Speaker 1: I've been pretty pessimistic about the state of California politics.
Speaker 1: I mean, who what sane person would be optimistic? But
Speaker 1: even so I think I've been more particularly pessimistic than
Speaker 1: a lot of people. I think you will still sometimes
Speaker 1: when you do politicky kind of things like I do,
Speaker 1: you will get people who view you as some kind
Speaker 1: of an expert, which far from it. I'm just the
Speaker 1: guy with the microphone who'll come up to you and ask, well.
Speaker 2: Where is it gonna take to take this state back?
Speaker 2: What's it gonna take for California to stop this and
Speaker 2: for us to take our state back? I guess, first
Speaker 2: of all, I would challenge the contention that it was
Speaker 2: ever our state to begin with. I don't know that
Speaker 2: California was ever some kind of conservative bastion at any point. Nonetheless,
Speaker 2: I think there's this constant attitude among right wingers, what.
Speaker 1: Can we do to fix this? Like like that there
Speaker 1: is some kind of solution that we can put in
Speaker 1: place that will fix things in something approaching a timely fashion.
Speaker 1: And I would say the prospect of bringing California to
Speaker 1: something approaching sanity is going to be as it's not
Speaker 1: going to happen next election. It's going to be a
Speaker 1: painful process. It's not going to get fixed in one
Speaker 1: election cycle. It just isn't. It's going to take a
Speaker 1: long time, a lot of effort, a lot of intelligent
Speaker 1: work from the ground up. And I think there are
Speaker 1: some smart, sort of think tanky type people, but there's
Speaker 1: very little intelligent political work being done in California at
Speaker 1: the state Republican level or what have you. I don't
Speaker 1: see a very good clear path forward. We're in a
Speaker 1: bad shape in this state where seeming to head in
Speaker 1: worse shape. I mean, my wife and I have been
Speaker 1: just like groaning and rolling our eyes at the prospect
Speaker 1: that here's the California Air Resources Board announcing that basically
Speaker 1: they're going to introduce new regulations to make gas fifty
Speaker 1: cents a gallon cheaper. The legislature went forward with this
Speaker 1: completely unnecessary special session over the last few months to
Speaker 1: go after price gouging by the gas companies who are
Speaker 1: price gouging no more than they are anywhere else in
Speaker 1: the country, and which, by the way, if the state
Speaker 1: could prove that these gas companies were price gouging, they
Speaker 1: would initiate anti trust proceedings against them. They wouldn't be
Speaker 1: doing the kind of political posturing and Gavenusm's doing. They
Speaker 1: passed these ridiculous new laws to say, oh, gas refineries
Speaker 1: in California have to maintain an artificially high level of
Speaker 1: supply at all times so that there aren't spikes when
Speaker 1: there are spikes in demand, that there aren't spikes in price,
Speaker 1: which the refineries are saying, this is idiotic. You're just
Speaker 1: that's gonna put additional cost on us. You're just gonna
Speaker 1: permanently have higher prices. So you see, California just doubling
Speaker 1: down on so many bad ideas, where like, bad things
Speaker 1: are happening, and the voters keep voting for people who
Speaker 1: doubled down on terrible ideas, and the voters themselves vote
Speaker 1: for terrible ideas. Our education systems not doing great. The
Speaker 1: voters vote to give our public schools a ten billion
Speaker 1: dollar bond measure. We're gonna give the schools ten billion,
Speaker 1: and it's going to cost us, the taxpayers, twenty billion
Speaker 1: over time. We vote to give ten billion dollars to
Speaker 1: various unspecified environmental projects through Proposition four. That's proposition two
Speaker 1: in Proposition four that Californians voted for giving bond measure
Speaker 1: money to all these liberal pet projects. So in many
Speaker 1: ways I feel like California is going to get worse
Speaker 1: before it gets better. However, I do think the seeds
Speaker 1: of some kind of a movement towards sanity in certain
Speaker 1: respects and with regards to certain kinds of things can
Speaker 1: be found in the results of the twenty twenty four elections.
Speaker 1: California went for Kamala Harris, Yes, of course. California voted
Speaker 1: for Adam Schiff by a massive margin. Yes, of course. However,
Speaker 1: there were some results that were surprising and surprisingly conservative.
Speaker 1: Proposition thirty six passed with overwhelming support. Over seventy percent
Speaker 1: of Californians voted in favor of it. This reclassifies certain
Speaker 1: kinds of drug and theft offenses as felonies rather than misdemeanors.
Speaker 1: Californians were clearly tired of smash and grab robberies. They
Speaker 1: are tired of the state of criminal law enforcement in
Speaker 1: California that was accompanied by a couple of extreme left
Speaker 1: figures losing their jobs. The mayor of Oakland got recalled
Speaker 1: two years into her administration. George Gascon, ultra left wing
Speaker 1: district attorney of Los Angeles County, the most populous county
Speaker 1: in the United States of America, got voted out of office.
Speaker 1: So you're beginning to see I think you're beginning to
Speaker 1: see something of an opening, something of a pathway. There
Speaker 1: are certain things that the voters of California are expressing.
Speaker 1: They are expressing. First of all, I think here's my
Speaker 1: first my initial thesis, the defund the police movement is dead.
Speaker 1: Defund the police is dead. Defund the police, and the
Speaker 1: broader criminal justice agenda that surrounded it, which was basically
Speaker 1: one of criminal non enforcement on the basis of race.
Speaker 1: George Soros wanted to reshape criminal law enforcement in America.
Speaker 1: Soros and others on the left believed this sort of
Speaker 1: fundamental premise that criminal law enforcement in America is hopelessly racist,
Speaker 1: that the criminal justice outcomes showing that African Americans are arrested, prosecuted, convicted,
Speaker 1: incarcerated at rates that far outstrip their share of the
Speaker 1: population is all evidence. These outcomes are all evidence of racism.
Speaker 1: The inequity of the outcomes is evidence of racism in
Speaker 1: the system. Their proposed solution is we need to rethink
Speaker 1: criminal law enforcement, whether we need to be locking all
Speaker 1: these people up, so let's not lock all these people up,
Speaker 1: and they sort of recast almost crimes like theft as well,
Speaker 1: that's a that's a that's a crime of a status crime.
Speaker 1: That's a crime you only commit because you're poor. Why
Speaker 1: are we punishing that so severely? Why are we punishing
Speaker 1: our brown people black and brown bodies, as ton Heasy
Speaker 1: Coats always says, which doesn't saying but there This became
Speaker 1: a trope on the left over the last ten years,
Speaker 1: saying why are we incarcerating black and brown bodies for
Speaker 1: the sake of our the preconceived notions of criminal justice?
Speaker 1: Saying black and brown bodies rather than black and brown people.
Speaker 1: It doesn't actually do anything to like change the meaning
Speaker 1: of what you're saying. It just sounds more dramatic anyway.
Speaker 1: A lot a lot of lefty writers like using that
Speaker 1: turn of phrase and always annoys me because it doesn't
Speaker 1: actually mean anything different from saying black and brown people. Anyway.
Speaker 1: Although I will note, as I've noted to some of
Speaker 1: my Hispanic friends, the days of quote brown people being
Speaker 1: a protected category may be shortened. Given that Latinos voted.
Speaker 1: I think it was like forty five percent of Latinos
Speaker 1: voted for Trump. It was like forty five to fifty
Speaker 1: five or something. So you're guess what, Latino's Your days
Speaker 1: of being a put upon, oppressed minority subject to liberal
Speaker 1: largesse and liberal concern about, oh, the plight of oppressed
Speaker 1: communities of color, your days of getting that kind of
Speaker 1: concern from the left may well be numbered already. Nicole Hannah,
Speaker 1: Oh gosh, what's her name, the gal from the sixteen
Speaker 1: nineteen project, Nicole Hannah Nicole Hanna Jones, the former New
Speaker 1: York Times columnist who was the author of the sixty
Speaker 1: nineteen projects. She's already started to say, based on these
Speaker 1: election results, that Latinos don't count as communities of color.
Speaker 1: So let's just note that any Hispanics, your inclusion in
Speaker 1: the club may now be revoked due to the fact
Speaker 1: that too many of you voted for Donald Trump. Now,
Speaker 1: where the heck was? I? All right? The project on
Speaker 1: the left was, let's just not prosecute whole swaths of
Speaker 1: crime because we think the enforcement of these laws is racist.
Speaker 1: It's racist in its effect, therefore it's racist, and so
Speaker 1: let's not have as much policing in those neighborhoods. Let's
Speaker 1: not have our prosecutors actually prosecute those crimes. And if
Speaker 1: the prosecutors don't prosecute those crimes at that immediately undercuts
Speaker 1: the policing. Why would police arrest people for doing stuff
Speaker 1: if they know that the prosecutor is not going to prosecute.
Speaker 1: So Sorows and others realized, well, a lot of these
Speaker 1: district attorney races don't have huge dollar amounts and don't
Speaker 1: have large numbers of people who actually vote in them,
Speaker 1: Like the District Attorney of Manhattan, for example, Alvin Bragg.
Speaker 1: He got elected by a grand total of I think
Speaker 1: what was it was like eighty thousand people voted for him.
Speaker 1: He's the District Attorney of Manhattan, the Borough of Manhattan,
Speaker 1: which I don't know how many people live in just Manhattan.
Speaker 1: It might be like a million people or something. At
Speaker 1: least it's not all of New York City, but just
Speaker 1: the Borough of Manhattan. That's a really small number of
Speaker 1: people voting. And what realized is that in a lot
Speaker 1: of these DA races, he could swamp these races with
Speaker 1: campaign money, completely outspend all the other candidates, and install
Speaker 1: people who through what's called prosecutorial discretion. That's the principle
Speaker 1: that a prosecutor doesn't have to prosecute every single crime
Speaker 1: to the max every single time. The prosecutor needs discretion
Speaker 1: to decide, well, I'm going to bring this case, I'm
Speaker 1: not going to bring this case. I'm going to bring
Speaker 1: this case as a manslaughter case rather than a murder charge.
Speaker 1: You know, in order to get a plea deal. You know,
Speaker 1: that kind of discretion a prosecutor needs to do. What
Speaker 1: these liberal prosecutors were doing was just saying we will
Speaker 1: use our discretion to just basically not prosecute whole swaths
Speaker 1: of In the case of Georgia Gascon in Los Angeles,
Speaker 1: California criminal law, so that whole movement, even in California,
Speaker 1: it seems like it's dead. Seventy percent of people in
Speaker 1: California voted for Prop thirty six LA County votes out
Speaker 1: George Gascon. San Francisco had already voted out Chase A. Boudin.
Speaker 1: Clearly California's fed up with this approach to criminal law enforcement.
Speaker 1: And that makes me look towards twenty twenty six, who
Speaker 1: are all these people who are going to be running
Speaker 1: for governor? Well, on the left, it's going to be
Speaker 1: a lot of people who said a lot of positive
Speaker 1: things about the defund the police movement. Possibly you could
Speaker 1: see a lot of people who were really down with
Speaker 1: left wing approaches to criminal law enforcement. Javier Bessera, Rob Bonta,
Speaker 1: you know, these are names that are being floated as
Speaker 1: people who may want to run for governor. I think
Speaker 1: there could be a window for report Publicans here. If
Speaker 1: Democrats are foolish enough to nominate someone like Rob Bonta,
Speaker 1: whose career as ag was characterized by embracing this sort
Speaker 1: of left wing approach to criminal law enforcement, if they
Speaker 1: nominate someone who opposed Prop thirty six and supported Prop
Speaker 1: forty seven ten years ago, I think you could see
Speaker 1: an opening for a Republican. It would have to be
Speaker 1: the right kind of Republican, couldn't just be anybody. But
Speaker 1: I think if you have a Democrat who is clearly
Speaker 1: weak on criminal law enforcement, who didn't support Prop thirty six,
Speaker 1: if they go against a Republican gubernatorial candidate in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six who did support Prop thirty six and who
Speaker 1: really wraps him or herself in the mantle of Prop
Speaker 1: thirty six, that could be an opening. I feel like
Speaker 1: we need to make Prop. Thirty six into like a
Speaker 1: cape that every Republican candidate running for any office throughout
Speaker 1: the state wears, and to compare in contrast, and to
Speaker 1: hammer any Democrat they're running against over the head with it.
Speaker 1: When we return. Dan Walters writing about the sort of odd,
Speaker 1: sort of conservative leaning dynamics of the twenty twenty four
Speaker 1: race in California. That's next on the John Growardy Show.
Speaker 1: Dan Walters, who is a longtime columnist for The Sacramento
Speaker 1: b and now runs calmatters dot org, definitely one of
Speaker 1: the most insightful people when it comes to California political issues.
Speaker 1: He's got a good piece on the twenty forty four
Speaker 1: election results where he's noting that there were some real
Speaker 1: cracks and Democrat power that were revealed in this election
Speaker 1: title the piece in deep blue California, voters don't always
Speaker 1: march to dem drums, so one of the things he
Speaker 1: points out is that there's some real Republican resilience in
Speaker 1: a lot of the congressional races in California. He writes,
Speaker 1: as of Wednesday afternoon, the five Republican congressional I guess
Speaker 1: that must have been last Wednesday afternoon, the five Republican
Speaker 1: congressional members who had been targeted by Democrats in hopes
Speaker 1: of recapturing the House were all running ahead of their
Speaker 1: Democratic challengers, albeit by very thin margins, with many votes
Speaker 1: still to be counted. Although I think Mike Garcia from
Speaker 1: California has just conceded, but I think all the others
Speaker 1: are winning. Democratic strategists chose the districts because they had
Speaker 1: tended to vote for the party's presidential candidates or had
Speaker 1: Democratic voter registration pluralities. The dissonance was especially obvious in
Speaker 1: the San Juaquin Valley districts of Republicans John Duarte and
Speaker 1: David Valadeo, both of which have Democratic voter margins of
Speaker 1: well over ten percentage points. Nevertheless, both were narrowly leading
Speaker 1: their challengers Wednesday, and as of today, there looks like
Speaker 1: both of them are going to pull it out. In
Speaker 1: another San Juan Valley district, Democratic Representative Josh Harder is
Speaker 1: locked in a very tight duel with Kevin Lincoln, the
Speaker 1: Republican mayor of Stockton, despite having an eleven point advantage
Speaker 1: in Democratic voter registration. Moreover, Republican Scott baw is leading
Speaker 1: in the duel for an Orange County congressional seat that
Speaker 1: Democrat Katie Porter gave up to run for the Senate.
Speaker 1: That's the reason why Katie Porter ran for the Senate,
Speaker 1: because she realized that might be easier than holding on
Speaker 1: to her own house seat. Katie Porter is another one
Speaker 1: of these people that my wife cannot stand her. Oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, she hates Katie Porter. The kind of girl
Speaker 1: boss attitude she gives off, like the she made a
Speaker 1: big deal by some like session of Congress like Trump
Speaker 1: that Trump was speaking at or something, and she was
Speaker 1: reading a book called The Subtle Art of Not Giving
Speaker 1: a f. They are all these like self help books
Speaker 1: that have been published that have the F wort in
Speaker 1: their title, and it's all appealing to millennials. I could
Speaker 1: do like a whole segment about this embarrassing millennial thing
Speaker 1: that millennials love cursing. I don't know if you notice this.
Speaker 1: Millennials love cursing, and they love cursing because they think
Speaker 1: it makes them edgy or something, and it's just embarrassing it.
Speaker 1: It's this incredibly sophomoric thing. There are all kinds of examples.
Speaker 1: I could do a whole second of this anyway, he
Speaker 1: also well, getting back to Dan Walter's piece, ballot measures
Speaker 1: and local elections reflect conservative leanings. He continues. Tickets splitting
Speaker 1: was also evident in down ballot issues, particularly voting for
Speaker 1: and against ballet measures with ideological profiles. While about sixty
Speaker 1: percent of California voters were opting for Democrats Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: and Adam Schiff, more than seventy percent backed Proposition thirty six,
Speaker 1: a measure that increases penalties other for some crimes that
Speaker 1: the state's Democratic leadership, including Governor Gavin Newsom, opposed, to
Speaker 1: punctuate the hardening mood on crime even more, two big
Speaker 1: city district attorneys who identified with the left leaning criminal
Speaker 1: justice reform movement, George Gascon in Los Angeles and Alameda
Speaker 1: County's Pamela Price, lost their positions, Gascon to challenger Nathan
Speaker 1: Hockman and Price to a recall. Likewise, Proposition five, a
Speaker 1: measure to lower the voting requirement from many local bond
Speaker 1: issues from two thirds to fifty five percent, backed by
Speaker 1: Democratic legislators and their allies and public worker unions, was
Speaker 1: failing on Wednesday, with well over fifty percent of voters opposed.
Speaker 1: Two other ballot measures reflecting leftist center ideology were also
Speaker 1: failing or defeated. Proposition thirty two, which would raise the
Speaker 1: state's minimum wage to eighteen dollars an hour, end Proposition
Speaker 1: thirty three, which would make it easier for local governments
Speaker 1: to impose rent control, was called early Wednesday morning. So
Speaker 1: I think Walters is correct here that California is not
Speaker 1: quite as lockstep liberal as we make it out. Now,
Speaker 1: if you give people generic Republican vote running against generic Democrat, yeah,
Speaker 1: generic Republican will lose. Donald Trump will lose to Kamala Harris,
Speaker 1: you know, as Steve Garvey will lose to Adam Schiff.
Speaker 1: But I still think there's an avenue here. I think
Speaker 1: there's an avenue for an intelligent Republican governor who really
Speaker 1: hammers home Prop thirty six crime issues and then can
Speaker 1: lean into like homelessness and stuff like that, depending on
Speaker 1: the Democrat he runs against. I think he could make
Speaker 1: real hay with it, because I think a lot of
Speaker 1: these Democrats didn't want to be too vocal opposing or
Speaker 1: supporting Prop thirty six. And I think if you get
Speaker 1: the right Republican and he gets some funding behind him,
Speaker 1: I think there's a genuine opening for Republicans in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six if they really wrap themselves in these issues.
Speaker 1: And this is the way that. Again, I'm not saying
Speaker 1: there's a Republicans sweep the governorship and the Assembly and
Speaker 1: the Senate in twenty twenty six and a new glorious dawn.
Speaker 1: A second, you know, Reagan resurrection happens in California or something.
Speaker 1: Even though Ron Reagan was super liberal when he was
Speaker 1: governor of California, I think much more liberal than people realize. Nonetheless,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying overnight a whole transformation happens in California.
Speaker 1: What I am saying is that you're starting to see
Speaker 1: some cracks in the liberal monopoly of control over California,
Speaker 1: that there are some issues where finally California voters are
Speaker 1: starting to have had enough, and that it provides some
Speaker 1: kind of a window for an intelligent, well funded Republican
Speaker 1: candidate to make some real gains when we return. How
Speaker 1: the left was completely inept at trying to get certain
Speaker 1: demographics that are slipping out of their fingers, young men
Speaker 1: and minorities. Next, on the John Girardi Show, there's an
Speaker 1: interesting story in the Spectator about basically the ways in
Speaker 1: which the Harris campaign really wildly overspent. Written by Stephen
Speaker 1: Miller at The Spectator. The title of the pieces Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris ran the Fire Festival of campaigns. Now, for those
Speaker 1: who don't know what the fire Festival is, this was
Speaker 1: an event that was to happen about when was this.
Speaker 1: This was about twelve ten or twelve years ago. It
Speaker 1: was called the Fire Festival Fyr and it was supposed
Speaker 1: to happen in some Caribbean island and it was really
Speaker 1: heavily promoted by certain rappers, and the promoter of the
Speaker 1: event was basically engaged in a massive fraud scheme. People
Speaker 1: showed up for this event and there was no logistics
Speaker 1: for it. It was supposed to be like travel out to
Speaker 1: this island, stay at this you know, fancy resort, fancy food,
Speaker 1: and the food was like box lunches, and the accommodation
Speaker 1: luxury accommodations were like un refugee tents, and there were
Speaker 1: like no performance. It was this disastrous thing and the
Speaker 1: guy who promoted it was prosecuted. It became kind of
Speaker 1: this famous thing on the Internet for millennials to sort
Speaker 1: of joke about well, Kamala Harris ran the that of
Speaker 1: campaigns is the thesis, and so Steven Miller writes for
Speaker 1: The Spectator. As the finger pointing begins and the autopsy
Speaker 1: of the Kamala Harris campaign continues, financial details are being
Speaker 1: released on how the Harris campaign managed to blow more
Speaker 1: than a billion dollars in war chest funds and not
Speaker 1: only lose, but get wiped off the electoral map by
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, who ended his campaign with roughly four hundred
Speaker 1: and eighty eight million dollars. That's not a doctor evil typo.
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris not only blew a billion dollars but actually
Speaker 1: ended up twenty million dollars in debt. Where did the
Speaker 1: money all go to celebrities mostly and elaborate sets and stages.
Speaker 1: As it turns out, not all of those celebrity quote
Speaker 1: activists appeared with Kamala Harris because they believed in her
Speaker 1: or were doing their civic duty by getting engaged. That's
Speaker 1: a thing I love when someone's just like an actor
Speaker 1: celebrity and they describe themselves as my name is so
Speaker 1: and so, I'm an activist and this and that like
Speaker 1: always on their t would approached they write that they're
Speaker 1: an activist. It's like, no, you're just a rich person.
Speaker 1: You're just trying to feel better about yourself. Your job
Speaker 1: is to pretend to be other people in front of
Speaker 1: a camera, like to chill out. You're You're not that
Speaker 1: important anyway. So apparently what was happening is that a
Speaker 1: bunch of celebrities who appeared with Kamala Harris and who
Speaker 1: especially musical acts who performed concerts at Kamala Harris rallies,
Speaker 1: the Harris campaign had to spend a gazillion dollars to
Speaker 1: get those acts to come or or to get those
Speaker 1: people just to appear. So, as reported in the Washington Examiner,
Speaker 1: let's see here, here's here's the uh, here's the centerpiece.
Speaker 1: There were seven swing state concerts what the Harris campaign
Speaker 1: through that involved high priced performers Katie Perry, Lady Gaga,
Speaker 1: John Bon, Jovie, Ricky Martin, and Moore, who seemingly ended
Speaker 1: up costing the Harris campaign more than twenty million dollars
Speaker 1: on event production alone, and reportedly even more on paying
Speaker 1: the celebrities to appear. Even Oprah Winfrey charged the campaign
Speaker 1: a million dollars to show up. That's amazing that Oprah
Speaker 1: did that. Oprah, here's Oprah Winfrey like showing up on
Speaker 1: stage somewhere to support Kamala Harris and he's like, I'll come,
Speaker 1: but you gotta pay me a million dollars. What kind
Speaker 1: of an endorsement is that? Heck, I'll endorse Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: for a million bucks. I'd like to think I wouldn't
Speaker 1: sell my soul that cheap. All right, all right, now,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna I'm not going to show up at
Speaker 1: a Kamala Harris camp pay event for a million bucks.
Speaker 1: But still, the idea that Oprah only showed up for
Speaker 1: a million bucks. Doesn't Oprah have enough money? You'd think
Speaker 1: if Oprah genuinely believed in this, that she'd have enough
Speaker 1: civic mindedness to say, yeah, of course I'll I'll just come.
Speaker 1: I endorse you for president. I'm gonna show up. You
Speaker 1: don't have to pay me anything to show I'm Oprah Winfrey.
Speaker 1: I have more money than God. Why does Oprah need
Speaker 1: a million dollars to show up at a Kamala Harris event.
Speaker 1: That's unbelievable. The campaign went so far into debt that
Speaker 1: the campaign was reportedly forced to scrap Canadian nineties indie
Speaker 1: pop singer Alanis Morrissett to save money. The pop concert
Speaker 1: campaign strategy is said to have been the brainchild of
Speaker 1: former Obama advisors on the campaign. Now, let me read
Speaker 1: again that list of that list of performers, because I
Speaker 1: think this sort of shows how the Harris campaign had
Speaker 1: no idea how to reach out to all these demographics
Speaker 1: of people who went hard Trump. Let me read you
Speaker 1: that list again and stop me if you think any
Speaker 1: of these performers would be appealing to a twenty year
Speaker 1: old man as far as like a concert he wants
Speaker 1: to go to. Concert wise, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, John
Speaker 1: bon Jovi, Ricky Martin, I guess if you're a gay
Speaker 1: twenty year old man, maybe an Alanis Morissett, whom they
Speaker 1: had to scrap. I'm sorry, what demographic is that lineup
Speaker 1: appealing to other than John bon Jovi? Were they only
Speaker 1: trying to put on musical acts beloved by gay men?
Speaker 1: Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Ricky Martin, Alanis Morris set. Actually
Speaker 1: I don't know how the gays feel about Alanis Morisset.
Speaker 1: Definitely Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, and Ricky Martin, who exactly
Speaker 1: is this appealing to. There was apparent there had been
Speaker 1: the rumor they were gonna have Beyonce, but then she
Speaker 1: didn't actually perform. She just spoke, which is like having
Speaker 1: Beyonce speak at a rally rather than sing at a rally.
Speaker 1: It seems kind of like a waste of Beyonce's talents here.
Speaker 1: I don't think anyone promoted Beyonce as for her political acumen.
Speaker 1: They promote her because she's a good singer and dancer.
Speaker 1: So so what what were these people thinking? I think
Speaker 1: they've gotten Democrats have gotten to this point where their
Speaker 1: campaigns are run by millennials who were probably former Obama
Speaker 1: who were like young staffers on the Obama campaign, and
Speaker 1: they have no idea how to reach out to gen
Speaker 1: Z mails, whom they lost to big time. Trump, on
Speaker 1: the other hand, message to gen z mails extremely well.
Speaker 1: Picked all of these podcasts to go on that had
Speaker 1: gazillions of people listening to it, where he didn't really
Speaker 1: have to spend a dime like Trump goes on Joe
Speaker 1: Rogan sits down for a three hour interview, And did
Speaker 1: you notice after the Trump had his interview with Joe Rogan,
Speaker 1: which like sixty million people or something watched on YouTube.
Speaker 1: Do you notice after Trump had that interview with Joe Rogan,
Speaker 1: they were like, no stories about it, Like he didn't
Speaker 1: say anything that was like able to be blasted by
Speaker 1: the press, meaning that the interview probably went really well.
Speaker 1: And then Vance went on afterwards and Rogan offered to
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris, Hey, you want to come on anytime, and
Speaker 1: Harris is like, no, you have to come to me,
Speaker 1: and it can only be one hour now, you're a
Speaker 1: normal three hour show. And so Rogan was like, no,
Speaker 1: I'm not getting up to go to you. You come
Speaker 1: to me. Trump came to me like because why Because
Speaker 1: Harris is obviously wildly insecure, because clearly she would fall
Speaker 1: apart in a three hour interview, and she wanted it
Speaker 1: on her turf where her staffers could control the situation.
Speaker 1: She didn't want to go into the belly of the
Speaker 1: beast of Joe Rogan, even though Joe Rogan is a
Speaker 1: super liberal guy. Joe Rogan used to loved Barack Obama
Speaker 1: was a Bernie Sanders supporter. Like this idea that Joe
Speaker 1: Rogan is some right wing nut job or something is ridiculous. No,
Speaker 1: he if there's anyone who actually has an open mind
Speaker 1: left in America, it's probably Joe Rogan. And guess what,
Speaker 1: tons of young men listen to them, to Joe Rogan
Speaker 1: and all these other podcasts that Trump was appearing on.
Speaker 1: Who did Harris go to? She went to one podcast
Speaker 1: that's chiefly listened to by young women, the demographic that
Speaker 1: she already has locked up. And this is I think
Speaker 1: the problem Democrats are facing here is that they have
Speaker 1: this sort of cadra of non Bernie, older donors, older
Speaker 1: donors who like Hillary, they like Obama, they like Biden,
Speaker 1: they don't like Bernie. That's their donor class. And then
Speaker 1: millennials who are so pc that they remember one time
Speaker 1: Joe Rogan said something that they thought was cancelable, and
Speaker 1: therefore they're like, well, you shouldn't go on Joe Rogan's podcast.
Speaker 1: Well he was canceled. All these millennials who've been sort
Speaker 1: of steeped in the culture of cancelation and of people
Speaker 1: being off limits because they did a bad thing, they
Speaker 1: said one thing that they deemed to be racist one time,
Speaker 1: Like there was some podcast ten years ago where Joe
Speaker 1: Rogan said the end, we're not that he was calling
Speaker 1: anyone the N word, but he was saying it out
Speaker 1: loud for some stupid reason, and that was deemed, Oh,
Speaker 1: we have to absolutely eliminate Rogan forever. And so these
Speaker 1: millennial staffers probably for hair, so I don't know they
Speaker 1: should go. And he's sort of a radical, whereas Trump realizes, hey,
Speaker 1: this guy's got the most popular podcast in America. He's
Speaker 1: open to talking to me. I can sit down with
Speaker 1: him for three hours, really lay out what I want
Speaker 1: to do, have him ask questions, and I'm not afraid
Speaker 1: of that. Yeah, do it. So I think what you've
Speaker 1: got is liberals are now so insular. There's so much
Speaker 1: within their own that they don't want to go out
Speaker 1: of their comfort zone because they're just convinced everyone else
Speaker 1: is racist and sexist and bigoted and homophobic. Like there.
Speaker 1: They cannot fathom the idea that people don't agree with
Speaker 1: them on transgenderism. And I've seen this on cable news
Speaker 1: clips where like you'll have some panel on MSNBC where
Speaker 1: someone will say, hey, like Democrats need to realize what
Speaker 1: they're saying, you know about you know, having biological male
Speaker 1: prisoners in a women's jail. That's completely insane. To most people,
Speaker 1: and then panelists will object, I will not sit here
Speaker 1: and listen to anti trans bigotry. It's like, well, that's
Speaker 1: why you're losing. If you're not even gonna listen, you're
Speaker 1: just gonna call anyone who disagrees with you a bigot.
Speaker 1: That's why you're gonna lose. That's why. And it's almost
Speaker 1: gotten to the point of people like the suggestion that
Speaker 1: I'm not wrong, everyone else is wrong. Well, that only
Speaker 1: goes so far in a process where you need a
Speaker 1: majority of people to vote for you. So I think
Speaker 1: Democrats have some big problems. And I was just dying
Speaker 1: laughing looking again at this is again the lineup of
Speaker 1: people that Kamala Harris thought we're gonna their concerts were
Speaker 1: going to save the day. Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, John
Speaker 1: bon Jovi, Ricky Martin, Alanis Morris, set Oprah Winfrey. Yeah, definitely,
Speaker 1: that's definitely reaching young men. Can't imagine also, why African
Speaker 1: American males didn't vote for her with that sterling line.
Speaker 1: What African American male has ever voluntarily turned a play
Speaker 1: to CD to listen to Kady Perry, Lady Gaga, John
Speaker 1: bon Jovi or Ricky Martin, an African American male, swung
Speaker 1: towards Trump by like I don't know, it was like
Speaker 1: twenty percent or something. Shocking how that strategy didn't pan
Speaker 1: out for Kamala Harris when we return how marriage impacted
Speaker 1: voting next on the John Gerardy Show. There are a
Speaker 1: lot of ways to cut and slice and splice the
Speaker 1: election results. I thought one of the most interesting, though,
Speaker 1: demographic breakdowns was looking at how married men married women voted,
Speaker 1: and then also how unmarried men and unmarried women voted.
Speaker 1: So for men, unmarried men voted for Trump forty nine
Speaker 1: to forty seven. Married men voted overwhelmingly for Trump sixty
Speaker 1: to thirty eight. Married women voted slightly for Trump fifty
Speaker 1: one to forty eight, about the same as unmarried men,
Speaker 1: and unmarried women voted for Harris overwhelmingly fifty nine to
Speaker 1: thirty eight. So basically, you have unmarried women and married
Speaker 1: men are the opposites of each other. Married women and
Speaker 1: unmarried men are fairly similar, pretty much the same, slightly
Speaker 1: favoring Trump, but being married changes your vote considerably. Going
Speaker 1: from an unmarried man to a married man increased your
Speaker 1: likelihood of supporting Trump by eleven percent. From an unmarried
Speaker 1: woman to a married woman increased your likelihood of supporting
Speaker 1: Trump by like thirteen percent. Marriage changes your priorities. It's
Speaker 1: a huge significant shift in your life and your lifestyle,
Speaker 1: and that reflects itself in voting which Democrats we're basically
Speaker 1: just trying to deny that was true. That don't you
Speaker 1: can vote for Kamala Harris. Your husband doesn't need to know, No, ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Married women actually voted more Republican this time than they
Speaker 1: did in twenty twenty, So that whole outreach by the
Speaker 1: Democrats was a failure. That'll do it, John Jarlady Show,
Speaker 1: See you next time on Power Talk.