This is a mandate to do what you said you were going to do, get the economy working again for regular working class Americans. Fix immigration. Try to get crime under control. Try to reduce the chaos in the world. This this is a mandate from the American people to do that. [00:00:17] I think I'm interpreting the results tonight as the revenge of just a regular old working class American. The anonymous American who has been crushed. Conservative CNN contributor Scott Jennings is. [00:00:32] He's right. He is right in his analysis here. He's right that many working class voters have realigned themselves with the Republican Party after years of feeling left behind by the Democrats. Now, Trump did, in fact, make big gains yesterday [00:00:48] with low income voters and Democrats or low income voters that Democrats lost pretty significant support from. And that's according to the Washington Post. Exit polling from the 2020 election and last night's election. So they juxtapose the results in both elections. [00:01:06] And let's take a quick look at this chart that will help you visualize what's going on here. Okay. So in 2020, Biden won voters with incomes under $50,000 by an 11 point margin 55 to 45. Now, in 2024, [00:01:23] Trump actually narrowly won with voters under who are making under $50,000. So Trump was at 49, whereas Harris was at 48. So that's a pretty huge swing. Okay. So again, these are the so-called low income workers, individuals [00:01:41] making less than $50,000 a year. Now let's take a look at the $50,000 to $100,000 bracket. That's what you're looking at on the screen right now in 2020. Biden won voters in this bracket by 57 to Trump's 42. Now, if you look at the election yesterday in 2024, [00:02:02] Trump won that same group of voters, 49 to Kamala Harris, 47. And then the one category in which Kamala Harris did manage to beat Donald. Donald Trump, or I should say beat Biden, is with higher income voters. [00:02:18] Okay. So if you look at this, in 2020, Trump won voters earning over $100,000 by 54 to 40 2 in 2024. Harris Harris won those voters 53 to 45. So when you hear the allegation that the Democratic Party [00:02:35] is now the party of elites, I think that it's being manifested in some of the results in this presidential race with Kamala Harris, because clearly she has lost, you know, those making under $50,000, those making under $100,000, but anyone making over $100,000 was way more [00:02:54] likely to support Her over Donald Trump. Yeah. So Jeff Stein from The Washington Post noted these same numbers that Anna is talking about. And he wrote on Twitter, staggering class realignment, slash shift in working class. Okay. [00:03:10] That's true. Good. And then he said Harris lost despite major shift of affluent voters her way. And I wrote back not despite that because of that. And it's amazing that they don't understand that in Washington. So when you court affluent voters by constantly bragging about how all [00:03:30] the corporate CEOs are on your side and how you raised $1 billion largely from spectacularly wealthy people and corporate PACs, that doesn't play well with non affluent voters. You want to guess if there's more affluent voters in the country [00:03:45] or non affluent voters in the country. Of course there's more non-affluent voters. This is so simple. Such simple math. Right. This doesn't take a four dimensional chess to figure this out. So why is the Democratic Party so obsessed with the money? [00:04:02] And even today in this story, we'll do later in the show, they're like, they're bragging. We ran a perfect campaign. We raised $1 billion. No, a perfect campaign wins. Who cares about raising $1 billion? Oh, I'll tell you who cares. The Democratic consultants do. Because as today we are upset that we lost. [00:04:21] Democratic consultants didn't lose. They got 15% of $1 billion. That's why they emphasize the donors over the voters, because it literally makes them spectacularly wealthy. And then they think, who cares who wins? We're going to do the same exact thing next time and next time. [00:04:39] And each time we're going to take 15%. That's the normal rate that they take. That's 150 million reasons for them to sell you out. And then Washington Post reporter look, I don't know the context of it. So maybe he didn't mean it that way, but he's saying, I can't believe we lost, despite the fact that we had the rich on our side. [00:04:56] That is unbelievable thing to say. Okay, but this is what I need to understand, Jake, because any American worker in this country who bungles their job, if I were to come here one day and decide I didn't prepare a show, okay, I'm going to come on the show and I'm going to do whatever I want, and I'm [00:05:14] not going to deliver on what my job title, you know, entitles you to expect from me. Right. I think you'd fire me. I don't know, right. But there'd be consequences. There would be consequences. Yeah. I mean, you got people have to do their job. People have to do their job. [00:05:30] So when it comes to these Democratic consultants, I get what their incentive is, which is that 15% cut. But the whole point of their existence is to help Democrats get elected. So when they bungle what they're supposed to do, where are the consequences and [00:05:47] why do these idiots keep getting hired? So first of all, the Democratic Party at large has lost the thread, right? So they they've confused the means for the ends. And so they're so obsessed with raising money. And so we didn't get to a clip from my interview with Steve Cohen last night [00:06:04] where a representative from Tennessee and he was like, well, we got to keep raising money. When I questioned him on this thing, let's. Actually get that clip ready, if you guys don't mind, it's the last clip from the A block. - But go ahead. - Yeah. And so no, but what's the point of raising the money is to win? [00:06:20] Because the consultants I get, the lobbyists I get. But for the actual Democratic politicians, they actually do want to win. They that their fame, status, power, etc. Is on the line. Would Kamala Harris wanted to be the president instead of not being the president? Of course she would. Right. So why did they make the mistake of hiring the same consultants? [00:06:38] Well, first of all, there's groupthink, right? So the the chief of staff and the campaign manager and the communications director for AOC that pulled off a miraculous upset against Crowley. One of the greatest upsets in political history in America were never asked to do [00:06:57] a single other job in Washington, never hired for any other campaign, which is just amazing, right? Why? Because group think is up to progressives are radicals. They probably got lucky. I mean, they have an incredible track record of success. They created this Justice Democrats thing out of nowhere [00:07:13] and got these improbable victories. But no, everyone in Washington tells me I got to hire this guy, and I got to hire that guy. Oh my God, I got to get them before the other candidates get them there. Because why? Because they're so good at raising money. Money money money money. And so the second part of it, the reason why they make [00:07:28] the wrong decisions, is because the donors aren't looking for a maverick. They're not looking for an independent minded person who's going to be strong and strategic and smart and go, you know what? I'm in charge here. No, the donors want to be in charge. [00:07:45] So that's why they pick weak Candidates who they can tell them what to do and they will do them. And this is not even like, look, Grover Norquist, this is on the Republican side. It admitted it to me and Ben Mankiewicz when we interviewed him [00:08:00] in 2004 convention at the GOP at the at the RNC, he said, we said, why did you pick George Bush over McCain? McCain had a better record in 2000, but you're incredibly influential and incredibly wealthy group that has all the giant donor money that went with Bush, [00:08:16] who seems less qualified, etc., he said. We asked McCain, well, you know, will you do what we ask? And he said, well, you know, I'll take it into account, of course, but but I'm, I'm the maverick. I'm going to make my own decisions. And George Bush said, yeah, of course I'll do whatever you want. [00:08:32] So we picked Bush and there you have it. That encapsulates all of American politics. So they keep picking the weak, sometimes less intelligent person, the. - Malleable, the. - Malleable. That's a great way. And so it's a corporate robot that they program. That's why they all sound the same. That's why they all have talking points. [00:08:50] So the minute someone strong rises up, they go to crush them, right? And the donor class is the one that then spends an unbelievable amount of money in primaries to defeat people like Bernie Sanders. They're like, that guy is thinking for himself. No, we can't have it. Give me somebody weak and malleable. And that's why you get the people going. [00:09:07] Oh, I don't know. I picked the hottest Democratic consultant I thought I'd win. So let's go to that interaction with Congressman Steve Cohen from Tennessee. This is the moment in the interview where Jake asked him specifically about the issue with the donors. [00:09:23] Let's watch. The main problem is that Democrats take donor money and deliver for their donors and not for their voters. I don't think that the Democrats get it at all. I think they're going to go kiss more donor ass. They're going to leave their voters behind. [00:09:40] And like you said, they're going to whine. And so does anybody in Congress understand how much the country hates the establishment. I think that Citizens United is awful, and it's terrible that Trump has, Peter Thiel and and Elon Musk jumping around, showing off their pubic and thinking [00:09:58] there's somebody, some cheerleader type. And but they made a difference and they gave him money. And Robert Kennedy is going to be in charge of some health care and some food and drug stuff. Donald Trump is like, in my opinion, a deranged clown, a buffoon of a man. [00:10:14] And so what does that make the Democratic Party? If you lose to them twice? Well, it may be the American electorate, you know, because he got the votes. Some of them were people that were selfish and greedy, and they wanted better tax rates and give more money back to their kids, who are the lucky sperm club. [00:10:30] But it might have just been people that are angry about the people getting handouts as they think. And a lot of the white voters thought that blacks are getting handouts, that the illegal immigrants are getting handouts. ET cetera. ET cetera. ET cetera. We have a constituency, and the only way to get to them [00:10:46] is through advertising, and the only way to get to them is through money. And if you give up all the money, you're not you're not helping yourself. I'm going to be generous and just stop at saying that I disagree with what he says there. I mean, look, again, I can't emphasize enough if you look at the polling [00:11:04] and if you look at what voters have been screaming from the rooftops about, about 7 in 10 Hispanic voters nationally rated the economy as either not so good or poor. And a slim majority supported Trump. Roughly 4 in 10 Hispanic voters also said the economy was their top issue, [00:11:22] and these voters preferred Trump by roughly 2 to 1 margin over Harris. So, like, I know that we're talking about money in politics here, but I wanted to also include that moment where he blamed the electorate for handing victory to Donald Trump, as if it's the the voters jobs to campaign and secure a win for Kamala Harris. [00:11:42] It is not their job, okay? The onus is not on them. So what is the point of raising the money if the money isn't going to help, you know, the candidate get elected because she isn't listening to the people. And that's what happened with Kamala Harris. Yeah. Blaming the electorate for your losses. [00:11:59] Is Washington mind virus defined? Really? So look, I appreciate that he's honest and came on the show. I always appreciate when people do that but but again it's not about him. It's almost every Democrat in Congress thinks that he's one of the ones that are more left than the other candidates are way more corporate than him. [00:12:18] So okay, I actually want to go to two members that made two great points here about this topic. Concept of a username said 13 million fewer people voted this year. 13 million people weren't encouraged to vote. They had nothing to vote for. They were only told what to vote against. [00:12:35] - That's very true. - It's such a great point. And I was as I was looking at the numbers this morning, I was like, oh my God, look at how much less voters Trump had. And then oh my god, Kamala Harris because Trump is winning the popular vote. So remember Biden had 81 million votes and now they're not. [00:12:53] Neither candidates near that right. 13 million people voted. Why? Because you didn't give them a reason to vote. And then you give them you blame them for for doing it like they let you down. Was it their job to make sure that you had status and fame and wealth? Or was it your job to make sure that they had enough money to get by, etc.? [00:13:12] You're not motivating them. The race thing isn't motivating anyone. Anti-trump isn't motivating enough people. So you've got to deliver. And then one more. And I love doing this show with you guys. Thank you for being members through Titcomb pessimistic progressive said, one other stat was that Harris went down in Republican voters [00:13:30] from 5 to 4% compared to Biden. So all that courting Cheney voters resulted in what? Okay, let me just say, no one likes the neocons. No one. Okay. Republican voters don't like the neocons. Democratic voters don't like the neocons. [00:13:45] The notion that Kamala Harris was somehow going to cater to moderate Republicans by prancing around with Liz Cheney is laughable to me, and she preferred to do that instead of actually listen to Arab, American and [00:14:03] Muslim American voters who wanted some commitment in regard to reining in Israel. But she was unwilling to do that because she had donors from, you know, the pro-Israel lobby. And she wanted that money. That money was more important. [00:14:20] She's like, I can maybe make up the difference by trying to attract Republican voters. But it didn't work. And anyone who honestly has two brain cells to rub together could have predicted that it wasn't going to work. But she went in that route anyway. And look, I want to just address one other thing in regard to Donald Trump. [00:14:37] The media has been completely lying to you. What they'll do is they'll cherry pick, sometimes completely out of context moments from his speech that sound nefarious or sound violent or dangerous and ignore the rest of his speech or the rest of his interview. [00:14:53] But you want to know something? He was actually pretty disciplined in this election. He kept driving home the message about the economy again and again and again. And so whether you believe he's going to actually improve the economy, put that aside. We're talking about the campaign strategy here. [00:15:09] His campaign strategy was much better than Kamala Harris's. Okay. And he understood. You say he's buffoonish. Okay. I don't think he's a buffoon. He's smart enough to understand that economic issues matter to voters, and that's the way he's going to attract them, [00:15:25] including black and Latino voters who typically and traditionally would vote for the Democratic candidate. I mean, and look, every time I would try to bring this up and tiptoe around it, people would get mad at me. But reality is reality. And either you accept reality and recalibrate the strategy [00:15:43] that the Democrats are implementing, or you just continue with the magical thinking and hope for the best. And that doesn't always work out, as last night was proof of that. Yeah, I agree and disagree with you on that. So first on on the what he says. [00:15:58] Yeah, the media definitely cherry picked some things like bloodbath that he referred to the car industry. He didn't refer to actual physical bloodbath. And some of them just flat out lied about that. And that was really troubling. And we and we made sure to point that out here. [00:16:13] On the other hand, it's not like he didn't say unhinged things. He did. He said tons of unhinged things. Right? So you didn't have to cherry pick to find a bad example. There was a it was a target rich environment. Right. So, on the the reasons that he won. [00:16:31] Look, we all know he's not going to deliver. So like I said, one of our members here, Rebel Dragon, rode in on one of those low income voters. There's no way Trump is doing anything for people like me. People have short memories. He did nothing for us in his first term. That's totally right. I believe that's right. I don't think he's going to do anything for you now. [00:16:46] He's going to do giant corporate tax cuts, etc. But as a matter of political strategy, he kept talking about and emphasizing, oh, I'm going to do better for the economy. I'm going to do better on inflation. I'm going to do better on immigration. These are things that every poll showed [00:17:03] was among the top 2 to 3 issues. So when he's constantly emphasizing the top issues in his ridiculous way, outrageous way, different things that he says and in his fake way, like he's not really going to address those. [00:17:19] But I just keep coming back to this guy. I think his name was Nick Smith in western Virginia when we interviewed him in 2016, and he he works at a waffle House and he said, look, these around here, a lot of people work in the coal mines and we know the jobs aren't coming back. [00:17:36] But when Hillary Clinton tells us that they're not coming back, and she said she takes all of our hope away, tells. You to learn to code. - Yeah. - Yeah. And does these things that don't help us at all. Trump at least had the decency to lie to us. [00:17:52] And so as a political strategy, that is true. What would be fantastic is if we once in our lifetimes. Well, we did have one Bernie that actually said the right things and meant the right things. Oh my God, that would be amazing, right? But at least he had enough sense to emphasize the things that [00:18:08] the American voters actually cared about. And then he has this giant advantage of what I call accidental authenticity. It's just because he can't help himself. So he'll say in his speech, my consultants told me not to say this, but I like punching women in the face. Hahahahaha. Right. [00:18:24] I'm kidding a a little bit of hyperbole, but he's he literally talked about putting Kamala Harris in the ring with Mike Tyson. Right. So he says these things that are crazy because he's crazy. But what it tells the audience, subconsciously, the voters subconsciously [00:18:40] is that's not a corporate robot. That's a real person with all of his faults and. ET cetera. Meanwhile, the Democrats keep sending out these. Hello. I have these great talking points. All the corporate CEOs are on my side. And I was going to do something about price gouging, [00:18:56] but I promise I won't anymore. Mark Cuban, please go out there and tell everyone I didn't mean a word. Well, then you're at a massive disadvantage. So what we're looking for here is a candidate that strategically talks about the issues that the voters care about, [00:19:14] not your buddies in Washington and not your donors, but also, for God's sake, means it. If you enjoyed this video, that's because of our members. They make us independent. They make us strong, and they make us honest. Become a member today by hitting the join button below.