Trump on the Trail, Rubio Signaling from Athens, and "Where is James Talarico?"

Okay, first, before we give you the facts of the day, run Hyde Fight in Fadelles is streaming now only on Daily Wire. It's an ode to the great action movies of the 80s and 90s, there is even a love story which nobody expected, and you can support Daily Wire's mission to continue making movies that people actually want to watch, go check it out. 23 days to election day and the president has been burning up the map. It's all part of his 32-day campaign blitz holding rallies across the country. Trump wants it to be a boost, but is it? In Michigan, Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Abdul Al-Sahid met for their first debate. A big test for Al-Sahid, how did he do? Then there's Alaska. Trump won it by 13 points two years ago, but now Democrat Mary Peltola is in a tight Senate race with Republican Dan Sullivan. I just returned from covering the latest of the state of play there, we'll discuss. Secretary of State Marco Rubio speech in Athens what he said and what that may say about the future. 23 days and plenty to get to, this is the District Club. Welcome to the District Club. I'm Ben Dominic, happy to be joined as always by my colleagues Tim Rice and Mary Margaret Olan and welcoming to the stage today, Michael Star Hopkins, the author of Burn the Playbook. Thank you so much for taking the time to join us. Thanks for having me. We have a ton of things to talk about and I think that we should start with the attention that the president and his political organization paid this week to the midterms. We've been talking about this sort of in the lead-up. We anticipated the president would go out and start bar and storming that he would start having his political operations spend money and there are a lot of different things to follow on from that, namely the question of how much is this actually going to move the needle. I am curious as to your view on how much it moved the needle, but I think I have to start with you, Michael, on this one question that has kind of taken over in the last 48-72 hours thanks to the president's comments and to Ken Paxson's comments in the San Antonio Rally. Where is James Tallerico? I didn't even know this was a thing. I will confess I have a higher sort of quantity of sources in Texas and quite a high number of them have said they've given various reasons that he has gone, but the one thing that they have said pretty consistently is very few people here in Texas believe this is just the flu, which is what the campaign has said and they've said that that he's going to be coming back soon. What is your view of this? Where in the world is James Tallerico? Let me say, I've worked on a lot of campaigns in my life. I've never seen a candidate 27 days or so before the election just disappear. I mean the guys who have powered through, Bill Clinton lost his voice. There's so many people at the end, you know, I mean, you know, Prochamel. It's like, you know, housing, you know, to keep things going. I mean, I was just talking to Nick Beggage from Alaska a few days ago and he on the phone called me, yeah, I'm sick from all the campaigning. I'm just trying to take a few hours to rest. James Tallerico is taking 12 days, is that correct? It's 13 now. It's 13 now. Listen, everyone we've all had really bad flu, really bad illnesses and like those of us who are not running for the Senate, those of us who are not poised to maybe be the person who could flip Texas blue for the first time in a generation. Like what do you eventually after day three? You say, I don't have any more PTO or I don't want to burn any more PTO and you pound some day well and you go to the office and like don't shake hands. The fact that he's not doing this specifically when he's in a race where his youth and vigor was one of the big things that he had against Paxton for beginning. It's kind of crazy. Well, the other thing is so Michael quite seriously, he is going to come back to the trail. I don't think that it's a question about that. He's not, you know, he's not been permanently sort of, you know, disappeared. The question that I have is if you are working on that campaign, how do you talk about this? Whatever the this is, how do you just try to ignore it and just say, Hey, I was sick for a while. I'm fine. You know, that kind of thing. So I think you first put out a lot of social media content, your repurposed content. If I was on that campaign, my worry on one hand would be that you end up having a Rick Scott moment or Scott pairing. Scott Perry. Rick Perry. Texas governor. Sorry. Well, they're all real good, right? All of you. All of you. All of you. Yeah. We would say that. They're taking medicine on the campaign trail and then had that that famous slip of. Yes. And for someone who like Tauriko, who is young and who some would say has been photogenic in terms of the way they've done their social media. The last thing you want is to have him looking really ill and not not good, not healthy on the campaign trail because that picture will be recaptured over and over and over. Well, one thing is again, I'm just trying to see from the other side of this. I saw some Democrats online saying he's sick. He's worried about having a bad performance and he feels like he's ahead. Well, that's a terrible. So he's sitting back because he doesn't want to have an oops moment or what have you. By the way, it wasn't the oops moment that killed Rick Perry. It was when he said that wanting to not provide education for the children of the Legos was heartless. Yeah. That's what killed Rick. Well, Tauriko has been taken some fire from places all over including our Jacob Wheeler at the Daily Wire who's breaking scoop after scoop after scoop about all these crazy stories coming out of his church. So from my POB, it might have been a good time to lay low when you have all of these crazy things coming about out about how your church doesn't actually believe in God or believe in Jesus Christ and supports trans children or all these different things that actually Texas voters are not really aligned with you on. So it could be a good time to be sick for 12 days, especially when you have Jacob Wheeler on your on your on your I think you obviously you're like yet not to not to take away from our colleagues great scoops and how bad they looked with Tauriko work, but is that ever like I'm genuinely wondering is it does it ever get so bad that disappearing for two weeks is the answer? I don't think so unless it's like they just found the babysitter's body. Yeah. So the funny thing is so the funny thing about this whole race is that like Tauriko has has he has serious problems in terms of his his religious background of his positions at a gap from the voters in Texas, but Ken Daxen is kind of you know in a different era if you if you go back you know 60, 70 years you know the attitude would be very different toward him. He would just be another you know dirty politician. He would just be another oh you know Kenny you know he's he's a he's a ball you know and he's a and he's a great guy you know and and it's not his fault that those oil things showed up at the wrong time and and the next time that he gets out of the clink we'll be back there you know for the things that paint ready ready to help and you know the other thing is he always finds Jesus whenever they put those cuffs on him they always finds him as opposed to this you know nerd over here he don't need Jesus anyway so so he thinks he better than Jesus. But the point is Tauriko is is trying to navigate a situation where he pretending to be something that he isn't and I think that Paxton to a certain extent they're counting on him having everything banked in and having you know this is just we know what this animal is at this point. I feel like this is the worst time for him to be away from the field because I feel like he needs to be out there defining himself regularly against Paxton he's had great ads he's had great social media. I don't think that there's any way that this isn't intentional. I don't know about it being intentional but what I will say is he should have a better serigacy program that could step in right now and be able to take over some of that messaging and make it basically appear as if he's not gone at all. People should be able to step in to that situation. I think Paxton one of his big issues right now is what he represents is what many voters are trying to get out of DC and try to get out of politics in general and so this timing could not be worse for Paxton. Texas has always been one of those places that Democrats have been trying to win that. You mean for Tauriko. Yes. Yes. I think this is I think this is a gift to Paxton and I think that it's absolutely I think any strategist looking at this would say okay Tauriko needs to get back out there he needs to be defending his record and I'm sure Paxton is very happy that this is going on but I for one with love for a reporter to actually ask Tauriko where have you been because no one is ready. I think they will ask. I think we are and they're not answering well but they're just yeah and if the fact they're not answering says something you were paying attention to another race that was that is being a ton of attention are not just based on the fact that I mean I can't remember the last time you had a president a vice president who both went to Alaska. I know. In person. Will you send a race? No. I think you were you were covering this this week. Tell us about it. Yes. So there hasn't been a vice president who went to Fairbanks Alaska since I think 1972 is what the locals were telling me. I went on Air Force 2 with JD Vance up to Alaska on Monday and Tuesday. It's only if out four hour time change but we had a red eye on the way back so I'm still recovering but it was a very cool trip. Alaska's obviously gorgeous beautiful place and the locals were just so excited that he was there. It honestly made me a little emotional to see all these people in the crowd. All these kind of serious looking men who were all out there mining fishing you know building houses doing really important work out up there in Alaska and they're all bopping along to these classic rock songs as they're waiting for Vance to take the stage and he really contrasted Mary Peltola's record with that of Dan Sullivan with all the things that he's saying Dan Sullivan was doing for Alaska and now we know Trump is also heading up there on I want to say Monday as part of this big spread he's going to Montana going to Arizona he's going to Nevada and obviously Alaska next week and I'm curious what you all think what I've been told is that no one wants Trump around, no one wants Trump to be campaigning with them. But up in Alaska, Vance being there was incredibly energizing for the people that were there. I spoke to a number of them and they told me they hadn't seen people come out like this in years. The energy was really high and they're so excited for Trump to show up next week. So that was the experience on the ground in Alaska. They loved Vance. They were very excited. They all loved dance all of them who is an interesting candidate, in my opinion, 'cause he seems like he's actually a good person. He seems like he's actually like cares about the people of Alaska. Not so sure that his speech was the fiery epistle that you might want to hear from someone who's facing a Democrat like Mary Peltola, but he seems like he's actually a good guy that cares about the people of Alaska who might have needed someone like Vance to show up and really bring that fire in Brompton. - It's interesting because there was a poll that just came out like an hour ago or something and it said that a quarter of Trump voters think that Republicans on the ballot should distance themselves from the president if it will help them win in a month. But two-thirds of self-described maga Republicans say that they do not want to see anyone on the ballot distance themselves from the president. So it's a very interesting tension among the base, not necessarily surprising. But I'm wondering, what was your sense of when you were traveling with the VP, why are they putting such an emphasis on Alaska? Is it just, are they really just barnstorming every state? Like is it just, we need total war for total victory? Or a double visit is pretty crazy? - Well, so Alaska is really important because if Mary Peltola takes the Senate seat, I mean, Trump won Alaska by 13 points in 2024. That's a very bad look for Republicans, but also it's very dangerous for Republicans when it comes to the Senate. So they need to dance all of them to keep that Senate seat. But also Alaska is weird in terms of like geography, demographics, rank choice voting. And they've got all these weird things going on up there that makes it just not very predictable for who will, you know, for whether you predict Republicans or Democrats. - Yeah, they literally have another guy on the ballot, whose name is Dan Sullivan. And Vance said, well, we were up there that it's on purpose to trick voters, which I think we can all agree. It is definitely a ploy there to draw votes away from the real Dan Sullivan. So there is a lot going on up there. And Vance told us on our way up. He said, I'm going to campaign for Dan Sullivan. He's a great guy and he essentially needs us to be there. - Well, Dan Sullivan is also though, he's one of the more moderate members of the Republican conference. And has, I think behind the scenes, mostly been a critic of Trump on a number of different counts. So it's telling, I think that they're going in and going in for him in a way that they are doing right now. Michael, here's my question for you. Do you think those leaked conversations from Mary Peltola's staff were done so on purpose? And the follow on to that is the latest poll that came out about Mary Peltola showed that her numbers went up across the board with Ben in Alaska, okay? And for those who don't know what I'm talking about, there were a number of fairly aggressive texts that came out from Mary Peltola, including calling people retards and going after sort of Zoomer members of her staff. - How much has been on DoorDash and Keith? - And also, and also, by the way, dissing some pro choicers who were bothering her when it came to the abortion issue. What does her take on that? - I mean, my experience on campaigns has been that whenever they're leaks, it's one of two things. Strategy and it's a plan leak or it's staff that's really upset about how the campaign's being run and kind of what the tenor and tone of the campaign is. I think the fact that Republicans are doubling down in Alaska though says more about where Republicans are and where the party is in this election cycle. I mean, you have the president going to Montana, going to Arizona, going to Alaska. You don't see them in Florida. We're Ashley Moody's running against Angie Nixon, a candidate who no one expected to see. You don't see them running in North Carolina or going to North Carolina right now where Roy Cooper is getting ready to take that seat and Republicans are actually pulling money at the seat. - You don't see him yet. Maybe we'll see him later. We don't always know the events yet. - I'll say, I do think that North Carolina, I think North Carolina and Georgia are the two where they are basically just throwing in the-- - Which says, I think that is gonna be a problem for Ashley Moody and Florida because if you take the money that they were gonna use in North Carolina and then you take some of the money that also have had planned to use and divert that money to Angie Nixon, that's a big boom. Now the question's just gonna be whether there's enough time left to buy ad space. 'Cause at this point, there's very little TV ad space in Florida and there's three markets you've gotta buy. - So if you're looking at the state of play today, it seems to me that part of the issue here is they're experiencing kind of a real head turner in terms of where they think they're being competitive. They're Republicans who insist that Minnesota is in play and Michelle Tafoya actually could win. At the same time, it seems like Maine is like kind of off the radar for Democrats now that they're not gonna help the cousin lover up there. And so I don't know how else to say. But the truth is, he's not married to him. - And that's what you know, but it's not married to him. - Not married to him, anyway. But the thing that is, but the thing at the same time that's happening is that you have states where traditionally you would expect Republicans to be very competitive that they are kind of pulling back from. When you look at it right now, where do you actually think you're the most optimistic for Democrats to succeed? And where do you think they are wasting their time in money? - Ooh, the wasting is a tough one. It's succeeding, I would say, I mean, obviously Georgia and North Carolina. And I actually think Michigan is gonna get, the gap's gonna get wider with L.C. - Oh really? - And Mike Roberts. - Mike Roberts. - I do think he's picking up more Democrats. But in terms of where we should give up, I actually think one of the places that we've been investing in over time, Mississippi, Kansas. I think those are states that a lot of Democrats think are a waste. But we've gotta get back to the 50 state strategy of talking to everyone everywhere. And that's what made Angie Nixon so successful down in Florida. She went to red districts places that had never seen a Democrat. Same thing with Angie Gillon when he was running. I mean, you got to talk to everyone. It's true, it's true. And before we get to L.C.A. 'cause I wanna talk about that too, I wanna come back to the poll Tim was talking about because I think this is so interesting. My whole, my whole like last several months, every legacy media journalist that I interact with says that Trump's going out to campaign with all these people and no one wants him. I don't think that's true. I think this poll is really interesting. You come back to it so you were saying it's two thirds of GOP voters. - Two thirds of self-described mega Republicans say that they do not want to see Republicans on the ballot distance themselves from the president. But a quarter of Trump voters say that Republican candidates should distance themselves from the president if it gives them a leg up in the race. So I think very interesting, right? And if you think of, it's really the kind of like. - Dilemma. - It's the dilemma, but it also kind of, obviously there's a huge overlap. If we do the Kamala, the Venn diagram. Between Trump voters and mega Republicans, but right, those who are identifying themselves as mega Republicans, much more ideological, those who are identifying themselves as Trump voters, much more like I'm a Republican, I'm a party guy, I wanna see the party win. And yeah, I mean, this is the dilemma obviously for November, but this is gonna be the dilemmas that you're ready for 28, too. - I'm just saying Democrats dealt with this same dilemma with Biden in the last election. And I think it's, we talked about this off air. It's one of the issues that Republicans and Democrats are gonna have to deal with heading into 2028. I don't think a lot of people under the age of 50 actually identify as a Republican or a Democrat. Most people are non-politically affiliated. They lean towards whatever their home team is because of that's what their parents were, that's what they grew up around. But we're in a point now where both parties have an opportunity to redefine themselves. And whichever party does it the best and does it honestly, and tells voters that the country's broken. Like we're a broken country right now and it's honest about how we go about fixing it. I think that's gonna be part of this. - Or do you think that it's going to just lead to continuing partisan entrenchment? Because I think you're like, yeah, sure, maybe the honest pitch could work, but the way I see it is, I see Vance's answer to the other, just a couple nights ago about what socialism was, a sort of right where he said, "I don't really know what it means anymore, "but to me, in America, socialism means that they want, "you know, the government to run everything "and they want to put boys and girls' sports." I do feel like Republicans in order to get that kind of down-ballot attention from people who aren't really party-affiliated. You see Republicans leaning way more into the social issues. Democrats leaning way more into the, we're gonna make everything free and government-run. So I feel like there's an opportunity, but I'm not that confident that one party is going to reinvent itself as the 50-State strategy. We're gonna talk, honestly, about, I think it's just gonna continue to deepen in these partisan ways. - Which side, if you had to define which side of the ledger, El Sayed is picking in terms of his approach, coming out of this debate that he had with Mike Rogers, is he on the side of the people with the bull horns, yelling at Mayor Mamdani, or is he on the side of the very stoic-looking Mayor Mamdani, that's it. - I think it's interesting. El Sayed has managed to triangulate in a way that a lot of Democrats haven't. He has talked about masculinity and what it means to be a man in a way that Democrats have often been uncomfortable with, and taken it straight to his Republican opponent. I mean, far too often Democrats have played, you know, contact sports by using pillows. I think we just have not been, you know, the strong-tongued party, and Republicans have been dominant when it comes to defining Democratic candidates. I think he's been really good at saying the same thing three times. Mike Rogers is a corporatist. Mike Rogers doesn't even live in Michigan. He lives in Florida. And Mike Rogers secretly doesn't even like Donald Trump. And that's something that has resonated in Michigan because people, I think, are sick of the Democratic party and the Republican. party and they want someone who is willing to say that both parties are kind of full of it right now. And one caveat there, really quick. I mean, the Democrats might be uncomfortable with El Sayyid's notions of masculinity. I don't know that they still really need the conventional standards of masculinity that Republicans might be excited about. Well, I mean, he does determine what his wife can't wear. That's right. I was going to say very alpha, very alpha in his unique way. Let me just say that would not fly in my house. Well, let's talk about the debates though, specifically the El Sayyid debate, but also there were a couple on Thursday night we had El Sayyid and Michigan and we also had second to four debates in Maine. Is this going to be the first midterm cycle in a long time that the October debates actually help one candidate or the other? Because what's his name? Troy Jackson in Maine and El Sayyid, I feel like both got bodied in their debates. I mean, you said one of the most effective talking points that he's had is Mike Rogers has a home in Florida. And Rogers, finally, for the first time, not even as a partisan way, I've just wanted to see some life out of Mike Rogers for months. He hit right back and he said, well, at least Florida is in the United States. This guy's got a home in the United Arab Emirates. Incredible line. It's a good line. El Sayyid, I feel like was panicking. He couldn't keep straight answers when reporters were talking to him before and after the debate. He refused to condemn Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and say that he wouldn't take money. I feel like Mike Rogers from hate groups or extremist groups or as Mike Rogers, when asked that he would take money from APAC, said, "You know, maybe I feel like finally getting the two of them in a room together." It wasn't until I watched the debate that I realized how often we see El Sayyid just solo in a totally controlled environment or next to a friendly or being interviewed by a friendly. This is kind of the first time it's the primary. And I was like, oh, and I've been, as these guys know, I've been saying that El Sayyid's going to win for months. This is the first time that I'm not, I'm not, I'm not changing my opinion, but that debate was the first time where I was like, no, and I think you're right. Seeing him next to his opponent is really interesting as opposed to seeing him in a solo interview. Like, for example, I was watching his interview with Martha McCallum on Air Force 2 the other day. There was no sound because we get one television back there and we're all watching from the back trying to see what's going on in the world because we have no Wi-Fi. But I was just so struck by how calm he was and how rational he appeared even without sound. Obviously, I watched it later. But he is so good at making his policies and his statements sound rational to the public on his own. Now, when he's with someone else, that's a completely different story. So, I totally agree with you. Well, the late Greek Rodgerail said that you should watch all television without sound. That you could tell who's actually winning. The thing that I think is interesting about this particular moment is people are still trying to figure out what this election is going to hinge on. And it's pretty late if you're trying to figure that out. There are a lot of different factors that are playing into it. But the question that I have for you is, do you think that it's perhaps, and again, Elsa had won his primary by less than a lot of people expected to see. It was certainly by less than the polls indicated. A lot of that had to do with black voters in Michigan not voting for Elsa. Do you think that he has made up the ground there about caring about their communities, because we saw this same, this week we saw this MS session with Elise Jordan, where she was talking to a number of different Michigan voters, including black voters who were saying he cares more about these international issues than he does about the things that are going on in our community. Is there a possibility that some of these candidates, because they do legitimately care about these issues, are taking their eye off the ball? So, let me say a couple things. One, to Elsa Ead on the debate stage, it's very hard when you've been kind of trashing someone for months, and then you finally end up on a debate stage next to them. It's hard to then look them in the eye and kind of go after them the same way. There's something about sitting next to somebody. This means that you make this person. I find it really. It becomes a lot more difficult. It's true. You've got to be. You've got to be tough. To your point, I think that one, the black vote isn't monolithic, which is black people. I've always have to say, but that's always like the predicate before you answer the question. But I will say, I think black voters are the most pragmatic voters. We understand that we can move an entire race with our vote, and during the primaries especially, we want to see who can win. You know, if you look at President Obama's always the reference point, African Americans didn't move until the end of that race once we realized that he could be the winning candidate. The same is true for Elsa Ead. The idea that right now, electing someone with the name Elsa Ead, that's a risk. And so black voters are scared of taking that risk during what many air community would say is a very heroin time. So, I understand that, but again, just to get back to the question, I feel like one of the problems that Democrats have in this cycle is that a lot of the people who came through, got elevated by these different things, are they been elevated for reasons that have little to do with the things that the voters actually care about. Where you do have an advantage, a distinct advantage. But just to give another example, one of the debates we saw this week was with was the Attorney General race in New York. And we saw this sort of situation when it came to the back and forth on different issues where people, I think that people really do want to have politicians where they pay attention to the things that are going on in their communities primarily. And it actually can hurt you on to a certain extent to become a figure who is on the national level viewed as being representative of either, you know, you're entirely focused on Trump. You're entirely focused on the Middle East. You're entirely like, and that can elevate you within a primary, but I actually think it hurts you in a general. And I'm wondering whether you think that's going to ultimately be viewed as a mistake that some of these candidates make. So Andrew Gilliam ran into that problem when in his gubernatorial race because there was so much focus on Trump that towards the end, a lot of voters did feel like he had been focusing so much on Trump and on the national brand that he was losing focus on Florida. And so to your point, yes, I think that can absolutely be issue. But with that said, I mean, look at candidates like Mundami, like Angie Nixon, like Elside, their focus has been the economy and affordability. They've hammered it over and over and over again. And for the first time, Democrats in 20, 30 years have the higher approval rating when it comes to the economy. And that's something that, I mean, as a Democrat, that blows my mind. Do you think that's particularly mind-blowing, given that GDP is up, consumer spending is up. You know, we see the performance in terms of the economy and the top losses down. People do see wages up, you know, like you're running against the facts here in terms of, look, Joe Biden during his presidency had a lot of people come on air and say that the numbers looked good. How people felt was very different. The numbers looked good under Biden. They were presented. That's an arguable point, but they voted for nine percent. I mean, inflation was not. We've got diesel at 6.29. We've got gas at 4.29. You know, people are feeling, I went to buy Halloween candy. It was $16 for you bag of Halloween candy. Oh, Halloween candy, pretty expensive. Give me the jumbo bars. I think it's like you're being a generous person. I'm really going to do it. That's a full size figure. I think another element here, though, and to Michael's point, I think you're right about the sort of, to be very cavalier about it, the vibes versus the numbers. But I think one thing that happened is pretty much every midterm race. I'm sure there's an exception. They're in the ones that we're not talking about. But every race, this cycle was nationalized basically from the beginning. Both sides, every candidate. Again, some more than others, LCIED, more than Trojax, but all of them across the board, absolutely. And that, I think, definitely gives Democrats an advantage because of the classic calculus of, you know, Republicans have the White House and the majority, so they own everything. So it's easier, right? It's easier for voters who, if I just fill up my car and I'm like, man, that felt a little, feel like this is getting more expensive. If I hear one candidate saying, no, no, no, the numbers look good, but another saying, it's that guy's fault. It's that guy's party's fault. That's where the, again, kind of across the board, nationalization of the cycle, I think, just totally dings. Well, I wish that was true, though. I've got, I wish that was true. You don't think it's true? No, I don't. I think that right now, we're in this different period where people are so frustrated. One, it's, are we going to turn out to vote at all? But two, Democrats are terrible on messaging. There are candidates who are outliers, but Democrats are bad. I mean, we use that one. What we could say in ten words? Wait, wait, wait, wait. So I've heard this thing before that you spend too much time on things. Don't you think that part of the reason the Democrats are bad on some of this messaging is that, and I'll use El Sayed as an example, but Mamondani too, is that they perform at their best when they are putting out crafted content that is put together by smart young people and that is in sort of a controlled environment. But they have problems when they actually confront people who are either, you know, either IRL or on the debate stage or what have you. Basically, the message that Democrats have is really great when it's crafted, but then it has more and more difficulty when it encounters people. And Kamala Harris to me is the definition of what that was. that like every time she interacted with a normal person, she seemed less and less normal. But you could package her in a way that would seem great or would seem appealing. - Well, I think too many Democrats rely on polls and rely on staff. People want authenticity. And so, I mean, whether you like what all Republicans are saying, you've got to admit that a lot of Republicans are authentic, speak their mind, and talk like an average person. Too many Democrats talk like college professors, and like-- - Except for Mary Peltool. - There you go. Or like, I think you don't like. Nobody wants to be lectured. Nobody wants to be told that, you know, you're-- - Yeah, it's a very, I mean, your thing. - It's very popular among the Zoomers and Zoomer-in-Flected users of social media to refer to HR-lady politics, right? That's kind of like an ascendant. That's sort of replaced Karen as the ascendant like critique, but I actually think to your, it kind of captures what you're saying, and it's like a, that brand. I mean, it's like, it's just the new way of saying, to any state, liberals, I guess, but it really does bring it home. - The other side of this coin, though, is that at the same time, Republicans are still really good at identifying Democrats with the very radical policies of a few years ago, which we've talked about this before, how some Democrats are distancing from it. But for example, in Alaska, Mary Peltoola did, in fact, vote against protecting women's sports. She did vote against protecting women and women's shelters in Alaska, where we know women have been raped by trans-identifying men in their shelters in Alaska. So she's on the record voting against these things. Her campaign literally told me this week, it is absolutely false that Jody Vance said the campaign rebuked his claim that she was against men and women's sports. So they're saying as false, something that we know to be true, and I know to be true in the whole world, can see if they want to. And so that's this other interesting dynamic here, where Democrats are pushing away from these radical stances, while they're still on the record for it. And that just doesn't make sense to me when the voters can literally see what happened. - 'Cause that's what they're unwilling to explain what why they voted for something, because it's an uncomfortable vote. Look, I support people's identification, their self-identification. I think we all as a country want to make sure everyone feels supported and represented, but we can also acknowledge that having men and women's sports isn't fair and it's not safe. At the same time, we can acknowledge it's an uncomfortable conversation and we're trying to figure out the best we can. - You should advise these guys. This is a much better way to survive. - You won't acknowledge it. - And instead of running from these conversations, we should just be honest about it and talk about. - Do you think they should apologize for supporting this in the past? - No, I think they should be honest about what their intention was. I think that's the-- - But what's the intention there? - You want to be inclusive. The idea that kids are struggling with identity, trying to figure out who they are at such a young age, that's something I think we can all relate to and want to humanize. We may not agree with the path that is taken and that's something that as a big country we could discuss. - The funny thing about this is that Democrats should be, and I always say that it's funny how much Democrats should want the same thing that Rick Santorum wants in order to happen for the future of their political fortunes. We're seeing the lowest trend line of teens identifying as both trans or bisexual right now in terms of a major downturn over the past couple of years. - You should help that that accelerates. - It looks like we'll make your job easy. - I don't want people to feel like they have to hide who they are, that they should be ashamed of who they are. - Listen, I respect the dignity of every human person, but if I have a candidate who previously voted to allow children to get life-altering gender transition surgeries, I wanna look at that candidate and say, why did you do that? Because that's not respecting a child. That's literally promoting woke ideology and you better give me a really good reason why you did that, but there isn't really good reason. - It should be able to answer that question. They can disagree with you, but they should be able to give you an honest answer. Now, you may not like that answer, but I think Democrats have to stop backpedal. - This is gonna be the Iraq War vote. This is gonna be what the Iraq War vote was for Democrats between '03 and 2016. It's gonna be this for the next decade. - So just to shift things a little bit, I think that one of the big questions for Republicans in this election, and we saw a lot of this spill over this week with comments from Tom Emmer and from a number of other Republicans, both anonymous and then some of them going on record about everything that played out over the past month. Essentially with House Republicans, finally just giving a middle finger to Senate Republicans and saying, "You screwed us." Emmer's basic message was one total criticism of Republican senators. It's one of my favorite departed lines from Walberg. I'm the guy who does his job, the other guy. And basically they said, "We teed everything up for the Senate and they refused to do anything." And you have this interview with Speaker Johnson that he did with I Shahazni, my colleague at Fox, who said where he spent basically, I'm just gonna go back to Louisiana and run a long business that we lose House. And he felt like he had teed everything up for the Senate to take things up. If Republicans end up having the cycle that these polls look like they might have, is one of the big takeaways that the Tom Tillus' of the world basically screwed you, that you had a situation where a lot of these guys who are walking out the door didn't wanna take up these things that House Republicans with a very narrow majority actually got through that could have made a difference with reconciliation and with the kind of things that they could actually have run on in the last two months. - Yeah, I think that's a great point. And I think absolutely, I think that what they will say and certainly what other critics of Trump will say is that it's the White House's fault as much as it is those guys because it takes two to Tango and the YOLO senators, as they've been calling them, are, yes, they could have moderated, or they could have played ball, but the Trump administration could have moderated and played ball, but I ultimately think that line of argument will fail because, I mean, first of all, Trump has two more years, these guys were on their way out, and also to your point, Ben, it got started on the hill, right? House Republicans started it. I think there was a sense that Americans kind of intuitively think, right? Like if one house starts it, if one chamber starts it, the next chamber should be able to finish it. What we, you know, it's also, right? I mean, the president, this president, but also all presidents, there's sort of expected to be, you know, mavericky, a little, oh, they have the mandate or they don't, but, you know, the buck stops here, the pen and the phone, pick your slogan, whereas Congress, right, they're supposed to do things, they famously don't do things. So I do think ultimately, yeah, that's where it's gonna come down. And I wonder, what are you, not just what you think about, I'm throwing a second question on. What do you think about that, but also, how does that set up kind of the future of Republican rhetoric in Congress? - Well, it's really interesting because until now, I mean, the way the president has viewed Congress and it's been, you will follow my directive. And if you don't, then we will have a Tom Taylor situation and all hell will break loose. And I think it's a very interesting juxtaposition because let's say the midterms go badly and a lot of these Republican senators, for example, are taking the heat, that could be an easy way for Republicans in the White House to say, you should have banded together with us, you should have been on our team, you should have gotten, you know, all of this legislation through that we tried to get on the table. At the same time, we're gonna have a new president soon. And I think that can be a very interesting, well, I mean, even Trump's not saying he's running again. - Well, it fins on the day. - But it is a really interesting lay of the land for Republicans because obviously, you know, JD Vance is the heir apparent to the White House. We had Marco Rubio in Athens yesterday, a few days ago, talking, giving this really impressive speech that sparking all kinds of conversations that we had kind of dropped for the last couple weeks, maybe months. So the future of the Republican Party is still up in the air and I think all of this plays into it in a very strong way. - Before we get to Rubio, Ben, do you think, and sorry, I'm not taking it all you off, but do you think that if it does play out where the blame for a potential loss lands with the tilluses and the Bill Cacities, does that just completely nuke any possibility for dissent or like plurality in Republican, and like Republican Congress for the next, however many years? - Well, I think that one of the things that, the actual blame that I think could be laid here more fairly is actually on John Thun. And I think it's a little odd that it's not falling on him because to me, the most logical decision that Thun could have made at the beginning of this year was to go to the White House and meet with the president and say, "Hey, look, you want us to do a bunch of crazy stuff or things that I think are crazy stuff, but there are also things that are popular with the base of the party." We will do these things, and the condition of us doing these things is that across the board, you have to endorse all our incumbents. - What about sports? - That's the, for me, from my perspective, that's the Mitch McConnell play, that's the way that you kind of approach this thing. And the fact that Thun didn't do that, I think led to a lot more acrimony than, now it may still have played out the same way. It's very possible that Trump could have endorsed Kornin and Paxton still with one. I mean, I think that's certainly possible. But the thing that I think that would have done is established, we're joined at the hip, we are not gonna be a thorn in your side, we are going to work with you. And instead, what we've come up with basically is a situation where the president feels like the house did what he wanted to do and the Senate didn't. And I think that's always a problem going into a midterm without that kind of unity. In terms of going forward, I think that there's gonna be so much blame to go around and everyone's gonna have their pick. And it's going to be Iran, and it's going to be decisions within the foreign policy side. Everyone's going to have their knives out for each other. And it's going to be great to cover, but it's not going to be fun for the party. >> Right, how is it interesting? >> But I do have to say this. It seems to me that one of the problems that you are going to have, assuming that things play out the way that they currently do, is that the American people are going to have voted for Democrats under an assumption that you can achieve something. One, that you're not going to be able to, and two, that you're not even going to spend time on really. I mean, I think that there'll be some things that Democrats pass as messaging votes and as things like that, maybe something that gets done on housing, etc. But this is going to be an investigative corruption. We're going to go after everybody oversight. Everybody trying to everyone knew on the hill trying to vie for their social media moment. Isn't that going to be a problem for Democrats going into this next presidential cycle, where they're basically going to be doing the same thing that is making Letitia James look terrible right now? >> Yeah, Democrats are going to be in a tough spot for the next congressional session. Because you don't want grandstanding, which politicians are famous for. It's part of their bloodline. And so investigations are going to be a big part of the next congressional session. And voters, I think, do want investigations to a point. Impeachment is not where the country -- >> They want it to a point, but Don Jr., who's not got a government job, like sitting in front of a committee. >> So Don Jr. absolutely should be in front of a committee. I mean, if you talk about the drone deal that he was a part of, hold on. >> But do you think that's what the voters want? Do you think the voters look at, like, oh, they spent the whole week on Don Jr. >> You're figuring out how does that make my gas cheaper. >> Well, if you're figuring out how to pay your gas, how to keep your lights on, and you're watching the president and his family come into office, and enrich themselves to the tune of $10, $15 billion in the span of, you know, a year or two years. >> After Hunter Biden, I don't know what you learned. >> No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. >> Take that much stock in it. >> Hunter Biden was a- >> Hunter Biden was a- >> Hunter Biden, what he did was inappropriate. It was arguably criminal. I said that at the time, he should have been held accountable. Hunter Biden enriched himself to the tune of $100,000. Maybe $200,000? That is entirely different from what we've seen this family do. And that's nothing no president, no family, Democrat or Republican has ever enriched himself to the tune. >> I think a lot of it. >> I think that $200,000 is a low bar. >> I think a few. >> Even if it's a- >> I mean, no, no, no, no, no, you have to have some strong faith in the appeal at the auction market of Hunter Biden art. >> I think this is the only thing that you think Hunter Biden would under Biden was wrong. >> Hunter Biden? >> Yeah. Hunter Biden was never properly investigated. The investigations were shut down by the Department of Justice, under Joe Biden. >> Then you have to think that what the Trump family is doing is wrong. If you think what Hunter Biden was doing. >> No, see, here's why I think it's different. >> I would love to. >> I would love to. >> I would love to. >> It's different because the Trump family was already, first of all, doing business with each other and in the world, right? And also, this is also incredibly public, precisely because of that, right? Like everyone knows, and if people want to do business with Don Jr., because he's connected to powerful people, the President of the United States, oh no, it wouldn't be the first time in history that people want to do business. >> Hunter Biden was on the phone saying, let me get my dad on the phone. If you know, okay, African warlord, you don't want to help me buy this burly in mind. You know, like Shina, or maybe it was the Chinese warlord buying a burly in mind in Africa. Let me get the big guy on the phone. I mean, but wait, again, I think with the Trump family, it's more people see literally Donald Trump the sequel. That are like, let me go do business with that guy, because his dad's the President. Hunter Biden was going up to corrupt people and saying, hey, you should do business with me because my dad's the President. All this said though, I do agree with you that I think voters will love because at the end of the day, this actually isn't about politics or corruption or the constitution. It is about people who are struggling to afford their diesel, watching rich people get dragged in front of a tribunal, which is something that people have loved since the time immemorial, right? That transcends politics that has not, that transcends American politics. And I think voters who are sitting at home are just as mad at Democrats over their lack of calling out Hunter Biden as they are at the Trump family. I think that gets to the real impetus of where we are as a country right now. The voters are sick of it. They are sick of the fact that both sides can't call their own party out. They're sick of just the gamification and almost horse-tracking way that we treat it politics now. It's not about making people fives better. It's about winning an argument and getting clips. I do agree with you in a lot of ways. The only caveat I would make is that Democrat voters are not consuming on its media for the most part. I think anyway. Well, I think as a member of the conservative media, I would argue that the Daily Wire provides their audience, our audience, with very factual and accurate news and I'm very proud of that. But as a member of the media, I see how legacy media tells these stories. A lot of Democrat voters have never actually understood the full picture on Hunter Biden because no one tells it. Because legacy media is not interested in sharing that information, but they are doing hit pieces on Don Jr. on Kimberly Gilfoil, on Scott Besson, on Marco Rubio, on JD Vance, on Pete Heggseth. Incessantly, it's the only thing they view as a real scoop. So I think for Democrat voters, they're not always getting the full picture. And you could say, of course, on the right that conservatives are only consuming conservative news. But at least on the right conservatives are not literally manipulating their news and sharing false stories and only focusing on these hit pieces on cabinet officials, for example. So I struggle to understand how Democrat voters can have a real picture of what's going on in our country when all they're consuming is MSNBC and the New York Times. Democrats would say the exact same thing about Republicans, which I think is. I just think that the problem here that you're going to run into is Democrats are going to win this election based on addressing things that they are going to be either incapable of addressing or they're not going to spend their time on. And I think that that's going to do the exact same thing that we saw play out in the 2023-2024 period, where basically everyone said the only thing that Democrats care about is putting Donald Trump in jail, they don't actually care about you, they don't care about your family, they don't care about anything that's going on in your lives or communities, they don't care about crime, they don't care about the border, et cetera, et cetera. That was an extremely powerful argument for Republicans to make. I think it was very effective and I think Democrats are setting themselves up to have basically the same experience to go in 27 and 28 if they go down that same road. They could or we're going to have to wrap it up in a second, but I want quick final thoughts, rapid fire, it was a big week, did Republicans turn the tide on their midterm cycle this past week, Ben, yes or no? No, I don't think that they did, but I do think that they should feel more optimistic about Texas. No, I think Democrats should make sure that we're not raising the bar higher than we can meet for expectations because we're known to not vote the same way we think we are. Alaska changed my view a little bit on all of this, I'm very interested to see what impact the president has on all of these states that he's heading to in the next week, and I'm fascinated to see what voters are going to come out because the president and the vice president are going to them instead of waiting back at the White House. All right, two asterisk asterisk nose. One very political evasive answer. I'm going to say yes, they did turn the tide, although with my own asterisk. I don't know if it'll be enough for them to actually win in November, but some tide did turn. This has been another edition of the district club. Thank you for watching. As always, thanks as always to Ben and Mary Margaret and Michael. Thank you for joining us. See you next week. We'll see you then.