he's got a bunch of other issues then it just continues to feel like he's got a bunch of other issues that are distracting him and the tariffs were the turning point for the president in terms of his approval rating even among republicans they're not all that popular according to pew is a poll from january february of 2026 60 disapproval rating on the tariffs 37 approval rating which again mirrors his general approval rating even among republicans only seven and ten republicans approve of the tariffs which again for members of the party in power that is a very very low number okay so when it comes to handling of the insight of the economy echelon insights have some polling data showing something similar it shows that only 37 percent of americans strongly approve of his handling of the economy 61 strongly disapprove of his handling of the economy so all the numbers start to look the same right which is weird unless you understand how politics actually works you should think that the numbers would differentiate pretty strongly right that people might hate his iran policy but loves economic policy they might hate his immigration policy but loves environmental policy in the end pretty much all of his policies have the same approval rating why because either the presidency feels as though it is a directed missile or it feels like an undirected scattergun approach to politics and this is why so much controversy is broken out around ai in a second we'll get to dyspepsia with ai how does that tie into all of this and what should happen next first sleep used to be the one part of the day you didn't have to optimize you just went to sleep well now apparently you must sleep max you have special glasses you tape your mouth shut monitor the room temperature put on a 400 ring so i can tell you every morning that you were not asleep you probably don't need to turn bedtime into a science experiment you just need a better mattress and that's why my wife and i share a helix sleep mattress it's great it is firm it is breathable it is something that we both settled on and we're both sleeping better because of it why wouldn't you do the same and there's so many things in life where you're personalizing them why wouldn't you do the same with the object that you're going to spend years sleeping on helix's quick sleep quiz matches you with one of more than 20 mattress models based on your sleep position comfort preferences and support needs helix is the most awarded mattress brand recognized by experts including forbes and wired shipping is free every mattress includes 120 night sleep trial and the happy with helix guarantee skip the bedtime command center go to helix sleep.com slash men for 27 off site wide during helix's labor day sale that's helix sleep.com slash men for 27 off site wide again helix sleep.com slash ben so again americans if they felt really secure about the future of the economy if the president been saying listen we need to out innovate our competition right ai is a way that we out innovate and don't worry we will draw appropriate regulations and we'll work across the aisle to draw appropriate regulations because nobody wants the destruction of all human life Nobody wants AI to destroy everything and nuke us, right? We're all on the same page about all of that. This should be a bipartisan issue. But AI is good for the American economy. And if we fall behind, China wins. However, AI has now become a flashpoint in this debate because Americans are very fearful of the economic future. They feel uneasy and confused about the economic future. So AI is the most controversial technology in America, probably since the railroad. Because it does represent to a lot of people a fundamental shift in how economics is done. Now, again, I think a lot of that is exaggerated. I think that AI is a tool that you will use. The idea that it's going to eliminate literally everything that humans do, I think that you hear that from the AI bros because, again, if they could do their biggest job, it would be the robots replace all of us. But I don't think that's actually what's likely to happen because no tool has ever replaced everybody. People just find other things to do. With that said, generalize. Heartburn with regard to the economy is creating flashpoints with regard to AI data centers. Now, again, that's because people don't understand what AI is and they don't understand what data centers do. They think AI data centers is Skynet. That's not what AI data centers are. They're just gigantic processing facilities for data. That's it. It's crunch numbers. That's all they do. But look at these numbers. This is Gallup. Only 7% of Americans strongly favor, the construction of a data center in their area to support AI technology in the U.S. 20% somewhat favor, 23% somewhat oppose, 48% strongly oppose. Now, I know that a lot of people are thinking that the data center is going to appear in your backyard. That is not what is happening, by and large. Data centers are not being built right next to your house. President Trump has taken the perfectly appropriate and correct position, by the way, that data centers are quite good for the American economy. However, he has done so in the most militant fashion. So, the president put out a statement, quote, The only reason communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want data centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor. If they want to be successful and rich with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let data reign. The good news is, there are plenty of other places that want them. If we kill the golden goose, you'll have only yourselves to blame. China could not be happier with this anti-data center movement. Actually, they can't believe it's happening. Okay, now, it happens to be true that the Chinese are overjoyed about all of this. For sure, for sure. In fact, X's account for global government affairs shows a bot farm of 200,000 accounts. And within that farm, 200 accounts posting in a manner designed to manipulate debate about American AI and energy policy. And a huge number of these are springing from China, apparently. And here's some examples of Chinese bot-generated anti-data center content. Obviously, China is very much in favor of the United States destroying its own capacity to compete the Chinese. The Chinese have zero problem with building data centers. They also have zero problems with, you know, killing millions of people. But they certainly have no problem with the building of data centers. With that said, President Trump's, shall we say, blunderbuss approach to AI data centers. And again, I'm as pro-AI data center as it is possible to be economically speaking. Because the lies that have been promulgated about data centers are, in fact, untrue. So, for example, as Gavin Baker, who's a partner and CIO at HRAD's management, he points out that, you know, there's this lie that basically they're going to steal your precious drinking water and then they're going to use it for the data center. That is not true. Most of the data centers are now using closed-loop systems or recycled water. Data centers also pay significant property taxes. So it radically increases governmental intake. In places like Quincy, Washington, data centers represent more than half the property tax roll. And when it comes to jobs, these are jobs creators, because there is the direct job creation in terms of electricians, plumbers, welders, HVAC techs, and all the rest. But there's also the spillover effect of the fact that AI will create jobs by allowing people to start new businesses in significantly more efficient ways. Again, all data centers have to go through local zoning and land use approval processes. Steve Ballmer, when he was on our show Titans on Tomorrow, explained what data centers mean to actual local communities.
Speaker 2My dad worked at Ford Motor Company. And I got to Microsoft in the 80s. And by the mid-80s, we were producing these things called floppy disks. They were about this big. You waggled them around. There was no factory to speak of. I mean, there's a little place where they were copying them. And my dad would come to Microsoft, and he said, what do all these people do? I mean, you don't have anything that comes out the other end. Where's the factory? If you go to these big data centers today, you are going to the factories of today. Nobody would turn down a new factory in the U.S. to go build a few more cars. And yet, these data centers are the factories. My dad would go to one and say, okay, now I understand what all these people do.
Speaker 1He's right about all of this. But because you have the AI creators, who are, frankly, very weird, and because they talk about economics in a bizarre way, because of all of that, people have bad feelings about AI data centers. And that's also because the administration, again, takes this very weird position with regard to governmental involvement in the economy. So on the one hand, we need top-down management of the economy. We need to bring our precious manufacturing jobs back. On the other hand, we need to take government stakes in particular businesses. So, you know, either you want a free market economy in which innovation is the key, or you want a protectionist, isolationist economy, in which it isn't the key. This is why, for example, J.D. Vance, who's trying to do the populist routine, is trying to explain AI data centers in a different way than the president.
Speaker 3Well, what the president said about data centers is they're an important part of the AI economy. When people build them, they have to build the power plants along with the data centers. I think probably 99% of the backlash to data centers has come in areas where building a data center means higher utility and higher electricity for the people on the ground. So I think what these companies have to do is take advantage of some of the federal deregulatory efforts that we've undertaken. If you build a data center, you should be putting power back into the grid, not taking it out. And if that is happening, I don't think the data centers are that controversial. It's when the utility bills get so much higher, that's when it's a real problem.
Speaker 1Okay, that's actually not true. I mean, just by the polling data, it is not about people who are actually suffering higher utility bills. It's a thing people are worried about, but it actually isn't materializing. Like, you can't say, 75% of Americans are experiencing higher utility bills because of the data center. That's not true. Well, it's actually at odds. Again, it's part of the problem for the administration. Do you want a free market-oriented economic policy that drives toward productivity and innovation? Or do you want a government-managed economy in which all of the supposed predations of capitalism are curbed by centralized power? You cannot have it both ways. This is why I say Republicans cannot outbid Democrats when it comes to this sort of stuff. Again, people who hate AI data centers are probably going to be sympathetic to Ro Khanna, who says that basically we need to stop technological development entirely.
Speaker 4We need to have a vision for how we're going to create jobs for young people. Let me give you two ideas. We need to tax the usage of AI and robots so that we incentivize human hiring. We need a federal jobs program. I've called it Work for America to hire young people coming out of high school and college to rebuild communities of the federal government. At a time where a lot of people are having a tough time with entry-level jobs.
Speaker 1Okay, again, this is the Democratic idea. The Democratic idea here is, what if we just stop progress in the name of social redistributionism? AOC is doing the same thing. Hilariously, she suggested that if Trump likes data centers so much, what if we put one in Mar-a-Lago? There's literally a data center pretty much across the street from Mar-a-Lago. So there's that, like within sight lines of Mar-a-Lago. There is AOC being a foolish, of course.
Speaker 5Congresswoman, what do you make of Donald Trump saying that Americans who oppose data centers are backwards and poor?
Speaker 6Oh, I mean, how about we put one in Mar-a-Lago? I love that. Let's put a data center up in Mar-a-Lago and we'll see how backwards and poor he is in response to that.
Speaker 1Okay, well, I mean, there are data centers right near Mar-a-Lago. But again, Tim Burchett from Tennessee represents a more rural area. He says that he is sympathetic, again, to the anti-data center push.
Speaker 5What do you make of Donald Trump saying that Americans who support data centers are backwards and poor?
Speaker 7Well, I guess I'm... that don't support, he said. Yeah, they don't support the data centers that are backwards and poor.
Speaker 5I guess they're backwards and poor, you say?
Speaker 7Yeah, I think what we need to do is start putting those in military installations.
Speaker 1Okay, so, again, it's the discombobulation that is a large part of the problem. You can be pro-data center, anti-data center. We can have those arguments. Again, I think a lot of these arguments are founded on bad information. The reality, again, is that when it comes to, for example, electricity, the data centers have been paying for upgrades to the grid, generally speaking, because they don't want to pay for higher electricity rates either. They don't want to overall raise the rates of electricity. So they're building new capacity. Most of them are using natural gas, the cleanest power source available outside of nuclear, solar, and wind, according to Gavin Baker. And again, places like Quincy, Washington, the economy has been entirely transformed form thanks to the data centers, but it's not really about the data centers. It's about generalized anxiety about the economy. And that is exacerbated by confusion. It's true in Iran. It's true in Russia. It's true with the economy. If it feels like everything is discombobulated and confusing, it's because everything is kind of discombobulated and confusing. So that's reason number two why Republicans have a problem, which means, by the way, that it's fixable. And if the president were to actually get on message, this has always been the issue with President Trump. If President Trump were to get on message, the way he's on message on immigration, right? Same message over and over. If you're on message and on policy about economics, it would help. If you're on message and on policy about Iran, it would help. So that's number two. You can't have discombobulated messaging and discombobulated policy in a time where people feel uneasy. Number three, reason why Republicans got a problem in the midterms. You can't pick crappy candidates. You can't. And now I understand a lot of Texans were unhappy with John Cornyn. They felt he was too moderate. He was too easygoing with Democrats and all the rest. I did warn that Ken Paxton was a bad candidate. And I think it is fair to say that if you are running a competitive race with James Tallarico in Texas, you are by definition a bad candidate. So Ken Paxton is running ads talking about his record at as a G. These ads are not
Speaker 8stellar. Google secretly tracked your location, captured your face, your voice, no permission, no warning. Ken Paxton fought that. And made Google pay $1.4 billion. The largest privacy settlement any state has ever won. Toxic dyes and cereal marketed to our kids. Paxton took on the big food companies and stopped it. Now he's fighting to get toxic chemicals out of products women use every day. Ken Paxton, when they come after Texans, he comes after them. Moonstar Liberty Pack is responsible for the content of this.
Speaker 1Okay, so again, is that what the people of Texas, Texas are deeply concerned about? Is that he sued Google back in the day? Is that going to be the big winner? And it's like a target rich environment with James Tallarico. I have to say Ken Paxton is uniquely lazy candidate. He has done very few appearances. His fundraising capacity is extraordinarily lackluster. He's basically counting on Texans to recognize that James Tallarico is, as we say, a radical leftist howdy doody doll. And that's true. But you have to make, uh, clear to people. And clearly that's not happening because Tallarico is leading in every single major poll right now. Again, that may change. I expect the Texans will revert to type and Paxton ends up in the Senate, but it makes it a little tough when you run bad candidates. Here he was on Fox again in relatively lackluster fashion, explaining the problems with Tallarico.
Speaker 9Is there an issue here with the Trump voters not transferring to you? Do you see the claims about an electability problem? Or is there an issue with the Trump voters not transferring to you? Or is there an issue with the Trump voters not transferring to you? Do you see the claims about an electability problem? Or is there an issue with the Trump voters not transferring to you? Do you see the claims about an electability problem? Or is there an issue with the Trump voters not transferring to you? Do you see the claims about Or is there anything happening right now with the Trump South Texas coalition that Republicans should be concerned about?
Speaker 10No, I just don't think they know the other side. They don't know what James Tallarico is all about. He's this sort of unnamed guy that they have no idea what his views are. In South Texas, his views on transing kids, on boys and girls sports, on voting for a state income tax, on saying that the oil and gas industry should be basically dismantled and that you can't be a Christian if you support the oil and gas industry. These are all things that in South Texas, when you're claiming that there are six genders and that modern science has proven it, those are not going to go well in South Texas. So the voters just don't know yet because we have not been up on TV, but that's coming.
Speaker 1Okay, so apparently a $15 million ad buy is happening beginning on Tuesday. He's going to need it because right now Tallarico has $21.5 million in the bank. Okay, so apparently a $15 million ad buy is happening beginning on Tuesday. He's going to need it because right now Tallarico has $21.5 million in the bank. Okay, so apparently a $15 million ad buy is happening beginning on Tuesday. He's going to need it because right now Tallarico has $21.5 million in the bank. And Ken Paxton has only $1.8 million in reserves. And again, Paxton is a rather uninspiring candidate. Now, Republicans are going to have to put some money in here. So Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, who I like, he was asked about the Texas race. And he said, listen, we have no intention of putting serious money into Texas because he should be winning this thing by himself. Why does he need our money?
Speaker 11You can't win an election by saying the other guy's worse than me. Money is an issue. Mr. Tallarico has been raising bucket loads of money from California, Hollywood, all the beautiful people who partied with Harvey Weinstein. We don't have, we in the Senate don't have the money budgeted for Texas. We need help for the president, from the president. The president says he has $850 million in his campaign accounts. That's a lot of jack. I'm hoping that the president's going to spend $100 or $200 million in Texas. But he hasn't committed to it yet.
Speaker 1Okay, so he says, obviously, that he doesn't want to spend money on Paxton. A lot of people in the Senate don't like Paxton. They liked Cornyn. Okay, fine. The reality is that Republicans must win Texas. Okay, so whatever it takes to win Texas, if you lose Texas, you lose the Senate. It is that simple. However, we should just recognize here, if you cannot raise money to beat James Tallarico in Texas, you are definitionally a crap candidate. James Tallarico is such a bad candidate. The fact that Paxton is currently even running competitive with him is totally insane. And to be fair, right now, Republicans are running competitive races in and trailing in Ohio, Alaska, Maine, just to pick three out of a hat. And Michigan is pretty fraught as well. So, I mean, all of those are places where Republicans need to spend money. If they're forced to actually defray cost for Paxton in Texas, that's terrible. So, reason number three, bad candidates. So, one, just natural midterm dynamics. Two, discombobulated messaging and policy out of the equation. Three, bad candidates like Paxton. And four, and this is a big one, there are, in fact, traitors in the GOP who are looking to undermine the GOP. There are people who are desperately desirous of the GOP failing. They want the GOP to fail. Why? They look at Trump, and they see his term is going to end. They look at Mike Johnson, and Mike Johnson is a pretty traditional conservative. They look at John Thune. He's a pretty traditional conservative. And they want that GOP to die. They want that GOP gone. And they, they see the GOP losing as the predicate to them fracturing the party and then taking it over. These are people who actively want the Republican Party to lose. They're not shy about it, by the way. Again, it's amazing. Many people who will claim, you're not conservative. You're not America first. You're not. Those same people are running a gambit to take over the GOP from within. They don't like that President Trump is pretty hawkish on foreign policy. They don't like the fact that the GOP, generally speaking, is free market oriented. They don't like the fact that the GOP is free market oriented. They don't like any of those things. What they want is a GOP that is big government in nature, is significantly more sectarian, and a GOP that is isolationist on foreign policy. That is what they want. And they're being open about it. And that has electoral consequences because obviously in close elections, when quote unquote part of your party, the part that is being appealed to by specific politicians in the administration, right? They won't, they won't build new audiences. They're going to try and get the Tucker Carlson audience. If you spend all your time appealing to the people who are actively saying they want you to lose, you're probably going to lose. It's gonna be a problem for you. I picked Tucker out of a hat here because he's openly said that he would like the Republicans to lose at this point. I mean, over the weekend, he literally said that President Trump should be removed from office immediately for supposedly considering using nukes in Iran, which is kind of hilarious because Tucker himself told Ted Cruz that if Iran had attempted to assassinate Trump, we should nuke Tehran. But, you know, consistency is the hobgoblin of, um, sane minds. Here is Tucker Carlson calling for Trump to be immediately removed from office. And then don't worry, he's the loyal, he's the loyal conservative. Again, there are people who want to
Speaker 12fracture the party and destroy it. And they're saying it. The second any president actively considers first use of nuclear weapons, that person should be removed from office immediately, immediately, because that's got to be the red line, destroying all of humanity in a, with a nuclear strike. I mean, I, like, so why isn't there an attempt to remove him from office, like, immediately? Anyone who would even tolerate that kind of talk from any of his subordinates or employees is, by definition, unfit.
Speaker 1Okay, not only does he want the president removed from office, he also says that he is no longer Republican. This is just a few weeks ago. He said, there's no defending this, so I'm out.
Speaker 12I've been a consistent defender for 35 years of the Republican Party, I mean, very consistent defender, but there's no defending this because it's immoral. And it's exactly the opposite of what a political party in a democracy is charged with doing, which is representing its own voters, its own citizens, its own nation. And they're not doing that. So no, I'm out. And if I'm out, then I think a lot of other people are out.
Speaker 1Okay. And so it's Tucker. It is obviously MTG. I mean, again, these people are running an active operation against their Republican Party. They are not being shy about this. So if you're wondering who's undermining the Republican Party, I don't know, maybe the people who are saying that they wish to undermine the Republican Party. Maybe it's those people. Here's MTG with Alex Jones. Again, a rare interview in which Alex Jones is the saner of the two people on screen. We have to be realistic about the
Speaker 13Republican Party. The Republican Party needs burn to the ground. It's completely controlled. As a matter of fact, much of Congress is controlled by AIPAC and by Zionist. And that is a serious problem. And so you, the American people, don't control your own government and those you elect. They're one specific interest and that is israel okay candace owens of course doing the same thing
Speaker 1she says satanic zionists occupy the white house well this is a satanic administration we all realize satanic zionists occupy the white house and congress needs to move to have the mad king trump remove this back in april all of our lives may depend upon other countries realizing trump is deeply unwell and surrounded by religious fanatics who've convinced him that he is a messiah again these are people active nick fuentes same thing he says the gop needs to be destroyed when people tell you who they are you you probably should believe them
Speaker 14i care about affordability i care about foreign interventions i care about the border i'm a non-woke moderate democrat i think the gop needs to be destroyed i think the corrupt criminal government of trump needs to be slowed down we need to impeach the orange it's time to put this in a peach trump needs to be destroyed placed inside of a crystal he needs to be impeached this fat orange tiny hands needs to be impeached and then in 28 no vance no rubio we have to burn down the whole party
Speaker 1and so again they are just saying they're just saying they would like to destroy the party because if they destroy the party they hope to take over whatever fragments remain in the wake so those are the four factors that are putting republicans in a seriously bad position for the midterms again just normal midterm dynamics completely discombobulated policy and narrative coming out of the administration couple of bad candidates and a wing of the party that actively wishes for the party to lose and who's being openly appealed to by the way by still many in the party who are hoping to rebuild that coalition in the wake of trump fascinating to see what happens after the midterms if all of this comes to pass now this doesn't mean democrats can't blow it now what's amazing right now is democrats are providing target rich opportunities they literally decided to run a pro-terrorism and apparently most of the republican party is spending its days not talking about it too much this is why a driven narrative would help americans are worried about security that is a real issue when you run people for the senate or actively pro-terrorism well that seems like a pretty major security issue turns out according to the washington free beacon abdul el-sayyed his father-in-law is among the top leaders of an islamic organization that has been fighting for identity for a long time and that is why he is the president of the islamic organization identified by the federal government as a public-facing group for the muslim brotherhood which is an active terrorist organization cbs is finally pointing this out barry weiss receiving outsized hatred today for objectively making the quality of journalism at cbs better the headline was as the nation prepares to mark 25 years since september 11th abdul el-sayyed the democratic nominee for u.s senate in michigan may be facing the risk of renewed scrutiny and fresh political attack now again that's a republican pounces headline but what did barry do that was a public-facing group for the muslim brotherhood was so terrible she put a spotlight on the fact that abdul el-sayyed had tweeted this on september 11 2021 again this is five years ago okay this is not 25 years ago five years ago quote today i'm warning the 3 000 lives 6 000 injuries and infrastructural devastation in new york city perpetrated ignorantly in the name of my faith ignorantly there's just ignorance you know so little ignorance happens people just are ignorant tomorrow i'll mourn 1 million plus lives millions of injuries and infrastructural devastation in three countries perpetrated ignorantly in the name of my country ah you see terrorism against americans is driven by just the same kind of moral equivalent ignorance as americans murdering a million muslims again it's the same thing that zarn mamdani said this is who they are running for the senate this is who they are running for the senate and he constantly uses by the way the same narratives always and forever so yesterday he was talking about the american military and uh here is a what he had to say abdul el-sayyed we noticed that there were some
Speaker 15resurface posts on 9-11 um and i was wondering if it's making it challenging to reach more republican or more moderate voters in this race well i mean i think all of us look back and say
Speaker 169-11 was an awful thing that happened in this country and i think all of us also look back and say think about all the wars that were fought and how much safer do we feel like they made us how many lives did they ruin and my point is just to say that uh... what happened on 9-11 is a disaster it was a terrible attack on our country and our responsibility is also to think about how do we build in america where we are protecting our servicemen and women from being asked to fight wars we have no business fighting that ultimately end up doing harm to people and we're seeing that right now
Speaker 1the reaction to 9-11 is america is bad for fighting wars that had no business fighting and were really really mean that's his reaction again he has not changed an iota he is he is in favor of radical islam he always has been nothing changes and he uses the same phraseology always always in march 2026 and here's what he had to say about the guy who drove a truck into a jewish preschool
Speaker 16amen ghazali hurt people there is no justification for what he did it was wrong and he never should've done it hurt people hurt people a week earlier an airstrike killed his niece and nephew imagine if that had never happened imagine there was no war in iran imagine if there were no airstrikes in lebanon imagine if his family had never died imagine there was never an attack on temple israel that's the world that we want to live in that's the world we need to build for violence always begets violence only peace can extinguish that because hurt people hurt people just vile
Speaker 1hurt people hurt people over and over he says this hurt people hurt people right anything that happens to the west is blowback because the west is really really bad well jd vance gave a speech last night in michigan at a rally obviously i've had my critiques to the vice president he is right on here he is pointing out in michigan the problems with abdul el sayed the democratic candidate
Speaker 3but what i am asking you is to remember that the same guy who defends literal terrorism is maybe not going to have your best interest at heart when he gets to washington dc what i'd ask you to remember is that whoever you send to washington whatever policy views you have or you don't have send people of good heart who focus on the right issues who fight for the right people and who love the united states of america
Speaker 1well then jd vance went after abdul el sayed for going after usha vance because there was a whole news cycle in which abdul el sayed suggested that usha vance is somehow being held hostage by her husband
Speaker 3but whatever you want to talk about abdul keep my wife's name the hell out of your mouth because she's way out of your league
Speaker 1hey now again i'm not sure that dog is going to hunt particularly well but with that said you know el sayed is a is a paradise for campaigning can republicans actually regain focus enough to point out the democrats are uniting with their most radical elements can they even bernie sanders is now sort of running away from abdul el sayed's hassan piker
Speaker 17connection here he was i'm not going to ask you a ton of questions about hassan piker's forgive me but i don't know i'm not i but i want to get at something because what i'm curious because republicans clearly have a strategy to turn him into a boogeyman right and i'm wondering are are democrats taking the bait here over what we're saying well i mean apparently it
Speaker 18works when you and others will talk about uh mr piker he is a podcaster last but they're putting
Speaker 17out but they're putting out statements right so i understand what you are and the other statements
Speaker 18are that i'm a communist or that this person is what i mean it's hard to keep up with what we are or that muslims are terrorists you know well i mean you are a communist so there's that
Speaker 1again republicans have a lot to run on because the democratic party continues to turn to the left the question is will they regain focus okay meanwhile blue cities continue to be increasingly unlivable insane tape out of new york yesterday a 49 year old mentally ill psychotic woman randomly stabbed a person uh killed stabbed two people killed one and then was shot by the police in times square and again i gotta say like this is how things go down so this lady is um large okay she is overweight this is relevant to the story because for those who can't see if you're watching this you're thinking man can't somebody just grab an easton baseball bat and knock this lady down she does not exactly look like a ninja wielding her knives here uh they ended up shooting her to death which again not the fault of the cops they shot her with the tasers and then she actually ripped the tasers out and so they had to escalate to the next level of force up the chain and of course she's pretty close to the cops with blades and that's going to happen get close to the cops waving blades they will shoot you i have to say that uh just on a sort of normal level the fact you have 15 cops standing around and nobody with a pole to just hit her to knock her to the ground kind of strange i get listen i'm as pro cop as anybody obviously the cops didn't do anything wrong here but the fact that in times square you have crazy ladies running around with knives stabbing people and then jiggling at the cops and getting shot not great not i mean it's got its problems i think she's standing there two knives in her hands uh she uh They're all just standing still, and she's completely surrounded by cops.
Speaker 19Completely.
Speaker 1She's waving this around. They tase her, like get really close to her and tase her. And then she starts approaching, and then they shoot her. Now, again, they got within like two feet of her and tased her. And then she continued to approach, and they shot her, and she ended up dying. Can you get that close? I mean, can someone just grab a baseball bat from nearby and clock her? Honestly. But the real sin here, of course, is that she was ever out on the street, which is the big problem in these blue cities. It turns out that she has a huge, long mental health history, and she never should have been out there in the first place. Again, you are not doing favors to people who are psychotic by keeping them out on the street. This is a left-wing propagandistic piece of nonsense that people who actually have mental illness should just be walking around among us. If you have a serious mental illness with serious psychotic episodes like this, should you be out and about? I don't know. Here's Jessica Tisch, the head of the NYPD.
Speaker 20During the encounter, she told the officers, quote, I'm not dropping anything. I would rather kill both of you. She repeated, I will kill you. The subject began waving the knives and advanced towards the officers. Multiple officers discharged tasers, which proved to be ineffective, and the subject continued to advance towards our officers with the knives. Two officers then discharged their service weapons, striking the subject. The police-involved shooting was captured on police body-worn camera. The perpetrator in this case has been identified as 49-year-old Pamela Cisneros of Queens. She was pronounced deceased at Bellevue Hospital. Cisneros has a documented mental health history with the NYPD, with one incident in 2018 and one in 2019.
Speaker 1Again, this is... It's tragic when basic things are not done. This person should not have been on the street, very, very obviously. She has a documented history of mental illness. No previous arrest, but again, you can't call it random when people are constantly getting in scraps with the police because of mental illness. Meanwhile, New York City's Canal Street, it turns out it's filled with illegal vendors, and the city just does not look like it's in great shape. There are certain areas of the city that are still nice, but I mean, look at this. This is just... Things looking great over on Canal Street. Look at all the trash and street vendors out on the street. Just awesome stuff happening in New York City. It turns out that if you repeat the policies of the 1960s and 70s, you end up with the outcomes of the 1960s and 70s. Meanwhile, in San Francisco, the mayor of San Francisco, a guy named Daniel Lurie, he says that they are now seeking... seeking new contracts for all of San Francisco's homelessness services, prioritizing accountability and results. This effort will shift all contracts to an outcomes-driven model and incorporate performance metrics. So, in other words, they've been spending tens of millions of dollars on models that don't have performance metrics? Great job, Democrats. Your governance has been excellent. Okay, in dumb cultural news, and other mistakes that have been made, I don't know who decided that the NFL required gay men prancing about and... and doing the bend and snap at NFL games. But apparently, it's a thing. So, the Philadelphia Eagles now have a male cheerleader. It's not great. And from the same crowd that once threw batteries at Santa Claus, I have a feeling this isn't going to go amazing in Philadelphia. So, here are the Philadelphia Peacocks with their male cheerleaders. Again, these are not male cheerleaders like, you know, like buff guys who throw... throw ladies 20 feet into the air. This is like dudes who are just doing the same motions as the ladies, but in a very awkward and uncomfortable way. So, here we are. This is a dude who... Oh, goodness. What was the... Who was desperate for this? Who was... Who was asking for this? Who was the crowd in Philadelphia? They were like, Hey, this is Philly. We have some gay dude prancing around out there. Bring him with the pom-poms. Oh, goodness. That is significantly gayer than anything on Broadway. Wow. But you thought that was gay. Don't worry. The Patriots or the Gaytriots are outdoing the Eagles with this one. Got a dude in spandex prancing around on the sidelines. And, yeah, all those guys in Boston. They want to park the car and watch this dude prance around. Here we go. I don't know. China might win. I don't know. I don't know, man. Meanwhile, in WNBA news, hilariously, so after Royce White and Enos Cancer Freedom were banned from the WNBA, a male basketball player who says he's a female calls himself Julie Tettart, says that he is interested in the 2027 WNBA draft. Why wouldn't he be? So Tettart is now, I believe, 34 years old and helped his team post a 19-1 record in the national feminine one final phase in Europe. Six foot three, you know, relatively like would play guard in the NBA if we're good at basketball, but is not good at basketball. And so we'll play center in the WNBA. Average 21 points. 20 rebounds, 22.0 assists and 2.6 steals per game, which means that this person is like a not particularly good male basketball player. Because if you put Royce White or Enos Cancer Freedom in the WNBA, those numbers are Wilt Chamberlain on the Warriors numbers from the 1960s. We're talking like 43 points a game, 20 rebounds a game minimum. So Eurobasket reported Tettart as its League Two Player of the Year, Defensive Player of the Year, and the WNBA. And Domestic Violence Player, no, Domestic Player of the Year. During an exchange with the Outkick earlier this month, Tettart described playing in the WNBA as a childhood dream. Was it a childhood dream? Was it? Now, again, hilarious. This person is playing, first of all, WNBA is just funny. Okay, like six three, there are only two types of basketball teams where a six three person is the center. Female basketball team, female basketball team, female basketball team, female basketball team, and Jewish basketball teams. Those are the only two types, right? As a Jew, let me just say, every Jewish basketball team, it's like the six three guy, you're like, oh man, he's going to be a dominant center in our league. Okay, but hilarious. And looking forward to what the WNBA does now, because Julie Tettart actually identifies as trans. Isn't like a male saying that he is trans because they're exposing the silliness of all of this. Meanwhile, another controversial LGBTQ plus minus divided by a sign. In the news, John Galliano, the influential fashion designer who loves Nazis, had a planned exhibition in his honor at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and now had to withdraw. Well, that's because back in 2011, Galliano made the, um, he joined the Fuentes train and talked about his deep and abiding love for Hitler.
Speaker 21I love Hitler. People like you would be dead today. He seems like a delight. So natural. I mean, listen, the Nazis are so hot right now.
Speaker 1This is where we are in American culture. And the left was like, we're fine with this. Okay. And then he had to quit. Alana Newhouse over at, over at Tablet, she points out the person at fault here is Anna Wintour, whose job it is to kill the Nazis. She's a Nazi. She's a Nazi. She's a Nazi. To maintain the boundaries within which creatives function. Of course, she's only the latest in a trend of institutional leaders abrogating this fundamental responsibility. Well, that is certainly true. Alrighty, coming up, you thought we were done. We're not done. We need to get to President Trump launching a shark tank style show. Again, when I talk about, you know, like maybe the attention span here, like is of a hamster. We'll get to that in a second. First, if you're a daily wire member, you get even more analysis, more news coverage, more access to the mailbag, and you get it right now. If you're not a member, become a member, use code Shapira, check out for two months free on all annual plans. Click that link in the description and join us.
PodcastTranscript AI